I found a video on YouTube that clearly breaks down the different types of governments on this planet and explains each of them. Anyone who tells you the United States is a Democracy is either uninformed or lying to you.
The session for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ended for the year, and there are three cases that I wish to talk about:
1)The first one is actually not a SCOTUS case, but this amazing ruling from the US 9th District gives me a little hope about them. In Latif v. Holder, Thirteen Muslim Americans, four of them US Veterans, are on the very secretive "No-Fly" list. This list is compiled by the FBI and supposedly consists of people who have, or are suspected of having, ties to terrorism.
The problem comes in when you go to the airport and find out you can't fly even though you were able to buy a ticket beforehand. You also have no way to get off the list either. So, you have no way of knowing if you are on the list until you actually try to fly, and there is no process to get your name removed. This ruling will hopefully change that. You can read the decision here.
2) In the SCOTUS cases Riley v. California, 13-132 and U.S. v Wurie, 13-212, the Court in a 9-0 decision basically extended the Fourth Amendment to cellphones. With so much of a persons life in such a hand-held device, unrestricted access to that information could ruin a person. Texts, contacts, photos, phone records and all of the other information contained are a significant part of our life. This ruling requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant before they can analyze your phone. I do not know if you have to physically surrender it to a Law Enforcement Officer on demand. You will have to consult with your own attorney to learn that information.
3) This one has all kinds of misinformation and an army of strawmen surrounding it. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 13-354 is a bit confusing, so I am going to devote a lot of attention to it. Here we go:
What is Hobby Lobby? Hobby Lobby is a privately-held company. That means that the Board of Directors (it is a corporation, with all of those laws and regulations that apply to corporations) owns the company. This is not the same as Wal-Mart, or any other publicly-held company (companies that issue stock). The BoD for Wal-Mart has to answer to the stockholders. Hobby Lobby does not. The BoD for Hobby Lobby is a single family.
What are they arguing for? This family has certain deeply-held religious beliefs. Some types of birth control violates those beliefs. This family does not want to be forced to provide those forms of birth control that are in violation of their religious beliefs.
What are those forms of birth control? There are various forms of birth control. For sexually active couples, they fall into two categories: Preventative and Abortive. Preventative means the egg and sperm never meet. This can be through barrier methods such as condoms, diaphragms, spermicide and such. There is the hormonal method of estrogen based birth control, where no egg is released. Hobby Lobby has no problem with these methods. The Abortive method kills the fertilized egg. This is done by two basic methods. Through some kind of IUD (Intrauterine Device) which constantly rubs against the internal lining of the uterus, scraping off any fertilized egg which attaches to the uterine wall. The second method prevents the fertilized egg from attaching, or stopping its growth, effectively killing it. This method goes against the religious beliefs of those who own Hobby Lobby. So, out of about twenty different methods of birth control on the American market, Hobby Lobby is against FOUR of them.
What is the BASE issue? The Constitutional issue here is the restriction of freedom by coercion of the government. Believe it or not, this comes from the Affordable Care Act, but was not part of the original law. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) passed a regulation based on their authority under the ACA to mandate all forms of birth control as part of a health care plan. Here you have a small group of people who share similar religious beliefs who run a business. The fact that Hobby Lobby has over 500 stores is a red herring. Size is not an issue. Remember the First Amendment clearly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." To make the owners of this company offer something that is abhorrent to them violates the First Amendment on its face. This is not about the company, it is about the owners of the company.
So, if you really want/need an IUD or one of the other birth control services that Hobby Lobby refuses to allow? You can QUIT. Are you being forced to work there? Is it the only employer hiring in 100 miles and you can't move? QUIT or DON'T APPLY. Your choice. That is what this all boils down to: Everybody has a choice. Your choice should never limit mine.
Back in April, I made a post that in part talked about "Operation Choke Point," where the Feds were pressuring banks to close the accounts of people and businesses the government "found objectionable" like porn stars and gun shops. I found this article today, Tyranny expands as consumer agency gives itself power to shut down businesses. Read the comment at the bottom of the article.
A lot of people don't know what the Federal Register is. This is where various government agencies publish their "rule changes" pertaining to whatever they are charged with regulating. This also where things like grants are published. It is a document that if you read it for too long, your brains will liquefy and run out of your ears. It is more mind-numbing than a Jerry Springer show. However, if you want to know what the government is up to, this is the place to go.
Anyway, back last year, This notice was published September 26th, 2013, Volume 78, Number 187. This rule is extended from the Frank-Dodd Act. It takes two-and-a-half pages to say this, but this is what it basically means: If the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection has any suspicion of a business has "incomplete or inaccurate financial records" it may issue a Temporary Cease-And-Desist Order and force the business to close until the financial records are no longer "incomplete or inaccurate."
