The AMerican Dream Under Assault

Private Equity Buying Up Affordable Housing Mobile Home Parks. Is There a Solution?

Institutional investors snapped up mobile home and trailer parks during COVID, and from 2020 to 2021, they bought almost a quarter of the parks that were sold. 12 private equity firms own at least 1,200 parks nationwide. 22 million Americans live in mobile home and trailer parks and are often the last line before homelessness. Residents own their homes and pay rent on the lot; they are captives because it costs too much to leave. 

Some tenants band together to get financing to buy their park. A few states are considering legislation to limit rent increases and other measures that can hurt the landlords trying to sell the parks. A critic noted that if legislators are concerned about losing affordable housing, they could work with state housing authorities to provide funding for park owners looking to expand.

Randall Smith is the founder of Alden Global Capital; Homes of America is an affiliate company that, since 2021, has spent $300 million to acquire a 138 parks across 17 states. maintenance can be deferred because the tenants have nowhere else to go.

In Michigan, a bill requiring park owners to justify rent increases above rate of inflation and limit fees landlords can charge was not passed, despite its popularity, after the Michigan Manufactured Housing Association pulled its support and it died in the Michigan State Senate. At the same time, Robbie Pratt and Anthony Antonelli, members of the Michigan Manufactured Housing Association political action committee, received large donations totalling $358,889.

Maine lawmakers consider bill to stop mobile home park sales for 3 months

State lawmakers are considering a three-month moratorium on the sale of mobile home parks, a move that could disrupt at least two pending sales in Maine.

Supporters say a pause on mobile home sales would allow lawmakers to evaluate a handful of mobile home-related bills, while also giving the residents of Friendly Village in Gorham a fair shot at purchasing their park.

But opponents argue the stoppage would infringe on the rights of private property owners, and one would-be seller said it could sink a sale that is critical to both him and his tenants.

Proposed by Sen. Chip Curry, D-Belfast, the bill would bar the sale of any mobile home park in Maine until Oct. 31. Because the bill is proposed as an emergency bill, it would go into effect immediately after passage, although it would require two-thirds majorities in both chambers.

Some supporters suggested adding an exemption for residents trying to purchase their parks, as well as an extension of the moratorium through the end of the year.

Curry told the Housing and Economic Development Committee that he updated the bill’s language after hearing for months that the state is losing affordable housing to private equity investors looking to profit “and I would argue exploitatively” from low-income Mainers.

Curry proposed the moratorium “to give us time to catch up on the regulatory environment so we can best protect our most vulnerable members of the community,” he said.

BILLS ON THE TABLE

Mobile home parks in Maine and across the country are increasingly being purchased by out-of-state investors who then raise the monthly lot rents, in some cases by two or three times, according to national data. An estimated one-fifth of Maine’s 468 licensed parks are now owned by out-of-state investors.

Following the passage of a 2023 “opportunity to purchase law,” several communities, including those in Brunswick, Bangor and Monmouth, have formed cooperatives to purchase their parks. But more than twice as many have failed, even with offers just above those of the competition.

Lawmakers are currently considering several bills to protect mobile homeowners, including one that would give residents the “right of first refusal” to purchase their park when it goes up for sale.

Another would attach a hefty per-lot fee to the purchase of a community (on top of the purchase price) to be paid to MaineHousing to replenish a statewide program designed to help residents buy their parks. Resident-owned co-ops and affordable housing groups would be exempt from the fee.

Another bill would eliminate the real estate transfer tax on sales of mobile home parks to resident buyers.

The committee tabled two similar bills Tuesday that aim to prevent sudden and dramatic lot-rent increases.

Rep. Cheryl Golek, D-Harpswell, who proposed one of the rent control bills, asked that committee members consider a freeze on mobile home rents if they decide to push her bill to next session.

“These are people’s lives that we’re talking about,” she said. “This is not a political divided issue. We have hundreds and hundreds of people begging us … to do something to protect them.”

A TALE OF TWO PARKS

Dawn Beaulieu, a resident of Friendly Village for almost 30 years, said residents plan to submit an offer Monday — one that is higher than the $22 million offer from Crown Communities, the prospective buyer.

But many sellers don’t want to give up a sure sale in favor of an offer from residents who may struggle to pull the money together.

“(The moratorium) would give us the amount of time we need to put a good faith motion forward with financing, to show them that they’re still going to get what they’re looking for,” Beaulieu said.

Nora Gosselin, director of resident acquisitions at the Cooperative Development Institute, said she’s watched the Legislature this session approach the “complicated issue of mobile home park preservation with huge creativity and thoughtfulness.” The institute assists residents who are trying to buy their parks.

The bill, she said, would weave together the committee’s work with Friendly Village’s “Herculean” organizing efforts to buy the park.

“A moratorium on large park transactions will allow the protections crafted by this committee … to kick into effect in time to benefit the almost 300 households at Friendly Village,” she said.

But Michael Oneglia, the owner of two parks in Belfast, said the bill could kill a deal that he has spent tens of thousands of dollars and more than 10 months trying to close.

Oneglia is under contract to sell Seacoast Village, a 22-lot park, and Hyland Estates, a 68-lot park, and is set to close in the coming weeks. Residents were not interested in purchasing the parks, he said, so he proceeded with a private sale.

