CIVIL RIGHTS

The Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act of 2014

Posted on October 4, 2014. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, Farming, Human Rights, LATEST NEWS | Tags: , , , , , , , , |


An Ordinance to restore the natural Human Right to grow and use plants for the basic necessities of life.
Whereas in the State of California, the People of the County of Lake do hereby Find, Declare and Ordain as follows:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for people to reaffirm and reestablish the fundamental human rights with which they are naturally endowed, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s origins entitle them, and to recognize a decent respect for the opinions of humankind, requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to come forward toward the reestablishment of those rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all humans beings are created equal. That human beings are naturally endowed with certain rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to re-declare and reestablish the inherent human rights that would intrinsically correct such governmental negligence, and to reconstitute such in a form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Therefore, in accordance with the 9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America,

Amendment IX:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.",

and also in accordance with the California State Constitution, Article 1 Declaration of Rights, Section 21.:

…"This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.",

and, also as consistent with County of Lake Ordinance No. 2267 in relation to private property rights, and, whereas disregard and contempt for certain human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of humankind, and, whereas in a world which human beings endeavor to enjoy freedom of speech and belief, and where freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of peoples everywhere, be it here proclaimed that it has become necessary to reaffirm and specifically re-constitute the self evident inherent freedom to grow and use plants as described herein: 
Section 1., Findings:
That human beings are naturally endowed with the fundamental self evident right to have and grow the natural plants of this earth, and the naturally occurring seeds thereof, to be used for their own needs as individuals in pursuit of life and in effort to live, and that such basic human rights have been recognized and acknowledged to exist, and that these rights are held in perpetuity outside of the constitutional responsibility of a government to protect an individual’s right to engage in commerce.
Section 1.(a)
That all County of Lake residents residing within the unincorporated areas of the County who exercise the rights described in Section 1. of this Act at their residence within said area, and are compliant with Section 2.(a), and are gardening outside (outdoors) or in a greenhouse (and not withstanding any generally applicable urgency ordinance(s) specifically relating to water conservation), are, as accorded in the paragraphs above, necessarily exempt from any County permitting or other County ordinances that would limit an individual’s home gardening efforts or abilities in conjunction with Section 1.
Section 1.(b)
That any law, to the extent that it would specifically deny or disparage the human rights as described in Section 1. of this Act is unconstitutional by both the Federal Constitutions 9th Amendment, and also by the State Constitutions Article 1 Declaration of Rights, Section 21, and by the fact that such self evident human rights are held in perpetuity by the People.
Section 2., Responsibilities:
Should neighbor complaints that are not related to Section 2.(a) herein, or that are not related to a specific medically verifiable toxic health risk to the public arise as an official complaint to the County as a result of an individual(s) exercising the rights as described in Section 1., and Section 1.(a), (and not withstanding any effected party choosing to seek remedy and or reparations by way of litigation through civil proceedings), all the effected parties shall be directed to mediation provided for by the County of Lake, and if resolution between the effected parties cannot be achieved in a reasonable effort to mediate (to be determined by the appointed mediator), the effected parties shall then continue mediation at their own expense (to be equally divided between the effected parties) until a resolution between the parties can be agreed upon, or until one of the effected parties withdraws from the mediation. 
Section 2.(a)
All who exercise the rights described in Section 1., and Section 1.(a) of this Act, shall take reasonable care to prevent environmental destruction, and are responsible to mitigate any possible foreseen negative impacts on the natural environments, and all persons who neglect such practices shall be subject to the authority designated under Section 2.(b) herein, but such remedies are to be used to help individuals come into compliance with this section and not to unreasonably burden individuals who exercise the rights described in Section 1.
Section 2.(b)
The County of Lake Environmental Health Department shall administer over individual circumstances that may arise related to Section 2. and Section 2.(a) herein, but all such administrative authority and compliance inquiries shall be restricted to circumstances where a verifiable neighbor (or resident of the county) complaint in writing and signed by the complainant has been officially registered with the county.
Section 3., Special Circumstances:
Any law, to the extent that it would specifically deny or disparage the Human Rights as described in Section 1. of this Act, (and not withstanding an individual in violation of using illegal gardening chemicals, including but not limited to, certain pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and fertilizers), is to be set aside unless it can be determined that the individual circumstance is occurring within the context of "commerce" related activities as defined herein, or if an individual’s violation(s) of Section 2.(a) of this Act are to the extent of violating a criminal statute. 
Section 3.(a)
This Act shall not apply in circumstances where (a) private rental or lease agreement(s) (contract) exist(s) pertaining to the occupancy and or use of any private land unless such is otherwise specifically enumerated within said agreement(s) (contract), or unless the agreement(s) (contract) does not specify any conditions or agreement pertaining to outside (or greenhouse) home gardening.
Section 4., Definitions:
(a) For the express purposes of this Act, the word "commerce" shall be taken to mean:
The buying and selling of goods or services in any form, and in direct reference to the exchange of United States currency (or other such legally recognized tender) for such goods or services.
(b) For the express purposes of this Act, the words phrased as "compliance inquiries" shall be taken to mean:
A written and delivered inquiry, and an in person inquiry as to responding to (a) specific complaint(s), and to which access to inspect private property shall only be in circumstances where the respondent has voluntarily agreed to and granted such access, or where on an individual basis, a court order has provided for such access.
(c) For the express purposes of Section 1. of this Act, the words phrased as "to be used for their own needs" shall be taken to mean: 
For use as food, medicine, fiber, fuel, building materials, environmental damage mitigation or other environmental concerns, privacy, aesthetics or ambiance, spiritual/religious requirement, (or other) basic necessities of life. 
(d) For the express purposes of Section 1. of this Act, the word "natural" and the words phrased as "naturally occurring" shall be taken to mean:
Plant species and varieties of such that have evolved in nature through the traditional pollination and cross pollination processes, be that by wind/weather, or animal (including human) assistance.
(e) For the express purposes of Section 1.(a) and Section 3.(a) of this Act, the word "greenhouse" shall be taken to mean:
Any structure where the sun’s light can penetrate at least 80% of the roof (ceiling or top) surface and that is intended for and used for growing plants in. 
Section 5., Severability:
If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. The People of the County of Lake hereby declare that we would have adopted this Act irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof.

CONTINUE READING…

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Brine firm sues over biblical fracking billboard

Posted on August 21, 2014. Filed under: Activists, CIVIL RIGHTS, Fracking, LATEST NEWS | Tags: , , , , , , |


August 20th, 2014 by Associated Press

 

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - An Ohio man who uses a biblical reference and a statement against "poisoned waters" on billboards opposing wells for disposal of gas-drilling wastewater is fighting a legal threat from the Texas well owner on free-speech grounds.

Austin, Texas-based Buckeye Brine alleges in a July lawsuit that the billboards paid for by Michael Boals, of Coshocton in eastern Ohio, contain false and defamatory attacks against its two wells, which dispose of contaminated wastewater from oil and gas drilling.

The complaint by the company and Rodney Adams, who owns the land and operates the well site, contends the wells are safe, legal and meet all state safety standards. The parties object to statements on two billboards along U.S. Route 36, including one that "DEATH may come."

"The accusation that the wells will cause ‘DEATH’ is a baseless and malicious attempt to damage the reputations of the plaintiffs," according to the complaint. "The billboards are also defamatory because they state or imply that Mr. Adams and Buckeye Brine are causing ‘poisoned waters’ to enter the drinking water supply."

Shale oil and gas drilling employing hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, produces millions of gallons of chemical-laced wastewater. The liquid, called brine, is a mix of chemicals, saltwater, naturally occurring radioactive material and mud.

It’s considered unsafe for ground water and aquifers, so Ohio regulations require waste liquid to be contained and injected deep underground. Ohio has recorded no aquifer contamination, but as the state grapples with some 16 million gallons of the wastewater a year, it’s seen earthquakes linked to injection wells and a Youngstown-area businessman indicted in a federal dumping case.

Boals, a 55-year-old timber harvester, refuses to pull his billboards, which he said cost him more than $1,000.

CONTINUE READING….

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Jennica Stein Yesterday at 2:26pm POLICE ARE EVERYWHERE

Posted on August 17, 2014. Filed under: Activists, CIVIL RIGHTS, Facebook, LATEST NEWS | Tags: , , , |


Jennica Stein

Yesterday at 2:26pm

POLICE ARE EVERYWHERE

First, this is VERY important to read and understand. I’m doing my best to look out for all the Facebook Users who aren’t as tech savvy as their kids or friends. I’m trying to help explain what’s happening because if I don’t…nobody else will!

If you’re anything like your neighbor…you probably use Facebook on your phone WAY more than you use it on a computer. You’ve been sending messages from the Facebook app and it probably always asks you if you want to install the Facebook Messenger App.

Its always been OPTIONAL but coming soon to your Facebook experience….it won’t be an option…it will be mandatory if you care to send messages from your phone.

No big deal one might think…but the part that the average Facebook User doesn’t realize is the permissions you must give to Facebook in order to use the Facebook Messenger App. Here is a short list of the most disturbing permissions it requires and a quick explanation of what it means to you and your privacy.

Change the state of network connectivity – This means that Facebook can change or alter your connection to the Internet or cell service. You’re basically giving Facebook the ability to turn features on your phone on and off for its own reasons without telling you.
Call phone numbers and send SMS messages – This means that if Facebook wants to…it can send text messages to your contacts on your behalf. Do you see the trouble in this? Who is Facebook to be able to access and send messages on your phone? You’re basically giving a stranger your phone and telling them to do what they want when they want!
Record audio, and take pictures and videos, at any time – Read that line again….RECORD audio…TAKE pictures….AT ANY TIME!! That means that the folks at Facebook can see through your lens on your phone whenever they want..they can listen to what you’re saying via your microphone if they choose to!!
Read your phone’s call log, including info about incoming and outgoing calls – Who have you been calling? How long did you talk to them? Now Facebook will know all of this because you’ve downloaded the new Facebook messenger app.
Read your contact data, including who you call and email and how often – Another clear violation of your privacy. Now Facebook will be able to read e-mails you’ve sent and take information from them to use for their own gain. Whether it’s for “personalized advertisements” or if it’s for “research purposes” ….whatever the reason..they’re accessing your private encounters.
Read personal profile information stored on your device – This means that if you have addresses, personal info, pictures or anything else that’s near and dear to your personal life…they can read it.
Get a list of accounts known by the phone, or other apps you use – Facebook will now have a tally of all the apps you use, how often you use them and what information you keep or exchange on those apps.

Hopefully, you take this as serious as I do…after reading more about it and studying the permissions I have now deleted the app from my phone and don’t intend to use it ever again. I still have my Facebook app but I just won’t use the messaging feature unless I’m at a computer. Even then, I might not use messaging anymore.

With these kinds of privacy invasions I think Facebook is pushing the limits to what people will let them get away with. I remember when the Internet first began its march toward socializing dominance when AOL would send us CD’s for free trials every week. On AOL, we made screen names that somewhat hid our identities and protected us against the unseen dangers online. Now, it seems that we’ve forgotten about that desire to protect our identity and we just lay down and let them invade our privacy.

There may be no turning back at this point because many people won’t read this or investigate the permissions of Facebook’s new mandatory app but at least I can say I tried to help us put up a fight. Pass this along to your friends and at least try to let them know what they’re getting into.

SOURCE:

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Why Potential Marijuana Investors Should Study Wiretapping

Posted on August 7, 2014. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, Corporate Cannabis, LATEST NEWS, NSA, DHS, FBI, Cyber Security, Spying | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |


Rich Smith       Aug 4th 2014 9:22AM

Once upon a time, AT&T (T) urged its customers to "reach out and touch someone" with a long-distance phone call (which Ma Bell could charge extra for at the time). Those were simpler times.
Today, in our post-9/11 world, if you reach out by phone, you may end up touching more people than you bargain for. And those people may have guns, badges and court-approved wiretap warrants.

