Chicago holds a record number of surveillance cameras, estimated at up to 10,000. Public and private old-school and state-of-the-art lenses watch citizens round the clock.
The network is said to cost 60 million dollars. RT’s Anastasia Churkina travels to Chicago to discover what this means for privacy in America, considering the city’s darkest chapters of history when the Red Squad — special police squads — unlawfully spied on citizens who were politically unfavorable.
Big Brother – 1984 – Orwellian – Police State – Patriot Act – Tyranny – Terrorism Fear – CCTV
Big Brother Coming Soon To A Neighborhood Near YOU! Atlanta’s New City-Wide Surveillance
CCTV – Police State !!!
“If You See Something, Say Something™”
BUT NOT WHEN IT APPLIES TO OBAMA, THE IMPOSTOR
by Gary Stevens
(Oct. 19, 2011) — The program that Janet Napolitano kicked off as the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security has wonderful prospects. As law-abiding and freedom-loving Americans, we fully support this program. We love our country so much that we actually did not need the prompting to act on things criminal, suspicious, or threatening to the USA. The continued vigilance to our American way of life and the vast exponential growth of true patriots to Constitutional adherence will insure the program is a success.
However, it may not be as promoted by the DHS. Very soon, the cooperation by citizens in reporting “something” to the program should reveal the context of what Janet Napolitano meant. So far, the reporting to authorities of plenty of criminal acts goes unabated. The effectiveness of this “see & say” is being tested as I type.
So far, for nearly three years, facts of “seeing something” (way before the program was launched) have poured into the various agencies (FBI, DHS, Congressional Security Council members, etc.). Absolutely nothing has been done. For example, confirmed fraudulent election forms, forged birth record, falsified Social Security number, tampered Selective Service registration, and no documents to support a legitimate ID have all been submitted to various government officials regarding Barry Soetero. Some citizens have introduced confirmed factual documents into the judicial system for an upright judge(s) to determine if evidence presented is worthy of discovery to no avail. Yes, we are “seeing something” and we have been “saying something,” but the very leaders receiving the information are morally blind and deceitfully deaf.
In compliance with the thrust of “If You See Something, Say Something™”, here is our reasonable duty is for the Republic: tell everyone you know the “suspicious behavior” of Barry Soetero. Look for historical facts that contradict his “story.” Those in the Southern California area, ask everybody who went to school at Occidental during barry’s brief two-year stay (’79-81) if they remember him. It would be surprising that an admissions assistant, a dorm leader, or a financial aid clerk wouldn’t know the student status of foreigner barry soetero (his last known Indonesian passport name). These collective efforts reveal what DHS encourages us to do if we “see anything” suspicious. For instance, here is a tidbit: the alleged Selective Service registration took place September 4, 1979 in Hawaii. That is awfully “suspicious” since barry was in L.A. on that day attending classes at Occidental.
Big Brother Obama is Watching You! Creepy New Website Monitors Dissent of American Citizens from Obama’s Policies.
The Washington Times Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Be careful, if you dare to criticize Citizen Obama, comrade. The Web is watching. This week, President Obama’s re-election team launched “Attack Watch,” an interactive website that allows the president’s registered supporters to report instances of “attacks” against the commander in chief or his record. Citizen snitches are asked to detail who the attacker is, the type of attack, and whether the offending words were actually heard or passed along as second-hand rumors. The “Attack Files” section provides summary responses to some common smears. For example, the site explains that, “President Obama is a friend to Israel, despite unfounded claims to the contrary.” For critics, it represents a handy list of the issues that most infuriate the White House.
The look and feel of the site conveys a sense of foreboding. It’s Web design by Orwell. A black background, stark red headers and white text surround the site’s own attacks. Grainy black-and-white photos depict those on the White House hit list, which includes the likes of Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck. The design is so unconsciously theatrical and amateurish it is hard to believe it is not a parody.
It’s not the first time Mr. Obama has attempted to harness the Internet to create a nation of informants. In August 2009, the White House set up the email address “firstname.lastname@example.org” to gather information during the debate over Obamacare. According to an official press release, people were actually supposed to send a note to the White House “if you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy.” The effort raised serious concern over the appearance that the administration might be compiling an enemies list. As if the privacy implications weren’t bad enough, the address became instant spam bait. After three weeks of withering criticism, the White House abandoned its fishing expedition.
“Attack Watch” appears to be following the same path. This Obama public relations fiasco raises the question why the White House thought it was necessary in the first place. It is easy enough to monitor websites and keep track of memes through keyword searches, email alerts, aggregation sites or simply checking out the Drudge Report. The real purpose of “Attack Watch” has less to do with collecting stories than amassing email lists and contributions. The site prompts users to “support the truth” with essentially untraceable online donations. It asks for email addresses and ZIP codes of those who join the “attack wire.” Such information could come in handy to mobilize ground troops during the 2012 election. Someone willing to take the time to submit reports on their neighbors for allegedly smearing Mr. Obama is probably willing to work energetically to get voters to the polls.
