Google Search

Thursday, January 31, 2013

AZ Cop Investigated For Having Allegedly Used Stun Gun On Stepson Over 'Unsatisfactory Report Card'


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'); AZ board investigates ex-cop who reportedly used stun gun on stepson

MESA, AZ (CBS5) - Police said a Mesa officer lost his job because he used a stun gun on his stepson for bringing home an unsatisfactory report card. He worked for Mesa police for about six years. But some might argue he never should have been hired in the first place.

This story begins in 2002, when Larry Kelso applied to be a Phoenix police officer. According to a report from the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board, he admitted on the application to using marijuana 20 times, trying LSD once and using mushrooms three times. He didn't get the job. Then in 2005, when Kelso applied to the Mesa Police Department, he left out some of those details.

"He failed to disclose he had applied for other agencies and also he had changed his answers to be more accommodating," said Detective Steve Berry with the Mesa Police Department. Berry said Mesa police weren't aware of this until Kelso's wife at the time called police and told them in August 2011. A few days after that call, Mesa police got another call, this time from Kelso's stepson.

"He had allegedly used a Taser, a department-issued Taser, on his then-14-year-old son," Berry said. Kelso's stepson told police he had brought home a report card Kelso wasn't happy with. Police said Kelso then concocted a story to explain why he deployed his stun gun.

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
- Illinois Citizens Still Being Arrested For Filming Cops Despite Court Ruling Which Blocked Unconstitutional Law
- An Anger Management Class?
- Gary Raney: The Slave-Catching Sheriff of Ada County, Idaho
- Cop Who Shot Puppy Runs Away Like a Little Girl After Owners Win In Court
- Yes, They Intend to Draft Your Daughter
- The Obama Administration Prepares for War -- Against Us
- Police Pack Courtroom of Cop Facing Felony Charges for Shooting & Killing Restrained Dog
- Honesty is Not a Job Requirement for Police Officers

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

Troubling Public Opinion Trends for Gun Rights and Civil Liberties


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 Anthony Gregory

On how to respond to mass shootings and violent crime, the public opinion trends frighten me, especially when broken down by political identification. Predictably, Democrats are in favor of gun control by wider margins than Republicans. But still, 92% of Republicans favor universal background checks, which I consider as bad a proposal as any being offered. It will mean the death of gun shows as we know them. The relative freedom with which Americans private trade firearms is one of the greatest spheres of liberty in the country, something that sets the United States apart from most places. Ninety-one percent of the population want to abolish the freedom (independents being slightly more reluctant than either Democrats or Republicans to support such a measure). This would be the most significant strike against gun rights, and one of the most important violations of the Bill of Rights in general, in modern times.

One theme I try to focus on in these discussions is how gun control is merely one of many core elements of the police state, and that those who oppose criminal justice and police abuses should be more skeptical of gun laws, and those who favor the right to bear arms should be much more skeptical of militarized policing, prosecutorial shenanigans, the prison system, the drug war, and so many other heavy-handed government measures that contribute to violent crime and boost the rationale for gun control. It never made sense to me that those who favor gun control would decry racism in the courtroom and those who see gun rights as a bulwark against tyranny would deny the pervasiveness of police brutality.

Well, for once, at least these poll results enjoy some internal consistency. 63% of Republicans want to see 15,000 more police on the streets. Not to be outdone, 81% of Democrats back the same proposal.


(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
- I Put My Life On The Line Writing This Article!
- Government Undermines Social Cooperation
- It's Not Evil to Copy
- "Conspiracy Theory": Foundations of a Weaponized Term
- Government Will Lose the War on Piracy
- John Mackey's Political Correctness
- John Taylor Gatto on the Inanity of Gun Control
- "Gun Control for the Children?" Sorry, No Sale.

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, January 30, 2013

The TSA's True Focus Isn't 'Safety' - It's Self-Preservation


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 Tim Cushing

Despite its own worst efforts, the TSA doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Year after year, horror story after horror story surfaces, detailing abuse of American citizens at the hands (very often literally) of TSA agents. If they're not poking, prodding, fondling or carelessly tossing supposed explosives into a trash can five feet away, they're confiscating harmless plastic swords while allowing loaded handguns on board. If they're not digging around in someone's laptop searching for who knows what, they're "diverting" iPads into their personal collections.

A report by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) suggests that the TSA's main focus isn't safety, it's self-preservation. As yearly budget reviews loom, the TSA suddenly needs to "look busy" and justify its continued existence. Anything that might cut back its funding is briefly humored and then discarded. (via Reason 24/7)

Congress in 2002 set up a program giving airports the option of having private employees conduct screening operations. Unfortunately, TSA was put in charge of deciding which locations could participate. A total of 16 out of 440 commercial airports nationwide got into the program before TSA Administrator John S. Pistole slammed the door shut last year.
Keeping private companies out of government operations ensures a steady flow of tax dollars. While taxpayers might appreciate the relief, the TSA isn't interested in dividing the pie into more slices that it absolutely has to. While it maintains its (again, very often literal) stranglehold on airport security, the airports it "services" are losing business directly as a result of its frequent bad behavior. As the GAO states, "Passengers who have negative encounters with the screening process generally associate their experiences with the specific airport."

Private companies would be forced to follow the hated TSA procedures, but even with these limitations, the Department of Homeland Security isn't interested in taking on new "partners."

[T]op Democrats want the TSA to continue rejecting applications to the program "until the costs and possible benefits can be accurately assessed," as Rep. Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee, urged.
Kind of tough to assess costs and benefits if you're unwilling to actually let the program run. This lockout extends further than private companies looking to get into the airport security business. The deck is stacked against private screeners, whose performance is assessed by the one entity that is relying on their failure to stay in the money.
Right now, the performance of private screeners is assessed under a process directed by TSA. It's not particularly surprising that this government agency is going to do everything it can to limit potential competition. Congressional auditors found, "TSA has not conducted regular reviews comparing private and federal screener performance and does not have plans to do so." The agency isn't about to document its own relative failure.
In fact, the TSA does all it can to keep from being criticized. Here's how the traveler complaint process "works:"
At Ronald Reagan Airport, for example, angry flyers aren't given a form they can turn in on the spot to document their concerns. Instead, they're handed a tiny, easily lost sliver of paper containing TSA's website and mailing address.
Ah, technology... wait... what? A slip of paper that contains the TSA's website URL? If the TSA actually was interested in feedback, it could easily set up a kiosk where travelers could file a complaint electronically with reports that could be viewed and acted on daily. Instead, it justs hands out something of use to nobody and hopes that time and distance either takes the traveler out of the complaining mood or makes the details unreliably fuzzy. The TSA benefits from its neo-Luddite approach which keeps complaints to an absolute minimum, a quasi-fact it frequently references when defending itself against any complaints that somehow make it through.

All of these actions have allowed the TSA to rake in nearly $8 billion a year without having done a single thing to improve its policies, protect travelers or prevent terrorism.


(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
- Graphic Novel Declared A Terrorist Operation By US Government, Advance Money Seized
- Mesa County Police Have Been Using Drones For Years, Still Coming Up With Rules On Use
- Colombia Adopts Mandatory Backdoor and Data Retention Mandates
- ITU Boss In Denial: Claims Success, Misrepresents Final Treaty, As US, UK, Canada And Many More Refuse To Sign
- DMCA Copyright Takedowns To Google Increased 10x In Just The Past Six Months
- TSA's Grip on Internal Travel is Tightening
- AVTM Interviews Fliers on the TSA
- The Everyday Absurdities of the TSA

Sounds like a ponzy scheme agency created to pilfer profits to somewhere else while giving its employees and those flying another reason to hate someone!

