Google Search

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

The Sadistic Profligacy of Sheriff Joe Arpaio


by Will Grigg

Joe Arpaio unabashedly claims to be the world?s toughest sheriff. While his claim to that title is implausible, he is incontestably the country?s most expensive law enforcement officer:? His twenty-year reign as sheriff of Arizona?s Maricopa County has cost taxpayers more than $50 million in lawsuits and settlements arising from abuses committed by his deputies -- including deaths of non-violent offenders incarcerated in his jail.

Arpaio has been indifferent to those abuses and the costs they have inflicted on his constituents. Thus it?s reasonable to believe that something other than austerity prompted him to cut back on meal service within his jail by feeding inmates only twice a day, and going to an exclusively vegetarian menu. He proudly reports the average inmate meal costs between 15 and 40 cents.

On Thanksgiving, Arpaio issued a public statement inviting inmates to thank him for splurging on a special holiday meal ? the main course for which was something called turkey soy casserole ? that cost 56 cents per inmate.

While cultivating his media image and indulging his sadistic whims, Arpaio left tens of thousands of felony warrants go un-served, and ignored hundreds of cases involving child sex abuse. He has been a burden on the law-abiding, and a blessing for the lawless.


(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
- "If We Have To Get A Warrant... We're Gonna Shoot & Kill Your Dogs... Ransack Your House"
- CPS Nabs Teenager Because She Was Hanging Out With Black People
- Pentagon Changes Drone Strike Rules To Permit Bombing Civilians
- Around Here, We Don't Call Internal Affairs
- Does Politeness Constitute Probable Cause?
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- Lawyer For Cop Charged In Beating Death Of Homeless Man Claims Officer Didn't Use ENOUGH Force
- NYPD Cop Arrested For Extorting Restaurant Owner

Joe is a stoopid moron of the highest order and anyone who thinks this dipstick is not off his rocker should be considered just as incompetant as him and his band of merry lunatics. Fuck that fox news media whore. oh and fuck you arizona for being shamed by this fucktard. Now we know who picked up the tab for all his birther-idiocy ..

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



View the original article here

Monday, December 30, 2013

NYPD Orders "Immediate Surrender" Of Rifles, Even Though They Flaunt Them In Public Every Day



NEW YORK CITY, NY ? An order issued to a New York City resident to ?immediately surrender your rifle? is reminding the country once again how onerous the city?s gun control laws are and what a police state looks like.

Dated November 18th, 2013, the document from ?NYPD Rifle & Shotgun? cites that the unidentified resident possesses three .22 caliber rifles and must immediately surrender his property to the police or else provide notarized proof that they have been? removed from the city.

The document reads:

NYPD?s gun confiscation notice. (Truth About Guns)

Notice the absurd steps that the resident must take to prove his compliance.? Should he choose to not forfeit his property to the government, he must permanently remove it from the city and provide three forms of proof that it has been removed; a city report form, a notarized (!) statement of where the firearms will be kept, and even a utility bill or proof of residency detailing where the guns will be stored.

Obviously, privacy and property rights are heavily eroded for citizens of New York; which suffers from some of the most restrictive laws in the country.? Its difficult to imagine why citizens who appreciate their rights would continue to live there.? The document failed to mention a fourth option: flee from New York with your property and don?t look back.

The order cites? NYC Administrative Code 10-306 (b) as justification for violating the gun owner?s rights.? It reads:

b. No person may possess an ammunition feeding device which is designed for use in a rifle or shotgun and which is capable of holding more than five rounds of rifle or shotgun ammunition, unless such person is exempt from subdivision a of section 10-303.1 pursuant to section 10-305, provided that a dealer in rifles and shotguns may possess such ammunition feeding devices for the purpose of disposition authorized pursuant to subdivision a of this section.
The law is so restrictive that it is being used not only to confiscate guns with external magazines, but also guns with built-in tubes and internal feeding devices, as was the case for the rifles listed in this document.?? Tube-fed rifles are very slow and clumsy to reload.? Yet not even one of these common bolt-action 22LR rifles ? commonly used for hunting small varmints ? can pass muster for the control freaks in New York City.? The lack of legal options for self-defense leaves law-abiding citizens crippled and dependent upon the government for protection.

As you might have guessed, there are some exemptions to the law?

A New York City ESU agent. (Source: Tony Shi | Flickr)

Police officers are not only legally capable of carrying otherwise-banned firearms, they are purposely assigned to flaunt them conspicuously all over the city.? New York City is littered with rifle-toting agents, carrying all the ammunition capacity they can handle.

This is pointed out only to illustrate the hypocrisy of the the law and those who enforce it.? Like any police state, the elites have made themselves immune from the crippling restrictions that they are imposing on the taxpayers. The government affords itself with all of the best, modern tools that money can buy, while the rest of New Yorkers are left to wander through a web of cumbersome legal barriers and nonsensical restrictions.

A free society would not tolerate such legal disparities.?? All citizens ? with or without a badge ? should be left to maintain a full spectrum of individual rights.? The idea of a ?permitted? class of people with extra rights is offensive.

Since 2001, the laws in New York have only gotten more draconian, government intrusiveness has increased in every way, and the disparity between the legal abilities of cops and regular citizens has widened.

The current generation of New Yorkers is growing up immersed in statist culture, disarmed, constantly searched, and surrounded by paramilitary troopers.? A combination of ?Stop and Frisk? police tactics and pervasive checkpoints on the streets, subways, and airports makes people conditioned to being searched anytime for no reason.

Thus, New Yorkers often don?t even realize that there is a problem.? They may never have had the opportunity to? experience a freer society where their rights are not being infringed daily as a matter of policy.? The constant searches, legal double-standards, and masked rifle-toting sentries feels like the norm to them.

Such perversions of civil rights and dubious cultural conditioning have been key steps in making the New York police state a reality.
_
Police State USA is a volunteer, grassroots alternative media outlet dedicated to exposing the systemic formation of an American police state.


(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
- "If We Have To Get A Warrant... We're Gonna Shoot & Kill Your Dogs... Ransack Your House"
- CPS Nabs Teenager Because She Was Hanging Out With Black People
- Pentagon Changes Drone Strike Rules To Permit Bombing Civilians
- Around Here, We Don't Call Internal Affairs
- Does Politeness Constitute Probable Cause?
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- Lawyer For Cop Charged In Beating Death Of Homeless Man Claims Officer Didn't Use ENOUGH Force
- The Sadistic Profligacy of Sheriff Joe Arpaio

why are they making robots?We already have to many on all sides.look at the picture .see the robot. All I see is another cop who " fears for his life " , hence all the hardware , we (Ireland) don't have an armed police force & get by just fine , they earn & get our respect for the work they do . When we NEED armed cops we have specially trained & licenced officers . NOT swat teams !
Also officers are not so willing to try using bullyboy tactics because they ain't packin heat :-) @irishpete, you can't reasonably "reason" with the commi's. government is in the process of "weeding out the weaklings" and noncompliant. (remember, their god wants sheep?)

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



View the original article here

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Never Trust a Costumed Stranger

by William Norman Grigg

Within the space of seventy-two hours last weekend, three women were detained and sexually assaulted by armed strangers in official-looking costumes. Two of those incidents occurred in Texas, the other happened in Minnesota.

The first attack took place on a highway near Carrollton, Texas on Thursday, November 21. An unidentified man wearing what appeared to be a police uniform stopped a woman, handcuffed her, and assaulted her in the back seat of his car.

Early Sunday morning, a female student at the University of Minnesota was sexually assaulted by a man dressed like a police officer. The assailant, who was driving a black SUV, approached the woman and admonished her that she shouldn?t be walking alone late at night. Beguiled by what appeared to be the stranger?s official attire, the woman got into the vehicle. The driver locked the doors and conveyed the victim to a remote location, where he raped her.

Sandwiched between these episodes of sexual predation by ersatz police officers was one involving an actual cop. During a routine patrol on Friday, November 22, San Antonio Police Officer Jackie Len Neal allegedly stopped a 19-year-old girl, handcuffed her, and raped her in the back seat of his police cruiser. This was not the first time he has been accused of assaulting women during traffic stops.

