Google Search

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

The Obama Administration Prepares for War -- Against Us


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 Will Grigg

The Obama administration is openly escalating its campaign against private gun ownership -- but is it also preparing to make war on the American population? According to Canadian educator and human rights activist Jim Garrow, the answer to that shocking question is ?yes.?

In a phone interview, Garrow told me that he received an early morning phone call from a man he identified as a retired high-ranking military officer. That man was upset because a young prot?g? had resigned his commission to protest the Obama administration?s efforts to reconstruct the military. That disillusioned young officer reportedly said that the administration?s litmus test for officers was a willingness to accept orders from the chain of command that would involve firing on U.S. citizens who refuse to surrender their firearms.

Garrow, who has not revealed the name of his source, is regarded as a man of some accomplishment. Through the Bethune Institute, he has established hundreds of schools throughout China. Three years ago, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for rescuing baby girls who were targeted for infanticide because of the Chinese government?s one-child policy.? His warning shouldn?t be taken as gospel ? but it shouldn?t be dismissed as mere rumor, either.


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

Fitness Crackdown: Santa Monica Gets Tough On Trainers


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');

Keeping up New Year's resolutions to get in shape might get tougher thanks to Santa Monica City Council's proposition to ramp up regulations on outdoor fitness classes this spring.

The council is considering banning all classes with more than two participants in the city's most popular workout spot, Palisades Park.

"Palisades park is a public park and doing commercial enterprise in a public park or a public facility really should have regulations around it," says Santa Monica's Director of Community and Cultural Services Karen Ginsberg. "The recommendation is to limit private trainers for compensation."

Additionally, the council could impose a 15 percent fee on all trainers' profits over and above the already required business license, permit, insurance, and city tax.

ReasonTV's Kennedy tried out one of the outdoor classes, Sonki Fitness' Bootcamp, to see what all the fuss was about.

"It's a park, it's not a museum," says Kennedy, "this is what people should be doing with their outdoor spaces."

Founder Sonki Hong has been training his students in Palisades Park for over a decade.

"They should try to really work with small businesses like me instead of making it harder for me to survive," says Sonki.

Written, produced and shot by Tracy Oppenheimer. Additional camera by Paul Detrick.

About 4 minutes.


(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
- Jeff Berwick: Get far away from USA... Its collapse will be messy
- 37 Statistics Which Show How Four Years Of Obama Have Wrecked The U.S. Economy
- Doug Casey: 'We are living in the middle of the biggest bubble in history'
- The Trillion Dollar Trick
- Jon Stewart Smacks Paul Krugman Over Trillion Dollar Coin: It's 'A Stupid F*cking Idea'
- There Will Be No Economic Recovery. Prepare Yourself Accordingly.
- Americans Used to Tar-and-Feather Tax Collectors
- Section 8 housing voucher distribution canceled after thousands waiting in line get out of control

The pukes that be cannot leave anyone alone, they have to make up shit every fucking day to justify their little shit pussy egos, fuck me to tears. Tell the bastards to take a flying fuck, your tax dollars have paid for the maintanence and your freedom to use that piece of real estate as you the taxpayer see's fit.

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, February 25, 2013

Gary Raney: The Slave-Catching Sheriff of Ada County, Idaho


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

If Idaho had been part of the Union in 1850, and Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney had occupied that office at the time, he would have dutifully arrested any black man or woman identified as an escaped slave. Oh, sure, Raney may have expressed agonized reluctance as he did so -- but that reluctance would have been rhetorical window-dressing for his pious invocation of the sacred responsibility he had to submit to the "law of the land."

This is the inescapable logic of the position Raney has taken in an op-ed column published this morning in the Idaho Statesman.

"I have been asked many times in the past couple of weeks whether I will uphold my oath to defend the Constitution and proclaim an intolerance of federal action against the Second Amendment," Raney writes. Many others have indulged that pressure and now we see Oregon sheriffs, Wyoming legislators and others making hollow promises to protect you from the intrusions of the federal government."

"I did not swear to uphold just part of the Constitution," Raney continues, before tacitly promising to do that very thing. You see, the Constitution, on Raney's construction, "includes the right to keep and bear arms, but it also includes the `supremacy clause' that says that every state shall abide by the laws passed by our Congress."

Actually, that right is not included in the Constitution; it exists independent of that document or any other government charter, and no government has the moral right or delegated authority to take it away. What Raney asserts here is the idea that the existence of that right is contingent on government approval, and thus can be nullified by government. From this perspective, the only part of the Constitution that matters is the supremacy clause, at least as people like Raney pretend to understand it.

"So, despite the fact that I personally oppose some of the gun control measures currently under consideration, my oath requires me to uphold the laws that are passed by our federal and state representatives," summarizes Raney. The same would have been true, of course, of the Fugitive Slave Act -- which was properly enacted and enforced as the "law of the land" despite the heroic efforts of people in some cities and states to nullify enforcement of that abominable measure.

Give Raney whatever credit is due to him for his candor: Like the other sheriffs who have pledged not to carry out unconstitutional federal gun confiscation measures, Raney receives federal subsidies -- but unlike his pro-Second Amendment colleagues, Raney is forthright about the fact that he is merely a servile tool of the federal leviathan state. He will confiscate firearms from innocent people if ordered to, but at least he won't have to walk back any promises he had made to protect their rights.


(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
- AZ Cop Investigated For Having Allegedly Used Stun Gun On Stepson Over 'Unsatisfactory Report Card'
- An Anger Management Class?
- 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

he Sheriff is either lying or ignorant. The ?supremacy clause? he refers to does NOT stipulate that federal law trumps state law. In fact, it means quite the opposite. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Section 2) stipulates the following:

the U.S. Constitution-not the federal government-is supreme; that the U.S. Constitution and all laws made in harmony with it ?shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby??.

TRANSLATE: every State not only MUST obey the U.S. Constitution but also enforce it against any federal conspirator in Congress, who by defrauding those that he pretends to represent, also violates it.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed."
~2nd Amendment

In other words, it's illegal to pass a law that restricts gun ownership. That is what the "shall not be infringed" part means. Congress MUST pass an amendment that revokes the Second Amendment in order to restrict ANY guns. They CANNOT muster the support for such an amendment. Therefore, they are attempting to do what is illegal, passing laws which infringe on the right to bear arms.
Fact is, the CCW laws are illegal.
The laws which restrict convicted felons from possessing guns are illegal.
The laws which restrict persons convicted of domestic violence from possessing guns are illegal.

ALL of these laws ARE ILLEGAL.

Get it?

It is the Sheriff that is breaking the law. Not We the People.

Sheriff Raney is a disgrace to the founders and the citizens of Ada County.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/01/25/2425376/i-uphold-all-of-the-constitution.html#storylink=cpy

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

John Taylor Gatto on the Inanity of 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'); Chris | InformationLiberation

The following is an excerpt from John Taylor Gatto's book "The Underground History of American Education," it was submitted by a reader in relation to the gun control debate.
What if I proposed that we hand three sticks of dynamite and a detonator to anyone who asked for them. All an applicant would need is money to pay for the explosives. You'd have to be an idiot to agree with my plan -- at least based on the assumptions you picked up in school about human nature and human competence.

