Smile, Security Cameras Record You 238 Times Per Week!

It seems no matter where we go throughout the day, there’s a camera close by. While passing by a security camera may not shock many people, a new study finds the average person is being filmed more often than they think.

From walking the dog to driving into work, researchers say Americans are being caught on security cameras at least 238 times every week.

The report by Safety.com finds that surveillance technology is spreading to every corner of the globe.

Security Cameras Record You 238 Times Per Week

Studies estimate there will be around one billion security cameras filming worldwide by 2021. Between 10 and 18 percent of those devices will be in the United States.

When comparing this level of surveillance to the rest of the world, study authors believe only China will have more cameras watching their population.

By next year, there will be about one camera for every 4.6 people in the United States. There will likely be one camera for every 4.1 people in China.

Where Are Security Cameras Watching You?

Safety.com finds much of this weekly surveillance happens on the road.

Researchers say the average American is filmed 160 times while driving. One of the biggest reasons for this is the growing number of cameras at major intersections.

Traveling about 29 miles a day on average, researchers say motorists typically drive under 20 cameras over that span.

The report cautions that it’s hard to know how many of these devices are permanently storing their recordings or just passively filming to monitor traffic data.

Once you’re done commuting, researchers find the average employee is filmed 40 times a week at or around the office.

This number, the study finds, can be drastically higher if a person works in a retail store or in transportation.

These workers may be on film hundreds of times every week in comparison to people working where there’s a single security camera at the entrance.

Meanwhile, the average consumer in the U.S. is under surveillance 24 times while out shopping or running errands.

Researchers find security cameras are the norm in business today, as merchants crack down on theft and other criminal activity.

Under Surveillance In Your Own Home

The study says one of the biggest increases in surveillance is right in a person’s own house. The average American is on film 14 times a week in their house and neighborhood.

In the past, researchers believe this number was closer to zero.

A 2016 survey finds the majority of U.S. residents believes they’re only being recorded about five times a day.

Today, doorbell cameras are a common feature in home security systems. So a walk through your community is likely now a walk past several homes filming everything that goes by.

Safety.com says they expect this number to keep rising in the coming years as security cameras and facial recognition software becomes a normal part of society.

To this you can add gadgets like Alexa, Siri, Etc, or even Smart TV’s

For some, this average is already skyrocketing. Researchers say for Americans who frequently travel by airplane or work in high security areas, they are likely on film over 1,000 times each week.

Source: StudyFinds.org

Tell Congress that Puerto Ricans want nationhood, not statehood

For Puerto Ricans who support self-determination, it is truly mind-blowing that some Democrats have the audacity to offer statehood as a solution on the question of Puerto Rico’s political status. At a time when Congress cannot come to grips with its responsibility to decolonize Puerto Rico – let alone guarantee a process of negotiation – support for statehood becomes suspicious at best, seeming way too much like political opportunism. The disconnect between the Puerto Rican reality and pro-statehood declarations is dismaying. 

Ill-informed support for statehood is based on several myths: 

Puerto Ricans are Americans: False. The Puerto Rican national identity remains an ethnic identification of peoples without a national citizenship of their own who live in a territory they call “their country.” This does not obscure the reality that Puerto Rico constitutes a nation, which has had a colonial relation with the United States since 1898. Ambiguities were created by Public Law 600and by the portrayal in 1953 at the United Nations of the Commonwealth as “a compact” between both nations. As the Harvard Law Review clearly stated in 2017: “Puerto Rico’s heart is not American. It is Puerto Rican.” 

Puerto Ricans in the U.S. have struggled for civil rights, but the political, societal and constitutional reality of Puerto Rico is altogether another issue. You cannot erase a nationhood by overlooking its existence and assume that “Puerto Ricans are Americans.” Such statements constitute a classic strategy of assimilation that negates Puerto Rico’s right to exist.

