US Police Have Killed Over 5,000 Civilians Since 9/11

Statistically speaking, Americans should be more fearful of the local cops than “terrorists.”

Members of a police anti-terrorism team exercise on Thursday, March 13, 2003. (AP Photo/Thanassis Stavrakis)

Though Americans commonly believe law enforcement’s role in society is to protect them and ensure peace and stability within the community, the sad reality is that police departments are often more focused on enforcing laws, making arrests and issuing citations. As a result of this as well as an increase in militarized policing techniques, Americans are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist, estimates a Washington’s Blog report based on official statistical data.

Though the U.S. government does not have a database collecting information about the total number of police involved shootings each year, it’s estimated that between 500 and 1,000 Americans are killed by police officers each year. Since 9/11, about 5,000 Americans have been killed by U.S. police officers, which is almost equivalent to the number of U.S. soldiers who have been killed in the line of duty in Iraq.

Because individual police departments are not required to submit information regarding the use of deadly force by its officers, some bloggers have taken it upon themselves to aggregate that data. Wikipedia also has a list of “justifiable homicides” in the U.S., which was created by documenting publicized deaths.

Mike Prysner, one of the local directors of the Los Angeles chapter for ANSWER — an advocacy group that asks the public to Act Now to Stop War and End Racism — told Mint Press News earlier this year that the “epidemic” of police harassment and violence is a nationwide issue.

He said groups like ANSWER are trying to hold officers accountable for abuse of power. “[Police brutality] has been an issue for a very long time,” Prysner said, explaining that in May, 13 people were killed in Southern California by police.

As Mint Press News previously reported, each year there are thousands of claims of police misconduct. According to the CATO Institute’s National Police Misconduct Reporting Project, in 2010 there were 4,861 unique reports of police misconduct involving 6,613 sworn officers and 6,826 alleged victims.

Most of those allegations of police brutality involved officers who punched or hit victims with batons, but about one-quarter of the reported cases involved firearms or stun guns.

 Racist policing

A big element in the police killings, Prysner says, is racism. “A big majority of those killed are Latinos and Black people,” while the police officers are mostly White, he said. “It’s a badge of honor to shoot gang members so [the police] go out and shoot people who look like gang members,” Prysner argued, giving the example of 34-year-old Rigoberto Arceo, who was killed by police on May 11.

According to a report from the Los Angeles Times, Arceo, who was a biomedical technician at St. Francis Medical Center, was shot and killed after getting out of his sister’s van. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department says Arceo “advanced on the deputy and attempted to take the deputy’s gun.” However, Arceo’s sister and 53-year-old Armando Garcia — who was barbecuing in his yard when the incident happened — say that Arceo had his hands above his head the entire time.

Prysner is not alone in his assertion that race is a major factor in officer-related violence. This past May, a study from the the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, an anti-racist activist organization, found that police officers, security guards or self-appointed vigilantes killed at least 313 Black people in 2012 — meaning one Black person was killed in the U.S. by law enforcement roughly every 28 hours.

Prysner said the relationship between police departments and community members needs to change and that when police shoot an unarmed person with their arms in the air over their head, the officer should be punished.

Culture of misconduct

“You cannot have a police force that is investigating and punishing itself,” Prysner said, adding that taxpayer money should be invested into the community instead of given to police to buy more guns, assault rifles and body armor.

Dissatisfied with police departments’ internal review policies, some citizens have formed volunteer police watch groups to prevent the so-called “Blue Code of Silence” effect and encourage police officers to speak out against misconduct occurring within their department.

As Mint Press News previously reported, a report released earlier this year found that of the 439 cases of police misconduct that then had been brought before the Minneapolis’s year-old misconduct review board, not one of the police officers involved has been disciplined.

Although the city of Minneapolis spent $14 million in payouts for alleged police misconduct between 2006 and 2012, despite the fact that the Minneapolis Police Department often concluded that the officers involved in those cases did nothing wrong.

Other departments have begun banning equipment such as Tasers, but those decisions were likely more about protecting the individual departments from lawsuits than ensuring that officers are not equipped with weapons that cause serious and sometimes fatal injuries when used.

To ensure officers are properly educated on how to use their weapons and are aware of police ethics, conflict resolution and varying cultures within a community, police departments have historically held training programs for all officers. But due to tighter budgets and a shift in priorities, many departments have not provided the proper continuing education training programs for their officers.

Charles Ramsey, president of both the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the Police Executive Research Forum, called that a big mistake, explaining that it is essential officers are trained and prepared for high-stress situations:

“Not everybody is going to be able to make those kinds of good decisions under pressure, but I do think that the more reality-based training that we provide, the more we put people in stressful situations to make them respond and make them react.”