And yet gasoline, a spectacularly mischievous explosive, dangerously unstable and with the intriguing characteristic as an assault weapon that it can flow under locked doors and saturate bulletproof clothing, is available to anyone with a container. Five gallons of gasoline has the destructive power of a stick of dynamite. The average tank holds fifteen gallons, yet no background check is necessary for dispenser or dispensee. As long as gasoline is available gun control is beside the point. Push on. Why do we allow access to a portable substance capable of incinerating houses, torching crowded theaters, or even turning skyscrapers into infernos? We haven't even considered the battering ram aspect of cars -- why are novice operators allowed to command a ton of metal capable of hurtling through school crossings at up to two miles a minute? Why do we give to the power of life and death like this to everyone?

It should strike you at once that our unstated official assumptions about human nature are dead wrong. Nearly all people are competent and responsible; universal motoring proves that. The efficiency of motor vehicles as terrorist instruments would have written a tragic record long ago if people were inclined to terrorism. But almost all auto mishaps are accidents.

The old idea of American justice was people were to be considered innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. In the new America, the government takes the rights from everyone due to the malfeasance of a few, and rather than live by the code "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned," the new code is "better a thousand innocent men be imprisoned than one guilty man go free." That's why we have the world's largest prison population which rivals Stalin's gulags. Meanwhile, the crimes of the state go unchecked.

(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
- Troubling Public Opinion Trends for Gun Rights and Civil Liberties
- "Conspiracy Theory": Foundations of a Weaponized Term
- Government Will Lose the War on Piracy
- John Mackey's Political Correctness
- "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

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Government Undermines Social Cooperation


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 Sheldon Richman

I should know better than to take seriously the insipid words of presidential speechwriters, especially those who composed an inaugural address. Still, I can't let some of the words President Obama read at Monday's inauguration pass without comment.

For example, Obama said this:

Preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today's world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we'll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.
Here is the standard false alternative beloved by politicians seeking to justify their own violence-based power. The fallacy is clear when stated this way: Since individuals acting in isolation aren't capable of doing many things they want done, government should take charge and see that they are done.

What's left out? The "collective action" of voluntary civil society, which includes the market as well as all peaceful noncommercial activities (such as mutual-aid associations). To listen to Obama, you'd never know there was community life apart from the state, which, let us never forget, is founded on the power to inflict force on nonaggressors. (The power to tax -- the appropriation of private property under threat of violence -- is the fundamental power without which no government power can exist.)

Politicians say such things hoping the average person is too dulled by the government's schools and the slavish news media to notice the missing piece. The liberal (libertarian) vision of the free society never posited the isolated individual as the source of progress. Not wanting government to manage human affairs does not imply the absence of social cooperation. Quite the contrary! Social cooperation lies at the very heart of the classical-liberal vision. It's found in every liberal thinker from Adam Smith -- who underscored the division of labor and the "propensity to truck, barter, and exchange" -- to today's libertarian thinkers. Ludwig von Mises came close to titling his magnum opus on economics Social Cooperation. He opted instead for Human Action, but "social cooperation" is the second-most used phrase in his thousand-page book. "Division of labor" places first, but that's just another way of saying "social cooperation."

Indeed, Mises's chapter eight, "Human Cooperation," begins,

Society is concerted action, cooperation... The total complex of mutual relations created by such concerted actions is called society. It substitutes collaboration for the -- at least conceivable -- isolated life of individuals. Society is division of labor and combination of labor. In his capacity as an acting animal man becomes a social animal.
Mises of course was a hard-core advocate of laissez-faire. Government would have barely been noticeable in his ideal society. The thought of raising living standards through individual isolation would have struck him as absurd. Human beings progress through cooperation and only through cooperation. He explicitly broadened David Ricardo's law of comparative advantage and dubbed it the "law of association." The principle explains not only why free trade benefits all participating countries, but also why individuals do better by working together than by acting alone:
The law of association makes us comprehend the tendencies which resulted in the progressive intensification of human cooperation. We conceive what incentive induced people not to consider themselves simply as rivals in a struggle for the appropriation of the limited supply of means of subsistence made available by nature. We realize what has impelled them and permanently impels them to consort with one another for the sake of cooperation. Every step forward on the way to a more developed mode of the division of labor serves the interests of all participants. In order to comprehend why man did not remain solitary, searching like the animals for food and shelter for himself only and at most also for his consort and his helpless infants, we do not need to have recourse to a miraculous interference of the Deity or to the empty hypostasis of an innate urge toward association. Neither are we forced to assume that the isolated individuals or primitive hordes one day pledged themselves by a contract to establish social bonds. The factor that brought about primitive society and daily works toward its progressive intensification is human action that is animated by the insight into the higher productivity of labor achieved under the division of labor.
For the record, Mises acknowledged that "Ricardo was fully aware of the fact that his law of comparative cost [or advantage] "? is a particular instance of the more universal law of association."

One of the stalwarts of the liberal tradition, Fr?d?ric Bastiat, made quite a big deal of this point in the opening chapter of his economics treatise, Economic Harmonies (1850). Noting the average person's access to a vast array of goods in mid-19th-century France, Bastiat observed,

It is impossible not to be struck by the disproportion, truly incommensurable, that exists between the satisfactions this man derives from society and the satisfactions that he could provide for himself if he were reduced to his own resources. I make bold to say that in one day he consumes more things than he could produce himself in ten centuries. [Emphasis added.]

What makes the phenomenon stranger still is that the same thing holds true for all other men. Every one of the members of society has consumed a million times more than he could have produced; yet no one has robbed anyone else.

Like all advocates of individual liberty, Bastiat understood that the choice is not between isolated action and government social engineering.

So when Obama says "the American people [cannot] meet the demands of today's world by acting alone," he attacks a straw man. Who proposes such a thing? Note the ambiguity in the sentence. By "acting alone," does he mean individuals acting in isolation with no division of labor in the market? Or does he mean people acting cooperatively, by consent, and without government involvement? If the second, then he is simply wrong. People acting cooperatively through the market can indeed "meet the demands of today's world." The clumsy bureaucracy and the "private sector" cronies it serves need only leave us alone.

But Obama apparently means individuals literally acting alone, because he immediately says, "No single person can train all the math and science teachers we'll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores."

Who writes this nonsense? Who thinks that a "single person" could do any of those things? Does Obama (or his speechwriters) even know what opponents of government social engineering stand for? They must think they can distract people from the libertarian alternative with a false picture of the choice we face. Get people to think the choice is between government social engineering and literal individual self-sufficiency, and the libertarian ideal of voluntary social cooperation through the freed market will present no threat to the privilege-laden status quo.

Here is the irony: Government intervention undermines social cooperation in myriad ways. To name just one, privileges for favored producers drive a wedge between entrepreneurs and consumers by distorting relative prices and eroding the market's ability to coordinate supply and demand over time. In general, government ?welfare? activity crowds out private solutions that are far more amenable to freedom and cooperation.

