We showed a video of a reporter for NATION magazine suggesting as we do that allowing a GLOBAL PRIVATELY-OWNED MERCENARY corporation install itself inside US cities is a threat to national sovereignty and constitutes building and housing a FOREIGN STANDING ARMY.
The interpretation of this ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8 of our US Constitution has been debated from the start---
Continuous wars have been used global 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA to build this standing army OUTSIDE OF US----as we see
NO APPROPRIATION OF MONEY TO THAT USE SHALL BE FOR LONGER TERM THAN TWO YEARS.
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
The second issue in this Article 1 Section 8 deals with what constitutes a reason for allowing a standing army inside US ---and that is TO REPEAL INSURRECTIONS ----this is why OBAMA and Clinton neo-liberals created laws identifying US citizens as capable of being sovereign 'terrorists' and it is why those FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% call themselves REVOLUTIONARIES----while REAL left social progressives simply shout for people to use their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PEACEFUL PROTESTS.
OUR REVOLUTION are the 5% moving forward ONE WORLD FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1%---it is not the 99% standing up for their rights as citizens. When we allow terms like REVOLUTION be tied to what is simply protest movements it creates that reason for STANDING ARMY-----ERGO, bringing in global private mercenary military corporations like BLACKWATER/XE.
'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions'
Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution- Is a Standing Army Unconstitutional?
In article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution there is a very interesting little bit.
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
Here is the rest of Section 8:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
This is why we have been shouting these several years of Obama for ROLLING PEACEFUL PROTESTS to stop MOVING FORWARD and return to our US Rule of Law. That is the opposite of FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% groups calling for a REVOLUTION AND #RESIST Make no mistake-----this difference is deliberate and is being done to justify creating a standing army inside our US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES like Baltimore.
'Definition of civil disobedience:refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government '
From early in US history the fundamental rights of citizens feeling tyranny from government enshrined the right of CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE---knowingly breaking laws without harming people or property to protest what those citizens felt was TYRANNY. Of course government tyranny looks different from right wing to left wing stances......and Federal laws and court rulings have supported the rights of WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% to use CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE in protest with minimal legal redress. What we showed in a post a few weeks ago were states starting to legislate ONEROUS fines and long jail time for ordinary CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.
When 99% of WE THE PEOPLE see protestors walking onto highways to block traffic for what is very infrequent and often a short period of time and we want to deny citizens that right to CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE to highlight their understanding of government TYRANNY we are killing that same right for all 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.
This is why right wing groups like KKK, SOVEREIGN CITIZENS have been allowed to congregate and march and allowed within reason to do their versions of CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE as well as left wing groups---IT IS ABOUT WHAT EXERCISING RIGHTS AS CITIZENS ENTAILS. It doesn't matter if drivers on highway are delayed for an hour.
When we allow today's captured politicians call ordinary civil disobedience or protest REVOLUTIONARY AND INCENDIARY ---when we allow those same captured politicians to install people inside innocent peaceful protests to create violent actions ---AND WE CAN TELL PEACEFUL PROTEST INTENTIONS from a super-majority of citizens vs those few violent players......we are allowing that global 1% to create EXCUSES for a STANDING ARMY inside our US cities.
Should Conservatives Practice Civil Disobedience?
As same-sex marriage opponents and religious activists feel increasingly beleaguered, some contemplate an unlikely method of resistance.
- James Poulos
- Jun 7, 2015
In a letter to Henry Regnery, publisher of then-forthcoming The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk made his case for defiance as the quintessential act of conservative valor. “By opposing what seems inevitable, often enough we find that its force is not irresistible; and at the worst, we have the satisfaction of the heroic attitude,” he wrote. Kirk, the modern American right’s intellectual godfather, was not indulging romantic daydreams. His intended title for the book was The Conservative Rout, and his wager was on the cosmic significance of defying society's evident fate.
More than half a century on, neither two terms of Reagan nor three terms of Bushes have lessened the sense among many conservatives that the rout goes on. Some on the Christian right now push the “Benedict option”—a retreat from majoritarian politics and into monastic sanctuary, escaping from degeneracy instead of opposing it. But the defiant attitude remains, even among those who place heaven’s justice above human justice. A host of conservatives insist that they must stand and fight, even if the cause seems hopeless, even if the deck is stacked.
In the latest act of defiance, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have joined a host of religious heavyweights in putting their name to a Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. Prepared for the eventuality of a Supreme Court decision that enshrines a right to gay marriage, the Pledge promises what co-drafter Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel flatly calls “civil disobedience.”
“I’m calling for people to not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it’s not grounded in the Rule of Law,” he told Fox News’s Todd Starnes. “They need to resist that ruling in every way possible. In a peaceful way—they need to resist it as much as Martin Luther King, Jr. resisted unjust laws in his time.”
Unfortunately for Staver and company, their conservative invocation of King comes at an especially awkward time. At another bloody crossroads of religion and politics, the tactic has been tried and found wanting. Pamela Geller, of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, drew comparisons to King from conservatives in the wake of her “draw Mohammed contest”—an unpopular, albeit legal, event that attracted murderous opposition. The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto asserted that freedom-lovers must sometimes provoke oppression in order to fight it.
But in the wake of the Baltimore riots, and the long train of racial unrest that precedes it, many Americans are unwilling to let conservatives invoke King’s legacy. On the right, King has become a symbol of how to fight oppression without, well, fighting—despite King’s famous dictum that a riot is the language of the unheard. Liberals incensed by this conservative appropriation of King rallied around the ironic words of Donald Rumsfeld, who described widespread looting in post-Saddam Iraq as the product of “pent-up feelings” resulting “from decades of repression”—indeed, “part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom.”