GI Joe replaces Carl Winslow

In order to help local police officers protect themselves while fighting the largely unsuccessful War on Drugs, the federal government passed legislation in 1994 allowing the Pentagon to donate surplus military equipment from the Cold War to local police departments. Meaning that “weaponry designed for use on a foreign battlefield has been handed over for use on American streets … against American citizens.”

So while the U.S. military fights the War on Terror abroad, local police departments are fighting another war at home with some of the same equipment as U.S. troops, and protocol that largely favors officers in such tactics as no-knock raids.

Radley Balko, author of “Rise of the Warrior Cop,” wrote in the Wall Street Journal in August:

“Since the 1960s, in response to a range of perceived threats, law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier.

“Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment—from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers—American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop—armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.”

As Mint Press News previously reported, statistics from an FBI report released in September reveal that a person is arrested on marijuana-related charges in the U.S. every 48 seconds, on average — most were for simple possession charges.

According to the FBI’s report, there were more arrests for marijuana possession than for the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault — 658,231 compared with 521,196 arrests.

While groups that advocate against police brutality recognize and believe that law enforcement officials should be protected while on duty, many say that local police officers do not need to wear body armor, Kevlar helmets and tactical equipment vests — all while carrying assault weapons.

“We want the police to keep up with the latest technology. That’s critical,” American Civil Liberties Union senior counsel Kara Dansky said. “But policing should be about protection, not combat.”

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, there are more than 900,000sworn law enforcement officers in the United States. In 2012, 120 officers were killed in the line of duty. The deadliest day in law enforcement history was reportedly Sept. 11, 2001, when 72 officers were killed.

Despite far fewer officers dying in the line of duty compared with American citizens, police departments are not only increasing their use of protective and highly volatile gear, but are increasingly setting aside a portion of their budget to invest in new technology such as drones, night vision goggles, remote robots, surveillance cameras, license plate readers and armored vehicles that amount to unarmed tanks.

Though some officers are on board with the increased militarization and attend conferences such as the annual Urban Shield event, others have expressed concern with the direction the profession is heading.

For example, former Arizona police officer Jon W. McBride said police concerns about being “outgunned” were likely a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” He added that “if not expressly prohibited, police managers will continually push the arms race,” because “their professional literature is predominately [sic] based on the acquiring and use of newer weapons and more aggressive techniques to physically overwhelm the public. In many cases, however, this is the opposite of smart policing.”

“Coupled with the paramilitary design of the police bureaucracy itself, the police give in to what is already a serious problem in the ranks: the belief that the increasing use of power against a citizen is always justified no matter the violation. The police don’t understand that in many instances they are the cause of the escalation and bear more responsibility during an adverse outcome.

“The suspects I encountered as a former police officer and federal agent in nearly all cases granted permission for me to search their property when asked, often despite unconcealed contraband. Now, instead of making a simple request of a violator, many in law enforcement seem to take a more difficult and confrontational path, fearing personal risk. In many circumstances they inflame the citizens they are engaging, thereby needlessly putting themselves in real and increased jeopardy.”

Another former police officer who wished to remain anonymous agreed with McBride and told Balko,

“American policing really needs to return to a more traditional role of cops keeping the peace; getting out of police cars, talking to people, and not being prone to overreaction with the use of firearms, tasers, or pepper spray. … Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been in more than my share tussles and certainly appreciate the dangers of police work, but as Joseph Wambaugh famously said, the real danger is psychological, not physical.”


Senate panel approves beefed-up oversight of drone attacks including American citizens


WASHINGTON, Nov 8 (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee has quietly approved a plan to step up both public and internal government oversight of the use of armed drones to kill suspected militants overseas, including American citizens.

The committee voted in closed session earlier this week to approve legislative language that would require U.S. spy agencies to make public statistics on how many people were killed or injured in missile strikes launched from U.S.-operated drones.

The committee also approved language intended to bolster scrutiny of secret spy agency deliberations over decisions about targeting U.S. citizens or residents for lethal drone strikes overseas.

The Obama administration has been under heavy pressure from foreign governments, the United Nations and human rights groups to be more transparent and rigorous in accounting for the civilian casualties caused by drone strikes.

Though the committee did not release full details of its deliberations on the measures, sources familiar with the discussions said that some committee Republicans were opposed to the drone-related clauses in the bill, which would authorize intelligence activities for the current government fiscal year which began on Oct. 1.

Ultimately, according to a press release issued by Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat who chairs the intelligence panel, the committee approved the bill by a vote of 13-2. The two senators who voted against it were Republicans, a congressional source said.

The press release makes no mention of the language in the bill about drones. An official familiar with the matter said that this was because some Republicans argued that, since drone attacks are officially covert actions by the U.S. government, it would be inappropriate to set rules for such operations in a public law.

