Resistance with Cameras not Guns

There is a movement happening in America of resistance with a camera.  Thousands of informed young people are getting active.  They are disillusioned with the government and are tired of losing their individual rights under the Constitution.

Groups like We Are Change and Checkpoint USA are using the internet to inform the general public about the true state of America.  Armed with knowledge and cameras they record town hall meetings on subjects relating to liberties.  They attend protests to cover the police state tactics being used on peaceful assemblies.  They go through random checkpoints to record themselves resisting  searches without probable cause.

This growing number of street reporters is not only clogging the system, but also turning some powerful heads.  We Are Change, for example, has been engaged in ambush journalism on many members of the powerful elite.  They are truly becoming a thorn in the side of the establishment with this NON-violent tactic.

Read a new article on this tactic here.

 

Joint Forces Quarterly: "Don't ask don't tell" about to become "Don't ask, don't care"?

Joint Forces Quarterly is one of the magazines you will find in most flag officer waiting rooms in and around the DC area. It is written and intended to be a publication for senior military officers and decision makers and its contents are reviewed and approved by the Chairman of JCS, ADM Mike Mullen before publication by The National Defense University at Ft. McNair. JFQ is quite simply the Pentagon’s top scholarly journal and sounding board for leading military thought and critical analysis. While reading the most recent issue (in a flag waiting room of all places) I came across an interesting article discussing the Clinton era “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces as long as they keep their sexuality a secret. The author, Air Force Colonel Om Prakash makes a powerful argument that the time is coming near for the military to revisit its policy on gays serving in the military, but he also points out that the only body with the power to make the change is Congress. Here is the current language of DADT.

I am of the belief that homosexuals are “born gay” and it’s not a choice they make in life (to be homosexual). I came to this decision years ago by rationalizing to myself “Why would anyone choose to be gay, to be despised by certain segments of society, to not be a full equal citizen?” My thoughts were somewhat echoed in the JFQ article:

“I wish I could decide who I fell in love with; if someone thinks I would consciously choose such a life where I am forced to live in hiding and fear, knowing the bulk of the population is against you, is just crazy. I can’t help who I am.” “Why would I choose to suffer like this?”

Another point that caught my attention was that homosexuals must compromise their integrity to serve under DADT. I joined the military out of a sense of honor, duty, and patriotism. It also didn’t hurt that it was a better job than the one I had at the time. But nevertheless, I was proud to serve my country and I did so with immense pride. The three core values my service cherished were Honor, Courage, and Commitment. Let’s look at the first, Honor:

Honor: “I will bear true faith and allegiance …” Accordingly, we will: Conduct ourselves in the highest ethical manner in all relationships with peers, superiors and subordinates; Be honest and truthful in our dealings with each other, and with those outside the Navy; Be willing to make honest recommendations and accept those of junior personnel; Encourage new ideas and deliver the bad news, even when it is unpopular; Abide by an uncompromising code of integrity, taking responsibility for our actions and keeping our word; Fulfill or exceed our legal and ethical responsibilities in our public and personal lives twenty-four hours a day. Illegal or improper behavior or even the appearance of such behavior will not be tolerated. We are accountable for our professional and personal behavior. We will be mindful of the privilege to serve our fellow Americans.

I highlighted several words and phrases for a purpose. How can a homosexual be honest and truthful if living a secret life in the closet? Also, if you have read the linked JFQ essay by Col. Prakash at the beginning of this post you will remember reading about the history of DADT, and that it was feared homosexuals serving openly might engage in risky behavior or drug use. I understand the law and rational behind DADT was the geniuses of Congress, and they have neither morals or integrity themselves. But to project their own shortcoming upon gay service members is silly and insulting. Military warriors, regardless of sexual orientation live by a code of integrity. It is the secret code of brothers (and sisters ) of arms. Without it there is no trust, no loyalty, no sacrifice for the betterment of your country. Patriots serve out of a sense of duty to their country and fellow man, and they expect the best out of each other and push each other toward that goal every day. Being gay doesn’t change the equation.

The law also forces unusual personal compromises wholly inconsistent with a core military value—integrity. Several homosexuals interviewed were in tears as they described the normous personal compromise in integrity they had been making, and the pain felt in serving in an organization they wholly believed in, yet that did not accept them.

I fully support lifting DADT, it serves no purpose in today’s military.

Sorry for the poor quality of this post, I wrote and posted this from my phone while sitting in a VW dealership getting my car fixed.