Neal was arrested a few hours later, but released after making bail. He was immediately put on paid ?administrative leave,? and allowed to keep his firearms ? professional courtesies that would not be extended to either of the other two accused roadside rapists if they were captured.

Following the attack by the police impersonator near Carrollton, police officials warned female drivers that if they are suspicious of the individual pulling them over, they should call 911 and then drive to a well-lit area before stopping.

This course of action might defeat the evil designs of a police impersonator. However, if the suspicious stranger is a police officer, a female driver who acts on that safety advice will probably find herself involved in a dangerous pursuit that could lead to criminal charges ? assuming that she survives the encounter.

This is demonstrated by the cast of Arizona resident Dibor Roberts, who was attacked by a sheriff?s deputy during a late-night traffic stop after she tried to find a safe and well-lit area to conduct unwanted business with the uniformed extortionist.

At roughly 10:45 PM on the evening of July 29, 2007, Mrs. Roberts, a 48-year-old nurse and naturalized U.S. citizen from Senegal, was returning from work when she noticed a car driving erratically in front of her.

After passing the dangerous driver, Roberts noticed police lights in her rear-view mirror. Her initial reaction was relief, since she believed the officer was going to pull over what she suspected was an impaired motorist. Her relief turned to puzzlement and then alarmed suspicion when she realized that she was the target.

Just a few days earlier, Dibor and her husband had discussed local incidents involving police impersonators. They were aware of advice given by police agencies to people being pulled over in dangerous circumstances: Drive carefully to a well-lit, preferably public area, and call 911 if possible to verify that it is a police officer. That was the official recommendation offered by the Yavapai County Sheriff's Office. That department?s employees included Sgt. Jeff Newnum ? who, ignoring another driver who was operating his vehicle erratically at unsafe speeds, had targeted Roberts for a revenue collection encounter on that dark July evening.

Roberts did nothing wrong. She acted in strict compliance with the Sheriff?s official advice, slowing down and proceeding in the direction of a well-lit area. Her behavior was not that of someone trying to flee from the police.

Deputy Newnum, on the other hand, had already lost his composure, informing the dispatcher that he was in pursuit of a ?black driver? who refused to stop. He pulled alongside Roberts and attempted a ?pit maneuver? to force her off the road, which did nothing to allay the innocent woman?s entirely proper suspicions. After Roberts came to a stop, Newnum erupted from his vehicle with a drawn gun because, he later testified, ?I knew I had an angry driver.?

Roberts, who by this time was terrified, frantically tried to explain that she was looking for a safe place to stop. Ignoring her desperate pleas, and no doubt eager to exploit an opportunity to inflict property damage, Newnum took out a baton and shattered the driver's side window, bellowing at her to "Open the f*****g door!" He then seized the terrified woman and dragging her out of the car. As he did so, Dibor's foot came off the brake and her car -- which was still in gear -- rolled forward over Newnum's foot.

Through her window, Dibor had repeatedly yelled "It's too dark; I'm afraid." She was dragged from her vehicle yelling "No, no, no, no," as Newnum threw her to the ground. Her cellphone was taken from her and thrown away as well.

"He pulled me out and the car jerked because I had my foot on the brakes," Dibor explained after the incident.

"She took it too far when she ran over my foot," insisted Newnum later under oath. This is a petulant lie of the kind that comes readily to the lips of tax-eaters of Newnum?s ilk. He had needlessly escalated the encounter by threatening to use deadly force. Roberts made no effort to escape after supposedly assaulting Newnum.

Furthermore, Newnum?s courtroom testimony that Roberts clearly intended to run over his foot contradicted his official report from six months earlier, in which he said it wasn?t clear whether this was a mishap or an act of malicious intent. He likewise equivocated on the witness stand as to whether or not he was injured in that ?attack.?

Another key contradiction in Newnum?s testimony dealt with his concerns over Robert?s ?threat? to his safety. The deputy claimed that he was worried that he couldn?t see Roberts?s hands, which supposedly justified his decision to approach the car with a drawn gun at the ?low ready? position. However, he also testified that when he reached Roberts?s vehicle he saw her hands plainly, and that they were gripping her steering wheel "firmly" ? which he said justified suspicions that she might have been impaired.

In his closing arguments during the trial, Yavapai County Prosecutor Glen Hammond insisted that the driver?s crime was that "she did not stop" --

which would mean that Sheriff Waugh had abetted the crime by instructing motorists uncertain of the identity of their pursuer not to stop until they reached a well-lit area. Hammond's position was that Roberts was a criminal because she had obeyed the instructions offered by the Sheriff, and that it was not necessary to prove that she had willfully tried to flee or injure Newnum.

The jury, which apparently was populated entirely by punitive populists, ratified that claim after less than two hours? deliberation, finding Roberts guilty of two felonies ? resisting arrest (which isn?t a crime) and unlawful flight. (Significantly, the initial traffic violation was dismissed outright, as was a charge of ?assaulting? Newnum for supposedly running over his foot.) The trial judge, in what he probably thought was an act of tremendous generosity, dismissed the first conviction and sentenced Roberts to six months' supervised probation. This left an undeserved felony conviction on her record, which meant an end to her nursing career.

Not content to ruin Roberts?s professional life and inflict substantial financial and emotional hardship on this innocent woman and her family, Hammond ? offering the last full measure of prosecutorial malice ? tried to depict the terrified nurse as the bully in this encounter.

"All he [Newnum] wanted from the very beginning was an apology and [he] left it up to the County Attorney what to do with this case," whined Hammond. "It was a misunderstanding. It has been really tough on him and his family due to a lot of press, a lot of hate mail. He has been called a racist.... He just wants everyone to move forward and" ? at this point, dear reader, you may want to find a receptacle for your rebellious gorge -- "let the healing begin."

Bobbing in this slurry of insipid clich?s is an unintended confession by Hammond that he had committed malfeasance of office: If this incident was a "misunderstanding," then it wasn't a crime, and shouldn't have been prosecuted as such. In addition, if Newnum really wanted nothing more than an apology "from the very beginning," he should have complied with Dibor's reasonable and lawful request to find a well-lit area to conduct the traffic stop.

An actual peace officer (who wouldn?t be involved in roadside shake-downs in the first place) would have cleared up that ?misunderstanding,? rather than escalating it. Jeff Newnum, like practically everybody else in his profession, is a law enforcer who impersonates a peace officer. Such people are immeasurably more dangerous than their imitators.
_
William Norman Grigg publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.


View the original article here

Saturday, December 28, 2013

3-D Printing In The Crosshairs With Federal Ban On Plastic Gun Parts

Americans can go to prison for possessing an arbitrary plastic object, and more bans may be on the way.

A twenty-five year old ban on ?undetectable firearms? is coming up for a renewal, and gun control zealots are looking to renew it and possibly even make it more stringent.? This will have direct implications on the exciting new 3-D printing technology that allows people to manufacture plastic parts at home.

With a 3-D printer, it is possible for private individuals to ?print? complex three-dimensional parts and objects from their computer with the click of a mouse.? All a person needs is an electronic file detailing the specifications of the part to be printed, and a desktop 3-D printer.

The applications of this technology is truly limitless and will be revolutionary once it gets a little more affordable and accessible.? These 3-D printers give people the ability to cheaply and instantly manufacture parts that could be used for home improvement, auto repair, entertainment, business, and more.? In the future there will be no need to spend exorbitant amounts of money ? and weeks of delay ? waiting on obscure mail-order parts.? It will be possible to print them the same day.

The amazing technology has its detractors, though, who don?t like too much freedom in the hands of unpermitted, anonymous individuals.? The fear comes from the many inventive uses for 3-D print technology in the world of firearms.? There is such fear over plastic firearms that prohibitionists had them banned decades before the technology was viable.

But today, it is viable.? In fact, as was proven by Defense Distributed earlier this year, it is now possible to manufacture an entire gun out of 3-D printed parts.? In the Wiki-Weapons project, the world?s first 3-D printed gun was assembled, test-fired, and proven to work.

The electronic files for ?The Liberator? were placed on the internet and downloaded over 100,000 times.? Despite the federal government demanding that the original source be taken down, the files (and others) are still available for download in torrent form.? Whether the police state advocates like it or not, the plans to print a 3-D gun are ubiquitous on the internet.