Politicians pose as the great advocates of "collective action," but in fact their schemes increasingly replace mutually beneficial social cooperation with top-down special-interest-driven decrees.
_
Sheldon Richman is vice president of The Future of Freedom Foundation and editor of FFF's monthly journal, Future of Freedom. For 15 years he was editor of The Freeman, published by the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington, New York. He is the author of FFF's award-winning book Separating School & State: How to Liberate America's Families; Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax; and Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. Calling for the abolition, not the reform, of public schooling. Separating School & State has become a landmark book in both libertarian and educational circles. In his column in the Financial Times, Michael Prowse wrote: "I recommend a subversive tract, Separating School & State by Sheldon Richman of the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank... . I also think that Mr. Richman is right to fear that state education undermines personal responsibility..." Sheldon's articles on economic policy, education, civil liberties, American history, foreign policy, and the Middle East have appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, American Scholar, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Washington Times, The American Conservative, Insight, Cato Policy Report, Journal of Economic Development, The Freeman, The World & I, Reason, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Middle East Policy, Liberty magazine, and other publications. He is a contributor to the The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. A former newspaper reporter and senior editor at the Cato Institute and the Institute for Humane Studies, Sheldon is a graduate of Temple University in Philadelphia. He blogs at Free Association. Send him e-mail.


(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!
- It's Not Evil to Copy
- Troubling Public Opinion Trends for Gun Rights and Civil Liberties
- "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

Friday, February 22, 2013

John Mackey's Political Correctness


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 James E. Miller

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey found himself in hot water lately. After likening the dubiously titled Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, typically known as ObamaCare, to fascism in an interview with NPR, Mackey is facing a wave of protests from his base of organic-eating, conscious shoppers who accuse the libertarian CEO of being a rotten capitalist and the economic system he favors as the culprit for all the world's ills. Keep in mind, these are the same highbrow progressives who decry the inhumanity of markets while eagerly taking advantage of their benefits. In their name-brand attire and environment-friendly automobiles, they fret over any suggestion that challenges their faith in government. And in the most ironic fashion, these self-appointed Gedankenpolizei condemn any hint of cultural favoritism in the name of tolerance.

The war of political-correctness being fought in the public square is a one sided affair where a determined group of egalitarians is pummeling the lackadaisical majority into dropping their prejudices and accepting that the state always promotes what is good. To question the motives of politicians is to act out of line with accepted reason. The very assertion that the political class acts out of self-interest rather than the public betterment is profane to the statist religion.

The goal of boycotting is not just to deprive the target of income but also to publicly shame them into rescinding a controversial statement or practice. In the case of Whole Foods, it worked. John Mackey has come out to clarify his statement and admits his poor choice of words. The word fascism, he says, "stirs up too much negative emotion with its horrific associations in the 20th century." His reneging on the original comments shows a lack of conviction for the truth. It is also demonstrative of the zeal progressives have for disgracing any public figure who speaks disparagingly of their world vision by using words within their proper context.

The truth, which is always the arch enemy of progressivism, is that ObamaCare really is a fascist scheme. In exchange for an increase of rules and regulations, so-called private insurance companies will be gifted with millions of new customers who will have no choice but to purchase insurance or pay a fine. The pharmaceutical industry's largest trade group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, has used an aggressive lobbying plan to prevent the importation of cheaper drugs. James Ridgeway of Mother Jones called the health care reform law a "big winner" for "big pharma." ObamaCare itself was drafted by Senator Max Baucus's chief health policy council Elizabeth Fowler who just so happened to be Vice President for Public Policy and External Affairs for WellPoint- the country's largest provider of health insurance. As Marcy Wheeler of FireDogLake puts it,

So to the extent that Liz Fowler is the Author of this document, we might as well consider WellPoint its author as well.
After passage, Fowler was tapped by the White House to oversee the beginning implementation of ObamaCare. Recently, Fowler announced her departure from the President's team to take a position in Johnson & Johnson's government affairs division. In spite of this outright cronyism, progressives and court reporters who liken themselves to informed commentators still have a hard time accepting that the Affordable Care Act is not the product of Congressional angels.

Under the guise of big government compassion, President Obama and his allies in Congress have further enshrined corporatism into the American health system. They simply took the ugly pig of fascism and dressed it in the appealing attire of doing what was needed to "save lives." The fact that ObamaCare functions solely through the brandishing of a gun is a relevant point conveniently ignored by the President's supporters.

Mackey shouldn't be ashamed for telling the unvarnished truth; he should be commended. If anybody should be ashamed in public, it should be whoever sits in the Oval Office. The power bestowed to the American presidency has made it a position where occupants crave absolute power over both the homeland and also abroad. The President is now free to murder, detain, bomb, wage war, spy on private communications, and to silence anyone he sees fit, whether a U.S. citizen or not.? Despite all this, calling him a tyrant is still met with admonishments over not being patriotic.

In the case of Barack Obama, criticism is answered with howls of racism. To question the first black president is to slur the entire black race. By pointing out the moral flaws in his welfare programs is to spit in the face of the needy. And to question the genuineness of his actions is to be hateful of whatever group of society's victims is next in line at the trough of government benefits.

When Obama signed into law twenty three executive orders to strengthen current gun control laws in the shadow of children, he was praised for the symbolism and doing the "right" thing in the wake of a tragedy. Yet this was the same man who regularly gives out orders for the deployment of drone strikes that claim children as casualties. The President shed tears upon the news of twenty young lives being taken in an elementary school but offers up no emotion as his actions directly result in little ones being killed worldwide. But to point this out is often labeled as unfair, unpatriotic, and inherently bigoted. To even attempt to shame the chief executive of the government is to throw decency right out the window.

The wrath of political correctness has really been about intolerance over the beliefs of others. Its purpose lies in slandering government critics. Just as the notion that unquestioned respect is due to the President is meant to ensure unjust laws are faithfully executed, the smothering of uncomfortable judgments only serves to embolden the state. As Murray Rothbard once wrote, political correctness is often "a crazed attempt to continue and to justify swinish behavior, while trying to substitute a host of formal rules for decent politeness." Even when one female voter from Virginia criticized Michele Obama's fashion choices as unbecoming and too revealing for the position of First Lady, she was accused of racism. The length the leftist thought-police are willing to go to uncover hateful prejudice as the real impetus behind invoking good or plain moral sense knows no bounds.

If the detractors of John Mackey wish to boycott Whole Foods, then they have every right to. But sooner or later the truth will dawn on them that the men and women who inhabit the enforcement offices of the state are not their benefactors. Then perhaps these proponents of tolerance will have wished they were as open to the beliefs of others as they pretended to be.
_
James E. Miller holds a BS in public administration with a minor in business from Shippensburg University, PA. He is the editor-in-chief at the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada and a current contributor to his hometown newspaper, the Middletown Press and Journal. He currently works in Washington D.C. as a copywriter.


(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
- Troubling Public Opinion Trends for Gun Rights and Civil Liberties
- "Conspiracy Theory": Foundations of a Weaponized Term
- Government Will Lose the War on Piracy
- 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

Put Not Your Trust in Federalized Sheriffs

by William Norman Grigg

"You look depressed."

"I was lamenting. I?ve lost my innocence."

"You lost that some time ago. If you've only just noticed, it can't have been very important to you."

Exchange between Thomas Cromwell ? the Machiavellian Lord Chancellor of England ? and Richard Rich, an ambitious functionary who had sold his soul in a buyer?s market, from A Man for All Seasons.

"I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen of Smith County," insisted Sheriff Larry Smith. The sheriff wants his constituents to believe that he would refuse to participate in a federally mandated gun grab, or permit one to be carried out by federal officials within his jurisdiction. Yet ten days before Smith offered that assurance, his office had taken part in an early-morning SWAT rampage throughout East Texas in which 73 warrants were served as part of the federal government?s patently unconstitutional war on drugs.

During a December 2011 campaign debate, Smith said that he wanted to "invest more resources" ? that is, redirect wealth plundered from the productive ? into a "Drug Task Force," and insisted that under his administration the Sheriff?s Office would embrace a "Task Force mentality" in dealing with law enforcement issues.