They don't have to prove anything, they just have to believe that your books are not up to their standards in order to issue the TCDO. Then you can go to court and fight it, but that takes money, and suddenly you don't have any. Your income is now zero (since they closed your business) and it could be months and many thousands of dollars in attorney's fees before you appear before a judge and have a shot at getting the order lifted. And they probably seized your business and personal bank accounts at the same time (evidence, dontchaknow).
Of course, you could surrender your books to the government. And when (not if) they find a mistake in your books, they can put you in Club Fed for as long as they want to. By the way, there is no parole in the Federal system. If you get 10 years, you'll do 10 years. This all falls under the little catchphrase in just about any law passed by Congress, "The Agency(s) charged with the enforcement of this law may issue regulations pertaining to the regulation and enforcement of this law." Gerald Ford said at a joint session of Congress, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
Okay, I may have exaggerated that number. A little.
This article comes to us today from the UK Telegraph: Greenpeace executive flies 250 miles to work. It documents the story of one Pascal Husting, who was hired by Greenpeace International in 2012 to be the International Program Director. There is a slight problem. You see, Mr. Husting lives in Luxembourg and the GPI's office is in Amsterdam. So, Greenpeace pays about 250 Euros ($340) to fly him round-trip twice a month ($8,160 a year) between his home and the office. According to the article, his traveling has produced 7.4 tons of CO2 emissions, equivalent to 17 barrels of oil, or 714 gallons of gasoline. Over those two years, it works out to be 357 gallons a year. I generally consumed about 277 gallons a year, commuting 10 miles each way 5 days a week and 50 weeks a year. So, he's more, but not a lot more. Here is where the hypocrisy comes in. According to the article,
...despite [Greenpeaces] campaign to curb "the growth in aviation", which it says "is ruining our chances of stopping dangerous climate change”.
So, Greenpeace is against commercial aviation flights, except when it's their executive doing the flying. Kind of like Al Gore (he invented the Internet, you know) who preaches across the globe for us to conserve resources and cut back on fossil fuel consumption. All the time while flying in private jets across the world to preach this notion. His house in Nashville uses more energy in a month than my house uses in a year. How much house does he need?
Now, while he is at home in Luxembourg, he spends most of his time on video conference calls, so I can respect that. I don't find this flying him around out of line with a good business practice. In my last position, we hired a Medical Doctor who lived in another state and he was unwilling/unable to move to this state. So, the company flew him in for a week once or twice a month, until the company had to cut back on all travel.
It's their stance on airline flights, then sneaking him in under the radar that exposes their own hypocrisy. The article said that in about 2-3 months he will start taking the train once a month, rather than flying twice a month. I wonder how much (if at all) his carbon footprint will be reduced when he switches to 12 hours on a train from 3 hours on an aircraft.
I found this graphic in my FB feed a couple days ago, and I had to call bullshit.
First of all, some facts not in evidence.
When a Sergeant with a family and two years in service gets about $20/hour. If he's single, he only makes $13 an hour. It takes over a year to train an infantryman in the tools of his trade and to work as a team with his buddies. Then there is the grueling mental and physical training, as well as the responsibility and leadership training to rise to E-5.
And he gets shot at as part of his job description.
I don't see these two job types anywhere close to each other. Bottom line, if you want to be paid $15 (or more) an hour, go learn a skill. You don't need a college degree, a Vocational school will give you a trade that likely pays more and sooner than a 4 year degree. Plumber, electrician, mason, welder or any of a hundred other skilled trades pay a lot more than minimum wage. If you make yourself worth $15 an hour, people will pay you that.
Don't depend on the government to mandate what you should be paid. Take charge of your life and make yourself worth more, no one else will.
I found out about this from a friends Facebook post about a Daily UK Mail article referencing a KHOU story: Border residents fear message on mysterious billboards.
Okay, a vandalized billboard which has "Silver or Lead" in Spanish and a mannequin hanging by it's neck, This does not rate as national news? Fox, CNN, Reuters and AP I all personally checked, and none of them have any mention of it.
If this was not done by the Mexican drug cartels, this was done by people friendly to them. This is being read as a message directed to police officers to either accept payoffs and look the other way, or the people responsible for these billboards will help officers who refuse the silver (and probably their families) get a dirt nap. And just where is Border Patrol? Where is the Army? Obama has lots of things to say about "#BringBackOurGirls" in Africa, but nothing to say about taking care of our Southern border and protecting LEOs.
This warrior lays it on the line, plain and does not mince words. He is proud of his service. He is not mad at anyone for losing his legs and right arm. He is mad (and IMO, rightfully so) that Obama abandoned Iraq for his own political profit. I have written for years that if we could have inspired a positive change in Iraq, started a stable economy with job growth to turn those young men into businessmen and skilled workers rather than "Jihadist suicide bombers" the "fundamental change" would have spread throughout the Islamic world. A peaceful change. Nah, by abandoning Iraq, we have guaranteed Al Qaeda a world wide base of operations, with its own funding source. Here is Senior Airman Kolfage's own words.
