Stock Rally Will End Badly This Year: Marc Faber

The stock market's run will result in either a 20 percent correction or a more nasty sell off at some point this year, Marc Faber, publisher of the Gloom Boom and Doom report, told CNBC's "Closing Bell" on Thursday.

Faber pointed out that it's been almost exactly four years since the stock market bottomed out. "We're up very substantially, I think investors who today rush into stocks should be reminded of that," he said.

(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
- Puerto Rico To Become Epic Tax Haven For U.S. Citizens?: 'The Idea Is To Turn It Into An Alternative To Singapore'
- Wrong Legislative Thought Of The Day: An Email Tax To Save The Post Office
- Remarkable New Puerto Rican Law Exempts U.S. Citizens From Multitude Of Taxes
- Jim Rogers: We're Wiping Out The Savings Class Globally, To Terrible Consequence
- Government thinks that you are an idiot
- Amateur Beats Gov't at Digitizing Newspapers: Tom Tryniski's Weird, Wonderful Website
- The Fed's Tightening Pipe Dream
- Bullet Proof Vest Company Begins Making Armored Clothing For Children

MARC FABER CANNOT PREDICT THAT HE NEEDS TO GO TO THE BATHROOM EACH DAY.

WHY ARE YOU QUOTING THIS MAN, GIVING HIM SO MUCH SPACE ON YOUR WEB SITE, AND TREATING HIM LIKE A GOD?

MARC FABER'S ABILITY TO PREDICT ABSOLUTELY SUCKS.

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

Rand Paul's Misplaced Celebration

by Jacob G. Hornberger

With his 13-hour filibuster of President Obama's nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director, U.S. Senator Rand Paul has drawn the nation's attention to the issue of whether President Obama claims the authority to assassinate American citizens here at home, on American soil.

The president, through Attorney General Eric Holder, initially stated that the president could use the military to kill Americans on U.S. soil but only in an "extraordinary circumstance." Holder emphasized, however, that the president has "no intention of doing so."

Yesterday, at a daily briefing, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney read a short letter from Holder that's states as follows:

"Dear Senator Paul: It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no. Sincerely, Eric H. Holder, Jr."

Senator Paul has construed that statement to mean that Obama is not claiming the authority to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil. "Hooray!? he exclaimed on Fox News, followed by a statement to CNN that he is "quite happy" with Holder's letter and only wished it hadn't taken so long to get an answer.

Unfortunately, Paul's celebration is misplaced. The unequivocal reality is that President Obama, like President Bush before him, does in fact claim the authority to assassinate Americans and anyone else, both here and abroad. This claim follows logically from how they view the so-called war on terrorism.

When the 9/11 attacks occurred, President Bush labeled them an act of war, notwithstanding the fact that they constituted criminal offenses. In fact, just today we are reminded, once again, that terrorism, including the 9/11 terrorism and terrorism committed by al-Qaeda, are federal criminal offenses by the U.S. government's plan to seek a federal grand-jury indictment against Osama bin Laden's son in law for conspiracy to kill Americans.

Moreover, don't forget that Zacharias Moussaoui, who was accused of having conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks, was prosecuted, tried, and convicted in U.S. district court. That's, again, because terrorism is, in fact, a federal criminal offense.

Don't forget also that American citizen Jose Padilla was ultimately indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced for terrorism, in a U.S. district court.

Those are just a few examples showing reality: Terrorism has long been a crime listed in the U.S. Code.

The problem occurred on 9/11, when Americans permitted President Bush to get away with treating the 9/11 attacks as an act of war. But they weren't, any more than the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center constituted an act of war "? or Timothy McVeigh's terrorist attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City "? or the Unibomber's acts of terrorism ? ?or any other act of terrorism. Again, terrorism is a federal criminal offense, which is why accused terrorists are indicted and prosecuted in federal district court.

Once Bush was permitted to get away with labeling his "war on terrorism" a real war, like World War II, he decreed that he now possessed the extraordinary powers associated with a military commander-in-chief, which necessarily includes killing enemy soldiers. In the war on terrorism, he said, the terrorists are the enemy soldiers or "enemy combatants." In war, it's legal to kill the enemy.

Bush's position was fully endorsed by President Obama. It will also undoubtedly be fully endorsed by Hillary Clinton if she is elected president four years from now.

Equally important, both Bush and Obama have always emphasized that in the war on terrorism, the entire world is the battlefield. That includes the United States. Therefore, it logically follows that whatever powers Bush and Obama claim, as a wartime commander in chief, to kill people overseas extends to the United States. Again, in the war on terrorism, as U.S. officials have never ceased to remind us, the entire world is the battlefield. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, the entire world includes the United States.

Thus, there can be no doubt whatsoever that President Obama claims the authority to assassinate the enemy not only abroad but also right here in the United States. After all, ask yourself: why would he say that he lacks the authority to wage war here in the United States when the United States is part of the worldwide battlefield in the global war on terrorism?

Eric Holder's initial statements confirm that position. Saying that the president isn't currently planning to assassinate Americans isn't the same thing as saying that the president lacks the legal authority to assassinate Americans. Instead, it's saying the exact opposite. It's saying that while the president does, in fact, have the authority to assassinate Americans, he's simply not choosing to exercise that authority at the present time. However, if there is another major terrorist attack on American soil or some other big crisis, then, as Holder makes clear, all bets are off and the president might well expand his assassinations to American terrorists operating within the United States.

What about Holder's supplemental letter read yesterday by White House Press Secretary Carney? A careful reading of it reveals that it's simply a clever device to obfuscate Obama's real position. It's saying that the president lacks the authority to use a drone to assassinate an innocent American--i.e., an American "not engaged in combat on American soil."

But neither Bush nor Obama have ever claimed the authority to assassinate innocent Americans. The authority they have always claimed has been to assassinate guilty Americans (and guilty foreigners)--that is, those people who are guilty of being terrorists.

Well, guess who decides whether a person is a terrorist. You got it! The president makes that determination. And once he decides that a person is a terrorist in his global "war on terrorism," that's the end of the discussion. The assassination is carried out by his loyal military and intelligence forces, and that's the end of the matter. Under our post-9/11 system of government, neither the president nor the military nor the CIA is required to explain, justify, or even acknowledge the assassination.

Senator Paul deserves credit for flushing the president and his minions out into the open. But make no mistake about it: While the president is not currently assassinating Americans on American soil (American citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman were assassinated in Yemen) or even rounding them up and transporting them to concentration camps or military dungeons, as he did with Jose Padilla, the reality is that under our system of government, he now has the power to do so.

As a practical matter, all that Obama needs is a good crisis for him to remove the sword from the sheath. But when that type of sword hangs over a nation, even when it is within the sheath, there is no possible way to consider that a free society. That's a society whose ruler is wielding powers that characterize the greatest tyrannies in history.
_
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

View the original article here

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Practice of Mass Student Searches & Random Lockdowns by Police & Drug-Sniffing Dogs in Missouri High School

The Rutherford Institute

SPRINGFIELD, Mo.? In a ruling issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Burlison v. Springfield Public Schools, the court deemed a Missouri school district?s policy of imposing a ?lockdown? of the school for the purpose of allowing the local sheriff?s department, aided by drug-sniffing dogs, to perform mass inspections of students? belongings to be a ?reasonable procedure to maintain the safety and security of students at the school,? and not a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of students.

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute had challenged the school district?s practice of conducting random lockdowns and mass searches of students. Institute attorneys had asked the appeals court to reverse a federal district court?s January 2012 ruling that Springfield Public Schools and the Greene County Sheriff?s Office did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of students when they executed the April 2010 lockdown at Central High School.