Most Puerto Ricans support statehood: False. Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood in five plebiscites held since 1968. The 2017 plebiscite was boycotted by all anti-statehood Puerto Rican parties, resulting in statehood receiving 97 percent support, with only 23 percent of registered voters’ participation. The 2012 plebiscite, so far the only one held the same day as local elections, was boycotted by one of the major political parties, resulting in an avalanche of blank votes, pro-independence and pro-Free Association, which outnumbered pro-statehood votes. Statehood persistently has lost support since the 1993 plebiscite (788,296 votes in 1993728,157 votes in 1998834,191 in 2012, and 502,801 in 2017). 

While in power, pro-statehood administrations have corrupted the Puerto Rican government to the point of its collapse, making this faction incapable of leading any future political project. In summer 2019, the pro-statehood governor Ricardo Rossello was ousted

Civil rights in the U.S. are not being addressed by making Puerto Rico a state. As an unincorporated territory, Puerto Rico has a different constitutional reality, and its urgency is not related to civil rights but rather to our human right to decolonization. Since 1998, the only political option gaining support is Free Association, a negotiated compact in which both countries become freely associated. 

Puerto Rico is not a country: False. The Foraker Act, the first law passed in Congress concerning Puerto Rico, stated that Puerto Ricans “shall be deemed and held to be citizens of Porto (sic) Rico.” Fifty years later, Public Law 600 recognized Puerto Ricans as “peoples.” In 1953, in a push to get international recognition for the Commonwealth as a pact between the U.S. and Puerto Rico “forming a political association, which respects the individuality and the cultural characteristics of Puerto Rico [and] maintains the spiritual bonds between Puerto Rico and Latin America,” the United States pursued Resolution 748 at the U.N. General Assembly, allowing the U.S. to cease delivering annual reports on Puerto Rico’s colonial status. Our nationhood has withstood all attempts to be assimilated. Puerto Ricans refer to Puerto Rico as “el País” (the country). Puerto Ricans are a nation, and its people are in Puerto Rico and in its global diaspora. We are not American expats living in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a domestic issue: Partially true. Puerto Rico is a domestic issue as much as it is an international issue. The U.S. took over Puerto Rico through invasion, bilateral negotiation, and a peace protocol, normalizing the relationship through Supreme Court decisions known as the Insular Cases. The U.S. scored a diplomatic victory with U.N. approval of Resolution 748. Even though Puerto Ricans at the time already were U.S. citizens, and even if the country’s political fate was thought to have been sealed, Puerto Rico today again faces the important issue of sovereignty.

Furthermore, the persistent federal mismanagement of the humanitarian crisis following the 2017 hurricanes will continue to be an international issue, as economic, political and social conditions deteriorate. Puerto Rico is a pending international issue with multilateral repercussions.

Puerto Rico has no option but statehood: False. Puerto Rico’s status question can be resolved with strong bipartisan commitment. Inspired by its anti-colonial foundational spirit, guided by its experience with the freely associated republics in the Pacific, and in compliance with international law, the United States has available political options that Puerto Ricans would be ready to discuss. In fact, many Puerto Rican professionals agree that negotiating a compact of Free Association with the United States is the correct mechanism for finding a reasonable political solution to this issue.

Congress will serve the cause of Puerto Rico and the United States by understanding and accepting that Puerto Rico needs decolonization, through a process of dialogue and negotiation. Statehood goes against U.S. political and economic interests, and actually never has been on the negotiating table. Sovereignty serves the interests of both countries, and currently is Puerto Rico’s only feasible solution for decolonization and economic development.

Unmasking The Many Truths About The COVID-19 Plandemic

In a flurry of conflicting reports about the novel coronavirus, its symptoms, transmission routes, along with the ever-growing list of illnesses that it allegedly causes, we seem to be no closer to understanding the outbreak than when it started.

Three months into the pandemic, we have learned almost nothing. Okay, we’ve learned a few things. But the real truths are rarely related to the virus or the cures.

To start with, we have learned about the hellbent nature of the Silicon Valley tech giants to censor any dissenting view when the opposing narratives don’t align with the pharma vaccine agenda.