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

Scratch A "Liberal," Find A Fascist: The Case Of Barbara Boxer


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 William Norman Grigg

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, a bottomless fountain of foolishness, has proposed a measure that would permit governors to deploy National Guard troops to provide "security" at government-run schools.

?Is it not part of the national defense to make sure that your children are safe?? Boxer asked during a Capitol Hill press conference in the misguided belief that this content-free trope somehow constituted compelling wisdom.

She blithely stated that her proposal wouldn?t be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (which was supposed to prevent the domestic use of the military for the purpose of law enforcement) because it would allow governors to re-purpose troops who are already being used for drug interdiction operations. That is to say, the militarization of schools wouldn?t constitute a new Posse Comitatus violation, but rather expand on an existing one.

Boxer?s proposal to militarize the schools could have been taken directly from "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012,? a terrifyingly prescient essay published twenty years ago in Parameters, the journal of the U.S. Army War College by military historian Charles J. Dunlap. This glimpse of a dystopian future takes the form of a long letter written by an officer awaiting execution as a traitor to the junta that has seized control over the United States in the wake of military disasters abroad and socio-economic turmoil at home.

"It wasn't any single cause that led us to this point," writes the condemned patriot to a friend. "It was instead a combination of several different developments, the beginnings of which were evident in 1992.? Rather than de-mobilizing at the end of the Cold War, the ruling establishment expanded the military?s mission overseas and made it an even more pervasive presence at home.

Military personnel became "an adjunct to all police forces in the country," the officer recalls; social and economic problems were redefined as "national security" issues and brought under the military's area of responsibility. This is how uniformed military personnel became ubiquitous: People became accustomed to the sight of "uniformed military personnel patrolling their neighborhood.... Even the youngest citizens were co-opted.... [We have] an entire generation of young people who have grown up comfortable with the sight of military personnel patrolling their streets and teaching in their classrooms."

There is a sense in which Boxer?s proposal is redundant, since armed ?warriors? are already deployed in countless schools nation-wide: They are called ?resource officers,? but they are taught to perceive themselves as front-line troops on a combat footing.

"You've got to be a one-man fighting force,? self-styled counter-terrorism ?expert? John Giduck exhorted police officers at the 2007 National Conference of School Resource Officers in Orlando, Florida. ?You've got to have enough guns, and ammunition and body armor to stay alive.... You should be walking around in schools every day in complete tactical equipment, with semi-automatic weapons.... You can no longer afford to think of yourselves as peace officers.... You must think of yourself [sic] as soldiers in a war because we're going to ask you to act like soldiers." (Emphasis added.)

?Resource Officers? are not present for the protection of children; their mission is to intimidate them, and ? with increasing frequency ? make criminals out of them. A detailed story published by The Guardian of London points out that in 2010, police deployed in public schools issued roughly 300,000 ?class C misdemeanor? citations to school children, most of them for trivial disruptive behavior, such as ?inappropriate? dress and excessive use of perfume. Those infractions can result in fines, community service, or even time behind bars ? and an arrest record that can ruin the student?s future educational and employment prospects. This is a splendid illustration of the ?school-to-prison pipeline? in operation.

Although horrific mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School are vanishingly rare, ?lock-down? drills in which SWAT teams conduct training exercises involving hostage or terrorism scenarios are increasingly commonplace. Many of those ?hostage rescue" drills are better described as hostage-taking exercises, since they are used as pretexts for warrantless searches of lockers and student property.

Vista Grande High School in Casa Grande, Arizona, held a lock-down drug sweep on October 31. As had happened before in other schools across the country, the students were confined to their classrooms, then led in small groups to another room where they were forced to line up against a wall and be searched with the help of drug-sniffing dogs.

This exercise introduced a new element: Among the four law enforcement agencies involved in the search was a group of prison guards employed by the Corrections Corporation of America, the nation?s largest for-profit prison contractor.

Notes Caroline Isaacs of the Tucson office of the American Friends Service Committee: ?To invite for-profit prison guards to conduct law enforcement actions in a high school is perhaps the most direct expression of the `schools-to-prison pipeline? I?ve ever seen.? Clearly, the similarities between government-run schools and prisons are not limited to architecture. Posting National Guard troops around government indoctrination centers, as Boxer proposes, would destroy any residual pretense that there is a material distinction between "schools" and "prisons" in what is becoming an undisguised garrison state.

Like most contemporary liberals, Boxer is a passionate militarist who swaddles her enthusiasm for lethal force in rhetoric about compassion and equality. She can call for armed troops to patrol ?gun-free? school zones without perceiving any contradiction, because she simply assumes that the rest of us exist only to serve the interests of the political class and its enforcement arm. It is their privilege to compel, and our duty to submit to whatever they choose to inflict upon us. This is what Boxer and her comrades have in mind when they invoke ?national security.?
_
William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.


(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
- Ron Paul: Government Security Is Just Another Kind of Violence
- Private Murders versus Government Murders
- Who Goes to Prison Due to Gun Control?
- Gun Control = Gun Violence
- The Spontaneous Order of the Dance Floor
- American Children and Foreign Children
- I Fear the Government and the Obedient Sheeple, More Than I Fear Guns
- If Obama Is Opposed To Guns, Why Did His Administration Just Purchase 1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammunition?

She's a Bolshevik. She's part of the same ilk like Diane Feinstein who profited famously from the 'illegal wars'.

Boxer is an Israel-firster

Scratch the golden foil! Scratch scratch scratch A) The author of the title clearly has no idea what a liberal or a facist is, much less the difference.

B) I don't understand: I thought this was what all good NRA libertarians demanded. Wasn't armed guards in schools the whole solution? Given that regulating guns is bad?

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, January 29, 2013

Merely Being Arrested Can Ruin Your Life


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 William Grigg

"You never have a `right' to resist arrest," insists Des Moines-based attorney Harley Erbe (who is wrong, of course). There are two reasons why Mundanes must immediately submit to "commands" issued by the state's costumed enforcers, Erbe explains:

"First, officers' safety is a [sic] paramount consideration. People always think that their arrests are unfair or unlawful; if citizens then had a right to duke it out with law enforcement every time they held that belief then a lot of officers and citizens would be hurt."

The word "paramount" means "supreme." Thus Erbe is saying that whenever an armed state functionary decides to abduct you at gunpoint, his safety is always the foremost consideration.

Second, Erbe continues, "the streets are not the time or place for a debate on the legality of an arrest or whether the arrestee has committed a crime.? Those are matters to be determined?in courtrooms by judges and juries."

This is a variant of the advice that used to be offered to rape victims: It's safer to submit than to fight back, because resisting will only make matters worse. It also ignores the fact that merely being arrested is sufficient to ruin an innocent person's life -- or at least to steal a considerable portion of it. This is underscored by the case of Pittsburgh resident Sara Reedy, who was both the victim of a sexual assault and an unlawful arrest.

