Records Show Dr. Ford Is Not A Licensed Psychologist, May Have Committed Perjury

From here:

MUCH AS I LAUGH AT THE POMPOUS ARROGANCE OF EVERYONE IN THE "PSYCHOLOGY" FIELD TODAY ANYWAY... THIS TAKES THE CAKE!

According to records, Ford is not licensed in California - or in any other State!

Chadwick Moore | Dangerous - September 28, 2018

Image Credits: YouTube Screenshot.

Testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford identified herself as a ‘psychologist,’ but records indict this is a false statement under California law. Someone at Stanford University also appears to have caught the blunder and edited Ford’s faculty page.

Just one sentence into her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford may have told a lie.

After thanking members of the committee on Thursday, and while under oath, Ford opened her testimony saying, “My name is Christine Blasey Ford, I am a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.”

The issue lies with the word “psychologist,” and Ford potentially misrepresenting herself and her credentials, an infraction that is taken very seriously in the psychology field as well as under California law.

Under California law, in order for a person to identify publicly as a psychologist they must be licensed by the California Board of Psychology, a process that includes 3,000 hours of post-doctoral professional experience and passing two rigorous exams. To call oneself a psychologist without being licensed by a state board is the equivalent of a law school graduate calling herself a lawyer without ever taking the bar exam.

According to records, Ford is not licensed in the state of California. A recent search through the Department of Consumer Affairs License Bureau, which provides a state-run database of all licensed psychologists in California, produced no results for any variation of spelling on Ford’s name. If Ford at one time had a license but it is now inactive, she would legally still be allowed to call herself a “psychologist” but forbidden from practicing psychology on patients until it was renewed. However, the database would have shown any past licenses granted to Ford, even if they were inactive.

Ford also does not appear to have been licensed in any other states outside California. Since graduating with a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Southern California in 1996 it does not appear Ford has spent any significant amount of time outside the state. She married her husband in California in 2002, and completed a master’s degree in California in 2009. She reportedly completed an internship in Hawaii, but a search of Hawaii’s Board of Psychology licensing databased also did not turn up any results for Ford.

What makes Ford’s claim even more suspicious is someone affiliated with Stanford University appears to have also been aware of the potentially damning use of the word “psychologist” and rushed to cover for Ford. DANGEROUS exclusively uncovered an archived version of Christine’s Blasey’s page on the school’s faculty directory. On September 10, 2015, the only archived date available, Ford’s faculty page was saved to the Wayback Machine and showed Ford listed as a “research psychologist” along with her email address and office phone number.

The most recent version of that page shows Ford listed only as an “Affiliate” in the department, with the words “research psychologist” removed along with Ford’s email address and phone number. This suggests the page was altered by someone very recently to scrub Ford’s contact information and title after she entered the national spotlight.


It is common for academics and researchers in psychology to not hold a license. California law does not prohibit anyone from engaging in research, teaching, or other activities associated with psychology if they are not licensed, so long as those individuals do not use the word “psychologist” when referring to themselves publicly.

Several searches on California’s licensing database revealed many of Ford’s colleagues in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Studies at Stanford are not licensed psychologists in California, including the department chairman Laura Roberts, who identifies herself only as a professor. Of the unlicensed members of the faculty — which includes researchers, clinicians, professors, and fellows — none refer to themselves as a “psychologist” or “psychiatrist,” unless they also had a license issued in California.

Aside from potentially misleading the committee, Ford also appears to have violated California law. California’s Business and Professional Code Sections 2900-2919govern the state’s laws for practicing psychology. Section 2903 reads, “No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.” Section 2902(c) states: (c) “A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when the person holds himself or herself out to the public by any title or description of services incorporating the words “psychology,” “psychological,” “psychologist,” “psychology consultation,” “psychology consultant,” “psychometry,” “psychometrics” or “psychometrist,” “psychotherapy,” “psychotherapist,” “psychoanalysis,” or “psychoanalyst,” or when the person holds himself or herself out to be trained, experienced, or an expert in the field of psychology.”

This appears to include titles like “research psychologist.” There is one specific exemption to the law regarding the title “school psychologist,” which refers to school counselors who do not need to be licensed. School psychologists are legally forbidden from referring to themselves as simply “psychologists.”