The Obama administration drastically increased the number of drone strikes after it took office in 2009 but attacks have dropped off in the last year.

Pakistan’s North Waziristan is the area of the most intensive U.S. drone campaign in the world. The United States has also attacked militants in Yemen, Afghanistan and Somalia with drones.

Last month, Pakistan told the United Nations that at least 400 civilians were among the approximately 2,200 people killed by drone strikes in the past decade.



The bill approved by the committee now must go before the full Senate. The House of Representatives would also have to approve the bill, and the president sign it, for it to become law.

If the language approved by the committee becomes law, once a year the president would be obliged to issue a report setting out the total number of combatants killed or injured in U.S. drone strikes abroad, as well as the number of “non-combatant civilians.”

Exempted from the report would be any drone strikes that were launched in Afghanistan before the end of U.S. combat operations there, which are due to conclude at the end of next year, and any drone strikes conducted in a war explicitly authorized by Congress.

An official familiar with the matter said that Feinstein had been trying, unsuccessfully, to persuade the administration of President Barack Obama to release such information voluntarily.

Administration officials have maintained privately that the numbers of non-combatant civilians killed or injured in U.S. drone strikes against militants have been relatively minimal – in the low dozens. By contrast, respected human rights groups have produced much larger totals.

The bill also would require the director of national intelligence, when considering whether a U.S. citizen or resident should be targeted for a drone strike overseas, to empower a so-called red team to conduct an “independent alternative analysis” of the intelligence that officials have put forward to justify the drone attack.

A second official familiar with this issue said intelligence agencies already follow a secret procedure similar to this, but that the bill would give this procedure more weight.

As far as is publicly known, only one U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, a militant preacher who allegedly became involved in plotting attacks against U.S. targets while a leader of Al-Qaeda’s Yemen-based affiliate, was ever formally targeted by the United States for a lethal drone attack, though at least a handful of other Americans, including Awlaki’s teenage son, were also reportedly killed by drones.


Court Says Dad ‘unfit parent for refusing son McDonald’s’


We are seriously living in the Twilight Zone. How are we letting this kind of thing happen to our once exceptional nation. This article below is from the NYPost.

A Manhattan dad is not lovin’ McDonald’s right now.

Attorney David Schorr slapped a court-appointed shrink with a defamation lawsuit for telling the judge deciding a custody battle with his estranged wife that he was an unfit parent — for refusing to take his son to the fast food joint for dinner.

“You’d think it was sexual molestation,” Schorr, 43, told The Post Thursday. “I am just floored by it.”

Schorr says in his Manhattan Supreme Court suit that E. 97th Street psychiatrist Marilyn Schiller filed a report saying he was “wholly incapable of taking care of his son” and should be denied his weekend visitation over the greasy burger ban.

Schorr, a corporate attorney turned consultant with degrees from NYU and Oxford University, had planned to take his 4-year-old son to their usual restaurant, the Corner Café on Third Avenue, for his weekly Tuesday night visitation last week.

But the boy threw a temper tantrum and demanded McDonald’s. So he gave his son an ultimatum: dinner anywhere other than McDonald’s — or no dinner.

“The child, stubborn as a mule, chose the ‘no dinner’ option,” the disgruntled dad says in the suit.

“It was just a standoff. I’m kicking myself mightily,” Schorr said.

“I wish I had taken him to McDonalds, but you get nervous about rewarding bad behavior. I was concerned. I think it was a 1950s equivalent of sending your child to bed without dinner. That’s maybe the worst thing you can say about it,” he said.

Adding insult to injury, he said: “My wife immediately took him to McDonalds.”

Upon reflection, Schorr said he should have remembered that mother knows best.

“The first thing I did was I questioned myself,” he recalled.

“Had I done something wrong? I did what any 43-year-old Jewish man would do — I told my mother. I said, ‘My God, did I do something wrong here?’

“Even my mother, the strictest mother in the world, said, ‘Why didn’t you just take him to McDonalds? What were you thinking? You know that this is a divorce situation.’”

Before dropping his son off at his wife’s E. 84th Street building, Schorr says he tried to make light of the situation by horsing around with him and trying one last time to change his mind about dinner.

But the son apparently tattled on his dad and his wife flipped out and called the shrink, according to the suit.

Schorr claims that Dr. Schiller only interviewed the child and his mother and never asked for his side of the story before telling the court she was gravely concerned about Schorr’s parenting.

Bari Yunis Schorr sued her husband for a divorce in 2011, just four years after they married in a lavish ceremony at the St. Regis Hotel in Manhattan.

She recently filed motions asking the judge to punish her husband for flouting court orders and for a judgment on nonpayment of child support.