He released this letter on Feb 17th, 2014:
My Open Letter to Obama. I nearly died in a war that you and most of your colleagues supported overwhelmingly, including the two presidents who came before you. Many citizens may not agree with waging war in Iraq to free the oppressed Iraqi citizens, but it’s something that warriors like myself have zero control over. I joined to serve my country and to better my life. I’ve seen things that you could never imagine, and they have made me the person I am today.
Mr. Obama, even though we share extreme opposite views, we have one thing in common, we both attended school in Hawaii. However, that’s where the similarities end. You see, as you attended your exclusive, private school, I would ride my bike to Kaimuki High school in one of the roughest areas in Hawaii every morning and would ride past Punahou, the exclusive private school you attended. I would notice the Bentleys, Maserati’s, and fancy foreign cars that all the kids were dropped off in; wow it must have been extremely rough in Hawaii living that life, right? I could only imagine what it was like to have that kind of money. Fortunately for you, not many people are aware of the school and the upper class citizens who attended it. The tuition to attend your exclusive, private school was more than it cost me to obtain a Bachelor’s degree in Architecture from the University of Arizona. You talk a big game when it comes to financial inequality, yet I’m quite sure you have no idea what it’s truly like to have sacrifice. You were one of the elitist children in Hawaii.
After High School, we each chose very different paths. You were able to attend Ivy League schools, and I sought out a military career to in hopes of earning a degree. What we have in life as children usually sets the tone for what we will face later in life that will make us successful. I worked to get where I am today, and YOU WERE HANDED IT….Mr. Inequality.
I volunteered to go to Iraq on both of my deployments, and the second time I begged to go even after I wasn’t selected, which ultimately got me placed on the team where I would lose both legs and my dominant arm. I’ve never asked myself was losing 3 limbs in a war worth it, even though many Americans were against it.
I am frequently reminded of the many young Iraqi children who would beg me for water, food, and toys while I was stationed in Iraq. Children, who in all aspects made the poorest of poor American children look rich. You have no idea what it really means to be poor. It’s laughable that you, who would have no idea what it means to be poor would so frequently play the inequality card. While I was in Iraq, our mission was to liberate the Iraqi citizens from a tyrant and that’s what we did. Never forget, it was your people who sent us there, like the Clintons, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi & Carl Levin. However, since the day you busted onto the scene you’ve been talking about ending the war and pulling the troops out, not understanding the blood sweat and tears that so many Americans and Iraqi’s invested. And with complete disregard for every life sacrificed, every limb lost, and every broken family, you bailed on our mission to pursue an agenda that was completely centered on your re-election in 2012. If you didn’t bail on Iraq you were worried that you may not get re-elected and that’s a fact. Just before elections on Oct 11, 2012 you said “Al Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead.” Look at Iraq now, they are in shambles and the Al Qaeda flag is flying freely. Clearly, you’re unfit for duty as a Commander in Chief. You put your own agenda ahead of America’s agenda, and now you have single handedly ruined and destroyed nearly everything we gained in Iraq. It clearly means nothing to you, because the only thing that you’ve personally invested in that country was a promise to bail on them. However, people like me gave limbs, friends have died, and we’ve watched families destroyed by war’s aftermath.
I’m not placing blame on you for the war, I’m placing blame on you for destroying what we’ve worked so hard to build. You’re not a leader, you’re a community organizer. A leader would have stood up regardless of the situation and put America’s agenda first and that is ensuring a secure Iraq even after 10 years of war. But, you placed Barack first, just as Robert Gates confirmed in his new book. I can’t help but think of those poor kids who I gave water and toys to 11 years ago. They’re probably 15 or 16 years old now, and I can only imagine what it’s like for them to have their nation being torn apart yet again; all because of your poor leadership qualities. Regardless of why we went to Iraq, its water under the bridge. We went there, we waged war, and we not only owed it to our KIA’s but we owed it to the citizens of Iraq. We invaded their country and turned it upside down, and you bailed on them. You bailed on our soldiers and you’ve wasted every death and every limb, it’s all for nothing. And to make matters worse you blame others for your failures.
You’re just another elitist rich thug who’s pretended to live the rough life growing up in the inner-city. You’re only worried about your own agenda and furthering your party instead of taking care of Americans. Your inability to be a leader at some of the most critical points has caused both of our wars to fail. You’ve been a joke to most of our veteran community and we have no faith in your ability to lead.
Senior Airman Ret Brian Kolfage USAF
This letter seems to have been spurred from the VA Department "determining" that Mr. Kolfage "was overpaid" a sum just short of $5,000, so they are going to correct that by reducing his payments for the next FOUR YEARS. Even after he submitted the paperwork that showed he was not overpaid and they told him that everything was taken care of, someone didn't do all of the paperwork, because his next check came up short and he received a letter confirming the first payment from another department.