Months later, there are even more 3-D firearm designs, and even more advancements in the printing technology, which is getting cheaper every day.

Now, for the third time in 25 years, a ban on ?undetectable weapons? is set to expire and Republicans and Democrats in congress have until December 9th to decide how best to prevent any freedoms to be relinquished into the hands of Americans.? The current debate appears to be whether to maintain the already oppressive status quo or to criminalize even more victimless, arbitrary objects and behaviors.

This ban stems back to the 1980s, when hysterical anti-freedom lobbyists convinced congress that plastic guns were the next great menace to the country.? And so, the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 was passed overwhelmingly by congress and signed by President Ronald Reagan (R) on November 10th, 1988.? The ban came with a 10 year sunset clause.

It became a federal crime to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm that is not? detectable by walk-through metal detection.? A ?plastic gun? that does not contain 3.7 ounces of steel could get a person locked in federal prison for 5 years.

Scheduled to expire on November 10, 1998, the two parties once again united to renew the ban.? Despite maintaining majorities in the House and Senate, Republicans ? led by noted statist House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) ? made no effort to stop it.? All but four U.S. Representatives voted for it.? It was then signed by prolific gun-grabber President Bill Clinton (D) in October 1998, extending the ban another 5 years.

The process was again repeated in 2003, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House.? In bipartisan fashion,? the gun ban was disappointingly renewed for an additional 10 years.? President George W. Bush?s (R) signature made it official.

The current law is 18 USC ? 922 (p).

Now, with another expiration imminent, the usual suspects are scrambling to keep federal the gun ban alive.? Democrats, led by Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), are proposing H. R. 1474 to extend the ban with additional prohibitions, covering not only complete firearms, but also parts, receivers, and magazines made by private individuals.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is worried that additional gun control measures might cause the expiration to lapse.? ?They're considering altering it, putting more language in it,? he said. ?There's concern that it may be altered in a way that would be problematic.?

Other versions of the bill have entered the House and Senate, maintaining the status quo without extra prohibitions.? Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) introduced a renewal in the House, and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)?introduced a renewal in the Senate.

?It's hard to believe that anyone would oppose a piece of legislation like this, so tied into, so connected with our safety,? snarled Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), who advocates strengthening the federal gun ban.? Citing living ?in a world of terrorism,? Schumer went on to claim that without this ban people would be free to bring guns into ?airports, stadiums, schools?? Of course, his this was a red herring designed to inflame the public.?? The expiration of the 1988 ban does not alter the legality of possessing a firearm in any location whatsoever.

While it is unsurprising when anti-freedom groups and politicians push for more federal powers and prohibition laws, it is disappointing when even from those who advocate following the U.S. constitution and respecting individual rights are missing in action.

Despite several opportunities to derail it, the National Rifle Association has never provided any notable opposition to the ban, reportedly citing it as being acceptable federal legislation since it didn?t affect very many firearms in production in 1988.? It has yet to give any indication of reversing its position and remains in silent consent to the gun ban, one of many frustrations that gun owners have with the NRA.

With the ease of 3-D printing and the limitless ability to be spread plans across the internet, any further attempt to criminalize 3-D printing will prove embarrassingly ineffective.? The technology is here to stay and even draconian efforts to stop it will fail to keep anyone any safer.? More importantly, the federal government has no business trying to micromanage something like this and criminalizing plastic objects and victimless crimes.

Congress should do the right thing and let the gun ban expire permanently, and promote the unimpeded use of 3-D printing technology by private individuals.? The shameful threats of imprisonment for possessing an arbitrary plastic object is exactly the kind of behavior we would expect from a police state, not a free country.


View the original article here

Friday, December 27, 2013

Police Impersonators: Less Dangerous Than Cops


by Will Grigg

Twice within the space of twenty-four hours, women in Texas were handcuffed and sexually assaulted by armed strangers in official-looking costumes.

The first incident took place on a highway near Carrollton, Texas on November 21. An unidentified man wearing what appeared to be a police uniform stopped a woman, handcuffed her, and assaulted her in the back seat of his car.

On the following day, San Antonio Police Officer Jackie Len Neal allegedly stopped a 19-year-old girl, handcuffed her, and assaulted her in the back seat of his police cruiser. This was not the first time he has been accused of assaulting women during traffic stops.

Following the incident with a police impersonator, police officials warned female drivers that if they are suspicious of the individual pulling them over, they should call 911 and then drive to a well-lit area before stopping. This might deter a police impersonator. However, if the individual is a police officer, the result might be a potentially fatal pursuit and criminal charges. Dibor Roberts, a nurse from Arizona, was severely beaten and then charged with ? and convicted on ? two felony counts when she followed that advice during a late-night traffic stop.

To a lonely female driver at night, a cop may pose a greater danger than a police impersonator.


(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
- "If We Have To Get A Warrant... We're Gonna Shoot & Kill Your Dogs... Ransack Your House"
- CPS Nabs Teenager Because She Was Hanging Out With Black People
- Pentagon Changes Drone Strike Rules To Permit Bombing Civilians
- Around Here, We Don't Call Internal Affairs
- Does Politeness Constitute Probable Cause?
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- Lawyer For Cop Charged In Beating Death Of Homeless Man Claims Officer Didn't Use ENOUGH Force
- The Sadistic Profligacy of Sheriff Joe Arpaio

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



View the original article here

Thursday, December 26, 2013

Pentagon Changes Drone Strike Rules To Permit Bombing Civilians


Chris | InformationLiberation

From the Washington Times:
The Pentagon has loosened its guidelines on avoiding civilian casualties during drone strikes, modifying instructions from requiring military personnel to ?ensure? civilians are not targeted to encouraging service members to ?avoid targeting? civilians.

In addition, instructions now tell commanders that collateral damage ?must not be excessive? in relation to mission goals, according to Public Intelligence, a nonprofit research group that analyzed the military?s directives on drone strikes.

?These subtle but important changes in wording provide insight into the military?s attempts to limit expectations in regards to minimizing collateral damage and predicting the lethal effects of military operations,? Public Intelligence said in a recent report.

(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
- "If We Have To Get A Warrant... We're Gonna Shoot & Kill Your Dogs... Ransack Your House"
- CPS Nabs Teenager Because She Was Hanging Out With Black People
- Around Here, We Don't Call Internal Affairs
- Does Politeness Constitute Probable Cause?
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- Lawyer For Cop Charged In Beating Death Of Homeless Man Claims Officer Didn't Use ENOUGH Force
- The Sadistic Profligacy of Sheriff Joe Arpaio
- NYPD Cop Arrested For Extorting Restaurant Owner

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



View the original article here

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

U.S. Ranks Third Lowest of Eleven Countries on Health Care Spending


By John R. Graham

Every year, scholars from the Commonwealth Fund report the results of a survey of eleven developed countries, which questions thousands of residents about their health costs and access to health care. The media invariably cherry pick the report to produce headlines like this: "We pay more, wait longer than other countries".

Perhaps there is not much point in getting worked up about it. Every industrial democracy, including the United States, has a largely socialized health system. So, the headline might just as well be: "Differently socialized health systems impose different costs of socialism". However, the authors (and the media) insist that there is some clear blue sky that separates the United States from all other developed countries, which have "universal" health systems.

The authors attempt to describe the differences between various "universal" health systems, but this is not quite successful. It is unclear what they mean by "supplemental" private coverage. For example, they differentiate the British and Canadian health systems by claiming that Canada has supplemental private coverage. However, this is not quite accurate: Dental care and prescriptions are covered by the National Health Service in Britain, and by private insurers in most Canadian provinces. However, there is no supplemental hospital insurance in Canada, as there is in Britain through BUPA, for example. It is also clear from the media coverage that most reporters have little, if any, grasp of the differences between, for example, the Swiss health system and the German one.