For conservatives, the paradox is as simple as it is frightening. They not only sense that public opinion is shifting decisively against them on matters of religion and race; they grasp that a central part of this shift involves denying conservatives the benefits extended to American minorities. Conservatives, it seems, do not have the right to claim oppression. Unable to become “just another minority,” or to win the sympathy and special treatment that the mainstream confers on oppressed and marginalized groups, conservatives are beginning to feel that even if civil disobedience isn’t the best option, it may be their last option.
Yet unless civil disobedience can transcend ideology to transform how bystanders see the world, the strategy loses not only its savor but its power.
In that way, it would be no surprise to see conservatives recast the case for civil disobedience in less tribal terms than race or religion allow. And sure enough, Charles Murray—“professional controversy magnet at the American Enterprise Institute,” as one reviewer called him—has set aside the racial focus that charged The Bell Curve and Coming Apart to call for a kind of civil disobedience that all Americans can love, on paper, at least.
In his new book By the People, Murray filters Kirk’s rather stodgy romanticism through the kind of enterprise populism that’s so trendy today. Instead of invoking Charles I or the Sassenach, Murray appeals to Americans’ frustrated belief that, right now, the burdensome venality of their bureaucratic government leaves them too ineffective and too tightly constrained.
But in framing the case for disobedience as a matter of fighting regulations gone wild, Murray runs up against a difficult challenge. The illegitimate government Murray presents is a creation of the left, through and through. By his logic, to oppose it by breaking its laws is to be a conservative. Regardless of how many are swayed on the right by that intellectual sales pitch, it will fail as a social movement if it is seen as a merely conservative undertaking. Civil disobedience cannot succeed if it is regarded by the broader public as the ideological act of a minority.
For conservatives, therefore, successful civil disobedience demands that they step outside their conservative skin—just as whites engaging in civil disobedience must reach beyond their whiteness, and Christians their Christianity. Yet none of these markers of identity can be, or should be, abandoned or wiped away. That is why civil disobedience is such tricky business. It must somehow appeal to a public sense that our government has gone wrong—not just in the aggregate, but so holistically and comprehensively that neither experts, attorneys, nor activists can break it down into distinct problems that policy, or money, can fix.
“Conservative civil disobedience” fails this test. Opposing perceived oppression in the name of humanity might not. Americans are deeply divided on the question of what even counts as oppression. Civil disobedience depends on invoking a legitimate form of freedom that the law cannot supply but only safeguard—from those who govern as well as from those who are goverened. In that sense, conservatives' anxious predicament reflects one that confronts all Americans. Without a shared understanding of the nature of American freedom, any attempt to use civil disobedience to resist a particular set of policies will come off as just another expression of the thirst for political rule.
These continuous wars for several decades have been called POLICE ACTIONS because they failed to meet US Constitutional and Federal rules containing declaration of wars. WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% allowed continuous wars knowing they were illegal and we got this GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL MILITARY COMPLEX that then was allowed to be PRIVATIZED.
So, all the laws were in place AGAINST THESE MILITARY CORPORATIONS---all the laws are in place to keep them from installing themselves inside our US cities---all the laws are in place to keep them from continuous funding. We are simply allowing all those laws and 300 years of legal precedence be IGNORED.
'Madison also noted that never-ending war tends to destroy both liberty and prosperity':
This is the legal stance we take when we shout-----it is illegal to allow global mercenary, military, privately-owned corporations to operate and install standing armies -----headquartered inside our US cities. What global 1% Wall Street CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are telling WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% is this-----US Foreign Economic Zones are not inside US jurisdiction---they are global independent economic zones able to operate as they do overseas. Now, these policies and stances did not exist before CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA -----and they are ILLEGAL ATTACKS OF OUR US AND LOCAL SOVEREIGNTY so these policy stances are ILLEGAL.
A friend comments:
'The second amendment forbids a professional army. That's the reason everyone is supposed to have a gun. Outside of a congressional declaration of war, the only defense force should be locally organized militias operating under the direction of the local state governments
The entire US Code was a subversion of the constitution'.
That is indeed the argument over centuries by citizens fighting for RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.....and they are right. Although, those rights to bear arms was tied to CIVIL DEFENSE----not personal defense. That is the distinction separating left wing and right wing on gun rights outside guns used for hunting.
Who knows this? All FAKE civil rights and civil liberties groups inside US cities pretending they are fighting when doing nothing to stop MOVING FORWARD and the illegal designation of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE stances. These are the 5% trying to lead with words like REVOLUTION when all we need is massive peaceful protest.
The Founding Fathers Warned Against Standing Armies
Posted on November 19, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog
The Founding Fathers – and Freud – Warned Against Standing Armies
The Founding Fathers distrusted standing armies.
For example, James Madison said:
In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
Madison also noted that never-ending war tends to destroy both liberty and prosperity:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
Most US citizens know the INTERNET was developed by the US military for military operations----we know social media was developed by the military for surveillance-----and all that research and development done by 99% of WE THE PEOPLE working for military was sold as patents to a global 1% painted as being GENIUSES OR EXCEPTIONAL.
THE MARKET MADE IT GLORIOUS.
How do you MOVE FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE DEEP STATE FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1%----you make all the technologies needed to build this DEEP STATE fun and interesting for 99% of citizens. Indeed, most citizens will say they enjoy technology advances. DO WE IGNORE GLOBAL 1% GOALS that kill 99% of global citizens just because we enjoy them?