Her attorney, Louis I. Newman, declined to comment on the McDonald’s matter.

“It’s a litigation between Mr. Schorr and Mrs. Schiller,” Newman said.

In the past two and a half years that he has had partial custody of his son their time together “has run smoothly without incident” save a scraped knee, Schorr insists in the suit.

He wants the shrink to return the $2,750 he paid for the evaluation.

Dr. Schiller told the Post she could not comment on the details of the incident. She only sad, “I am conducting a forensic evaluation on this matter. I will be issuing a confidential report to the court and the matter will be tried by the court.”

The custody trial resumes in December when the judge will ultimately decide if Schorr is fit to parent his son.


Obama Brags To Staff That He’s ‘Really Good At Killing People’


This will not go over well for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner.


According to the new book “Double Down,” in which journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann chronicle the 2012 presidential election, President Barack Obama told his aides that he’s “really good at killing people” while discussing drone strikes.

Peter Hamby of The Washington Post noted the moment in his review of the book.

The reported claim by the commander-in-chief is as indisputable as it is grim.

Obama oversaw the 2009 surge in Afghanistan, 145 Predator drone strikes in NATO’s 2011 Libya operations, the May 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden, and drone strikes that killed the Pakistani Taliban leader and a senior member of the Somali-based militant group al-Shabab this week.

His administration also expanded the drone war: There have been 326 drone strikes in Pakistan, 93 in Yemen, and several in Somalia under Obama — upwards of 4,000 people overall — compared to a total of 52 strikes under George Bush.

In 2011 two of those strikes killed American-born al-Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki and his American-born, 16-year-old son within two weeks.

Under Obama U.S. drone operators began practicing “signature strikes,” a tactic in which targets are chosen based on patterns of suspicious behavior and the identities of those to be killed aren’t necessarily known. (The administration counts all “military-age males” in a strike zone as combatants.)

Furthermore, the disturbing trend of the “double tap” — bombing the same place in quick succession and often hitting first responders — has become common practice.

Obama has also embraced the expansion of capture/kill missions by Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) after it developed into the primary counterterrorism tool of the Bush administration.

One JSOC operator told investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, author of “Dirty Wars: The World Is A Battlefield,” that global operations under Obama became “harder, faster, quicker — with the full support of the White House.”

Scahill, who also made a “Dirty Wars” documentary, told NBC News that Obama will “go down in history as the president who legitimized and systematized a process by which the United States asserts the right to conduct assassination operations around the world.”

Needless to say, a lot of innocent people have been killed along with combatants. 

So although President Obama has proven to be “really good at killing people,” the demonstration has not necessarily been noble.


LAX Shooting: Police trained for ‘exact scenario’ 3 weeks ago. False flag?


Los Angeles – The rapid police response to today’s deadly shooting at a terminal in the Los Angeles Int’l Airport (LAX) was no accident, according to LAX Police Chief Patrick Gannon, because his officers prepared for an event identical to the shooting weeks in advance.

“We practiced to this not more than 3 weeks ago,” said Gannon at a press conference hours after the shooting. “We took every one of our patrol officers and a couple hundred officers from the Los Angeles Police Department and we practiced the exact scenario we played out today.”

Photographs of the training exercise were published on October 18 on the Facebook page for Team LAX, which is the official sports and events page for the LAX police. The images from the drill show police officers drawing semi-automatic rifles in an simulated attempt to eliminate hostile threats and lead air travelers to safety. Officers at the Ontario, California airport conducted similar active shooter drills earlier in the month.

LAX police officers prepared for the possibility of a shooting at the airport with training exercise...

LAX Police Department
LAX police officers prepared for the possibility of a shooting at the airport with training exercises like those shown in the images above.

According to Gannon, the practice helped ensure that the threat posed by the shooter was neutralized before he could increase the body count. “I was talking to the officers involved in this particular incident a few minutes ago, and they said that that training was critical to how they responded to this,” he added.

This isn’t the first time that a gunman has opened fire inside an LAX terminal. In July 2002, Egyptian national Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a member of the Muslim brotherhood, shot and killed 2 people at the El Al Airlines ticket counter at LAX and wounded four others before El Al security officer Chaim Sapir gunned him down.

The connection between today’s airport shooting and the drills that preceded it is also reminiscent of the circumstances surrounding the 7/7 London transit bombing in 2005. Hours after the attack, British crisis management specialist Peter Power told ITV news that his company, Visor Consultants, was performing a simulation of the bombing of the London subway and bus system at the same time as the real incident occurred. “We based our scenario on the simultaneous attacks on the underground and mainline station,” he explained, “so we had to suddenly switch an exercise from fictional to real.” The company that Visor was consulting for at the time of the bombing has not been disclosed.