Eight years ago, Reedy -- at the time a 19-year-old expectant mother -- was robbed and sexually assaulted at gunpoint while working at a convenience store. When the police interviewed her in the hospital, they refused to believe her account, insisting that she had invented the story in order to cover for the theft of about $600 from the till. Rather than pursuing Reedy's assailant, the Pittsburgh police detective -- who belonged to an agency known to harbor rapists in its ranks -- arrested her and charged her with robbery and "false reporting." Although Reedy wasn't prosecuted, she lost her job -- and, eventually, her marriage.

Some months later, the criminal who assaulted Reedy was arrested after he forced himself on another victim. The perpetrator eventually confessed to a number of earlier assaults, including the one against Reedy. She spent seven years and a great deal of money seeking redress through the courts, eventually winning a large civil settlement that fell short of adequately compensating her for what she had experienced.

A recent investigation by the Gainesville Sun found that local police agencies make hundreds of entirely unnecessary arrests every year. The victims are arrested without charge, but the arrest is instantly noted in databases that are used for background checks for employment and housing. Even if the victim's criminal record is expunged, the digital trail cannot be erased.

Many of those arrests are summary punishment for "contempt of cop." Others are made for cynical reasons related to career advancement within the state's punitive priesthood.

Officer Jeff McAdams of the Gainesville Police Department, who is ?president of the Gator Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, told the Sun that GPD Chief Tony Jones expects his officers to "take control of their zones" -- which means making exemplary arrests intended to send a message, rather than led to criminal prosecutions. He also explained that needless arrests of this kind are "encouraged" by supervisors and that building a statistically impressive arrest record is a key to receiving "officer of the month" awards and similar honors.

As defense attorney Craig DeThomasis told the Sun, "We currently live in a world where an arrest destroys somebody's life." That's a small price to pay, apparently, to ensure the safety and enhance the career prospects of the incomparably precious people who compose the state's enforcement caste.


(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
- North Carolina: Driving While Nervous is Not a Crime
- Indefinite Detention Without Trial: Completely Unconstitutional, Yet Routine
- Not So Merry Christmas Drug Busts
- Utah: Traffic Stop Valid Even When Cop Causes Violation
- Santa Claus Arrested by DPS Capitol Police for Chalking Sidewalk
- San Diego Cops Beat & Pepper Spray Innocent Man With Down Syndrome
- Arizona Police Officer Caught Hiding Evidence In His Garage, Lying About It -- Keeps Job
- Denver Police Officer Found Guilty Of Using Badge To Sexually Assaulting Woman

being compliant and docile is not my fckn style chumps, so you better have a good lies and witnesses to back up your thuggary against me and my persons. "First, officers' safety is a [sic] paramount consideration."

About 400 officers are killed in the line of duty each year. They signed up and got paid for a DANGEROUS job before they ever hit the streets. They got the insurance pay-out when they got killed. Family taken care of forever on taxpayer money.

About twice that many officers commit suicide each year.

Officer safety my ass.

Why should an officer's life and safety be placed above anyone else's? Is his life worth more and his safety more important than that of a grocery store employee, gas station attendant, or any other Joe Blow out there?

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, January 28, 2013

Slim Majority of New Yorkers Say Legalize Marijuana


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 Quinnipiac poll released last Friday has New Yorkers supporting marijuana legalization by a narrow majority. The poll found 51% supported marijuana legalization, with 44% opposed.

That puts New York in line with the rest of the country, where most post-election polls are showing support for legalization at over 50%. Those polls come in the wake of victories for the Amendment 64 and Initiative 502 marijuana legalization initiatives in Colorado and Washington, respectively.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been pushing marijuana decriminalization, but the Quinnipiac poll suggests New Yorkers are ahead of their political leaders on the issue of marijuana reform.

New York City has achieved notoriety as the marijuana arrest capital of the world, with the NYPD arresting tens of thousands of mainly young black and brown men each year. Despite recent reforms, those numbers have yet to significantly decrease.

In a report released last month, Human Rights Watch found that between 1996 and 2011, the NYPD arrested more than 563,000 people for possession of marijuana in public (typically after police intimidate them into emptying their pockets and revealing their baggies), including nearly 100,000 in 2010 and 2011 alone. Neither Mayor Michael Bloomberg nor the NYPD "has ever provided a detailed justification for the high number of marijuana arrests, suggesting only that the arrests improve public safety," the report noted.

But the report also examined the subsequent criminal histories of the 2003 and 2004 cohorts of New York City pot possession arrestees. It found that more than 90% of them had not subsequently been arrested on a felony charge.

The Quinnipiac poll found majority support for legalization in New York City (54%) and its suburbs (50%), and a plurality (49%) for legalization upstate. Majorities supported freeing the weed in every age group except seniors, while majorities of Democrats (56%) and independents (57%) also favored legalization. Only 33% of Republicans did.

Men were more likely to support legalization (56%) than women (47%), while people with college degrees were more likely to support it (58%) than those without (47%). People who identified themselves as belonging to a religious denomination had levels of support ranging from 46% to 48%, while 70% of those who said they had no religion supported legalization.

Gov. Cuomo has been talking decriminalization. Given last month's election results and this month's polling, perhaps he should raise his sights.

The poll contacted 1,302 New York state voters between December 5 and 10 and asked"Do you think that the use of marijuana should be made legal in New York State, or not?" The poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.7 percentage points.


(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
- Georgia Town Ordering Gun Ownership Undaunted by Massacre
- Penn Jillette discusses gun control on "The Wendy Williams Show"
- Pier Morgan Debates Gun Owners of America's Larry Pratt
- Raging Union Goons Assault Man At Rally
- Majority Says Feds Should Stay Out of Marijuana Legalization States
- Modern Education [Pic]
- AVTM Asks Black Friday Shoppers If They Know How Many Countries Obama Has Bombed
- Confidential Police Docs Found in Macy's Parade Confetti Spark Investigation

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, January 27, 2013

Ron Paul: Government Security Is Just Another Kind of Violence


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 Ron Paul

The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place. Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called ?assault? rifles and gun-free zones.

Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government ?do something? to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned. Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don't obey laws.

The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we?re told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped.

While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings, I don?t agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws.

Let?s not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality. The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home. U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of which are children, albeit, of a different color.

Obviously I don?t want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook shooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence.

Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches? We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided "security," a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse. School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.

Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens? lives. We shouldn?t settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Government role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.

Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.


(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
- Private Murders versus Government Murders
- Who Goes to Prison Due to Gun Control?
- Gun Control = Gun Violence
- The Spontaneous Order of the Dance Floor
- Scratch A "Liberal," Find A Fascist: The Case Of Barbara Boxer
- American Children and Foreign Children
- I Fear the Government and the Obedient Sheeple, More Than I Fear Guns
- If Obama Is Opposed To Guns, Why Did His Administration Just Purchase 1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammunition?

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, January 26, 2013

Video: Cop Sticks Hands Down Womens' Pants As Part Of "Search" During Traffic Stop For Littering


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

Two Texas women stopped for allegedly throwing a cigarette butt out of their window were subject to a TSA-style act of sexual molestation by a female police officer who conducted a "roadside body cavity search" on them, The Dallas Morning News reports.

Two Irving women are suing two state troopers and the head of their department in federal court, alleging they were subjected to an illegal and humiliating ?roadside body cavity search? during a traffic stop.

Angel Dobbs, 38, and her niece, Ashley Dobbs, 24, said the search occurred on State Highway 161 in or near Irving on the night of July 13.

They claim that a female trooper, Kelley Helleson, used her fingers to search their anuses and vaginas ? using the same latex glove ? while on the side of the road in full view of passing vehicles.

