Google Search

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Philip DeFranco Interviewed on Redistribution


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');

Philip DeFranco, the Host of the Philip DeFranco Show on YouTube, on redistribution of wealth by the government. Is redistribution stealing, like Newt said? Is it legalized theft? Part 1.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Economy
- Ron Paul: "Country Should Panic Over Fed's Decision"
- The Fed's Balance At The End Of 2013: $4 Trillion
- Things Are Getting Worse: Median Household Income Has Fallen 4 Years In A Row
- Schiff Vs. Insana; Matter Vs. Anti-Matter
- Peter Schiff On CNBC - Talks Ban Corporate Profits Video
- The Bill Clinton Myth
- Peter Schiff Talks Rising Food Prices On Al Jazeera
- World's richest woman: "Drink less, work more"

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Seattle Cops Retaliate Against Man That Complained About Seattle Police


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Friday, October 26, 2012

John Kerry Confronted on Building 7 "Controlled Fashion" Comment


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');

Senator John Kerry gets confronted on his "Controlled fashion" comment regarding the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 and the fact he is a member of Skull & Bones.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest General
- Thomas S. Szasz (1920-2012)
- Bill Hicks on COPS
- Keith Olbermann on 9/11 Truth
- Bob Saget on 9/11 Truth
- Will.i.am of The Black Eyed Peas on Obama's Secret Kill List
- 11% Of Likely Voters Favor Legalizing, Regulating Cocaine
- Molyneux To Ron Paul Supporters: I'm Sorry
- Gallup: Americans Rate Public Schools the Worst Place to Educate Children

"We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world--a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us...No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we'll kill you.
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid rich kids like George Bush? They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate mongers among us--they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis.
And I am too old to worry about whether they like it or not. Fuck them."
-Hunter S. Thompson, Kingdom of Fear
A cowboy nation ready to eliminate the rest of the world like they did to the native americans. And a texan cowboy wants to be the president.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Jeremy Scahill Points Out Drone-Bomba-Obama Is A Mass Murdering Criminal, MSNBC Panel Dumbstruck


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Alabama Man Kills Himself in Drug Raid


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
by Phillip Smith

A Buhl, Alabama, man apparently shot and killed himself as members of the Tuscaloosa County Sheriff's Office went to serve a possession of a controlled substance warrant last Sunday night. Randall Justin Roberts, 34, becomes the 46th person to die in US domestic drug law enforcement operations so far this year.

Citing police sources, the Alabama.com news portal reported that when deputies went to the front door, Roberts' father, Randall Floyd Roberts refused to let them enter even after they showed him their warrant. The elder Roberts was then arrested for obstruction and subsequently charged with resisting arrest when he struggled with officers.

Once in the house, deputies went to the bedroom where they believed Roberts was, but heard a single gunshot go off as they opened the bedroom door. The deputies retreated, removed his mother from the house, and then set up a perimeter around the house. More deputies responded to the call of shots fired, as did the sheriff's SWAT team, replete with "the department's Bear Cat (Armored Tactical Vehicle), Aviation Unit, K-9 and Paramedic."

The SWAT team gave itself a workout. It tried to contact Roberts using the public address system in the Bear Cat. It threw flash grenades and then tear gas grenades. It used a helicopter to provide cover while it "deployed assets." It used a telescopic TV camera to search rooms in the house. It used the drug dog to indicate that Roberts was in the rear bedroom -- the same one where the single shot came from.

After about two hours, SWAT team members entered the house and found Roberts dead in closet in the bedroom. A .22 revolver was found lying next to him.

It's not clear whether the warrant was a search warrant or an arrest warrant. Roberts had been arrested August 13 on drug distribution charges.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Texas Cop Drags 77-Yr-Old Grandmother from Car for Refusing to Show ID
- Texas Police Kill Unarmed Man Before Confiscating Witness Camera and Deleting Images
- Police Learn Propaganda Tactics at Internet Conference
- Drug Sentences Driving Federal Prison Population Growth, Government Report Finds
- Tarnished badges: Opa-locka's troubled police force
- Officer Enforcing Leash Law Shoots Family's Dog, Witness Horrified
- 90-Plus Arrests of D.C. Cops in Under 4 Years
- Infiltrating Occupy: Austin Activists Face Charges for Equipment Provided by Undercover Police

Did he kill himself, or did he "apparently" kill himself? If it was the latter, that was a choice he made. In fact, this whole circumstance was due to choices he made. Ack! I meant FORMER, not latter.
Sorry 'bout that.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Obama Sends More Drones, Marines to Libya, But Did They Ever Leave?


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
Apparently, there is nothing so permanent as a temporary US war
by John Glaser


The Obama administration has ordered military reinforcements to Libya following the attack on the US consulate building this week, but the truth is drones had never left Libya?s skies and US Marines have been carrying out missions on the ground since the end of NATO?s war there last year.

The US suspects al-Qaeda affiliates were involved in starting the attack on the US consulate in Libya, which killed the American ambassador and three others, and has not only started an FBI investigation into the incident, but has ordered more drones to surveil Libya, as well as up to 50 additional US Marines and US warships equipped with Tomahawk missiles off the northern coast.

But the Defense Department told Wired?s Danger Room that the drones never left, despite the fact that the NATO air war in Libya came to an end almost a year ago.

?Yes, we have been flying CAPs [combat air patrols] since the war ended,? said Army Lt. Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman. These have apparently been done for surveillance purposes with the consent of the new Libyan government.

Similarly, the 50 additional US Marines being sent to Libya won?t exactly be new. One of the four Americans killed in this week?s consulate attack told ABC News last month he was working with the State Department on an intelligence mission to find some of the hoards of weapons strewn about the country following the collapse of Muammar Gadhafi?s regime.

The late economist Milton Friedman was famous for saying that there is nothing so permanent as a government temporary program. He was referring to domestic policies and bureaucracies, but the same principle applies here. When the US government engages in military action abroad, the tendency is for such military engagements to remain open-ended, in keeping with America?s long history of spreading its military across the entire globe.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Geopolitics
- Tutu: Bush, Blair should face trial at the Hague
- Permission to Engage: Victims' families and an ex-US soldier unpick the Wikileaks film that showed US forces killing Iraqi civilians in 2007 [Video]
- WoW and Battle.net service pulled from Iran due to US sanctions -- Blizzard
- Julian Assange will be granted asylum, says official
- The Cannibal Warlords of Liberia (Another Smashing Success Of U.S. Interventionism)
- US terror drone strikes kill 18, injure more than dozen in Somalia
- CIA "Manages"? Drug Trade, Mexican Official Says
- Singapore to Relax Death Penalty for Some Drug Traffickers

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Texas Cop Drags 77-Yr-Old Grandmother from Car for Refusing to ID


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
Chris | InformationLiberation

"Let's be clear: You are a worthless pleb citizen whose prime directive in life is to unquestioningly obey and pay your criminal overlords as we rob you."

That's what this Texas cop would have said if he could articulate his views beyond grunts and violence.

Via NBC DFW

A local Texas police department is standing by an officer who dragged a 77-year-old grandmother out of her car for speeding after she repeatedly refused to provide her driver's license.

The entire arrest was caught on video by the Keene Police Department.

The woman, Lynn Bedford, of nearby Cleburne, was stopped on Aug. 19 for driving 66 mph in a 50-mph zone.

Bedford told Sgt. Gene Geheb that she had a bladder infection and had to go to the bathroom, but the situation quickly escalated when the officer asked several times for her identification and she refused.

[...]"This incident has been reviewed thoroughly by the Keene Police Department and the City of Keene Administration," Alberti said in a written statement. "All parties have concluded that Sgt. Geheb did not violate any state laws or department policies, and in fact was following department policy in regards to violators not providing identification."