Whereas the term “research psychologist” may be common in academic parlance, the issue seems to be publicly presenting oneself under any title containing the word “psychologist” if a person is not licensed. Ford is a professor and a researcher, but not a psychologist. Section 2910 of the law states,

“This chapter shall not be construed to restrict the practice of psychology on the part of persons who are salaried employees of accredited or approved academic institutions, public schools, or governmental agencies, if those employees are complying with the following (1) Performing those psychological activities as part of the duties for which they were hired. (2) Performing those activities solely within the jurisdiction or confines of those organizations. (3) Do not hold themselves out to the public by any title or description of activities incorporating the words “psychology,” “psychological,” or “psychologist.”

It is unknown why Ford, 51, a seasoned academic in the field of psychology would have made such an obvious mistake unless she was unaware of the law or trying to intentionally mislead the public and members of the committee about her credentials in the field of psychology. Her bizarre testimony often veered off into psychological jargon about brain chemistry, memory storage, and how trauma effects the brain, analysis one would expect from a clinical psychologist, rather than an academic involved in research. When asked by committee members of her most vivid memory from the attack that allegedly occurred nearly 40 years ago, Ford responded, “Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two [men], and their having fun at my expense,” referring to the part of the brain mainly associated with memory. When discussing her trauma, Ford replied, “The etiology of anxiety and PTSD is multifactorial. [The incident] was certainly a critical risk factor. That would be a predictor of the [conditions] that I now have … I can’t rule out that I would have some biological predisposition to be an anxious-type person.”

Yet, Ford’s academic focus for years has been statistics, not memory or trauma. To look at her as some sort of expert in this area would be like asking a podiatrist about heart disease simply because he’s in the medical field. Still, the media ate it up. Hours after her testimony ended, various mainstream media outlets falsely identified Ford as a “psychologist” and praised her approach to science during the hearing, calling the statistician an “expert” on issues more closely related to clinical psychology.

The Washington Post ran a headline that simply read, “Christine Blasey Ford, psychologist,” The Atlantic’s headline read, “Christine Blasey Ford, A Psychologist, Testifies to Congress,” Slate‘s headline read, “Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony combined her own expert analysis of the situation,” The New Yorker‘s headline read “Christine Blasey Ford is Serving As Both A Witness And An Expert,” and the Wall Street Journal ran with “Ford’s Testimony Reminds Us That She’s A Psychologist.” As of Friday morning, Ford’s Wikipedia entry also identified her occupation as “Psychologist.” According to California law, all of these are false. Ford is not a psychologist.

The Senate judiciary committee is set to decide Friday on a date for Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote.

If Ford committed perjury, she could face up to five years in federal prison.
Dangerous

Was Muhammad Honest? Islam's Sealed Nectar Explained

Thoughts are prioritized by emotional tags (in order of the magnitude of fear).

People are bi-polar in that if and when they can't immediately deal with a feared event, they will instantly go to the opposite pole on the emotional continuum (hope) to relieve and cancel the fear chemicals.

When they can't either deal with or postpone their fears, (including by convincing their subconscious that they weren't as inevitably scary as previously presumed - which, if one develops such bargains into habitually lying to one's self, can develop into a circular cycle of thought-killing psycho-pathy, or paranoid masochistic hypocrisy) then they must self-medicate (which can of course lead to delinquency).

Peoples' brains like to save multitasking space by generalizing multiples into smaller group idols. It's also known as "grouping things together."

People who choose to be paranoid and so make it easier to handle their own fears by ascribing to them a single cause, thereby also inflict perpetual masochism on them selves.

Knowing they cannot appease their devil-god, they can only enforce its will - which they perceive as inflicting damage, pain, and (eventually, hopefully permanent) death, all of which will at least cancel the additional pains of the anticipatory fears.

But to do so they must not admit to it, and so they become hypocrites to cover up their chosen actions.

Therefore they must also, perversely, "project" the pretense that each and every apparently separate, disjointed component part of "allah" is an enemy in itself because it is a perverse hypocrite refusing to admit unity!

This, they presume, must be why allah gave them rage and a small ability to affect the world. Otherwise, if they truly were to Submit, they'd be Buddhist pacifists, letting allah kill them! So this life is a simple test: one can either embrace everything equally, or do nothing at all. To act, is to attack! Some things may be distasteful and good, others delicious and bad. Only allah knows! Besides, in not teaching other people how to self-resurrect, Christianity is only another of allah's taunts!