They said David Farrell, a state trooper, had called Helleson to the scene after stopping the women?s vehicle and questioning them about marijuana. Farrell told them he stopped them after seeing them throw cigarette butts out of the window, according to the lawsuit.

He asked for the search because he said the women were ?acting weird,? the suit said.

Farrell searched their vehicle for marijuana but didn?t find any, they said. He then tried to ?morph this situation into a DWI investigation,? the lawsuit said. Angel Dobbs passed a roadside sobriety test and the women were given warnings for littering, the suit said.

[...]Palmer said the Texas Rangers investigated his clients? complaints but no action was taken against the troopers.

Palmer said the searches were basically a ?sexual assault? on the side of the road.

?No one?s ever seen the likes of this,? he said. ?We can?t let them get away with it.?

Had enough yet, America?
_
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
- North Carolina: Driving While Nervous is Not a Crime
- Indefinite Detention Without Trial: Completely Unconstitutional, Yet Routine
- Not So Merry Christmas Drug Busts
- Utah: Traffic Stop Valid Even When Cop Causes Violation
- Santa Claus Arrested by DPS Capitol Police for Chalking Sidewalk
- San Diego Cops Beat & Pepper Spray Innocent Man With Down Syndrome
- Arizona Police Officer Caught Hiding Evidence In His Garage, Lying About It -- Keeps Job
- Denver Police Officer Found Guilty Of Using Badge To Sexually Assaulting Woman

"acting weird" is SO subjective that it never should be used as basis for "probable cause".
People need to learn their rights under a stop. And just what did the cops think they were going to find up their asses that pertained to littering? The cop went ass to puss, that's like going ass to mouth! EEEWWW!!
Then she grabbed the woman's arm after having it in the chicks ass, how unsanitary for both of them! If that was my wife or my daughter, that filthy, perverted piece of trash would be worm food! Absolutely outrageous! These dirtbag pigs need to pay dearly for this serious abuse of power! Unbelievable how far we have fallen! You Will never be more free than you are right at this very moment in time.
Make the most of it. Can you imagine...

"Hands up, this is a Liberty Search!" :P

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, January 25, 2013

The Udder Futility of Centrally Planned Milk Production


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 Gregory Cummings

Dairy products in Canada cost roughly two to three times more than in the U.S. This has the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association (CRFA) feeling cheesed.

In an open letter to the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), the CRFA decried the current state of affairs:

Canada's restaurant industry purchases $2.5 billion a year in Canadian dairy products. As one of your largest customers, we want to do more to promote and grow the market for Canada's high-quality dairy products. Unjustifiably high prices, however, are having the opposite effect. This should be of concern to all of us along the supply chain, from farm to fork.
When applied to the Canadian dairy industry, the term "market" is a substantial misnomer. In fact, the "unjustifiably high prices" for dairy products in Canada are a direct consequence of supply management, or the centrally planned production of milk.

Our national supply management apparat is the Canadian Dairy Commission, whose commissars purport to calculate a national milk production target, or quota. This national quota is then divvied up amongst the provinces who then allocate it to farmers. As per the CDC mandate, it is designed to "stabilize revenues and avoid costly surpluses." In order to achieve predictable profits for dairy farmers, the quota is designed to achieve a target price for milk, which is calculated as a function of farmers' costs.

Because of this, there is less economic incentive for dairy farmers (especially the least efficient among them) to reduce their costs. This helps keep marginal operators in business. It also contributes to ever-increasing dairy prices that continue to outpace CPI growth. With higher prices, less dairy is demanded. In fact, milk production is actually lower than it was four decades ago.

Further conflagrating matters is the fact that protective tariffs (for example, a 299% mark-up on imported butter) restrict competition from foreign exporters.

Of course, this socialist methodology is deeply flawed. It has resulted in the current mess.

The answer to prices as a function of costs is prices as a function of consumer preferences. By comparison, in an unhampered market economy, costs have no influence on prices. Indeed, the law of price, as stated by Murray Rothbard, reveals that:

Individuals, on their value scales, evaluate a given stock of goods according to their utilities, setting the prices of consumers' goods; the stock is produced according to previous decisions by producers, who had weighed on their value scales the expected monetary revenue from consumers against the subjective costs (themselves simply utilities foregone) of engaging in the production. In the former case, the utility valuations are generally (though by no means always) the ones made by consumers; in the latter case, they are made by producers. But it is clear that the determinants of price are only the subjective utilities of individuals in valuing different conditions and alternatives. There are no "objective" or "real" costs that determine, or are co-ordinate in determining, price.
Alternatively, William Stanley Jevons explains:
Labour once spent has no influence on the future value of any article: it is gone and lost forever. In commerce bygones are forever bygones and we are always starting clear at each moment, judging the values of things with a view to future utility. Industry is essentially prospective, not retrospective.
The free market is resilient. Incredibly, supply management in Canada has led to a flourishing underground market in cross-border cheese. That's right, cheese-smuggling.
"With U.S. cheese being as little as a third the price it is in Canada, drivers are making $1,000 to $2,000 a trip," the story says.

Adding to the absurdity, the police department's internal affairs division is also investigating, because officers were allegedly involved.

Mario Sebastiano, the owner of Super Mario's pizza in Port Colborne, told the CBC he was approached by a Fort Erie man.

"He was gonna sell me a case for 150 bucks -- normally its $240," he said.

When it comes to socialism versus capitalism, it should be obvious on which side your bread is buttered.
_
Gregory Cummings is a Pharmacist and Certified Diabetes Educator. He has owned and operated his own retail pharmacy business since 2009. An alumnus of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Cummings received his bachelor?s degree in pharmacy with distinction in 2008. He lives in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario with his fiancee and pet dog.

(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
- Cassandra (Marc Faber) Versus Pollyanna (CNBC)
- Jim Rogers' Gold Outlook for 2013
- Vanishing Data on Tax Migration
- Down and Out In California
- 75 Economic Numbers From 2012 That Are Almost Too Crazy To Believe
- No Way Out
- Painting by the Numbers
- America's Coolest Capitalist TV Shows

The government control over production is a characteristic of totalitarian communist governments.

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, January 24, 2013

Government, the New Debtors' Prison

by Douglas French

An old banking buddy of mine has been out of work for a full year. I met up with him yesterday, and he told me the good news that he has finally found work. It's not enjoyable. But it pays better than sitting at home.

His time of unemployment had been doubly tough because his son was also out of work at the same time. The proud father seemed happier that his son had also found a job.

"And since he works for a nonprofit, they will pay his student loan," he said.

"What?" I said, not sure that I was hearing right.

"If you go to work for the government or a nonprofit, they will pay your student loan."

I told my friend that I'm thrilled for him and his son, but that I'm stunned that these sorts of incentives are in place to drive debt-laden college graduates to government and nonprofit jobs.

After all, this means taxpayers are footing the bill for these loans, on top of paying for government salaries that are, of course, a dead weight on private enterprise.

Well, it didn't take much digging to find the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) that was passed by Congress in 2007. According to Forbes, "The program promises to absolve remaining balances on the federal student loans of qualifying borrowers who make 120 monthly loan payments under eligible plans."

To be eligible, you must make these payments while working for the government or a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. The way to maximize the government forgiveness is to sign up for the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) Plan or the Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) Plan.

So say a theoretical student graduates from law school (to use an example provided by Forbes) with $120,000 in debt and takes a job as a public defender making $45,000 a year with a 3% annual raise.