Don't dare say this cop is a bad apple, the majority of police in this country act as this crook does, and their police chiefs defend them. Disband this criminal gang immediately.
_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Texas Police Kill Unarmed Man Before Confiscating Witness Camera and Deleting Images
- Police Learn Propaganda Tactics at Internet Conference
- Drug Sentences Driving Federal Prison Population Growth, Government Report Finds
- Tarnished badges: Opa-locka's troubled police force
- Officer Enforcing Leash Law Shoots Family's Dog, Witness Horrified
- 90-Plus Arrests of D.C. Cops in Under 4 Years
- Infiltrating Occupy: Austin Activists Face Charges for Equipment Provided by Undercover Police
- LRPD officer Josh Hastings has 6 suspensions in 5 years, currently on paid leave after killing 15-yr-old

While. Opinion about the 77yr old grandmother she should have been more in compliance especially when she knew she was driving over speed limit and then didn't have her proof of address right license which is another violation if she was black Spanish are younger she wouldn't probably have serviced without worst injury or death jesus by anyone who resist oficer of the law order especially when u in the wrong will be treated as suspension so before you breaking laws make sure you have appropriate information and ID jesus. Spoken like a true government 'educated' slave.

Speed limits are nothing more than a revenue extraction and extortion scheme, it's been shown repeatedly higher speed limits, and lower speed limits, have absolutely no effect on the rate of accidents:

"Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents."

- U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Research, Development, and Technology Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, 1992

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

Speed limits are about robbing you blind to pay for the bloated salaries of tax-fattened government functionaries and nothing more.

Before you *obey* the laws you might want to have the appropriate information as to why something is a law. The only reason to give a criminal cop like this any sort of obedience is out of the full and complete awareness he is willing to murder you over a traffic ticket.

The word or phrase "investigated thoroughly" now may be interpreted as "His conduct was of the highest order, and demonstrated extreme bravery in an action that required split second judgement, thank God we have officers such as this, knowing that while we go about our daily lives, these brave men and women who serve, are keeping our dangerous world just a bit safer. Now quit your civilian pussy whining and go back to sleep or buy another ipod. We have work to do! There is no rhyme or reason to ever treat a human or citizen like this. We do have rights, cops just try to act like we don't. Too many abuses from police dept all over the states! OBEY
CONSUME
OBEY
CONSUME
OBEY
CONSUME

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Monday, October 22, 2012

No Duty to Secure Wi-Fi from BitTorrent Pirates, Judge Rules


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
by Ernesto

A crucial ruling in one of the ongoing BitTorrent lawsuits in the United States has delivered a clear win for open Wi-Fi operators. Among other things, California Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled that Internet subscribers are not required to secure their wireless networks to prevent outsiders from pirating movies. In other words, people can?t be held liable for the alleged infringements of other people on their network.

BitTorrent lawsuits have been dragging on for more than two years in the US, involving more than a quarter million alleged illicit file-sharers.

The copyright holders who start these cases generally provide nothing more than an IP-address as evidence. They then ask the courts to grant a subpoena which allows them to request the personal details of the alleged offenders from their Internet providers.

The problem with this scheme, however, is that the person who pays the Internet bills may not be the person who pirating the movie or song in question. Several judges have noted that an IP-address is not a person, much to the disappointment of copyright holders.

To counter this argument copyright holders have introduced the ?negligence? theory, arguing that Internet subscribers are liable when other people pirate files through their networks. This would allow copyright holders to sue people even when their targets haven?t committed an offense.

One of these cases was decided last week in favor of the Internet subscriber.

The case was started by adult video company AF Holdings who sued an Internet account holder called Josh Hatfield in a California federal court. AF Holdings claimed that Hatfield had a "duty to secure his Internet connection," and that he "breached that duty by failing to secure his Internet connection."

As a result, AF Holdings argued that Hatfield was liable for the copyright infringements that were committed by an unknown person. Mr. Hatfield disagreed with this claim, and argued that the copyright holder couldn?t prove that people are obliged to secure their wireless networks to prevent piracy.

In her verdict Judge Phyllis Hamilton sided with the defendant.

?AF Holdings has not articulated any basis for imposing on Hatfield a legal duty to prevent the infringement of AF Holdings' copyrighted works, and the court is aware of none,? Hamilton writes.

?Hatfield is not alleged to have any special relationship with AF Holdings that would give rise to a duty to protect AF Holdings' copyrights, and is also not alleged to have engaged in any misfeasance by which he created a risk of peril,? she adds.

In addition to this lack of duty of care, Judge Hamilton ruled that even if negligence could be proven then ?personal injury? state law would be preempted by federal copyright law.

The ruling in the current case is similar to that of Judge Lewis Kaplan in New York earlier this year although perhaps even stronger ? Judge Hamilton specifically rules that Internet subscribers don?t have an obligation towards copyright holders to secure their Wi-Fi.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who have helped out many alleged BitTorrent pirates over the years, are happy with the outcome.

?This ruling, along with the Tabora ruling in New York, send a strong judicial message that copyright owners can?t use legal tricks to bypass the law?s protections for Internet access points,? EFF?s Mitch Stolz writes.

?There are still many open cases in the federal courts where copyright owners are trying to use this bogus legal theory,? he adds.

The ruling is definitely a setback for the many copyright holders who jumped aboard the lucrative BitTorrent lawsuit bandwagon. Should more judges reach the same conclusion in future cases the end of this type of lawsuit in the U.S. may very well be near.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Science/Technology
- No Traffic Lights Vs Traffic Lights
- AZ SWAT Team Kills Man in Drug Raid Shoot-Out
- Man Eats Uranium, Drinks and Swims In Reactor Water, Ignites Plutonium In His Bare Hand
- FOI Documents Show TOR Undernet Beyond the Reach of the Federal Investigators
- Keep Out: NASA Asks Future Moon Visitors to Respect Its Stuff
- Leap Motion: A New Way To interact With Your Computer
- Spectacular video: 'Jetman'; soars over Rio de Janeiro skyline
- Jimmy Wales Says Irrelevance, Not Piracy, Will Doom Hollywood

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Drug Sentences Driving Federal Prison Population Growth, Government Report Finds


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
by Phillip Smith

In a report released Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that growth in the federal prison population is outstripping the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) rated capacity to house prisoners and that the bulge in federal prisoners is largely attributable to drug prisoners and longer sentences for them. That growing inmate overcrowding negatively affects inmates, staff, and BOP infrastructure, the GAO said.

The federal prison population increased 9.5% from Fiscal Year 2006 through FY 2011, exceeding a 7% increase in rated capacity. Although BOP increased the number of available beds by 8,300 during that period by opening five new facilities (and closing four minimum security camps), the number of prisons where overcrowding is occurring increased from 36% to 39%, with BOP forecasting overcrowding increasing to encompass 45% of prisons through 2018.

The drug war and harsh federal drug sentencing are the main drivers of the swelling federal prison population. The GAO reported that 48% of federal prisoners were drug offenders last year, and that the average sentence length for federal drug prisoners is now 2 ? times longer than before federal anti-drug legislation passed in the mid-1980s.There are also now more than 100,000 federal drug prisoners, more than the total number of federal prisoners as recently as 20 years ago.

The negative effects of federal prison overcrowding include "increased use of double and triple bunking, waiting lists for education and drug treatment programs, limited meaningful work opportunities, and increased inmate-to-staff ratios," the report found. All of those "contribute to increased inmate misconduct, which negatively affects the safety and security of inmates and staff." The report also noted that "BOP officials and union representatives voiced concerns about a serious incident [read: riot] occurring."

For this report, the GAO also examined prison populations in five states and actions those states have taken to reduce populations. It found that the states "have modified criminal statutes and sentencing, relocated inmates to local facilities, and provided inmates with additional opportunities for early release," the report found.

Noting that the BOP does not have the authority to modify sentences or sentencing, it nevertheless identified possible means for Congress to address federal prison overcrowding. It could reduce inmate populations by reforming sentencing laws or it could increase capacity by building more prisons, or some combination of the two.