I am not engaging in hyperbole either: Federal Court: The Police Can Stop and Search You for Behaving Innocently. Yes, I found this on the Huffington Post. The scary thing is, when those wingnuts start getting concerned about this kind of stuff, it's usually too late. Normally Liberals root for the encroachment of civil liberties by government. It's all "for our own good" you know.
A federal appeals court just ruled that the police have a legal right to stop, search and arrest you for innocent behavior including driving with your hands at the ten-and-two position on the steering wheel at 7:45 p.m., taking a scenic route and having acne. To the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, these factors added up to fit the profile of a person smuggling undocumented immigrants and drugs. The court said, "Although the factors, in isolation, may be consistent with innocent travel ... taken together they may amount to reasonable suspicion."
The reason why this lady is in court, is that the Border Patrol officer searched her vehicle and found an amount of marijuana, which is why she was arrested. Be clear, I make no argument or statement for or against her having marijuana in her car.
The PDF of the decision is here, I suggest you read it. This is the part that disturbs me (bold is mine) The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” U.S. Const., amend. IV, including investigatory stops and detentions, see United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682 (1985); United States v. Cheromiah, 455 F.3d 1216, 1220 (10th Cir. 2006). Ms. Westhoven “bears the burden of establishing that the challenged stop violated the Fourth Amendment.” Cheromiah, 455 F.3d at 1220. Like other law enforcement officers, a border patrol agent must possess reasonable suspicion a law was violated to stop a vehicle: “Except at the border and its functional equivalents, officers on roving patrol may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion” that the occupants have violated a law. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975); Cheromiah, 455 F.3d at 1220.
In one of my earlier posts, I talk about how DHS has set up a "Constitutional exception zone” for the first 100 miles from the nearest border. By the way, 2/3rds of Americans live within that zone, all day every day. Of the two parts that I bolded, the first one stating that the defendant "bears the burden of establishing that the stop violated her Fourth Amendment rights" sounds a lot like the opposite of "presumed innocent until proven guilty." The government is making the accusation. It should have to prove beyond a reasonable point that the officer was justified in making the stop.
The second, "Except at the border and its functional equivalents..." There is that nasty 100 mile "Constitutional exception zone” thing again. So, let's get this straight. While traveling within 100 miles of a border, you can obey all standing laws (yes, she was speeding, but the BP officer did not have the authority to enforce traffic laws) and still be pulled over. Once the officer makes you nervous and you stutter, or misspeak, that gives him the reasonable suspicion, coupled with your adherence to local laws to detain you and call in the dogs. Just checking.
Just in case you haven't seen my other posts on this, DON'T SAY A WORD TO THE POLICE. Not a word, facial expression, shrug of the shoulders. Ask, and continue to ask until you receive an answer, "Am I being detained officer? Am I free to go?" If you are not being detained, leave the area IMMEDIATELY. If you end up in the back of a patrol car after that, your only words should be, "I want to speak to my lawyer."
Two glaring examples on how the federal government is becoming an enemy of the People: Case #1: Big Chill: Feds Want To Scour Net, Media For 'Hate Speech.' Two Democrat lawmakers, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. have come up with a bill, "The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014."
The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 “would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes,” stated a news release from Markey’s office.
So, in effect we would have more "watchers" monitoring all communications, for that ever ambiguous "Hate Speech." And just who determines what is "Hate Speech?" Why, the GOVERNMENT, of course! After all, they have done the job of solving racism, illegal immigration, job creation and healthcare so well, right?
Case #2: DOJ's 'Operation Choke Point' May Be Root of Porn Star Bank Account Closings A quote from the article:
Under "Operation Choke Point," the DOJ and its allies are going after legal but subjectively undesirable business ventures by pressuring banks to terminate their bank accounts or refuse their business. The very premise is clearly chilling—the DOJ is coercing private businesses in an attempt to centrally engineer the American marketplace based on it's own politically biased moral judgements. Targeted business categories so far have included payday lenders, ammunition sales, dating services, purveyors of drug paraphernalia, and online gambling sites.
So, what the government "finds objectionable" but isn't against the law (yet), President Obama, Eric Holder and the people who work for them are basically strong-arming the banks into having them refuse to do business with businesses and persons the DOJ doesn't like. There is precedent for this. After all, the Clinton Administration pressured banks into lending money for people to buy homes, even when the banks knew the person could not meet the obligations of the loan. But it's not all Clinton's Fault. It can be traced all the way back to Jimmy Carter and every White House afterwards. If you don't know what happened, I suggest you read this. So, there you go. Two examples that the government "knows what is good for us, more than we know what is good for us."
I weep for us all.