The problem with the mindset Sheriff Smith was extoling should become obvious once it?s understood that the German term for "task force" is einsatzgruppe. By their actions many multi-jurisdictional task forces in contemporary America are increasingly faithful to their historic pedigree.

Smith?s devotion to narcotics task forces might be the residue of his early law enforcement career, which included two years as a special agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration ? an agency that could be considered the mentally deficient stepchild of the CIA, which is the world?s largest narcotics syndicate.

Twenty years ago, an ATF einsatzgruppe launched a murderous raid against an isolated religious group at Mt. Carmel outside Waco. The warrant they were enforcing was clotted with falsehoods. The investigation that produced it was haphazard. Its target, Vernon Howell -- aka David Koresh -- was suspected of trivial violations of federal firearms regulations, and had indicated his eagerness to cooperate with ATF investigators to clear the record.

If an arrest were to be carried out ? and one was neither necessary, nor justified ? it could have been performed during one of Koresh?s frequent solitary jogging expeditions, or one of his routine visits to town. Instead, the ATF ? seeking a dramatic, high-profile enforcement action to generate headlines for the scandal-plagued agency ? staged a paramilitary assault on the religious sanctuary. They did so even though the raiders had lost the element of surprise, and when they arrived at Mt. Carmel they opened fire on the building despite the fact that an unarmed Koresh had confronted the stormtroopers with his hands up, pleading for them not to shoot.

Four ATF agents were killed during that Sunday morning raid. Their deaths were utterly unnecessary, and entirely well-deserved: They were attempting to murder innocent people, and the would-be victims acted within their rights in using deadly force to defend their homes against that assault. The criminal clique that had sent the ATF to attack the Davidians sent a larger contingent to lay siege to their residence, and eventually arranged for the holocaust that annihilated 76 people, including seventeen small children.

Like most gun owners in Eastern Texas, Smith can remember where he was the morning of April 19, 1993, when the Mt. Carmel refuge went up in flames. He was on the scene as an agent of the ATF, which he had joined in 1989. Smith believes that the initial ATF raid on the Davidians was justified, and that the entire operation was at least a partial success. It?s doubtful that his assessment is shared by many gun owners in his jurisdiction.

Larry Smith is among dozens of sheriffs who have gone on record in opposition to the Obama administration?s impending firearms restrictions. All of them have promised to intervene to protect their counties from federal tyranny. And all of them are active collaborators in the same.

Kieran Donahue was sworn in as the new Sheriff of Canyon County, Idaho on January 14. Three days later he joined the ranks of "refusenik sheriffs" by promising not to implement any federal gun policy at odds with his responsibility to "uphold the Constitution."

Unfortunately, that resolute statement of principled defiance was fatally undermined when Donahue ? in the same press conference -- expressed his willingness to continue his office?s collaboration in the federal "war on drugs" and displayed his indecent eagerness to accept new federal subsidies to deploy deputies to guard public schools as soon as the funds are available.

Wendy Olson, the official assigned by the regime to act as the federal regime?s legal sub-commissarina for Idaho, has said that her office will fully comply with new federal firearms mandates. She pointedly noted that the Canyon County Sheriff?s Office ? like most others in the country ? has officers who are cross-deputized to serve on federal einsatzgruppen. During last year?s campaign the future sheriff proudly boasted of his work as an "undercover officer" with the FBI-supervised METRO Violent Crime and Gang Task Force.

"In these changing and difficult economic times it is a great benefit to have all law enforcement agencies working together in order to share costs and resources," insisted Donahue. Those words will almost certainly come back to haunt Canyon County gun owners when ? not "if" ? the Feds make it clear that they are willing to "share resources" only with sheriff?s offices who are on board with the gun grab.

Donahue insisted on playing coy about the fact that he?s for sale. Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims was shameless. She told the local ABC affiliate that while she will not enforce unconstitutional gun laws, she also "backs the added funding for local law enforcement, especially in schools."

Her office has a huge budget, a small but significant portion of which is derived from proceeds seized through a federally supervised "asset forfeiture" program.

In 2009, Mims was the "local" face that was pasted onto the Obama administration?s "Operation Save Our Sierra" marijuana crack-down, which was personally supervised by federal Drug War Commissar Gil Kerlikowske. This campaign involved 300 personnel from local, state, and federal agencies ? including military pilots that flew Black Hawk helicopters over targeted areas. The manpower and hardware were deployed in a mission best described as militarized horticulture. It?s quite easy to see how the personnel and assets used against "illegal" plants could be employed to confiscate "illegal" firearms in the future.

A few years ago, when Mims and her department faced a $4 million budget deficit, the Fresno County commission had to scrounge up $10.6 million in plundered funds to prevent layoffs in the Sheriff?s Office. That money most likely won?t be available next time Sheriff Mims wants to avoid handing pink slips to her deputies. It?s quite easy to imagine a scenario in which her federal supervisors will introduce her to a new variety of alchemy -- converting confiscated "illegal" firearms into federal subsidies.

Four sheriffs in Oregon have announced their opposition to the renewed campaign to disarm citizens. Among them is Sheriff Brian Wolfe of Malheur County (who, in the interests of full disclosure, is a childhood friend). In a letter to Vice President Biden, Sheriff Wolfe declared: "I believe that the Constitution stands above all laws and executive orders of this Country. I want to be very clear that no one employed on our team at the Malheur County Sheriff?s Office will enforce or support any laws or executive orders that are not consistent with the Constitution of this great land."

If only those inspiring words were consonant with Sheriff Wolfe?s actions. Like every other sheriff in the country, Brian Wolfe violates the Constitution on a routine basis.

Last August, the Malheur County Sheriff?s Department casually announced that it had found several small marijuana gardens during a two-week aerial surveillance operation conducted with the help of the National Guard.

Acting as the department?s official stenographer, the Argus Observer newspaper reported that Sheriff Brian Wolfe will now "contact property owners and acquire search warrants if needed." Warrants would not be necessary, Wolfe observed, if the property owners consented to the searches. The Sheriff pointed out that the plants may be part of legal medicinal marijuana operations, or could have been planted without the owner?s knowledge or consent.

At this point an actual journalist would have asked Wolfe why his office was conducting warrantless aerial searches of private property without probable cause. After all, the Sheriff has admitted that none of the property owners was a criminal suspect.

The Malheur County Sheriff?s Department spends part of each summer arresting marijuana plants ? that is, dispatching its SWAT team to barren locations in rural Oregon to clear out patches of marijuana.

Sheriff Wolfe insists this is necessary to "protect the public," which is more acutely threatened by the unconstitutional, paramilitary operations of his own department. Wolfe?s department spends a great deal of time seizing contraband and prosecuting people who possess it. That experience will prove quite useful when ? once again, not "if" ? the Feds decide to treat legally owned firearms as illicit contraband.

There isn?t a single county sheriff?s office in the country that hasn?t compromised itself by accepting federal funds, and collaborating in unconstitutional federal enforcement operations. They?ve long since lost their innocence, but are pretending that they?ve just noticed that fact.

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the Feds to prohibit the consumption of narcotics or any other substance. Indeed, last time the Feds undertook a campaign of national prohibition, they had to change the Constitution in order to do so. Unless they?re investigating charges of treason or counterfeiting, sheriffs should not collaborate with the Feds ? and in such circumstances the Feds themselves should be treated as the primary suspects.