Top States for Wiretapping
This is especially true in Nevada, Colorado, California and New York. A recent report by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts said these four states issue the majority of wiretap authorizations in America (measured proportionate to their populations):

  • Nevada authorized 38.2 wiretap authorizations per 500,000 residents
  • Colorado authorized 12.4 per 500,000
  • California authorized 11.7 per 500,000
  • And New York State authorized 10.7 per 500,000

Rounding out the top 10 states for state-sanctioned wiretapping are Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri and New Jersey — in that order. In each state, state and federal law enforcement sought and received authorizations to conduct more than six wiretaps per 500,000 residents. (In case you were wondering, that office points out that it is not authorized to collect and report data on NSA wiretaps regulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978).
According to Pew Research, which analyzed the report, 90 percent of the wiretaps authorized in 2013 were authorized to investigate "criminal drug-related offenses."
The 3,576 total wiretaps authorized resulted in 3,744 arrests (more than the number of wiretaps authorized). But the conviction rate from these wiretaps was less than 19 percent — just 709 convictions. (Curiously, AO also notes that in all of 2013, only one application for a wiretap was turned down.)
If that sounds bad, it is. According to a 2010 annual statistical report filed by the Justice Department’s Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the average conviction rate in the federal criminal judicial system for that year was 93 percent.

What It Means to Investors
But we digress. To find out how all of this may be relevant to investors, let’s return to the 90 percent figure. You’ll notice that while Nevada is the No. 1 state for wiretapping, No. 2 is Colorado — a state which in January decriminalized the recreational use of marijuana.
Now, there’s been a lot of talk lately about the opportunities that marijuana legalization — first in Colorado, and more recently in Washington state — might offer for investors. Over the past year, shares of GW Pharmaceuticals (GWPH) have risen more than eight times, and microcap Advanced Cannabis Solutions (CANN) have more than tripled in value. Small cap Medical Marijuana (MJNA) has risen 50 percent.
Still, the fact remains that even if individual states are beginning to move toward legalization, the federal government and its Drug Enforcement Administrationstill consider marijuana an illegal drug, period. Until this changes, the fear of federal prosecution of a state-legal drug therefore still hangs over this industry.
Reading the Tea Leaves at the DEA
What will be our first clue that the DEA has begun backing off enforcement of drug laws in places like Colorado, where the state strictures are loosening? It could be this AO report we’ve been talking about up above. Let’s quickly run back down the list of what we know:

  • Colorado is one of the states most active in issuing state and federal wiretap authorizations.
  • Nine out of 10 such wiretaps concern drug offenses.
  • Colorado no longer finds marijuana as offensive as it used to.

It will be interesting to watch what happens to Colorado’s rank on the list of most frequent wiretappers when the AO issues its report on 2014 wiretap authorizations next summer. If Colorado falls a lot from No. 2, this could mean that law enforcement has decided to back off from prosecuting (at least marijuana-related) drug offenses in the state.
Such a development would bode well for marijuana stocks as more and more states vote to legalize, suggesting the DEA will bow to local interpretations of the drug laws.
If, on the other hand, Colorado continues to rank highly in the wiretap ratings — look out. That will be our first clue that the heat is still on.

Motley Fool contributor Rich Smith has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned either.

CONTINUE READING…

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Chemerinsky: Hurt by a government official? SCOTUS is making it harder and harder to sue

Posted on June 25, 2014. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, LATEST NEWS, Supreme Court | Tags: , , |


Posted Jun 24, 2014 8:40 AM CDT
By Erwin Chemerinsky

In a series of cases this term, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it much more difficult for plaintiffs to recover for civil rights violations. These decisions continue a pattern in recent years of the Supreme Court significantly expanding the immunity accorded to government officials sued for violating the Constitution.

Suing individual government officers is often the only way that an injured person can recover for constitutional violations. Yet suits against government entities are often difficult, if not impossible, to win. Both the federal and state governments are protected by sovereign immunity, which greatly limits suits against them for damages. Local governments may be held liable for civil rights violations only if there is a municipal policy or custom that led to the injury.

State and local government officials may be sued for constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S. Code Sec. 1983, and federal officers may be sued pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 1971 decision, Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The Supreme Court, however, has said that all government officials sued for money damages may raise immunity as a defense. Some government officers have absolute immunity to suits for money damages: among them are judges performing judicial tasks, prosecutors performing prosecutorial tasks, legislators performing legislative tasks, police officers testifying as witness, and the president for acts taken in office.

All other government officers have qualified immunity. In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held in 1982 that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

In the 30 years since Harlow, courts have struggled with how to determine if there is a clearly established law that the “reasonable person would have known.” Must there be a case on point to say that there is such clearly established law?

In Hope v. Pelzer, the court in 2002 seemingly resolved this and held that there need not be a prior decision on point for the plaintiff to show the existence of clearly established law. Rather, officers may be held liable so long as they had fair warning that their conduct was impermissible.

The case involved a prisoner who was tied to a hitching post and left in the hot sun. The federal court of appeals found that this was cruel and unusual punishment, but that the officers were protected by qualified immunity because there was no case on point holding that such use of the hitching post violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed and said that a case on point is sufficient to show clearly established law, but it is not necessary.

In the decade since Hope v. Pelzer, including three cases this term, the Supreme Court repeatedly has found qualified immunity based on the absence of a case on point. The court has not overruled Hope v. Pelzer or even distinguished it; the court has simply ignored it. In the process, the court has made it much harder for plaintiffs to overcome qualified immunity and hold government officers liable for constitutional violations.

In Lane v. Franks, issued June 19, the court unanimously held that a government employee’s First Amendment rights were violated when he was fired for truthful testimony he gave pursuant to a subpoena. This result seems so obvious: of course it is wrong to fire a person for testifying honestly in a criminal trial, especially when the individual had no choice but to testify because of a subpoena.

Nonetheless, the court found that the defendant responsible for the firing was protected from liability by qualified immunity. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court, said that “[t]he relevant question for qualified immunity purposes is this: Could Franks reasonably have believed, at the time he fired Lane, that a government employer could fire an employee on account of testimony the employee gave, under oath and outside the scope of his ordinary job responsibilities?” The court reviewed precedents, especially from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which earlier ruled on the case, and found that none had clearly held that this violates the First Amendment. But Hope v. Pelzer said that a case on point is not necessary: Shouldn’t every government officer know that it is wrong to fire a person for truthfully testifying in court?

In Plumhoff v. Rickard, decided on May 27, the court again found that government officials were protected by qualified immunity. Police officers pulled over a white Honda Accord because the car had only one operating headlight. Donald Rickard was the driver of the Accord, and Kelly Allen was in the passenger seat. The officer asked Rickard if he had been drinking, and Rickard responded that he had not. Because Rickard failed to produce his driver’s license upon request and appeared nervous, the officer asked Rickard to step out of the car. Rather than comply with the officer’s request, Rickard sped away.

A high-speed chase then occurred that lasted five minutes and reached speeds greater than 100 mph. At one point, the officers appeared to have Rickard’s car pinned. But when the car pulled away, officers fired three shots into the car. As the car attempted to speed away, another 12 shots were fired by the police. Both the driver and the passenger were killed. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the police used excess force and violated the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, ruling in favor of the police. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the court and held that there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court said that the driver’s conduct posed a “grave public safety risk” and that the police were justified in shooting at the car to stop it. The court said “it stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.” Moreover, the court said that even if there were a Fourth Amendment violation, the officers were protected by qualified immunity, in that the law had not clearly established that the conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.

This is a disturbing holding. The Supreme Court now has said that whenever there is a high-speed chase that the officers perceive could injure others–and that would seem to be true of virtually all high speed chases–the police can shoot at the vehicle and keep shooting until it stops. The car was stopped for having only one working headlight. If the driver refused to stop, why not just let the car go and then track the driver down later? Why should death be the punishment for making the extremely poor choice to begin a high-speed chase?

Finally, in Wood v. Moss, also decided on May 27, the court found that Secret Service agents were protected by qualified immunity when they engaged in viewpoint discrimination with regard to speakers. President George W. Bush was in Oregon and the Secret Service agents allowed supporters of President Bush to be closer and pushed the opponents further away. The law is clear that the government cannot discriminate among speakers based on their views unless strict scrutiny is met.

Nonetheless, the court, in a unanimous decision with the majority opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, found that the Secret Service agents were protected by qualified immunity because there were no cases on point concerning when Secret Service agents may violate the First Amendment. But why do there need to be specific cases since the law is clearly established that viewpoint discrimination violates the First Amendment?

All of these cases were unanimous. All found qualified immunity because of the absence of a case on point. Together they show a court that is very protective of government officials who are sued and that has made it very difficult for victims of constitutional violations to recover.

Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, is one of the nation’s top experts in constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He is the author of seven books, the latest being The Conservative Assault on the Constitution (Simon & Schuster, 2010). His casebook, Constitutional Law, is one of the most widely read law textbooks in the country. Chemerinsky has also written nearly 200 law review articles in journals such as the Harvard Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Northwestern Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Stanford Law Review and Yale Law Journal. He frequently argues appellate cases, including matters before the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeal, and regularly serves as a commentator on legal issues for national and local media. He holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and a B.S. from Northwestern University.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The U.S. Supreme Court Is Marching in Lockstep with the Police State

Posted on June 25, 2014. Filed under: Civil law and order, CIVIL RIGHTS, Constitution, LATEST NEWS | Tags: , , , |


 

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/

 

“[I]f the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can ‘seize’ and ‘search’ him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.”--U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

The U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching innocent motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

A review of the Supreme Court’s rulings over the past 10 years, including some critical ones this term, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014), the Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.

Police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips. In a 5-4 ruling inNavarette v. California (2014), the Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. This ruling came on the heels of a ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Westhoven that driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic route, and having acne are sufficient reasons for a police officer to suspect you of doing something illegal, detain you, search your car, and arrest you–even if you’ve done nothing illegal to warrant the stop in the first place.

Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they’re done in the name of security. In Wood v. Moss (2014), the Court granted “qualified immunity” to Secret Service officials who relocated anti-Bush protesters, despite concerns raised that the protesters’ First Amendment right to freely speak, assemble, and petition their government leaders had been violated. These decisions, part of a recent trend toward granting government officials “qualified immunity”–they are not accountable for their actions–in lawsuits over alleged constitutional violations, merely incentivize government officials to violate constitutional rights without fear of repercussion.

Citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it. The Supreme Court ruled inSalinas v. Texas (2013) that persons who are not under arrest must specifically invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid having their refusal to answer police questions used against them in a subsequent criminal trial. What this ruling says, essentially, is that citizens had better know what their rights are and understand when those rights are being violated, because the government is no longer going to be held responsible for informing you of those rights before violating them.

Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside. In Florida v. Harris (2013), a unanimous Court determined that police officers may use highly unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. In doing so, the justices sided with police by claiming that all that the police need to do to prove probable cause for a search is simply assert that a drug detection dog has received proper training. The ruling turns man’s best friend into an extension of the police state.

Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. InMaryland v. King (2013), a divided Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA. Once again the Court sided with the guardians of the police state over the defenders of individual liberty in determining that DNA samples may be extracted from people arrested for “serious offenses.” While the Court claims to have made its decision based upon concerns of properly identifying criminal suspects upon arrest, what they actually did is open the door for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via DNA sampling.

Police can stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike. The Supreme Court declared in Arizona v. United States (2012) that Arizona police officers have broad authority to stop, search and question individuals–citizen and non-citizen alike. While the law prohibits officers from considering race, color, or national origin, it amounts to little more than a perfunctory nod to discrimination laws on the books, while paving the way for outright racial profiling and destroying the Fourth Amendment.

Police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the “offense.” A divided Supreme Court actually prioritized making life easier for overworked jail officials over the basic right of Americans to be free from debasing strip searches. In its 5-4 ruling in Florence v. Burlington (2012), the Court declared that any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a virtual strip search by police or jail officials, which involves exposing the genitals and the buttocks. This “license to probe” is now being extended to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches–some involving anal and vaginal probes–without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant.