I found a video on YouTube of a Congressional hearing. I have the video below. What it boils down to is, it says in the programming code for the healthcare.gov website (I'm not sure if a user actually sees this or not) that the user "has no expectation of privacy."
This means the Federal government cannot obey its own laws on HIPPA security. Working with medical records in my last employment, HIPPA awareness was drilled into me morning, noon and night. The company faced substantial financial penalties from the state, not to mention probable litigation from the members whose data was violated, if there was an inadvertent exposure of medical records. Coupled with the fact that some of the programmers for that website were Belorussian State-controlled programmers, I refuse to let any of my personal data near that website. Here is the video:
Here is a video talking about the Bureau of Land Management and the Bundy Ranch Dispute.
I think it does a reasonably good job explaining the madness that is our current government. By the way, What is said about the BLM is pretty much true for the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) the Department of the Interior (which BLM is a part of) and most, if not all of the major departments of the Executive Branch.
Congress writes the "Sunshine and Puppies for Everybody Law of 2014" in general terms, then at the end, has a part that reads something like, "The departments that have responsibility for enforcement of this law can issue defining regulations pertaining thereto." Which means, they publish their "regulation changes" in the Federal Register (which most people have never even heard of) and after the appropriate "public comment period," the regulations now have the authority of law.
Now, if a significant number of citizens express outrage and other comments against the proposed regulation, the Department concerned can "take into consideration" the comments before issuing the final regulations. They usually don't and make it law as originally written. Anyway, here is the video:
Yesterday, the Second American Revolution almost started. If you watch the MSM (read, "anybody other than Fox"), you have probably missed this event. CNN had one link at the bottom of their page when I checked a bit ago. Here's the rough outline of the story: Cliven Bundy, a rancher in Nevada, has owned and ranched an expanse of land his family claimed in 1875. Back in the 90's, the federal government declared a species of tortoise in that area "endangered" and took steps to "protect" it. Too bad the tortoises have grown to the point they have to kill a thousand of them. Since the Feds (specifically the Bureau of Land Management) has to "protect" the tortoises, they asserted control over the land that Cliven's family has worked for 139 years. The BLM then demanded that Cliven pay them so they could control his land and give him permission to let his cattle graze on his property. So far, the BLM asserts the Bundy family owes them $1.1 Million. Cliven's refusal to pay the "fees" has "forced" the BLM to round up his cattle on "federal" land. Scuffles escalated to the point several thousand citizens, at least some of them armed, gathered in support of the Bundys. It was at this point yesterday, when BLM agents were facing a force that was armed at least as well as they were. And the BLM backed down. Now, there is a lot more to this story than that. Solar energy farms, Senator Reid and even the Chinese have been mentioned in the possible motivations for trying to force this issue. And there is probably more to it than that. We will probably never know. The MSM is suspiciously silent, and when they do speak, it is on the side of the government, which is where we all know they are anyway. This is NOT the end. New plans are being drawn up, a timeline developed and press releases are being written. The BLM will be back, and they will win, unless the entirety of the government is stopped. The power grab of Washington has to end. Don't look to Washington, both parties are interested in controlling the citizens, the only difference is the exact methods. Look to your fellow citizens. 3:55pm UPDATE: THIS IS UNCONFIRMED, and I am working on it:
James Wesley Jr Via Uncle Sam's Misguided Children This was shared on their Facebook "Page," but NSA is BLOCKING IT from being shared any further. Please Copy & Paste this entire message and post it EVERYWHERE YOU CAN! CAN YOU VERIFY THIS ? At 1750 hours ET, I was contacted by my source within the Department of Homeland Security regarding the current situation at the Bundy Ranch. To put it bluntly, the people are being hoodwinked into believing that the situation is being resolved. It is not. It is a strategic de-escalation to fool the public. This source stated that the retreat of the BLM agents and the release of the cattle was actually crafted as a potential plan yesterday (Friday, 11 April 2014) based on the following: 1. A military assessment of satellite and drone surveillance imagery of the “patriot resistance. Drones under the control of the U.S. military were in use, taking real-time photographic images of not just the activity at the ranch, but "identifying the protesters, any arms and any supplies they might have or be carrying. “Mission accomplished.” 2. Real-time communication intercepts between patriots on-site and their off-site support; 3. Active monitoring of internet traffic regarding the coverage of events at ranch; 4. The monitoring of real-time video from the scene. This source stated that a response by the patriot movement was anticipated, although exceeded their expectations. Although this was a real operation, they also ran this as a test case for future government operations once they saw the response. They were also actively managing the media, in some cases threatening to cut off White House access to anyone covering the event. Despite this, the coverage by the alternative media began to create a public relations problem that was not easily managed. Note the lack of acknowledgment by the White House regarding this event. They are intentionally framing it as a state issue, despite the fact that all federal response has been and continues to be from the White House. There is a reason for this – a reason that has not been identified in any of the public reports to date. I will explain in further detail in a follow-up report on Sunday, after this source attends [redacted] to obtain more specific information about future federal operations. Regardless, according to this source, the government will take back ‘their land’ as they must to fulfill international obligations. It was never about grazing rights or anything other than (1) “securing clear title” to the land, and (2) further demonizing any patriotic resistance. It is my understanding, based on the information from this source, that it is a critical task to create a situation that will also advance their agenda of gun control and confiscation. A more detailed report will follow on Sunday, 13 April 2014, with additional and much more specific information about their inside plans and future operations.PLEASE MAKE THIS VIRAL
My email address is to the right, if you can confirm or deny this, PLEASE CONTACT ME.