Plandemic

For example, take Dr. Anthony Fauci’s concealment of an approved hydroxychloroquine treatment: It cured coronavirus infections as far back as 2005.

What about the continual attacks on the vaccine risk aware community? The latter made up of scores of professionals, from doctors and scientists to lawyers and researchers. Not a conspiracy theorist among them.

Yet, that is not how the vaccine monolith in the mainstream press treats them. They are vilified, called out as “anti-vax” heretics when many of them are no such thing.

They are simply educated and informed individuals persistently seeking – and in some cases demanding – the scientific evidence to prove vaccines are safe. Two decades later, they’re still waiting.

So, why is there an inexorable rush to make the COVID19 vaccines while bypassing the animal testing phase? Why isn’t safety and quality control paramount in the pursuit of a coronavirus vaccine?

There are currently at least 119 vaccines in this fast-tracked pipeline, with at least nine of them being directly funded by the Gates Foundation.

Will the (eventual) chosen candidate(s) brought to market cause severe injuries? Will they kill you?

Censorship And Bad Models

When the Plandemic, the movie, burst onto the scene and went viral (you can watch it at that link), it garnered millions of views. Its hashtag #PlandemicMovie captured the imagination of millions of people by feeding them a fist-full of little known Red Pills.

Bill Gates Admits: 700,000 People Will Be Harmed Or Killed By Coronavirus Vaccines

Twitter banned and deleted the hashtag, while Big Pharma proxies attacked the truth problem from both edges of the same sword in an attempt to make the awareness campaign disappear. It failed. In fact, she publicly refuted her critics on LondonReal with Brian Rose.

Plandemic, which features former NIH virologist Dr. Judy Mikovits, whose new book Plague of Corruption, about the institutional fraud of medicine carried out in one of the United States’ healthcare agencies, surged to number one on Amazon’s bestseller list on May 7 and later in the week, became a New York Time bestseller too. Talk about a one-two punch.

How did pharma counter the double body blow?

They attacked the messenger with the obligatory character assassination and smeared the movie as conspiratorial. Right. And Epstein’s suicide ‘jumped the shark’ of believability, forever killing the conspiracy theory label. But that hasn’t stopped the COVID-19 vaccine train from leaving the station.

Pharma still has many problems to overcome beyond a book and a movie by a former government scientist.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) at the Senate Hearings on the COVID-19 attacked the model that persuaded the world to shut down societies and wrongly lock people in their homes.

Sweden and Belarus are two examples of countries that let healthy people carry on with their lives, while they sheltered the frail and the elderly.

How did this global shut down happen?

A model contrived by recently resigned professor Neil Ferguson at Imperial College in the U.K. His ‘assessment’ and predictive model has been thoroughly debunked as a fraud.

Software engineers found incompetent source code and critiqued his model with blistering reviews.

During the delay, Ferguson brought it a team of coders from Microsoft to help but all they could produce was a Ford Pinto instead of a Ferrari.

Senator Paul Torpedoes Dr. Fauci

Senator Paul saved the best for last as he took aim at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and World Health Organization (WHO).

He fired at Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is supposed to be running the NIH division of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

“And as much as I respect you, Dr. Fauci, I don’t think you’re the end-all,” Paul said.

“I don’t think you’re the one person who gets to make the final decision. We can listen to your advice, but there are people on the other side saying there’s not going to be a surge, that we can safely open the economy. And the facts will bear this out.”

The verdict is in: The American people are sick of Dr. Anthony Fauci and Neil Ferguson. They see these two as nothing more than fear-mongering scientists who got the Nostradamus predictions of doom wrong.

CDC Corruption From Agent Orange To COVID19

Even the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has walked back its inflated COVID-19 deaths model by 40 percent, decreasing the predicted deaths from 67,000 to 37,000.

What many people are finding out is that the CDC has lumped in other categories of illness under the COVID19 umbrella of deaths.