?Random, suspicionless lockdown raids against children teach our children a horrific lesson?one that goes against every fundamental principle this country was founded upon?that we have no rights at all against the police state,? said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. ?Americans should be outraged over the fact that school officials are not only defending such clearly unconstitutional practices but are actually going so far as to insist that these raids are a ?standard drill? that will continue.?

On April 22, 2010, the principal of Central High School announced over the public address system that the school was going into ?lockdown? and that students were prohibited from leaving their classrooms. School officials and agents of the Greene County Sheriff?s Department thereafter ordered students to leave all personal belongings behind and exit the classrooms. Dogs were also brought in to assist in the raid. Upon re-entering the classrooms, students allegedly discovered that their belongings had been rummaged through. Mellony and Doug Burlison, who had two children attending Central High School, complained to school officials that the lockdown and search were a violation of their children?s rights. School officials allegedly responded by insisting that the search was a ?standard drill? and policy of the school district which would continue.

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute sued the school district in September 2010 on behalf of the Burlisons and their two children, asking the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri to declare that the practice of effecting a lockdown of the school and conducting random, suspicionless seizures and searches violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the similar provision of the Missouri Constitution. In its January 2012 decision, the district court declared that the random lockdown and mass searches did not violate students? rights. In its ruling issued March 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the school?s interest in combatting drug use outweighed the privacy rights of students. Affiliate attorney Jason T. Umbarger of Springfield, Mo., is assisting The Rutherford Institute in its defense of the Burlison family.

Case History

03/08/2013 ? Federal Appeals Court Upholds Practice of Mass Student Searches & Random Lockdowns by Police & Drug-Sniffing Dogs in Missouri High School

06/13/2012 ? Rutherford Institute Challenges Missouri School Over Constitutionality, Continuation of Mass Student Searches & Random Lockdowns

04/24/2012 ? Rutherford Institute Asks Appeals Court to Declare Mass Student Searches & Random Lockdowns in Missouri High Schools To Be Unconstitutional

01/31/2013 ? U.S. District Court Declares Mass Student Searches & Random Lockdowns in Missouri High Schools To Be Legal, Dismisses Fourth Amendment Lawsuit

09/28/2010 ? Rutherford Institute Files Fourth Amendment Lawsuit Against Missouri School Demanding End to Mass Student Searches, Random Lockdowns

Legal Action
The Rutherford Institute's complaint and subsequent reply brief in Burlison v. Springfield Public Schools

(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
- VIDEO: Aussie Cops Assault Youth for Filming, Threaten Him With Arrest
- Man Charged With Disorderly Conduct For Telling Cop to 'Go F**k Himself'
- Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Releasing Balloons on Beach as a Romantic Gesture
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- 'Lady Liberty' Tased by Fort Worth officer
- Federal Appeals Court Busts Police For Contempt Of Cop Arrest
- Phoenix Cop Made Famous On YouTube For Tackling 15-Yr-Old Girl Calls 5-Day Suspension Too Harsh
- Undercover Cops Ensnare a Special Ed Student, Get Him Expelled

Check your Constitution at the door, kiddies!

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

Charges Dropped Against Man Claiming Officers Planted Drugs On Him

DECATUR, Ga. ? A man who claims a police officer planted drugs on him will have the charges dismissed one day before his case was set to go to trial.

But the DeKalb County Solicitor General's Office said the dismissal has nothing to do with a surveillance video Alphonzo Eleby said proves the officer set him up.

Eleby said his nightmare began in July 2012 at the Chevron gas station on North Hairston Road.

He said he stopped to speak to someone who was sitting in a black SUV when an officer said he smelled marijuana and arrested the driver on charges of marijuana possession with intent to distribute.

"I was searched twice," Eleby said. He said no drugs were found on him and he was told to sit down.

An officer stood guard over him for several minutes and Eleby said he never moved.

His attorney said surveillance video from the location shows the officer call the officer guarding Eleby over to the SUV he had been searching.

As she searches the vehicle, Zenobia Waters said the video shows the officer circle back to her client and toss marijuana next to him. She said the officer then picks the drugs up and repositions them.

"I was shocked," Waters said.

"And then he stands up and yells, 'Look what you tried to throw,'" Eleby said.

The video shows Eleby vehemently protesting what he sees the officer do and the officer then puts him in a chokehold while other officers look on.

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
- VIDEO: Aussie Cops Assault Youth for Filming, Threaten Him With Arrest
- Man Charged With Disorderly Conduct For Telling Cop to 'Go F**k Himself'
- Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Releasing Balloons on Beach as a Romantic Gesture
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- 'Lady Liberty' Tased by Fort Worth officer
- Federal Appeals Court Busts Police For Contempt Of Cop Arrest
- Phoenix Cop Made Famous On YouTube For Tackling 15-Yr-Old Girl Calls 5-Day Suspension Too Harsh
- Undercover Cops Ensnare a Special Ed Student, Get Him Expelled

this is a true representation of the majority of cops!the same type of shit will be coming to light about the san diego county sheriffs. currently in preperation and will be coming to light this year. Protect and Serve......One's own interests. Sue them for every goddamn dollar they have. Your life has been ruined because of this. You now have a drug record which inhibits your ability to travel and get a security clearance or work with children or have a gun. From now on whenever you are asked, "have you ever been arrested?" you will have to say yes, for drugs. It makes no difference if you were convicted or not. You have been fucked over for the rest of your life. Cops do this EVERY single day. Prosecutors AND judges are well aware of this nonsense. Welkom to Amerika.

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

Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Releasing Balloons on Beach as a Romantic Gesture

by J. D. Heyes

We've seen it in the movies and perhaps even witnessed it in person, but most of us never realized it was an offense punishable with lots of prison time.

When Anthony Brasfield released a dozen heart-shaped balloons into the sky over Dania Beach, Fla., for his his sweetheart, all he wanted was to create the perfect atmosphere of romance. What he created instead was a court date.

According to the Sun-Sentinel newspaper, Brasfield's act of love was witnessed by a Florida Highway Patrol trooper. What he saw was not an act of love but a felony.

Massive jail time for - balloons?

The 40-year-old Brasfield was with his girlfriend, Shaquina Baxter, in the parking lot of a Motel 6 on Dania Beach Boulevard when he released the 12 shiny, red and silver mylar balloons into the sky and watched them float away in the Sunday morning breeze.

But the trooper saw nothing more than probable cause for a crime against the environment. Apparently, lawmakers in the Sunshine State think it's appropriate to treat what should have been, at most, simple littering (to which courts would have issued a fine, maybe?), into a major crime against Mother Nature. As if Florida jails weren't full enough.

The trooper arrested Brasfield and charged him with polluting to harm humans, animals, plants and everything else living under the Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act.

"Endangered marine turtle species and birds, such as wood storks and brown pelicans, seek refuge in John U. Lloyd State Park, about 1.5 miles east of the motel," said the paper.

As you might imagine, the law is rarely used. According to the Sun-Sentinel, just 21 arrests were made under the environmental statute between 2008 and 2012.

What is amazing, however, is the severity of the crime - it is a third-degree felony that is punishable by up to five years in prison. Just as one example, in other parts of the country, people who intentionally or actively work to harm the environment get about the same jail time. (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com)

Granted, it was a violation of the law, but...