Or it could remove drug control from the ambit of criminal justice altogether and treat the use and distribution of currently illegal drugs as a public health problem.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Texas Cop Drags 77-Yr-Old Grandmother from Car for Refusing to Show ID
- Texas Police Kill Unarmed Man Before Confiscating Witness Camera and Deleting Images
- Police Learn Propaganda Tactics at Internet Conference
- Tarnished badges: Opa-locka's troubled police force
- Officer Enforcing Leash Law Shoots Family's Dog, Witness Horrified
- 90-Plus Arrests of D.C. Cops in Under 4 Years
- Infiltrating Occupy: Austin Activists Face Charges for Equipment Provided by Undercover Police
- LRPD officer Josh Hastings has 6 suspensions in 5 years, currently on paid leave after killing 15-yr-old

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Liquid, Liquid Everywhere, But Not a Drop To Drink Free of Our Rulers' Stranglehold


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
by Becky Akers

Who?s more obsessed with the fluids we ingest, Mayor Mike "Nanny" Bloomberg or the TSA?

New York City?s Board of Health, whose members Nanny appoints, will vote this week to restrict the quantity of soda consenting adults may sell and other consenting adults may buy to 16 ounces. Though only in certain venues: we are still supposedly free to purchase two-liter jugs of such poison (nope, I don?t drink soda. Hate it, in fact) from supermarkets. But if you wish to slurp from a 20-ounce cup at the movies, you?ll have to head for China, Russia, or some other place freer than Bloom-burg-on-the-Hudson.

Because Nanny hasn?t banned the stuff outright, he insists he?s just your average busybody instead of a megalomaniacal dictator on a power-spree. "All we?re doing here is educating," he lied. "[Compelling you to buy soda in the size I decree] forces you to see the difference."

Nanny?s got plenty of accomplices among the mainstream media?s morons. They obligingly continue to discuss the issue on Nanny?s terms ? the red herring of health ? rather than frame it truly as yet another casualty among our few remaining freedoms. One of them blithered in the New York Slimes, "With 58 percent of adults in New York City overweight or obese and 5,800 deaths a year in the city because of obesity, it is evident that some people just aren?t responsible enough to feed themselves." Yep, I?ll pause while you catch your breath. The arrogance stunned me senseless, too.

But wait, it gets better. Though avoirdupois is an issue so specific to each individual that even the socialists haven?t found a way to redistribute it, this dimwit tries hard nonetheless: "If New Yorkers reduced portion size to 16 ounces from 20 ounces for one sugary drink every two weeks, it would collectively save approximately 2.3 million pounds over one year." From this, Dimwit deduces, "A nanny is just what New York City, and the rest of America, needs." Bloomberg for president, oh, yay.

But while Nanny and lackeys like Dimwit presume we?re foolish children who can?t decide for ourselves how much to drink, the TSA runs to the opposite extreme. It pretends we?re diabolically clever terrorists hoping to blow up our flights with our beverages.

A passenger waiting at his gate in the Port Columbus [Ohio] International Airport recently filmed two of the TSA?s minions doing what they do best: harassing innocent, peaceful passengers. Blue shirts and gloves glowing (too much time near the X-rated X-ray scanners?), the duo ordered victims to present their potables for "testing." Then they waved a magic strip of paper over the liquid and dripped a potion the TSA won?t identify on the paper. (As Bill Fisher, one of the agency?s worthiest critics, put it, "Now the[y] expose people?s drinks to some unknown chemical when OSHA regulations require a Manufacturers Safety Data Sheet for any substance that humans contact"). This song-and-dance supposedly proved that passengers were swilling water, not gasoline.

I suppose it?s a weird sort of compliment: we?re not only terrorists but superhuman ones who chug toxic chemicals. Anyone for a side of ground glass with your liquid explosive?

Meanwhile, our anonymous cinematographer points out that he recorded the TSA?s hocus-pocus "inside the terminal, well beyond the security check and [with drinks] purchased inside" that area. In other words, screeners had already ogled, irradiated and groped these folks while rifling their bags. So even the TSA tacitly admits its security theater is bogus by repeatedly pestering passengers.

If you?re thinking this story is d?j? vu all over again, you?re right. In July, KJCT-TV in Colorado reported that the TSA was snooping into travelers? drinks at the gate. That unleashed a national firestorm, with taxpayers vehemently condemning the gate-rapists? overreach.

The agency?s response ? or non-response ? then was the same as now: "We?ve been doing this for years." Kinda like the shoplifter with bulging pockets telling the store?s detective, "Hey, it?s OK. I been takin? whatever I want for years."

The TSA blames this outrage ? and its ridiculous restrictions of liquids and gels in general ? on Britain?s infamous "Liquid Bomb Plot" from 2006. Supposedly, 25 terrorists planned to smuggle fluids aboard several flights, mix them together in the planes? lavatories, and blow the jets sky-high.

That may be fine for a Hollywood thriller, but it?s pretty much impossible otherwise. You don?t just mix up liquid bombs as easily as you do a martini. Rather, the components require precise laboratory conditions and freezing temperatures, or they fizzle, singing the would-be bomber but not much else.

Terrorists know this even if politicians and bureaucrats don?t. That may be why the British government?s case against the "bombers" fell apart in court: no one seriously hoping to sabotage a flight would waste his time with a liquid bomb in an airliner?s lavatory. Jurors convicted only three defendants ? and on lesser charges, not terrorism.

But the TSA never allows facts to thwart its mission of training slaves to obey, however silly their masters? dictates. Nor am I merely speculating: another passenger who clashed with the TSA over her beverage caught the agency?s admitting this on tape.

Seems that when the goons approached her at her gate and ordered her to surrender her water for testing, she outwitted them by drinking it instead. (I do hope she handed them the empty bottle with a shrug and an insouciant, "Throw it away when you?re done, guys, OK?")

Ah, but having no ingenuity of its own, the TSA doesn?t tolerate it in others. Its brutes promptly denounced her "attitude" and booted her off her flight.

ABC News transcribed the exchange she recorded:

Woman [sic for heroine]: Do you think I?m honestly a threat? Do you think that?

TSA agent: No, no, no but with your attitude . . .

Woman [sic for heroine]: Wait, let me get this straight, this is retaliatory for my attitude? This is not making the airways safer, this is retaliatory.

TSA agent: Pretty much, yes. [Inaudible]

Woman [sic for heroine]: Is that legal?

TSA agent: Yes it is.

As you no doubt expected, the excrement at the agency?s HQ supports this rank abuse, just as it did its thugs? pedophilia and persecution of the elderly: "ABC News contacted the TSA which said, ?In our initial review, we concluded that this individual was screened in accordance with standard procedures.?"

And in our initial review ? and all others since ? we concluded that the TSA flushes freedom down the drain. Time we returned the favor.
_
Becky Akers [send her mail] is a free-lance writer and historian. Her novel, Halestorm, is available in paperback or for Kindle, Nook, iPad, Sony, or for your computer.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- Why Vote?
- Obama Lists His Five Criteria for Death by Drone
- Eight Reasons to End Prohibition of All Drugs Immediately
- Welcome to the American Gulag: Using Involuntary Commitment Laws To Silence Dissenters
- The Liberal Way to Run the World - "Improve" or We'll Kill You
- Of Bidens and Bikers: Does Anybody Remember Derek Hale?
- Abandoning My Pre-9/11 Mentality
- How I Live a Little Freer by Staying on the Move

Oh Master! How generous you are to still allow me to drink! As long as I bow to you in joyous servitude, of course!

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Friday, October 19, 2012

Google Adds Pirate Bay Domains to Censorship List


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
by Ernesto

Google has quietly expanded its list of censored search phrases with the addition of The Pirate Bay?s domain names. The blacklist prevents popular keywords from appearing in Google?s Instant and Autocomplete search services, while the pages themselves remain indexed. Although Google understands that there is no silver bullet to stop online copyright infringement, the search giant is convinced that the steps they've taken could help to decrease piracy.