This starts our discussion of robotics which again tied to military development with military goals mainstreamed to marketing making WE THE PEOPLE think all this is about making our lives easier----it is great science.
Mises Daily Articles
Government Did Invent the Internet, But the Market Made It Glorious
06/12/2006Peter G. Klein
Libertarians often cite the internet as a case in point that liberty is the mother of innovation. Opponents quickly counter that the internet was a government program, proving once again that markets must be guided by the steady hand of the state.
In one sense the critics are correct, though not in ways they understand.
The internet indeed began as a typical government program, the ARPANET, designed to share mainframe computing power and to establish a secure military communications network.
Of course the designers could not have foreseen what the (commercial) internet has become. Still, this reality has important implications for how the internet works — and explains why there are so many roadblocks in the continued development of online technologies. It is only thanks to market participants that the internet became something other than a typical government program: inefficient, overcapitalized, and not directed toward socially useful purposes.
In fact, the role of the government in the creation of the internet is often understated.
The internet owes its very existence to the state and to state funding. The story begins with ARPA, created in 1957 in response to the Soviets' launch of Sputnik and established to research the efficient use of computers for civilian and military applications.
During the 1960s, the RAND Corporation had begun to think about how to design a military communications network that would be invulnerable to a nuclear attack. Paul Baran, a RAND researcher whose work was financed by the Air Force, produced a classified report in 1964 proposing a radical solution to this communication problem. Baran envisioned a decentralized network of different types of "host" computers, without any central switchboard, designed to operate even if parts of it were destroyed. The network would consist of several "nodes," each equal in authority, each
Each data fragment could thus travel one of several routes to its destination, such that no one part of the network would be completely dependent on the existence of another part. An experimental network of this type, funded by ARPA and thus known as ARPANET, was established at four universities in 1969.
Researchers at any one of the four nodes could share information, and could operate any one of the other machines remotely, over the new network. (Actually, former ARPA head Charles Herzfeld says that distributing computing power over a network, rather than creating a secure military command-and-control system, was the ARPANET's original goal, though this is a minority view.)
By 1972, the number of host computers connected to the ARPANET had increased to 37. Because it was so easy to send and retrieve data, within a few years the ARPANET became less a network for shared computing than a high-speed, federally subsidized, electronic post office. The main traffic on the ARPANET was not long-distance computing, but news and personal messages.
As parts of the ARPANET were declassified, commercial networks began to be connected to it. Any type of computer using a particular communications standard, or "protocol," was capable of sending and receiving information across the network. The design of these protocols was contracted out to private universities such as Stanford and the University of London, and was financed by a variety of federal agencies. The major thoroughfares or "trunk lines" continued to be financed by the Department of Defense.
By the early 1980s, private use of the ARPA communications protocol — what is now called "TCP/IP" — far exceeded military use. In 1984 the National Science Foundation assumed the responsibility of building and maintaining the trunk lines or "backbones." (ARPANET formally expired in 1989; by that time hardly anybody noticed). The NSF's Office of Advanced Computing financed the internet's infrastructure from 1984 until 1994, when the backbones were privatized.
In short, both the design and implementation of the internet have relied almost exclusively on government dollars. The fact that its designers envisioned a packet-switching network has serious implications for how the internet actually works. For example, packet switching is a great technology for file transfers, email, and web browsing but not so good for real-time applications like video and audio feeds, and, to a lesser extent, server-based applications like webmail, Google Earth, SAP, PeopleSoft, and Google Spreadsheet.
Furthermore, without any mechanism for pricing individual packets, the network is overused, like any public good. Every packet is assigned an equal priority. A packet containing a surgeon's diagnosis of an emergency medical procedure has exactly the same chance of getting through as a packet containing part of Coldplay's latest single or an online gamer's instruction to smite his foe.
Because the sender's marginal cost of each transmission is effectively zero, the network is overused, and often congested. Like any essentially unowned resource, an open-ended packet-switching network suffers from what Garrett Hardin famously called the "Tragedy of the Commons."
In no sense can we say that packet-switching is the "right" technology. One of my favorite quotes on this subject comes from the Netbook, a semi-official history of the internet:
"The current global computer network has been developed by scientists and researchers and users who were free of market forces. Because of the government oversight and subsidy of network development, these network pioneers were not under the time pressures or bottom-line restraints that dominate commercial ventures. Therefore, they could contribute the time and labor needed to make sure the problems were solved. And most were doing so to contribute to the networking community."
In other words, the designers of the internet were "free" from the constraint that whatever they produced had to satisfy consumer wants.
We must be very careful not to describe the internet as a "private" technology, a spontaneous order, or a shining example of capitalistic ingenuity. It is none of these. Of course, almost all of the internet's current applications — unforeseen by its original designers — have been developed in the private sector.
(Unfortunately, the original web and the web browser are not among them, having been designed by the state-funded European Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERN) and the University of Illinois's NCSA.)
And today's internet would be impossible without the heroic efforts at Xerox PARC and Apple to develop a useable graphical user interface (GUI), a lightweight and durable mouse, and the Ethernet protocol. Still, none of these would have been viable without the huge investment of public dollars that brought the network into existence in the first place.
Now, it is easy to admire the technology of the internet. I marvel at it every day. But technological value is not the same as economic value. That can only be determined by the free choice of consumers to buy or not to buy. The ARPANET may well have been technologically superior to any commercial networks that existed at the time, just as Betamax may have been technologically superior to VHS, the MacOS to MS-DOS, and Dvorak to QWERTY. (Actually Dvorak wasn't.) But the products and features valued by engineers are not always the same as those valued by consumers. Markets select for economic superiority, not technological superiority (even in the presence of nefarious "network effects," as shown convincingly by Liebowitz and Margolis).