It's too early to tell if a Florida court will actually sentence Brasfield to that much time but the fact that someone could be thrown in prison for five years for such a low-level environmental crime is difficult to fathom, especially given what seems to be an obvious fact: That Brasfield was not purposefully demonstrating malice or contempt for the law.

And while ignorance of the law is no excuse, we have a little provision of superseding law in American known as the Eight Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishment."

Environmental preservation is important, of course, but there are real criminals committing real crimes in America that have dramatically more far-reaching and harmful effects on society than do individuals releasing balloons as a gesture of romance. Shouldn't we save our harshest punishment for the really serious environmental polluters?

Sources:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com
http://www.ci.dania-beach.fl.us/
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment8/amendment.html
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com

View the original article here

Undercover Cops Ensnare a Special Ed Student, Get Him Expelled

by Tim Lynch

From the Press-Enterprise:

The parents of an autistic student accused of selling marijuana last year to an undercover deputy have prevailed in their effort to have the teen reinstated at the Temecula high school.

An administrative law judge who heard the special education student?s case issued a scathing ruling against the Temecula Valley Unified School District Friday, March 8. Judge Marian H. Tully wrote the district left the student ?to fend for himself, anxious and alone, against an undercover police officer? and said the parents had ?overwhelmingly demonstrated? that the teen?s behavior with the deputy was significantly influenced by his disability.

An Office of Administrative Hearings judge who heard the case challenging a move to expel the special education student, Tully found that the district failed to provide the teen with required counseling and other services while knowingly exposing the teen to the deputy.

Dealing with pressure from the officer was a challenging social situation that ?would have been difficult even for typical high school students,? the judge wrote.

(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
- VIDEO: Aussie Cops Assault Youth for Filming, Threaten Him With Arrest
- Man Charged With Disorderly Conduct For Telling Cop to 'Go F**k Himself'
- Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Releasing Balloons on Beach as a Romantic Gesture
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- 'Lady Liberty' Tased by Fort Worth officer
- Federal Appeals Court Busts Police For Contempt Of Cop Arrest
- Phoenix Cop Made Famous On YouTube For Tackling 15-Yr-Old Girl Calls 5-Day Suspension Too Harsh
- Woman injured in LAPD manhunt says cops won't pay taxes on replacement truck

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

Remarkable New Puerto Rican Law Exempts U.S. Citizens From Multitude Of Taxes

Chris | InformationLiberation

A remarkable new law passed last year in Puerto Rico reportedly exempts U.S. citizens who choose to become residents of the territory from a multitude of taxes. Bloomberg reports John Paulson, the hedge fund manager who made $3.7 billion shorting sub prime mortgages in 2007 before their crash, is possibly looking at moving there, and many wealthy individuals involved in internet, software, and financial companies are looking at taking advantage of the new law.

Via Bloomberg:

John Paulson, a lifelong New Yorker, is exploring a move to Puerto Rico, where a new law would eliminate taxes on gains from the $9.5 billion he has invested in his own hedge funds, according to four people who have spoken to him about a possible relocation.

Ten wealthy Americans have already taken advantage of the year-old Puerto Rican law that lets new residents pay no local or U.S. federal taxes on capital gains, according to Alberto Baco Bague, Secretary of Economic Development and Commerce of Puerto Rico. The marginal tax rate for affluent New Yorkers can exceed 50 percent on ordinary income.

Paulson, 57, recently looked at real estate in the exclusive Condado neighborhood of San Juan, where an 8,379- square-foot penthouse, complete with six underground parking spaces, lists for $5 million. The area is home to St. John?s School, a private English-language academy where he and his wife could send their two children, said the people, who asked not to be named because the discussions were private.

[...]

The Puerto Rican tax law provides a boon for someone like Paulson, who earns most of his money from investments. The federal rate for top earners in the U.S. is 23.8 percent on long-term capital gains and dividends and 39.6 percent on ordinary income, which includes short-term gains and interest. State and local taxes can push the marginal rate for rich New Yorkers higher.

Under the Puerto Rican law, any capital gains accrued after a person moves there would be tax free. Dividend and interest income paid by U.S. companies would still be subject to U.S. federal taxes, though would not be taxed locally.

In addition, new residents can benefit from another new law that taxes business income earned in Puerto Rico at 4 percent. That law could potentially apply to hedge fund fees earned by a resident for services rendered for U.S.-based clients, said Gabriel Hernandez, one of the framers of the Puerto Rican tax law and head of the tax division of BDO Puerto Rico PSC.

Hernandez now gets a call every day from wealthy individuals involved in Internet, software or financial companies who are interested in moving to the island, he said. He declined to name any of the business people who have relocated or who are currently contemplating such a move.

Preferential Treatment

Residents of Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory of the U.S., typically pay a local tax rate of as much as 33 percent, according to Gabriel. They don?t pay U.S. taxes on income from Puerto Rico, but are taxed on dividends and interest from U.S. companies. They are not subject to capital gains taxes in the U.S. and pay a 10 percent capital gains tax locally, from which new residents are exempt.

The preferential treatment for the new residents aims to promote investments in real estate, boost services and consumption, and encourage foreign service providers to move their businesses to the country, said Puerto Rico?s Baco Bague.

In addition to the 10 wealthy individuals who have already relocated to Puerto Rico to take advantage of the new laws, 40 more are currently talking to the government about moving and have brought their families to look at housing and schools, said Baco Bague. About 35 percent are hedge-fund managers, he added.

Government Contract

One hedge-fund manager, Pascal Forest, has taken the additional step of setting up his firm, Forest Investments LLC, in San Juan. Forest, a former portfolio manager at London-based BlueGold Capital Management LLP, said the tax incentives played into his decision to move to the island, as did his wife, who is Puerto Rican and wanted to come home after 16 years.

In order to become eligible for the new tax breaks, a person must live on the island for at least 183 days a year and prove that a preponderance of his social and family connections are there. Any person who moves to the island signs a contract with the government that guarantees the tax break through Dec. 31, 2035.

?You have to actually become a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico, bring your children,? said Fernando Goyco-Covas, a tax lawyer at Adsuar Muniz Goyco Seda & Perez-Ochoa PSC. ?You cannot do this just claiming you are a resident.?

Here's further analysis on the act from Price Waterhouse Cooper, AMG PR Law, and Puerto Rico's Department of Economic Development and Commerce.

This act is quite remarkable, for Hedge Fund managers who make most of their money through "carried interest," which is taxed as capital gains, the savings could be massive. It appears from my reading of their government's report on the acts, they seem to suggest you can open your business in Puerto Rico and become a resident, potentially be exempted from U.S. income taxes per an old tax agreement despite being a U.S. citizen, and so long as you only service non-Puerto Ricans you could only pay 4% corporate income tax on your earnings, nothing on your non-U.S. based investments, and even zero property tax on your new Puerto Rican corporate headquarters. Admittedly, they're probably excluding some taxes, I know for a fact you're still liable to pay social security taxes, and I suspect they're not including "local" Puerto Rican income taxes which range from 7 to 33 percent on incomes over $60,000. Regardless, even if you do have to pay U.S. income taxes, or instead "local" Puerto Rican income taxes, the savings from the other tax exemptions could still be significant.