In islam, allah's "TEST" in life is one of constant and multiple attacks - because consciousness itself prioritizes fear, we are all in a state of terror. Also since it's a drawn-out pain process, allah allows some of his attacks to seem to fail, engendering the temporary reliefs from pain-causing damage called hope and the remembered pains called fears, in what the Buddhists call the unending cycle of dharma.

So, since allah is not only always attacking us first, but also allows us to perceive and conceive of these attacks, we are left with a single, ongoing dilemma: to passively accept and ignore the attacks, or to honestly inventory our own responses of fear, greed, and hope as an equally valid part of this process - including our angry desires to counter-attack at least those component parts of the attack process presented to us in such a way that we actually can, in whatever limited ways and by whatever limited means, affect them even if we have no ultimate hope of ever being able to truly influence, much less deter and stop, the whole?

In such a "Kill AND be killed" environment, which is the more honest approach?

To pretend to be divided from allah, by rejecting (and so, ""failing") his test entirely, accepting in a perversely "hypocritical" manner to be better than he, by allowing him to destroy one?

Or by playing his game, acknowledging that each and every person, animal, and object are presented to one as falsely divided, to be set right by being destroyed by one, and thus re-integrated with his whole?

If the latter is the more honest and noble choice, then one can also use this truth to convince everyone else to engage in the same mutually destructive, adversarial kill-and-be-killed aggression of eternal war (aka to leftists, "the eternal struggle") too!

And, if this is the correct path, then "god" will allow it all!

The Buddhist and Christian response of doing nothing to oppose evil in order to transcend the struggle entirely, is literally no choice at all!

That is the "sealed nectar," or hidden, underlying truth of islam. In that much, Muhammad was honest - and so also justified in lying to everyone else in order to advance only himself against the myriad strawmen images of "other" people which allah had presented to him to give him the pleasure of destroying.

The rest of the Qur'an, ahadith, and all the collated sharia maddhab fiqhs only show how he went about it: pretending to go into holy trances to delay his opponents' questions, in order to buy him the time to out-maneuver them.

By always deferring to the "Will of Allah" and equally by forcing others to pray five times a day, to keep them distracted and controlled, he was able to pretend to be but a humble mortal man, and so by playing dumb and acting stupid, he could both claim all rights as his idol's sole only and last "prophit," while also shirking all responsibility for same.

Declaring him self the perfect example of humanity for all mankind, he set him self up as the perfect template of psychopathy for ever!

After that, it was all whimsically random attacks ("In the Way of Allah!") on everything and every one, might-makes-right, including the "War IS Deceit" war of the mind and the mighty power of the Lie. Perhaps this honest liar's circle-squaring psychopathy is more common than we think (liberals)!

Tech Fascists' War on The West Accelerates

From the unusual suspect:

Even though we totally disagree on some main points (his infamous Jew-hatred, for instance, my constant challenging of which got me banned from his site forever - which is ironic as he now complains about being censored himself LOL) he's still a good writer and right more than he's left  ... er, I mean, wrong!

"You might have heard that the major tech companies have been censoring political views that they don’t like. I was permanently banned from every major social media and payment platform last year, along with a bunch of other alt right types. Others received more subtle forms of censorship, like Diamond & Silk who found out their content was deemed “unsafe” and demoted, only after complaining to Facebook about a sudden drop in audience engagement. Dennis Prager had his videos censored on YouTube and just a few days later, on Facebook as well. Several Republican congressmen found out via Vice News that Twitter was demoting their content, supposedly based on some sort of algorithm. More recently, Alex Jones got the Christopher Cantwell treatment, as he was banned from all the major platforms in a matter of days.

Despite this abundance of evidence, Google, Twitter, and Facebook have all denied that they censor on ideological or partisan grounds. They are just removing terrorist propaganda, foreign influence, and hate speech, all of which coincidentally happens to strongly resemble the speech and activity patterns of their political and ideological opponents. In fairness, they have been happy to correct these “mistakes” as soon as someone powerful enough finds out what they are doing, but it never seems to take too long for another “mistake” to be discovered.