There are certain words Google doesn?t want you to see without explicitly searching for them.

Type in ?peni?? or ?vagin?? and the search giant leaves out the most obvious suggestions. This, despite the fact that these dictionary words are popular searches among the public.

Since January last year Google has been applying the same moral compass to filter "piracy-related? terms from its Autocomplete and Instant services.

Google users who search for terms like "utorrent", "BitTorrent" or "RapidShare" will notice that no suggestions or search results will be shown before they finish typing the full word.

By censoring parts of their search services, Google is sending out a strong signal that they are committed to combating online copyright infringement, and to a certain degree their efforts are effective.

When terms such as BitTorrent, Mediafire and Megaupload were banned we saw that the number of searches dropped drastically. The same happened when ?The Pirate Bay? got censored last year, although many people simply switched to then uncensored domain thepiratebay.org as a shortcut to access their favorite torrent site.

However, since last month thepiratebay.org was also added to the blacklist, as well as thepiratebay.se. When people type in ?thepirate? the two domains are no longer offered as a suggestion. As a direct result, the search volume for these terms dropped instantly.

No Pirate Bay (c.f. Bing!)

The Pirate Bay is used to being censored by now and shrugs off the censorship attempts.

A Pirate Bay spokesperson told TorrentFreak that they are not in the least bit hurt by Google's ?half-baked? attempts to keep people away from their site. They haven't noticed a decrease in referrers from Google, and even if that was the case it wouldn't be a problem as only a tiny percentage of The Pirate Bay's traffic comes from search engines.

Google disagrees, and firmly believes that the measures are effective in decreasing piracy. The company is not trying to prevent Pirate Bay users from accessing the site, but they don?t want to suggest it to people who only type in ?the? into the search bar either.

"While there is no silver bullet for infringement online, this measure is one of several that we have implemented to curb copyright infringement online," a Google?s spokesman told TorrentFreak previously.

Besides censoring piracy related terms, last month Google began downranking ?pirate? websites in its search results. Although we?ve seen some changes in the search results, the effects of this update don?t appear to have had a dramatic impact.

The big question is, where will Google draw the line?


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- House Approves Rep. Lamar Smith's Bill To Keep Spying On Americans
- 16-Year-Old Questioned by FBI Over YouTube Video
- Court To Twitter: No Time For Appeal, Hand Over Info Or You're In Contempt
- New Results From Our Nationwide Cell Phone Tracking Records Requests
- Man Investigated By Police For Buying Ammunition
- The Prisons We Call "Airports"
- FBI begins installation of $1 billion face recognition system across America
- Hackers Get Personal Info On 12-Million Apple Users... From An FBI Laptop

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

The Hope of Freedom in the American Character


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
by Wendy McElroy

It is the saddest quotation from classical liberalism. On the eve of World War I, British foreign secretary Sir Edward Grey stated, "The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our time." The lamps or lights were freedom and peace. Grey did not see them again.

Today the lights are going out all over America. Many people are sick at heart about the future of freedom, and understandably so. But there is no need to live in darkness. Freedom is not an external flame or circumstance that is beyond individual control; it is internal and the natural state of man.

Many people realize that government does not create wealth but they still believe it creates freedom. And, so, when freedom becomes scarce, people look almost automatically to government to restore or create it. They agitate for a law, they vote for their candidate, they sign a petition. As with wealth, however, the government can only confiscate freedom, not grant it. Ultimately, all appeals to authority amount to pleading for less to be taken?or for the return of a portion of what was stolen before.

Appeals to government are prevalent in America where the myth of being "the freest nation in the world" is tied to its political system. For example, the Founding Fathers are credited with establishing a free nation as though freedom did not exist before the Constitution. In reality, the Founding Fathers were remarkable not because they created liberty but because they usurped so little of the liberty that already existed. Even the Bill of Rights did not establish freedom; no piece of paper can. The Bill of Rights recognized the prior existence of specific freedoms such as free speech and, then, set up restrictions on how far the government could intrude upon them. The Bill of Rights said "leave the people alone in their freedom." And that is remarkable enough.

Where does liberty come from? In his pivotal book Democracy in America (1835-1840), the classical liberal Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at the expansiveness of American freedom, especially when compared with Europe. He attributed this freedom to one phenomenon; namely, the American character.

Two traits dominated this character: a zeal to join; and, a stubborn individualism.

De Tocqueville called America a "nation of joiners." Whenever three Americans gathered in one place, associations and clubs seemed to spring forth. From construction crews to town hall meetings, from religious societies to fraternal organizations, Americans were driven to combine and improve society. They had a passion for civil society through which average people themselves conducted the business of living together with government rarely in evidence.

At the same moment, an irrepressible spirit of independence and self-interest also drove the American character. Of this trait, de Tocqueville was critical. He wrote, "I see an innumerable multitude of men?.Each of them withdrawn into himself, is almost unaware of the fate of the rest. Mankind, for him, consists in his children and his personal friends. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, they are near enough, but he does not notice them. He touches them but feels nothing. He exists in and for himself, and though he still may have a family, one can at least say that he has not got a fatherland."

De Tocqueville was puzzled by the what he considered a contradiction: Americans were profoundly self-interested and, yet, they were a nation of joiners.

He wrote, "There is perhaps no country on earth where one meets fewer idle people than in America, or where all who work are more passionately devoted to the quest for well-being?.An American will attend to his private interests as though he were alone in the world, yet a moment later he will dedicate himself to the public's business as though he had forgotten them?.The human heart cannot be divided this way. The inhabitants of the United States alternately exhibit a passion for well-being and a passion for liberty so strong and so similar that one can only believe that the two passions are conjoined and confounded somewhere in their souls."

De Tocqueville embraced a false dichotomy. There is no contradiction between economic well-being and liberty. There is no tension between being active in a voluntary society and retaining your individuality. Indeed, the characteristics are two sides of the same coin. The more secure a man is in his personal sovereignty, the more goodwill he feels toward neighbors. He naturally reaches out to them to cooperate for the immense mutual advantages that civil society offers the individual. Indeed, civil society is the result of masses of people pursuing their own self-interest and, then, going home.

This was the American character. Average people administered the business of society while remaining vigorously individualistic. And, so, the American was free.

Today the business of society has been almost completely usurped by government so that no one can so much as buy a tomato without a license and payment of tax being involved. As people lose the ability to administer society so, too, do they lose personal liberty. The one-to-one correlation between the two is strong enough to be considered a cause-and-effect.

Freedom needs nothing so much as Americans returning to character. The nation of joiners needs to join with each other instead of with government in order to resume the administration of civil society. At the same time and at every juncture possible, people need to privatize their own lives by removing government from their actions, attitudes and expectations.

The lights of America will be lit again, one by one, by individuals who reclaim the business of society while privatizing their own lives. There is no need for darkness.
_
Wendy McElroy is Author, lecturer, and freelance writer, and a senior associate of the Laissez Faire Club.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- Why Vote?
- Obama Lists His Five Criteria for Death by Drone
- Liquid, Liquid Everywhere, But Not a Drop To Drink Free of Our Rulers' Stranglehold
- Eight Reasons to End Prohibition of All Drugs Immediately
- Welcome to the American Gulag: Using Involuntary Commitment Laws To Silence Dissenters
- The Liberal Way to Run the World - "Improve" or We'll Kill You
- Of Bidens and Bikers: Does Anybody Remember Derek Hale?
- Abandoning My Pre-9/11 Mentality

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

NYPD Kill Hostage Who Escaped Armed Standoff -- Marks Second Killing Of Hostage by Police In One Week


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
Chris | InformationLiberation

Last Friday, police in Minnesota shot and killed a hostage who fled from an armed gunman in a standoff in a motel. Just one week later, this Friday police in New York shot and killed another hostage who fled a standoff with armed robbers at a Bronx Bodega store. Additionally, an NYPD officer responding to the scene crashed into a random SUV driver, the driver was reportedly sitting at a red light when the speeding police officer careened into him.