As someone looking to leave the U.S. but reluctant to cut all ties and renounce citizenship, Puerto Rico is looking quite attractive.
_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

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

Latest Economy
- Puerto Rico To Become Epic Tax Haven For U.S. Citizens?: 'The Idea Is To Turn It Into An Alternative To Singapore'
- Wrong Legislative Thought Of The Day: An Email Tax To Save The Post Office
- Jim Rogers: We're Wiping Out The Savings Class Globally, To Terrible Consequence
- Stock Rally Will End Badly This Year: Marc Faber
- Government thinks that you are an idiot
- Amateur Beats Gov't at Digitizing Newspapers: Tom Tryniski's Weird, Wonderful Website
- The Fed's Tightening Pipe Dream
- Bullet Proof Vest Company Begins Making Armored Clothing For Children

Like every immigrant in the history of the world, Mr. Paulson has decided that he wants to consider leaving his current home. The reasons for that seem to be the reality that the US, NY, and NYC need money and with a tax system which has the top 1% paying over a third of the total of tax dollars collected is tapping these "Golden Geese" more and more. Whether you ,I, or Warren Buffett think it fair is irrelevant. Mr. Paulson does not think it fair so he is looking to the exits to sever his FUTURE US, NY, and NYC tax liability.

The second part of this decision process is "Where to go?" PR is an option but so are a number of other places such as Canada, UK, New Zealand, Australia , Switzerland and several other European destination. "But those are all high tax rate countries!" Is the usual knee jerk reaction. The correct response is that Mr. Paulson would use LEGAL tax planning to vastly reduce his tax bill. For example, in Canada he could limit his Canadian tax obligation to ONLY Canadian source income and capital gains. Also Canada has no gift or estate tax (unlike Puerto Rico). Notably, it would be much easier for him to recreate his hedge fund in Toronto vs. San Juan. Finally Toronto is only one hour by air from Manhattan, definitely closer than PR.

@Mr. Lesperance:
I live in Australia and am a dual citizen. The only tax benefit of being an Australian is that any money you earn outside of Australia is non-taxable. All income within Oz is highly taxable. Need to pay for socialism somehow. You want a tax free zone? Try Thailand or Singapore. Or Vanuatu. Puerto Is not a good choice for many reasons.

Used to live in Canada and to get permanent residency you must pass the 100 point test. If you are over 55, you won't pass. You can buy your way in but it is tenuous.

There is always Belize, if you enjoy roughing it.

Good luck.

If you're not a U.S. citizen, you're not subject to a global income tax, so moving to Puerto Rico would be pointless for tax reasons as most of the Caribbean islands have lower and better tax regimes. This Puerto Rico deal is unique mainly because you don't have to renounce US citizenship to take advantage of it.

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

This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories

by Phillip Smith

The Tulsa police corruption scandal is the gift that keeps on giving, Jackson, MS, cops head to prison, and more cops want pills too badly for their own good. Let's get to it:

In Boston, a former Watertown police officer was arrested Tuesday on charges he stole a drivers' license and used it to fraudulently obtain oxycodone and other controlled substances. Joseph Deignan, 57, is chargedwith unlawful possession of a controlled substance by fraud and fraud in connection with identification documents. Deignan was working as the Watertown Police traffic supervisor when he allegedly stole the drivers' license. He's looking at up to 15 years in federal prison on the identity theft count.

In Stillwater, Minnesota, a now former Washington County deputy was arrested last Wednesday for allegedly stealing drugs deposited in a drug "take-back bin." Ricky Gruber, 43, ischarged with drug possession, theft, and misconduct of a public officer. He went down after a sheriff's sergeant noticed the bin had been tampered with, and subsequent video surveillance caught him opening the bin and removing drugs. Gruber admitted he took the drugs for "personal use" and said he had been researching a medical condition present during "sexual intimacy." He said he took the drugs to help with his medical condition.

In Tulsa, Oklahoma, a former Tulsa police officer was held in contempt last Wednesday for giving false testimony related to a Tulsa police corruption case. Jeff Henderson got an additional three months added to his 42-month sentence after being convicted in 2011on six counts of perjury and two counts of civil rights violations. He had been brought back to Tulsa in June to testify in the case of one of the people railroaded into prison by corrupt Tulsa police, but was found to have lied about who his informant was in that case. Two other Tulsa police officers and a federal agent have been convicted in the Tulsa corruption case, 46 wrongfully convicted people have been released from prison or had their cases modified, and at least 14 lawsuits have been filed against the city and individual police officers.

In Jackson, Mississippi, three former Jackson police officers were sentenced last Friday for accepting bribes from FBI undercover agents posing as drug traffickers. Monyette Quintel Jefferson, 27, and Terence Dale Jenkins, 25, got 10 years each, and Anthony Ricardo Payne, 25, got nine years. All three pleaded guilty last fall. They had accepted bribes ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 to protect what they thought were cocaine shipments.

(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
- VIDEO: Aussie Cops Assault Youth for Filming, Threaten Him With Arrest
- Man Charged With Disorderly Conduct For Telling Cop to 'Go F**k Himself'
- Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Releasing Balloons on Beach as a Romantic Gesture
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- 'Lady Liberty' Tased by Fort Worth officer
- Federal Appeals Court Busts Police For Contempt Of Cop Arrest
- Phoenix Cop Made Famous On YouTube For Tackling 15-Yr-Old Girl Calls 5-Day Suspension Too Harsh
- Undercover Cops Ensnare a Special Ed Student, Get Him Expelled

And to anyone else who has railroaded an innocent person by planting evidence or giving false testimony, and not been caught, I say this: If you don't confess, may God strike you down with an aggressive terminal cancer, in order to (a) stop you from re-offending, (b) remove you from the gene pool, and (c) focus your mind on the need for repentance and thereby save your soul. Amen.

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

Hawaii Senate Okays Marijuana Decriminalization

by Phillip Smith

The Hawaii Senate Tuesday voted unanimously to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana. The measure now goes to the House.

Hawaii State Capitol (wikimedia.org)The bill, Senate Bill 472, would make possession of up to an ounce a civil infraction with a maximum $1,000 fine. The bill originally called for a maximum $100 fine, but was amended by lawmakers who said they wanted to emphasize that marijuana would still be illegal.

Bill supporters said it was aimed at reducing congestion in the state's criminal justice system.

Earlier this session, the House defeated a marijuana legalization bill. Whether it will embrace decriminalization remains to be seen.

The bill is being supported by a newly formed group, Fresh Approach Hawaii, which aims at lobbying the legislature on marijuana reform issues. The group said it will work with House members to reduce the fine and add other desirable provisions.

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

Latest General
- Glenn Beck Admits DHS Buying Ammo & Tanks
- Norway Wants to Decriminalize Heroin Smoking
- Protester Says She'd Rather Die Than Use A Gun In Self-Defense
- Slim Majority Favors Marijuana Legalization in California Poll
- Family fights back when 3 gunmen storm their home; one intruder shot
- Conan O'Brien Exposes Media Scripting
- Obama supporters say the darndest things
- Drivers stoned on marijuana test their driving skills

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

Puerto Rico To Become Epic Tax Haven For U.S. Citizens?: 'The Idea Is To Turn It Into An Alternative To Singapore'

Chris | InformationLiberation

Puerto Rico is working to become one of the most serious threats to the U.S.'s taxation empire in the entire world, all because U.S. citizens per an old taxation agreement become exempt from U.S. income taxes if they become residents of the territory. Under Puerto Rico's remarkable new tax regime, U.S. citizens who become residents of Puerto Rico can potentially find themselves paying zero capital gains taxes, zero dividend taxes, zero property taxes on their new corporate residence, and a minimal 4% flat business tax on income from their business, the only catch being you have to open your business in the commonwealth and not service Puerto Ricans.

The setup is perfect for hedge fund managers, as well as software businesses and internet entrepreneurs.

