Woman Says DHS Forced Her to Strip Naked at Gunpoint During Terrifying Dawn Raid

"Two hours of pure hell" as SWAT team trashes home

Kari Edwards said she and her boyfriend were forced to strip naked at gunpoint during a terrifying Department of Homeland Security dawn raid on their Florida home which lasted for two hours.

The incident began on June 10 at 6:16am when numerous armed SWAT team members, accompanied by a helicopter overhead, arrived in an armored vehicle at the couple?s address before smashing in the door and deafening their pet cat with flash bang smoke grenades.

"They busted in like I was a terrorist or something," Edwards told the Tea Party News Network, adding, "[An officer] demanded that I drop the towel I was covering my naked body with before snatching it off me physically and throwing me to the ground."

Having been previously employed by the federal agency herself, Edwards noted that some of the men were DHS agents, although when quizzed as to who they were and why they were conducting the raid, the men only responded by saying that they were ?police,? while calling Edwards ?stupid? and ?retarded? for asking the question.

"While I lay naked, I was cuffed so tightly I could not feel my hands. For no reason, at gunpoint," Edwards said. "[Agents] refused to cover me, no matter how many times I asked."

According to Edwards? boyfriend, one of the agents then proceeded to ogle his naked girlfriend up and down like a piece of candy.

?They spent about 2 hours trashing my house, even smashing clear glass shower doors and a vintage statue,? writes Edwards on her YouTube channel. ?My boyfriend, who is asthmatic, started having trouble breathing due to the lingering smoke created by the flash bang grenade.?

After trashing her home for two hours, Edwards said the SWAT team eventually handed her a warrant signed by Jonathan Goodman, a federal magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which authorized the agents to search for computers and electronics, although Edwards claims police seemed uninterested in the couple?s electronics and did not seize any items despite raising the suspicion of child pornography.

Surveillance camera footage of the incident shows armed agents surrounding the property. Edwards says the clip is brief because the agents ripped out her surveillance DVR while claiming that they couldn?t be recorded.

Edwards summed up her experience by describing the incident as ?two hours of pure hell.? The couple have filed a complaint with the ACLU.

While the details of the incident remain unconfirmed, the story will heighten concerns that the DHS is turning into a ?standing army? emblematic of a militarized police state.

John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute recently cited numerous examples of out of control DHS activity to make the point that the federal agency is a ?beast that is accelerating our nation's transformation into a police state through its establishment of a standing army, aka national police force.?
_
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

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

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Video Shows Cop Assaulted Fox News Anchor, Lied About Arrest
- A SWAT Team Blew A Hole In My 2-Year-Old Son
- "Public Authority," Drone Murders, and the Death of the Rule of Law
- The Utter Uselessness of Police: Two Recent Examples from Idaho
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- Federal Court: Cops Cannot Push Drug Dog Into Open Car Door
- Cop Shot In Face Ambushing Resident In No-Knock Raid
- Sheriff John Urquhart Keeps the "Gang" Together

New World Order has been Released Upon Us.

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 DMCA 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

Gibson Guitar Forced to Pay $350,000 Ransom to Feds

Chris | InformationLiberation

Gibson Guitar has agreed to pay a $300,000 ransom to the Federal government in order to be allowed to continue their business. Additionally, $262,000 worth of wood the government stole from them will not be returned. To add insult to injury, as CNN reports, the company was forced to make a "community service payment" of $50,000 to the U.S. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to "promote conservation and development of tree species used in making musical instruments."

The fact demand for said trees is what encourages them to be planted and conserved is ignored, but that's obviously irrelevant as this is about Federal bureaucrats feeling powerful.

The company was unable to challenge the government in court as going to court would have have forced them to further suspend all wood imports during what would have been a long drawn out trial, destroying their business in the process.

NYT reports:

Henry E. Juszkiewicz, Gibson?s chief executive, said the company still maintains the ebony from Madagascar was exported legally under that country?s laws. But he agreed to the settlement, he said, because it frees the guitar maker to continue importing wood from India, which, unlike Madagascar, is the major supplier of rosewood used in many fretboards.

For the last year, he said, the criminal proceedings in court had effectively cut off Gibson from sources of hardwood in both Madagascar and India, and its luthiers were forced to make guitars with laminated fret-boards or fingerboards made of woods not traditionally used in guitars, which some customers did not like.

?The alternative was pretty onerous,? he said. ?We would have had to have gone to trial and we would have been precluded from buying wood from our major source country. For the ability to carry on with the business and remove this onerous Sword of Damocles, if you will, we feel this is about as good a settlement as we can get.?