But if the moratorium goes into effect, “I will absolutely lose my buyer,” he told the committee. “I have a personal situation where I need to sell and this will really screw things up for me and my tenants.”

If the deal falls through, Oneglia said, he would have to cut back the parks’ services to just the essentials, dramatically lowering the standard of living for his tenants, who will pay the same amount of money while he recovers from the financial hit.

“I just can’t believe we’re even at a point where we’re talking about a moratorium of the sale of a private piece of property,” he said. “It seems un-American and it’s completely inappropriate.”

‘MORE HARM THAN GOOD’

Others who opposed the moratorium bill, including many park owners like Oneglia, said a moratorium could devalue their properties and risks being an unconstitutional taking of property.

Tina Marie Smith, vice president of State Manufactured Homes in Scarborough, said the bill was “created with unsubstantiated hysteria” and that it and the provisions being considered in the other bills threaten the future of their industry.

She asked that legislators not paint all park owners with the same brush and consider families like hers who have owned the same park for generations.

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2025/05/private-equity-buying-up-affordable-housing-mobile-home-parks-is-there-a-solution/

DOGE Is Not Here to Help The People – What A Surprise!

Catherine Austin Fitts on DOGE Spending Cuts Cancelled By Republican Leadership!

Trump’s rescission package includes $9.3 billion in cuts to the State Department, NPR, PBS, and other areas, with the majority of the cuts focused on foreign aid, totaling roughly $8 billion. However, the savings will be re-routed into the Pentagon as Trump proposed increasing its budget from $893 billion to  $1.01 trillion.

Catherine Austin Fitts explained that if DOGE was interested in stopping fraud, Elon Musk would examine the Treasury and the New York Fed and the bank statements to find where the missing $21 trillion went. She said that because DOGE aims to obtain data from the IRS, Social Security, the Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), it appears that the goal is to build a social credit score system and re-engineer government cash flows to implement control. DOGE is not serious because it has yet to audit the Pentagon.

.Elon Musk is one of the largest US defense contractors. Trump fired 18 inspectors general, and some were leading investigations into Musk’s companies. It is a criminal violation for a government special employee to be involved in things that impact their private interests, and Musk has many conflicts of interest.

She pointed out that Trump’s first term in office used ‘shock and awe’ instead of taking steps to make changes to the government permanent.

She said that Bitcoin has been hijacked, turned into a Ponzi scheme and is instead controlled.

Warning: vulgar language

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2025/05/catherine-austin-fitts-on-doge-spending-cuts-cancelled-by-republican-leadership/

QR Codes — Quite Risky!!!

(A REPORT FROM/LATIN AMERICAN, UT UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE)

How QR Codes Are Being Used for Societal Control

by Daniela Gonzalez

One of the most obnoxious signs of this era is, to me, the nonchalant and desperate search for mass control – no matter what society you live in.

In the iron grip of a dictatorship like the one formally declared after July 28th, one of the most humble creations of the digital era, known as the QR code, a symbol of modern convenience, is on the path to becoming a sinister tool of oppression, enslaving citizens in my country, Venezuela with a spiderweb of surveillance and control.

Control mechanisms

Here is a summary of the control mechanisms that have been identified in Nicolás Maduro’s dictatorship.

  1. Institutional Control and Power Imbalance: There is a power imbalance without a clear separation of powers. State institutions and bodies respond to the guidelines of the national executive and support its social control policies.
  2. Repression and Terror: The regime (as the world should know by now) is using repression, violence, and terror as tools to maintain control, especially in the face of declining popular support and allegations of electoral fraud. Arbitrary detentions, forced disappearances, torture, and other serious human rights violations have been documented.
  3. Cooptation of Institutions: The cooptation of all branches of government has been observed to maintain control of the state, regardless of the popular will expressed in elections. This is to keep under control the people in the most populated regions, or the areas they need to control, to avoid interruptions of their illegal activities.
  4. Strategic Alliances: Maduro has strengthened alliances with nations such as Cuba, Russia, Iran, and China, which contribute to further repressing the Venezuelan people: . The role of the Cuban security apparatus is specifically mentioned.
  5. Restriction of Political Participation: It is alleged that the opposition to the regime would have been much higher if the approximately 8 million Venezuelans who have left the country in recent years could vote on July 28th, 2024.
  6. Economic Control: While not detailed in the provided results, control over the economy and the distribution of resources is also a common control mechanism of authoritarian regimes.
  7. Creation of Maximum Security Institutions: The creation of “maximum security” prisons intended to “re-educate” political opponents was announced.

Maduro’s despotic regime employs a combination of institutional control, repression, international alliances, and political restrictions to maintain power in Venezuela, stomping over the citizens, to keep stealing resources and narcotics trafficking.

Refining of the technologies: QR codes

The infamous “Ministry of Science” has worked for years on a “census” to assign a QR Code to each home. After 2020 and all the damage it brought along, by now, nobody should be so naive as to believe that the intention is “good”. There is nothing good in the mind of those sociopaths sitting in an office, draining your taxes and your country’s resources.

Relentless Tracking and Monitoring

The QR codes can be used to meticulously trace the movements of every citizen, recording their presence at events, public spaces, and even their participation in mundane activities. This information gathered in the shadowy offices of the Socialist Party societal control think tanks and other organizations, can be used to identify dissenters, those who dare to defy the regime’s iron will.