The CDC lumped pneumonia and influenza deaths together with the COVID-19 deaths. The Cares Act incentivized hospitals to add coronavirus illness and death to death certificates even without testing, inflating the actual cases and mortality rate.

The CDC finally corrected its cooked books. But as of May 13, John Hopkins University continues to show the inflated number — of 83,000 deaths in the U.S. instead of using the adjusted CDC number.

Why is this happening? It’s not about the threat of the virus. It’s being done to ensure that Gates can lead the globalist’s agenda to vaccinate everyone on the planet.

Recall that Johns Hopkins was one of the lead partners with the Gates Foundation at the World Economic Forum’s Event, the 201 Simulation, where 65 million people were predicted to die from the coronavirus pandemic.

Fits With Testing Kits

The CDC played a big role in the disastrous lockdowns in the United States deploying faulty test kits.

The United Kingdom rejected 200,000 test kits from China that were defective and found to be contaminated with the SARS-CoV2 virus.

Had those tests been used, they all would have all registered positive. But such shady, shoddy tactics merely moved on to the next country.

Recently, Tanzania found similar issues with the test kits given to the African nation. The prime minister, who is a trained biologist, set a quality-control trap for the foreign health invaders.

He tested a goat, a quail, and a pawpaw fruit, giving them names, genders, and ages. Once the tests were conducted, the government sent the kits to the designated laboratory.

When all the tests came back positive, Tanzania fired the head of the lab.

Is this how the CDC and the WHO plan to operate and provide “global health security” and “pandemic preparedness” — their slogans — in the future?

Is this how the U.S. and global health agencies misspent billions in taxpayers’ money, wasted on faulty equipment and broken models while shutting down the world’s healthy economies?

Little of this makes any sense now. But soon it might with 2020 hindsight and multiple investigations, not just congressional hearings.

Why would the U.S. decimate its workforce, resulting in more than 33 million suddenly unemployed and 20 million more underemployed? Who benefited from this catastrophe?

It certainly was not in the best interest of bio-security or global health.

Lies, fraud, taxpayer theft, censorship, fake models, cooked data, shoddy science, preloaded positive tests, and compromised and incompetent scientists and politicians, and so much more prop up the pandemic disaster.

Was the ultimate goal to conceal the Plandemic from the public? It’s certainly starting to look that way.

The neo-fascist governors in New York, Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Michigan, Wisconsin, Hawaii, California, and Washington, who locked down their economies to “flatten the curve,” turned out to flagrantly lie their a bait-and-switch deception.

Remember, the governors and their staffs continue to get paid, while their constituents suffer doesn’t make sense, unless…

The real goal is to vaccinate everyone.

That would empower Big Pharma to continue to promote the “vaccines safe and effective” mantra. They may not be able to mandatory force people to be vaccinated, but they could make life so miserable it would be difficult to resist.

What if being vaccinated with this experimental vaccine was required to renew your driver’s license? your passport? go to work? go to a sports event? get groceries? get your hair cut? go to a restaurant? see your doctor and use your health insurance?

This vaccine, being developed under the liability-free protection of the 2005 PREP Act, could include nanotechnology, stray viruses and chemicals that are known carcinogens.

Would we ever know what is really coming through that needle?

And even if we did know, we would have zero recourse if the vaccine harmed – or killed us.

To pull off this ugly and grandiose plan they didn’t need to create a global panic and outbreak.

Their dark goals are waking up the masses. A recent survey found that nearly 50% of Americans will refuse to take a COVID-19 vaccine.

If that same survey were carried a year ago, it likely would have registered less than 10% who would have objected.

Now that humankind has been locked down over a bogus virus backed by sham science, people are paying attention.

The number of people won’t be taking a coronavirus vaccine will only grow as the year marches on and more dark truths are revealed.

The more this human-made fraud is exposed, the more people will leap off the vaccine bandwagon without looking back.

How to Have Deeper, More Intimate Conversations

In a time of disconnection, deep conversations can make all the difference.