According to Isaac Bowers, senior program manager for educational debt relief and outreach at Equal Justice Works, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit, that person would be eligible for roughly $151,000 in forgiveness if the young lawyer enrolled in the government's Income-Based Repayment Plan and repaid about $48,570 in 120 payments.

There is a complete alphabet soup of debt forgiveness programs for those working on the government payroll. Various states have their own programs, as do cities, universities, and so on. Of course, these programs are all subject to funding, so hooking up with a federal government job offering a debt forgiveness program is the safest way to go.

Mark Kantrowitz tells Forbes that loan forgiveness options at the federal level are the most reliable. "Even if they get canceled, existing borrowers are likely to get grandfathered in," he said. "And they're not in danger of being canceled. There would be too much of an uproar if they were."

Meanwhile, MBA graduates gainfully employed in the private sector whipping up lattes and the like are struggling to make payments. This past quarter, 11% of student loans were 90-plus days delinquent, which "for the first time exceeds the 'serious delinquency' rate for credit card debt," William Bennett writes for CNN.com.

Students are graduating with mountains of debt and moving back in with their parents when they can't find a job, or at least one that provides enough to pay rent and student loan payments. This isn't some isolated circumstance. One in five families is shouldering student loans debt, according to Pew Research Center. But for households headed by someone younger than 35, the percentage is a whopping 40%. Back in 1989, that number was less than 20%.

Over a quarter of households headed by someone aged 35-44 has student debt, more than double the 11% for this age group in 1989. The average amount of student debt per household has nearly tripled (in adjusted dollars) in the same time frame, rising from $9,634 in 1989 to $26,682 in 2010. The result?

Mr. Bennett makes the very salient point that student loans are risky, and the government, which makes 93% of student loans, is an irrational lender. Someone pursuing a degree in anthropology can borrow just as much and at the same rate as a student earning a marketable degree like say, nursing.

But the government keeps on shoveling out the money. After all, Obama once told Congress,

"Tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma."
To that end, the Department of Education handed out $133 billion in 2010 and another $157 billion in 2011. And still students are borrowing like never before. But for what? The Associated Press reported earlier this year,
"About 1.5 million, or 53.6%, of bachelor?s degree holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest share in at least 11 years. In 2000, the share was at a low of 41%, before the dot-com bust erased job gains for college graduates in the telecommunications and IT fields."
My friend went on to tell me that his daughter is nearly done with graduate school. I asked if he had been shouldering the burden of her education costs.

"No. Student loans."

I asked if she had racked up a six-figure loan balance.

"Yeah, probably."

I let out a groan. He quickly added, "but she'll probably work for the government."

The mortgage debt crisis has been replaced in the public view by the student loan debt crisis. Total student debt outstanding is approaching $1 trillion. And while students are graduating with fancy degrees, jobs that pay enough to service the debt are few and far between.

The taxpayer just can't escape funding the higher education racket. Your state taxes provide direct support. Your federal taxes are funding direct aid and student loans. And now graduates have a compelling reason to find a place on the government payroll with you footing the bill. After all, student loan balances can't be discharged through bankruptcy, but they can be through government employment.
_
Douglas E. French is senior editor of the Laissez Faire Club. He received his master's degree under the direction of Murray N. Rothbard at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, after many years in the business of banking. He is the author of two books, Early Speculative Bubbles and Increases in the Supply of Money, the first major empirical study of the relationship between early bubbles and the money supply, and Walk Away, a monograph assessing the philosophy and morality of strategic default. He is founder and editor of LibertyWatch magazine. Write him.


View the original article here

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Denver Police Officer Found Guilty Of Using Badge To Sexually Assaulting Woman


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');
DENVER (CBS4) ? A Denver police officer charged with sexually assaulting a woman he pulled over has been found guilty.

The verdict came in Tuesday afternoon against Hector Paez. He was found guilty of sexual assault, kidnapping and false reporting.

[...]?Before I knew it he said I had a warrant and threw me in the back seat of the car.?

The woman did have a warrant for a probation violation, but after driving her to a secluded area Paez told her there was a way to avoid jail.

?He just undid his pants and said, ?You know what you have to do,? ? she said. ?He thought, ?Here?s somebody with a warrant and I can do whatever I want to do with them. They?re not going to tell on me.? ?

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
- North Carolina: Driving While Nervous is Not a Crime
- Indefinite Detention Without Trial: Completely Unconstitutional, Yet Routine
- Not So Merry Christmas Drug Busts
- Utah: Traffic Stop Valid Even When Cop Causes Violation
- Santa Claus Arrested by DPS Capitol Police for Chalking Sidewalk
- San Diego Cops Beat & Pepper Spray Innocent Man With Down Syndrome
- Arizona Police Officer Caught Hiding Evidence In His Garage, Lying About It -- Keeps Job
- Charlotte Cop Kills Dog, Nearly Shoots Pregnant Woman

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, January 22, 2013

If Obama Is Opposed To Guns, Why Did His Administration Just Purchase 1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammunition?

by Mike Adams

?An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland.? ? Adolf Hitler, 1922.

In the aftermath of the recent Sandy Hook shooting, Obama and his cohorts are screaming about how they all despise guns and ammo. Guns are the problem in America today, we?ve been told from every corner of the media, and so the only solution is to get rid of all the guns.

But not exactly. There?s one organization in America that?s loading up on masses of assault rifles and enough ammunition to run a 10-year shooting war. That organization is, of course, the U.S. federal government and its Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which has purchased a total of?1.6 billion rounds of ammunition to be used?domestically, inside the United States.

It begs the question: Why does the Department of Homeland Security ? named after Hitler?s ?Office of Fatherland Security? ? need 1.6 billion rounds of ammo?

Obama?s government stockpiles weapons of mass destruction

The DHS began all this in April of this year, with the purchase of?450 million rounds of hollow point .40 caliber ammunition. This is significant for two reasons:

1) DHS does not fight wars with foreign nations. It?s entire theater of operations is on U.S. soil, dealing solely with the American people.

2) Hollow point?ammunition is banned by the Geneva convention and is not used by the U.S. military. This ammunition can only be used domestically, in the United States, against U.S. targets or people.

Along with these 450 million rounds of ammunition, DHS also purchased?$400,000 worth of radiation protection pills and thousands of?bullet-proof roadside checkpoint booths. Is it expecting a radiological event? (Or perhaps planning one?)

These 450 million rounds of ammo, Natural News calculated, is enough to wage a?7-year war with the American people.

Obama?s government stockpiling millions of rounds of ammo to arm the DHS and TSA

You can see the original federal purchase document requesting all this ammunition at:

http://www.naturalnews.com/files/DHS_ammo_buy.pdf

The numbers in the document, by the way, are in?thousands.

In it, you?ll discover that the U.S.?government has also purchased all the following ammunition?in addition to the 450 million rounds of .40 hollow point ?anti-personnel? ammo:

? Over one million rounds of hollow-point .223 rifle ammo
? Over half a million rounds of non-hollow-point .223 rifle ammo
? 220,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #7 ammo (target ammo)
? Over 200,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #00 buckshot ammo (tactical anti-personnel ammo)
? 66,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun slugs (tactical anti-personnel, anti-vehicle rounds)
? Over two million rounds of hollow-point .357 Sig JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel)
? Over four million rounds of .40 S&W JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel)
? Over 60,000 rounds of .308 match grade anti-personnel sniper rounds (BTHP)
? Plus, hundreds of thousands of additional rounds of .38 special, .45 auto, 9mm, 7.62?39 (AK rifle) ammo, and others.