Libertarian internet enthusiasts tend to forget the fallacy of the broken window. We see the internet. We see its uses. We see the benefits it brings. We surf the web and check our email and download our music. But we will never see the technologies that weren't developed because the resources that would have been used to develop them were confiscated by the Defense Department and given to Stanford engineers. Likewise, I may admire the majesty and grandeur of an Egyptian pyramid, a TVA dam, or a Saturn V rocket, but it doesn't follow that I think they should have been created, let alone at taxpayer expense.
What kind of global computer network would the market have selected? We can only guess. Maybe it would be more like the commercial online networks such as Comcast or MSN, or the private bulletin boards of the 1980s. Most likely, it would use some kind of pricing schedule, where different charges would be assessed for different types of transmissions.
The whole idea of pricing the internet as a scarce resource — and bandwidth is, given current technology, scarce, though we usually don't notice this — is ignored in most proposals to legislate network neutrality, a form of "network socialism" that can only stymie the internet's continued growth and development. The net neutrality debate takes place in the shadow of government intervention. So too the debate over the division of the spectrum for wireless transmission. Any resource the government controls will be allocated based on political priorities.
Let us conclude: yes, the government was the founder of the internet. As a result, we are left with a panoply of lingering inefficiencies, misallocations, abuses, and political favoritism. In other words, government involvement accounts for the internet's continuing problems, while the market should get the credit for its glories.
And here is how global 1% installs a STANDING ARMY inside US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones-----it pretends it is all about AMAZON.COM and other global retail corporations creating drone delivery ------no doubt there will be drone delivery but next to every DRONE DELIVERY BEEHIVE ----there will be GLOBAL MILITARIZED POLICING AND SECURITY standing army drone beehives.
We watched these few decades as military strategists drew plans for housing military drones inside beehive-like structures surrounding cities inside FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. All that development and planning is KNOWN. Flash forward to today and it is our favorite replacement for WALMART as retailer AMAZON.COM now a global monopoly in robotics and drones using domestic market development to install A STANDING DRONE ARMY tied to global mercenary military corporations like BLACKWATER/XE.
Who is tied to Blackwater/XE?
AMAZON.COM=====UNDERARMOUR====GLOBAL JOHNS HOPKINS.
What global corporate campuses are already filling our US city of Baltimore and other US cities across US? These same global corporate campuses.
Amazon patent reveals drone delivery 'beehives'
by Kaya Yurieff @kyurieff June 23, 2017: 9:44 AM ET
Why Amazon is buying Whole Foods
The future of Amazon drone deliveries could start at massive 'beehives."Amazon (AMZN, Tech30) has filed for a patent for beehive-like towers that would serve as multi-level fulfillment centers for its delivery drones to take off and land. The facilities would be built vertically to blend in with high rises in urban areas. Amazon envisions each city would have one.
The patent application, filed in December 2015 and published on Thursday by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, features several drawings of these buildings, such as the beehive, a cylinder-shaped center and one that looks like a UFO.
The towers could support traditional truck deliveries and include a self-service area where customers can pick up items, the patent states. It also details how employees would attach the packages on drones.
Every media outlet tied to MARKETPLACE MONEY is now marketing this idea that BEEHIVES FOR DRONES is only a retail delivery idea and development---no need to be concerned that huge global corporate campuses tied to delivery are really STANDING DRONE ARMIES.
REAL left social progressives are already fighting these structures because they eliminate more and more and more of our job categories-------no one talks of the real goal for global 1% ----that military developmental plan for housing military drones in US cities.
It is all marketed as COOL TECHNOLOGY having that drone drop a package right at our doors in no time flat. We are told 99% of citizens will simply ignore the AIR POLLUTION of noise beyond decimals that harm human hearing---- skies filled with drones make lots of noise----you can ask our overseas global citizens living in drone warfare zones.
Amazon’s vision for the future: delivery drone beehives in every city
26 comments Welcome to Amazontopia
by James Vincent@jjvincent Jun 23, 2017, 4:56am EDT
Amazon’s drone delivery program stopped being a joke a while ago, but the company still has to overcome serious challenges to make the technology actually work. One of these is getting drones near enough to large populations so they’re more efficient than regular road delivery. Amazon has an idea for that though: Huge. Drone. Beehives.
In a patent application published yesterday, Amazon described how “multi-level fulfillment centers for unmanned aerial vehicles” could help put drones where they’re needed. The application notes that due to “their large footprint,” current warehouses are located “on the outskirts of cities where space is available.” But multi-story drone centers could be built vertically, rather than horizontally, allowing them to be placed within “downtown districts and/or other densely populated urban areas.” And, of course, making them high-rises would let the drones fly in and out without getting dangerously close to pedestrians at street level.
Amazon’s application includes sketches of a number of differently shaped buildings and interior views, showing how human employees would load-up the drones with packages:
But flying large numbers of drones in cities invites other problems too. Who’s going to want to live near a drone delivery tower if it makes so much noise? And what if drones start falling out the sky, making impromptu, and possibly fatal, deliveries? Amazon is obviously thinking hard about these problems, and in the same round of patent applications as the delivery beehive, suggests a few solutions.
For drone noise, the company is suggesting custom rotor designs that would chop through the air more quietly. These include adding “trailing edge fringes,” “leading edge serrations,” “sound dampening treatments,” and “blade indentations for sound control” to rotors, but all focus on the same principle: breaking up the airflow around propellers to try and alter or reduce the sound they make.