This can be used to track protesters and apply the “reforms” to our Constitution. This group of so-called “reforms” is no other than a series of countermeasures to dehumanize and remove the rights to rebellion provided in the Art. 350 of our Constitution, for example. In their vision, the reforms will provide them with a “legal” frame for the atrocities they´re planning to suffocate civilian uprisings with lethal force. The Tiananmen massacre would be legal then, under that logic.

Did you want an Orwellian 1984 scenario? This technology is even more than perfect for Big Brother.

Denying Access to Basic Necessities

QR codes can become the gatekeepers of essential services such as healthcare, education, and public transportation. The thugs disguised as a “government”, like a cruel gatekeeper, can control who gains access to these fundamental rights, conditioning their availability on an unwavering loyalty to the regime.

This has happened already in the past: the infamous National Assembly deputy for that time, Luis Tascón, compiled (illegally stomping on our privacy rights) a list where all those who signed to impeach Hugo Chavez back in the 2000-2010 decade were denied any participation or benefits: no access to loans or credits from state-owned banks or other institutions, and in some instances, even denying healthcare; no access to public work, and of course, belonging to opposition political parties.

Silencing Voices and Crushing Freedom

The QR code can be wielded against freedom of expression, assembly, and movement. Imagine a society where a QR code is required to attend a protest or public gathering, enabling the regime to identify and brutally suppress any opposition, as they will track you right to your doorstep. No bueno.

Manipulating Minds with Propaganda

Like a puppeteer pulling strings, QR codes can spread propaganda and misinformation, distorting reality and molding public opinion to serve the regime’s twisted agenda.

Economic Control and Oppression

The QR code can extend its reach into the economic sphere, controlling the financial transactions of citizens, and limiting their ability to spend or save. This power over the economy allows the regime to tighten its grip on the population, ensuring compliance through economic coercion.

It is crucial to remember that the use of QR codes in a dictatorship is a grave violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. This seemingly innocuous tool, in the hands of an authoritarian regime, can be transformed into an instrument of oppression, enslaving the population and extinguishing the flames of liberty.

How can people protect themselves from technological dictatorships?

In situations of repression and violence, there are non-violent alternatives that people can consider to protect themselves and defend their rights:

  1. Community organization and support: Forming neighborhood support networks is paramount. There is a practice where suddenly the police kidnap young men, dragging them to a patrol car, and practically disappearing them from the world. This practice has found serious obstacles when the neighbors, once aware a kidnapping is on the move, start reacting and defending the youngsters. Collective presence and support can deter violent actions and facilitate seeking help.
  2. Documentation: Recording and documenting incidents of repression and violence (whenever it is safe to do so) can be crucial to make the situation visible and seek justice in the long term. This may include taking notes, photos, or videos discreetly and safely. This has blown out in the faces of many thugs disguised as “cops” or “guards”.
  3. Situational awareness and avoidance: Maintaining awareness of the surroundings and avoiding high-risk areas or situations can help prevent exposure to brutality. This involves staying informed about the situation in the city and making prudent decisions about where and when to move.
  4. Seeking safe refuge: Identifying and having knowledge of safe places to turn to in case of danger (homes of family, friends, churches, or other organizations that can offer shelter). Using different addresses can be a smart move. On the other hand, the best move is to remain utterly anonymous.
  5. Communication and information dissemination: Using secure communication channels to inform others about the situation and seek support or resources. This may include using social media with caution, encrypted messaging applications, or contacting human rights organizations. Don’t use social media apps. The corps will scan your device and you will be in deep trouble unless you are extra paranoid deleting everything they want to call “compromising information”. I have read in some networks out of the public eye that even using apps like BinancePay can get people in trouble. Be advised.
  6. Reporting to human rights organizations: Contact local and international HHRR organizations to report the situation and seek their support and protection. These organizations can offer advice, and legal assistance to make the situation internationally public. This can increase the pressure on the regimes, and damage the harmless image they try to project.
  7. Non-violent civil resistance: The communities are starting to participate in forms of non-violent civil resistance, such as peaceful protests (whenever conditions allow it), dissemination of information, or acts of solidarity that are a way to express rejection of repression. However, this is done with extreme caution and awareness of the risks.
  8. Psychological support: Seeking psychological support to cope with the stress, fear, and anxiety that these situations can generate. Emotional well-being is essential to be able to face adversity.

It is important to remember that the choice of what actions to take will depend on the specific situation, the risks involved, and the capabilities of each person. Personal safety should always be the priority.

What comes next?

We are now heading into a spiral of unknown consequences. The recent events have opened Pandora’s box, and the dire echoes of the 2016-2018 hyperinflation and scarcity are stronger every week.

Stockpiling dry food, water, and other supplies is the least we can do. Those with a patch of land have started to prepare for another period of scarcity, getting seeds, increasing their hen flocks, and doing whatever they can, including precautions against marauders.

Many of us have already begun to lose weight. A family friend bought a $5 kitchen scale to weigh the proteins for their kids…so, people seem to be better prepared for this occasion. And now the protests will have a legal base: they have to surrender, because of the committed fraud on July 28th.

Thanks for reading, and spread the word by writing to your Congressman and supporting our cause!

from:  https://www.theorganicprepper.com/qr-codes/

New Role for the Military?

