A Study of the History of US Intelligence Community Human Rights Violations and Continuing Research, by Peter Phillips, Lew Brown and Bridget Thornton
This research explores the current capabilities of the US military to use electromagnetic (EMF) devices to harass, intimidate, and kill individuals and the continuing possibilities of violations of human rights by the testing and deployment of these weapons. To establish historical precedent in the US for such acts, we document long-term human rights and freedom of thought violations by US military/intelligence organizations. Additionally, we explore contemporary evidence of on-going government research in EMF weapons technologies and examine the potentialities of continuing human rights abuses.
[H]undreds of people continue to assert that a person or persons, whom they do not know, have been targeting them with electromagnetic weapons in a widespread campaign of either illegal experimentation or outright persecution.
These experiences involved a number of discrete phenomena:
Hearing voices when no one was present.
Feeling sensations of burning, itching, tickling, or pressure with no apparent physical cause.
Sleeplessness and anxiety as a result of "humming" or "buzzing".
Loss of bodily control, such as twitching or jerking of an arm or leg suddenly and without control.
Unexpected emotional states, such as a sudden overwhelming feeling of dread, rage, lust or sorrow that passes as quickly as it arises.
[T]he Department of Defense calls for new weapons systems designed to work on the psychological underpinnings of a population should give human rights activists great cause for alarm. The use of electromagnetic weapons to alter the emotional state, hamper the ability of an enemy or US citizens, to think clearly, and result in chaos and pain are morally problematic for a number of reasons:
1. Creating fear, anxiety confusion and irrational behavior within an individual or a population is counterproductive to the operations of a free society and to the execution of warfare. Chaos only breeds the need for greater and greater means of physical repression; irrational behavior is by definition unpredictable and as such provides significant difficulty when the task is to secure an area.
2. These weapons leave no tell tale clues. There are no bullet holes or gross damage (with the exception of those designed to maim, burn or explode targets).
3. They are operated from a great distance, meaning that the operator has no feedback as to the effects of his or her actions. This provides us with a very dangerous circumstance very similar to Millgram's experiment where we can predict with certainty gross abuses of power.
4. Any device that invades a persons mind, either through induction of "evoked potentials" through electromagnetic means or through the various "crazy-making" tactics employed in both information warfare and psychological operations is a violation of human rights and cognitive liberty.
and save it for future reference.
Link to source-webpage, obtained via: , February 20, 2008, 6:59am
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)