This cannot be true. That would be another huge unconstitutional mistake. But it’s infowars so I’ll wait for someone else to pick it up.
That will go down in flames…totally unconstitutional
As a listener since 2005 I can tell you that is likely to take some time, I’ve seen things he’s reported take months or years and of course many will never be picked up, which is why he’s banned everywhere, so they’re not picked up.
I just would prefer more than one source, I’m patient so I can wait. Infowars just isn’t my thing. Some of their conspiracy stuff I just cannot subscribe to. But that’s me personally.
Me neither, some shit is just nuts
But, I’ll say his past guest list speaks to his popularity, Generals, Senators, Trump of course
And you can’t watch mainstream news after watching infowars, makes you
No more sales to my old neighborHOOD in Newark.
The credit scores are lower than the IQ
Sorry truth hurts
This Infowars article cites a Daily Caller article and quotes a journalist of an even different news article on the Information Liberation website, and the article on that site quotes another news article in the Washington Post website (which I can’t read because I’m not a subscriber.)
Where is the actual evidence or orginal source of this news?
It’s as though everyone is copying bits and pieces of someone elses articles or op-eds and putting it all together as one story and passing it off as actual news. This second article linked to refers to “the document” but doesn’t state what document they are referring to.
The Liberation Information article is a prime example of the newer independent news sources where most everything they write reads as a bunch of disjointed name and trigger word droolings that mentions things that irrelevent to the article itself but include it to influence the reader. This is like reading Q Anon news. You are made to assume things and fill in the blanks with your own bias. On its own, it doesn’t add up.
Did they stop teaching journalism in school or something?
I may wear my tin hat pretty tight, but not that tight. Some of this stuff has to be scrutinized.
I’m not a subsriber either but the page shows
Bob Wright, the former NBC chair and a Trump friend, is one of the proposal’s supporters.
The White House has been briefed on a proposal to develop a way to identify early signs of changes in people with mental illness that could lead to violent behavior.
Supporters see the plan as a way President Trump could move the ball forward on gun control following recent mass shootings as efforts seem to be flagging to impose harsher restrictions such as background checks on gun purchases.
President Trump outlined three proposals to curb mass violence in an Aug. 5 speech responding to two mass shootings that left more than two dozen people dead. (The Washington Post)
The proposal is part of a larger initiative to establish a new agency called the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency or HARPA, which would sit inside the Health and Human Services Department. Its director would be appointed by the president, and the agency would have a separate budget, according to three people with knowledge of conversations around the plan.
HARPA would be modeled on DARPA, the highly successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency that serves as the research arm of the Pentagon and collaborates with other federal agencies, the private sector and academia.
The concept was advanced by the Suzanne Wright Foundation and first discussed by officials on the Domestic Policy Council and senior White House staffers in June 2017. But the idea has gained momentum in the wake of the latest mass shootings that killed 31 people in one weekend in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio.
The Suzanne Wright Foundation re-approached the administration last week and proposed that HARPA include a “Safe Home” — “Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes” — project. Officials discussed the proposal at the White House last week, said two people familiar with the discussions. These people and others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversations.
The attempt to use volunteer data to identify “neurobehavioral signs” of “someone headed toward a violent explosive act” would be a four-year project costing an estimated $40 million to $60 million, according to Geoffrey Ling, the lead scientific adviser on HARPA and a founding director of DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office.
“Everybody would be a volunteer,” Ling said in an interview. “We’re not inventing new science here. We’re analyzing it so we can develop new approaches.
“This is going to have to be done using scientific rigor,” he said.
But there are plenty of researchers and mental health experts who believe that mental health and gun violence aren’t necessarily linked.
Mental illness can sometimes be a factor in such violent acts, experts say, but it is rarely a predictor — most studies show that no more than a quarter of mass shooters have a diagnosed mental illness. More commonly shared attributes of mass shooters include a strong sense of resentment, desire for notoriety, obsession with other shooters, a history of domestic violence, narcissism and access to firearms.
In the immediate aftermath of Dayton and El Paso, Trump said he might support background checks for all gun purchases and “red flag” laws to deny guns to those deemed a hazard to themselves or others. But Trump on Tuesday called universal background checks off the table in a conversation with the head of the National Rifle Association, though he later denied saying that.
The president has said he thinks mentally ill people are primarily responsible for the spate of mass shootings in the United States. And this proposal is likely to be welcomed by Republicans and gun-rights activists who have argued the same thing.
“We’re looking at the whole gun situation,” Trump said last week. “I do want people to remember the words ‘mental illness.’ These people are mentally ill. . . . I think we have to start building institutions again because, you know, if you look at the ’60s and ’70s, so many of these institutions were closed.”
Trump has reacted “very positively” to the HARPA proposal, according to a person with knowledge of the discussions and has been “sold on the concept.” But it’s unclear whether the president has reviewed the new “Safe Home” component of the proposal and creating an entire agency would be a huge lift in Congress.