Uploaded by Dahboo 777


That picture is from a PDF file of operation Urban Shield where they are training for these types of situations. Isn’t strange every time they have a drill there is either on the same day or just a little while later an event of the same nature? Just like the Boston bombing, they were having a “drill” that same very day. Is this event a False Flag? Not sure yet, as time progresses more information will surface, but there sure is an attack on the Second Amendment.

source of the original article. 

Police shot unarmed man, drove an armored truck through his door when he did not exit his property on command


SPRINGFIELD, VA — A paramilitary force was dispatched to a townhouse after a woman reported a domestic dispute between her and her boyfriend.  When her boyfriend stubbornly chose to stay inside his home, police shot him and drove an armored truck through his front door.

SWAT surrounding the victim's home.  (Source: NBC4 Washington)

The situation began on August 29th around 2:40 p.m. when John Geer — a 46-year-old kitchen designer and installer — was told by his girlfriend that she had decided to leave him.  The couple had two daughters together, ages 13 and 17.  Emotionally distraught over the breakup, Geer exacerbated the situation by throwing her belongings onto the lawn of their townhouse.

This led to her calling the police.  She informed the dispatcher that he owned a firearm.  A SWAT team was sent to the quiet cul-du-sac.

Geer’s home was surrounded by armored vehicles and uniformed personnel.  A police sniper was photographed lying prone in a neighbor’s yard aiming toward Geer’s residence.  Men in helmets and military fatigues cordoned off the neighborhood.  Police began making their demands.  An armored truck a topside gun turret parked in his yard and prepared for a strike command.  As time went on, helicopters whirred overhead and K-9 units were seen by neighbors.

SWAT vehicle at home of John Geer (Source:

“We’re just here to help you — come out with your hands up,” recounted neighbor Edith Eshleman, of the police negotiations.

Fairfax County police officers spent approximately 40 to 50 minutes communicating with Geer, insisting that he either let them in his home or that he exit into their custody.  He did neither.  Geer was “a very stubborn man,” according to one of his relatives.

Geer’s girlfriend and two teenage daughters had already left when the negotiations came to an abrupt conclusion.  An officer shot Geer through a screen door as he stood facing outward at them.  Geer closed the door and retreated into his house.

An officer aims his pistol toward homeowner John Geer.  (Source: NBC4 Washington)

Around 4:30 p.m., with Geer sill “barricaded” inside his home, police used their $250,000 armored Lenco Bearcat to drive a long battering ram through the front door.  SWAT team members made entry and ultimately found Geer deceased in his home.

A sniper aims at John Geer's home (Source: ABC7 WIJA)

Don Geer — the victim’s father — watched the scene unfold from the front lawn of the townhouse where officers positioned themselves with their guns trained on his son. He confirmed that his son’s hands remained empty and resting on top of a screen door throughout the confrontation with police. When John lowered his hands about six inches, according to Don Geer, one of the officers fired a shot and hit John, causing him to retreat.

Police did not immediately say whether John Geer was armed or why the officer decided to open fire, nor would they discuss the details of the conversation between the officers and Geer before the shooting. Geer’s father says that he was too far away to hear the conversation, but claims that a detective assigned to investigate the case told him that his son that his son was not holding a gun at the time of the shooting and that he did not have one on his person.

“It was very scary because I’ve never seen coming down the street a SWAT team — I mean, a SWAT team?!” exclaimed neighbor Valerie Findley.

The armored truck mounted with a long battering ram.  (Source: ABC7 WIJA)

Neither Geer’s father nor his good friend understand why the standoff ended in the death of a man with no prior convictions for violence. They do not believe that John was armed at the time, though both acknowledge that he owned a gun. Geer’s father said that the detective in charge of the investigation told him that a holstered handgun was found on the stairway landing a “couple of steps” from the front door where he was shot.

“If he doesn’t have a weapon in his immediate possession, the officer should not have fired,” Don Geersaid. “He would have to have turned around, bent over and then picked up the gun to present a threat. It’s pretty hard to say the shooting was justifiable.”

The officer involved was placed on routine administrative leave while the investigation continues, and police are remaining tight-lipped about the details of the incident.  Fairfax County Police Chief Ed Roessler said that the shooting is still an active criminal investigation adding that he could not provide more information about what happened, or address neighborhood concerns just yet.  They have not yet revealed what justification, if any, their officer had for shooting Geer.  The police said in a written statement, “Precise movements, contents of the discussion between officer [and the] man, and all pertinent matters relating to the incident are under investigation.”

SWAT team enter through rammed entryway (Source:

“It’s my goal when I can legally share that information with the community, I will,” Roessler told News4.  In September, investigators confirmed that Geer had been unarmed, according to WJLA.