The image below shows how “trailing edge fringes” — the tiny plant-like fronds — might be added to the rotor blade. These might make drones quieter, but let’s face it: they’ll also look terrifying.
And the last significant item on Amazon’s patent application list? Drones with multiple sets of rotors and motors, so that if one set fails, the other can take over. It’s a simple idea, but an essential one.
Of course, all these are just applications. It doesn’t mean Amazon is necessarily going to build these things, or that drone deliveries will ever become widespread. What it does show, is that the company is continuing to think hard about the future of deliveries. And who knows? These things always seem silly, right up until the point they’re real.
International journalism has documented what civilians in nations tied to continuous wars face on a daily basis. Drone asymmetric warfare is as much psychological as it is tactical. The noise from low-flying drones fills the air with so much noise a community of citizens are literally captured to continuous decibels of noise that harms human health.
We saw that same military tactic in our Baltimore City low-income communities where STATE HELICOPTERS were brought in whenever any protesting looked to be gathering people ---those helicopters were allowed to hover so low above that community to create noise decibels so loud people could not hear others speak right next to them. That was a military policing tactic as well deployed these several years of OBAMA.
What global 1% is now marketing as mainstream domestic retail delivery systems are smaller drones ----it is the volume of drones in the sky that will bring noise decibels to levels above which harm citizens. Most concerning is the installation of regular military drones amidst all those other drones---and the use of BEEHIVE structures morphing from retail delivery into stations for housing militarized, security and policing drones.
As someone living one community over from OLD GOUCHER and as someone knowing the goals of an expanded AMAZON.COM---it is no longer simply that internet site from which we order products -----WE KNOW what this Amazon headquarters will include---we already have that global campus tied to warehousing----we already have that robotics global factory on the way----and now this footprint in the middle of our city central will nail the future development in Baltimore City Central to being totally global corporate campus----NO HOUSING FOR YOU.
We see in this picture all those same 5% to the 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA Baltimore City Council----Baltimore Mayor PUGH----Maryland Governor Hogan ---and all those global Wall Street Baltimore Development 'labor and justice' organization FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT coming out to say THIS IS GREAT FOR CITIZENS---GREAT FOR JOBS---GREAT FOR STEM SCIENCE.
WE SEE AN AMAZON BEEHIVE IN BALTIMORE'S FUTURE PARTNERED WITH MILITARIZED POLICE BLACKWATER/XE being allowed to train our Baltimore Police Department.
Baltimore's Old Goucher neighborhood makes independent bid for Amazon headquarters
Luke BroadwaterContact ReporterThe Baltimore Sun
October 19, 2017
As Baltimore and state officials were promising billions of dollars to bolster Port Covington’s bid for a new Amazon headquarters, the Old Goucher neighborhood had other ideas.
On Thursday, the neighborhood association said it submitted a “completely independent” bid for the corporate behemoth to locate in the center of Baltimore.
“If you look at other cities, they are putting in multiple sites,” said Kelly Cross, president of the Old Goucher Community Association. “This is about all the amazing things we have in center city. I’m sure Port Covington has all its attributes, but so does center city. I can’t think of a better spot in Baltimore than us.”
While city and state officials had dozens of people working on the Port Covington bid, Cross said Old Goucher’s bid was put together completely by volunteers. It stresses central Baltimore’s closeness to universities, restaurants and museums.
It recommends Amazon redevelop the State Center office complex in West Baltimore and the prison complex in East Baltimore.
The bid doesn't offer any additional tax incentives or subsidies, but Cross said he hopes if central Baltimore is chosen, government officials will make such offers.
Amazon is searching nationwide for a second headquarters and the promise of 50,000 jobs. Municipalities from around the country were submitting bids for the coveted project. Baltimore City as well as Charles, Howard, Montgomery and Prince George’s counties are submitting bids for the headquarters, which Seattle-based Amazon announced in September.
Doug Mayer, spokesman for Gov. Larry Hogan, has described the state’s incentive offer as “the largest in state history by a long shot.”
The Port Covington site in South Baltimore is already in line to receive massive subsidies. City officials have approved $660 million in tax-increment-financing bonds to jump-start the project. Those bonds would accumulate $1.4 billion in interest that must be paid to investors. The site is expected to benefit from $760 million in tax breaks as well.
Additionally, the Port Covington developers — who are building a mixed-use project that will be home to a new corporate headquarters for Under Armour — are expecting $350 million in state investment, including a $165 million light rail extension that would run to the site.
This marks the first stage in eliminating what would be middle-class housing in Baltimore's city center as global 1% and their 2% executives push out 99% of WE THE PEOPLE -----you know---those BETTER CITIZENS. Mt Royal is the next community and is being made a global corporate campus for industrial arts tied to global Johns Hopkins with only student housing there. Hopkins Homewood is expanding into our Charles Village community making that community almost exclusively student housing. VOILA----there goes the city center to global 1% and their 2% with a global labor pool.
In the video above we see BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT's Bill Cole and those dastardly COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 5% leaders pretending this has anything good for 99% of Baltimore or surrounding county citizens. Remember, Amazon from warehouse to factories is about total automation.
So, while Baltimore media fills journalism about where this global corporate campus should go-----no one is talking what MOVING FORWARD AMAZON DRONES AND ROBOTICS looks like in only a few decades. This 5% to the 1% does not care.