DOD challenges Posse Comitatus doctrine: issues directive saying the US military can kill Americans on US soil

WHAT?!!

https://x.com/Holden_Culotta/status/1845935989333659721

Why the Posse Comitatus Act Must Be Reformed

Significant exceptions and loopholes, along with a lack of enforcement mechanisms, undermine the law that prevents military involvement in law enforcement.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/why-posse-comitatus-act-must-be-reformed

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was enacted to keep the U.S. military out of civilian law enforcement except where authorized by Congress. While it is meant to prevent federal troops from being used against Americans, gaping loopholes and exceptions threaten to swallow the rule. Brennan Center counsel Joseph Nunn discusses his new report covering the reforms needed to strengthen this crucial guardrail.

What is the origin of the phrase posse comitatus, and how does that relate to the purpose of the Posse Comitatus Act?

That is actually a fun fact. Posse comitatus is Latin for “the power of the county.” It refers to the authority that sheriffs and some other law enforcement officials had at common law to gather a group of citizens to pursue lawbreakers. In Britain and the United States, before the modern era, the sheriff was often the only local law enforcement officer, and any significant lawbreaking would be more than he could handle alone. The posse comitatus power allowed him to call in reinforcements. To connect this to popular culture, in a Western film, when the sheriff gathers a “posse” of townsfolk to chase outlaws, that’s a posse comitatus.

The Posse Comitatus Act is so named because it prohibits the use of federal armed forces as a posse comitatus or to otherwise enforce the law unless doing so is expressly authorized by Congress.

What is the main issue with the Posse Comitatus Act as it’s written now?

It’s too weak. The Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program is often concerned with statutes that are dangerous because they grant too much authority or they’re too broad. The Posse Comitatus Act, however, is dangerous because it doesn’t go far enough: it’s too flimsy a guardrail. On paper, the law limits federal military participation in law enforcement, but it is undermined by an overabundance of exceptions, significant loopholes, and the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism.

As a result, the principle enshrined in the Posse Comitatus Act is protected more by norms and historical practice than by the text of the law itself. Unfortunately, we’ve entered an era in which we can no longer rely on tradition to constrain executive action.

What exceptions and loopholes in the Posse Comitatus Act concern you the most?

When thinking about weak points in the Posse Comitatus Act, the Insurrection Act is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. This law grants the president incredibly broad authority to deploy the military domestically, under circumstances that aren’t clearly defined. The Brennan Center has written extensively about the dangers of the Insurrection Act and proposed reforms, so our new report focuses on the lesser-known loopholes.

One significant loophole is the District of Columbia National Guard. While all other National Guards are commanded by their state or territorial governors, the DC Guard falls under the president’s direct control at all times. Although it can act as a federal force, the Department of Justice has long claimed it can also operate as a non-federal “militia” that is not constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act. This means presidents can theoretically use the DC Guard for law enforcement whenever they choose.

Another loophole is Section 502(f) of Title 32 of the U.S. Code, which allows the National Guard to carry out federal missions at the request of the president or secretary of defense while remaining under state control, thus bypassing the Posse Comitatus Act. While the rest of Section 502 is principally used for training missions, there are no criteria limiting what kinds of missions Subsection f can be used for. The Trump administration exploited this license a few years ago when it invited National Guard troops from 11 states into DC to suppress protests following the murder of George Floyd. This unprecedented action was done without invoking the Insurrection Act, as the president could simply ask sympathetic state governors to give the orders on his behalf.

To make matters worse, the Posse Comitatus Act lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. The law is a criminal statute, yet there’s no real threat of prosecution for violating it in practice. No one has ever been convicted for violating the Posse Comitatus Act, and only two people have ever been prosecuted — both more than 140 years ago.

Why is it a problem for the military to act as a domestic police force?

Military participation in law enforcement is sometimes necessary in a true crisis, but it is always risky. One of the most immediate concerns is that soldiers are trained to fight an enemy who lacks constitutional rights; they are not generally trained for domestic law enforcement. For instance, soldiers aren’t necessarily instructed in how to provide due process or conduct searches and arrests appropriately. Asking soldiers to perform these duties raises the risk of infringing on the public’s First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights — and it is unfair to the soldiers, who did not enter the military with the goal of policing their fellow citizens.

Beyond those immediate concerns, there’s an American tradition that traces back to the founding of this country rejecting military interference in civilian affairs. The founders were extraordinarily suspicious of military power, and not just when it was used domestically. During the Constitutional Convention, there was significant debate about whether to even allow a national standing army. These debates were motivated by fears that such an army could easily become a tool of tyranny. When an army is turned inward, that danger is particularly acute.

Importantly, though, the Brennan Center’s stance is not that military participation in law enforcement is never appropriate. Rather, it should be confined to emergencies when civilian authorities are truly overwhelmed. The January 6 insurrection is a paradigmatic example of this. Civilian authorities — the Capitol Police — were manifestly overwhelmed. And in that moment, there was a genuine physical threat to Congress. So in that case, deployment of the DC National Guard was entirely appropriate. Indeed, the president rightly came under criticism for delaying deployment of the Guard.

Why is prosecution under this law so rare?

The most straightforward answer is that violations are not very common. Federal forces aren’t deployed domestically very often, and when they are, they are guided by strong norms of compliance — at least historically speaking. Our report aims to highlight the significant risk of abuse and misconduct rather than to identify a clearly established pattern of it.