“Attack Watch” reinforces the sense that there is something not quite right about the O Force. Building a national database of informants is the work of an obsessive, fearful and desperate team. It reflects the strident insecurity of a leader who is not used to hard criticism. It plays to the creepy authoritarian strain of leftist politics, the stratum that considers democracy a messy and useless impediment to the realization of utopia. It is a bad idea, poorly executed. If you’d like to report us for saying so, the address is
by: Bryant NoObama
A new government commercial currently running on one of Britain’s most popular radio stations is selling one thing – fear – by encouraging Londoners to report their neighbors as terrorists if they use cash, enjoy their privacy, or even close their curtains.
The advertisement, produced in conjunction with national radio outlet TallkSport, promotes the “anti-terrorist hotline” and encourages people to report individuals who don’t talk to their neighbors much, people who like to keep themselves to themselves, people who close their curtains, and people who don’t use credit cards.
“This may mean nothing, but together it could all add up to you having suspicions,” states the voice on the ad, before continuing “We all have a role to play in combating terrorism” (we’re all indentured stasi informants for the government).
“If you see anything suspicious, call the confidential anti-terrorist hotline….if you suspect it, report it,” concludes the commercial.
What’s infinitely more disturbing is the deeper message the government is trying to force upon the public – that everyone has a responsibility to act as a citizen spy, a Stasi informant working for the state, and that everyone is under constant suspicion no matter how apparently benign their behavior.
This has nothing to do with catching non-existent terrorists and everything to do with creating the perception that anyone who attempts to live their life even marginally outside of the system, by not having a credit card for example, is a potential danger to the rest of the sheep who have chosen to remain firmly inside the confines of the pen.This is about getting the other inmates to police any other prisoner who dares to step outside the boundary of the cell.
Another aspect is the accelerating attempt to create a cashless society where every transaction is tracked and recorded. To predominantly eliminate the use of cash, it has to be demonized as suspicious, dirty and criminal.
People who have been reading this website will know that we have tracked the evolution of these kind of campaigns with increasing horror at their resemblance to the darkest days of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany.
Similar previous “anti-terror” campaigns have featured posters that imply people who get refunds, live in apartments, or drive vans should be reported. Does that sound incredible? It’s true, the London Metropolitan Police actually ran a campaign encouraging people to report individuals as potential terrorists because they had a home, under the slogan, “Terrorists need places to live. Are you suspicious of your tenants or neighbors?”
A more recent campaign encouraged citizens to study the contents of each others’ trash and report anything suspicious, as well as to grass up individuals who glanced at the millions of CCTV cameras that line every major street in the country. Staring back at big brother is a sign of terrorism, according to the British government. People who use mobile phones, cameras and computers were also labeled suspected terrorists.
As America and Britain sink deeper into militarized police states, society begins to parallel more and more aspects of Nazi Germany, especially in the context of citizens being turned against each other, which in turn creates a climate of fear and the constraining sense that one is always being watched.
One common misconception about Nazi Germany was that the police state was solely a creation of the authorities and that the citizens were merely victims. On the contrary, Gestapo files show that 80% of all Gestapo investigations were started in response to information provided by denunciations by “ordinary” Germans.
“There were relatively few secret police, and most were just processing the information coming in. I had found a shocking fact. It wasn’t the secret police who were doing this wide-scale surveillance and hiding on every street corner. It was the ordinary German people who were informing on their neighbors,” wrote Robert Gellately of Florida State University.
Gellately discovered that the people who informed on their neighbors were motivated primarily by banal factors – “greed, jealousy, and petty differences,” and not by a genuine concern about crime or insecurity.
Gellately “found cases of partners in business turning in associates to gain full ownership; jealous boyfriends informing on rival suitors; neighbors betraying entire families who chronically left shared bathrooms unclean or who occupied desirable apartments.”
“And then there were those who informed because for the first time in their lives someone in authority would listen to them and value what they said.”
Gellately emphasizes the fact that the Germans who sicked the authorities on their neighbors knew very well what the consequences for the victims would be – families torn apart, torture and internment in concentration camps, and ultimately in many cases death – but they still did it with few qualms because the rewards of financial bounties and mere convenience were deemed more important to them.
This strikes at the root of the selfish and childish urges the government is trying to manipulate in getting people to report on their neighbors. The self-important feeling of being listened to, ascribed some temporary sense of authority, and the cult-like pavlovian reward of being metaphorically patted on the head by someone in a uniform, are all tendencies such campaigns play on.
However, if we don’t want to end up in a society that exists in a constant state of tyranny and fear as in Stasi East Germany or Stalinist Russia, we must learn that our neighbors are not our enemies, and that the only real threat against which we need to unite is an oppressive state that tries to destroy us by turning us against each other.
NWO – Big Brother – CCTV – 1984 – Ports – Parking Lots – Airports – Highways – Homes