The police response arguably escalated the situation instead of defusing it.  This is a recurring theme in a string of examples of how police suffer from a dearth of training in how to deal with unarmed, uncooperative citizens who had not been charged with committing any crime. What police lack in empathetic response, they more than compensate for with an excess of military toys and the use of force.

Their unsubstantiated concern for the safety of the public notwithstanding, the police are required to seek a warrant from an impartial magistrate before engaging in the search of private property and seizing of persons.  The allegation by an equally emotional girlfriend that John Geer was an owner of firearms does not constitute probable cause to violate his rights and ultimately end his life.  As John Geer had not yet committed any offense to warrant his arrest, and with his family already off-site, police should have defused the situation by themselves leaving the scene.

Refusing to be forced from your home or to allow agents of the state to enter without a warrant is not an offense punishable by execution. And though his mental state was, in the words of his friend Jeff Stewart, “emotionally wrecked that day,” the antagonistic response from the state cannot be touted as a positive outcome by any reasonable standard.

Earnest thanks goes to all those who have contributed to the operation of this website. We are committed to covering

stories that remain conspicuously ignored by the national mainstream media, and your generous support is essential
to effectively distributing this message. Many victims of government-sanctioned violence offer their gratitude.

WJLA Channel 7 and NBC 4 Washington interviewed witnesses and obtained video of the incident. View them below:


School Test Teaches Kids: “Commands Of Government Officials Must Be Obeyed By All”


A parent of a ten year old was shocked to discover a grammar and writing test paper that their child brought home from school reads more like document from an authoritarian country such as China.

The parent sent a portion of the test paper to Infowars, revealing that it contains sentences such as “The commands of government officials must be obeyed by all.”

The paper uses such sentences and asks school children to replace certain words in order to make the sentence contain a possessive noun.

Others within the paper include:

“The job of a president is not easy.”

“He makes sure the laws of the country are fair”

“The wants of an individual are less important than the needs of a nation”

Here is the portion of the paper Infowars received:

Upon further investigation it appears that the paper is part of a set produced by Pearson Education, a global corporation that provides education publishing and assessment services to schools in the US and the rest of the world. Pearson is the world’s largest for-profit education business.

The particular sentence about everyone obeying government commands appears in other Pearson papers, such as this fifth grade grammar test.

According to the company’s Wikipedia page and its website, Pearson owns leading educational media brands including Addison–Wesley, BBC Active, Bug Club, eCollege, Fronter, Longman, MyEnglishLab, Penguin Readers, Prentice Hall, Poptropica and Financial Times Press. Pearson is part of Pearson PLC, which also owns Penguin Books and the Financial Times.

In 2010, Pearson also negotiated a 5 year, $32 million, contract with the New York State Department of Education to design tests for students in grades 4-8.

Some have criticized the company’s test papers. Last year papers designed for NYSED were found to contain over 30 errors. Writing for the New York Times, Gail Collins noted:

“We have turned school testing into a huge corporate profit center, led by Pearson, for whom $32 million is actually pretty small potatoes. Pearson has a five-year testing contract with Texas that’s costing the state taxpayers nearly half-a-billion dollars.”

Collins outlines the fact that Pearson is being contracted under the controversial No Child Left Behind program set up by the government in 2001:

“This is the part of education reform nobody told you about. You heard about accountability, and choice, and innovation. But when No Child Left Behind was passed 11 years ago, do you recall anybody mentioning that it would provide monster profits for the private business sector?”

Collins continues:

“[Pearson’s] lobbyists include the guy who served as the top White House liaison with Congress on drafting the No Child law. It has its own nonprofit foundation that sends state education commissioners on free trips overseas to contemplate school reform.”

Ah… all becomes clear. Government contracted education papers telling children that they must obey the commands of the government. Nice.

Along with enforcing government mandated rules such as banning packed lunches, this will be seen by many as yet another example of how the nanny state is encroaching via the public education system.

It’s a concept also being promoted by the mass media. Earlier this year, MSNBC ran a segment pushing the notion that kids belong to the “collective,” and that the “idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families” should be eliminated.

These revelations also remind one of Common Core, federally mandated education principles, which are effectively dumbing down students by standardizing education across the board and shutting out diversity in teaching.