NBCNY reports the driver "was treated and released, but the NYPD officer remains hospitalized at Lincoln Hospital in critical but stable condition."

In both of these cases, the criminals themselves were captured but escaped physically unharmed, yet their hostages who managed to flee were killed by police.

Via NBCNY:

Reynaldo Cuevas, a 20-year-old employee of a Bronx bodega, was shot and killed outside of the store Friday morning.

By Kat Creag, Brynn Gingrass and Lori Bordonaro, NBCNY.comA Bronx, N.Y., bodega worker may have been mistakenly shot and killed by police responding to a standoff with armed robbers inside the store early Friday morning, according to a law enforcement source and witness accounts.

Police say at least three men entered the bodega at 631 East 168th Street at 2 a.m. Friday and barricaded themselves inside when cops arrived.

A short time later, Reynaldo Cuevas, a 20-year-old bodega employee, exited the store and was shot dead by cops, according to a relative of the slain youth. The victim's cousin Jose Garcia said he witnessed the scene and that Cuevas, a nephew of the store's owner, did not have his hands raised as he left the store and cops opened fire on him.

"I saw the police shoot him," Garcia told NBC 4 New York. "He came up, but he didn't put his hands up. And he tripped or something and when he fell on the floor, they shot him."

A law enforcement source did confirm that Cuevas may have been mistakenly shot by police officers responding to the chaotic scene.

"Basically he was trying to get away from the robber and he was shot, " said Arjelis Duval, who also witnessed the shooting.

Three people are in custody. Drugs and a gun were recovered from the scene, the police source said.

Maria Acevado, a friend of Cuevas', said she remembered his great sense of humor.

"He was funny," she said. " He was nice to us, just hanging with us on the corner."

It's become more apparent by the day armed criminals are less of a threat than the police who are allegedly supposed to protect us. Lysander Spooner observed this to be the case almost 200 years ago, it still rings true today.

UPDATE: Video of the shooting has been released, the cop apparently shot the man point blank.

The AP reports:

Investigators believe the impact of Cuevas running into the officer caused him to fire one round, striking the 20-year-old victim in the left shoulder, police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said at a news conference. Cuevas died later at a hospital.

Though the death appeared to be an accident, the officer was placed on desk duty pending an investigation, a routine practice for all New York Police Department shootings. Officials refused to release the name of the seven-year veteran of the police force.

There was no sign that the shooter and other officers at the scene mishandled the situation, Kelly said.

"The tragedy here of course was that Mr. Cuevas was shot, but I see nothing wrong with the procedure," he said.

The cop should not have had his finger on the trigger if he was not intending to shoot the man, guns do not just misfire without the trigger being pulled. NYPD use special glocks which require a 12 pound trigger pull weight, double the standard 5.5 pounds, the cop either shot the man purposefully or failed to use gun safety 101.

The "tragedy here" is police incompetence and New York's restrictive gun laws which forbid citizens from protecting themselves, leaving them at the mercy of criminals, and the NYPD, but I repeat myself.
_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Texas Cop Drags 77-Yr-Old Grandmother from Car for Refusing to Show ID
- Texas Police Kill Unarmed Man Before Confiscating Witness Camera and Deleting Images
- Police Learn Propaganda Tactics at Internet Conference
- Drug Sentences Driving Federal Prison Population Growth, Government Report Finds
- Tarnished badges: Opa-locka's troubled police force
- Officer Enforcing Leash Law Shoots Family's Dog, Witness Horrified
- 90-Plus Arrests of D.C. Cops in Under 4 Years
- Infiltrating Occupy: Austin Activists Face Charges for Equipment Provided by Undercover Police

When I grow up, I want to be a cop! "Protect and serve" indeed: They can't even be bothered to pretend anymore. While Mayor Bloomberg calls for more gun controls for the citizens (but not cops), cops continue to kill more people annually in suspiciously "justified" killings than all the *OTHER* murders in the land. In fact, if you remove the killer cop murders that take place, you find that gun deaths go way down to the point of being negligent. Yet, at the same time, the mental midget moron anti-gun people try to tell us if we can just get the guns out of everybody's hands, *EXCEPT* cops, of course, we would be a lot safer. Suspiciously, they use the "gun deaths" statistic (that *INCLUDES* the murders perpetrated by cops) to bolster their argument. How do you spell Prop Uh Gan Duh??? I'll tell you how: Gun Death Statistics.

The fact is that there is a hidden agenda here and that neither the cops or the mental midget anti-gun people give a flying rats ass (thats a bat's ass for you that don't know a lot about wildlife) about anyone's safety. The real agenda is unclear, but, saving lives and keeping us safe isn't it.

They tell us, "Get the guns out of the hands of the people so just cops have the guns and we'll be a lot safer."

Can I say it? Sorry Chris, I'm going to say it:

BULL FUCKING SHIT!!!

I wonder what Bloomberg says about these things? I sure it would be "justified".

We don't need more "gun control" unless "gun control" = "removing guns from the hands of cops". The danger with guns comes from having them in the hands of cops. When guns are around, there seems to be relative safety. When cops are around and guns are around, innocent people die. This tells me that its not the guns that are dangerous, its the cops.

And Bloomberg recently bragged he had the 7th largest army in the world with the NYPD....or otherwise known as the Gang who couldn't shoot straight. Enough with the scare tactics of trying to unarm citizens. We need to protect ourselves from cops now it seems.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Tarnished badges: Opa-locka's troubled police force


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
Before it can clean up the streets, Opa-locka must first correct the chronic corruption and dysfunction in its police department
BY JULIE K. BROWN


Drug dealers pedal their bicycles up and down the street, sneaking down narrow hallways and hiding in the bushes, waiting for their next deal, or their next victim to shake down, beat up or rob. Doors are pitted with bullet holes, and the children spend their days on a rusty playground, or in the evenings, acting as lookouts for dealers.

This squalid theater in the heart of Opa-locka?s Arabian Nights-themed city, an apartment complex known as the ?Back Blues,? has been home to some of the most dangerous drug traffickers in South Florida.

When the FBI launched a sting at the notorious drug den, and later tied its players to a fatal 2010 armored car heist, they discovered to their surprise that one of the alleged operatives at the helm of the Back Blues narcotics ring was an Opa-locka police captain.

Capt. Arthur Balom, 44, accepted bribes, provided the armored car killer with a bulletproof vest and helped sabotage the FBI?s drug sting, according to allegations made in court documents.

The probe that led to Balom?s arrest is only one of many state, federal and local investigations into possible corruption within the Opa-locka Police Department, which has the reputation of being among the most troubled law enforcement agencies in the state.

?I?m 79 now and I?m not going to jail for nobody,? said Clarance Patterson, who as city manager of Opa-locka was in charge of public safety, including the police department. ?The things I was being asked to do, I just wouldn?t do. I?m not saying anybody asked me to do anything illegal, but the city and the police department have some serious problems and need cleaning up.??

Read More


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Texas Cop Drags 77-Yr-Old Grandmother from Car for Refusing to Show ID
- Texas Police Kill Unarmed Man Before Confiscating Witness Camera and Deleting Images
- Police Learn Propaganda Tactics at Internet Conference
- Drug Sentences Driving Federal Prison Population Growth, Government Report Finds
- Officer Enforcing Leash Law Shoots Family's Dog, Witness Horrified
- 90-Plus Arrests of D.C. Cops in Under 4 Years
- Infiltrating Occupy: Austin Activists Face Charges for Equipment Provided by Undercover Police
- LRPD officer Josh Hastings has 6 suspensions in 5 years, currently on paid leave after killing 15-yr-old

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Obama Lists His Five Criteria for Death by Drone

by Joe Wolverton, II

President Obama is tearing the shroud of secrecy off his once hush-hush death-by-drone program.