Also, it is hard to determine whether national averages are very meaningful. Differences in spending and access within individual countries have come under increasing scrutiny. For example, the Dartmouth Atlas shows wide variance of Medicare spending, even within small regions (although the significance and causes of this variance are also under great dispute). Alternatively, we can look at childhood vaccinations. In Nebraska, 94.2 percent of infants receive recommended vaccinations, which puts it first among the states. Right next door, in Wyoming, the proportion is only 82.5 percent, which puts it in last place according to America's Health Rankings.

The survey's finding that causes the most shock and awe is health spending as a share of GDP. In the United States, health spending accounted for almost 18 percent of GDP in 2011. The Netherlands comes next, at just under 12 percent. In dollar figures, the United States spent $8,508 per capita, versus only $5,669 in Norway, the runner-up. This certainly invites us to question whether we are getting our money's worth. Free-market reforms, as John Goodman described in Priceless, are expected to reduce costs.

However, it's not clear that relatively high U.S. health spending is a burden on the nation. Table A, which uses data from the survey, shows that when we subtracted U.S. health spending from our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), we still had $39,560 per capita to spend on everything else we value. Only two countries, Norway and Switzerland, beat the United States on this measure. In the United Kingdom, for example, GDP per capita after health spending was only $32,818 in 2011 (adjusted for the cost of living). So, even though American health care is significantly more expensive than British health care, the average American enjoyed $6,742 more GDP after health spending than his British peer.

Indeed, there is good evidence that high GDP per capita is a cause of high health spending. David Cutler and Dan Ly have explained that physicians' incomes are a major factor driving up U.S. health spending. The average U.S. specialist earned an income of $230,000 (2010) versus $129,000 in twelve other developed countries.*

That is a dramatic difference, but it has little to do with health care per se. Rather, it is a specific case of the general distribution of labor income within a country. Overall, high-income earners in other developed countries earn significantly less than high-income earners in the United States. Cutler and Ly define "high earners" as those in the 95th to 99th percentile of the earnings distribution. He shows that U.S. specialists earn 37 percent more than the average of these U.S. high earners. However, their international peers earn 45 percent more than their high-earning non-physician peers.

When an American physician laments the state of medicine, and encourages her child to become a computer scientist or investment banker instead, this is what she is talking about. So, it is highly unlikely that we could reduce U.S. physicians' incomes, and maintain an adequate supply of them, without destroying the opportunity for Americans (and immigrants) to earn high incomes in lots of different fields.

Reducing the cost of U.S. health care is a worthy goal, but it needs to be achieved by reducing the role of government at home, not importing a different model of government intervention from abroad.

*Cutler, David M., and Dan P. Ly. 2011. "The (Paper)Work of Medicine: Understanding International Medical Costs." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(2): 11-13. It is unclear whether Cutler is reporting 2010 earnings in 2010 dollars or 2004 constant dollars.


(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
- Bitcoin: Segway, Cigarette, or Gold Doubloon?
- Faber: 'We are in a massive speculative bubble'
- Ultimate Bitcoin Showdown: Schiff vs. Voorhees
- Get Ready to Pay More Online: Supremes Refuse to Hear Internet Tax Case
- Peter Schiff Interviewed on London Real
- The True Value of Bitcoin: What You Really Need To Know
- Jeffrey Tucker - Laissez Faire and the Love of Life Itself
- Unemployed and Deployed in America

The other area of concern with these numbers for me is the fact we spend so much on dental care and cosmetic medicicine, all which is computed in these numbers (I checked). Compared with Europe who is not that concerned with teeth or cosmetic medicine, is it really a bad thing we spend more than other countries? I mean we spend more because we can. I'll wait until I'm sober, to respond to the idiot above me here^.
Because, "good oral health," hasn't been linked to...? (Come on, you've done your research - tell us the answer)....

Because, I could care less what people spend THEIR OWN money on.
(F*ck, just when I was beginning to think I could tolerate socialism.... )

@nonymous 76176, please forgive my ad homonym attack. I should have found a more suitable synonym for "liberal," rather than, "idiot." I just, kinda can't stand people, who think they have the right to think for others.

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



View the original article here

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

No Charges Against Chicago Cop Who Drank Several Beers Before Shooting Unarmed Man in Back


Article posted Dec 02 2013, 12:25 AMBy Carlos Miller

Cook County prosecutors spent two years conducting an ?exhaustive? investigation on a Chicago police officer who drank several before beers before shooting a man to death after the man pointed a cell phone at him.

Yet not once during those two years did prosecutors speak to officer Gildardo Sierra, who had shot two other men in the six months prior to the 2011 shooting, including one fatally.

The shooting, which was caught on a dash cam video, was enough for Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy to acknowledge that allowing Sierra back on the streets after the first two incidents was a mistake.

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'));

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



View the original article here

Monday, December 23, 2013

Bitcoin: Segway, Cigarette, or Gold Doubloon?


Douglas French

The market has selected different things as money throughout history. Some of these items have served as money in isolated places for specific periods of time ? for instance, cigarettes in prisoner-of-war camps. Cigarettes continue to be a currency in prisons if allowed, but if not, according to Wikipedia, ?postage stamps have become a more common currency item, along with any inexpensive, popular item that has a round number price, such as 25 or 50 cents. Mylar foil packets of mackerel fish, or ?macks,? are one such item.?

Cigs, stamps, macks? Doesn?t seem very cool, like, say, a gold doubloon, but the market decides what?s cool, despite what Matthew O?Brien at The Atlantic thinks. Apparently, he?s not a big fan of the cybercurrency Bitcoin.

He writes that only techno-libertarians will transact business in Bitcoin, and compares the cybercoin of the virtual realm to Segways. O?Brien reminds us these stand-up motorized vehicles were at one time thought to become a big deal. I only see cops whiz by on them at the Hartsfield-Jackson airport in Atlanta.

O?Brien describes Bitcoin as ?inherently ridiculous.? The price swings alone make the cybercurrency look more like a dot-com stock than money. What The Atlantic senior associate editor can?t explain is why the price of Bitcoin has exploded recently. He writes something about demand from China and the Fed?s seizure of Silk Road?s considerable Bitcoin stash.

But he?s not paying attention. ?Senior U.S. law enforcement and regulatory officials said they see benefits in digital forms of money and are making progress in tackling its risks,? Ryan Tracy reports for The Wall Street Journal. ?The price of Bitcoin, the most common virtual currency, soared to a record following the comments.?

That won?t sway The Atlantic writer?s mind. O?Brien believes ?Bitcoin? has deeper problems. Its product doesn?t work.? However, Washington has had a dog in the Bitcoin fight ,since it seized 26,000 of them from Silk Road. At around $18 million, it?s enough to keep the Department of Justice interested. So count DOJ attorneys along with the libertarian nerds rooting for the cybercurrency.

In a testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Mythili Raman stated, ?The Department of Justice recognizes that many virtual currency systems offer legitimate financial services and have the potential to promote more efficient global commerce.? Raman is the current acting assistant attorney general for the department?s criminal division.

Bitcoin and virtual currencies are a direct attack on central bank monetary management. Yet even Ben Bernanke, in a letter to senators, said virtual currencies ?may hold long-term promise, particularly if the innovations promote a faster, more secure, and more efficient payment system.?

Senators, being senators, worry about things like whether the cybercurrency is financing terrorism or whether Bitcoins can be used to evade taxes. Neither is likely.

What Bitcoin can do is be moved instantaneously around the world. With something as simple as cellphones thousands of miles and many time zones apart, the cybercurrency can be transported via Skype.

Try moving dollars through your bank. You have to fill out forms, show ID, and have a human being input data. Then more of the same happens on the other end ? when the bank opens, that is. Bitcoin has shown the Federal Reserve how it?s done. In a report called Payment System Improvement ? Public Consultation Paper, the Fed calls for banks to speed up payment systems. The central bank wants to see ?a ubiquitous system for near-real-time payments.?

End-users, the Fed points out, want real-time validation of payment and posting, assurance the payment will not be returned, timely notification, and ?masked account details, eliminating the need for end-users to disclose bank account information to each other.?

This sounds familiar to anyone who uses Bitcoin. Validation of transactions is nearly instantaneous in the blockchain. Bitcoin transfer is not a credit transaction, but a transfer of assets. There is no third party in the middle to return a payment. And of course, payments are done anonymously. No financial disclosures are required.