There are likely other reasons at play too. For instance, one-off infringements by individual soldiers acting without authorization might be considered too minor to justify criminal charges, while there would be little appetite within the Department of Justice to pursue criminal charges against a soldier acting on orders passed down from civilian commanders.

If the law is so problematic, why hasn’t it been reformed before?

There are a few reasons. Chief among them is that this is an area of the law that Congress is extremely reluctant to touch. The Posse Comitatus Act is regarded as sacrosanct. Lawmakers are wary of making changes to such an important guardrail — but that’s why it’s important to show that the guardrail isn’t as solid as they might think.

Another reason is that significant violations of the Posse Comitatus Act are not common, as I mentioned before, in part because the military takes compliance very seriously. This stems, I believe, from a commitment to the principle enshrined in the law, as well as the more practical reason that the military does not like to do domestic law enforcement. From their perspective, it’s not their job. They understand it’s not something they’re principally trained for, it is a distraction from what they regard as their core focuses, and it is unpopular with both soldiers and the public.

The small number of violations can also be chalked up to the United States being very lucky so far. Presidents have generally acted with restraint when it comes to domestic use of the military, but there’s no reason to assume that will remain true. Luck is no substitute for robust legal safeguards.

What are the main reforms you’re advocating for?

There are several important reforms outlined in the report, but I’ll mention four particularly important ones here. First and foremost, reform the Insurrection Act. There must be clear standards for when and how presidents can use the law, as well as meaningful checks by the other branches of government.

Second, close the DC National Guard loophole by either transferring control over the DC Guard to the mayor of Washington or extending the Posse Comitatus Act to cover the DC Guard at all times.

Third, close the Section 502(f) loophole. The Posse Comitatus Act should be extended to cover National Guard deployments when the Guard performs a federal mission at the request of the president or the secretary of defense.

Fourth, create more effective enforcement mechanisms. Congress should impose an exclusionary rule that prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act from being used in court. Congress should also consider allowing individuals harmed by violations of the Posse Comitatus Act to sue for civil damages. The risk of having crucial evidence thrown out and the potential for lawsuits by injured citizens will provide far stronger incentives for both the military and their civilian leadership to comply with the law than the nonexistent prospect of criminal prosecution.

What are the prospects for reforming the Posse Comitatus Act?

There is a bipartisan understanding in Congress that some degree of domestic deployment reform is necessary, particularly regarding the Insurrection Act. Additionally, there is some support for broader reforms aimed at the National Guard and the Posse Comitatus Act. That said, advancing these reforms will take time and require a good deal of discussion about why they matter, as this area of law is not tremendously well understood. Our hope is that this report can help to move this process forward.

from:    https://merylnass.substack.com/p/dod-challenges-posse-comitatus-doctrine?publication_id=746368&post_id=150319881&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Some Background on Kamala for the Curious

Who Is Kamala Harris and What Is Her Big Secret? Candace Owens Investigates!

Janet Jackson was recently harshly criticized for saying this about Kamala Harris: “She’s not Black. That’s what I heard. That she’s Indian.” She added that she heard that Kamala’s father was white. This has become an issue because Kamala Harris is courting the black vote and may be downplaying the white side of her family that were reported to have been slave traders. Candace Owens investigated the claim and opened a can of worms in her last 3 podcasts.

Kamala Harris’ book, The Truths We Hold: An American Journey, features a photo of Kamala with her purported paternal grandmother, Beryl. But it seems impossible because Beryl died in 1960 and Kamala wasn’t born until 4 years later in 1964. Kamala’s father, Donald Harris is a radical Marxist who was a professor of economics at Stanford University. He says that he was born in Jamaica in 1938, but there is no birth certificate for Donald Harris.

Candace speculated that Oscar, Kamala’s reported grandfather, and Beryl never did marry and that Beryl was included in Kamala’s history to “blackify” her.

Kamala’s father had worked for the Jamaica Information Service that was part of the government of Jamaica and Kamala’s mother’s father was the Deputy Secretary of the Government of India.

.

Link for video

Links for all 3 investigation videos part 1part 2part 3

Kamala’s Family Tree

You Mean Kamala Harris Isn’t Actually Black? Shocker.

By Olive Barker

The mainstream media is back this week with more election shenanigans as they are now diving in head first to try to prove to the public that Kamala Harris is actually black.

But the problem is, the internet doesn’t believe Kamala Harris is actually black.

And just as the internet does when you feed it information, we do what we can to find out the truth. Which is exactly what happened when it was revealed in Kamala’s new book that she has a black paternal grandmother named Beryl Harris (Finegan).

The internet quickly able to debunk that statement after discovering that Beryl Harris died in July of 1960, four years before Kamala was born.

Kamala Harris was born in 1964 to an Indian American woman named Shyamala Gopalan, and a Jamaican American man named Donald J. Harris. Note that Jamaican does not mean black, that’s a common misconception.

How do we know all of this? We know all of this because Candace Owens released Kamala’s birth certificate and ancestral history on her show earlier this week. After she released that information, people began to ask questions about Kamala and why she was claiming she was black if she wasn’t.

Janet Jackson was one of those people.