Further reading Joint Forces Quarterly

Waking up to the Truth

 

It is obvious to most reflective people that our culture is destructive in terms of peace, prosperity, liberty, social justice, and the environment.  This awareness started for me when observing a number of world events that didn’t seem to add up anymore.  My heightened curiosity was due to the profound awakening that I experienced at the birth of my first child.  Although I already did care about the world around me, it suddenly seemed far more vital to me. I’ve been perplexed by the following: • Environmental Devastation • Unprovoked wars for false reasons • Religious violence • Anti-liberty legislation • Severe economic injustice • Global collapse of the financial industry with no accountability • Massive consolidation of industry into cartels • A 2-Party political system working in concert with these cartels • New President with no significant changes • A highly skeptical Swine Flu National Emergency It seems like things have gotten crazy to me and I know I’m not alone.  Like many others, I woke up one day to discover that our culture was upside down and its destruction to our environment is utterly unsustainable.  It reminds me of the Michael Ellner quote, “Just look at us. Everything is backwards. Everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information, and religion destroys spirituality.” Anger made it too easy to blame the “other” political party, the corrupt government, greedy corporations, different religions, crumbling education, or the mass media.   It eventually became clear that they are all fish in the same polluted sea, and so are we.  We were just as much to blame for we are the system, and only we can change it. Through my information journey I realized a glaring truth, a universal truth some might say, that we are all profoundly connected to each other and our environment, that all of my actions affect the whole, good or bad.  Upon accepting the reality of that we are interconnected, my analysis of our upside down culture became much clearer.  Now, it appears to me that the promotion of a division has been blatantly manufactured to create social conflict and competition to feed a system that primarily benefits the empires of industry. The truth is very simple to discern in our culture when something doesn’t make sense to you.  Just find out who benefits from a crazy event or confusing policy and follow their money trail.  It’s that simple to get answers in our culture based on greed and division.  The cultural ship is fueled by values of greed and power with complete disregard for human suffering while leaving environmental wreckage in its wake. For example, you start to put the pieces together when you realize that our most common of resources on Earth, like water, are controlled by only a handful of private multinational corporations who benefit from humanity’s absolute need for it.  Consequently, when other industry pollutes fresh water they create value out of scarcity for the water conglomerates. When you follow their actions and political influence you begin to realize that governments and industry cartels are one in the same.  In other words, we are beholden to them for all vital resources which force us to participate in the system –thus our very survival enslaves us to the system whether we like it or not. In fact, the oft referred to saying of the elite is “Order out of Chaos, Divide and Conquer.”  Division seemed calculated in every political speech, every advertisement, every religious sermon, every classroom, and every news cast.  The masses buy into this division and they form prejudices about their neighbors, who then form biases towards them.  This division feeds fear, breeds anxiety, which turns to hate, which leads to destructive actions.  It creates a “dog-eat-dog” economy where greed always trumps the environment, compassion, and fairness.  Clearly this is destructive and unsustainable. The absolute truth that we’re all connected to everything leaves us one path forward – sustainability.  Everything from the way we relate to each other, build things, produce food, apply industry, operate government, and much more needs to be transformed with new values of harmony and sustainability if humanity expects to survive.  The good news is that all it takes is to change our values and apply them one person at a time.  In other words, “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” – Gandhi.

 

Understanding the duty of care and the right to liberty in residential care settings part 2

 Not so very long ago I was delivering training on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty to a group of workers in a residential home in the West Midlands. The registered manager of the unit was there and when I got to the part about locking doors she said something quite surprising:

“It’s alright Stuart, you can skip this part. It’s not relevant for us.”

I asked her how the issues of locked doors could possibly not be relevant for residential care. She said:

“Because our people don’t go out.”

I asked her why they didn’t go out and she replied:

“Because the doors are locked.”

“Why are the doors locked?” I asked

“Because they’re old.” Came the predictable response.

I’m not really trying to criticise this manager here. I don’t blame her at all for holding this view – it’s rife in UK. Her view is part of a cultural misunderstanding about the duty of Care that has encouraged residential care workers to lock people away for years. So it’s not the people that should be taken to task – it’s the culture. Unfortunately the only way to change the culture is to prosecute the people – hence the new legislation around rights and capacity.

So here’s another principle to consider….

Getting older is not a crime and it is no reason to sentence someone to life imprisonment.

The same is true for learning disability, mental disorder, physical disability etc etc. Social care is not the same as prison and social care workers are not employed to take the place of judges. It is not up to us to decide who can and who cannot exercise the right to liberty.

Care workers can restrict liberty if it’s proportionate and in the person’s best interests to do so but they cannot deprive them of it without authoirsation. This is a major source of confusion and we’ll address the difference between restriction and deprivation in a later article in this series but for now it’s enough to define these principles:

• It is unlawful to deprive someone of their liberty without legal authorisation.
• Care workers can only restrict a person’s liberty as part of their care if the person lacks the capacity to decide and the situation is both proportionate and in their best interests.
• Routine restriction is likely to be a deprivation of liberty(not just restriction) and needs external authorisation

So what do we mean by liberty?