The Puerto Rican government, which has slowly been abandoning its socialists ways which led it to bankruptcy, is actively perusing free-market reforms and is reportedly seeking to become "an alternative to Singapore."

Singapore is one of the most free-market tax havens in the world, but citizens of the country are not allowed to have dual citizenship, if they're U.S. citizens living there they must pay U.S. income taxes in full, and if they choose to renounce their U.S. citizenship to live there full-time they get looted like Facebook's Eduardo Saverin by the U.S.'s draconian exit tax. Puerto Rico on the other hand is completely open to U.S. citizens, and actually can exempt them from U.S. income taxes if they become residents. That means there is no need for U.S. citizens looking to lower their tax bill to give up their U.S. citizenship in order to escape the U.S.'s previously inescapable global income tax, nor to avoid the U.S.'s exit tax.

If Facebook was founded in Puerto Rico under the new laws just enacted, they'd have been able to pay almost nothing in taxes rather than having to pay an effective tax rate of 89% as they were forced to in 2012. The implications are huge, that's why the U.S. government is reportedly already looking at "bullying" the nation into backtracking on their plans according to this propaganda piece run on CNN/Fortune, they list a plurality of ways the U.S. could bully the territory into compliance, from threatening to withhold 22$ billion a year in aid, to making the territory the 51st state thereby forcing it to adopt the U.S.'s tax code.

If Puerto Ricans know what's best for them, they should reject the U.S. empire's takeover attempt and go full-bore in the direction of free market capitalism, hitching yourself to a bankrupt empire in decline is not a recipe for success.

Regardless, governments tend to be slow to react, chances are Puerto Rico could become an epic tax haven in the years to come, so pack up your surfboard and get moving!

Here's an excellent interview on Bloomberg from Puerto Rican developer and Caribbean Property Group Cofounder, Barry Breeman discussing this epic development:

See: Remarkable New Puerto Rican Law Exempts U.S. Citizens From Multitude Of Taxes

P.S.: As I discussed in my previous article on this development, I've still yet to determine whether or not you have to pay "local" income taxes under this new setup in Puerto Rico, the local income taxes are as high as 33% on incomes above $60,000 (scheduled to fall to 30% in 2016), some reports imply you do not have to pay them, the government doesn't even mention them in their report though, yet they do mention you're exempt from "federal" income taxes, so that makes me very suspicious. Those paying 39.6% in federal income taxes (plus state taxes up to 13.3%) to the U.S. would benefit from this new tax regime regardless, for those on the margins paying lower rates it's not as clear.
_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

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

Latest Economy
- Wrong Legislative Thought Of The Day: An Email Tax To Save The Post Office
- Remarkable New Puerto Rican Law Exempts U.S. Citizens From Multitude Of Taxes
- Jim Rogers: We're Wiping Out The Savings Class Globally, To Terrible Consequence
- Stock Rally Will End Badly This Year: Marc Faber
- Government thinks that you are an idiot
- Amateur Beats Gov't at Digitizing Newspapers: Tom Tryniski's Weird, Wonderful Website
- The Fed's Tightening Pipe Dream
- Bullet Proof Vest Company Begins Making Armored Clothing For Children

I wonder how long it will be until the U.S. invades them in the name of democracy! Wow.. this is great. I might have to move... Has Phil Michaelson been made aware of this?

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

Shock Video Shows New Jersey Police Officer Deck Woman In Face

Chris | InformationLiberation

Backstory via NJ.com:

An internal investigation has been launched into a viral YouTube video that shows an Elizabeth police officer punching a woman in the face as he tries to break up a melee outside of a nightclub last weekend, officials said today.

The officer will remain on active duty while police investigate a 20-second YouTube clip, said Kelly Vence, a city spokeswoman.

Vence declined the identify the officer, and said the woman who was struck has not spoken to authorities. A police spokesman refused to comment on the incident.

In the clip, which has gained more than 11,000 views since it was posted on March 3, the officer is seen attempting to break up a fracas outside of Envy Night Club on North Broad Street. After walking away from a crowd of roughly 10 to 12 people, the officer grabs hold of a man in a black vest and shoves him to the ground. Once the man falls, a woman wearing a red dress appears to grab the officer?s arm, and he responds by punching her.

[...]Wayne Fisher, a former deputy director of the state Division of Criminal Justice, said the woman appears to have initiated the physical contact, and encouraged residents to wait for the entire story to come out before criticizing the officer.

A spokesman for Attorney General Jeffrey Chiesea declined to comment on the video, but referred to the state?s guidelines on use of force by police, which says officers may use physical force to defend themselves if they feel they are facing a legitimate threat.

I can't tell if she grabbed his arm in an act of "interference," or if the cop was moving to arrest her, at which point she grabbed his arm merely to balance herself and brace herself for his onslaught. Regardless, she sure as hell didn't attack the cop, at most she laid her hand on him, hardly what I would call a "legitimate threat," yet the cop wound up and decked her like his life depended on it.
_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

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

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- VIDEO: Aussie Cops Assault Youth for Filming, Threaten Him With Arrest
- Man Charged With Disorderly Conduct For Telling Cop to 'Go F**k Himself'
- Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Releasing Balloons on Beach as a Romantic Gesture
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- 'Lady Liberty' Tased by Fort Worth officer
- Federal Appeals Court Busts Police For Contempt Of Cop Arrest
- Phoenix Cop Made Famous On YouTube For Tackling 15-Yr-Old Girl Calls 5-Day Suspension Too Harsh
- Undercover Cops Ensnare a Special Ed Student, Get Him Expelled

Cops in Elizabeth New Jersey are douches so this criminal thuggish behavior of this one in the video is of no surprise. Of course most New Jersey citizens don't value freedom and usually are apologists for the police. The officer was trying to handle a whole group without backup. The video shows she grabbed the officer. At that point ,game on. You don't interfere with an officer making an arrest. I may done the same thing OR maced the whole gruop if they wouldn't MOVE BACK! Just shows the behavior of a bunch of drunk heathens outside a night club when they get ten feet tall and bullet proof. Hey smart ass 9883 maybe in your bizarro world he then should have shot her you fckn twerp. Oh yeah troll cop in other words fuck off.

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

California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms

By Michael B. Marois & James Nash

Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who?d recently spent two days in a mental hospital.

They knocked on the door and asked to come in. About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms.

California is the only state that tracks and disarms people with legally registered guns who have lost the right to own them, according to Attorney General Kamala Harris. Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mental unstable.

?What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?? Harris said in a letter to Vice President Joe Biden after a Connecticut school shooting in December left 26 dead. She recommended that Biden, heading a White House review of gun policy, consider California as a national model.

As many as 200,000 people nationwide may no longer be qualified to own firearms, according to Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. Other states may lack confiscation programs because they don?t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most weapons sales go through a licensed dealer and be reported.

?Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,? said Wintemute, who helped set up the program.

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
- VIDEO: Aussie Cops Assault Youth for Filming, Threaten Him With Arrest
- Man Charged With Disorderly Conduct For Telling Cop to 'Go F**k Himself'
- Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Releasing Balloons on Beach as a Romantic Gesture
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- 'Lady Liberty' Tased by Fort Worth officer
- Federal Appeals Court Busts Police For Contempt Of Cop Arrest
- Phoenix Cop Made Famous On YouTube For Tackling 15-Yr-Old Girl Calls 5-Day Suspension Too Harsh
- Undercover Cops Ensnare a Special Ed Student, Get Him Expelled

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

Government thinks that you are an idiot

Jeffrey Tucker

The European Commission has fined Microsoft $732 million for failing to give options on the opening Windows screen for downloading other browsers. This proves that consumers are smarter than governments. After all, most consumers have figured out on their own that they have other options to Internet Explorer. Chrome is the number one browser in the markets today, IE is second, and Firefox is third. Safari and Opera are next in the list. IE?s market share is only 26.1%. Here?s the rundown of market share.