So while end-users tell the Fed they want assurances against returned payments, O?Brien writes that a weakness of Bitcoin is there is no third party making sure everyone is satisfied. Financial intermediaries ?make sure buyers and sellers are both trustworthy, and handle any disputes,? writes O?Brien, who wants to make sure people can get their money back if things go awry.

He actually doesn?t believe people will use the cybercurrency to pay for things at all. Thus his quip, ?Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme libertarians use to make money off each other ? because gold wasn?t enough of one for them.?

Maybe he doesn?t realize more and more merchants are accepting the alternative currency. O?Brien doesn?t know that two Bitcoin advocates, Austin and Beccy Craig, lived and traveled for several months paying for everything with Bitcoin. He hasn?t heard the highly connected Winklevoss twins are seeking approval for a Bitcoin fund. O?Brien doesn?t read The Wall Street Journal, which recently listed six Bitcoin-related venture capital deals funded just between mid-August and mid-November of this year.

The deflationary bias, O?Brien says, means the price will be volatile. The limited supply of Bitcoin will mean it will rise in value against the dollar, but early speculators will then sell, driving the price down ?quite violently.? From there, he voices his incorrect analogy to Mr. Ponzi.

Because of Satoshi Nakamoto, we have the rare opportunity in history to watch the birth of a currency. It?s not always a smooth process. In his book, Principles of Economics, Carl Menger, the father of Austrian economics, wrote about how any commodity can be traded as money because of its greater marketability:

?This knowledge will never be attained by all members of a people at the same time. On the contrary, only a small number of economizing individuals will at first recognize the advantage accruing to them from the acceptance of other, more saleable, commodities in exchange for their own whenever a direct exchange of their commodities for the goods they wish to consume is impossible or highly uncertain.?
As people become successful trading any good or commodity as money, more people will in turn trade fewer marketable goods for that more marketable one. ?Since there is no better way in which men can become enlightened about their economic interests than by observation of the economic success of those who employ the correct means of achieving their ends,? writes Menger.

The Bitcoin market is tiny compared with government currencies, especially the dollar. As the new cybercurrency gains acceptance, its price in dollars can reasonably be expected to be volatile. But as futures markets develop and ways to sell Bitcoin short are created, the price action for the cybercurrency will smooth out.

The question isn?t whether Bitcoin is a Segway, but whether it?s a prison cigarette or a gold doubloon. Either way, Bitcoin is money.
_
Doug French curates and reviews books for Laissez Faire Books, writes for Casey Research, and blogs at Libertarian Standard. Email.


(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
- Faber: 'We are in a massive speculative bubble'
- Ultimate Bitcoin Showdown: Schiff vs. Voorhees
- Get Ready to Pay More Online: Supremes Refuse to Hear Internet Tax Case
- U.S. Ranks Third Lowest of Eleven Countries on Health Care Spending
- Peter Schiff Interviewed on London Real
- The True Value of Bitcoin: What You Really Need To Know
- Jeffrey Tucker - Laissez Faire and the Love of Life Itself
- Unemployed and Deployed in America

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



View the original article here

Sunday, December 22, 2013

There Already Is A Government Health Care System In America And It Is The Medical Version Of Hell


by Michael Snyder

What would happen if the entire health care system in the United States was run by the federal government?? Would such a system be better or worse than what we have today?? To get an answer to these questions, all we have to do is take a look at what is already happening.? The truth is that there already is a government health care system in America and it is the medical version of hell.? You are about to read about the horrifying state of health care being provided by the federal government at VA hospitals and on Indian reservations around the country.? Injured military veterans and those that live on Indian reservations are some of the most vulnerable members of our society, and the government is doing an absolutely nightmarish job of taking care of them.

Theoretically, the government should be able to provide at least a basic level of care for these people, but as you will see this is simply not happening.

Why?

The bottom line is that the federal government is completely and utterly incompetent.? This has been demonstrated once again in recent months by the launch of Obamacare.? What a train wreck that has been.

But we shouldn?t be surprised.? When it comes to health care, the U.S. government can?t seem to get anything right.

Most Americans don?t realize this, but government-run health care for our military veterans is a complete and total joke.? In some instances, it can take critically injured military veterans?more than a year to see a doctor?

CJ Jackson, a Purple Heart recipient and 101st Airborne medic, was severely wounded during a battle in Afghanistan when an enemy rocket-propelled grenade hit a wall a couple of feet from him, sending debris into his arm and leg. He said he waited over a year to see a doctor at the Jackson VA despite being considered critically injured.
And once a vet is finally able to see a doctor and have surgery scheduled, those surgeries are often conducted in facilities that are beyond disgusting.? The following is what one orthopedic surgeon recently told CNBC?
?Occasionally we?d find pieces of bone? on equipment, he told CNBC. ?What it really shows is that no one is really taking the time or care to clean the instruments.?

His story was backed up by Dr. Phyllis Hollenbeck, who still works at the hospital. She testified on Sept. 9 about problems at the Jackson center. ?Essentially everything that happens in primary care at the Jackson VA can be included under the umbrella of being unethical, illegal, heartbreaking, and life threatening for the veterans, and everything in the care of the veterans starts in primary care.?

Of course this is not the first investigation that discovered these kinds of conditions at VA hospitals.? A few years ago, ABC News also conducted an investigation of conditions at VA facilities across the United States.? What ABC News discovered was absolutely staggering.? The following are just a few of the things that they found during the course of their investigation...

*Bathrooms filthy with what appeared to be human excrement

*Dirty linens from some patients mixed in with clean supplies

*Examining tables that had dried blood and medications still on them

*Equipment used to sterilize surgical instruments that had broken down

*Some patients that were begging for food and water

*Vets neglected so badly that they had developed horrific bedsores and dangerous infections

Is this how the federal government should be treating the men and women that have shed blood fighting for our country?

Unfortunately, it appears that the mistreatment of our military veterans has gotten even worse since Barack Obama took power.? For much more on all of this, please see my previous article entitled ?25 Signs That Military Veterans Are Being Treated Like Absolute Trash Under The Obama Administration?.

The funny thing is that many of the people that run these VA facilities are greatly rewarded for their ?hard work?.? For example,?CNBC discovered that those running the VA facility in Jackson, Mississippi described above are receiving huge bonuses?

The director of the Jackson VA, Joe Battle, received a $6,500 bonus last year on top of his $165,000 salary, and Rica Lewis-Payton, the network director of the South Central Health Care Network, which includes Jackson, got almost $36,000 in bonuses last year, on top of her $180,000 salary.
Are you disgusted yet?

You should be.

And we see the exact same thing happening in government-run health care facilities on Indian reservations.

By treaty, the U.S. government is required to provide health care on Indian reservations.? But the level of health care being provided is of extremely low quality and the programs are very underfunded.

In fact, things are so bad that the following expression is very commonly heard on Indian reservations across America?

?Don't get sick after June?.

Why would they say that?

Well, because in the fall and winter the waits to see a doctor and the rationing of care get particularly bad.? If you get seriously ill, you might end up dying before you ever get the care that you need.

Posted below is a?video news report featuring Judge Andrew Napolitano about the horrific state of government-run health care on Indian reservations?

In light of all of this, should we have more government interference in the health care system or less?


(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
- Bitcoin: Segway, Cigarette, or Gold Doubloon?
- Faber: 'We are in a massive speculative bubble'
- Ultimate Bitcoin Showdown: Schiff vs. Voorhees
- Get Ready to Pay More Online: Supremes Refuse to Hear Internet Tax Case
- U.S. Ranks Third Lowest of Eleven Countries on Health Care Spending
- Peter Schiff Interviewed on London Real
- The True Value of Bitcoin: What You Really Need To Know
- Jeffrey Tucker - Laissez Faire and the Love of Life Itself

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



View the original article here

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Killing Unnamed Children in Afghanistan


by Jacob G. Hornberger

When I read this Washington Post article about the two-year-old child that U.S. forces just killed in Afghanistan, I wondered what the child's name was. Nowhere was it to be found in the article. Maybe the Post hadn't acquired the name. Or maybe it just doesn't matter. It's just one more death among the countless Afghan deaths at the hands of U.S. forces during the past 12 years.

The commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., issued an apology for killing the child. I wonder if he cited the child?s name in his apology. In any event, no doubt Dunford is hoping that the apology will help the U.S. government secure permission from Afghan President Hamid Karzai to keep U.S. forces in Afghanistan past 2014.

The child's death was justified by the same rationale that has been used to justify the deaths of countless other Afghan people since the U.S. invasion 12 years ago: what U.S. officials call "collateral damage." U.S. officials said that they were targeting a "mid-level Taliban commander who had been involved in attacks" on coalition troops and "organizing and facilitating lethal aid to insurgents in the area." The two-year old just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

For 12 years, the U.S. government has had carte blanche to kill as many people as it wanted in Afghanistan. Whenever U.S. forces have dropped bombs and fired missiles at suspected "terrorists," "militants," or "insurgents," there has been no second-guessing on the part of U.S. officials, no matter how many non-terrorists, non-militants, and non-insurgents have been killed in the process. Oh sure, apologies are oftentimes rendered and nominal payments of money are made to aggrieved families, but nothing has stopped the onslaught of death for 12 long years.

If they haven't killed all the bad guys by now and if they haven't trained the Afghan government to stand on its own, then it's time to just declare the entire venture a failure and bring all the troops home now.

Let's face it. That two-year-old didn't have to die. If U.S. forces had already exited Afghanistan, then U.S. forces wouldn't have been there to fire the missile that killed that kid.

Of course, U.S. officials would respond that then they wouldn't have been able to kill that militant -- the one who is "organizing and facilitating lethal aid to insurgents in the area."

Well, let's ask ourselves why that Afghan is a militant and why he's engaged in that activity. It's not because he was involved in the 9/11 attacks or planning on coming to get us here in the United States. It's because that militant is trying to rid his country of a foreign occupier -- and a brutal foreign occupier at that, one that fires missiles at people in reckless disregard of whether there are two-year-old children in the vicinity.

Long ago, the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan devolved into a war that targets people who are resisting the foreign occupation of their country and a war to prop up a corrupt, illegal pro-U.S. regime, one whose president requires bags full of cash to be regularly delivered to him by the CIA.

What about the possibility of the Taliban's regaining control of the government? Who cares? What difference would it make? Even those who cite the ballyhooed terms "terrorism" and "national security" don't get very far with those justifications anymore. After all, let's not forget that if Karzai says no more occupation, U.S. forces are exiting the country regardless of who raises those ballyhooed terms. If ?national security? was really at stake (whatever that term means), would U.S. officials really be exiting the country just because Karzai wanted them to?

Moreover, let's face it: If terrorists want to attack the United States, they don't need a friendly government in Afghanistan to do it. They can always find friendly governments elsewhere in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, or simply some nice hotel room in Pakistan, Yemen, or even Berlin or London. Moreover, let?s not forget that the reason there is anti-American terrorism in the first place is owing to the U.S. national-security state?s interventionism in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and elsewhere in the region. Stopping the interventionism equals stopping the terrorism.

For 12 long years, Americans have been subjected to a constant deluge of death of foreigners at the hands of the U.S. national-security state. Death has become an everyday part of our lives. It seeps into our pores. It's ingrained into our minds. Death has become so ordinary that most people don't even wonder what the names of those who have been killed were or what kinds of lives they were living when they got killed.

It just doesn't matter. All that matters is that the national-security state is "keeping us safe" by killing a never-ending stream of people. I wonder how many Americans ever consider the possibility that it is this constant barrage of death and destruction at the hands of U.S. forces that is generating the very militancy, insurgency, and terrorism that U.S. forces continue targeting.

It's obvious that the U.S. Empire wants to continue occupying Afghanistan indefinitely into the future, knowing full well that that will ensure the endless cycle of death and destruction. My hope is that Karzai stands fast, as did the Iraqis, and kicks the American forces out of the country, preferably now rather than later. It would be the greatest gift that Karzai could give his country, the United States, and the world. At the very least, it would mean that there would be no more deaths of two-year-old unnamed children at the hands of U.S. forces, no more deaths of Afghans who are doing nothing more than trying to rid their country of a foreign occupier, and no more deaths of U.S. soldiers who kill and die for nothing.
_
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.


(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
- Crony Capitalism Drives Airport Security
- Copyright Monopoly Disintegration Inevitable As It Only Takes A Single Country
- Debunking the Myth of the Hero Cop
- Don't Be Thankful for Tyranny
- Without The State, Who Will Falsely Imprison Teenagers?
- David Friedman on Inequality
- Pirating Creativity: The MPAA Is Going After Schoolchildren
- American Borders Will Be Changing

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



View the original article here

Friday, December 20, 2013

Swedish Regime To Give Police, Customs, Tax Authorities Realtime Access to Citizens' Phone, Mail, More


by RICK FALKVINGE

The Swedish citizens will get all their phone calls and e-mail traffic wiretapped in real time not just by the Swedish NSA branch, but also by police, customs, the tax authority, and others. These plans were revealed today by the Ny Teknik magazine, sending shockwaves among civil rights activists. This follows a previous law change that gave the Swedish NSA branch, the FRA, realtime access to all Internet traffic that crossed the country borders ? effectively wiretapping everybody warrantlessly all the time.

Circumventing the entire legislative process and every democratic shred of oversight, the Swedish Police are demanding voluntary agreements from telecom operators to give the Police and other Swedish authorities direct and real-time access to phone call data, mail traffic, and much more. This is not just the slippery slope into an Orwellian society that civil rights activists have warned about: this is a slippery precipice.

We?re now officially past the point where ?national security? (and the the ever-present disgusting child porn/terrorism argument) is used to justify bulk warrantless wiretapping of everybody, all the time. We?ve arrived at the point where the Police justify the complete elimination of entire classes of civil liberties with nothing more than ?because it can be done, and we want it?.

The authorities that would get direct real-time access to most communications aren?t just the Police, but also the Customs Office, the Security Police, and the Tax Authority (!!).

A key difference between a functioning democracy and a police state is, that in a functioning democracy, the Police don?t get everything they point at. While the border between the two is arguably a lot of gray area, and subject to a lot of polemic, it can no longer be reasonably stated that police powers are under checks and balances.

According to the Ny Teknik article, followed up by many others in Swedish oldmedia, it?s not just real-time data on phone calls and mail that the Police are demanding. A sample of other things included in the proposed mass surveillance package:

How telecom bills are paid ? cash, credit, direct deposit. If credit card, which one, and if direct deposit, from which bank account.The subscriber?s PUK code, enabling a police authority to activate the cellphone?s SIM card without the subscriber?s PIN code.There are hints in the article that many other items may be covered by the realtime wiretapping, referring to a wiretapping standard called ITS27.

The only telecom operator to say a blank never, this is completely unthinkable to the Police demands is the Swedish Tele 2.

The fact that the Swedish regime isn?t immediately firing everybody in the Police demanding this wholesale abolition of civil rights is practically an endorsement of the plans ? and one that goes hand in hand with the much-criticized Swedish FRA Law that legalized warrantless bulk wiretapping in the first place.

UPDATE ? a followup article in Ny Teknik reveals that the wiretapping standard ITS27 mentioned above was developed by the British spy agency GCHQ.
_
Rick is the founder of the first Pirate Party and is a political evangelist, traveling around Europe and the world to talk and write about ideas of a sensible information policy. He has a tech entrepreneur background and loves whisky.


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

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- NSA's Plan to Use Porn Habits to Discredit 'Radicalizers'
- US Government Says CIA Black Site Prisoners' Memory Of Their Own Torture Is Classified And Cannot Be Revealed
- Benjamin Franklin, Terrorist Lover
- DRM in Cars Will Drive Consumers Crazy
- TPP Leak Confirms the Worst: US Negotiators Still Trying to Trade Away Internet Freedoms
- The Fictionalized Surveillance State
- The House Intelligence Committee's Misinformation Campaign About the NSA
- Company Admits New 'Smart' Street Lights Can Analyze Voices, Track People

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



View the original article here

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Idaho's State-Sponsored Gambling Ring Whacks a Small-Time Competitor


by Will Grigg

On the same day that Boise property owner Skinner Anderson was arrested and charged with gambling-related felonies, the state?s largest gambling syndicate began its largest buy-in to date. The state government of Idaho ? which is collaborating in the prosecution of Anderson and the seizure of his property ? announced its Mega Millions lottery jackpot. Tickets cost one dollar apiece, and will be sold at retail outlets state-wide, thereby directly implicating hundreds of business owners ? as well as the entire taxpaying population -- in an activity that would be regarded as criminal if conducted privately.