From his interview with Ben Swann, host of Fox 19's?Reality Check, to his sit-down with CNN's chief White House correspondent Jessica Yellin, the kill-list compiler-in-chief is gradually exposing details of the principles he purportedly follows before targeting someone for assassination.

The president may assume that there is little reason to try hiding something that is being publicized daily?-- except in the mainstream media. In fairness, the New York Times has done fine work chronicling the expansion of the use of drones, as well as their involvement in the killing of innocents overseas caught in the blast zone of missiles aimed at alleged militants.

An exception to the official policy of silence on the matter of the death-by-drone program being carried out by the White House and the CIA was made earlier this year. In April the White House's top counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, admitted for the first time publicly to the government's significant reliance on drones in prosecuting the War on Terror. Brennan said that the remote control killing of suspects on foreign soil who have been charged with no crime whatsoever, is "in full accordance with the law."

Brennan also said the United States "respects national sovereignty and international law."

Speaking with Margaret Sanger at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Brennan defended the president's drone program. "So long as AQAP [al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] seeks to implement its murderous agenda, we will be a close partner with Yemen in meeting this common threat," he said.

Later in the interview, Brennan said that the president deploys drones to target only "militants" with designs on attacking the United States or its allies abroad. He admitted that American intelligence agents provide tactical support to Yemeni armed forces battling al-Qaeda on the ground.

When asked about the collateral deaths of innocent civilians during these attacks, Brennan responded that American drone pilots "make every effort" to avoid killing innocents. Said Brennan:

Today I'd simply say that all our CT [counterterrorism] efforts in Yemen are conducted in concert with the Yemeni government. When direct action is taken, every effort is made to avoid any civilian casualty. And contrary to conventional wisdom, we see little evidence that these actions are generating widespread anti-American sentiment or recruits for AQAP. In fact, we see the opposite; our Yemeni partners are more eager to work with us. Yemenese citizens who have been freed from the hellish grip of AQAP are more eager, not less, to work with the Yemeni government. In short, targeted strikes against the most senior and most dangerous AQAP terrorists are not the problem; they are part of the solution.

Describing the disregard for innocent human life as part of a "solution" is eerily reminiscent of similar statements made by despicable tyrants in the recent past.

The death toll of innocent people killed by the United States in the Middle East continues to increase. As?The New American reported on September 6, 29 Yemenis were killed by U.S. drones in one week. Many of these had not even tenuous ties to terrorists and were killed simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

When asked by CNN what process he uses to make the life or death decisions to deploy the drones to kill a "militant," President Obama listed five criteria:

? First, "It has to be a target that is authorized by our laws."

? Second, "It has to be a threat that is serious and not speculative."

? Third, "It has to be a situation in which we can't capture the individual before they move forward on some sort of operational plot against the United States."

? Fourth, "We've got to make sure that in whatever operations we conduct, we are very careful about avoiding civilian casualties."

? And fifth, "That while there is a legal justification for us to try and stop [American citizens] from carrying out plots ... they are subject to the protections of the Constitution and due process."

Examining this list reveals that in none of the deaths authorized by the president has any one of these criteria been met.

Let's take as a test case the remote-control murder of a young American in Yemen. What law authorized the murder of 16-year-old Abdulrahaman al-Awlaki, son of the American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was also killed by Hellfire missiles fired by a Predator drone?

Neither man (both of whom were Americans) was ever charged with a crime or permitted to answer for his alleged crimes before an impartial judge -- a violation of the fifth point provided by the president.

What threat did the younger al-Awlaki pose to the United States? The Obama administration has never informed the country of any wrongdoing by this teenager other than being related to a man who posted anti-American videos on the Internet that allegedly influenced others to commit crimes. This violates the president's first criterion.

Number three above was certainly ignored by the president since no known attempt was ever made to capture this young man and take him into U.S. custody. Of course, that could be because he might actually have ended up in a court of law if he had been apprehended; and President Obama, a former lawyer, knows that trials can be long, messy, and unpredictable. It is much quicker and cleaner just to launch a missile and kill someone without going through the hassle of due process.

Finally, with regard to civilian casualties, not even the White House claims that Abdulraham al-Awlaki was a member of al-Qaeda or any associated organization. He was quite literally killed for being associated with one who was allegedly associated with those allegedly associated with al-Qaeda.

As Tom Junod wrote in Esquire:

But Abdulrahman al-Awlaki wasn't on an American kill list. Nor was he a member of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Nor was he "an inspiration," as his father styled himself, for those determined to draw American blood; nor had he gone "operational," as American authorities said his father had, in drawing up plots against Americans and American interests.

He was a boy who hadn't seen his father in two years, since his father had gone into hiding. He was a boy who knew his father was on an American kill list and who [sneaked] out of his family's home in the early morning hours of September 4, 2011, to try to find him.

Furthermore, the young man was killed while eating dinner on the side of the road in the company of friends and extended family. So much for the limiting of "civilian" collateral damage. Not only was the target of the nighttime drone attack a civilian, but so were all the boys sitting with him when two American missiles lit up the area and killed them all.

Finally, when Yellin asked Obama if he personally approves the targets of the drone strikes, the president answered, "You know, I can't get too deeply into how these things work, but as I said as commander in chief ultimately I'm responsible for the process that we've set up to make sure that folks who are out to kill Americans, that we are able to disable them before they carry out their plans."

If only all advocates of constitutional due process could nonviolently through the electoral process disable those of both parties -- whether in office or seeking to be elected-- from carrying out their plans to destroy the our constitutionally protected liberty.


View the original article here

Infiltrating Occupy: Austin Activists Face Charges for Equipment Provided by Undercover Police


As Occupy Wall Street prepares to mark its first anniversary, members of Occupy Austin have discovered that their arrests on felony charges after a protest last December are directly linked to equipment provided by a police detective who infiltrated their group. The activists locked arms inside tubes made of PVC pipe that the police had designed, constructed and dropped off for the protest. We?re joined from Austin by Ronnie Garza, one of the members of Occupy Austin facing felony charges stemming from the December protest, and from Houston by Greg Gladden, National Lawyers Guild member and past president of the Texas American Civil Liberties Union.

Guests: Ronnie Garza, was arrested after engaging in civil disobedience last December at the Port of Houston. He is now one of seven people facing felony charges for using a lockbox in the protest. It has since been revealed that the so-called "criminal instrument" he used was designed and provided by an undercover Austin Police Department detective.

Greg Gladden, attorney with the National Lawyers Guild and past president of the Texas ACLU. He represents Ronnie Garza, who is one of seven members of Occupy Austin and other groups who face felony charges for engaging in direct action to block a street at the Port of Houston last December.

Transcript

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to a story unfolding in Texas. Members of Occupy Austin have discovered that their arrests on felony charges after a protest last December are directly linked to equipment provided by a police detective who infiltrated their group. On December 12th, members of Occupy Austin joined protesters from around the region to block a street entrance to the Port of Houston. The action was done in solidarity with Occupy activists who tried to shut down ports on the West Coast in support of the embattled longshoremen. Seven of the protesters in Houston locked their arms together using locks hidden inside PVC pipes, a device known as a lockbox or a "sleeping dragon" or "dragon sleeves." While most of the demonstrators were charged with misdemeanors, those using the lockboxes were charged with felony use of a, quote, "criminal instrument."

Well, evidence in the case now reveals that an undercover detective with the Austin Police Department not only bought the equipment to make the devices, he also designed them, put them together and dropped them off for the group to use. The defendants in the case recently revealed Detective Shannon Dowell was the protester they knew as "Butch," after Austin police at first denied they had infiltrated the group. Now a judge has ordered police to turn over more information. At least one of the protesters, Eric Marquez, remains in jail due to a prior arrest. We asked the Austin Police Department for comment, but they didn?t respond to our request.