This is not a story of a company exploiting consumers. IE isn?t so bad after all, and it has improved with each release, just not as much and as fast as other products. This is really just a story of looting of a private company. Government goes and grabs the money where it can find it.

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

Latest Economy
- Puerto Rico To Become Epic Tax Haven For U.S. Citizens?: 'The Idea Is To Turn It Into An Alternative To Singapore'
- Wrong Legislative Thought Of The Day: An Email Tax To Save The Post Office
- Remarkable New Puerto Rican Law Exempts U.S. Citizens From Multitude Of Taxes
- Jim Rogers: We're Wiping Out The Savings Class Globally, To Terrible Consequence
- Stock Rally Will End Badly This Year: Marc Faber
- Amateur Beats Gov't at Digitizing Newspapers: Tom Tryniski's Weird, Wonderful Website
- The Fed's Tightening Pipe Dream
- Bullet Proof Vest Company Begins Making Armored Clothing For Children

Well Jeffrey ..
BEFORE the EU forced M$ to give people a choice those numbers looked quite differently .. You could even meet people who thought Internet Exploder WAS 'The Internet' ! Well, people just keep putting up with anything the government does and swallowing whatever the government feeds them. So the people are indeed idiots. Internet Exploiter is the most worthless POS browser ever made. I feel sorry for people who only use IE as hackers are laughing at a wide open browser. P.S. Microshaft doesn't give a rip about your computer security they make money off of edu, gov, corp and make only a fraction off home users.

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

VIDEO: Aussie Cops Assault Youth for Filming, Threaten Him With Arrest

Chris | InformationLiberation

Police in Parramatta, Australia do not like being filmed. When a young man happened upon a group of cops searching a black youth in what he believed was a random search, he took his camera out and started to film the police.

Filming police in Australia is entirely within the law, just last week the Sydney New South Wales Assistant Police Commissioner Mark Murdoch, commenting on a very public incident of alleged police brutality during a Mardi Gras celebration, criticized his officers for threatening a videographer who captured the disturbing video on tape, saying ordering the man to stop filming showed the "naivety" of the police officers involved. I guess word never made it around to the officers seen in this video, as they show just the same "naivety."

In this video, Australian police officers upon noticing they're being filmed threaten to charge the youth with "hindering," which is Australian police's catch-all go-to false-charge-of-choice in the same fashion as American police's charge of "interfering."

As two cops bandy about threats of "hindering," another officer by the name of "Senior Constable A. Loxley" starts to freak out and asks him, "Why are you filming?! Why are you specifically filming us?!"

"Because I can film."

"But you can't use our audio, I don't give you permission to use our audio."

"OK, I'll cut the audio out."

At this point two officers say they "intend to search" him, and "failure to comply with [their] request means you may be committing an offense, do you understand?"

"Recording you is not an offense, officer."

The youth says he "doesn't consent" to being searched without a parent or guardian, at which point the officer violently grabs him, the youth responds saying "he's touching me, he's squeezing me, he's hurting me!"

The young man says in his own report the officer "hit the iPad I was using to record and twist[ed] my hands and arm to my back," but he managed to "slip out" of the cop's grip.

He then moves to record his friend being shoved up against a wall by police, his friend suddenly screams out in pain as the three police harassing the one youth appear to shove his face into a wall, which reportedly caused him to suffer "what doctors said was mild internal bruising" and a "swollen eye which will result in a black eye."

As this happens Constable Loxley is continually ordering him to put his camera down, when the youth hears his friend scream in pain, he yells out, "Oh my god! Oh my fucking god! Are you serious?!"

Constable Loxley lights up at the smell of blood because cursing is a so-called crime in Australia, finally the cop has some charges to threaten the youth with to get him to comply with his will!

"Watch your language or I'll arrest you for it! ... If you swear one more time in public, sir, I will arrest you for offensive language, do you understand?!"

Now that the cop has some "legitimate" charges to hit the youth with, he tacitly admits he's aware filming police is not a crime, and says "If you want to film, that's all well and good, but if you give us a hard time, I'll arrest you for offensive language!"

The cop again threatens to charge him with "hinder[ing]" and orders him to go across the street, to which the youth complies likely due to fear of the offensive language charge. After his friend is released, seemingly without any charges, he joins with him on the other side of the street. As they go to leave they approach Constable Loxley and ask to get his name.

"Go away!" Constable Loxley grunts out before he seemingly swipes at the youth, jostling his camera.

"Take the thing away now! If you stick that in my face one more time! Get it out of my personal space! Get out of my personal space, son! ... You've been filming me all the time, you haven't stopped!"

Eventually, Constable Loxley successfully bullies the youth into leaving after throwing around a plurality of threats, when another officer takes his own camera out to photograph the young man he said he posed and smiled for the picture, he then told the officer to please "put it on my Facebook."

"Put it on the police Facebook!"

"We will," the cops respond.

"Wave to the camera!" he tells them!

Here's how it went down in the young videographer's own words:

Bradley and I were just chilling in Parramatta across from the station (Opposite side of Westfield where Hungry Jacks is)
Two police officers in a car stopped and asked us what was in our bags (They looked like Goon sacks but they were really just popcorn in silver bags) *see pic*
They were like "Yeah, alright" and drove off.

A couple of minutes later we saw the same cops on foot approaching a random person walking up the street and demanding to search them .. once completed they went on to search another person... they were both just casually walking up the street being harassed by these cops..

Brad walked over to the second guy getting searched and told him to pull out his phone and start recording as it is COMPLETELY legal to record police officers in public areas.

He did.. The police noticed I was recording the whole thing and started asking questions and telling me to stop the recording (even though it is completely legal)
As I was verbally fighting back, the cops demanded to search me.

But remember, as always, I "Don't consent to searches"

The officer hits the iPad I was using to record and twists my hands and arm to my back (which I slipped out of)

Suddenly, Brad gets pushed to the wall and shortly after they hit his head against a brick wall leaving him with what doctors said was mild internal bruising, swollen eye which will result in a black eye (Sucks, 2 days before Good Life Festival)
The Police took a photo of me (I obviously posed for it with a big smile on my face) as they said I was free to go as I hadn't committed an offence.. (except for swearing in public, as you will hear in the video)

We went to Blacktown LAC to speak with Sergeant Leigh Smith who confirmed we did not commit an offence and also verified that it IS legal to film officers in public (or anyone for that matter)

Officers involved:
Constable Oxley (Officer who asked me why I was filming) - Parramatta LAC
Constable Bostock (Attempted to search me with no reasonable suspicion) - Parramatta LAC
Constable

_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

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

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Man Charged With Disorderly Conduct For Telling Cop to 'Go F**k Himself'
- Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Releasing Balloons on Beach as a Romantic Gesture
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- 'Lady Liberty' Tased by Fort Worth officer
- Federal Appeals Court Busts Police For Contempt Of Cop Arrest
- Phoenix Cop Made Famous On YouTube For Tackling 15-Yr-Old Girl Calls 5-Day Suspension Too Harsh
- Undercover Cops Ensnare a Special Ed Student, Get Him Expelled
- Woman injured in LAPD manhunt says cops won't pay taxes on replacement truck

It is something how criminal the cops are not just in America but also Australia. I guess the police commissioner can criticize these officers for their illegal acts so it makes it look like he is doing his job and he cares. They have nothing on the bloke filming, or his mate, so they start roughing up his mate to provoke one or both of them into doing (or, apparently, saying) something they can use to justify an arrest. Classic maneuver, used in the States all the time at demos. Swearing in public is a arrestable crime ?
What a nazi-country ..
That is how it starts mate, that is how it starts. Just reinforces my long-held view - anyone who wants to be a pig is the enemy of humanity. The police in Australia are racist

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

View the original article here

The Stalinist in the White House

by William Norman Grigg

In the fashion of Caesar thrice refusing the crown even as he assumed dictatorial powers, tyrants will occasionally engage in self-aggrandizement disguised as self-deprecation. Barack Obama offered a moment of that kind last week when, in reply to a question about the budget sequester posed by a media sycophant, he said, ?I?m not a dictator.?