Immunity protections for Secret Service agents trump the free speech rights of Americans. The court issued a unanimous decision in Reichle v. Howards (2012), siding with two Secret Service agents who arrested a Colorado man simply for daring to voice critical remarks to Vice President Cheney. However, contrast the Court’s affirmation of the “free speech” rights of corporations and wealthy donors in McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), which does away with established limits on the number of candidates an entity can support with campaign contributions, and Citizens United v. FEC (2010) with its tendency to deny those same rights to average Americans when government interests abound, and you’ll find a noticeable disparity.

Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King (2011), the Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of abuses by police.

Police can interrogate minors without their parents present. In a devastating ruling that could very well do away with what little Fourth Amendment protections remain to public school students and their families–the Court threw out a lower court ruling in Camreta v. Greene (2011), which required government authorities to secure a warrant, a court order or parental consent before interrogating students at school. The ramifications are far-reaching, rendering public school students as wards of the state. Once again, the courts sided with law enforcement against the rights of the people.

It’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (2004), a majority of the high court agreed that refusing to answer when a policeman asks “What’s your name?” can rightfully be considered a crime under Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute. No longer will Americans, even those not suspected of or charged with any crime, have the right to remain silent when stopped and questioned by a police officer.

The cases the Supreme Court refuses to hear, allowing lower court judgments to stand, are almost as critical as the ones they rule on. Some of these cases, turned away in recent years alone, have delivered devastating blows to the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Legally owning a firearm is enough to justify a no-knock raid by police. Justices refused to hear Quinn v. Texas (2014) the case of a Texas man who was shot by police through his closed bedroom door and whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household.

The military can arrest and detain American citizens. In refusing to hear Hedges v. Obama (2014), a legal challenge to the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), the Supreme Court affirmed that the President and the U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals, including American citizens. In so doing, the high court also passed up an opportunity to overturn its 1944 Korematsu v. United States ruling allowing for the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.

Students can be subjected to random lockdowns and mass searches at school. The Court refused to hear Burlison v. Springfield Public Schools (2013), a case involving students at a Missouri public school who were subjected to random lockdowns, mass searches and drug-sniffing dogs by police. In so doing, the Court let stand an appeals court ruling that the searches and lockdowns were reasonable in order to maintain the safety and security of students at the school.

Police officers who don’t know their actions violate the law aren’t guilty of breaking the law. The Supreme Court let stand a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Brooks v. City of Seattle (2012) in which police officers who clearly used excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a pregnant woman during a routine traffic stop were granted immunity from prosecution. The Ninth Circuit actually rationalized its ruling by claiming that the officers couldn’t have known beyond a reasonable doubt that their actions–tasering a pregnant woman who was not a threat in any way until she was unconscious–violated the Fourth Amendment.

When all is said and done, what these assorted court rulings add up to is a disconcerting government mindset that interprets the Constitution one way for the elite–government entities, the police, corporations and the wealthy–and uses a second measure altogether for the underclasses–that is, you and me.

Keep in mind that in former regimes such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the complicity of the courts was the final piece to fall into place before the totalitarian beast stepped out of the shadows and into the light. If history is a guide, then the future that awaits us is truly frightening.

Time, as they say, grows short.

John W. Whitehead is an attorney and author who has written, debated and practiced widely in the area of constitutional law and human rights. Whitehead’s aggressive, pioneering approach to civil liberties has earned him numerous accolades and accomplishments, including the Hungarian Medal of Freedom. His concern for the persecuted and oppressed led him, in 1982, to establish The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties and human rights organization in Charlottesville, Va. Whitehead serves as the Institute’s president and spokesperson.

Global Research Related Articles

CONTINUE READING…

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Indiana police pepper-spray stripped woman, leave her naked for hours, make her walk through jail nude: lawyer

Posted on June 13, 2014. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, INDIANA, LATEST NEWS, Prison Abuse and Death, Prison Industrial Complex, WTF! | Tags: , , , , , , |


After Tabitha Storms Gentry was arrested on misdemeanor charges, she was forcibly stripped and sat naked in cell overnight, her lawyer said. The New Albany woman is suing police. Officers said she was drunk and violent during the whole incident.

BY Meg Wagner

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Friday, June 13, 2014, 7:38 AM

 

The video showed returning to the cell a few minutes later, still naked.

"They leave her in that room — still with no clothes, with a mat that is now soaking wet from the water — for five more hours before they finally give her a jumpsuit and let her make a phone call," her lawyer said.

Officers said Gentry was drunk and violent throughout the arrest.

According to a report, Gentry was warned that "since she had resisted, threatened and attempted to kick an officer, she was being placed in a smock and the females (officers) were going to remove her clothes."

In another report, police said they pepper-sprayed Gentry to subdue her for "the safety of this facility" because her shouting "agitated other inmates."

Landenwich said what happened to Gentry was a use of excessive force and a cruel and unusual punishment.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/police-pepper-spray-woman-left-naked-jail-hours-lawyer-article-1.1828409#ixzz34Wh9iOna

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Judge Henry Latham’s ruling was filed. "I’m not allowed to give proof why I was using. Now, there is no fair trial."

Posted on June 12, 2014. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, Drug War, LATEST NEWS | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |


           

Since his arrest last summer, Benton Mackenzie has maintained he grew marijuana to treat terminal cancer.

Now, just days ahead of going to trial Monday on drug conspiracy charges, a Scott County District judge has ruled he won’t allow Mackenzie to use his ailment as a defense.

"I’m not allowed to mention anything," Mackenzie said Thursday, the day Judge Henry Latham’s ruling was filed. "I’m not allowed to give proof why I was using. Now, there is no fair trial."

The 48-year-old, who shared his story with the Quad-City Times last September, was diagnosed with angiosarcoma in 2011. It’s a cancer of the blood vessels, in which tumors appear as skin lesions.

He says the lesions have grown enormous since sheriff’s deputies confiscated 71 marijuana plants from his parents’ Long Grove home last summer. He needed all those plants just to be able to extract enough cannabis oil for daily treatments, he says.

Mackenzie wants to be able to tell jurors why he grew marijuana. He wants to show them pictures of his cancerous lesions.

"If I’m to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and the court doesn’t let me tell the truth, they’re making me a liar," he said.

Assistant Scott County Attorney Patrick McElyea, who is prosecuting Mackenzie, filed a motion earlier this month to limit any testimony regarding medical marijuana. He has declined to comment on the case.

McElyea based his motion on the 2005 Iowa Supreme Court decision in State v. Bonjour, a case similar to Mackenzie’s. Lloyd Bonjour, an AIDS patient, was convicted of growing marijuana, and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction.

Latham sided with McElyea’s motion, stating, "The court is not aware of any legislation or been provided with any legislation which provides for such defense."

The judge states he is aware Mackenzie has angiosarcoma. He also is aware Iowa lawmakers recently legalized oil concentrated with cannabidiol, or CBD, with "specific restrictions."

The pending law, expected to be signed today by Gov. Terry Branstad, only applies to those suffering severe epileptic seizures.

Mackenzie says he thinks state government is the "bigger criminal," because it’s practicing medicine without a license in deciding who can and who cannot possess medical marijuana.

"At least the state is now recognizing, with a law, that marijuana has medicinal value," he said, adding his plants were from a strain rich in CBD, which in other states is associated more with medical use than recreational use.

Without the medical necessity defense, Mackenzie said his fate is "completely in the Lord’s hands."

Sitting through several hours of hearings over the past 11 months has been hard enough on someone with lesions covering his legs and rear, he says. He can’t imagine sitting through an entire trial, which is scheduled to begin Monday with jury selection.

He says he may show up to court wearing a kilt, so jurors can see for themselves. But he wouldn’t want his lesions oozing and bleeding all over the courtroom furniture.

"That shows how much of a criminal I’m not," he said.

At one point during a phone conversation with a reporter Thursday afternoon, he reacted because one of his larger lesions opened up and bled onto the chair and floor at home, he said.

"I’m sitting in a pile of blood," he said a moment later.

He wants to request a nurse or a medical provider be allowed to sit in the courtroom with him. He says the judge is allowing breaks, but he expects he’ll have to take a break every few minutes just to replace the large, disposable underpad for furniture.

He anticipates that with his failing health and the number of co-defendants, the trial will come across as a "circus."

Mackenzie is charged with felony drug possession along with his wife, Loretta Mackenzie. His 73-year-old parents, Dorothy and Charles Mackenzie, are charged with hosting a drug house, and his son, Cody, is charged with misdemeanor possession. His childhood friend, Stephen Bloomer, also is charged in the drug conspiracy.

All six defendants are being represented by a different attorney.

Lately, Mackenzie’s health has been "touch and go," he says, with episodes of vomiting, cold sweats and extreme pain. He almost always feels tired.

He raised enough money from family and friends to travel twice this spring to Oregon, which has legalized medical marijuana.

Each trip was a week long. During the first trip, he met with a physician, who approved him for a state medical marijuana identification card. On the second trip, he was able to purchase oil in an amount equivalent to a pound and a half of marijuana, which he couldn’t by law bring back to Iowa.

The little bit of relief is nothing compared to the daily treatments prior to his arrest, when he was shrinking his skin lesions, he said. He claims the oil in Oregon also stopped the growth of the lesions, but only temporarily.

Mackenzie said he hopes jurors will show compassion in deciding his future.

"No matter what, if I’m found guilty, I’ll do at least three years in prison, which is a death sentence for me," he said. "If I’m found guilty at all, I’m a dead man. I’m lucky I’m not dead already."

Copyright 2014 The Quad-City Times. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Tags

Benton Mackenzie, Iowa, Henry Latham, Medical Cannabis, Cannabidiol, Cannabis, Iowa Supreme Court, Mackenzie, Patrick Mcelyea, Cannabis Oil, Lloyd Bonjour, Legalized Oil, Cancer, Marijuana, Medical Marijuana

CONTINUE READING…

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

SB1391 – SB1391.pdf

Posted on May 5, 2014. Filed under: Absolute Assinine Law, CIVIL RIGHTS, Drug Addiction, Drug War, LATEST NEWS | Tags: |


SB1391 – SB1391.pdf.

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39,
relative to criminal law.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE
OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-13-
107(c), in amended by
inserting the word “lawful” before the word “act” an
d inserting the word “lawful” before the word
“omission”.
SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-13-
107(c), is further amended by
adding a new sentence at the end of this subsection as follows:
However, nothing in the section shall preclude prosecution of a woman for an
assaultive offense for the illegal use of a narcotic dru
g while pregnant, if her child is born
addicted to or harmed by the narcotic drug or for crim
inal homicide if her child dies as a
result of her illegal use of a narcotic drug taken while pregnant
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

PLEASE READ THIS…IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU!

Posted on April 17, 2014. Filed under: Attention, CIVIL RIGHTS | Tags: , , , , , , , , |


My name is Karen Ross-Glaser. I am a disabled 43 year-old single mother, who is trying to provide a better life for my family, away from the abuse we suffered in Michigan. We recently relocated to Arizona 3 years ago, due to a domestic violence situation. The children and I all suffer from PTSD, while the younger children have additional health issues. I am working with many agencies including counseling services to help the family heal.

                Recently, I was arrested and mistaken for someone else due to an Identity Theft issue. (http://www.kvoa.com/news/identity-theft-plagues-southern-arizona-residents/). Fifteen of my Civil rights were violated, including my disability act rights. Upon returning home a CPS investigator told myself and witnesses (CarrieAnn Mick and Charlie Warren) that they had taken my children into custody and I needed to sign a form giving CPS temporary three day custody of Elizabeth (16) and David (15). In shock and breaking down, my friend CarrieAnn holding me from collapsing.  I could barely see through my tears and I signed the paper without reading it.

                Later I realized that the form I previously signed was giving custody to CPS and that they are charging me with neglect and failure to protect; due to being incarcerated overnight, and the children being left unattended. Once CPS learned they were in the wrong and that the children did have supervision, even though they are old enough to be on their own. CPS then charged me with Substance abuse of marijuana (I am a legal Medical Marijuana card holder). CPS then ordered my oldest son and wife to not allow me contact with my newborn grandson.