Ark. Cop Chased and Tased Woman After She Refused to Show Him Her Breasts


LITTLE ROCK – A city cop in Arkansas chased a woman through her workplace, shooting a Taser at her, because she refused to show him her breasts, the woman claims in court.
Ashlea Bennett sued the City of Haskell, Ark. and its police Officer Brandon Carter, in Federal Court.
She claims Carter “demanded that she expose her breasts to him” after he entered her workplace while on duty and wearing his uniform.
“Carter’s demands to the Plaintiff to expose herself to him occurred multiple times,” she says in the lawsuit.
It continues: “That the Plaintiff refused to show her breasts to Carter.
“That, upon her refusal, Carter drew his City of Haskell-issued electroshock Taser weapon from his utility belt, pointed the weapon at plaintiff, and threatened to deploy the same against her if she would not expose her breasts to him.
“That, upon seeing the threat of unlawful force, the plaintiff took physical flight and ran from Carter.”
Officer Carter then “proceeded to physically chase the plaintiff through her place of employment,” the complaint states.
It continues: “That, while chasing the plaintiff, Carter activated and deployed his electroshock Taser weapon in ‘drive stun’ mode numerous times at or directed at the plaintiff. That Carter did these actions with the intention of causing fear, imminent fear of bodily harm, and/or emotional distress to gain the plaintiff’s compliance with his sexual demands.”
Bennett claims that before this Dec. 13, 2011 incident, Carter had made “inappropriate sexual comments” to her on multiple occasions “and demanded that she expose herself to him.”
She claims that before Carter chased her around her office, “the City of Haskell was aware, or should have been aware, of complaints made about or issues concerning Carter’s conduct, including, but not limited to, his inappropriate sexual actions occurring under color of law.”
Haskell, pop. 3,990, is about 30 miles south of Little Rock in Saline County.
Bennett seeks compensatory and punitive damages for constitutional and civil rights violations, assault, failure to train and supervise, negligent supervision and outrage.
She is represented by Clinton W. Lancaster of Benton, Ark.





Is the U.S. government getting ready for a war we don’t know about?

And, if that’s why Washington is stockpiling massive amounts of ammunition (hollow points, by the way), why is Homeland Security doing the buying instead of the Defense Department?

I have some theories.

Many of you will remember a story I broke a long time ago – about presidential candidate Barack Obama’s little-noticed announcement that, if elected in 2008, he wanted to create a “civilian national security force” as big, as strong and as well-funded as the Defense Department.

Here’s what he actually said at a campaign stop in Colorado July 2, 2008: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Could what we see happening now in the Department of Homeland Security be the beginning of Obama’s dream and our constitutional nightmare?

We’ve learned more about Obama’s vision since then. Maybe it’s time for a review:

  • He made the campaign promise to build this $439 billion domestic army, but all references to the initiative were inexplicably deleted from the copy of his speech posted on his website while others mysteriously disappeared from transcripts of the speech distributed by the campaign. That was strange – and ominous.
  • At the time, I had never heard anyone use the phrase “civilian national security force” before. But I did a little homework and found out where it originated. It was first proposed by then Bush administration Defense Secretary Robert Gates. On that basis alone, I accurately predicted that, if elected, Obama would name Gates as his own defense secretary. Needless to say, when that appointment came to pass, no media outlet bothered to interview me about my foresight.
  • Still during the campaign of 2008, I suggested that what Obama had in mind might be something very sinister indeed – perhaps “some kind of domestic Big Brother program.”

We never heard another mention of Obama’s “civilian national security force” again. Not in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012.

But that brings us up to 2013 and the highly unusual stockpiling of firearms and ammo by Homeland Security – firearms and ammo that Obama would like to deny to ordinary citizens who are not members of his domestic army.

Well, I hate to say it, but I may have predicted this, too.

In a Halloween column last fall, I stated that, if re-elected, Obama would “declare a full-scale war on his domestic opposition.”

I wasn’t joking. I was deadly serious – so serious, in fact, that I did something I pledged I would never do: Vote for Mitt Romney. It was a matter of self-defense and self-preservation. I said then that a second term of Obama might mean we would never see another free and fair election in America. (I’m not even sure we saw one in 2012.) I suggested due process would go the way of the horse and buggy. I said I expected Obama would move to shut down or destroy all independent media. I even speculated that his biggest critics would eventually be rounded up in the name of national security.

Think about it.

Why does the civilian Department of Homeland Security need billions of rounds of ammunition?

This is the agency that is responsible for policing the border. But it doesn’t.

This is the agency that is responsible for catching terrorists. But it doesn’t.

So why does Homeland Security need so many weapons and enough hollow-point rounds to plug every American six times?

Maybe this is the “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the Defense Department.

These words – “civilian national security force” – have haunted me ever since I first read them.

Obama has never explained what he meant.

He’s never been called to account for that remark.

Doesn’t this sound like police-state talk to you?

The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn’t count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. defense budget was $439 billion. No one knows what the budget is today because Congress stopped passing budgets when Obama took office.

Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? Is this part of his second-term agenda?