We are going to Austin now to Ronnie Garza, one of the members of Occupy Austin who?s on trial now, facing felony charges stemming from the December 12th direct action. And in Houston, we?re joined by Greg Gladden with the National Lawyers Guild, representing Ronnie Garza in this case, past president of the Texas ACLU.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Ronnie, let?s begin with you in Austin. Tell us what happened last December.

RONNIE GARZA: Well, thanks for having us on the show, Amy. It?s a huge honor.

Last December, we were involved with a number of other cities around Texas in a solidarity action with the West Coast port shutdown. And we knew that we couldn?t shut down a port the size of Houston. It was a purely symbolic action to lay down in front of the entrance to the main office of the port. And so, that?s sort of the lead up to December 12th and why we were out there.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain why the longshoremen were shutting down the port in Oakland, what--your solidarity action.

RONNIE GARZA: They were in a labor dispute with EGT, from what we understand, and so we were out there in solidarity with those longshoremen, specifically.

AMY GOODMAN: So, explain exactly what happened, who your group was and what you did.

RONNIE GARZA: Well, I?m with Occupy Austin, and we just coordinated with the other cities to bring people out to Houston and sort of worked on the logistics of how the blockade, the sit-in, would happen.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, describe the lead up to your action on December 12th and how it is you got your hands on this PVC pipe. A group of you didn?t. A group of you just stood up and locked arms, and they were charged with misdemeanor. But you and others did not. Explain how you came to use these sleeping dragons or dragon sleeves.

RONNIE GARZA: OK. So, part of the direct action committee was tasked with sort of coming up with ways to block the road. And Shannon Dowell, who we knew as "Butch," was one of the members of that committee. And they worked on those plans to develop the sit-in logistics. And Shannon went out to the store, got the materials off the shelves, and assembled and manufactured the devices, and then dropped them off with the rest of the protesters for use out in Houston.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, did you know Butch? What did you think of him? How did you--how did he join your group, this man that has now been identified as an Austin police officer named [Dowell]?

RONNIE GARZA: Well, yeah, I mean, I certainly have spoken with Butch in the past. I liked his beard. I recognized him from meetings that we had--that we had gone to for Occupy Austin, I would say since probably the beginning. Like I said, I liked his beard, and so it?s kind of recognizable. And he just was showing up to general assemblies and other small meetings. And then when eventually we had the port action, he became interested and involved with that group.

AMY GOODMAN: I should say, I misspoke his name. It is Shannon Dowell. Now, Ronnie, how did you learn that this guy you knew as Butch, who delivered these dragon sleeves to you, that led to your felony arrests--how did you learn that he is a police officer named Shannon Dowell?

RONNIE GARZA: OK, so, we--after we got arrested--this was maybe about a month, month and a half later--we got an anonymous tip, an email tip off about Butch. Again, we knew him as Butch. And they told us his name, his actual first name, was Shannon, and he was a police--with the police department, and he was involved in the port action. And that?s pretty much what they gave us. And we didn?t have a full identity. We didn?t know his last name or where exactly within the APD he was. But eventually, over time, looking through public records like birth records, marriage records, death records and other things like that, salary records for the police department, I was able to find his first and last name, and we were able to get a subpoena in on Butch.

AMY GOODMAN: Greg Gladden, you?re Ronnie Garza?s attorney. You?re the former head of the ACLU. You?re with the National Lawyers Guild. When you came into this case, why is it that you immediately suspected that there was an undercover officer involved with this action?

GREG GLADDEN: Good morning, Amy.

The use of this particular statute, this manufacture of a criminal instrument statute, is really obscure. There are probably not more than 10 cases that have been reported in the last 30 or 40 years of its use, and it?s virtually all the time being used to overreach. The first reported case was back when people in Dallas and Houston were showing a movie called Deep Throat. And they kept busting them for misdemeanor obscenity charges, and they?d reopen and just keep showing it. And so, they finally charged them under this statute with possession of a projector. That went all the way to the Fifth Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit limited the statute--

AMY GOODMAN: That was the criminal tool.

GREG GLADDEN: That was the criminal instrument that they--they made it into a felony, so they could overreach and make it more expensive and more dangerous for them to show this movie than simply paying a fine for a misdemeanor.

The wars on terrorism or on drugs or on communists or whatever, the government has always used infiltrators and often have used infiltrators that would provoke the group to do things that will marginalize the group or will incriminate the group or chill the group in their efforts to do what they?re doing. So, to answer your question, it had all the fingerprints of that kind of behavior. And as it turns out, Shannon Dowell was a narcotics undercover officer that has been loaned out to something called "fusion." And it?s kind of like SPECTRE in an Ian Fleming movie or something. It sounds like that. But their goal, their purpose, through federal grants, is to monitor potential domestic terrorism. And I guess it?s a lot easier to solve crimes you create yourself than to actually ferret out actual crimes and actual criminals. And there are certainly some--a lot of people that would like to shut down the Occupy movements. And this was an obvious--it was obvious to me that that?s--would have worked in that way, whether it was in fact the efforts of the police and the government or whether it was just someone foolish enough to cause the same result.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Ronnie, you didn?t know that by using this PVC pipe the way you locked arms, as opposed to the others locking arms without it, would change the charge from misdemeanor, what the others were charged with, to felony, what the group of you, the group of seven, were charged with, simply by using these pipes, is that right?

RONNIE GARZA: Right. No, I wasn?t--yeah, I wasn?t aware of that at all. And it seems--it seems to be that the person that was the most aware of that, Butch, you know, he could have said that at any time without blowing his cover. He could have de-escalated the tactics, but he chose to just go ahead and make sure that we had those devices.

AMY GOODMAN: Was he the one who introduced the idea of those devices?

RONNIE GARZA: Well, I mean, that?s all going to come out in the court, in the emails and all that. So, I don?t know that I can talk about the case at the moment.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let?s talk about these emails, and I wanted to go back to Greg Gladden on this. Talk about what happened when the judge--and tell us who the judge is--subpoenaed Shannon Dowell.

GREG GLADDEN: Well, I subpoenaed Shannon Dowell, and--something called a subpoena duces tecum, where you ask them to bring certain things. And we tried to ask him to bring--or have him ordered to bring emails, offense reports. Usually--always, police make reports of incidents that they?re involved in or that they are investigating.

When he appeared in court pursuant to my subpoena, coming down to Houston from Austin, he appeared in front of Judge Joan Campbell in one of the felony courts here. An interesting point is, when this case first came up, the first day in court, she threw the cases out, these felony cases out, because the statute doesn?t apply to these people. And the district attorney, for some political reason--or, I don?t know why they did, but they went around her, took the case to the grand jury, got these young people indicted on these felony charges of manufacture of a criminal instrument, and the case went back to her court.

And I guess I--the limitations of the statute that the courts have found apply to this statute is it has to be an incipient crime. And I had to go look up that word. It?s--in the beginning, it?s someone that manufactures or adapts or builds some instrument that can, secondly, only be used for a crime. So slim jims are not a criminal instrument because they can be used by tow truck drivers legitimately every day. Lock picks can be used by locksmiths. And thirdly, it has to be necessary for the crime. They?re saying that they used these sleeping dragons--they constructed them, built them, set them up to use to commit the crime of obstructing a highway. Well, there were 12 other people out there that were charged with obstructing a highway that did not have these instruments. So, the law doesn?t apply on at least two out of the three prongs. The only incipient behavior in this case was the police officer, who did the purchasing, designing, building, constructing--

AMY GOODMAN: So--

GREG GLADDEN: setting up and delivering.

AMY GOODMAN: So, very quickly--

GREG GLADDEN: Then--go ahead.

AMY GOODMAN: --when you asked him to come to court, when you subpoenaed him, and he came to court, and you asked for particular items, what happened? Did he bring them?