If you take the nickel, you take the noose. If a sheriff?s office receives so much as a farthing of federal funding, it will be subject to federal mandates. That principle was underscored about seven years ago in the case of Josh Wolf, a 24-year-old video blogger imprisoned for refusing to turn over a portion of footage he shot of tumultuous street protests during the G-8 summit in San Francisco.

The Feds claim that Wolf, who spent two-thirds of a year in prison on civil contempt charges, possessed footage of a police car being set on fire. Wolf maintained that he didn?t have the material the Feds were after, and that under California's very liberal journalist shield law, he wasn?t required to turn over his confidential, unpublished material. A Federal District Court Judge ignored Wolf's argument and incarcerated him in a detention center in Dublin, California for contempt.

The alleged assault on a San Francisco police car would be a municipal matter, and the California shield law is obviously a question of state law. Why was this dealt with in a federal court?

As Time magazine pointed out: "The Feds say they have jurisdiction over the case because the police car is partly U.S. government property since the SFPD receives federal anti-terrorism money."

Note well that the Feds didn?t claim that the regime paid for the specific cars that were reportedly destroyed, only that the police department had been subsumed into the federal law enforcement apparatus because it had received some quantity of Homeland Security funding.

What this means, in principle, is that any police agency that receives a dime of federal Homeland Security money is effectively an appendage of the Department of Homeland Security (or, to use the appropriate German expression, the Heimatsicherheitsdienst).

This is obviously true of municipal police departments, which are innately illegitimate paramilitary bodies in no way accountable to the public they supposedly serve. We?re invited to believe that local elected sheriffs are different ? at least where the incipient gun grab is concerned.

The ranks of the refuseniks will continue to expand, and they will feed gun owners a steady diet of bold talk about their willingness to interpose on behalf of their constituents if the Feds come for their guns. Some of them may be sincerely committed to do so. But until they stop actively collaborating in existing federal abuses, why should we assume they would be willing to take the side of the public against the Feds when the Regime decides to come for our guns?

By Way of Illustration...

... we see the following act of felonious assault and kidnapping by Citrus County, Florida Deputy Sheriff Andy Cox, who threatens to murder innocent, law-abiding gun owner. It took less than two seconds for this this cretinous, foul-mouthed tax-feeder to drop the pose of superficial geniality. His first instinct, on learning that this harmless man was armed, was to threaten to murder him, because he had been indoctrinated in the belief that Mundanes simply cannot be permitted to bear arms.

When assessing the credibility of "constitutional sheriffs" as protectors of the right to bear arms, bear in mind that sheriffs are politicians and administrators; the patrol officers in their departments are people like Andy Cox.
_
William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.


View the original article here

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Oklahoma Woman Seeks Medical Treatment, Is Jailed Instead, Dies


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 pregnant Oklahoma woman who went to a hospital seeking treatment for extreme pain was instead jailed after police found pain pills on her and died in jail shortly thereafter. Jamie Lynn Russell, 33, becomes the third person to die in US domestic drug law enforcement operations so far this year.

According to KFOR-TV News Channel 4 in Oklahoma City, Russell went to the hospital in Pauls Valley seeking help for severe abdominal pain. Hospital staff reported that Russell wouldn't cooperate and was in too much pain to even lie down, so they asked a Paul's Valley police officer to assist.

And that's when Russell's medical emergency morphed into a drug bust. The police officer found two prescription pills on her for which she did not have a prescription, so she was arrested and jailed on drug possession charges. She was found unresponsive in her cell less than two hours later.

"There is nothing my staff in the jail could?ve done differently,? Garvin County sheriff Larry Rhodes said. "She had a medical release from the hospital stating that she was fit for incarceration," Rhodes said. "It?s very regrettable for the family. My heart and prayers go out to them."

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation has cleared the jail staff of any criminal wrongdoing.

The state medical examiner's office later confirmed that Russell died from a ruptured ecoptic pregnancy, where the embryo implants outside the uterus.

Russell's friends and family are pointing the finger at the hospital. "Jamie was seeking help; she was in extreme pain," family friend Kemper Kimberlin told KFOR. "We want to see this come to light. Something's wrong and needs to be fixed."

It may take a civil wrongful death lawsuit to find out exactly what's wrong?and how a hospital can turn a pain-tormented woman over to police to be jailed instead of treated.


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

In this society, there's nothing more important than enforcing the law. The most trivial and benign law violation, no victims, no damage, trumps any other consideration, human life included.

I can imagine that by the way things are arranged, neither police officer, nor hospital staff couldn't act differently without risking their own careers or maybe even their own liberty - once the pill was discovered.

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, February 19, 2013

Another Obama Inauguration as Amerika's Fascism Continues To Escalate

by Scott Lazarowitz

The Amerikan people have spoken: "We love and adore our Dear Leader. We want more fascism, more government control over our private lives, more theft of the workers and producers, more spying, more war, more drones, less freedom, more destruction and more death." I wonder if Barack Obama invited his half-brother George Obama to the inauguration ? remember George Obama? He?s the president?s half-brother who apparently lives in a shanty in Nairobi, the one President Obama doesn?t seem to have helped out very much. However, George defends Barack?s lack of being his "brother?s keeper," so I guess it doesn?t matter very much. (But it?s just more important that Barack Obama spend $50 million on his inauguration, that?s all.)

As all this is going on, Barack Obama?s comrade, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick says he wants to raise taxes even higher on the workers and producers of the Bay State, on top of their federal taxes that have just gone up (thanks to the selfish degenerates in Washington).

This new tax-theft scheme is intended to fund Patrick?s education and public transportation agendas and expanding of rail service. (Rail service hardly anyone will use, that is.)

In other words, Patrick might as well be saying, "Please let me siphon off more of your hard labor so that I can pay my union buddies in the state-construction racket to thank them for reelecting me and to further my own selfish political ambitions."

Nothing new here. "Good for you," as Elizabeth Warren might say.

Governor Patrick ? a genuine Michael Dukakis on steroids if there ever was one ? is surrounded on Beacon Hill by other self-centered degenerates, as top legislators give their non-productive staff members raises to add to their salaries they don?t deserve, some of which apparently in the 6-figures, and this on top of the state auditor?s staff who had been given a 16% raise. (The state auditor?s office is in charge of getting rid of "waste, fraud, and abuse.")

Gov. Patrick the fascist also just signed the bill to fingerprint "teachers, workers at child care centers, school bus drivers ?" and "everyone seeking to adopt children or become foster parents as well as employees of school departments who may have direct, unmonitored contact with children," with that information placed into a state police database and "forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

Obviously, Patrick is no friend of civil liberties, due process or civil rights. He is a "liberal," after all.

And attempting to fill the shoes of his fellow anti-due process governor from New York, Patrick has filed a bill to further restrict gun ownership in Massachusetts, and to "require the state to send all relevant mental health records to a federal gun license registry," as well as "training teachers to recognize symptoms of mental illness in students."

But how about training students to recognize symptoms of mental illness in teachers? Hmmm? There?s a lot of that going around these days.

Too bad Muffy Healey, Patrick?s 2006 Republican opponent, lost that election.

Like Connecticut, Massachusetts already has the strictest gun control laws in the country. Connecticut?s strict gun laws did nothing to save those 27 victims at Sandy Hook. Neither will Gov. Patrick?s proposals or Obama?s proposals ? they will in fact cost lives, if history is any indication.