If you’re not stupid, you’ve probably already figured out that this is an effort to influence the upcoming midterm elections which, at the time of this writing, are just 52 days away. Even if the federal government acts to stop this manipulation, there is nothing they can do to undo the damage that has been done. The Democrats will go into this election with a very distinct advantage, and if they regain any measure of power, they will use it to make sure this problem is not fixed.

Not long ago, Democrats and their accomplices called us conspiracy theorists for saying this, but it is becoming more difficult to deny by the day.

A leaked email composed by Google’s former head of “multicultural marketing” details a range of efforts to increase Latino voter turnout. This was supposedly a “non-partisan” effort in which they “followed our company’s protocols for the elections strategy”. But their intent was revealed to be anything but, when they expressed shock and dismay that so many Latinos voted for Donald Trump. “Ultimately, after all was said and one [sic], the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us. We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did,” the executive wrote.

Trump’s victory resulted in a company meeting at Google. A video of that meeting was recently leaked, and provides us with the clearest evidence to date of Google’s purposeful manipulation of search results and other uses of “the great strength and resources and reach we have” to “advance really important values”. Other highlights include Eileen Naughton, VP of People Operations, promising that Google’s policy team in DC is “all over” the immigration issue and that the company will “keep a close watch on it.” Sergey Brin praises an audience member’s suggestion of increasing matched Google employee donations to progressive groups. Brin also compares Trump voters to “extremists,” arguing for a correlation between the economic background of Trump supporters and the kinds of voters who back extremist movements. Brin says that “voting is not a rational act” and that not all of Trump’s support can be attributed to “income disparity.” He suggests that Trump voters might have been motivated by boredom rather than legitimate concerns. VP for Global Affairs Kent Walker, says Google must ensure the rise of populism doesn’t turn into “a world war or something catastrophic … and instead is a blip, a hiccup.” A Google employee states: “speaking to white men, there’s an opportunity for you right now to understand your privilege” and urges employees to “go through the bias-busting training, read about privilege, read about the real history of oppression in our country.”

Of course, none of this should have come as any surprise to anyone who was paying attention. The Silicon Valley fat cats have long confessed to being leftists. They fire anyone who dares to voice right of center political views. They censor every right winger they can get away with censoring. They team up with the SPLC and ADL to police “offensive content” while telling employees of their company that they find the election of Donald Trump offensive.

In 2016, The Intercept reported that Google had created a remarkable partnership with the Obama White House, providing expertise, services, advice, and personnel for vital government projects. Google representatives attended White House meetings more than once a week, on average, from the beginning of Obama’s presidency through October 2015. Nearly 250 people have shuttled from government service to Google employment or vice versa over the course of his administration.

No other public company approaches this degree of intimacy with government.

(Oh really, Chris? I guess Goldman Sachs isn't a public company, then - my bad)!

;-)

This changed after Trump got elected. Suddenly, Google did not want to help the United States anymore. Google had a contract with the Defense Department to work on artificial intelligence in an effort called “Project Maven”. That contract expires next year, and Google announced that they would not be renewing it because they were “facing internal pressure”.

But you know who they do want to work with? Hillary Clinton. At least twelve employees from the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton Foundation, and the Clinton Health Access Initiative went on to work for Google, while at least fifteen Google employees went on to work for Hillary For America.
Facebook also hired dozens of Clinton or Obama staffers.

Here is a fun experiment, search Google for “transgender” and see how many pages you have to go through before you find something even remotely critical of propagandizing children with ideological horseshit, and pumping them full of puberty blockers until they are old enough to have their genitals mutilated. Pull up Google News and see if any of the sources are from Fox News or Breitbart. Go to Facebook or Twitter and report one of these pages that are calling for the assassination of the President of the United States, and see how long it takes them to tell you this is not a violation of their community standards.

Again, none of this should come as particularly shocking to any Radical Agenda listener. We’ve always known that these people were ideologues who were using their market power to influence government. Wouldn’t you?


There is no such thing as neutral in today’s political environment. Everything has been politicized, and the guy who forgets that forfeits the election. As far as Google, Twitter, and Facebook are concerned, they aren’t censoring us based on ideology or politics. In their minds, there is no other side of the argument, and their standards are mere baseline moral decency. There cannot be any negotiation or coexistence with people like this while we share a system of government. They have to be completely defeated, or they will destroy us."