                The children have been in custody since January 28th. Our counseling has been stopped and they haven’t arranged any visits for us. The courts ordered our counseling to continue and weekly visits to be given, yet CPS hasn’t complied. Since the children were placed in foster care they have been missing twice, skipped school a few times, been in a fight which resulted in a suspension from school and CPS has even allowed my son David who has a closed head injury to join a boxing group. Since the children have been gone, my disability has been cut and assessed child support. I am now at risk of losing our home. I am doing everything I can to raise the funds to hire the attorneys needed to handle this case. I have had to take in renters to help cover expenses and stay afloat. Yet, I am still struggling and haven’t been able to retain an attorney. While time is running out!

                I am being wrongfully accused and have the documentation to prove my innocents. I am fighting for my family, to clear my name, get my children back and save our home. I am desperate and pleading for any and all help that the public can give us!

*PLEASE HELP ME SAVE MY FAMILY*

The problem with this situation trying to find legal help is that it is so widespread and complicated. I’ve been told I need a team of different types of lawyers to handle everything involved;

-Family Law Attorney/Dependency Attorney

-Criminal Lawyer/Identity Theft/MMJ Attorney

-Bankruptcy/Tax

-Personal Injury Attorney

-Civil Rights Attorney

-Civil Attorney

-ADA Attorney

- See more at: http://www.youcaring.com/help-a-neighbor/please-help-to-save-my-family/161606#sthash.L1tvj4hc.dpuf

 

 

 

Holler out to FRIENDS and FAMILY~ EVERYONE;
For ALL of you that didn’t know… I am going on trial in less than 2 weeks. On May 1st, I face the judge on the charges against me. I pray that justice will prevail. I have done everything I could think of within my power, to bring the truth to light. I still don’t have the means to afford the attorneys needed to clear my name and bring my kids home.
I am letting you all know because I refuse to let this be. I am INNOCENT!
I may be gone soon and these post, over the next week may be my only voice left. PLEASE let my story be known.
*Take a moment to check this out; if you can… Everything helps
ATTORNEY’s ARE NEEDED!
Click on the Help and donation sites for case information and updates that includes photo evidence.
http://fnd.us/c/ejlN4/sh/5eoIf
NBC kvoa link to story of my Identity theft and the Severity of it.
http://www.kvoa.com/news/identity-theft-plagues-southern-arizona-residents/
This is NOT A SCAM! I am desperate…
PLEASE Help save my children & clear name.
http://www.youcaring.com/help-a-neighbor/please-help-to-save-my-family/161606
Thanks and Love, Karen Ross-Glaser Photography
http://www.gofundme.com/7zvo4o

PLEASE Help Karen save her children & clear name!

Kids taken CPS custody, Identity stolen & accused of being a substance abuser of Medical marijuana while being a legal card holder in AZ. Anything you can do is greatly appreciated. PLEASE share to everyone you know.Thanks in advance. My name is Karen …

fundrazr.com

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

NASHVILLE, TN: Civil War: The Untold Story

Posted on April 4, 2014. Filed under: APPALACHIA, CIVIL RIGHTS, EDUCATIONAL, Historical, War and Order | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |


The Untold Story is a visually stunning and absorbing new 5-hour documentary series that breaks new ground by examining the war through the lens of the Western Theater – battles in the strategic lands between the Appalachians and Mississippi River. Narrated by Elizabeth McGovern (Downton Abbey) the series premieres nationally on public television stations beginning in April 2014 (check local listings).

Rather than revisit the oft-told stories of the battles of Bull Run, Antietam and Gettysburg in the eastern states of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia, this gripping and comprehensive new series instead tells the stories of Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chickamauga, Atlanta, and other battles in lands then known as “the West.” Many historians believe that the Western Theater was where the war was won and lost. In addition to the epic battles, Civil War: The Untold Story provides new insights into the relatively unknown roles African Americans played in the conflict, from enslaved to emancipated to soldier.

civil war 2

Filmed in a sweeping cinematic style, Civil War: The Untold Story painstakingly recreates the battles of the Western Theater in a thoroughly authentic manner. Many scenes were filmed on the very grounds where these epic battles were fought, which add to the sheer magnitude of history felt throughout the films. The series also uses state-of-the-art 2D and 3D graphics, fascinating archival imagery, and incisive expert commentary by Civil War historians and scholars.

Timed to coincide with the 150-year anniversary of the pivotal ‘Campaign for Atlanta,’ the series also chronicles the presidential campaign of 1864 in which Abraham Lincoln was nearly defeated. In many ways, Civil War: The Untold Story can be considered a prequel to Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln. Within the story of the Western Theater, the series highlights the causes of war, the home front, the politics of war, and the impact of war on Southern civilians and women. The authenticity of uniforms, voiceovers and scenery, makes it seemingly impossible to distinguish this modern adaptation from the actual war so many years ago.

Civil War: The Untold Story is produced for public television by Great Divide Pictures, which, in addition to numerous cable television documentaries, has created more than 25 films shown in National Parks Visitor Centers around the country. The series is sponsored by Nashville Public Television and will be distributed to public television stations nationally by American Public Television (APT).

“The film is not just about who we were then. It’s about who we are now,” said producer Chris Wheeler. “In a nation arguably as divided today as we were 150 years ago, Civil War: The Untold Story is a compelling, relevant program that we believe will strike a powerful chord with Americans today.”

Interspersed are compelling on-camera interviews with some of America’s top Civil War historians  including Allen Guelzo, Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era at Gettysburg College; Peter Carmichael, Robert C. Fluhrer Professor of Civil War Studies at Gettysburg College; Amy Murrell Taylor, Associate Professor of History at the University of Kentucky; and Stacy Allen, the Chief Historian at Shiloh National Military Park.

Civil war 5

Episode 1: Bloody Shiloh
With the 1860 election of anti-slavery candidate Abraham Lincoln, thirteen states from the South secede and form the Confederate States of America. Union military leaders, along with Lincoln himself, realize that ending the rebellion rests on controlling the Mississippi River. In February 1862, Union forces, led by an obscure general named Ulysses S. Grant, establish a foothold in southern Tennessee near a simple log structure known as Shiloh Church. On April 6, 1862, a Confederate force of over 40-thousand, led by General Albert Sidney Johnston, launch a surprise attack on Grant. The fighting in the hellish terrain surrounding Shiloh is some of the most brutal of the entire war. By day’s end, victory is in sight for the attacking Confederates. But Johnston has been struck in the leg by a bullet, and bleeds to death in 20 minutes. The death of Johnston is a harbinger of a great change that will soon sweep over ‘Bloody Shiloh.’

Episode 2: A Beacon of Hope
In the disaster at Shiloh, Union General Ulysses S. Grant sees victory. On the night of April 6, 1862, Grant’s beleaguered army along the Tennessee River is reinforced. The next morning, Grant’s counterattack leads to victory. The defeated Confederate force of 40-thousand retreats south to Corinth, Mississippi. At Shiloh, the Confederates lose arguably their best opportunity to change the outcome of the war. The shocking combined casualties of 24-thousand men is more than in all the wars fought to that date in the United States. Many of the nearly 4 million slaves across the South see the war as an opportunity to seize their own destiny. Thousands of escaping slaves, dubbed contrabands, seek refuge with Union forces advancing into the South. At Corinth, Mississippi, the Union army sets up a contraband camp. The former slaves begin building a community that includes a school, hospital, and church. As thousands of slaves flee northward, the question asked all over America is this: are they still slaves or are they now free. In a cottage overlooking Washington DC, Abraham Lincoln begins drafting a proclamation whose message will boldly answer that question.

Episode 3: River of Death
Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation does not only free slaves in the rebelling states. It changes the war from one of reunification, to one of ending slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation also gives African Americans freedom to fight. By war’s end, some 200,000 will enlist. In truth, Lincoln’s proclamation is an empty promise without the power of the United States Army to enforce it. In 1863, Ulysses S. Grant begins a campaign to take Vicksburg, Mississippi, a Confederate citadel overlooking a strategic section of the lower Mississippi River. In May, Grant begins laying siege to the city of 4500. Mary Loughborough is one of the many terrified civilians who have dug caves into the hillsides for protection. Clutching her 2-year old daughter, Mary “endeavored by constant prayer to prepare myself for the sudden death I was almost certain awaited me.” On July 4, 1863, the day after Pickett’s disastrous charge at Gettysburg, the Confederates surrender Vicksburg to Grant. With the Mississippi River now under Union control, the campaign moves eastward to Chattanooga, Tennessee, a rail center that Lincoln considers to be as important as the Confederate capital of Richmond. Eight miles south, along the Chickamauga – a creek the Cherokee call the river of death – Union and Confederate forces clash in what will become the biggest battle of the Western Theater.

Episode 4: Death Knell of the Confederacy
September 19, 1863. The first day of the Battle of Chickamauga ends in a bloody draw. On the next day, the battle is determined by one of the biggest blunders of the Civil War. Miscommunication, confusion, and fatigue with Union General William Rosecrans and his generals have left a gap in the Union line more than a quarter mile wide. James Longstreet?s force of 11,000 from the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, pour through the gap and split the Union army in two. Rosecrans and his beaten army escape to Chattanooga. Chickamauga’s combined casualties of 34,000 are only topped by the carnage at Gettysburg. In October, Rosecrans is replaced by U.S. Grant, who immediately plans an offensive. In November 1863, Grant routes the Confederate stronghold just outside Chattanooga. As they escape southward into Georgia, a Confederate officer calls the devastating defeat: the death knell of the Confederacy.
Episode 5: With Malice Toward None
In the spring of 1864, General William Tecumseh Sherman’s force of 100-thousand men marches from Chattanooga toward Atlanta, Georgia, the industrial hub of the Deep South. Twenty miles north of Atlanta, Sherman’s army is soundly defeated at Kennesaw Mountain. Sherman’s defeat combined with Grant’s stalemate in Virginia, enrages a Northern electorate already weary of war. The presidential election is in November, and Abraham Lincoln’s chances for a second term are dwindling by the day. The Democrats nominate George McClellan. The party’s platform calls for a negotiated peace with the Confederacy in which slaveholders will be allowed to keep their property. If McClellan is elected, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation will almost certainly be struck down. Though victorious at Kennesaw Mountain, the outnumbered Confederate Army falls back to a defensive position at Atlanta. After six weeks of bloody conflicts around Atlanta, Sherman wires Washington: “Atlanta is ours and fairly won.” For the first time in the war, many in the North now believe victory can be achieved. Eight weeks later, the president defeats McClellan in a landslide. After the election, Sherman begins his March to the Sea. The largely unopposed march across Georgia to Savannah is a psychological blow to the Confederacy, and a stunning conclusion to the Western Theater.

To view video clips, images and additional information on Civil War: The Untold Story, follow the series on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/CivilWarTheUntoldStory .

CONTINUE READING HERE….http://businessclarksville.com/arts/epic-series-spotlights-african-american-role-in-civil-war/2014/03/30/62051

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

GPS, The FBI, and the Fourth Amendment

Posted on March 31, 2014. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS | Tags: , , , , , |


 

 

In 2004, Antoine Jones, owner and operator of a nightclub in D.C. was suspected of trafficking in narcotics. Various investigative leads were used by the DC police and the FBI, including visual surveillance, use of a camera focused on the front door of his club, and a pen register.

Based on information gathered from the sources, the investigators sought a search warrant allowing them to install an electronic tracking devise on a vehicle Jones used, a Jeep Grand Cherokee. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a warrant authorizing the investigators to install the GPS tracking device in the District of Columbia within ten days. Then agents installed the device on the undercarriage of the Jeep on the 11th day, and while the jeep was in a public parking lot in Maryland.

After 28-day’s surveillance, Jones’ associates and stash houses were identified. District Police seized a total of 97 kilos of cocaine and $850,000. Jones and several of his co-conspirators were indicted, tried, and convicted in 2007.  They were sentenced to life in prison.