There are very few murders per year by use of those "military-style" assault rifles, as compared to pistols, shotguns, knives, hands and feet. But what the fascists want to do is further disarm the population and make people even more defenseless against murderers, wife-beaters, and rapists who use pistols, shotguns, knives, hands and feet.

Previous to Patrick?s newly introduced anti-private gun ownership proposals, the governor of New York had exemplified the purely irrational emotionalism of the gun control crowd, as he screamed and wailed to "end the madness" in his recent State of the State address. His emotionally-charged bill to make people defenseless was rushed through the legislature, just as was George W. Bush?s reactionary Patriot Act in 2001 and Obama?s Affordable Care Act in 2010.

That act of legislation ? now the law in New York ? requires mental health practitioners to report to the government those patients that the doctor thinks may be a danger to others. And Obama?s new proposed Executive Orders includes this: "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

However, many of today?s physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists and counselors, especially the younger ones, were brought up in the modern, government-controlled schools, which have dumbed down the people and discourage critical thinking skills. The schools now label kids who act normally with an abundance of energy as "hyperactive," or label kids who question their authorities? dictates as "defiant" or suffering from "ADHD."

Or, some of the teachers and parents are afraid to discipline misbehaved kids or to give them a failing grade when they deserve one, in an attempt to avoid "hurting their feelings." So, many of the secondary schools and colleges are accepting or giving passing grades to total incompetents.

Therefore, I am not completely confident in the judgments of our modern and future doctors and mental health practitioners, quite frankly.

And after the school authorities label kids as "defiant," "autistic," or "psychotic," the authorities dish out the psychopharmaceutical drugs, such as Ritalin and SSRI anti-depressants, like candy.

I have heard several of the people being interviewed or speaking on panels regarding the Sandy Hook shootings who have stated that alleged shooter Adam Lanza "should have been medicated," given Lanza?s problems. However, it appears that Lanza may have been on some form of psychopharmaceutical drugs, and for many years, as asserted by the Lanzas? hairdresser and a former babysitter.

As has been the case in many mass shootings now, it?s the opposite of that ? they were medicated, but shouldn?t have been. Alleged Aurora theater shooter James Holmes is now thought to have been on medication, but the documents filed by police, who supposedly had seized pill bottles from Holmes?s home, had been heavily redacted and no specific name of drugs was disclosed.

Many of the school shootings in more recent years were committed by people on anti-depressant or anti-psychotic medication. Some may have been suffering from withdrawal symptoms after stopping their medication.

It is already known that some anti-depressant prescription drugs such as SSRIs and anti-psychotics can cause severely aggressive behavior. But, rather than addressing these prescription drugs, the chicken littles instead want to disarm innocent people and make them even more vulnerable, especially women. And the fascists want to seek out "mentally ill" people and either disarm them as well or perhaps even put them on psychiatric drugs. But who is to decide who is "mentally ill," and is there really "mental illness"?

But given the lack of good judgment of many health practitioners these days, requiring doctors and counselors to report possibly dangerous people to the government could itself be dangerous.

In fact, already in the U.K. the Cameron Regime has been having doctors report on patients who may be "vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism." The U.K. has also engaged in the disarming of the civilian population and thus causing a rise in violent crime there (contrary to the assertions of one CNN nudnik who shall remain nameless here).

Also in the U.K., cameras being placed in private homes, government-sponsored "parenting classes," the government monitoring all emails and website visits in the U.K.?

Yes, I know, that?s England and not America, but government-controlled education has dumbed down a lot of people in a lot of countries.

So why not have doctors reporting on patients, based on the doctors? own subjective biases, lack of critical thinking abilities and their ignorance as well?

As I have noted before, already in the U.S. we have a DHS and FBI wanting people and businesses to report on others as "suspicious" for what are really normal behaviors. But today, thanks to years of government-controlled education, behaviors that are really harmless are now viewed as "suspicious."

According to the FBI and DHS, some of those "suspicious" behaviors include: buying food in bulk amounts, believing in "individual liberty," distrusting "centralized federal authority," and "supporting political movements for autonomy."

For many ignoramuses now, "autonomy" and "independence" = "criminality" and "terrorism."

Being critical of the government is now being seen as "treasonous" or dangerous by some, even though it is our very own incompetent and corrupt government bureaucrats who have been acting criminally and treasonously in many ways, in my view. Just ask Bradley Manning, Brandon Raub, Susan Lindauer and William Binney.

But the psychiatric police state is here, and it won?t involve just mental health professionals but all health care practitioners whose treatment includes their asking patients for very personal information. Because of how our society has declined culturally, intellectually and socially, I am not surprised to have personally already seen doctors of an emotionally and intellectually immature character. Obviously, with Obama?s Soviet medicine, worse is yet to come. There just don?t seem to be very many Dr. Georges around anymore.

If you are not very familiar with your doctors or counselor, it would be wise not to share information with them about your political views, especially "anti-government" views, which many readers here happen to have, or whether or not you own a gun.

You see, thanks to the government-controlled schools and modern Amerikans? lack of critical thinking skills, we have historically-ignorant people who really have no idea what the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment is. A lot of anti-gun rights people (and some pro-gun rights ones as well) actually scoff at the idea that our own government could turn against us.

The cognitive dissonance is amazing! "Liberals" want the civilian population to be disarmed, but they want only government police and government military to be armed, and heavily armed at that! And this despite all the police brutality, the S.W.A.T team raids at the wrong addresses, and criminal behaviors committed by police and prosecutors all over Amerika, as we have seen on a daily basis in the news, on websites such as LRC and on YouTube. Many police are drugging up on steroids, and the military doctors are screwing up the soldiers with prescription drugs including those SSRI anti-depressants and stimulants.

As I have noted here, and in my articles about America?s descent and the coming civil unrest, yes, there have been moments in history in which the U.S. government has turned the guns against the people. And you think that all the atrocities committed by our military, the murdering of innocent civilians overseas, can?t happen here on the Rulers? command? All you have to do is see one article after another on our police state in Amerika, and see exactly what the people in charge are doing to our society.

So Obama is being inaugurated into a second term, and one can reasonably expect it to not be as wonderful as his first term was.
_
Scott Lazarowitz [send him mail] is a writer and cartoonist, visit his blog.


View the original article here

Monday, February 18, 2013

Carmen Ortiz Refuses To Reflect; Insists Her Office Will Do Everything The Same As Before


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 Mike Masnick

Over the weekend, in our post about Aaron Swartz, we highlighted Larry Lessig's quite reasonable anger at US Attorney Carmen Ortiz's failure to even suggest that she and her office might review their actions against Aaron Swartz to see if they were reasonable. He wasn't calling on them to necessarily repudiate their actions -- but to at least admit that they would review what they had done to determine if it was appropriate. Instead, Ortiz's statement took the hard line that what they had done was appropriate, full stop.

And, now, her office is continuing to stick to that hard line. No self-reflection. No review. No admission that it's even worth reviewing. Just a faith-based belief that everything they did was correct and they will continue to treat every case exactly the same going forward.

Ortiz?s spokeswoman, Christina DiIorio-Sterling, said last night the Swartz case won?t affect the office?s handling of other cases. ?Absolutely not,? she said. ?We thought the case was reasonably handled and we would not have done things differently.