The answer to this question is surprising to many people. Liberty is much more than simply locking doors.  Basically all our rights are liberties. They are freedoms which means the same thing. All UK citizens have the right (the liberty) to do certain things and also to be free from certain types of abuse such as assault or discrimination.

Rights are given to us by law and so they can only be removed from us by legal process. This is why so many previously routine practices in social care have had to change – even preventing a person from using the toilet when they want to or from choosing what they would like to wear is a restriction or deprivation of liberty and so we must follow legal process in order to stay within the law.

Don’t panic though – this doesn’t mean that you need to go to court every time you set a menu in residential care. It simply means that you must make sure you follow the new legal procedures ‘in house’ for most decisions. This in because most decisions would amount simply to restriction of liberty – something you can authorise for yourself so long as you understand and can justify why you are doing what you do.

To make sense of this we need to talk briefly about the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The Mental Capacity Act came into effect in 2007. The ‘Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards’ took effect in April 2009. Both are based upon the Bournewood judgement in the European Court of Human Rights (HL vs UK).

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/09/02/112480/the-bournewood-case.html

They radically alter how we must deal with people in our care. Many previously routine care practices could now be unlawful.

Principles of the Mental Capacity Act

At the heart of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are five underpinning principles:

• An assumption of capacity – until it can be shown that the adult cannot make their own decisions;
• The right for individuals to be supported to make their own decisions – people must be given all appropriate help before anyone concludes that they cannot make their own decisions;
• That individuals have the right to make eccentric or unwise decisions;
• Best interests – anything done for or on behalf of people without capacity must be in their best interests and;
• Least restrictive intervention – anything done for or on behalf of people without capacity should be the least restrictive of their basic rights and freedoms.

Essentially this means that before we take away a person’s right to make their own decisions we must be able to show that they cannot decide for themselves because they lack the capacity to do so. It is not enough to say that we thought they were making a mistake – that is their right. The only starting point is the assessment of capacity – not diagnosis or unwise decision-making. After all we all have the right to make unwise decisions – that’s how it should be.

So how do we assess a person’s capacity?

First we need to realise that capacity assessments only apply to a person’s ability to make this particular decision at this particular time.

Having capacity means being able to perform the four stages of decision-making. In other words can the person:

• understand the information relevant to the decision;
• retain that information long enough to decide;
• Use and Weigh that information;
• Communicate their decision.

Only if we can reasonably show that a person lacks the capacity to decide for themselves may we presume to decide for them. Even then it’s more than simply doing what we think is right – there’s a specific checklist that we need to follow when working out what is right. This is called the Best Interests checklist and is defined in the Mental Capacity Act code of practice.

http://www.dca.gov.uk/menincap/legis.htm#codeofpractice

 The checklist includes:

• Equal consideration and non-discrimination;
• Considering all relevant circumstances and information (including written information);
• The likelihood of the person regaining capacity;
• Permitting and encouraging participation;
• Special consideration for life-sustaining treatment;
• Advance decisions;
• The person’s wishes and feelings, beliefs and values;
• Lasting Powers of Attorney;
• The views of other people.

Bear in mind that the obligation to consult relatives etc does not mean that you must do what they tell you to. There are certain formal circumstances where people can tell you what NOT to do (refuse consent under a Lasting Power of Attorney for example) but nobody can tell you to do anything that you think is professionally inappropriate.

Remember also that this is a delicate issue because of confidentiality. However, if we can speak to others we must in order to get a proper feel for what would be in that person’s best interests as an individual.

Do not do this without consent if the service-user has capacity to decide for themselves.

So to summarize the points raised in this second part of the series:

• It is unlawful to deprive someone of their liberty without legal authorisation.
• Care workers can only restrict a person’s liberty as part of their care if the person lacks the capacity to decide and the situation is both proportionate and in their best interests.
• Routine restriction is likely to be a deprivation of liberty(not just restriction) and needs external authorisation
• Liberty means the right to self-determination
• Capacity means the ability to make this particular decision at this particular time
• People with capacity to choose can do so unless a formal, legal reason exists to prevent them such as a court order or the Mental Health Act
• The Mental Capacity Act protects people’s rights to choose
• If the person lacks capacity then in most cases the decision-maker will be the person delivering the care or treatment
• Follow the best interests checklist when making decisions for other people who lack the capacity to decide for themselves.

The Trojan Horse

“Beware of Greeks bearing Gifts”

Or in this case, Democrats.

This saying comes from the Trojan War between the Greeks and the people of Troy.

The Greeks constructed a giant horse (horses were worshiped by the Trojans) and hit men inside because they were unable to breech the walls of the city after 10 years of siege.

Then the Greeks faked running away, leaving only the Horse.

The Trojans celebrated their victory and wheeled the giant horse into the city.

In the middle of the night the Greeks came out of the horse and slaughtered the Trojans.