Old Goucher was handed over in large parcels to a global investment firm TELESIS---which is simply a hedge fund extension popping up after 2008s massive movement of tens of trillions of dollars in global banking fraud----allowing huge parcels of land be controlled by outside developers takes lots of insider leadership in COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS and this is the pipeline to city council seats and government appointments.
MAGGIE MCINTOSH is that Baltimore Maryland Assembly pol happening to be APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR making sure any state funding coming to Baltimore goes to a global corporation or global investment firm and not our city coffers where actual 99% of citizens would be able to have a voice in development. Does Maggie McIntosh and this Old Goucher community association candidate for city council KNOW the goal of global mercenary military BLACKWATER corporation tied to our police force teamed with GLOBAL AMAZON drone and robotics will be to built that BEEHIVE FOR STANDING ARMY MILITARY/SECURITY DRONES?
ABSOLUTELY---MOVING FORWARD FAR-RIGHT WING, AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY GLOBAL 1% CORPORATE FASCISM----that's Baltimore's 5% pols and players for you!
Business & Developmentby Mark Reutter12:00 pmOct 20, 2017
Community group pitches Amazon on a different site: “Center Baltimore”
The proposal, submitted to Amazon yesterday, has resulted in a private rebuke by Mayor Catherine Pugh
Above: Kelly Cross stands at North Avenue and Charles Street, the focal point of his independent proposal to Amazon. (Mark Reutter)
Why not the center city?
Frustrated by the Pugh administration’s exclusive focus on Port Covington, a community group has called on Amazon to consider north-central Baltimore as a candidate for its planned second headquarters (HQ2) hub.
“Center City offers Amazon the most diverse range of building typologies and zoning options, allowing Amazon to build a 21st century campus within a compact, walkable and beautiful 19th century urban fabric,” the Old Goucher Community Association noted in a bid the group submitted yesterday to the Seattle-based online retailer.
The proposal has already triggered a rebuke by Mayor Catherine Pugh.
Kelly Cross, president of the Old Goucher group, said the mayor called the proposal “a joke” in a telephone message and said it had “no standing or support” from her administration.
Council President Bernard C. “Jack” Young was also critical, arguing in a phone call to Cross today that Old Goucher and other community groups had to present a united front in support of Port Covington.
“This is not about our competing with Port Covington, but highlighting how center Baltimore better conforms to the requirements issued by Amazon,” said Cross, who prepared the bid with the help of association vice president Jay Orr and other volunteers.
The proposal identifies 200 acres of land and 15 million square feet of real estate within a 1½-mile radius of North Avenue and Charles Street, ranging from State Center in Bolton Hill to the failed 25th Street Station project in Remington.
For example, Cross pointed out during a tour of the area yesterday with a reporter, City Schools is evaluating whether to vacate its North Avenue administrative headquarters, a handsome 215,000-square-foot property two blocks east of Charles Street.
On the west side of North Avenue, a longtime eyesore, the Madison North apartments, has been razed, opening up a strategic site opposite student housing owned by the Maryland Institute College of Art.
Overall, center Baltimore better meets Amazon’s requirements than Port Covington, the three-page summary proposal argued, based on the retailer’s needs for a campus that has direct access to rail transportation, is within 45 minutes of an international airport, and includes top-notch educational institutions and cultural attractions.
“It’s a 13-minute train ride to BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport from Penn Station,” Cross pointed out, while Acela service whisks passengers to Capitol Hill in Washington in 35 minutes and Madison Square Garden in New York in under 2½ hours.
“Look at what else we have around North Avenue and Charles,” Cross enthuses, standing on a vacant lot of what was once a premier address.
“MICA and the University of Baltimore are at our doorstep. Within a two-mile circle lies the Johns Hopkins Homewood campus, the Johns Hopkins Medical complex, the University of Maryland professional schools and Coppin State University.”
Cross then ticked off the district’s cultural institutions (the newly-opened Parkway Theatre, the Lyric Opera House, the Joseph Meyerhoff Symphony Hall, the Baltimore Museum of Art).
There are recreational opportunities for Amazon newcomers at Druid Hill Park and –”if given some attention” – the Jones Falls Valley. Plus hundreds of historic and unique townhouses available for the fraction of the price of real estate in other cities competing for the HQ2 prize.
Why only Port Covington?
“So why are we putting all of our eggs in the basket of Port Covington?” Cross asked.
Realizing that the Baltimore Development Corporation (BDC) and other “economic powers-that-be” were not about to consider any site other than Kevin Plank’s Port Covington property, the Old Goucher group decided to submit its own proposal.
“We talked to people in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and other places who told us that their cities were submitting multiple sites to Amazon. But that wasn’t happening here. City Hall decided it liked what it’s already given so much money to,” Cross said, referring to the $660 million in TIF tax incentives pledged to Port Covington.
While acknowledging that his group’s bid is, at best, a long shot, he also believes that the Pugh administration “missed the boat” in understanding Amazon’s needs and corporate culture.
“These guys aren’t looking for suburban locations. I don’t think they’ll wind up on a peninsula or in a place where they are reliant on commuter bus or a little light-rail spur built to connect them to the rest of the city.”
Mayor Silent on Incentives
The financial incentives that the Pugh administration has offered to Amazon remain private. Gov. Larry Hogan also has not revealed how the state will sweeten the deal except to disclose, through a spokesman, that Amazon will receive the “biggest incentive offer in the state’s history” if it decides to locate in Maryland.
“We’re not privy to what the city and state are offering Amazon,” Cross said, “but we’re confident that if Amazon picks Baltimore, whatever incentives the city and state have offered elsewhere, they’d be willing to offer in our part of the city.”