7:38PM UPDATE: I found this: Investigator: BLM’s Surrender at Bundy Ranch is a Strategic De-escalation to Hoodwink the People.
From Acculturated: Lauren Conrad, one of the hotter Conservative women (not Conservative babe) was asked by a Liberal (who seems to view women only as sex objects, based on the question) during a radio interview the question, "What's your favorite position?"
Without batting an eye, she responds, "CEO."
On this first day of 2014, I wanted to bring light to this issue, which is the suspension of our Fourth Amendment Rights. This also shows you need to look at an issue from several different angles, because one point of view won't give you the whole story. This particular case revolves around Pascal Abidor, who's citizenship is not revealed. One of the articles states that his parents live in New York. Their citizenship status is not clear either. Anyway, Pascal was traveling via Amtrak from Canada to his parents home. I'll let the RT.com article explain it(by the way, here are two more articles on this):
Abidor was sitting in the train's cafe car when an officer forced him to take out his laptop then “ordered Mr. Abidor to enter his password,” the suit claimed. The computer contained images of Hamas and Hezbollah rallies and the agents, unmoved by Abidor's assertion the images were related to his studies, handcuffed the young man and kept him detained for three hours, questioning him numerous times.
Doing a "police inspection" in public like this is simply wrong. And it is not meant to intimidate just the person being stopped, but every other person in sight as well. Because if they can stop him, they can stop you. A probable cause for the stop was given, was that he had "traveled to Lebanon," but no time frame for that travel was given. If he just transferred straight from the airport in Canada to Amtrak and headed into the US, that is one thing. However, I have to ask, did he stay in Canada more than the minimum time necessary to leave the country? Did he stay overnight, a week, a month before heading to New York? That fact would change the equation. I also need to ask, why wasn't he stopped right there at the border? Why wait until he already got some distance into the country? I really think it's telling that the ruling judge, Judge Korman, talked about the First Amendment, not the Fourth. The First wasn't an issue in the lawsuit he was ruling on. Judge Korman also upheld a DHS policy which claims any American land within 100 miles of a border to be a "Constitutional exception zone," which means DHS can stop you without warrant or probable cause, seize your personal electronics and demand proof of your citizenship. Let's tale a look at the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Taking a look at this Amendment, I don't see how a police officer can stop a person who does not appear to be breaking any law, and demand access to their "papers and effects" which your laptop, tablet or smartphone clearly is. If the officer has reasonable suspicion, he can swear out an Oath and obtain a warrant for the items the police wishes to inspect and/or seize. The unintended consequences of this ruling means that currently 2/3rds of the population lives within "100 miles of a border," and are thus subject to the whims of the DHS.
If I were to travel to New York City, or Miami, Florida, the DHS can stop and seize any electronics in my possession without warrant or probable cause. Papers, please? I understand that judges are people too, and they have prejudices, beliefs and agendas just like the rest of us. That being said, when we have Judges like this, who blatantly and flagrantly disregard the standards set forth by the Constitution, we are all truly screwed.
Because now all three branches of the Federal government, instead of fighting against each other in a balance of power, have united against the Constitution they have supposedly sworn to "protect, uphold and defend," and the People as well. Sleep well, citizen. Our government is looking out for us.
I need to say something, but I have to start out in a different direction.
The object of the Masons is to make good men better. We are looking for men who know they can improve themselves. We are not looking for perfect. When a man submits a petition to our Lodge, we do a background check on him. We ask him to his face if he has a criminal record.
If his background check says he has a record and he denies it, we stop the process right there. If a man has multiple felony convictions and he just got out of prison in the past year, we ask him to come back in a couple of years when he has shown he can stay out of prison for a while. If a man made some mistakes in the past, and it's in the past and he admits to them, we look at him. I have personally sponsored a man (now a brother) who has a drug conviction on his record from years past. He explained it, stated that he did everything the court asked him to do and it was expunged from his record. He has not had another problem with the law since.
I bring this up, because it speaks to a mans integrity.