Obama wasn?t serious, of course. He does consider himself a dictator, albeit one whose term in office is limited, at least for now.

Obama might not lock the doors of the Oval Office and force Republican congressional leaders to carry out budget negotiations, but ? as his Attorney General made clear in a letter to Senator Rand Paul ? he considers himself duly empowered to carry out the summary execution of U.S. citizens on American soil if he deems such action necessary.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Holder made it clear that the president he serves answers to nobody, and is bound by no laws, in carrying out extra-judicial killings, either within U.S. borders or beyond them. Expressing a point of view familiar to students of Soviet Russia under the reign of Stalin, Holder maintained that the purpose of the law is to prevent anybody ? whether an individual citizen, a judge, or a legislative body ? from restraining the exercise of presidential will.

?Do you believe Congress can pass a law prohibiting [the President] to use lethal force on U.S. soil?? Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa asked Holder. If we still resided in something resembling a constitutional republic, that question itself would be perverse: Congress wouldn?t need to pass a law to prevent something that the law doesn?t authorize the president to do.

Furthermore, as civil liberties activist Marcy Wheeler points out, Grassley?s question wasn?t intended to suggest a general prohibition against ?targeted killings,? but rather one that ?would apply only where a person did not present an imminent threat.? In other words, Grassley was willing to concede that the president could order summary executions after addressing some trivial formalities about the dire necessity of such action.

But even this would be too restrictive, according to Holder.

?I?m not sure that such a bill would be constitutional,? he told Grassley. ?It might run contrary to the Article II powers that the President has.? In other words, Holder is claiming that the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the military, can order the military (or, presumably, the CIA) to carry out an extra-judicial execution of a U.S. citizen on American soil ? and Congress would be forbidden by the Constitution (whatever that word means to Holder and his ilk) from preventing such action.

Domestic use of the military as a law enforcement agency is forbidden by the Third Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act. This means nothing to the budding Stalinist occupying the Oval Office.

For the Obama-centric Left, as it was for the Bush-centric Right, the U.S. President is the ?Living Constitution.? His power is limited only by the resources at his command, and the extent of his sadistic imagination. Thomas Jefferson ? in an essay promoting what we are told is the subversive and un-American doctrine of ?interposition? ? warned that ?confidence in men? is a ?dangerous delusion? that is fatal to liberty. Today, collectivists of the Right and Left insist that this is true only on those occasions when power is exercised by people associated with the other faction.

Perhaps this is an unfair and overbroad characterization. There are some prominent figures who can abandon partisan attachments in defense of principle. Regrettably, this usually means that party labels are discarded in favor of an unabashed embrace of the non-partisan Warfare State, and the principles being applied are entirely depraved. Witness the fact that many conservative commentators, rather than condemning Obama for assuming the powers of a literal dictator, have actually applauded him. Among them is John Bolton, who represented the Bush administration in the United Nations, who admits that Obama?s drone strike program ?is consistent with, and derived from, the Bush administration approach to the war on terror.? In Bolton?s opinion, the drone-killing program is ?entirely sensible.?

Channeling the spirit of a Stalin-era Communist Party apparatchik, South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsay Graham has proposed a resolution applauding the administration?s drone-killing program and urging all of his Republican colleagues to express their support. Graham has explicitly commended the administration for the summary execution of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who was murdered (no other word is suitable) by a drone strike in Yemen without ever being charged with a crime. Graham hasn?t said whether he considers the murder of Anwar?s 16-year-old son Abdelrahman to be a similar triumph of statecraft.

More remarkable still was the reaction of John Yoo, a former Bush-era Justice Department functionary who now teaches law at the University of California-Berkeley. Seven years before Eric Holder claimed that Congress has no authority to rein in Obama?s power of discretionary killing, Yoo breezily claimed that no law or treaty could prevent President Bush from ordering the sexual mutilation of a child in order to extract information from the victim?s parents.

Yoo employed a Wall Street Journal op-ed column to criticize the Obama ?white paper? that sets out the guidelines for drone attacks ? not because it gives unaccountable discretionary killing power to the president and his subordinates, but because it supposedly extends due process to ?enemy combatants.? Yoo complains that the paper ?suggests? that U.S. citizens like Anwar al-Awlaki ?enjoy due process rights. By doing so, it dissipates the rights of the law-abiding at home.?

Presumably, Yoo?s concerns have been placated by Holder?s unflinching assertion that the president has unqualified authority to murder Americans anywhere, for any reason he deems suitable.

Senator Angus King of Maine has proposed the institutionalization of the drone program through creation of a special court that would be modeled after the tribunal that issues warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (or FISA). The FISA court, significantly, issues warrants after surveillance has begun. In similar fashion, Senator Young?s proposed court would review decisions to carry out drone strikes after the missiles had flown and the targeted individual had been killed. This proposal has been criticized by some congressional Republicans ? once again, not because it represents a concession to tyrannical power, but rather because it supposedly inhibits the exercise of that power, if only by acknowledging that the power is subject to some form of independent scrutiny.

Until the filibuster staged by Senator Paul ? who, despite his plentiful shortcomings, has proven that he has learned much from his heroic father ? no Senate Republican had rejected the Stalinist premise that the President can order the summary execution of U.S. citizens. What about the Professional Left ? the people who, like then-Senator Obama, were so agitated over the Bush administration?s crimes against the Bill of Rights? They?re too busy debating such weighty matters as the proper honorific by which to address the Dear Leader, or helping the Southern Poverty Law Center draw up ?kill lists? of domestic ?extremists.?

About a week ago, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland insisted that Washington would maintain its embargo of Cuba because the regime ruling that island continues to be a ?state sponsor of terrorism.? Unlike the Regime for which Nuland speaks, the Cuban government doesn?t occupy a foot of foreign territory, nor does it use robot aircraft to rain death from the skies on neighborhoods halfway around the world.

In its 2011 human rights report on Cuba, the agency that issues Nuland?s paycheck described its government as a ?totalitarian state? ruled by a military hierarchy that routinely commits criminal violence against the innocent. All of that is true, of course. Interestingly, the document admitted that in 2011, ?There were no reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings.? The same cannot be said of the Regime that employs Nuland, which in the same year murdered hundreds of people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen. Among those ?arbitrary [and] unlawful killings? were the summary executions of at least three U.S. citizens, including a 16-year-old boy. And now the chief law enforcement officer of the Obama Regime insists that the ?law? would forbid Congress to restrain the Dear Leader from carrying out the extra-judicial killings of U.S. citizens.

While it?s true that Cuba remains mired in poverty and still lives under the reign of a thoroughly despicable ruling clique, we really must confront this question:

By what standard is the government of Cuba totalitarian, if the Regime in Washington is not?
_
William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.