On appeal, the government had to concede they did not comply with the terms of the warrant, so they argued that a warrant was not needed. All 9 justices disagreed, for three different reasons. The main argument was that Jones’ vehicle was on a public street and there was no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Justices also took the position that police already had probable cause (which they needed for the warrant).  This probable cause was usually sufficient to search a car on the roadway, but that argument failed as it was not made to the lower court. Another position argued below was that it was not Jones’ car, as it was registered to his wife.  That argument was also waived as not being raised in the Supreme Court.  What was the ruling?

Five justices said the government trespassed upon private property (the undercarriage), similar to a constable hiding in the baggage compartment to see where it was going, or to overhear the conversations of the passengers, something which would have violated the constitution at the time it was first adopted.

Four others felt Jones did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the use of the long term GPS tracking of his movements. One of the five, agreeing with the trespass holding, was more concerned with short term tracking, finding it invasive to see if a person visited a psychiatrist, an abortion clinic, a criminal defense attorney, a gay bar, an AIDS treatment center, which house of worship you go to or a pay by the hour motel.

What do we learn from this case? Comply with the conditions of the warrant. Serve it in the jurisdiction, and within the time frame. The court left open the question of the modern technology that would also allow tracking without actually placing a device on the car, with or without a warrant. U.S. v. Jones, January 23, 2012

David M. Waksman, J.D., is a nationally known former homicide prosecutor with vast experience in trying violent offenders and a former sergeant with the NYPD. He served for 35 years with of the Miami-Dade (Fla.) State Attorney’s Office, primarily in the Major Crimes Division. He teaches Case Preparation and Courtroom Presentation, Police Involved Shootings, Injury and Death Investigations, and Criminal Law, at the Miami Dade College School of Justice, In-Service Training Unit and at various police departments in South Florida.  He also taught for twenty years at the Homicide Seminar for the Southern Police Institute. His specialty is Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues. He has tried almost 200 jury trials, including 79 for first degree murder. He is the author of the Search and Seizure Handbook, 3/ed.  It was cited by the United States Supreme Court in Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), available from Prentice Hall.

Learn more about this article here:

http://www.amazon.com/David-M.-Waksman/e/B001JRV3Q8

- See more at: http://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/2012/09/24/gps-the-fbi-and-the-fourth-amendment/#sthash.w0UcIBKb.dpuf

CONTINUE READING THRU THIS LINK….

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Probable Cause: Linchpin of the 4th Amendment

Posted on March 31, 2014. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS | Tags: , , , , , , |


 

 

Except for the definition and mechanism of proving treason, no area of the Constitution addressing the rights of all persons when the government is pursuing them is more specific than the Fourth Amendment. The linchpin of that specificity is the requirement that the government demonstrate probable cause to a judge as a precondition to the judge issuing a search warrant. The other specific requirement is identity: The government must identify whose property it wishes to search or whose behavior it wishes to monitor, because the Fourth Amendment requires that all warrants specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.

The principal reason for these requirements is the colonial revulsion over general warrants. A general warrant does not specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized, and it is not based on the probable cause of criminal behavior of the person targeted by the government.

With a general warrant, the government simply gets authority from a judge to search a haystack looking for a needle, and in the process, it may disturb and move all the straw it wants. Stated differently, a general warrant permits the government to intrude upon the privacy of persons as to whom it has no probable cause of criminal behavior and without stating what it is looking for.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court has been issuing general warrants to the National Security Agency (NSA) since 1978, but it was not until last June that we learned that these general warrants have been executed upon the telephone calls, text messages, emails, bank records, utility bills and credit card bills of all persons in America since 2009.

The constitutional requirement of probable cause is not political fancy; rather, it saves us from tyranny. Probable cause is a quantum of evidence that is sufficient to lead a neutral judge to conclude that the person about whom the evidence has been presented is more likely than not to possess further evidence of criminal behavior, or has more likely than not engaged in criminal behavior that is worthy of the government’s use of its investigatory tools such that the government may lawfully and morally invade that person’s natural right to privacy.

Last week, Robert S. Litt, general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which runs the NSA, engaged in a curious colloquy with members of the president’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Litt complained that presenting probable cause about individuals to judges and then seeking search warrants from those judges to engage in surveillance of each of those individuals is too difficult.

This is a remarkable admission from the chief lawyer for the nation’s spies. He and the 60,000 NSA employees and vendors who have been spying on us have taken oaths to uphold the Constitution. There are no loopholes in their oaths. Each person’s oath is to the entire Constitution — whether compliance is easy or difficult.

Yet the “too difficult” admission has far-reaching implications.

This must mean that the NSA itself acknowledges that it is seeking and executing general warrants because the warrants the Constitution requires are too difficult to obtain. Stated differently, the NSA knows it is violating the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, because that amendment expressly forbids general warrants.

In my career as a lawyer, judge, law professor, author and television commentator, I have heard many excuses for violating the Constitution. I reject all of them when they come from one who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, yet I understand the intellectually honest excuses — like exigent circumstances — when they are based on duty. The NSA’s excuses are not intellectually honest, and they are not based on duty. They are based on laziness.

But there was more than met the eye in Litt’s testimony last week. Two days after Litt admitted to the use of general warrants, and while the president was in Europe, the White House leaked to the press its plans to curtail the massive NSA spying. Those plans, which would change only the appearance of what the NSA does but not its substance, have three parts.

The first change relieves the NSA of the need for general warrants to require delivery of massive amounts of data about innocent Americans as to which the NSA has no probable cause, because the second change requires the computer servers and telecoms to preserve their records — instead of the NSA preserving them — and make them “immediately” available to the NSA when it comes calling. And the third is the requirement of a warrant from a FISA judge before the NSA may access that stored data. But because that warrant is not based on probable cause but rather on NSA whim, it is a foregone conclusion that the general warrants for examination, as opposed to delivery, will be granted. The FISA court has granted well in excess of 99 percent of the general warrants the NSA has sought.

Litt must have known what the White House planned to leak when he made his “too difficult” complaint, as it fits nicely with this new scheme. Yet the scheme itself, because it lacks the requirement of probable cause that the Constitution requires, is equally as unconstitutional and morally repugnant as what the NSA has been doing for five years. Moreover, the NSA will not exactly go hat in hand to the computer servers and telecoms once it wishes to hear telephone calls or read emails or credit card bills. Its agents will simply press a few buttons on their computers when they wish, and the data they seek will be made available to them.

These so-called changes should be rejected by Congress, which should overhaul the NSA instead. Hasn’t Congress seen enough? The NSA and the CIA spy on the courts, Congress, the military, the police and everyone in America. This keeps none of us safer. But it does lessen our freedom when those in whose hands we repose the Constitution for safekeeping look the other way. What other freedoms are slipping because Congress, too, thinks upholding the Constitution is too difficult?

CONTINUE READING…

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

OPERATION R.A.I.D. Remove Aggressive, Impaired. and Distracted Drivers from Kentucky Roadways, Kentucky State Police

Posted on February 13, 2014. Filed under: Civil law and order, CIVIL RIGHTS, Kentucky State Police | Tags: , , , |


BOWLING GREEN, Ky. (WBKO) To increase driving safety, Kentucky State Police is starting a new “safe driving program”.

Operation R.A.I.D (Remove aggressive, Impaired. and Distracted Drivers from Kentucky Roadways) will remain active for one year.

Law enforcement will be more visible and the number of check points will increase.

This program will allow each post to identify target areas.

"Not only just texting, but any distracting drivers. This includes eating and drinking. We are going to be out looking for those people. You’re going to see a major force when it comes time for St. Patrick’s Day weekend and holiday weekends," said Trooper Biven, Kentucky State Police.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’ studies show two-thirds of all fatal crashes link to aggressive drivers.

CONTINUE READING AND VIEW VIDEO HERE:

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

we petition the obama administration to: Issue a specific statement regarding preservation of Sovereignty and The Constitution from outside influence

Posted on January 28, 2014. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, Petitions | Tags: , , , |


Hierarchy of Law

http://usann.us/images/bg_mqyy.jpg

December 16, 2013

We begin yet again: a new 30-day window for signature gathering for our petition to protect our Sovereignty and our Constitution.

We require a specific statement from The White House regarding what efforts The White House will take & when, in support of a proposal for a Constitutional Amendment [called "Hierarchy of Law" at http://www.usann.us/Hierarchy_of_Law.html & further explained on that site], to preserve Sovereignty, and The Constitution as the guiding Law of the Land, & by ensuring a specific clarification of a hierarchy within the structures provided within & under that Constitution; or, a statement of why such support is not & will not be provided.

The proposal is largely designed to keep UN & similar attempts against US sovereignty, as regarding arms and the Law of the Sea Treaty, from ever allowing the UN or others to dictate to the US, while still allowing the US to adopt positions in line with such.

This petition is hosted on a White House site, https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/issue-specific-statement-regarding-preservation-sovereignty-and-constitution-outside-influence/TPXj9X26 [or http://wh.gov/l8XXM] which does require a name and an email address to “open an account”, which takes just a couple of minutes; it also hosts a lot of other petitions, accessible through the same account. It might be worth checking out even if you don’t like ours.

While we think this is clear enough for just about anybody to sign without even having to read the material referenced, we invite you to do the reading. We are pretty sure any examination of the material will only further encourage folk to sign. We hope it will also encourage people to recommend to virtually everybody they know, to sign also.

While we hold The Constitution in great esteem here, considering it something of a holy document [the house Barbarian calls it one part of his Holy Trinity], we do not see it as the beginning and ending of all things Great and Good.  Neither did those who wrote it, evidenced by one of the most miraculous features of the document: the provision(s) for amending it.
We do not consider proposing Amendment lightly for a number of reasons.  We do not think that all situations necessarily call for a change to The Constitution, in part because we think most answers are already there.  We also are not at all sure that we are somehow blessed with a special combination of skills and talents uniquely and adequately suited to the task, and we certainly claim no exclusivity in such if we are found to be reasonably suited in this instance.
Still, the ravages of 200 years of neglect in some quarters, and the creativity of some of those less-enlightened than The Founders, has brought on situations that do indeed call for changes  — and in some cases, changes to changes [like rescinding the 17th Amendment, thereby returning election of Senators to the State legislatures].  We believe that the most appropriate means by which to address this problem — and it is a problem — is, unfortunately, by Constitutional Amendment.
What follows is adapted from a more extensive work in progress [the proposal being only one of a series which are intended and structured to work together, though each is also constructed to work as an independent piece: another is "Fiscal Responsibility", for which we've set up a separate petition and ask assistance there as well], which we hope will explain the rather strong copyright restriction.

Loss of Sovereignty

Loss of sovereignty has been seen here for a long time.  We have watched for years as Congress made itself less and less relevant, and as the Administration and even the Judiciary sought more and more accord with international entities than with the people of the country.   Consider the array of U.N. Treaties and accords [by whatever name known] on the environment, childrens’ rights, Agenda 21, and firearms, just for openers.  Obama and his Secretary of State and others have been heading that way since coming to Power, in a number of ways and on a number of fronts; they are not the first, but they’ve been going at it with unprecedented vigor and thoroughness.

We at this site believe that the country is on the brink, not just financially, and not just on sovereignty, and not just on those two items: we are in big trouble in too many ways to address in what might be seen as "a sound bite" or a blog entry.

But the threat to Sovereignty demands, as we see it, immediate response, and if it costs us potential future earnings, well, at least we might still live, and in a country where earnings are at least a potential.  We also have seen the threat to Sovereignty as being way beyond war-making powers, which is what has brought this to a head, and we have devised our REMEDY to address Sovereignty specifically, rather than any form an attack on it might take.  We think readers will find it covers "a multitude of sins".