During a pep rally on Wednesday, Mayor Catherine Pugh ceremonially signed a cover letter pitching the Port Covington site, surrounded by officials from Sagamore Development, the real estate arm of Plank, the CEO of Under Armour.
Way to Reboot West Baltimore?
Two months ago, as well as during the 2016 mayoral race, Pugh pledged to focus her development efforts on African-American neighborhoods in west and northwest Baltimore that “have been neglected for decades.”
The Old Goucher proposal encompasses parts of Penn North, Mondawmin, Sandtown-Winchester and Upton where rioting broke out after the 2015 police-in-custody death of Freddie Gray.
“50,000 new jobs coming to center Baltimore as part of an Amazon relocation would have massive ripple effects in these neighborhoods,” Cross said.
In its proposals to Amazon, the group noted that Old Goucher and the other nearby neighborhoods are “by far the most racially and ethnically diverse part of Baltimore” and have a large number of residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher.
The mayor’s office was asked yesterday and again this morning about Old Goucher’s proposal, and how it might fit into the administration’s plans to devote more resources to neglected neighborhoods.
So far, there has been no response
AMAZON'S expansion of global corporate portfolio to drones and robotics sprang from US military----not as this article leads us to believe. Now US military funding will supplement global AMAZON's 'drone delivery' with outsourced military operations and of course there now becomes the need for a STANDING ARMY housing of what are drones used by local militarized policing agencies only there to keep WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% safe inside US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones.
These ties of Amazon to military existed at the point of Amazon buying drone and robotics global corporations. Not many human capital jobs coming from these Baltimore global corporate campuses MOVING FORWARD but lots of pre-planned civil defense against 99% of US citizens mad about being LEFT BEHIND.
Military seeks Amazon-style delivery drones to resupply troops on the front line
- Ben Farmer, Defence Correspondent
23 April 2017 • 9:00pm
Soldiers fighting at the front line could be resupplied by Amazon-style delivery drones under new schemes being considered by the Ministry of Defence.
The MOD is offering defence firms and inventors millions of pounds in a competition for ideas of how to use the growing field of unmanned vehicle technology to get supplies up to the front.
Defence chiefs want to trade on recent advances by consumer firms like Amazon to find quicker, cheaper and safer ways of getting kit into dangerous frontline combat zones.
The online retail giant believes it can revolutionise the delivery business with its own fleet of drones dropping off purchases to a customer’s door and recently said it had delivered its first package in the UK.
Defence engineers are also considering building convoys of self-driving lorries, guarded by unmanned or remote control armed vehicles, as part of any future military logistics chain.
As part of the initiative, the MOD has now announced a £3m competition for suggestions for an “autonomous last mile resupply system”.
Solutions would need to be get equipment across difficult terrain, through bad weather, from just behind the front line to right up to where troops are fighting, according to the competition announcement.
The competition announcement says: “To reduce the risk to troops and improve efficiency, the UK aims to develop autonomous systems for unmanned delivery of combat supplies, drawing on the rapid progress of the private sector in the development of delivery drones and automated deliveries.”
Engineers have two months to offer ideas, with the best ones winning funding to explore them further.
Harriet Baldwin, minister for defence procurement, said the MOD wanted to “use the latest technology to keep our personnel safe”.
She said: “We’re challenging industry and academia to work with us to design ground-breaking autonomous systems that will get supplies to the front line.”
Amazon in December claimed to have carried out its first UK drone delivery from a depot in Cambridge.
However at present the company’s fleet of drones can only carry a payload of around 5lb and must have good, clear weather to fly.
The safety of drones has also come under the spotlight after reports of near-misses between them and conventional aircraft around airports.
Liz Quintana, senior research fellow for futures and technology at the Royal United Services Institute, said creating unmanned vehicles was a key focus for militaries and cargo drones would be “slightly less controversial than using armed drones”.
She said: “It’s looking to a lot of what’s going on in the private sector and seeing what might be possible.”
America tested an unmanned helicopter in Afghanistan in 2012, using it to ferry rations to far-flung forward operating bases around Helmand province.
The US Army also earlier this year unveiled a logistics “hover bike”, called the joint tactical aerial resupply vehicle. The US Army’s research laboratory says it wants the aircraft to carry a load of 800lb to a range of 125 miles.
Ms Quintana said military use of cargo drones mirrored their growing use in the private sector.
The Swiss postal service last month said it hoped to use flying drones to deliver medical supplies to hospitals by next year. Aid agencies and charities are also exploring using them to deliver aid.
Peter Stockel, who is leading the competiton for the MoD, said: "We are particularly keen to reach out and encourage organisations that might not have worked with the defence and security sector before, such as those developing commercial driverless vehicles, drone delivery services and robotic agriculture, to get involved with the challenge and help us rapidly advance the way we deliver tactical military logistics.”
For those loving UnderArmour as sports wear sports equipment supply corporation-----UnderArmour has long been partnered with global military and global private military corporations and supplying their military clothing, boots, war zone military gear------these few decades. If it has billions in profits ------we know hundreds of millions come from these global military sales. UnderArmour is team GLOBAL POLICING SWAT TEAM and it is partnered with global policing and security corporations in all Foreign Economic Zones overseas having its UNDERARMOUR headquarters.
So, team Amazon---team UnderArmour---team global BLACKWATER/XE -----team global Johns Hopkins is one great big team DEEP STATE REALLY DEEP STATE and we KNOW a standing army of AMAZON MILITARIZED DRONES will appear as DELIVERY DRONE BEEHIVES.