View the original article here

Patent "Trolls" are Bad. Patents are Worse.

by Trevor Hultner

While global biotechnology firm Monsanto battled a farmer over soybean patents in the US Supreme Court, a District Court in eastern Texas heard a similar case: Personal Audio, an alleged ?patent troll,? filed suit against Adam Carolla?s Ace Broadcasting network for patent infringement.

The patent allegedly infringed? ?System For Disseminating Media Content Representing Episodes In A Serialized Sequence.? In other words, podcasting.

Personal Audio has been around since the mid-1990s, and credits itself with inventing the "Personal Audio Player," a device similar to the iPod and the source of many of the company?s patents, including this one.

"[Personal Audio CEO James Logan] is a small businessman, an entrepreneur, who invested a ton of his money into a startup, who still owns the patent, and is just trying to get compensation for his hard work as an inventor," the company?s vice president of licensing, Richard Baker, said. "This is what the patent system is for.? According to Baker, Personal Audio is also trying to sell its podcast license to several major and influential podcasts and providers.

"I will say that we?re certainly looking to license this patent beyond those three (companies they?re suing)," he said. "We?ve sent letters to a number of companies that we hope will come to a license with us amicably, without having to resort to litigation."

The prospect of this licensing scheme spreading across the entire medium has spooked many podcasters, including WTF Show host Marc Maron and Majority Report host Sam Seder. Both have received letters from Personal Audio "inviting" them to purchase licenses, and both have used their voices to back a recently introduced piece of legislation called the SHIELD Act.

Supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, SHIELD aims to make it prohibitively risky for alleged patent trolls to sue; according to the act, if a patent troll loses, they have to pay the other side?s legal fees and costs.

While this bill might be a minute step in a better direction, it isn?t even a bandage on the problem of corporation-favoring patent law. The SHIELD Act, if passed, might prevent companies like Personal Audio from shaking people down, but it won?t prevent companies like Monsanto, with "legitimate" patents on genetically modified and enhanced seeds, from suing farmers and forcing them to burn their crops when they find their seeds on the latter?s land or Apple from making the smartphone and tablet markets expensively litigious.

Libertarian intellectual property lawyer and self-described IP abolitionist Stephan Kinsella brought up an interesting point in a recent interview that seems to get lost in the general discussion surrounding patent trolls, patent law and intellectual property more broadly: as bad as patent trolls are ? according to Kinsella they cost the US economy somewhere around $500 billion ? legitimate patent holders, companies like Monsanto and Apple, can be ? and often are ? worse.

Speaking of Apple, imagine a scenario where the company going after Adam Carolla and the rest of the podcasting world wasn?t some tiny dot-com-era relic in Texas, but the multi-billion dollar corporation from Cupertino, Calif.

In this hypothetical situation, who would have the money or power to fight against Apple? How could a DIY podcast held together with string and some spit defend against Apple if it held the "podcasting patent" and wanted money for its license?

Millions of people subscribe and listen to podcasts through Apple?s distribution and cataloging software, iTunes. Currently, it costs nothing to add your own podcast to the iTunes directory; all that is necessary to do so is being able to link to a podcast RSS feed. If Apple owned the patent on podcasting and forced all new podcasts to purchase this license, it might, as EFF activist Adi Kamdar suggested in reference to Personal Audio, create a "chilling effect" on the medium.

It?s possible, if the cost was high enough, that podcasting would meet the same fate as other forms of media and find itself subject to a "walled garden" model of organization. Only people with the means to do so would podcast. Vital voices and perspectives would be cut off.

Patent legitimacy as it is currently presented seems to be based more on perception than any objective standards of law. With Personal Audio, we question the legitimacy of their podcasting patent in a way we may not have done if another company with more buying power had reached it first. Therefore, the solution to the problem of patent trolling is not to "regulate" it with faulty measures and half-steps in the "right direction."

The patent system itself must be abolished.
_
Trevor Hultner is an independent journalist and Internet content creator. He is the host and producer of Smash Walls Radio, a weekly news and politics podcast, as well as the host of a YouTube series aimed at spreading Absurdist philosophy. Follow him on Twitter: @SmashWalls.

View the original article here

Be a Victim: Cop Advice for Home Invasions

Project Veritas visited police stations nationwide and asked law enforcement officials how they could protect themselves in the event of an armed break-in. "Go get some bleach. Go get ammonia," one officer instructed. Yet another officer instructed the undercover journalist to, "lock yourself in a bedroom" and "start yelling and screaming."

Vice President Joe Biden recently advised Americans to, "get a shotgun" for home protection. But when asked whether or not they should follow the Vice President's advice, law enforcement officials told the undercover journalists they would be arrested for doing so.

Featured is our interview with Milwaukee County Sheriff David J. Clarke Jr. You can view our full interview with Sheriff Clarke at the link below

http://youtu.be/43MJyD6vPFg

Unlike Pew winning Mother Jones, we always release full raw undercover footage from the minute we walk in, to the minute we walk out. View our full undercover footage at the link below.

http://youtu.be/wx1couvVrHw

(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
- VIDEO: Aussie Cops Assault Youth for Filming, Threaten Him With Arrest
- Man Charged With Disorderly Conduct For Telling Cop to 'Go F**k Himself'
- Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Releasing Balloons on Beach as a Romantic Gesture
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- 'Lady Liberty' Tased by Fort Worth officer
- Federal Appeals Court Busts Police For Contempt Of Cop Arrest
- Phoenix Cop Made Famous On YouTube For Tackling 15-Yr-Old Girl Calls 5-Day Suspension Too Harsh
- Undercover Cops Ensnare a Special Ed Student, Get Him Expelled

so the cops tell you to use chemicals that the average person has and some that are on the terrorist watch list. Mommygov will keep us safe at all times comrades. The police will get there in seconds because they love you. I posted this video link in the Rainier Valley Post comments section, which is open for any type of discussion, and the moderators there deleted the comment. The tone of my post was very neutral.

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

Americans Can Be Executed Without Charges -- But Criminal Banks Can't Be Prosecuted

Will Grigg

On the same day that Kentucky Senator Rand Paul was filibustering the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA over the nominee?s involvement in lethal drone strikes, Attorney General Eric Holder defended arbitrary power before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

As we noted earlier, Holder told the Committee that any Congressional action to restrict the targeted killing program would represent an unconstitutional limitation of presidential powers.

?In the same hearing, Holder said that some corrupt banks are simply too big to prosecute. According to Holder, ?some of these institutions become so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that ? if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy. And I do think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.?

In brief: According to Holder, American citizens can be summarily executed without criminal charges, but criminal banks are immune to prosecution.

(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
- Only an Incipient 'Terrorist' Denounces State Murder
- Doug Casey: If I Were President
- Private Prisons: The More Americans They Put Behind Bars The More Money They Make
- Obama Can Kill Americans on U.S. Soil Without Due Process?
- The War Against Bradley Manning -- A War Against All Who Speak Out Against Injustice
- Patent "Trolls" are Bad. Patents are Worse.
- Fifteen Benefits of the War on Drugs
- The Will Of The People Doesn't Mean Jack To Drug Warriors

yes they have a creed.and it is all greed,this administration has done a remake of a very good film called paint your wagon.of course they screwed it up or not,but changed the name to paint your out-house. Sounds like the banks in the UK - The taxpayers have bailed these crimminal bakners out - now they are awarding themselves multi million ? in bonuses - Banking appears to be the only industry where failiure is rewarded - any other industry you would be out of a job and probably in prison.

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