In total, it appears the company has had to pay around $2 million dollars to the U.S. government for the "privilege" of doing business. But hey, why should they complain? After all, "they didn't build the business themselves," as our Dear Leader said, they should just feel grateful to have the high honor of working as slaves to pay the salaries of bureaucrats actively working to destroy them. That's the new American way!
_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

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

Latest Economy
- Boy Whose Hot Dog Cart Was Shut Down by the City of Holland Now Homeless
- Obama's Master Plan: Bailout Everyone
- Monsanto Awarded ONE BILLION Dollars Due To Patent Infringement For A Product That Was Never On The Market
- Social Security Ponzi Scheme Coming To An End
- New Hemp Bill Introduced in US Senate
- Submissiveness and Conformity in America's Business Leaders
- The Not So Super Hero
- Drawing back the Financial Iron Curtain to a Beautiful Anarchy w/ Jeffrey Tucker!

In a socialist country, free business is not welcome. Time for Gibson to move to another, more friendly, country?? Problem is, a rosewood-fretboard sounds and feels different than one made from ebony . One of the reasons rare trees are protected is exactly
so they can still be used in places where there is no substitution .

This is not 'socialism', it is 'idiocy' -
(admitted, the two can be more than hard to distinguish.. )
The greens are not 'socialists', they are disillusioned communists turned
overtly totalitarian . They might as well join the neo-cons, that's how crazy and fanatic they are .

Anyway, the price of ebony-fretboard equipped guitars is going to sky-rocket . Soon the gubernment will want some kind of 'endangered species license' if you want to even own one ..

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

No One Should Be Forced to Act Against His Conscience

by Sheldon Richman

A question arises from the recent controversy between President Obama and the Catholic Church that aches for an answer: If Catholic institutions have a right to abstain from paying for what morally offends them, why don?t the rest of us?

The initial Obamacare rule held that all employers, in fulfilling their new legal requirement to provide health insurance to their employees, must include contraception (and other ?preventive? health services) in the coverage at no cost. The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is sinful. The Department of Health and Human services was willing to exempt churches but not church-operated institutions that pursue a broader mission than religious teaching, such as colleges, hospitals, and charities. This brought protests from Catholic officials, who claim that their religious freedom would be infringed by a mandate that they buy services that they teach are morally abhorrent.

As the political controversy mounted, the Obama administration devised an ?accommodation?: those institutions would not have to pay for birth-control coverage; however, their insurers would still have to offer free contraception.

Many objections can be raised against this policy. In a society that thinks itself free, how dare the government force employers to provide health insurance? How dare it mandate that coverage include contraception ? or any particular service? How dare it mandate that any coverage be free? (It can?t really be free; the coverage necessarily reduces employees? cash wages.) How can contraception use be insurable when it is a chosen act, not the kind of low-probability, high-cost event that insurance was designed to protect against? Is there really a moral difference between forcing a Catholic institution to pay for employee contraception and forcing it to arrange a match between its employees and an insurer that will provide the contraception?

These questions are daggers at the heart of Obamacare. But let?s leave them aside. What has gone largely unnoticed is that the principle invoked by the Catholic Church and largely endorsed by the public ? that freedom of religion, as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution?s First Amendment, rules out forcing a church to pay for what it regards as morally abhorrent ? applies beyond this instance. If a Catholic institution should not be forced to pay for contraception because it regards birth control as morally repugnant, why should anyone be forced to pay for what he or she finds morally repugnant?

It does no good to say that the First Amendment is about religion. The Constitution and Bill of Rights did not create rights; they acknowledged preexisting rights. Moreover, we are entitled to make reasonable inferences from the framers? language, because they could hardly have created an exhaustive list of implications. For example, by specifying the free exercise of religion, the framers can?t be construed as intending to exclude atheists from the protection of freedom of conscience.

Logic drives us to conclude that government should never compel anyone to act against his or her moral convictions. The good sense of this becomes clear when we get down to particulars. If a Catholic may not be forced to pay for birth control in violation of conscience, why should that Catholic ? or anyone else ? be compelled to finance mass murder in violation of conscience? No one can reasonably insist that personal convictions should be disregarded in the case of mass murder.

This is no hypothetical speculation. Americans have been forced, without their consultation ? much less permission ? to finance mass murder. It?s called war, invasion, occupation, and special operations. U.S. military missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere have directly or indirectly killed over a million people who never threatened Americans at home. Those missions have ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands more through injury and the destruction of their homes and societies.

The president of the United States refuses to take war with Iran off ?the table? ostensibly because the Islamic republic won?t end its nuclear-enrichment program ? although the International Atomic Energy Agency says no weapons are being produced, and U.S. and Israeli officials say no decision to build a weapon has been made. War against Iran would constitute mass murder.