Anderson has been charged with an obscure and little-prosecuted offense called ?misprision of felony? because he failed to notify authorities that a home he had rented was being used for what are described as illegal poker games and tournaments. Earlier this year, police raided two houses in which poker games were conducted, one of which belonged to Anderson.?

When the FBI became involved in order to facilitate seizure of the property, Kings Santy, who organized the games, became a cooperating witness, implicating Anderson.

Mr. Anderson, who had no direct involvement in a penny-ante poker tournament, may be sent to prison by the same government that operates a multi-billion-dollar gambling operation.


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

Latest Politics/Corruption
- Pelosi Caught on Obamacare Lies
- Former NSA Director Michael Hayden Asked Why He Hasn't Been Prosecuted for Crimes While in Office
- Mark Cuban Rips The Vindictive Prosecutors At The SEC
- White House Orders Insurance Companies Not to Criticize Obamacare
- We Lie To You Because You'd Be Angry If You Knew The Truth
- Obama Lies About the Implications of Raising the Debt Ceiling
- Luke Rudkowski Talks to Piers Morgan about Conspiracies
- The Man In Charge Of The NSA Modeled His Office After The Bridge Of The Starship Enterprise

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



View the original article here

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Drones: Not Just for Missiles Anymore


by STEVE PATTERSON

The internet is abuzz after Amazon unveiled their latest idea: the delivery of goods to your doorstep within thirty minutes via drone. Yes, the infamous drone will finally be put to constructive use. Here's the video, if you haven't already seen it.

The technology is incredible, and their goal is to have these piloted by computers, not humans. Imagine: You punch in your GPS coordinates, wherever you are, and an Amazon ?octo-copter? flies quickly to your location and delivers your package.

Drone technology provides us with a clear, sobering contrast: The private sector innovates new ways to create value for people. The government innovates new ways to destroy value and kill people.

Some commercially viable technologies start out in government R&D labs. But this is merely due to their ability gobble up human and other resources that could be used in more productive ways. There?s nothing special about the individuals ?innovating? on behalf of the government?if they weren?t employed by the inefficient and destructive government, they could work for private, peaceful companies, at no cost to taxpayers.

I would like to point something else out, however. What a contrast between the individuals working for the private sector and those working in government. Here we have extraordinary technology, and the folks at Amazon ask, ?How can we use this to serve people better?? and ?Can it make everybody's lives easier??

The first thing many governmental officials ask is, ?Can we strap missiles to it?? and ?How effective could this be at killing people??

Someday, with Amazon's help, it might be exciting to see drones flying overhead, rather than being a reason to run for shelter.


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

Latest Science/Technology
- See the World's First 3D Printed Metal Gun
- Is Encryption Effective Against Snooping? German Government Says No, Snowden Says Yes
- Ron Paul Loses Appeal For RonPaul.com, Found Guilty of 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacking' Over RonPaul.org
- Meet "The Liberator," The World's First 3D Printed Pistol
- DefDist Creates New 3D Printed AK Mag, Names It The "Feinstein"
- Kim Dotcom wants to encrypt half of the Internet to end government surveillance
- Move Over 'TacoCopter': Here Comes The 'Internet Of Drones'
- U.S. start-up plans to share 3D printable firearms for FREE over the Internet

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



View the original article here

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Crony Capitalism Drives Airport Security

by Wendy McElroy

There is yet another reason not to fly into or within the US. ?Nazi-style detention pods? ? that's what opponents of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have called the new ?exit pods? being tested at the Syracuse (NY) airport. But the pods are not primarily a rape of civil rights. Their import is equally ominous but more subtle. Their main purpose seems to be profit rather than the flexing of arbitrary power, although the two are closely related.

A major change is occurring in one aspect of airport security. The change? The TSA will no longer be monitoring exit lanes at one-third of American airports; the TSA withdrawal is likely to extend to all airports over time. Exit lanes are the means by which passengers who have completed their travel leave the airport terminal. TSA agents had been policing the lanes to prevent passengers from walking the 'wrong' way and re-entering the terminal. Now that task is left to airport security because, as TSA deputy administrator John Halinski explains, ?We firmly believe that exit-lane monitoring is not a screening function, but rather an issue of access control.? Apparently, Halinski believes the 'S' in TSA stands for ?Screening? because ?Security? definitely includes access control.

If the exit pods at Syracuse are an indication of how airport security will handle the job, then leaving a terminal may well become slower, more frustrating and a bit more degrading. The pods resemble revolving doors into which people walk one at a time. A robotic voice 'welcomes' the person as a glass door seals behind him; there is a video camera and intercom in each pod; when a red light turns green, the forward glass door slides open and releases the person into the wild. It is not clear what happens to those in wheelchairs or with stacks of luggage. It is not clear whether parents can take children into the pods with them.

Exit monitoring at airports is nothing new. But the older methods are constant flow; that is, passengers shuffle by a security agent or they enter an area that seals without requiring individual passengers to halt in place. Some airports use a large version of a turnstile or sensors that detect if someone is walking in the 'wrong' direction. By contrast, the Syracuse exit pods trap individuals, one by one, in an air-locked system with many moving parts, and expensive accessories. A complicated untested technology that is doomed to constant repair is replacing simple tried-and-true ones. Why?

While other cry ?civil liberties violation!,? I bemoan ?crony capitalism.? Both may be true but the latter is the more likely motive force. In other words, who got the contract for the expensive pods, their repair and their inevitable update? If there are civil liberty issues here, then they are 1) authorities are utterly indifferent to the rights of passengers when the prospect of profit arises, and 2) the dehumanizing drive continues to make automatic obedience a habit. But civil liberties seem to be a secondary target.

Airport security claims the exalted revolving doors will save money by reducing the need for agents. As supporting evidence, they point to the TSA's rationale for withdrawing its agents from exit lanes: to save money. Neither agency's explanation makes sense.

The airport wants to replace low-wage guards with an elaborate exit system. The entire overhaul of security is estimated to require $49.7 million. The described construction encompasses more than the exit area, but that area is a main focus if not the main focus. Let's assume that half of the expense, or $24.85 million, will be directed toward the exit area. If a guard's wage has been accurately reported as $11/hour, then the cost of constructing the pods and exit area would be equal to 2,259,090 man hours. For one guard posted 24 hours a day, the replaced man hours translate into 94,128 days or 13,446.9 weeks for a total of 258.5 years. If four exit guards were necessary (Syracuse is a relatively small airport), then the pods would replace 64.6 years worth of collective labor.

Of course, the projected price tag does not include problems encountered in construction, the pods' ongoing maintenance, the need for replacement, or the monthly bump up in electricity. These expenses are lost in the airport's rush to assure the public that construction will not raise taxes. It will be financed instead by an ?airport passenger facility charge? added on to every ticket; in short, a tax-funded corporation will impose its own corporate tax upon 'customers' in order to construct facilities that violate their rights and dignity.

The economics of the pod construction make sense only in two contexts. First, the airport wants to avoid or divest itself of unionized employees; unions have been a source of conflict in all areas of airport and airline operations. Second, crony capitalism. This is the faux capitalism by which profits do not result from productivity but from political connections, which often include bribes or kickbacks. The Syracuse Hancock International Airport official ?sneak preview? of the security overhaul listed 17 local firms that will profit richly from the construction. Who do the firms know? With what financial incentives did they 'purchase' their contracts?

TSA's economic explanation of withdrawing from exit areas makes even less sense. Halinski claimed the savings would amount to $88.1 million. He may be correct but it is difficult to believe that savings played any part in the decision to withdraw personnel. The TSA is famous for wasting tax money.