“That’s what I heard. That she’s Indian. That her father’s white. That’s what I was told. I mean I haven’t watched the news in a few days. I was told that they discovered that her father was white.” – Janet Jackson

So then naturally, as the mainstream media does, they all produced similar headlines claiming that Janet Jackson was making false claims about Kamala’s race. Here are some of those headlines:

“Janet Jackson Repeats False Claims About Kamala Harris’s Race” – The New York Times

“Janet Jackson tells interviewer she’s heard Kamala Harris is not black, echoing election disinformation.” – NBC News

“Janet Jackson’s Kamala Harris Remarks Spark Blacklash.” – Newsweek

Instead of the media owning up to creating and spreading false information about Kamala’s background, they are now doing everything they can to smear Janet Jackson’s name, similar to what they did with her brother Michael Jackson. You remember the good ole “Wacko Jacko” headlines?

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/09/who-is-kamala-harris-and-what-is-her-big-secret-candace-owens-investigates/

Attack on the First Amendment or Whose Speech is “Disinformation”?

John Kerry Says Our First Amendment Stands As A Major Block Against “Disinformation”

Former U.S. Senator and Biden administration climate envoy John Kerry correctly identified the First Amendment as a “major block” preventing the government from halting spread of “disinformation.”

.

Transcript from Real Clear Politics:

Last week at a World Economic Forum panel on Green Energy investing and sustainable development the former U.S. Senator and Biden administration climate envoy John Kerry correctly identified the First Amendment as a “major block” preventing the government from halting spread of “disinformation.”

JOHN KERRY: The dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing. It is part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue. It’s really hard to govern today. You can’t — the referees we used to have to determine what is a fact and what isn’t a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree. And people go and self select where they go for their news, for their information. And then you get into a vicious cycle.

So it is really hard, much harder to build consensus today than at any time in the 40-50 years I’ve been involved in this.

You know there’s a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you’re going to have some accountability on facts, etc.

But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence.

So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.

Obviously, there are some people in our country who are prepared to implement change in a whole other way, but —

I think democracies are very challenged right now and have not proven they can move fast enough of big enough to deal with the challenges they are facing, and to me, that is part of what this election is all about. Will we break the fever in the United States?

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/10/john-kerry-says-our-first-amendment-stands-as-a-major-block-against-disinformation/

What Can Be Said? Who Is voting for You?

List of 158 Democrats Who Voted Against the Deportation of Migrant Rapists and Sex Abusers

158 Democrats voted against Republican Representative Nancy Mace’s bill that would close loopholes and ensure that undocumented immigrants convicted of sex offenses are deported or deemed inadmissible to the country. Mace said, “We are fed up with headlines about women losing their lives or becoming victims of assailants who trespassed into our country illegally under the Biden-Harris border crisis. This legislation sends a strong message: If you are an illegal who has committed acts of violence against women, you will not find sanctuary here.” She added that those opposing the bill “voted against deporting rapists, pedophiles and murderers of women and kids.”

Opponents of the bill said it was demonizing immigrants..

More than 150 Democrats voted against Republican Representative Nancy Mace‘s bill that would ensure undocumented immigrants convicted of sex offenses are deported or deemed inadmissible to the country.

The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act passed in a 266-158 vote on Wednesday. Every Republican present voted for the bill, as did 51 Democrats, while 158 Democrats voted against it.

The bill would also deport or deem inadmissible to the country undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of, or admit to having committed, sex offenses, domestic violence, stalking, child abuse or violating a protection order.

It comes as immigration is among the most important issues on the minds of voters ahead of November’s election, with former President Donald Trump and Republicans repeatedly claiming that President Joe Biden‘s immigration policies have led to a spike in violent crime by people who are in the country illegally. Studies have generally found no link between immigration and violent crime.

Mace told WCIV in Charleston, South Carolina, that the legislation will protect women across the country.

Are you interested in joining G. Edward Griffins online coalition? Are you interested in earning while educating those around you of the realties that are being rewritten or lied about? Become an affiliate today! Register Here!

 

“We are fed up with headlines about women losing their lives or becoming victims of assailants who trespassed into our country illegally under the Biden-Harris border crisis,” Mace said. “This legislation sends a strong message: If you are an illegal who has committed acts of violence against women, you will not find sanctuary here.”

She said those opposing the bill “voted against deporting rapists, pedophiles and murderers of women and kids.”

Opponents of the bill said it was demonizing immigrants.

Representative Pramila Jayapal said the bill would hurt survivors of domestic violence, whom she said are often arrested, charged and convicted along with their abusers.

“Here we are again, debating another partisan bill that fearmongers about immigrants, instead of working together to fix the immigration system,” Jayapal said during a debate on the bill.

“I probably shouldn’t be too surprised. Scapegoating immigrants and attempting to weaponize the crime of domestic violence is appearing to be a time-honored tradition for Republicans.”