I saw a news article about Robin Speronis, a "poor widow" who was being evicted from her paid-for home because of "code violations" that she doesn't have running water or electricity in her home. I mentioned this in passing to my wife, who did a little more research on her. It turns out this woman was arrested and convicted in 2009 and 2012 for Grand Larceny. She was also arrested in 2012 for a probation violation for failing to pay restitution to her victims from those crimes. Further search-fu by my wife revealed that this woman had swindled multiple people out of thousands of dollars in real estate scams.
She has refused to pay restitution to these people, which led to the probation violation arrest. She also lost her real estate broker license because of this. She is now a "talk show host" preaching "off the grid" living.
I provide these links as a warning, not an endorsement.
She is generating income by book sales and speaking engagements and because she is "fighting Big Brother" she is starting to get people to endorse her. Of course, she is not making up for her crimes by repaying the people she stole from. My point? Pay attention to the person. If this woman had done these larcenies years in the past and had paid restitution, I could have considered taking up her cause. Knowing that these larcenies are recent, and she is not making the effort to make good on her crimes, this new cause appears to me that she is not stopping her criminal behavior and is just changing her methodology of bilking people. Be very careful in all your dealings.
Defensive Gun Uses occur over 2,000,000 times a year. Here is an example: Man opens fire on attempted armed robbers after work.
Kelly Royster, 21, a five-month employee of Nationwide Warehouse, said he and a female co-worker were leaving work around 8:15 p.m. when the two robbers approached them.
The pair went straight for the woman, who was carrying the night's deposit, and demanded the bank bag, Royster said...
"I just pulled it out and got to shooting at them," Royster said. "I was trying to keep track of how many I was firing, because I only had one clip." This was one of the less than 5% of the DGU's where shots are fired. Make no mistake about it, the only reason why it made the news was the fact that shots were fired.
All I can say is I hope I would have done as well as this man did. I would like to say I would have dropped both of them before they know what happened, but reality is different from imagination. It is also a lot messier.
I can never bear arms legally again, so I hope I never have to face such a situation.
Contrary to what some so-called "environmental groups" proclaim, logging and controlled burning of forests is actually better for wild things and humans than immediately putting out every forest fire.
Just as man controls and maintains farmland, so must we do the same for the forests. Fires do essential work, but this work can be done by man as well. Maintenance, logging and controlled burns will prevent the massive burns that we see on a regular basis.
That's the responsible thing to do.
This reminds me of a quip from Yakov Smirnoff. He was asked, "Is there television in the USSR?" His reply was, "Yes, but it watches you."
I've asked it before, are you truly free when you are watched almost every second, every movement scrutinized?
This is what I found disturbing enough to mention this article:
"Other countries have been much more wary about CCTV, because of long-held concepts such as freedom of expression and assembly. These seem to be alien concepts in here. [emphasis mine]"
The easiest way to destroy essential liberties is through apathy. Then again, the English have no rights except that which is given to them by the State.
How long will it be before your views begin to look the same way? How long will it take for our freedoms to be blunted and destroyed by the constant surveillance?
In fact, my son and I used the local transit system yesterday, to go play some MechWarrior:Dark Age. We took a bus that was brand new, complete with cameras watching our every move. There was one looking at who was coming on, one watching where the driver was going, one watching the rear exit and one watching those of us who were in the back of the bus. I admit I was uncomfortable the entire time we were on the bus.
But that is the new reality for partaking of public transit. It makes me want to spend the money to get the car fixed more than ever now.
I admit that cameras can do useful things. But at what cost?
Hell has a good freeze warning, and I ain't talking about Hell, Michigan. Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: Portugal PM
"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.
So Clinton actually comes down on the side of President Bush, but he does so quietly.
I think this is part of Hillary's calculations. Bill will continue to speak on this if it doesn't get more news coverage, undermining the Democrats running for President. This will further strengthen her stranglehold on running in 2008 by making sure Bush gets reelected.
Hillary is smart and ruthless. She bears watching. Hell, she would bear watching by me if she was a republican. She's like a magician, she keeps you looking at one hand while the other hand is under the table doing something else. She is as radical (in her own way) as Robertson or bin Laden, but is smart enough to keep up the facade of being a centrist. She's even more radical than Bill ever was.
Watch out. This one's dangerous.
I found this article, Man says he's addicted to cable; wants to sue Charter
Cable TV made a West Bend man addicted to TV, caused his wife to be overweight and his kids to be lazy, he says.
And he's threatening to sue the cable company.
Timothy Dumouchel of West Bend wants $5,000 or three computers, and a lifetime supply of free Internet service from Charter Communications to settle what he says will be a small claims suit.The laughable thing about it is he wants to trade one sedimentary activity (TV) for another (Computers).
Actually, he's trying to pull a fast one, like the lady in Ohio who claims she lost the winning lottery ticket and it belongs to her instead of the lady who actually has the ticket.
The disgusting thing is that these people actually believe that they can get away with it. Usually they get tossed out of court on their ear and a bill for court costs in their pocket. The bad news is there are just enough times where they get a piece of the action to keep them filing.