Consider just one recent example. In 2007, the TSA purchased hundreds and hundreds of full body scanners; some estimates go well over 1,000. The machines caused a public furor because they produced graphically nude images of scanned passengers and were associated with health risks. In early 2013, the TSA abandoned the full-body machines and offered them for sale to prisons and jails. For example, the former TSA scanners were offered to West Michigan county jails to scan prisoners for contraband.

But TSA's frugality in 'recycling' is not praiseworthy. Dar Leaf the Barry County (Michigan) Sheriff explained. The machines cost the government $160,000 apiece but TSA is offering them at 7 percent of that value; the base cost to law enforcement is $7,500 with the transfer and setup fees, the transportation and training costs driving the total to about $15,000. The TSA is clearly not pinching pennies. Why should it?

The corporate profits from the full-body scanners have already been banked. The former Department of Homeland Security commissar Michael Chertoff was one of the most vocal advocates of the machine; his security consulting firm Chertoff Group just happened to include OSI System, one of two licensed manufacturers of full-body scanners. Nevertheless, Chertoff claimed to be an unbiased expert, and OSI received hundreds of millions in crony contracts. When the scam was exposed and the machines were being pulled for being an affront to dignity and health, the government seemed indifferent to the blatant money grab. A headline in Daily Tech read ?Despite Allegations of Fraud, TSA Lets Scanner Maker Keep Nearly $300M?. It was all about profit, not protection, civil rights be damned, if they are noticed at all.

What explains the TSA's withdrawal of agents? An educated guess is that the agency wants to swell the ranks of personnel available to conduct prescreening. The Secure Flight Program has been in place for years but it seems to be ramping up. For example, prescreening used to apply only to passengers entering the States; now it applies to domestic travel. Even before you leave home for the airport, TSA will conduct a pre-crime assessment of your personal and professional records. The information accessed includes employment records, tax I.D. (it is not clear if the IRS is cooperating), travel history, car registration, credit card info, any police data, and property records. A bounty of other public information is available including gun ownership and some health records but, like the link to the IRS, it is not clear which data will be used.

[Editor's Note: You can get a jump start on avoiding all of this by clicking here.]

What is clear: the program will consume a massive amount of man hours. By outsourcing the monitoring of exits, TSA has beefed up its Secure Flight personnel without increasing its budget for hiring. And it can offer the public- pleasing reason of wanting to save money.

I applaud anyone who protests any act of authority these days but the anti-TSA crowd is overreacting to the civil liberties aspect of the Syracuse exit pods and under-reacting to the crony capitalism one. Sometimes the ongoing thuggery at American airports is all about ?follow the money.? Again, of course, the two are intimately entangled.
_
Wendy McElroy is a regular contributor to the Dollar Vigilante, and a renowned individualist anarchist and individualist feminist. She was a co-founder along with Carl Watner and George H. Smith of The Voluntaryist in 1982, and is the author/editor of twelve books, the latest of which is "The Art of Being Free". Follow her work at www.wendymcelroy.com.


View the original article here

Monday, December 16, 2013

Police Shoot Toothless 16-Year-Old Family Dog During No-Knock Raid



RABUN, AL ? A family feels violated after their home was subject to an unannounced, no-knock raid and their gentle family dog was shot by a deputy.

The all too familiar scenario played out in Alabama as it has thousands of other times throughout the country.?? Deputies intruded into a family residence with no knock, no announcement, and no permission.? The family pet, curious and scared, approached the unwelcome strangers to investigate.? The family pet was shot, and deputies? justified their shoot with claims that the family disputes.

Such was the experience of the Fretwells who live on Stacey Drive in Rabun, Alabama.? On Friday, November 22nd, their aging family companion was shot by a Baldwin County deputy who had entered their home without permission.

?She?s gentle, she has a caring soul, she wouldn?t hurt anything and she never has, we?ve never had this problem ever,? said homeowner Angel Fretwell.

The Fretwells? dog, Belle, is 16 years old, can barely get around, and has lost all of her teeth.

Upon hearing the four strangers in her home she approached deputies.? They claim they had to shoot Belle for fear of their lives when she allegedly came after them.? But the family disputes that claim.? The Fretwells claim that Belle ran before she was shot in the shoulder.

After shooting their pet, deputies wouldn?t let the family care for her for over 1 hour.

They claim to have been searching for a relative of the Fretwells, who was not in the home.

Veterinarians say that Belle has a chance to survive, but will lose her leg and require a $1,000.00 surgery.

Between the use of no-knock raids on family residences and the cowardly shooting of family pets, concerned citizens have a lot to address with the Baldwin County Sheriff?s Office.? Only citizen activism can curb aggressive police tactics and acquire accountability.

?They have to be cautious,? Fretwell said to WPMI Local 15 News.? ?I just think that maybe if they would have announced themselves or give it some kind of warning or anything at that point I think it would?ve helped this situation a lot.?
_
Police State USA is a volunteer, grassroots alternative media outlet dedicated to exposing the systemic formation of an American police state.


(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
- "If We Have To Get A Warrant... We're Gonna Shoot & Kill Your Dogs... Ransack Your House"
- CPS Nabs Teenager Because She Was Hanging Out With Black People
- Pentagon Changes Drone Strike Rules To Permit Bombing Civilians
- Around Here, We Don't Call Internal Affairs
- Does Politeness Constitute Probable Cause?
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- Lawyer For Cop Charged In Beating Death Of Homeless Man Claims Officer Didn't Use ENOUGH Force
- The Sadistic Profligacy of Sheriff Joe Arpaio

i don't know why anyone tolerates a no-knock raid,

i don't know why anyone tolerates a roadside cavity search,

i don't know why anyone tolerates having an M4 pointed in their face,

i only know that we are sinning by tolerating it, and will continue to suffer for our sins.

people don't shoot creeps because they are afraid of earthly death, and that is the sin; don't fear earthly death, be willing to give up your earthly life to fight back when evil attacks, everywhere and anywhere it attacks.

you need to know this:

- their souls are already sold to satan, you can not help them

- this is a challenge to YOUR SOUL, YOURS still has a chance to be saved; yes Jesus did die for our sins, and as He said to the prostitute after forgiving her, "go and sin no more", once you believe in Jesus you need to be willing to behave as such, that doesn't mean you'll be perfect but it means you should constantly prepare your mind, heart, and soul, to do the dangerous things when the challenge is put to you.

Pray for courage to stand up against evil and die by evil's hand.
if a challenge comes up and you cowered in fear as Peter denied Christ 3 times, then afterwards repent of this and prepare to not make that same sin the next time. God gives you chances to redeem yourself, but you must prepare your heart/mind/soul or you will fail again.

To police:
your "job" is not to "follow orders", your "job" is to "follow the law", and you are not doing that and you know it. every single one of you is on such thin ice or else you are utterly lost already and nothing you do now will save you. to the rare few who are still on that thin ice - God sees all, God will be Judging you, it is not "sovereign citizens" or such you need to fear, it is GOD that you need to fear.

Someone - anyone - please fight back against home invasions by thugs in costumes. Fighting back is exactly the missing piece the thugs need in order to shoot the whole family. Look what happened when there was manhunt for Dorner - they were opening fire at the cars at the highway, and it was all "justified".

We live in democratic society, and what needs to happen next is public officials losing or seriously risking their political careers.

@nonymous 208163 comprehends the dialect. The mention of Dorner, does give me cause for concern, however, no network node in their right mind, would bring up the past....so, presumably, 208163 is deprogrammed?

@nonymous 208163, do you know the true reason, for Dorner's murder?

Q: @nonymous 18443, about a year ago, weren't you the person who posted that there would be a "special place in hell for all of us"?

@208163
"We live in democratic society, and what needs to happen next is
public officials losing or seriously risking their political careers."
Ha ! So many Americans STILL clinging to that "domocracy" crap , it's no wonder the powers -that-be continue to treat you like they do . Turkeys don't vote for christmas , the elites ain't gonna relinquish power without a fight , time to step up to the plate & be counted my friends . Good luck ? It will continue to get worse until stopped. Power so corrupt as the government will not return power to the people. There is no chance for a police officer to remain honest. The first time he fails to report a fellow officers breaking the law he becomes just another crooked cop.

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