“Every time this has been brought up inside the White House — even up to the presidential level, it’s been very well-received,” a person familiar with discussions said. “HARPA is the health-care equivalent of DARPA, and it’s a great legacy project for the president, one he is uniquely positioned to get done.”
That person said that Trump could benefit in a variety of ways from getting behind a project like HARPA right now.
“There is no doubt that addressing this issue helps the president deal with two issues he has yet to find real success on: one is the health-care front and one is on the gun-violence front,” the person added.
Trump has a close personal relationship with Bob Wright, who founded the Suzanne Wright Foundation after his wife passed away from pancreatic cancer. Wright is the former chair of NBC and was in that job while Trump headlined “The Apprentice."
Wright sees Ivanka Trump as the most effective champion of the proposal and has previously briefed her on HARPA himself, Wright said.
“It would be perfect for her to do it — we need someone with some horsepower — someone like her driving it. … It could get done,” said one official familiar with the conversations. “We’d be able to put every resource of federal government, from the highest levels of the scientific community to say: ‘This is how people with these problems should be treated and have limited access to firearms.’ ”
The HARPA proposal was initially pitched as a project to improve the mortality rate of pancreatic cancer through innovative research to better detect and cure diseases. Despite internal support over the past two years, the model ran into what was described as “institutional barriers to progress,” according to a person familiar with the conversations.
“He’s very achievement oriented and I think all presidents have difficulties with science,” Wright said in an interview. “I think their political advisers say, ‘No that’s not a game for you,’ so they sort of back off a bit.”
He added: “But the president has a real opportunity here to leave a legacy in health care.”
The idea is for the agency to develop a “sensor suite” using advanced artificial intelligence to try to identify changes in mental status that could make an individual more prone to violent behavior. The research would ultimately be opened to the public.
HARPA would develop “breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence,” says a copy of the proposal. “A multi-modality solution, along with real-time data analytics, is needed to achieve such an accurate diagnosis.”
The document goes on to list a number of widely used technologies it suggests could be employed to help collect data, including Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home. The document also mentions “powerful tools” collected by health-care provides like fMRIs, tractography and image analysis.
“Advanced analytical tools based on artificial intelligence and machine learning are rapidly improving and must be applied to the data,” states the document.
Those familiar with the project stressed it would not collect sensitive health data about individuals without their permission. The government is simply trying to identify risk factors when it comes to mental health that could indicate violent behavior, they said.
“Privacy must be safeguarded. Profiling must be avoided. Data protection capabilities will be the cornerstone of this effort.”
Proponents of the plan say that an agency like HARPA, which applies technology being used in other fields to develop medical breakthroughs, is long overdue.
“DARPA is a brilliant model that works. They have developed the most transformational capabilities in the world for national security,” said Liz Feld, the president of the Suzanne Wright Foundation, saying those techniques had yet to be applied to health care. “We’re not leveraging the tools and technologies available to us to improve and save lives.”
and Like how you wear your hat!
I haven’t been able to watch the mainstream news in over 10 years!
No, for me, this pop up shows up over the articles saying I need to subscribe or pay $1 for trial period, so I can’t see the article at all.
I just read the Washington Post and the Daily Caller articles. The Daily Caller pretty much tracks the WP article in my opinion. WP claims Trump is receptive to the idea/proposal and that Ivanka is even more receptive to it. What I also got from the WP is that the idea is part of a greater effort to look into alternatives to preventing gun violence.
The InfoWars article further interprets the articles and adds its opinion and thoughts on the whole idea/proposal. Nothing against InfoWars, but I don’t typically rely on, much less follow, them as a source of news and information. But I have to admit that this particular InfoWars piece makes some good points against the idea/proposal in my opinion.
did you click my summary above?
They are banned everywhere for a reason and its not their misinformation.
I wouldn’t advise blindly following, contrary, I would advise against it and not listening at all if that’s an issue.
Otherwise it’s always on
yesterdays show on the subject and Alex calls to impeach Trump over it
edit, or not
Yes, there is much intentional mis/dis-information out there. It is meant to degrade morale, to weaken support, to create division, and to generally undermine. Not all is what/who it/they seem. This is classic PSYOP stuff.
I had missed the summary hyperlink in your above post. Thanks for alerting me to it. Very interesting information.
9/9/19 Congress reconvenes then we will see what kind of betrayal Trump, Republicans, and the left have dumped on us.
And now this.
We are really turning in to a combination of Idiocracy and that episode of Black Mirror where they do have that social score thing.
You have been spied upon for years, millions have been spied upon…nothing new. It is Illegal, but it gets done anyway. The DHS has been breaking the Constitution and Bill of Rights at will since it started. I believe in some forms a lot of spying was going on before, 9/11 just kicked it into high gear. The powers that be won’t ask our permission to spy on us.
Yup, but not openly nor by political mandate. The DOJ has been bastardizing the Rights of the citizenry from the word GO. When it comes to politicians mandating it, there us a different level of backlash publicly. The public won’t be quite as complacent with politicians…then again, with today’s dumbed down society…