?We?re going to continue doing the work of the office and of following our mission.?

Many others are calling on Ortiz, or her bosses in the Justice Department, to recognize just how much power they have over someone's life, and that this power must be used carefully. The response of Ortiz and her spokespeople seems to show not even the slightest sympathy or recognition that they have the power to destroy lives, and that such power needs to be used judiciously. It strikes me that someone who fails to have humility while in control of such power is someone who is simply not qualified to hold such an office.

(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 Politics/Corruption
- Oregon Bill Would Make Cigarettes Controlled Substances
- Another Case Of Prosecutorial Bullying Against A 'Hacker'
- Here Are All The Children Murdered By Drone Strikes At The Hands Of Obama
- Obama Supporters Don't Know Obama
- People who don't support Obama should be shot [Video]
- Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
- Rep. Issa Promises Investigation Into Aaron Swartz Case
- Journalists, Politicians Refuse to Post Lawn Sign saying "HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE"

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, February 17, 2013

Another Case Of Prosecutorial Bullying Against A 'Hacker'


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

As the tragic death of Aaron Swartz resides fresh in our memories, there has been a renewed interest by the public in the way prosecutors use the threat of more jail time as a carrot (edit: should have said "stick"; thanks comments section!) to secure plea bargains. The way the system is set up allows for an arena in which justice is no longer the objective. Instead, an injustice can be used in some kind of strange "ends justify the means" game that would make Lady Justice weep openly. With the odds firmly stacked against anyone that falls in the crosshairs of a federal prosecutor, this is a horrifyingly unjust method for achieving justice, and it appears to be a method favored for use against so-called hackers and hacktivists.

Now, lest you think that the Swartz case was an isolated event, or in case you thought perhaps there would be some sort of ripple effect as a result of it, you should note that prosecutors in the Barrett Brown case appear to be pursuing similar tactics. For those of you not familiar with Brown, he is the self-proclaimed spokesperson for Anonymous recently arrested for allegedly threatening an FBI agent.

Brown was arrested and taken into custody in September after allegedly threatening an FBI agent. In December 2012, he was indicted by a federal grand jury for trafficking ?stolen authentication features,? as well as "access device fraud" and ?aggravated identity theft.?
On Wednesday, Brown was hit with one count of ?concealment of evidence,? and one count of ?corrupting concealing evidence.?
And what did Brown do to "conceal evidence"? Apparently he "hid" his laptop with his mother's dishes. Apparently putting a laptop where the Feds don't obviously look is now "concealing evidence."

I won't sit here and compare Brown and Swartz in terms of character. Not because I know or don't know enough about either of them to do so, but rather because that would miss the point entirely. I'll leave it to others to erect the false justification of character assassination. Instead, I'd rather focus on how prosecutors appeared to think that the original charges, which could lead to 90 years of imprisonment for Brown, were apparently not enough and decided to lump this last charge on top of the others. Brown's former attorney, Jay Leiderman, appears to be similarly flabbergasted.

?I would not have seen a third indictment coming,? Leiderman told Ars. ?You would think the 90 years of prison exposure that they had on him was enough. Are we at a point in society where we think that 90 years is no longer enough??

Leiderman speculated that the new indictment was a legal pressure tactic against Brown.

As Ledierman goes on to say, at some point we departed the realm of prosecuting hacktivists and instead entered the realm of persecuting them. If there are crimes committed, let Brown or whoever else stand trial. If the law is behind the times, or written in a way that is ridiculous (as in the Swartz case), we can change the law. There's nothing wrong with the argument that that's a responsibility that falls on the public via whom we elect to government. All that said, for hacktivist crimes, or even those that Brown is accused of, to result in 90 years of jail time -- and for that to not be good enough for prosecutors -- is an absolute joke. Lumping on yet another, more minor, charge to pressure the accused is a downright travesty.

(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 Politics/Corruption
- Oregon Bill Would Make Cigarettes Controlled Substances
- Here Are All The Children Murdered By Drone Strikes At The Hands Of Obama
- Obama Supporters Don't Know Obama
- People who don't support Obama should be shot [Video]
- Carmen Ortiz Refuses To Reflect; Insists Her Office Will Do Everything The Same As Before
- Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
- Rep. Issa Promises Investigation Into Aaron Swartz Case
- Journalists, Politicians Refuse to Post Lawn Sign saying "HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE"

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, February 16, 2013

"Gun Control for the Children?" Sorry, No Sale.

by Thomas L. Knapp

?This is our first task as a society,? said US president Barack Obama at a January 16th press conference: ?Keeping our children safe.?

The event?s purpose was to leverage last month?s school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut into support for a set of new executive orders and legislative proposals relating to what supporters euphemistically refer to as ?gun control.?

In an evolutionary and biological sense, Obama has a point. The primary of function of human society IS to protect our young so that they can grow up, reproduce and perpetuate that society.

On the other hand Obama, in his role as president, represents the single most powerful and counter-productive human institution relating to that goal: The state. The power grabs he just put on the state?s agenda serve only the interests of that institution ? not just instead of, but at the expense of, the children he?s exploiting as political capital in pursuit of that agenda (and in particular, as the Center for a Stateless Society?s Nathan Goodman points out, the children of the besieged minority communities Obama?s party claims to offer protection to).

Obama?s purported opponents within government aren?t much better. Their line, as voiced by US Representative Dave Reichert (D-WA), boils down to a cowardly ?the laws that we have in this land already need to be enforced.?

Well, no, they don?t.

?The laws that we have in this land already? forcibly compel the daily assembly of millions of children on convenient killing floors (?public schools?).

?The laws that we have in this land already? forbid ? or at least onerously regulate ? possession of the tools of defense to those children, to their parents, and to their teachers.

?The laws that we have in this land already? notify any and all monsters with the ability to read a sign (?Gun-Free School Zone?) that those children are defenseless and at said monsters? mercy.

Other species teach the principles of survival ? including but not limited to the use of such weapons as they naturally possess ? to their young at the earliest practical age. Humans deny their young those weapons and even, in this day and age, actively punish thought or speech relating to self-defense.

Other species protect their children from predators at all costs. Humans set out our children as an all-you-care-to-eat buffet for predators, then turn to the most voracious predator of all ? political government, which regularly seizes double-digit percentages of our sustenance for its own gluttonous purposes, and occasionally throws murderous and even genocidal tantrums ? for ?protection.?

It?s not difficult to see why politicians support ?gun control,? which is more accurately described as ?victim disarmament.? What predator wouldn?t prefer that its prey lack teeth or claws? In Barack Obama?s world, events like the Newtown massacre are a small price to pay for the uncontested ability to do wholesale what Adam Lanza did retail.

What?s hard to understand is why we?ve put up with the predator for so long. In the 20th century alone, governments murdered in excess of 260 million people, and that?s an extremely low-end estimate (its promulgator, Dr. RJ Rummel of the University of Hawaii, excludes the deaths associated with the workaday operations of ?democracies? from his statistics).

Fortunately, Obama?s proposals will go nowhere, as another set of statistics should make clear: At least 70 million Americans own more than 200 million guns (those numbers are also lowball, selected from competing sets I?ve seen). And the technology for unlimited home production of more is now fast becoming irrevocably and universally available. If the politicians think they can ?control guns,? they?ve got another think coming.
_
Thomas L. Knapp is Senior News Analyst and Media Coordinator at the Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org).