DHS then buys another 750 million rounds of anti-personnel ammunition

A few months after buying the 450+ million rounds of ammo to be stockpiled by Obama?s government in the United States, the DHS then went on to purchase?another 750 million rounds of ammunition.

Additional contracts were added after that, bringing the grand total of government ammo purchases in 2012 to?1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. That?s over five bullets for every American man, woman and child. It also includes long-range sniper rounds.

By comparison, a citizen is considered to be a stockpiling ?terrorist? prepper if they own just 1,000 rounds of ammo. The government, however, can purchase?billions and the mainstream media doesn?t even question it.

Where is all this ammunition going? It?s being?stockpiled by the federal government, awaiting some future event during which it will apparently be ?activated.? Why else would you stockpile something if you don?t anticipate needing to use it someday?

During all this, Obama and his cohorts in Washington are loudly insisting that American citizens have no right to purchase firearms or ammunition, and that new laws will soon be enacted to make sure you cannot do what the government does: stockpile weapons and ammo.

Obama has armed security personnel for self defense, but YOU can?t have self defense

The United States of America was founded on the idea that an?armed citizenry is the only thing that can be trusted to keep government honest, but that idea has now been turned upside down. The new message today is that an?armed government is the only thing that can be trusted, and that individual citizens are all potential terrorists and mass murderers.

While Obama, Feinstein, Bloomberg and others are calling for citizens to give up their self defense tools, those very same people?all have armed bodyguards to provide for their own self defense. Obama in particular has an entire group of men ? the U.S. Secret Service ? who are most definitely armed to the teeth and wielding full-auto weapons.

Will Obama now call for his own Secret Service men to give up their guns and ammunition? Will Bloomberg give up his armed police escorts and security personnel? Will the White House be completely disarmed and have a ?Gun Free Zone? sign placed outside the White House lawn?

Of course not. What Obama, Bloomberg, Schumer, Feinstein and all these tyrants practice is?a cynical double standard. They want YOU to give up all your guns and rights, but THEY refuse to do so. It?s okay for them to be armed, but not you. You can?t be trusted because you?re just a hard-working American taxpayer / slave. Only the government elite can be trusted with guns, you see, because government is so incredibly honest, ethical and trustworthy. And anyone who questions that is obviously a terrorist.

That?s the new insanity in Washington D.C. and apparently across the mainstream media where twits like Piers Morgan smear our TV screens with imbecilic profanity as they rant and rave about American citizens giving up all their guns while the government stockpiles masses of assault rifles and billions of rounds of ammunition.

Piers Morgan, in case you haven?t figure it out, is precisely the kind of traitorous tory America?s founding fathers would have hanged from a tree in 1776. That this frothing talking moron, a British subject, even sets foot in?America today and calls for the mass disarmament of the American people is tantamount to an act of deliberate sabotage of the very nation that already defeated the British in one war. Morgan is an enemy of America and a traitor to humanity.

The picture is now becoming clear

The government plan for the use of all these guns and ammunition is now becoming clear. It is a plan to engineer a civil war. Here?s how it works:

Step 1) Obama stockpiles billions of rounds of ammunition, assault rifles, bullet-proof checkpoint booths and sniper rounds for the government while training up a whole new army of psychopathic sex predators known as the TSA.

Step 2) Mass shootings of children are either staged or encouraged to make sure they happen with rising frequency. (Aurora, Sandy Hook, etc.). Schools are advertised as ?Gun Free Zone? to make sure mass shooters doped up on psychiatric drugs and hypnotic video games know exactly where to go to achieve the highest body count, unopposed by any firearms.

Step 3) When the shootings take place, the media jumps on board the emotional bandwagon and parades dead children in front of the public to the point of?emotional extortion. The public then leaps to the delusion that gun confiscation will be great for everyone!

Step 4) The government then?stages a radiological false flag event in a major U.S. city while framing a group of patriots, veterans or ?preppers? as patsies.

Step 5) This event, which kills 1+ million people, then provides the pretext to declare martial law, suspend the entire Bill of Rights and roll out TSA checkpoints nationwide. TSA agents, who have already proven themselves to be the most masochistic, sick-minded individuals working in government today, are then handed .40 caliber pistols and rifles (yes, they make rifles that shoot .40 pistol ammo) to start waging a shooting war against the American people.

Step 6) Now it?s all-out?civil war: Americans shoot each other up, causing huge casualties on both sides. Much of the weapons and ammo stockpiled by American preppers and patriots is used up in this conflict, and that?s exactly the point.

Step 7) Once the civil war has torn America apart, the United Nations lands UN ?peacekeeping? troops to take command and occupy America. This will be accompanied by strict ?gun control? mandates and constant surveillance of the American people with facial recognition cameras, audio-recording street lamps in the cities, and airborne drones watching from the sky.

Obama is given another Nobel peace prize ? mission accomplished! ? for enabling the UN takeover of America. The globalists celebrate.

Why we need the Second Amendment for our own survival

Events like Sandy Hook, you see, are all part of?the scripted escalation of violence in America, culminating in the government?s declaration of war against citizens. This is precisely why we need the Second Amendment:

?The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms,? said?Thomas Jefferson, ??is to protect themselves against tyranny in government.?

The only way America has a chance to halt the violence, defend the Constitution and restore the Republic is to?stay armed and stay vigilant. Because let?s be clear: the Obama administration is a criminal operation. The signing of the NDAA, all by itself, should have been clear grounds for not just impeachment, but prosecution for treason.

We are dealing with an out-of-control gang of tyrants in the White House, in DHS and TSA. There are some good men and women inside the FBI, the Pentagon and even the CIA, believe it or not. Those men and women are just as frustrated with what?s happening inside the White House as we all are, and they are ready and willing to defend America against criminal traitors like Eric Holder, for example. Once this all starts to unfold, you will see the federal government having a difficult time keeping all its own people in line. There will be?internal fracturing in the federal chain of command, and there may even be break-out groups that seek to overthrow the traitors and restore basic liberties in America.

Six undeniable facts

How all this actually plays out in anyone?s guess, but there are several points I can assure you are very real:

Fact #1) The government is arming to the teeth, stockpiling more than five rounds of ammunition for every American man, woman and child.

Fact #2) The American people are also arming to the teeth, buying up millions of firearms and billions of rounds of ammunition at a record pace.

Fact #3) The Obama criminals have become arrogant and stupid, thinking they can pull off anything. They will over-estimate their power and soon overstep their bounds in trying to crush the remaining liberties of the American people. There will be a huge reactionary counter-effort.

Fact #4) There are good people still within the government and especially the military who are loyal to the Constitution and despise the communist-influenced gang that now occupies the White House.

Fact #5) The government can and will stage false flag attacks to blame its enemies and centralize power. This is true throughout human history.

Fact #6) Something much larger than Sandy Hook is in the planning stages, I believe. Look for a radiological attack of some sort, such as a dirty bomb being set off in a major U.S. city by a rogue group working under Obama. This will be used to terrorize Americans and blame patriots, unleashing an all-out war against individual liberty in America.


View the original article here

Monday, January 21, 2013

Former Marine claims military vaccines gave him brain damage


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 Marcy Martinez

Justin Gerhardt had high hopes for himself.