GREG GLADDEN: He said that he did not write any offense reports. And there?s two other officers working with him that he confessed to when the judge really did a significant cross-examination of him in court. She was offended, it seemed like, because he showed up empty-handed. He had one piece of paper with some notes, random kind of notes of a meeting that was way earlier in the year. He said he had a thumb drive that had pictures of the instruments and pictures of the person he actually delivered them to and some other information on it, but he dropped it in a gutter on the way to work that morning accidentally. And so, basically, he showed up with nothing. And she took offense with that.

AMY GOODMAN: And emails? Did he say something about erasing emails?

GREG GLADDEN: Yes, he said that he had deleted all of his email related to this investigation. He said he wasn?t required to make an offense report because it wasn?t a criminal investigation. He said that he had deleted his text messages, that there were a lot of text messages going on. And I think the facts, from the witnesses that were involved, will say that there were these three officers that worked together. The other two officers we only know as Dirk and Rick. And the judge ordered him to--she said she wasn?t going to order him to give us those names, because the state was objecting to that at that moment. She said she was going to reset the case for one week. They were going to go back to Austin, get their tech people to pull out all of those deleted emails and erased text messages and get them from the phone companies, or whatever they need to do to get them, and come back with that stuff. And the following week, she would order him to give up the names and identities of the other two undercover police officers, or she was going to dismiss the case.

AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, Greg Gladden, what is--

GREG GLADDEN: She hasn?t--

AMY GOODMAN: What is wrong with undercover police officers infiltrating groups like Occupy? What does it mean, under the law, when they say they?re just trying to ensure freedom of speech, that these groups remain peaceful?

GREG GLADDEN: Well, they?ve had two press conferences trying to explain themselves, this "fusion" outfit and Austin police. The first time--the first thing they said was that they built these things, infiltrated--built these things so that the demonstrators would be safe, that the devices--no one would get hurt with these devices when they used them or when they removed them, the fire department removed them. Within two or three days after that, they had completely changed courses and said these police officers were maybe not rogue, but they were not reporting that they were doing this, and that the higher-ups and their supervisors did not know they were doing it.

Basically, they?re trying to brand idealistic young people with felonies, which will have a profound impact on their lives, when they were not intending to commit any felonies, and virtually no one has--the judge had never heard of this statute when we first appeared in court. Most lawyers have not heard of this statute. And certainly these young people had never heard of this statute. So, basically, it?s--they?re getting grant money to investigate things they?re not investigating, and they?re creating problems where none exist.

AMY GOODMAN: Greg Gladden, I want to thank you for being with us, attorney with the National Lawyers Guild, past president of the Texas ACLU, representing Ronnie Garza, one of seven members of Occupy Austin and other groups who face felony charges for engaging in direct action to block a street at the Port of Houston last December--the dragon sleeves, the PVC pipe they used, provided to them by undercover police officer Shannon Dowell. We?ll continue to follow this trial. Ronnie, thank you also very much for being with us from Austin. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, the Paralympics have wrapped up in London. We?ll speak with a former Paralympian. Stay with us.


View the original article here

Ron Paul: "Country Should Panic Over Fed's Decision"


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
by Tyler Durden

What took Ben Bernanke sixty minutes of mumbling about tools, word-twisting, and data-manipulating to kinda-sorta admit - that in fact he is lost; Ron Paul eloquently expresses in 25 seconds in this Bloomberg TV clip. Noting that "we are creating money out of thin air," Paul sums up Bernanke's position perfectly "We've Lost Control!"

25-second quick clip

Full 5 minute clip - must watch! from Mal-investment to Bernanke's frustration...

Paul's reaction to more Federal Reserve stimulus:

"It should not surprise anybody, but it is still astounding. To me, it is so astounding that it does not collapse the markets. [Bernanke] said, 'We are in very big trouble. We are going to do something unprecedented and we believe it will not hurt the dollar.' And yet the stocks, they say 'we love this stuff.' But the dollar didn't do so well today and the real value of the dollar is measured against gold, and gold skyrocketed from its very low to its highest. It means we are weakening the dollar. We are trying to liquidate our debt through inflation. The consequence of what the Fed is doing is a lot more than just CPI. It has to do with malinvestment and people doing the wrong things at the wrong time. Believe me, there is plenty of that. The one thing that Bernanke has not achieved and it frustrates him, I can tell--is he gets no economic growth. He doesn't do anything with the unemployment numbers. I think the country should have panicked over what the Fed is saying that we have lost control and the only thing we have left is massively creating new money out of thin air, which has not worked before, and is not going to work this time."
On potential unintended consequences:
"The biggest unintended consequence is what we need is a restoration of confidence. If the Fed is expressing a lack of confidence and they do not know what to do, it does not do anything to restore confidence. People might restrain from doing anything. 'Interest rates are low. I do not have to buy my house this year. I will wait until next year. It might be a little easier. Prices might come down.' So people are restrained and it is the opposite of when you expect that housing prices are going up, and you are afraid interest rates are going up. That is why the market rate of interest is so crucial. The rate of interest should give the businessman, the entrepreneurs, the investors and the savers information. But there is no market to interest rates. That is why there is such gross distortion and why we do not have a market economy. We have a rigged economy through central economic planning by central banking. The system is failing, it was doomed to fail and we have to wake up to that fact."
On whether the Federal Reserve needs discipline:
"Short of getting rid of the Fed, which is not going to come and I wouldn't do that overnight anyway, I would say that Congress has the authority to say, do not buy debt. Do not buy any debt. The Congress can yell and scream and pander to the people. They can say the deficits are terrible and terrible. But nobody wants to cut overseas spending or food stamps for the poor. They say, 'we cannot do it without the Fed. The Fed has to buy this debt.' That is a moral hazard for the politician. If the Fed couldn't buy the debt, and interest rates would rise all of the sudden the burden would be on the Congress to get their house in order to restore confidence. Even that would panic a lot of people because live within your means? We do not like that. We like this idea that we can give people anything they want for free, so we can get reelected. Well, all of this is coming to an end."
On whether Bernanke should be pulling back liquidity and raising interest rates right now instead:
"Liquidity should be determined by the market. I don't think he should raise rates. He should just get out of rigging rates. The system is so biased. It helps the bankers who get free money and then they buy government debt. What about the people who are frightened, they do not like the stock market and they are frugal and want to take care of themselves? What do they get--1% on a CD? That is unfair. It's bad economics. You want to let the market determine interest rates and let it sort it out. People get so nervous, because we have lived so long with a Keynesian economic model of fixing interest rates and intervening in the market."
On whether Romney would do the right thing with the Federal Reserve if elected:
"So far, I have not heard that he would, but he has changed his mind before. If he gets to be president, we will keep our fingers crossed."

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Economy
- The Fed's Balance At The End Of 2013: $4 Trillion
- Things Are Getting Worse: Median Household Income Has Fallen 4 Years In A Row
- Schiff Vs. Insana; Matter Vs. Anti-Matter
- Peter Schiff On CNBC - Talks Ban Corporate Profits Video
- The Bill Clinton Myth
- Philip DeFranco Interviewed on Redistribution
- Peter Schiff Talks Rising Food Prices On Al Jazeera
- World's richest woman: "Drink less, work more"

Was there ever any doubt that this was what they would do? It is like being surprised that a dog ate your lunch when you left the room. Did the country, which has been run now for years, if not always, by men with an agenda, not really in the best interest, of most people in the U.S. expected at 1 second to midnight, a real plan to revitalize the American economy. They shot us in the foot, in the knee, in the groin, in the belly and now are aiming at our chest and head. So if you are surprised now at the prospect of new devastation for your future and your family, I am not sure what it will take to get reality to actually make you believe. Ron Paul was literally treated like a virus by the Republican Party and media and still feels that we could legislate ourselves back to health with small non-interfering government policy. (for the agencies that monitor all communications, I am using an analogy--not advocating violence or saying that they are using actual bullets--so be nice when you put the black bag on our collective heads)

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here