Soros Lawyer Paid For Kavanaugh Hearing Riots

From here and here:

Bombshell proof of foreign meddling in American politics

(Infowars) – The man who was caught on camera paying off protesters who disrupted the Judge Brett Kavanaugh hearings has been identified as working for a Soros-funded organization.


As we reported yesterday, three doctors said they personally witnessed protesters being paid off before the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing.

“One thing was there were people who had come along… who had a bag of money, and people would hand them a piece of paper, and then they would give them money. So we know money was exchanged for some of the people to be here, just to protest,” said Dr. Tom Schlueter.

One of the women caught on camera being paid off was later seen being ejected from the hearings after demonstrators caused a disruption.

Proof the protestors were paid off in line. #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn

— Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 4, 2018

It has now emerged that the man seen paying off the woman works for a left-wing activist organization funded by billionaire globalist George Soros.

“The man handing money to the Kavanaugh hearing protester is Vinay Krishnan. Consultant/organizer at Center for Popular Democracy,” tweeted Nick Monroe.

The man handing money to the Kavanaugh hearing protester is Vinay Krishnan. Consultant/organizer at Center for Popular Democracy.

> An Organization ON THE RECORD as have received funding from George Soros. https://t.co/ZyaN5UbucD pic.twitter.com/tMmwhc72QB
— Nick Monroe (@nickmon1112) September 6, 2018

Krishnan’s bio lists him as a “social justice attorney”. The Center for Popular Democracy “receives the bulk of its funding from George Soros” and back in May last year announced that they were setting up an “$80 million anti-Trump network that will span 32 states and have 48 local partners.”

While the media obsesses about non-existent Russian interference in the American political system, this represents solid proof of a foreign actor meddling in America’s political system by bankrolling fake astroturf protests designed to sow discord and create division.

Will the fake new mainstream enemedia cover this massive story?

CIA Backed Google Plots Global Tyranny

From here:

As far-fetched as it may seem, the alphabet company Google is looking more and more like the CIA front organization some people claim it is.

Check out this headline from today’s edition of The Intercept:

“WORLD’S LEADING HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS TELL GOOGLE TO CANCEL ITS CHINA CENSORSHIP PLAN”

What business does an internet search engine company have with the leadership of a foreign power which also happens to be an enemy of the United States? According to top human rights groups like Amnesty International, they want to sell the Chinese “a censored version of its search engine” in order to “violate the freedom of expression and privacy rights of millions of internet users in the country.”

The history of the company is strange. Those of us old enough to remember Google’s launch in 1998 may also recall that the fledgling newcomer to the internet search engine business was rich enough to take out full-page newspaper ads flaunting its competitive superiority. It was clear from the outset that Google meant to dominate market share.

Up until that time, America Online (AOL) was the only online corporation with a sophisticated promotional campaign that included mailing so many free installation disks that folks began to use them for drink coasters. 1998 was the same year Microsoft renamed their ISP (internet service provider) service from The Microsoft Network to MSN Internet Access and began to push the MSN brand. However, the company was still figuring out how to market online services effectively.

Not so with Google. Within a month or two of launching their media marketing blitz, the nation began to use the company’s name as a substitute for the phrase “to search online” – and still does. This writer had never seen such rapid mind-control programming regarding the tech sector and was concerned about who was behind the instant institutionalization of Google.

Please understand that, as a search engine, the Google product was far better than its competition. Google announced proudly its intention to build algorithms (programmed instructions that tell a computer what to do or how to solve specific problems) to add “semantics” to online searching. Using context as well as keyword matching when evaluating online queries (searches), the new search engine would be able to outperform all the other web robots tasked with “spidering” the World Wide Web – crawling around it, figuratively speaking, looking for content to analyze.

Compared to W3Catalog (the very first search engine), Aliweb, Infoseek, Webcrawler, Altavista, Lycos, and Ask Jeeves (renamed Ask.com), Google delivered the goods as useful links to online content in response to all kinds of questions and searches.

But recent news headlines confirm the creepy feeling that Google is not a user-friendly organization.