PLEASE CONTINUE READING THIS INFORMATION THRU THIS LINK.  IT IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE FOR EVERYONE TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION – EVEN IF THEY DO NO AGREE WITH IT.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Earl Blumenauer Wants Obama To Drop Marijuana From Dangerous Drug List

Posted on January 28, 2014. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, Marijuana & the Law | Tags: , , , , , , , , |


earl blumenauer marijuana

Rep. Earl Blumenauer speaks on Capitol Hill about the tax treatment of state-legal marijuana businesses, as anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist listens. | Michael McAuliff

Follow:

Earl Blumenauer, Marijuana, Schedule I, Controlled Substances Act, Earl Blumenauer Marijuana, Eric Holder Marijuana, Marijuana, Marijuana, Marijuana Schedule I, Obama Marijuana Legalization, Politics News

WASHINGTON — With federal law enforcement officials moving to make it easier for marijuana businesses to operate in states where they are legal, one member of Congress is calling on President Barack Obama to take the next logical step and remove pot from the federal government’s list of tightly restricted drugs.

Marijuana is listed on Schedule I, along with heroin and LSD, under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The Drug Enforcement Administration says that such drugs have "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse" and that they are "the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence."

But Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), a longtime advocate for loosening restrictions on marijuana, thinks that definition clearly doesn’t apply to weed, which can now be medically prescribed in many states. He’s begun circulating a letter to the president among other members of Congress, seeking signers who will ask that marijuana be stricken from the controlled substances categories or at least moved to a less restrictive schedule.

"Schedule I recognizes no medical use, disregarding both medical evidence and the laws of nearly half of the states that have legalized medical marijuana," the letter says.

According to Blumenauer’s spokesman, the congressman had been thinking about such a request for a while, but was sparked to pursue it after Obama told The New Yorker magazine that he thought pot was less destructive than booze.

"You said that you don’t believe marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol: a fully legalized substance, and believe it to be less dangerous ‘in terms of its impact on the individual consumer.’ This is true," says the letter. "Marijuana, however, remains listed in the federal Controlled Substances Act at Schedule I, the strictest classification, along with heroin and LSD. This is a higher listing than cocaine and methamphetamine, Schedule II substances that you gave as examples of harder drugs. This makes no sense."

Blumenauer will gain a better sense of how many of his colleagues want to sign on to the effort when Congress returns next week, but it will likely require more than a token level of support to sway Obama. In spite of the president’s comments, White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters last week that Obama remains opposed to decriminalizing pot.

The administration has the authority to determine which substances are and are not on the controlled schedules. Congress can also pass laws to change those lists.

Here is Blumenauer’s full letter:

We were encouraged by your recent comments in your interview with David Remnick in the January 27, 2014 issue of the New Yorker, about the shifting public opinion on the legalization of marijuana. We request that you take action to help alleviate the harms to society caused by the federal Schedule I classification of marijuana.

Lives and resources are wasted on enforcing harsh, unrealistic, and unfair marijuana laws. Nearly two-thirds of a million people every year are arrested for marijuana possession. We spend billions every year enforcing marijuana laws, which disproportionately impact minorities. According to the ACLU, black Americans are nearly four times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana possession, despite comparable marijuana usage rates.

You said that you don’t believe marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol: a fully legalized substance, and believe it to be less dangerous "in terms of its impact on the individual consumer." This is true. Marijuana, however, remains listed in the federal Controlled Substances Act at Schedule I, the strictest classification, along with heroin and LSD. This is a higher listing than cocaine and methamphetamine, Schedule II substances that you gave as examples of harder drugs. This makes no sense.

Classifying marijuana as Schedule I at the federal level perpetuates an unjust and irrational system. Schedule I recognizes no medical use, disregarding both medical evidence and the laws of nearly half of the states that have legalized medical marijuana. A Schedule I or II classification also means that marijuana businesses in states where adult or medical use are legal cannot deduct business expenses from their taxes or take tax credits due to Section 280E of the federal tax code.

We request that you instruct Attorney General Holder to delist or classify marijuana in a more appropriate way, at the very least eliminating it from Schedule I or II. Furthermore, one would hope that your Administration officials publicly reflect your views on this matter. Statements such as the one from DEA chief of operations James L. Capra that the legalization of marijuana at the state level is "reckless and irresponsible" serve no purposes other than to inflame passions and misinform the public.

Thank you for your continued thoughtfulness about this important issue. We believe the current system wastes resources and destroys lives, in turn damaging families and communities. Taking action on this issue is long overdue.

Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Felons’ Voting Rights Proposal Clears House

Posted on January 17, 2014. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, LATEST NEWS, legislation | Tags: , , , |


Posted: Fri 12:51 AM, Jan 17, 2014

 

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) – A bill seeking to amend Kentucky’s Constitution to restore voting rights for some felons

has sailed through the state House. Unlike past years, the proposed ballot issue may have a chance in the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Damon Thayer said Thursday it may be an issue "whose time has come," with some changes.

Thayer said he doesn’t support the current proposal. But he raised the possibility of amending it to include a waiting

period before some felons would regain voting rights.

The proposal in its current form would allow some felons to automatically regain voting rights once they complete

their sentences. It passed the House on Thursday.

Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul is urging the GOP-led state Senate to take up the measure.

CONTINUE READING…

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Kentucky Bill Seeks to Nullify Warrantless Drone Spying

Posted on January 15, 2014. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, Kentucky & KY State Gov., KY ELECTIONS, LATEST NEWS |


http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2013/12/Kentucky-flag.jpg

 

 

The Kentucky legislature will consider a bill in the 2014 legislative session that would take significant steps towards protecting people there from prying eyes in the sky.

Representatives Diane St. Onge (R-Lakeside Park) and Brent Yonts (D-Greenville) have introduced House Bill 11 (HB11). If passed, the act would prohibit the use of drones by Kentucky state law enforcement and other agencies without a warrant in most cases.

The bill states that “No prohibited agency shall use a drone carrying a lethal payload” and that “no prohibited agency shall use a drone to gather evidence or other information” without a search warrant. Prohibited agencies include state law enforcement agencies, domestic or foreign corporations, foreign governmental or intergovernmental entities and any agent of any prohibited agency.

The legislation also makes any evidence gathered in violation of the law inadmissible in court.

The act does make exceptions allowing the use of drones for gathering information when the proper legal process has been followed and for training by active service members of the United States military stationed in Kentucky.

While some might find the exceptions troubling, it represents a huge improvement over the status quo. As it stands now, law enforcement can use drones in Kentucky with absolutely no restrictions. This bill stops drone use without a warrant in most cases.

The legislation does not address drone use by the federal government, but Tenth Amendment Center’s executive director Michael Boldin said that this kind of bill does have significant ramifications at the federal level because Washington is pushing and funding drone use in the states.

“The feds want to push these on the states, and if the states refuse, it’ll foil their plan,” he said. “They already spy on Americans so much that Rand Paul said it numbered in the ‘Gazillions’ after a secret meeting last fall. If the feds can get the states to start buying up and running drones over our cities, they’ll certainly want access to all that surveillance  information in the future. It’s important that states begin drawing a line in the sand now – no aerial spying here.”

In fact, the federal government serves as the primary engine behind the expansion of drone surveillance carried out by states and local communities. The Department of Homeland Security issues large grants to local governments so they can purchase drones. Those grants, in and of themselves, represent an unconstitutional expansion of power.

The goal? Fund a network of drones around the country and put the operational burden on the states. Once they create a web over the whole country, DHS steps in with requests for ‘information sharing.’  Bills like these put a dent in this kind of long-term strategy. Without the states and local communities operating the drones today, it’s going to be nearly impossible for DHS plans to – take off.

HB11 was prefiled April 11, 2013 and referred to the Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary to start the 2014 legislative session.

ACTION ITEMS

If you live in Kentucky

1. Contact committee members and ask them to move the Citizens’ Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act out of committee for a floor vote. You can find committee member contact information HERE.

2. Contact your own senator and ask him or her to support the Citizens’ Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act You can find legislator contact information HERE.

3.  Share this information widely.  Please pass this along to your friends and family.  Also share it with any and all grassroots groups you’re in contact with around the state.  Please encourage them to email this information to their members and supporters.

LEGISLATION AND TRACKING 

If you don’t live in Kentucky, encourage your representative and senator to introduce legislation to stop drone use. You can track efforts nationwide HERE. You can find model legislation HERE.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )

Fighting the good fight in the North American Continent

Posted on January 10, 2014. Filed under: Activists Opinions, CIVIL RIGHTS, LATEST NEWS, Rev. Mary Thomas-Spears | Tags: , , , , , , , |


#HUNGERSTRIKE #PROTEST #ACTIVIST #ACTIONS #DIVERSE_SANCTUARY #NEWYORK
UPDATE FROM CANADA James Kevin Moore , C4C LEADER, FOUNDING MINISTER OF OUR DIVERSE SANCTUARY CANADIAN LODGE WHO HAS JOINED Lisa Mamakind Kirkman IN HER CONTINUED, THEIR CONTINUED HUNGERSTRIKE AND PROTEST FOR PATIENTS RIGHTS AND GARDEN RIGHTS FOR THIS LIFE SAVING PLANT WHICH ARE BEING TAKEN. IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS GROWING COMPASSION AND SUPPORT FOR OUR MEMBERS WHO HAVE TAKEN THIS ACTION OUT OF LACK OF MORE SUITABLE OPTIONS. LIKE LIVING HOLISTICALLY AND BEING SELF SUSTAINABLE. NOT WANTING TO BE OR TIRED OF BEING MADE DEPENDENT UPON SOME FORM OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAM OR APPROVAL TO ALLOW THEM THEIR BASIC SOVEREIGN HUMAN RIGHTS.
IT APPEARS THAT HERE IN THE STATES THE RUSH TO CONTINUE THE SAME LEGALIZE = LEGAL LIES. THAT HAS LEAD TO THIS CONTINUED PROHIBITION OF A PLANT, GARDENS AND LIVES TO FURTHER THE PROFITS OF ALL THOSE WHO CAN CLEAN UP FROM ANY ABUSE, DISTORTION, EXTORTION, MUTATION, AND PATENT OVER THIS PLANT AND THE NEEDS OF OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS WHO ARE ILL AND DYING. SO THEY CAN GET HIGH ON PROFITS!
AS ONE OF OUR SISTERS AND MEMBERS Kimberleigh Krepp OUR LEADER OF #NEW_YORK4CANNABIS CONTINUES TO STAND ALONE AND PROTEST FOR ALL OUT REPEAL IN NEW YORK, AS THEY ARE PREPARING TO HAND DOWN THEIR NEW PATIENT LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS. THAT COULD PUT PATIENTS IN JAIL AND TAKE THEIR MEDICINE TO PLACE ON THE MARKET FOR NEW CARD CARRYING REGISTERED PATIENTS TO BUY. THAT’S RIGHT! THEY WILL TAKE YOUR WEED AND PUT YOU IN JAIL WHILE THEY SELL YOUR WEED TO SOMEONE ELSE. ISN’T IT BEAUTIFUL. REALLY! A NEVER ENDING WAR ON YOU AND THIS PLANT. EVEN IF YOU REGISTER. YOU WILL ABIDE BY ANY OTHER REGULATIONS OR BE JAILED. WHILE THEY DECIDE HOW YOU TAKE IT AND WHAT YOUR GIVEN AND WE ALL KNOW THEY COULD GIVE IT TO YOU UP YOUR ASS AND IF THEY CAN THEY WILL. DON’T MEDICATE AND DRIVE… JUST ASK PATIENTS IN ANY OF THE OTHER LEGAL STATES. IT ALL CAN BE COSTLY TO YOUR HEALTH AND BANK ACCOUNT. STRESS KILLS. WHILE THEY TAX YOU DOUBLE FOR IT AND CALL IT FREEDOM. GOT TO LOVE HOW THEY MARKET IT. #FREEDOM THAT IS. WHICH IS ALL THEY WERE GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO DO. CONTROL CURRENCY AND THE MARKET PLACE.
WHILE HERE IN KENTUCKY AS THE RUSH FOR LEGAL LIES = LEGALIZE STILL CONTINUES. THE MARKET PLACE IS BEGINNING TO BE PREPARED BEFORE THE LAWS ARE EVEN PASSED. I, MARY THOMAS-SPEARS aka #REV_MARY , FOUNDING MINISTER OF KENTUCKY’S OLDEST ESTABLISHED AND ONLY EXISTING 420 MINISTRY HERE IN KENTUCKY, {THAT WE KNOW OF} DIVERSE SANCTUARY, BOARD MEMBER OF A4C, HEAD OF KENTUCKY FOR CANNABIS, BOARD MEMBER U.S. MARIJUANA PARTY AND ADMIN OF THE KENTUCKY MARIJUANA PARTY WILL BE THE FEATURED SPEAKER THIS WEEKEND IN LOUISVILLE AT A WORK SHOP THAT IS BEING HOSTED BY #HELLOCOMFYTREE FOR A $149 A SEAT. THAT WILL EXPLAIN THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA INDUSTRY TO ALL THOSE HERE IN KY WHO ARE WANTING TO SET UP SHOP HERE AND/OR PROFIT IN KENTUCKY. INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO "HOW TO OPEN A DISPENSARY". I WILL BE SPEAKING ON REPEAL, NULLIFICATION, AND RESCHEDULING TO END PROHIBITION AND KEEPING THIS PLANT GMO FREE IN OUR PERSONAL GARDENS. I WOULD NOT EXCEPT PAY TO SPEAK AT THIS EVENT. OTHER THAN MY GAS MONEY TO GET THERE AND BACK. DESPITE THEIR OFFER OR MY NEED. I FELT IT WAS JUST TOO IMPORTANT A MESSAGE AND I COULDN’T FEEL RIGHT GETTING PAID OR TAKING YOUR MONEY FOR TRYING TO FREE THIS PLANT OR THE PEOPLE HERE. HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE, SOON, I MUST PREPARE. WILL BE TRAVELING WITH Sheree Krider OWNER AND ADMIN OF THE U.S. MARIJUANA PARTY, KENTUCKY MARIJUANA PARTY AND ANOTHER MINISTER DIVERSE SANCTUARY.
WE STAND UNITED IN SOLIDARITY AND PROTEST FOR FULL REPEAL OF PROHIBITION INTERNATIONALLY AS WE GROW!!!
DON’T LET THEM PIMP YOU!!! #REPEAL AND HEAL!!!
LEARN WHAT WE KNOW
OPERATING ON TRUTH AND FAITH THAT IS SCIENCE BASED!!!