"I was really interested in becoming a Marine Corps officer. It's something I always wanted to do since I was a child."

[...]After graduating college he was determined to become an officer in the US Marines, but during officer candidate school everything changed.

"I was given 7 vaccinations and I got sick. I had a fever and could barely tie my boots. I had a seizure."

At 23, Justin's officer dreams were cut short as he was rushed to the hospital in Bethesda for symptoms he claims were caused by the vaccines administered.

"I have brain damage."

5 years later Justin is considered 90 percent disabled and cannot work.

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 Brave New World
- Our Masters See Us As Cattle -- Or Guinea Pigs
- Veteran Class Certified in Drug 'Guinea Pig' Case
- NJ Attempts to Strip Parental Rights with Vaccine Anti-Exemption Bill
- UC Professor Eyes Permanent Sterilant To Cull US Population
- Portland, Oregon to spend $5 million to poison its residents with toxic fluoride
- Did Merck's Gardasil Vaccine Kill a 3 Year-Old Toddler?
- Dr. Drew Pinsky cashed in on drug company money: Is your doctor on the take?
- Donald Trump Thinks Autism & Vaccines Linked

I believe it, I believe the vaccines I received gave me a slight bit of autism too!

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, January 19, 2013

Not So Merry Christmas Drug Busts


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 Michael S. Rozeff, LRC Blog

Local news reports 16 arrests for marijuana possession in nearby Jamestown. The Department of Homeland Security participated in these arrests. This is so bad, so bad. Every week this happens. The people arrested usually range in age from about 25 to 45. They are not kids. This batch is about evenly split between black and white. Think of the huge amounts of taxes being wasted on hunting these people down, arresting them, holding them in detention centers and jails, putting them through the judicial system, and putting some in prison. It's incredible that this goes on.? And for what? So that people can go use some prescription drug? Or concoct something made out of cough syrup or some decongestant or painkiller?

Now get this. In this state, New York State, a poll shows that 71 percent of voters favor medical marijuana. The Democratic-controlled assembly has moved a bill, but the Republican Senate has not. The governor who is Democratic, Andrew Cuomo, is sitting on the fence, sometimes saying he's against it. The political system is so grossly inefficient, so slow, so benighted, so conservative, and so unresponsive to ending this over 100-year tyranny. It will introduce spy planes in a flash or fund some boondoggle project at the behest of local developers, but it can't even be induced to loosen up marijuana for medical use. The politicians fear losing the votes of that intense minority that opposes medical marijuana and legalizing drugs in general. This is one reason the system itself is dysfunctional. And it's the same at the federal level, but much worse. In that case, the intense lobbies for war, even when in the minority, are capable of inducing politicians to vote for war for fear of losing their votes.

And get this. The U.S. government law on marijuana conflicts with the laws that the states are passing. This is good news. But at the same time, it shows how control-oriented the federal government is and how dysfunctional the political system is.


(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
- North Carolina: Driving While Nervous is Not a Crime
- Indefinite Detention Without Trial: Completely Unconstitutional, Yet Routine
- Utah: Traffic Stop Valid Even When Cop Causes Violation
- Santa Claus Arrested by DPS Capitol Police for Chalking Sidewalk
- San Diego Cops Beat & Pepper Spray Innocent Man With Down Syndrome
- Arizona Police Officer Caught Hiding Evidence In His Garage, Lying About It -- Keeps Job
- Denver Police Officer Found Guilty Of Using Badge To Sexually Assaulting Woman
- Charlotte Cop Kills Dog, Nearly Shoots Pregnant Woman

Yet they sell carcinogenic cancer sticks at the store for those really suicidal types! Lame ass world!

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

Who Goes to Prison Due to Gun Control?


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 Anthony Gregory

Somehow, left-liberals have associated the cause of gun rights with white racism, when if anything it is gun control that has a racist legacy. In the United States, early gun laws targeted recently freed blacks, and open carry first became banned in California under Governor Ronald Reagan to disarm groups like the Black Panthers. Today, blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately subjected to humiliating stop-and-frisk searches in the name of gun control.

Perhaps the most telling data concerns the racial makeup of who goes to prison for gun violations. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, for Fiscal Year 2011,?49.6% of those sentenced to federal incarceration with a primary offense of firearms violations were black,?20.6% were Hispanic, and only 27.5% were white.

This is how gun laws actually work--those caught violating them go to prison. For the mere act of owning an illegal weapon--not necessarily for using it, not for threatening anyone with it, not for being irresponsible with it--people who have harmed no one are locked up in prison for years at a time. As with the rest of the criminal justice system, particularly the war on drugs, these laws disproportionately harm the poor and minorities. That is the inescapable reality of gun control.

It makes sense that blacks and others living in the inner city would rely more on private, illegal guns for self-defense. The police are unreliable at best in many of these communities. It also makes sense that minorities would be disproportionately hurt by these laws, because so many of the dynamics in play are the same as with the drug war--people are being punished for what they own, rather than what they have done to others; it is easier for police to go after those in poor neighborhoods than to search middle-class folks in nice neighborhoods; jurors approved by prosecutors tend to believe police testimony over the word of minority defendants; prosecutors tend to use discretion in possession crime cases that fall more painfully on the disenfranchised; public defenders offer inadequate services for those loads of court-appointed clients, and so forth.

Left-liberals will respond that the racist implementation of gun laws is a problem independent of firearms policy, that we need stricter laws against guns and we?ll deal with inequity in prosecution and sentencing separately. But rarely do they make the same point with drug policy. Progressives know that in origin and in practice, drug policy is unmistakably racist. There is no way to easily purge the system of its racist elements--the problems are too entrenched. Yet these people somehow don?t fully grasp that this is just as unavoidably true as it concerns gun control policy.

When it comes to restricting firearms, liberals have an amazing ability to ignore the hard truth of what they are advocating--putting more people in cages. That is what gun control is. Sometimes it almost seems like progressives are completely blind to this obvious reality--that they understand the problems with drug laws, that they see laws like Three Strikes unfairly punish people for minor property crimes, that they detect a problem with the death penalty even for convicted murderers, that they know that for the whole range of criminal offenses, the state tends to go overboard in dealing with the accused. Except for gun control! On this, we can expect equity, fairness, and efficiency! In truth, putting people in cages won?t make a dent in criminal gun ownership, just as having a half million people behind bars for drug offenses has hardly stemmed the availability of illicit drugs. But that?s a whole other set of questions.

There are a hundred reasons why I oppose gun control. But here is one that lefties, if they are to be consistent at all, need to take to heart: More gun laws mean more peaceful people, disproportionately young black and brown men, who have committed no violence against anyone, being locked up in cells. That might make you feel safer. But it makes me feel like I live in a mockery of a free, humane society.


(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
- Ron Paul: Government Security Is Just Another Kind of Violence
- Private Murders versus Government Murders
- Gun Control = Gun Violence
- The Spontaneous Order of the Dance Floor
- Scratch A "Liberal," Find A Fascist: The Case Of Barbara Boxer
- American Children and Foreign Children
- I Fear the Government and the Obedient Sheeple, More Than I Fear Guns
- If Obama Is Opposed To Guns, Why Did His Administration Just Purchase 1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammunition?

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, January 18, 2013

Utah: Traffic Stop Valid Even When Cop Causes Violation


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'); Federal judge upholds stop for a left-lane violation even when presence of cop car caused traffic to slow.