He has also set up, as I have reported, a new homeland security bureaucracy to operate under his own direction.

I think it’s worth recalling here that just over a year ago both houses of Congress unwisely passed the defense reauthorization bill that killed the concept of habeas corpus – legislation that authorized the president to use the U.S. military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial.

That legislation would empower a lame-duck Obama to use all of the power of the federal government – constitutional and unconstitutional – to target his political enemies.

If any Republican, conservative, independent journalist, pro-life activist, returning veteran, gun-rights activist, constitutionalist, Bible believer or critic of Obama thinks they will be safe in a second term under this would-be despot, they had better think again – real fast.

The “civilian national security force” is not here to protect any of them. It’s here to destroy the opposition. It’s here to destroy liberty. It’s here to destroy the Constitution.

Obama preparing country for coup against Constitution

we the people

During his October 3rd radio broadcast, conservative host and author Mark Levin warned his listeners that President Obama is moving beyond the current partial government shutdown and on to the debt ceiling. As he campaigns against Republicans, Obama is creating fear among those on government support programs and even in the financial markets, that Tea Party “extremists” will allow the government to “default,” paving the way for low-information Americans to support him as he bypasses Congress and unilaterally takes control of the country’s economy:

Default, default, default…why is he saying that? Just to scare people? Well, that’s part of it, obviously. But, it’s more than that, ladies and gentlemen. Barack Obama is plotting, that if he can’t get what he wants out of the House Republicans, that if he can’t get his Plan A, and get Boehner and the Republicans to buckle – not just on the Continuing Resolution – but on the debt ceiling, then he’s got his Plan B.

His Plan B is the most egregious attack on our Constitution by a President, not just in modern history, but in all our history, if, in fact, he unleashes it…

Levin said that, urged on by Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton, Obama is primed to bypass Congress, “to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally as President of the United States, using the 14th Amendment as a fig leaf, to seize from Congress the power of the purse.”

Observing that Obama is already calling for liberal ideologues and academics to provide cover for his plan, Levin noted a recent New York Times op-ed by Henry J. Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who point-blank recommends that Obama should “ignore the debt ceiling,” since doing so is the “least bad” law for him to break.

Under the dubious premise that the United States will default on its debts, and thereby incur a “full-blown constitutional crisis,” should the debt ceiling not be raised, Aaron writes that he agrees with Columbia Law professors Neil H. Buchanan and Michael C. Dorf whoargued that Obama’s disregard of the debt ceiling would be less incriminating than placing the nation in “default.” Aaron primes the courts as well for the ultimate plan:

In this case, the consequences are so overwhelmingly on one side that they cannot be ignored by the president and should not be ignored by the courts. If the debt ceiling is not increased, the president should disregard it, and honor spending and tax legislation.

A decision to cut spending enough to avoid borrowing would instantaneously slash outlays by approximately $600 billion a year. Cutting payments to veterans, Social Security benefits and interest on the national debt by half would just about do the job. But such cuts would not only illegally betray promises to veterans, the elderly and disabled and bondholders; they would destroy the credit standing of the United States and boost borrowing costs on the nation’s $12 trillion publicly held debt.

As Romina Boccia at the Heritage Foundation wrote recently, however, refusing an immediate hike in the debt limit does not automatically translate into the “crisis” that Obama and his supporters would like Americans to embrace:

If Congress does not raise the debt limit by mid-October, the Treasury would not necessarily default on debt obligations. Even while cash-strapped, the Treasury can reasonably be expected to prioritize principal and interest payments on the national debt, protecting the full faith and credit of the United States above all other spending. It is almost impossible to conceive that the Treasury and the President would choose to default on debt obligations because doing so would have damaging economic consequences.

Cuts in discretionary spending and reform of entitlement programs – beginning with the repeal of ObamaCare, yet a new entitlement – are the ways Congress can place the nation’s budget on a path to balance, says Boccia.

Aaron, however, using a frame of reference that asserts the U.S. is currently in an “economic recovery,” writes that spending cuts cannot be made because it is simply too difficult to decide which programs or education grants to limit.

“No matter how the cuts might be distributed, they would, if sustained for more than a very brief period, kill the economic recovery and cause unemployment to return quickly to double digits,” he writes.

In the end, Levin asserts, Obama is already campaigning and priming the country for his coup of the Constitution, the ultimate “fundamental transformation” of the nation as he has promised:

So, it is he who is prepared to extort and blackmail in ways that most of you, and most of my colleagues in this business can’t even imagine, or don’t even understand. And, if the President of the United States unilaterally lifts the debt ceiling, you can kiss the core functions of Congress goodbye, you can kiss this Republic goodbye, once and for all. And, then, I think, the focus can be on the Liberty Amendments.