Photo

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

On “Legalization”: When the U.N. comes a marching along, we will all be singing a brand new song…

Posted on January 2, 2014. Filed under: Activists Opinions, CIVIL RIGHTS, Marijuana & the Law, ShereeKrider, WTF! | Tags: , , |


 

27800_417164937993_5191322_n

 

January 2, 2014

The following synopsis which I have found across the internet and put together here pretty much sums up the value of our “legalization” initiatives, whether they be “anti-prohibition”, tax and regulate, Repeal, ‘…”my God given right!”, or “Damn, we are all a bunch of fools to think that prohibition has ended…”.

With the passage of the new recreational and medical cannabis use laws in Colorado and Washington alongside all of the other “medical cannabis” states, everyone is/was jumping for joy at midnight on the 31st of December 2013.  Prohibition has ended they proclaim, yet still remains illegal at the Federal and U.N. levels.  The U.N. has already jumped on the bandwagon prior to the new year to make sure that Uruguay’s legalization was “in violation of international law”.

The Executive Branch of our U.S. Government seems to be just sitting back and watching, never giving a clear indication of what they will (or won’t) do.   In fact, they just do not seem to be doing much of anything anymore with the exception of disagreements on what should be done. 

Maybe, just maybe it is because they know something we may not.  Maybe, they know that we are truly walking in the age of the NWO and the Global takeover by the U.N.  It has already been written in stone and now we just sit back and watch what is going to happen.  The U.N. is in control.  The U.S. is not.  The U.N. owns the World.  We do not.  No one owns anything, anywhere, anymore.  Including the right to our own bodies and minds.  The U.N. does.  Even the thought that we actually had a chance to control our own lives is not very lucid.  The U.S. and every other country within the U.N. are incorporated businesses with “us” as the “stock certificates”.  Here are a few links to information on that:

UNITED STATES THE CORPORATION:THE TRUTH

King James 1st Chacter of Virgina of 1606 / Act of 1871

CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

UNITED STATED OF AMERICA is a CORPORATION PR

Moving right along, New Year’s Eve 2013 will be one for the history books.  Though I doubt actual hardcopy books will exist very much longer and the history can now be changed at the tap of a keyboard, so what that is worth I am not sure.  But I know I sure feel sorry for the people who are out there actually believing that they have accomplished anything with their legalization antics.  We have all led ourselves into a hole.  I damn sure hope it is not too late to climb out of it. 

So hear my happy New Year’s Song,

I saw it coming all along,

Yes I did, I know I did,

I sure the Hell saw it coming before YOU did!

So now your free, or so you think,

To smoke your pipe and drink your drink,

The Bell’s were ringing the whole damn time!

Why did you not listen?

Why did you not try?

To educate the masses, by pointing a finger in their eye?

Why did we wait so long,

That the whole damn illusion of freedom,

Flew by, said goodbye, and then was fucking gone?

@SMKRIDER

March 30, 2005

United Nations biosphere reserve land grabs

By Nathan Tabor
What do the Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall, and Monticello have in common? The average American with a smattering of historical knowledge might say that those historic sites are all symbolic of America’s unique heritage of freedom.
Monticello, of course, was the home of Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence. That document (as well as the U.S. Constitution, later) was signed in Independence Hall. The Statue of Liberty memorializes the free nation under God that those founding documents created.
What about the Great Smoky Mountains, Yellowstone Park, and the Grand Canyon? Well, these priceless natural resources are all managed by the U.S. National Parks Service. They are among the most frequently visited natural recreation areas in America, where millions of American families vacation every year.
Would it surprise you to learn that every one of these unique American landmarks is also controlled by the United Nations?

December 11, 2013

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes has called Uruguay’s reforms ‘unfortunate,’ saying the country acted in violation of international law.

…”VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW”.

 

Friday, 13 December 2013 18:30

UN Claims Uruguay Not Allowed to End Marijuana Prohibition

…”NOT ALLOWED…”

 

…”The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, of which Uruguay and 183 other nations are parties, “aims to combat drug abuse by coordinated international action.”

Marijuana is listed alongside heroin as a Schedule VI substance according to the Convention, the most severe designation outlined by the U.N.’s International Narcotics Review Board.

The Schedule VI designation empowers member states to, “adopt any special measures of control which in its opinion are necessary having regard to the particularly dangerous properties of a drug so included.”

 

…”In the United States, the administration has so far refused to entirely acknowledge the legitimacy of state nullification efforts on the issue. However, despite strong warnings and opposition from the UN, the Justice Department adopted “guidelines” this year purporting to allow regulated marijuana-market schemes to move forward under close federal scrutiny. Whether national governments will continue to defy the increasingly power hungry UN remains to be seen, but according to analysts, it appears that the planetary outfit will eventually end up on the losing side of the prohibition battle.”

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.

 

December 13, 2013

Confronting Converging Threats and the Dark Shadows of the Global Economy: Preventing Downward Spirals of Chaos, Insecurity, and Instability

…”The illegal economy includes narcotics trafficking, wildlife trafficking, human trafficking, illegal logging, counterfeit consumer goods and medications, and other illicit enterprises. It is a network of shadowy markets in which illegal arms brokers and narcotics kingpins act as the new CEOs and venture capitalists….”

 

…”The growing illegal economy supports and enables corrupt officials, criminals, terrorists, and insurgents to mingle and conduct business with another. We must build our own networks to fight these illicit networks and break their corruptive influence…”

 

…”corruption and crime exist in every corner of the globe. So do terrorism and climate change. They occur in many of our communities, and on those occasions when they converge, they can bring disorder and instability. In this scenario, shadowy markets, criminal entrepreneurs, and illicit networks could become de facto service providers as governments collapse and chaos and insecurity increase, and in the worst case scenario, prey on the victims of pandemics, storms, and other disasters…”

…”We must build a community of responsible governments, businesses, and civil society organizations, working together to build market resiliency, safeguard government integrity, and preserve our common security.”

…”The United States has recently taken steps to make countering the convergence of illicit threats a national security priority. On July 25, 2011, the White House released the Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime: Addressing Converging Threats to National Security, which aims to protect Americans and citizens of partner nations from violence and exploitation at the hands of transnational criminal networks.”

 

…”Of growing concern are illicit financial hubs and their potentially complicit banks and market-based facilitators and super fixers—such as corrupt lawyers, accountants, black market procurers of commodities and services,…”

 

…”Moving forward, the United States will continue to build collaborative partnerships and knowledge-based platforms with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the World Bank, the G8/G20, INTERPOL, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), World Customs Organization (WCO), the European Union, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Organization of American States (OAS), African Union (AU), and other regional and sub-regional bodies.”

 

…”We also need to better coordinate diplomatic efforts to identify and uproot safe havens and exploitable sanctuaries that enable criminals, terrorists, and other illicit actors and networks to corrupt governments, access illegal markets, and stage operations without fear of reprisal from law enforcement.”

 

…”Some of the thinking and research which helped to inform our dialogues on combating crime-terror pipelines can be found in a book published in May 2013 by the National Defense University, Convergence: Illicit Networks and National Security in the Age of Globalization.

Promoting the consistent application of the international drug control treaties

In discharging its mandate under the international drug control treaties, the Board maintains an ongoing dialogue with Governments through various means, such as regular consultations and country missions. That dialogue has been instrumental to the Board’s efforts to assist Governments in complying with the provisions of the treaties. The Convention Evaluation Section of the INCB Secretariat assists the Board in these task. In addition, the Section publishes the quarterly Newsletter of INCB.

The International Narcotics Control Board

From left: A. Samak, W. Sipp, F. Thoumi, M. Moinard, S. Suryawati, R. Yans, G. Korchagina, V. Sumyai, W. Hall,
D. Johnson, R. Ray

 

INTERPOL “CONNECTING POLICE FOR A SAFER WORLD”

 

United States

INTERPOL-Washington-Operations-and-Command-Center

INTERPOL Washington Operations and Command Center

Based on principles embodied in its Constitution, there is no single, national police agency in the United States of America. Instead, a decentralized network of nearly 18,000 different agencies enforces criminal laws according to their respective jurisdiction and mission, which may be local, state, federal or tribal.

Local police and sheriff departments, which make up the majority of national law enforcement agencies, perform traditional functions, including:

  • Crime prevention, detection and investigation;
  • Criminal incident response;
  • Responding to calls for assistance;
  • Patrol;
  • Arrest of criminal suspects;
  • Execution of warrants;
  • Traffic control;
  • Accident investigation;
  • Drug enforcement;
  • Crime prevention education.

At federal level, more than 65 separate agencies enforce Congress laws with a view to:

  • Fighting organized crime and terrorist networks;
  • Conducting foreign intelligence operations;
  • Investigating financial and cyber offences;
  • Tackling child exploitation and trafficking in human beings;
  • Tackling drug trafficking;
  • Preventing the smuggling of illicit goods;
  • Controlling borders and maintaining national security.


INTERPOL Washington

Domestic Focus…International Reach

The National Central Bureau (NCB) for the United States of America is the unique designated INTERPOL point of contact, acting on behalf of the Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.

INTERPOL Washington supports US law enforcement agencies and other INTERPOL member countries who seek assistance in criminal investigations which go beyond national borders. INTERPOL Washington coordinates national law enforcement action and response, ensuring that it is consistent with national interests and law, as well as with INTERPOL policies, procedures, and regulations.

INTERPOL Washington is composed of a multi-sector workforce which includes full-time employees, contractors, and personnel seconded from more than 20 local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. The staff includes senior criminal investigators, analysts, attorneys, information technology specialists and administrative support personnel.