A police officer can pull over a motorist for a traffic violation even if the officer himself caused the driver to commit the infraction, a federal judge ruled last Tuesday. US District Judge Ted Stewart made the decision in the case of Hickory W. McCoy, who was pulled over on January 24, 2012 while traveling just under the speed limit in the left lane of Interstate 80 in Utah.

Highway Patrol Trooper Randy Riches was running a speed trap on the side of the road, about 150 feet from where the speed limit drops from 75 MPH to 65 MPH. Just before noon, McCoy's rented 2011 Chevrolet Malibu passed by at a legal 73 MPH. Riches pulled onto the highway and began racing after the Malibu at 88 MPH, hoping to catch it speeding. Instead, as he followed for a mile and a half, the Malibu was driving a legal 62 MPH in the left lane. Another vehicle was passing in the right lane at the time.

Trooper Riches pulled over the Malibu on the grounds that it was blocking traffic in the left lane. Under Utah law, it is unlawful to dawdle in the fast lane, blocking faster traffic, unless "avoiding actual or potential traffic" in the right-hand lane. McCoy's attorney, Randall Gaither, said the trooper was the one driving dangerously.

"The Highway Patrol officer drove at an excessive speed of over 88 miles per hour with no lights or siren down the Interstate in the right lane of travel pursuing the vehicle without any observation of a traffic offense," Gaither told the court. "The vehicle was driven in an aggressive manner without any emergency exception. The position and manner of driving by the patrol unit would have reasonably affected the drivers on the roadway. The trooper began following the vehicle and restricted the movement of the vehicle into the right lane... The only clear traffic violation is the excessive speed of the patrol vehicle driving and passing cars in the right lane."

In court, Trooper Riches asserted the Malibu had room to get into the right lane, even though the patrol car was approaching 25 MPH faster than the rest of traffic on the road.

"Even accepting as true defendant's assertion that, due to the actions of Trooper Riches no violation of [the left-lane statute] occurred, the outcome is unchanged because the court finds that Trooper Riches's assessment of the facts giving rise to the violation was reasonable," Judge Stewart concluded. "In sum, the court finds that the totality of the circumstances support a finding that, at the inception of the instant traffic stop, Trooper Riches had a reasonable articulable suspicion that defendant committed a traffic violation under the laws of the state of Utah. For this reason, the court will deny defendant's motion to suppress."

As a result, McCoy will stand trial for charges for possession of marijuana and an Intratec 9mm. A copy of the judge's ruling is available in a PDF file at the source link below.

Source: US v. McCoy (US District Court, District of Utah, 12/18/2012)


(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
- North Carolina: Driving While Nervous is Not a Crime
- Indefinite Detention Without Trial: Completely Unconstitutional, Yet Routine
- Not So Merry Christmas Drug Busts
- Santa Claus Arrested by DPS Capitol Police for Chalking Sidewalk
- San Diego Cops Beat & Pepper Spray Innocent Man With Down Syndrome
- Arizona Police Officer Caught Hiding Evidence In His Garage, Lying About It -- Keeps Job
- Denver Police Officer Found Guilty Of Using Badge To Sexually Assaulting Woman
- Charlotte Cop Kills Dog, Nearly Shoots Pregnant Woman

Well there's the real reason at the end. If he didn't have the gun and the weed he would have got away with it.

Also no mention of it was legal or not for him to have the gun. I'm guessing not and the judge didn't want to see him get away with illegal search and seizure so he pulled the verdict out of his ass so he can stand trial.

It's important to understand that judge's decision was not that McCoy has committed traffic violation, but that in the eyes of the trooper, he _might_ have committed it - enough to stop him.

Even when stopped, McCoy shouldn't have consented to the search of the vehicle.

Well, it sounds like there was his problem. The guy should have said the magic words, "I do not consent to any searches" and asked if he was free to go. Welkom to Amerika. The judges are independedent, legal scholars. Bawahahahahahahah! well there are many ways to get your backs in a situation like this. If cops want to play dirty then people are going to have to get dirty also. And yet more nuttiness out of Utah. No surprise there. They should have to mail us all the rules and regulations and constant updates in the law, it's not like everybody studies the contradicting BS anyways! Since they are always adapting it to make more money, they should at least let us all know what all the laws are!

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, January 17, 2013

Mesa County Police Have Been Using Drones For Years, Still Coming Up With Rules On Use


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 Timothy Geigner

The march towards drones becoming a common tool for domestic law enforcement agencies seems inevitable and some people aren't happy about it. We've already covered the backlash against one artist who satarized New York City's drone program. San Diego, for their part, valiantly refused to honor an FOIA request on their domestic UAV program because they determined on their own that there wouldn't be a public benefit to the disclosure. MuckRock thought that was a dodge not afforded San Diego under FOIA rules, but San Diego again declined to say anything at all about the program.


"Sorry, citizen, but Detective Iron Death-Spy is very, very shy."

Image source: CC BY 2.0

But one thing that has generally been accepted is that law enforcement agencies were required to operate these drones under very strict guidelines and within very strict geographic boundaries. It would appear, for Mesa County, Colorado at least, that may not be universally true. The EFF's Drone Census project has uncovered that Mesa County has two UAVs and can operate them without many of the restrictions in place elsewhere.

The MCSO must abide by standard FAA restrictions on domestic UAV flights, which cap flights to below 400 feet and preclude night flights or operating over "populated areas, heavily trafficked roads, or an open-air assembly of people." But MCSO's drone authorization includes no geographic restrictions: effectively, the agency can fly its UAVs anywhere in Mesa County. This freedom has allowed the agency to log dozens of operational missions since fall 2010. MCSO flight logs indicate that its UAV team has logged more than 160 flight hours on its drones since January 2011.
So, whereas other UAV programs are restricted to flying over areas where they could chiefly assist in locating missing people in difficult to surveil areas, Mesa County can fly them anywhere within their jurisdiction without any limitations beyond the somewhat vague-sounding "populated areas, heavily trafficked roads" or the open air above a large assembly of people. That can leave a great deal of sky to buzz around with less of the oversight I think is desperately needed in programs like this.

Now, just to be clear, these drones do not carry arms. They are used for imaging. Then again, as the creep continues, the rules keep shifting towards greater use and application, so it wouldn't be fair to slam anyone concerned that someday we may indeed see armed UAVs over our skies. Equally worrying is this:

MCSO has been using drones operationally for two years, but the department has no written drone policy outlining the uses for which its officers may deploy UAVs. Ms. Barnes writes that MCSO is "currently in the process of drafting a written policy for the use of our unmanned aircraft."
Well, that's just peaches. Military-style technology deployed domestically without any official policy for its use. I feel so warm and fuzzy inside.

(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
- Graphic Novel Declared A Terrorist Operation By US Government, Advance Money Seized
- The TSA's True Focus Isn't 'Safety' - It's Self-Preservation
- Colombia Adopts Mandatory Backdoor and Data Retention Mandates
- ITU Boss In Denial: Claims Success, Misrepresents Final Treaty, As US, UK, Canada And Many More Refuse To Sign
- DMCA Copyright Takedowns To Google Increased 10x In Just The Past Six Months
- TSA's Grip on Internal Travel is Tightening
- AVTM Interviews Fliers on the TSA
- The Everyday Absurdities of the TSA

and the government can,t understand why such a large potion of the population is pissed at them.

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