It is very important to make these global corporate campuses the early anchors---first setting the stage for the securitization of US Foreign Economic Zones before the coming economic crash and dollar collapse creating civil unrest-----but as well, the first NEW CITIZENS coming in to staff these global corporate campuses have their jobs tied to the installation and expansion of these very ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE GLOBAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY GRID.
Our Baltimore City communities are filling with citizens having jobs all tied to military/defense/policing/security ----those 5% to the 1% black, white, and brown citizens killing 99% of WE THE PEOPLE citizens of Baltimore.
Imagine of UnderArmour didn't take a $1 billion dollar local municipal bond deal and actually paid TAXES that our city coffers would then fund our local police department in ways our communities NEED.
Under Armour may offer new uniforms to city police
Luke Broadwater and Yvonne WengerContact ReportersThe Baltimore Sun Jan 26, 2017
Baltimore-based Under Armour has already taken on the world of sports apparel.
Could police gear be next?
On Wednesday, the city's spending panel is set to clear the way for the company to give the Baltimore Police Department new uniforms for officers in one district. The project is described in city documents as a "collaboration" between the police and Under Armour to "potentially improve the quality and durability of police uniforms and relieve some strain on the Police Department budget."
"They approached us well over a year ago," said Capt. J. Eric Kowalczyk, a police spokesman. "It's something we are very excited about."
Baltimore police officials said talks between the government and the company are in the preliminary stages. The department doesn't know what the uniforms might look like or how many the company would supply the force. "This is the process where we begin to have the conversation," Kowalczyk said.
Under Armour did not respond to requests for comment. The company features tactical and military gear on its website, and has won $4.2 million in contracts from the U.S. Department of Defense.
The Police Department spends millions of dollars on uniforms for the 2,800-officer force. Last year alone, the agency spent nearly $1.3 million on uniforms, including a November authorization from the Board of Estimates to pay $590,000 to two Baltimore-based firms, the Howard Uniform Co. and F&F and A. Jacobs & Sons Inc.
Under Armour logo. (PRNewsFoto/Under Armour(R); Texas Tech University) (Anonymous / BALTIMORE SUN)
The spending panel, which is controlled by the mayor, is expected to endorse an ethics waiver on Wednesday for the Police Department to seek the uniforms as a gift from Under Armour. The city documents say Under Armour will receive no "special access or favored treatment from any City agency or official," as a result of the gift.
Comptroller Joan M. Pratt, who sits on the five-member board, said she wants more information before voting for the deal. She added she's concerned a gift could be a way for the company to gain an advantage over other firms seeking to outfit the Police Department.
"Generally, I would have some concerns if the Under Armour product became the standard for uniforms. No other vendor would have the same advantage," Pratt said. "It might limit others from responding" to a future request for bids.
Kevin Plank, Under Armour's founder, helped build his business by giving samples of his compression T-shirts to football players. Under Armour's goal is to grow from $3 billion in sales to $10 billion eventually, he told The Baltimore Sun last year.
City Councilman Brandon Scott, vice chairman of the public safety committee, said he supports the idea of Under Armour supplying Baltimore police with uniforms, but he wants to make sure the gift complies with ethical standards.
"Once we know it's OK for us to do, I think if a company in Baltimore is expanding into that market and we know people from Baltimore work in that factory, ultimately it will be a great thing for everyone," Scott said.
John DeCarlo, police studies coordinator at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said he's interested to see what innovations Under Armour might make to police uniforms. He said if the athletic wear giant wants to enter the police uniform market, it will have big competition among some well-established companies, such as Blauer Manufacturing Co.
"Right now, we have more officers wearing a bulletproof vest than ever before and underneath they need clothing to keep them cool and dispel moisture," he said.
Police uniforms are regularly evolving, DeCarlo said, from the 1800s, when officers in America dressed in heavy wool in the style of British bobbies, to the 1950s, when police wore doubled-breasted peacoats in winter months. More recently, some departments have moved from eight-point hats and dress pants to baseball caps and cargo pants with lots of pockets, where they can store chemical masks, handcuffs and other items, he said.
Baltimore's current police uniforms are a blend of cotton and polyester, the department said.
"Who drives the change in uniforms is not usually the police themselves but the manufacturers of the uniforms," DeCarlo said. "They went from wool to leather to Gore-Tex."
There are between 700,000 and 1 million police officers in the U.S., depending on how the role is defined, DeCarlo said.
Under Armour has a history of making charitable contributions in Baltimore.
In October, the company helped pay about $42,000 for the renovation of three Fire Department gyms. The donations, which came as part of a city firehouse renovation project, included strength and cardiovascular training equipment, new floor mats and fresh paint. Under Armour also helped pay for a multipurpose synthetic turf field in Locust Point's Latrobe Park last summer. The value of that work was not disclosed at the time.
Under Armour also has made donations to the city police. The company joined the Baltimore Community Foundation and the Baltimore Police Foundation in 2011 in donating $300,000 for the Southern District to buy equipment, including 30 desktop computers, eight police bicycles, gym upgrades, 20 Tasers and other items.
Ann K. Buchholtz, research director for Rutgers University's Institute for Ethical Leadership, said the city's spending panel should review the proposal carefully to vet any potential conflict of interests.
"The public should know about it; sunshine is the best disinfectant," Buchholtz said. "If they review it and there is no expectation of quid pro quo, I would be OK with it."
While Under Armour may be looking to use the donations as an edge in the market, Buchholtz said, it's not unusual for civic-minded companies to make charitable contributions to the cities where they are based.
"Cities need that kind of support," she said. "We don't want to cut that off, but we always want to take a good look at it."