Consider this from Infowars – the alternative media news source that so threatens the mainstream narrative that all the major social media platforms banned it last week:

“YOUTUBE MEDDLES IN SWEDISH ELECTION BY DELETING RIGHT-WING CONTENT – Massive censorship just 13 days before the vote”

Guess who owns YouTube, the dominating international self-publishing platform for video content? Starts with a ‘G’ and rhymes with ‘oogle,’ that’s who. Joining the ranks of media controllers who have instructions from the intelligence community to silence the noisiest dissenters, YouTube executives are parroting the trendy and oh-so-politically-correct accusation of hate speech to target and neutralize opposing views.

Recently, according to Infowars:

“A satirical cartoon video that lampooned Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven was deleted within two hours after YouTube deemed it to contain ‘hateful’ content. The short film, entitled ‘To Make it Right,’ made fun out of numerous Swedish politicians for their obsession with being politically correct. Apparently, this now qualifies as hate speech in the Scandinavian country.”

Last July, thirteen days before the Swedish elections, YouTube deleted and then restored the entire video channel operated by a right-wing political party called Alternative for Sweden. In response, Alternative for Sweden called the episode a “complete scandal” in a tweet that continued:

“YouTube is again on the offensive and censors all options for Sweden’s video clips.”

In early August 2018, YouTube summarily deleted a video on the Sweden Democrats channel which linked the Social Democrats party to the Nazi regime. Again, the charge from the social media controller was hate speech contained in the historical fact-based report. An indignant tweet from the Swedish Dems read:

“For two days our documentary on the history of the Social Democrats was published on YouTube. In a short amount of time the footage received 190,000 views before it was removed. We are waiting for an explanation.”

It turns out that Google was the brainchild of the U.S. intelligence community who envisioned a future internet that would no longer be free (as it was in the late 1990s), but controlled by government forces with the ability to block user access, limit content, and track people online.

The partnering of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) with the brightest brains in computer science was, from the start, a dark, Orwellian plot. According to Jeff Nesbit, writing for Quartz late last year:

“The intelligence community hoped that the nation’s leading computer scientists could take non-classified information and user data, combine it with what would become known as the internet, and begin to create for-profit, commercial enterprises to suit the needs of both the intelligence community and the public. They hoped to direct the supercomputing revolution from the start in order to make sense of what millions of human beings did inside this digital information network. That collaboration has made a comprehensive public-private mass surveillance state possible today.”

The problem Google solved was not how to collect vast amounts of personal user information, but how to make meaningful sense out of it all. The military mindset realized that scientific problem solvers held the key to ruling the internet and turning it into a fascist tool against the common good.

Consider how far we’ve come from the first CIA/NSA briefing with top university computer scientists in 1995. The intelligence community had already conceived their goal: to take all data available and sort it into meaningful categories to group people by their online activities, interests and purchases.

According to Nesbit, in early 1995, the Fairmont Hotel in San Jose, California (part of the new Silicon Valley) hosted the “Birds of a Feather Session on the Intelligence Community Initiative in Massive Digital Data Systems” unclassified briefing. The Deep State operatives wanted a digital fingerprint tracking system so they posed this challenge to the geeks:


“Could an entire world of digital information be organized so that the requests humans made inside such a network be tracked and sorted? Could their queries be linked and ranked in order of importance? Could ‘birds of a feather’ be identified inside this sea of information so that communities and groups could be tracked in an organized way?”

The short answer is yes.

From digital fingerprint scans into a national (or global) database, citizens have lost their right to privacy in so many other known ways: notably, as disclosed in 2013 by insider whistle-blower Edward Snowden, the NSA illegally began to collect all private user data to store away for future analysis, if and should the perceived need arise. They still do.

In fact, both aisles of Congress passed a bill to renew both the NSA’s Prism and Upstream programs on to President Trump for his final approval. These programs spy on internet traffic of foreigners outside the United States. However, some incidental data is also collected on unwitting U.S. citizens who communicate with NSA-targeted foreigners.

Although Operations Prism and Upstream involve blatant civil rights violations, both programs are legally authorized and warranted. How exactly does that work again?

Nesbit observed:

“It almost seems like mass global surveillance of the internet isn’t controversial in the US anymore.”


Google is helping China and Japan perfect their choke-hold surveillance state systems. Britain and the United States are well on their way in this direction. You can bet other nations will follow, creating a network of global media tyranny, the ultimate tool to spread statist propaganda and suppress all opposing voices.