I personally hope Mr. Dumouchel gets a bill for the four years he admits he stole cable. That's about $2,700 worth.
Here is an affront to everybody, no matter what your persuasion. The S factor explains Bush's popularity
It's the "Stupid factor," the S factor: Some people -- sometimes through no fault of their own -- are just not very bright.
It's not merely that some people are insufficiently intelligent to grasp the nuances of foreign policy, of constitutional law, of macroeconomics or of the variegated interplay of humans and the environment. These aren't the people I'm referring to. The people I'm referring to cannot understand the phenomenon of cause and effect. They're perplexed by issues comprising more than two sides. They don't have the wherewithal to expand the sources of their information. And above all -- far above all -- they don't think.This is the standard Liberal visceral hatred of All Things Bush. And when I mean hate, I mean HATE. Liberals hate the fact that the man draws breath. They hate everything Bush stands for, believes in, does, says, thinks and so on. And so, by extension, they must hate everybody around him and everybody who supports him. Thus you, dear reader, if you believe in the war in Iraq, approve of the war against terrorism, like the tax cut because it puts your money back into your pocket, then you are stupid, only by virtue of not agreeing with the Liberal mindset.
Of course, to be loved by Liberals, all you have to do is surrender all thinking to them. They will spoon feed you the issues, tell you want to think and how to vote. They view themselves as philosopher-kings and rightful rulers of all they survey. You will be more stupid under the Liberals because they expect you to be. If you are not stupid and dependent upon them for everything, then why do Liberals exist? Liberals can only exist as long as there are people dependent upon them. If you can get everybody to be self-sufficient, then Liberals cannot exist.
Conservatives on the other hand, give you the issues and let you decide. For once we have a man in office who is not driven by polls. He has a systematic plan and is implementing it. I admit I don't fully agree with it, but the only way I would fully agree with the president would be if I was the president.
What is funny is how Liberals actually expect to win a majority of the electorate by telling them how stupid they are. They make no effort to explain why their policies (of which they have none) are superior to the Conservatives. In fact, some of the very policies that they have been running on for years have been dealt with by the Republicans. How about that for stealing their thunder?
Well, it seems like the word is spreading. Like the Marines say, "No better friend, no worse enemy. " N. Korea Offers to Halt Nuke Facilities shows a major caving in on their part.
North Korea has said before it is willing to freeze its "nuclear activities" in exchange for U.S. aid and being taken off Washington's roster of terrorism sponsoring nations.
On Tuesday it specified it was "set to refrain from testing and production of nuclear weapons and stop even operating (its) nuclear power industry for a peaceful purpose."It appears that any (or all) of these events are playing in our favor:
In any event, it appears that serious concessions are being made. As with all such people, "Trust, but verify." I doubt there is very little substance, but it is a start and once one side in a diplomatic fight gives in, it snowballs from there.
I found this today, You Say You Want a Resolution and found the points discussed very poignant.
I especially liked #2
"Violence only leads to more violence."
This one is so stupid you usually have to be the president of an Ivy League university to say it. Here's the truth, which you know in your heads and hearts already:
Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence. Limp, panicky, half-measures lead to more violence. However, complete, fully-thought-through, professional, well-executed violence never leads to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead.
That's right, dead. Not "on trial," not "reeducated," not "nurtured back into the bosom of love." Dead. D-E--Well, you get the idea.
Naked violence that wipes out the opponent has always finally solved problems. I hope it doesn't come to that. I really don't want to wipe out an entire religion. We are going to have to wipe out one wing of it, as there is no compromise with the violent fundamentalists, but I hope it goes no farther than that.
I found this article, Why more senior citizens are carrying guns and I thought it bears mentioning.
First of all, the sub-title on the piece is, "They're protecting themselves from what they see as a rise in violence, even if crime statistics say otherwise."
You may think this is a pro-gun article, but it's not. I'll admit that armed seniors suffering from Alzheimer's can pose a threat to those around them, but I don't think that it is as widespread that the article implies.
The article also infers that, "because crime is down, nobody needs to arm themselves." They are not looking at the fact that it is armed citizens who are lowering the crime rate. Crime rates have steadily dropped because now 45 of 50 states have concealed weapons licenses for ordinary citizens. Every state that licenses citizens to carry see a decrease in crime across the board.
A criminal will commit crimes until they are stopped, that's a fact. If they come up against an armed citizen, that's a pretty solid wall to run into. Seniors are the weakest amongst us with the exception of children and are easy pickings for an aggressive criminal. When you arm them, they become a wall against crime. Once a criminal faces down an armed citizen, they think twice about taking on their next victim.
In the end, "the best insurance seniors can have against violent crime is a well-armed citizenry," says Van Vibber, gripping his pistol. "Besides, it's a God-given right."