View the original article here

Friday, February 15, 2013

Police Pack Courtroom of Cop Facing Felony Charges for Shooting & Killing Restrained Dog


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

Faced with the prospect that a police officer may actually be held accountable for murdering someone's dog, police are out in full force in Commerce City packing the courtroom proceedings of police officer Robert Price, who is facing felony charges for shooting and killing a dog after it was restrained. Meanwhile, protesters who showed up for the hearing were directed to the wrong courtroom!

Via the Denver Post:

BRIGHTON ? An Adams County judge rescheduled an arraignment Tuesday for the Commerce City officer facing felony charges for shooting and killing a dog in November.

The hearing for Robert Price lasted about 5 minutes. His next court appearance is set for 2 p.m. April 15.

Price's name did not appear on court dockets, and initially, protesters who showed up to the hearing were directed to the wrong courtroom. When citizens found the correct room, all seats were occupied by officers who said they came to show support for Price.

Adams County Sheriff deputies escorted Price through back doors so that he could avoid the protesters and media.

Let's hope justice is served for once and this police officer is held accountable for his actions.


(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
- AZ Cop Investigated For Having Allegedly Used Stun Gun On Stepson Over 'Unsatisfactory Report Card'
- 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
- Honesty is Not a Job Requirement for Police Officers

f.... cops.brainwashed,myopic.pigs,with egos to match.

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, February 14, 2013

This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories


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

There's something fishy in a Virginia evidence room, a Louisiana deputy gets in trouble for peddling fake weed, three suburban Chicago cops were running a dirty racket, an NYPD cop gets himself arrested, and a Miami cop gets himself convicted. Let's get to it:

In Quantico, Virginia, evidence has gone missing from the police department evidence room, an outside audit revealed. Among the missing items are $1,000 in cash, marijuana, and a Sig Sauer handgun. The audit also showed a 12-gauge shotgun and a .45 caliber pistol in evidence, but no documentation telling from where they came. The town council has required some police to take polygraph tests, and the Virginia State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigations is investigating.

In Jefferson, Louisiana, a Jefferson Parish sheriff's deputy was fired last Thursday when a Sheriff's Office investigation determined that he had been selling synthetic marijuana online after it was outlawed in Louisiana. Scott Sigur is alleged to have made at least three sales of the synthetic cannabinoid JWH-018 after it was banned in August 2010 and to have profited to the tune of $50,000 to $80,000. The sheriff said that the results of the investigation had been forwarded to the district attorney's office and that criminal charges were pending.

In Schaumberg, Illinois, three Schaumberg police officers were arrested last Wednesday on charges they robbed drug dealers and sold their wares. Officers John Cichy, 30, Matthew Hudak, 29, and Terrance O'Brien, 47, are accused of stealing dealers' stashes while executing search warrants, then reselling the cocaine, heroin, and marijuana and pocketing the cash. The dirty trio went down in a DEA investigation that included an informant who wore a wire. They were caught on surveillance video and audio recordings robbing local dealers of drugs and cash as they executed search warrants on homes and cars. They would take the drugs to a storage locker, where a fourth man would pick them up and sell them. Police recovered 275 grams of cocaine from the locker. All three are on leave pending the outcome of the criminal investigation. They are charged with a string of crimes, including burglary, manufacturing or delivering between 100 and 400 grams of cocaine, official misconduct and theft between $10,000 and $100,000 in a school or place of worship. At last report, they were all behind bars on $750,000 cash bail.

In New York City, an NYPD officer was indicted last Thursday on charges he falsified paperwork to cover up his involvement in an illegal search and arrest. Officer Isaias Alicea is charged with 10 counts of offering a false instrument for filing and two counts of official misconduct. According to the District Attorney's Office, the charges result from a February 2012 drug sales case in which the charges have been dismissed.

In Miami, a Miami police officer was convicted last Friday of planting drugs on suspects, stealing money from drug dealers, and lying to investigators. Sgt. Raul Iglesias, 40, was convicted of eight charges following a two-week jury trial. Evidence at his trial showed that he planted cocaine on one suspect and stole drugs and money from others. Other evidence showed that $800 went missing from a box of money Iglesias thought was drug profits. In fact, the money was an FBI plant. Four detectives in his unit testified against him. He's looking at up to 20 years in prison when he is sentenced in March.


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

Funy when the DEA sets up certain stings to see if police are worthy enough of their badge! LOL Nice way to get rid of the lying abusive pieces of shit! It should be done on a daily basis to see who's true! The same way the FBI uses people in their fake bomb plots and such!

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, February 13, 2013

Oregon Bill Would Make Cigarettes Controlled Substances


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

An Oregon lawmaker has introduced a bill that would make cigarettes a Schedule III controlled substance. That means it would be illegal to possess or distribute cigarettes without a doctor's prescription.

Other Oregon Schedule III drugs include ketamine, LSD, and anabolic steroids.

Sponsored by Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland), the bill, House Bill 2077, would make violations a Class A misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of up to one year in prison, a $6,250 fine, or both. The same penalty would apply to both possession and distribution.

The bill directs the state Board of Pharmacy to "adopt rules to classify nicotine as a Schedule III controlled substance." It would also require people involved in tobacco transactions keep records and to "forward the records to the State Police if directed to do so by the department." Failure to do so would also be a Class A misdemeanor.

The bill had a first reading last week and has been referred to the speaker's desk for committee assignment. As of Thursday, it had not been assigned to a committee.


(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 Politics/Corruption
- Another Case Of Prosecutorial Bullying Against A 'Hacker'
- Here Are All The Children Murdered By Drone Strikes At The Hands Of Obama
- Obama Supporters Don't Know Obama
- People who don't support Obama should be shot [Video]
- Carmen Ortiz Refuses To Reflect; Insists Her Office Will Do Everything The Same As Before
- Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
- Rep. Issa Promises Investigation Into Aaron Swartz Case
- Journalists, Politicians Refuse to Post Lawn Sign saying "HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE"

Read the link to the actual bill....it's even more nuts than reported here.

Insane lawmakers will bring the country to its knees.

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

LAPD Cancels Bike-Path Ticket "In the Interest of Justice" After Video Goes Viral


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'); In a video, the officer states he's giving the cyclist a ticket because he argued with him
By Melissa Pamer


After a YouTube video of an LAPD officer pulling over and ticketing a bicyclist with little cause on the Venice Beach bike path went viral, the ticket was canceled and the officer's conduct is under investigation.

In the 10-minute clip, a cyclist turns on his helmet camera and records the interaction, which drew a handful of onlookers who protested that the cyclist had done nothing wrong and that the officer needed to address serious crime in Venice.

The bicyclist, who identifies himself at 34-year-old Chris Jackson of Venice, was posted after Thanksgiving weekend, when he was ticketed for speeding after telling a motorcycle officer was blocking the popular bike-only path.

On Friday, Detective Gus Villanueva of the Los Angeles Police Department's Media Relations Section said that the "ticket had been canceled in the interest of justice." The department is conducing a personnel investigation into the conduct of the officer involved and would not comment further, Villanueva said.

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

in the interest of justice.why am I laughing so hard? Good because it horseshit that law can impede pedestrian traffic and then threaten, intimidate and flat-out lie straight to citizens faces all while we get it on film right in front of their very eyes! This is why they want to take away our video recording rights because so many of us are right and they fucking know it! Sucks we have to point out the problems of those that should alreaDY KNOW WHAT NOT TO DO!

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