Unable to breach the walls of public opinion on how great it would be for the government to decide who lives and who dies they retreated at the end of August and created the the Baucus Bill. A bill without the “Public Option” that had “bi-partisan support” (1 sad sucker of a Republican in Sen. Snowe).

Hurrah!

And just now the Greeks (Democrats) have decided to re-brand their original goal yet again.

The Orwellian re-branding yet again of  Socialized National Care.

If you can’t dazzle them with your magnificence, baffle them with Orwellian BS.

And signal ahead of time that it was all a Trojan Horse.

In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as “the consumer option.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi’s side and used the term “competitive option.”

Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public—or consumers or competitors.

“You’ll hear everyone say, ‘There’s got to be a better name for this,’” Pelosi said. “When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars.”

So, since the government has no money unless they take it from you, where are they going to get it?

Or that’s right, they can just print and let someone else worry about the deficit later…

But this is the same Nancy Pelosi who said it wouldn’t raise the deficit?

So where are they getting the money?

One Answer: They don’t care.

Real Answer: From you. The Public. Bend over, the biggest enema in this country’s history is about to be shoved up your ass!

The entire Baucus Bill process was a sham.

Wonder if Sen. Baucus knew all along? Ya Think…

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), a centrist whose healthcare bill did not include a public option, said in a statement that he would support “any provision, including a public option, that will ensure choice and competition and get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate.”

This being the same guy who said that the public option had no chance.

Talk about a Dog and Pony show!

The Democrats want their Holy Grail (read Helen of Troy) and nothing shall defeat them.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday that Senate Democrats will include in the health care reform bill a government-backed health insurance program that allows states to opt out if they can come up with an alternative.

“I think it’s the fairest way to go,” Reid said of the “opt out” proposal.

The “opt out” proposal would set up a national insurance plan with government seed money and be run by a private, not-for-profit board. Under the proposal, states would have to prove they can provide comparable coverage in order to exit out of the federal plan. The plan would also negotiate rates with providers just like private insurance companies do, presumably keeping premiums on a level playing field with the private industry.

The measure is one of a host of different so-called public options being considered in the Senate. Though the public option seemed off the table in the chamber just one month ago, it gained traction in recent weeks as Democratic leaders floated versions meant to be more appealing to party moderates.

The key phrase being : “Under the proposal, states would have to prove they can provide comparable coverage in order to exit out of the federal plan”

Meaning if you the state doesn’t have something that is EXACTLY like the Government’s plan it can’t opt-out.

Which is precisely what was in HR3200, only it was the insurance companies ans employers.

Which is a Trojan Horse.

And if the state does manage to opt-out will the taxes be opted out as well?

I very much doubt it. Don’t you. The old double whammy. The State-run Government health care and the Government health care. Yeah, that’ll bring costs down. And it will be the State’s fault for opting out so they won’t be able to or they’ll have to opt-in later in defeat.

And won’t you have the lack of portability now that is one of the main root causes of this whole mess?

But that was never going to happen anyhow. That’s the Orwellian Trojan Horse, the “op-out” is the horse.

“I’m always looking for Republicans,” Reid said. To slaughter like the Trojans in the dead of night maybe.

After Reid spoke, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement in which President Obama congratulated Democrats for their “hard work on health insurance reform.”

“While much work remains, the president is pleased that at the progress that Congress has made. He’s also pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out. As he said to Congress and the nation in September, he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition,” Gibbs said.

Only your choice is mandatory and provided by the government and the competition is far from fair.

He has never changed his mind and never will.

The rest is just so much smoke.

So he has looked down from inside the horse to see if it’s safe to come out and slaughter the Trojans and take the city after a long siege.

So are you asleep, Trojans?

 

 

 

 

Greyhound bus passengers get searched

Attempts to halt American’s ability to travel freely within our borders are expanding to Greyhound bus terminals.  No travel without papers and permission.  This is America.

Greyhound bus passengers get screened, pat down in special TSA operation

Heavy Travel Restrictions at Greyhound

“…the agency’s Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response, or VIPR, teams stage periodic operations at bus and train stations, ports and other transportation centers. They began work in December 2006.

Thursday’s daylong event was the first at a Greyhound station in Florida, said John Daly, TSA security director for the Orlando region.”

1876 Liberty Torch - Stereoscopic Animation

1876 - Colossal hand and torch "Liberty"

The French planned for the statue to be completed and presented to the United States on July 4, 1876, but a late start and subsequent delays prevented it. However, by that time the right arm and torch were completed. This part of the statue was displayed at the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia, where visitors were charged 50 cents to climb the ladder to the balcony. The money raised this way was used to start funding the pedestal. [source: wiki]

To view the complete collection in full resolution, visit clicksypics.com.  To find out how these are created, go here.