David Brooks, the opinion columnist for The New York Times, wrote an article last month titled “Mental Health in the Age of the Coronavirus,” describing how the anxiety and isolation of the pandemic were impacting everyone in some way. He quoted Bonnie Badenoch, an expert in trauma, who felt one antidote to this stress was a need to have “deep reciprocal attunement (with others) that makes you feel viscerally safe,” and Martha Welch, a professor at Columbia University, who stressed the need to connect with others by having “vulnerable,” deep conversations. 

Deep conversations may be an important way to connect with those we care about in these difficult times, but they are always a good idea. They are the foundation of strong intimate relationships — those “we talked all night” conversations when dating, or those seemingly rare but cherished, heartfelt times when you lowered your guard and spoke from your heart with someone you trust. They connect you to the human race, to those important in your life, in some way to yourself.

Good idea, but often easier said than done. Here are some tips of going deeper into your conversations:

Make sure it’s a good time to talk

This is a matter of logistics. It’s hard to have a deep conversation when someone is on their cell phone driving to the grocery store or when they are trying to get their three kids to bed. These times are for quick check-ins — how-you-doing, catch-you-later speed conversations. For those deeper conversations you need time; find out if the other person has some. Simple question: Is this a good time to talk?

Set the tone

Because you’re the one initiating this, you need to be the one to set the tone, the one to let the other person know that you’re interested in having more than a how-you-doing check-in. There are two ways of doing this.

One is to set the tone by talking about yourself more deeply than you usually do. You want to move beyond the standard, “I’m good,” to more honest statements about how you are really doing – I’ve been feeling down lately; I don’t know about you, but my kids are driving me crazy; I had been doing okay until Tom and I had this argument last night. This is about self-disclosure and revealing more of you and your feelings. With this introduction, you are letting the other person know what kind of conversation you want to have, what emotional level you are comfortable talking about. You can then turn the conversation towards them.

The other approach is to ask hard questions at the start: Not the “Doing okay?” but “Have you been having a hard time?” “Have you been feeling depressed or worried?” “Are your kids driving you crazy or struggling?” People only know what is safe to talk about based on what you talk about and what you ask. By drilling down into specific, more emotionally difficult conversations, you are letting the other person know that you are ready to hear what they have to say, that you are ready to go there.

Ask about details

Good therapists do this instinctively. They try to move from broad statements (“I’ve been feeling anxious“) to the details: What about, what thoughts have you had, how do you talk to yourself? You don’t need to be a therapist and try to deconstruct the other person’s psychology, but you want to ask about details (about an argument they had or about how the kids are driving them crazy) because emotions ride on content. Broad questions yield broad, bland emotions; detailed questions stir deeper, more poignant feelings. And expressing these deeper emotions and having them accepted glues people together.

Give space between emotions

And when these emotions arise, you only need to acknowledge them (“That must have been hurtful; that sounds so frustrating”) and then stop and be silent. This can be hard—our instincts are to repair, to fix, to make it better by saying the right thing right then to calm the waters. Don’t. Take a few deep breaths, allow room for you both to absorb what has been said (or for them to finish ranting or crying).

Slow down, focus on them

In the same vein, you want to slow the conversation overall. Move through the conversation like a turtle, not a jackrabbit. Keep the focus on them, give them the room and attention they need, and resist using their stories as launchpads to talk about your own. Only when they are done is it time to turn the conversation towards you.  

Take risks

You know if you are moving into more vulnerable and intimate territory if what you want to say makes you feel uncomfortable, you get those butterflies of anxiety. Intimacy is not about disclosing some big, dark secret, but saying anything that is, for you, difficult to say. Take that risk for yourself, and listen for it in the other person. They may say “I’ve never said this before or thought about this before,” or there may be a hesitation or an unfinished sentence and a sigh. Ask them to finish the sentence. Give them space to say what is hard to say. 

Use your anxiety as a sign that you are emotionally plowing new ground. Go deeper to connect.