The 158 Democrats who voted against the bill are:

  • Alma Adams, North Carolina
  • Pete Aguilar, California
  • Gabe Amo, Rhode Island
  • Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts
  • Becca Balint, Vermont
  • Nanette Barragán, California
  • Joyce Beatty, Ohio
  • Ami Bera, California
  • Donald Beyer, Virginia
  • Sanford D. Bishop Jr., Georgia
  • Earl Blumenauer, Oregon
  • Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
  • Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware
  • Jamaal Bowman, New York
  • Shontel Brown, Ohio
  • Julia Brownley, California
  • Cori Bush, Missouri
  • Salud Carbajal, California
  • Tony Cárdenas, California
  • André Carson, Indiana
  • Troy Carter, Louisiana
  • Greg Casar, Texas
  • Ed Case, Hawaii
  • Sean Casten, Illinois
  • Kathy Castor, Florida
  • Joaquin Castro, Texas
  • Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, Florida
  • Judy Chu, California
  • Katherine Clark, Massachusetts
  • Yvette Clarke, New York
  • Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri
  • James Clyburn, South Carolina
  • Steve Cohen, Tennessee
  • Gerald Connolly, Virginia
  • Luis Correa, California
  • Jim Costa, California
  • Jasmine Crockett, Texas
  • Jason Crow, Colorado
  • Danny Davis, Illinois
  • Madeleine Dean, Pennsylvania
  • Diana DeGette, Colorado
  • Rosa DeLauro, Connecticut
  • Suzan DelBene, Washington
  • Mark DeSaulnier, California
  • Debbie Dingell, Michigan
  • Lloyd Doggett, Texas
  • Veronica Escobar, Texas
  • Anna Eshoo, California
  • Adriano Espaillat, New York
  • Lizzie Fletcher, Texas
  • Bill Foster, Illinois
  • Valerie Foushee, North Carolina
  • Lois Frankel, Florida
  • Maxwell Frost, Florida
  • John Garamendi, California
  • Jesús “Chuy” Garcia, Illinois
  • Robert Garcia, California
  • Sylvia Garcia, Texas
  • Dan Goldman, New York
  • Jimmy Gomez, California
  • Al Green, Texas
  • James Himes, Connecticut
  • Steny Hoyer, Maryland
  • Valerie Hoyle, Oregon
  • Jared Huffman, California
  • Glenn Ivey, Maryland
  • Jonathan Jackson, Illinois
  • Sara Jacobs, California
  • Pramila Jayapal, Washington
  • Hakeem Jeffries, New York
  • Henry “Hank” Johnson, Georgia
  • Sydney Kamlager-Dove, California
  • Bill Keating, Massachusetts
  • Robin Kelly, Illinois
  • Ro Khanna, California
  • Dan Kildee, Michigan
  • Derek Kilmer, Washington
  • Andy Kim, New Jersey
  • Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
  • Ann Kuster, New Hampshire
  • Greg Landsman, Ohio
  • Rick Larsen, Washington
  • John Larson, Connecticut
  • Barbara Lee, California
  • Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
  • Teresa Leger Fernandez, New Mexico
  • Ted Lieu, California
  • Zoe Lofgren, California
  • Doris Matsui, California
  • Lucy McBath, Georgia
  • Jennifer McClellan, Virginia
  • Betty McCollum, Minnesota
  • Morgan McGarvey, Kentucky
  • James McGovern, Massachusetts
  • Gregory Meeks, New York
  • Rob Menendez, New Jersey
  • Grace Meng, New York
  • Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
  • Gwen Moore, Wisconsin
  • Joseph Morelle, New York
  • Seth Moulton, Massachusetts
  • Kevin Mullin, California
  • Jerrold Nadler, New York
  • Grace Napolitano, California
  • Richard Neal, Massachusetts
  • Joe Neguse, Colorado
  • Donald Norcross, New Jersey
  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
  • Ilhan Omar, Minnesota
  • Frank Pallone, New Jersey
  • Nancy Pelosi, California
  • Scott Peters, California
  • Brittany Pettersen, Colorado
  • Dean Phillips, Minnesota
  • Chellie Pingree, Maine
  • Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
  • Katie Porter, California
  • Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
  • Mike Quigley, Illinois
  • Delia Ramirez, Illinois
  • Jamie Raskin, Maryland
  • Deborah Ross, North Carolina
  • Raul Ruiz, California
  • C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Maryland
  • Linda Sánchez, California
  • John Sarbanes, Maryland
  • Mary Scanlon, Pennsylvania
  • Janice Schakowsky, Illinois
  • Adam Schiff, California
  • Bradley Schneider, Illinois
  • Robert “Bobby” Scott, Virginia
  • David Scott, Georgia
  • Terri Sewell, Alabama
  • Brad Sherman, California
  • Darren Soto, Florida
  • Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
  • Haley Stevens, Michigan
  • Marilyn Strickland, Washington
  • Mark Takano, California
  • Shri Thanedar, Michigan
  • Mike Thompson, California
  • Bennie Thompson, Mississippi
  • Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
  • Jill Tokuda, Hawaii
  • Paul Tonko, New York
  • Norma Torres, California
  • Ritchie Torres, New York
  • Lori Trahan, Massachusetts
  • David Trone, Maryland
  • Lauren Underwood, Illinois
  • Juan Vargas, California
  • Marc Veasey, Texas
  • Nydia Velázquez, New York
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida
  • Maxine Waters, California
  • Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
  • Nikema Williams, Georgia
  • Frederica Wilson, Florida.

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/09/list-of-158-democrats-who-voted-against-the-deportation-of-migrant-rapists-and-sex-abusers/

Skimming Your MOney & ID — USE CASH!!!!