The U.S. government should be stopped from engaging in such brutality. But short of that, those with a conscientious objection should be free to opt out of financing these crimes.
_
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog Free Association at www.sheldonrichman.com. Send him email.

Latest Commentary
- Democracy Is Destroying Your Wealth and Freedom
- The Global Land Grab
- Degenerates Rule America
- Why Are Government Bureaucrats Turning America Into Nazi Germany?
- Don't Be a Domesticated Extremist
- To Love the Unknown
- Is it the Lawmakers or Law Enforcers who are to Blame?
- Why Facebook Works and Democracy Does Not

So, The Catholic Church is against health-care for everybody because it would 'force' them to pay to something that they find 'morally abhorrent' ?

We ARE talking about the same Catholic Church that has payed HUNDREDS of millions in 'compensation' to the victims of their Gay-paedophile-Priests, right ??

I'll say it again : Fundamentalist Libertarians are exactly as blind and dangerous as Fundamentalist Socialists, Commies, nazies, fascists,
Flat-Earthers and what not ..
Ideology is for people who can't cope with reality !

The ACLU and others who scream "Separation of church and state!" seem to be MIA on this. What hypocrites. They don't want the church involved in the government's business, but don't mind if the government gets involved in the church's business. Hey--to force ANYONE to purchase health insurance--and at whatever cost the genocidal insurance companies want to charge, for health care that is also genocidal (just ask Michael Jackson, Whitney et al) IS MORALLY ABHORRENT JUST LIKE UNPROVOKED WARS TO BENEFIT THE SAME LIZARD BANKSTERS--i say we need some et's to come down and SHRINK these bankster lizards and their minions down to the size of 3-4 inches and set them loose in the garden to keep the bug population down---that way, they can stalk, f---k, eat, and kill their prey and at the same time be doing a public service for all...HOW'S THAT FOR A SOLUTION??? peace out--

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
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here

Forced Taxation Is Immoral

This video is directed at those who tell themselves, and try to convince the rest of us, that they don't mind paying taxes; and it's especially directed to those who take it even further by insinuating that it is a moral or and social duty to do so, that's it's a part of some "social contract".

Latest Commentary
- Top 10 Reasons Why the Mafia is Better than the State
- 15 Trillion In Debt, But We Can Kill Anyone In An Hour... Nailed It?
- The Real "Occupy" Movement
- There's the Law, and Then There's The Law
- The Law According To The Somalis
- The Wine Protection Racket
- Ventura's Venture Against the TSA
- Addicted to Incarceration

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
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Forced Home Entry Over DUI

Federal appeals court rules a police officer who suspects drunk driving can break into a home without first obtaining a warrant.

The US Supreme Court ruled 27 years ago that police could not forcibly enter someone's home over suspected drunk driving. The Fourth District US Court of Appeals in an unpublished decision is looking to change the precedent. A three-judge appellate panel considered the case of Alan J. Cilman who had filed a false arrest lawsuit after Officer M.A. Reeves busted down his door, without a warrant, on October 3, 2004.

Earlier that day, Cilman had left Neighbors Restaurant where he watched a football game and had dinner and drinks. Reeves claimed Cilman drove out of the Neighbors parking lot at a "high rate of speed." Reeves followed, noting that Cilman had run a stop sign, failed to signal and accelerated quickly in turns. Accounts differ over whether Reeves turned on his police lights before Cilman made it to the driveway of his home, which was not far away. Reeves got out of his cruiser as Cilman was walking briskly to the door. Reeves told Cilman to stop, but he did not say the man was under arrest. Cilman told the officer to get off his property as he went inside and locked the door.

Reeves waited for backup, then kicked in Cilman's door and arrested him for being drunk in public and evasion without force -- not driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Prosecutors later dropped those charges. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia agreed that kicking in Cilman's door without a warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but a jury awarded Cilman $0 in damages as compensation. Officer Reeves appealed the judge's finding that he had violated the Constitution, because under state law he would be forced to resign if found guilty of a second constitutional violation.

Read More

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- UC Davis Campus Police Pepper Spray Student Protesters Sitting Doing Nothing
- Woman Places Sign On Her Car Stating Police Do Not "Protect and Serve," Police Respond By Arresting Her For Crimes She Did Not Commit
- Protect and Serve: NY Cops Violently Drag Woman By Her Hair
- Video Released: Oakland Police Strike Army Ranger With Nightsticks On His Back, Ribs, Shoulders and Hands, Lacerating His Spleen and Causing Internal Bleeding
- "What can you offer to get out of a DUI?" -- Cop solicits women he pulled over
- Dash-Cam Video Shows Sam Houston State Police Beating Student
- Two cops fired over horrific video which shows them beating up suspect - then CELEBRATING
- DEA Sweeps Across Western Washington With Dispensary Raids

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
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here