How to Detect ATM and Credit Card Skimmers that Can Gain Access Your Money

]’Skimming’ is a crime that involves a device that is placed over an ATM/ credit card payment machine that collects data from people who pay for items with a card and allows the thieves to access their data to create a counterfeit card. Skimming costs banks and financial institutions over $1 billion per year and is on the rise. The videos below show how to avoid the scam. 48 people affiliated with a Romanian crime ring were arrested in Orange County, California in January for skimming crimes with EBT cards. Two months ago, six illegal aliens were arrested in Los Angeles for skimming. [/su_note]

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/09/how-to-detect-atm-and-credit-card-skimmers-that-can-gain-access-your-money/

Coming Soon — Ads in Your Cars

Driven by Ads: Ford’s Patent Paves the Way for Eavesdropping on the Road

And the cherry on top: “Determining user preferences for advertisements from any one or more of audio signals within the vehicle and/or historical user data, selecting a number of the advertisements to present to the user during the trip, and providing the advertisements to the user during the trip through a human-machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle.”

Driven by Ads: Ford’s Patent Paves the Way for Eavesdropping on the RoadImage Credit: Wirestock / Getty
SHARE
LIVE
gab

Ford has filed a patent that is supposed to provide what the car manufacturer calls “in-vehicle advertising.” The solution is to eavesdrop on what’s being said in the vehicle, correlate that with location and other data, and serve “bespoke” ads.

The patent reveals systems and methods that would achieve the goal of targeting ads to car occupants, using their conversations.

Cars have long since become yet another common place where people’s privacy is being slowly eroded – but some observers are now wondering if the latest idea out of Ford may be “crossing the line.”

Whether or not Ford’s patent, which takes intrusive advertising practices to another level, would face any type of backlash from buyers of their machines remains to be seen; but even some advertising professionals are worried things may be getting out of hand at this point.

Diagram of a vehicle's dashboard with a steering wheel and a screen displaying a selected advertisement, connected through a network to a service provider. The vehicle's subsystems include a controller with processor and memory, a sensor platform, a voice command system, an HMI, and a communications interface.

What makes this scenario significantly different from users acquiescing to having their personal data hoovered up by large online platforms and enduring (even when “targeted” often irrelevant) ads in order to use those platforms “for free” – is that they have already paid for their car.

But now they are expected to subject themselves to a new level of surveillance, and keep paying – and with some very dear currency. Namely, extensive information about their communications, locations, direction – and intentions.

The patent indicates where the automotive industry would like to be heading – tapping into the vast amounts of money swirling around the murky ad industry while disregarding their customers’ basic interests.

Determining vehicle information for a trip 502 Determining user information that can comprise any one or more of a route prediction for the trip, a speed prediction for the trip, and/or a destination 504 Determining user preferences for advertisements from any one or more of audio signals within the vehicle and/or historical user data 506 Selecting a number of the advertisements to present to the user during the trip 508 Providing the advertisements to the user during the trip through a human-machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle 510

But, Ford made sure to point out that applying for a patent doesn’t mean it will be implemented, nor, according to a spokesperson, should this one be viewed as “an indication of our business or product plans.” (Shouldn’t it, though?)

Another point Ford tries to make is that this is also about building an intellectual property portfolio. But that just reaffirms suspicions that the car industry may indeed be moving in the radically dystopian direction outlined in the patent.

Just in case it does become a feature in Ford cars, here’s what it would take to determine “vehicle information”: location, speed, drive mode, user data such as route prediction, destination, etc.

And the cherry on top: “Determining user preferences for advertisements from any one or more of audio signals within the vehicle and/or historical user data, selecting a number of the advertisements to present to the user during the trip, and providing the advertisements to the user during the trip through a human-machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle.”

from:    https://www.infowars.com/posts/driven-by-ads-fords-patent-paves-the-way-for-eavesdropping-on-the-road

What’s in Your Soda?

Fluorescent nanoparticles present in Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola: physiochemical properties, cytotoxicity, biodistribution and digestion studies

Affiliations

2018 Feb;12(1):49-62.

doi: 10.1080/17435390.2017.1418443. Epub 2017 Dec 20

Abstract

Foodborne nanoparticles (NPs) have drawn great attention due to human health concerns. This study reports the detection of the presence of fluorescent NPs, about 5 nm, in two of the most popular beverages, Coca-Cola (Coke) and Pepsi-Cola (Pepsi). The NPs contain H, C and O, three elements with a tunable emission and with a quantum yield of 3.3 and 4.3% for Coke and Pepsi, respectively. The presence of sp3-hybridized carbon atoms of alcohols and ethers bonds was confirmed by NMR analysis. The NPs can be taken up by living cells and accumulate within cell membrane and cytoplasm. Evaluation of the acute toxicity of the NPs revealed that the BALB/c mice appeared healthy after administration of a single dose of 2 g kg-1 body weight. Analysis of glutamate pyruvate transaminase (GPT), glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (GOT), urea and creatinine showed that there were statistically, but not biologically, significant differences in some of these biochemical parameters between the test and control groups. No obvious organ damage or apparent histopathological abnormality was observed in the tested mice. The biodistribution study in major organs indicated that the NPs were easily accumulated in the digestive tract, and they were able to cross the blood-brain barrier and dispersed in the brain. In vitro digestion of the NPs showed a significant fluorescence quenching of the NPs. This work represents the first report of foodborne fluorescent NPs present in Coke and Pepsi, and provides valuable insights into physicochemical properties of these NPs and their toxicity characteristics both in vitro and in vivo.

from:    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29261040/