Organization

At the core of INTERPOL Washington’s criminal investigative support activities is the Operations and Command Center (IOCC). It provides a permanent communications interface between domestic and international law enforcement partners, as well as support to its operational divisions, namely:

  • Alien / Fugitive Division;
  • Counterterrorism Division;
  • Drugs Division;
  • Economic Crimes Division;
  • Human Trafficking and Child Protection Division;
  • State and Local Liaison Division;
  • Violent Crimes Division.


Strategic Goals

INTERPOL Washington has developed four strategic goals to promote cooperation and support to its national law enforcement community and foreign counterparts:

  • Combat transnational crime and terrorism;
  • Strengthen the security of America’s borders;
  • Facilitate international law enforcement cooperation and partnerships;
  • Cultivate and develop America’s workforce, management, and operations.

These goals are in keeping with the strategic priorities of Americas Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security and INTERPOL.  They reflect the investigative interests of partner law enforcement agencies, and provide the framework for international investigative assistance that is critical to preventing and solving transnational crime.

Agencies represented at INTERPOL Washington
  • Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;
  • Capitol Police;
  • Citizenship and Immigration Service;
  • Coast Guard;
  • Customs and Border Protection;
  • Department of Defense, U.S. Marine Corps;
  • Department of Homeland Security;
  • Department of Justice, Office of Enforcement Operations;
  • Department of State;
  • Drug Enforcement Administration;
  • Environmental Protection Agency;
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation;
  • Fish and Wildlife Service;
  • Food and Drug Administration;
  • Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General;
  • Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
  • Internal Revenue Service;
  • Marshals Service;
  • New York Police Department;
  • Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office;
  • Postal Inspection Service;
  • Secret Service.

“Tribal police are officers hired by native American tribes which have a constitutional government on Reservations.  They work closely with local, state, and federal police agencies”

15 December 2010

INTERPOL and United States Federal Law Enforcement Training Center hold advanced police technology and research exercise

History

The idea of INTERPOL was born in 1914 at the First International Criminal Police Congress, held in Monaco. This meeting brought together police officers and judicial representatives from 14 countries in order to find ways to cooperate across borders.

Over the past 100 years, the idea of international police cooperation has become firmly grounded in practice, with 190 countries now members of INTERPOL. While its  vision and mission remain in line with the original goals of the first meeting in 1914, the Organization continues to evolve in response to the needs of its member countries, the emergence of new crime trends, and innovations in technology.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The State vs. Joshua E.Mason (TN) (Please help this family in Tennessee)

Posted on December 31, 2013. Filed under: Attention, CIVIL RIGHTS | Tags: , , , |


 

PLEASE HELP OUR FAMILY
I am facing 15 years in prison away from my young daughter and family for growing cannabis in TN
. I am asking for HELP in defending myself in court against these charges.

To make a long and exhausting story short, I was growing cannabis and a friend betrayed me and turned me into law enforcement. I use cannabis as a medicine for a variety of ailments.

I also helped other people who were in need of quality cannabis medicines. When we were raided we had a small amount of flowering plants and cutting for other patients who

wanted to grow their own medicine.

Upon learning of my medical garden law enforcement stormed my home while our family slept. They violently stormed our home with assault rifles drawn and held me face down

in a puddle of dog urine after they literally scared the pee out of my dog. My child was present and was subject to watching the entire episode. It is an unnecessary military tactic

that was used to intimidate and scare our family that will stay with my daughter forever.

Law enforcement continued to search for “guns and bombs” but they found nothing more than a well-kept medical cannabis garden, which I showed them voluntarily after they stated they had a warrant to search the premises (I was never shown a warrant). They found nothing beyond cannabis in their search of the premises.

 
I was released on a $39,000 bond and informed I did not qualify for a public defender. I was told to return with counsel. I was able to put a $1,000 payment down on an attorney. Upon returning to court I was informed that a public defender was now willing to speak to me. A female public defender took me in a room and informed me that the DA was willing to offer me a $500 fine and probation. I was ecstatic and immediately informed them I would take the offer.

In a bizarre twist, upon learning I had retained other counsel, the public defender tore up the deal in front of me and stated, “Oh…I see you have a lawyer. This deal is no good.” I was crushed.
My attorney was able to get me a deal for $4,000 and if I cannot pay it the state will press forward with charges. To add insult to industry, I received a $54,000 fine from the TN department of revenue for unpaid taxes on the cannabis I grew.

I am asking for money to pay my fine and keep me with my family, so I can continue to look for work. I appreciate any and all help you can afford, to help me avoid prison for cannabis. I am a hard-working family man who looks forward to putting this past me and moving on to the next chapter of my life.

Thanks for your time and consideration.
Regards, Josh Mason and Family

ps.the deal was .donate $4000+ to the drug fund and get a misdemeanor and a $500 fine.don’t donate $4000+ and they will revoke my bond put me in jail and try me for the max 15 years

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Fear and loading in Kentucky

Posted on September 19, 2013. Filed under: Civil law and order, CIVIL RIGHTS | Tags: , |


by Andy Kopsa@andykopsa

September 19, 2013 9:00AM ET

$350 buys you a bump fire stock to turn a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun

Barrel assemblies for weapons on sale during the semi-annual Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot at the Knob Creek Gun Range in West Point, Kentucky.

My first night in Louisville, Jim showed me his guns. The born-and-bred Kentucky boy stores them in a hulking safe with a keypad lock, hidden inside a walk-in closet. Over 5 feet tall and almost 4 feet wide, it easily holds Jim’s collection of pistols, rifles and handguns, with room to spare. Lining the back of the door is a leather organizer with more guns snugly tucked in its pockets.

One by one, Jim pulled out gun after gun, explaining the provenance of each one. There was his grandfather’s Browning SA .22, an antique handgun of gray polished metal. I could tell by the way he handled it that it was heavy. His grandpa "kept it on his nightstand," Jim said, and called it a "squirrel shooter." There was the precision Anschutz target rifle of the finest craftsmanship. And the semiautomatic AR-15, bought prior to the 1994 federal assault-weapon ban (which expired a decade later). Jim’s AR-15 looked like a cheap plastic toy, but he assured me his gun was far superior to the ones made now.

In the gun-friendly culture prevalent in Kentucky, Jim’s multigenerational collection of guns isn’t unusual. What makes him stand out in the community, however, is his stance on gun control. (In fact, his views on background checks and waiting periods — he’s for them — are so contentious that he asked me not to use his real name so he wouldn’t be recognized at the gun ranges where he is a regular.)

During a phone conversation with him this January, with the shadow of the Sandy Hook shooting massacre in the background, he told me that the variety of guns and gun accessories readily available in his state should frighten me. Within a 20-minute drive of his house, he said, he could legally purchase everything he needed to convert an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, or SAR (which, each time the trigger is pulled, fires once, ejects the empty casing and immediately loads another round), into a fully automatic weapon capable of shooting 100 rounds a pop. All Jim needed was a device known as a bump fire stock, available for purchase online and at gun retailers, gun shows and ranges for $350 to $500.

"I betcha didn’t know [you could do that]," Jim said. He was right. I didn’t. That’s how I found myself in Louisville, Ky., handling Jim’s AR-15 — the weapon I would modify with a bump fire.

Jim instructed me to handle the rifle and familiarize myself with the different parts and the sequence of actions required to shoot it. I was surprised how quickly I became proficient at flipping the safety, sliding the bolt open and closed and clicking the ammunition chamber shut with my right index finger. Within 15 minutes I was running through the pre-firing routine smoothly.

A good state for gun owners

The magazine Guns & Ammo ranks Kentucky as No. 5 on its list of best states for gun owners because of its lax gun laws. The state’s concealed-carry laws cover all kinds of guns, not just handguns. There is no permit needed to carry a weapon in public (called open carry) and no waiting period to purchase a gun. (Kentucky used to have a wait, also known as a cooling-off period to protect against impulsive acts of violence, but it was abolished recently, along with other restrictions.) And Kentucky has a "stand your ground" law — as made infamous by the Trayvon Martin case in Florida — and there are no restrictions on purchasing SARs or on magazine capacity.

Unsurprisingly then, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence puts Kentucky near the bottom in its 2011 survey of states’ regulation policies. It scored just 2 out of a possible 100 points. Only Arizona, Utah and Alaska scored lower, coming in at zero.

In Kentucky, it is entirely legal to purchase a machine gun, which spits out bullets for as long as the trigger is pressed and there is ammunition in the chamber, allowing hundreds of rounds to be fired in a matter of minutes — as opposed to single-shot or semiautomatic weapons, which only fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled.

The buyer has to clear a background check by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives: disqualifiers include a felony conviction, a dishonorable discharge from the military or a record of domestic violence. Then a $200 tax stamp is all that separates the buyer from the machine gun, which typically ranges in price from $12,000 to $16,000 for a new model.

In recent months, gun-control laws have become even looser. In March, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear signed into law Senate Bill 150, which repeals the six-month state residency requirement to acquire a concealed carry permit. The National Rifle Association praised its passage, saying it was "critical" to one’s inherent right to self-defense and that the residency requirement was in fact "discriminatory."

The next day, Jim and I headed out to Knob Creek shooting range, about a 25-minute ride from Louisville. We arrived around noon and went inside to pay our $20 range fee. The Knob, as it is known, is featured in the Country Music Television reality series "Guntucky," about the family-owned and -operated outdoor range famous for letting a person shoot almost any object. If you can drag it out onto the 350-yard range, you can shoot it. The rules have changed slightly over the years because some items, for example, an old toilet, once destroyed, spewed shrapnel that pierced the tires of the range’s maintenance vehicles.

The office is in a large aluminum outbuilding with a snack shop, with several lunchroom-style tables where customers can order a hot dog or popcorn, and the main office area in the back, which is more gun store than office.

The Knob’s walls are lined with long guns (firearms with long barrels such as rifles and shotguns) and draped with flags — American and Confederate and those of the armed-services branches — and glass cases filled with handguns pack the room’s perimeter. Customers can rent a .50-caliber machine gun like ones mounted on armored vehicles for use in war. Pay the $100 fee and, under the close supervision of Knob staff, you can squeeze off 10 rounds from this tremendous weapon.

But the gun range isn’t only for serious shooters. Several gun ranges in and around Louisville have family memberships, family-centric events and classes for young shooters. Other ranges host ladies’ nights and lunchtime shooting specials with reduced fees. According to its website, the Knob "strives to provide a safe, friendly atmosphere for families to enjoy firearms."

After paying our range fee, we set up on one of the 20 or so shooting tables facing downrange. The range master, an older man with a revolver on his hip, cautioned us to make sure that all gun barrels were pointed downrange and that we had chamber flags (small plastic orange flags inserted in the firing chamber of a gun to show it is unloaded) in and the safety on when not shooting.

The Knob is an outdoor range not far from Louisville famous for letting a person shoot almost any object. If you can drag it out onto the range, you can shoot it.

Jim placed the AR-15 on our table, balancing the barrel on a sandbag for support. I laid out magazines of 20 and 30 rounds next to me; my thumb and forefinger were stained black from loading more than 600 rounds the night before.

I looked through the laser sight, which Jim called a doughnut sight because a red "doughnut" appears on the glass screen to zero in on the target. The first shot I took was maybe 50 yards out: a soda can we set up to watch it blow. I don’t remember if it was the first or second shot that sent the can spraying in the air, but it was a rush. I wanted to shoot more things — watermelons, pineapples, proper targets set up farther out.

After the AR-15, I tried a larger-caliber SAR called a .302 and a couple of single-shot rifles. Jim and I shot until our clothes were ringed with sweat and most of our ammo spent. In the 96-degree Kentucky heat, four hours had passed in what seemed like an instant.

At the close of that first day, I asked one of the range workers where I could buy a bump fire. He disappeared from the cash register for a few minutes and returned to present us with small, dusty box containing a bump fire, manufactured by a company called Slide Fire. I paid the $350, slipped the box into my shoulder bag, and Jim and I were on our way.

3 minutes to a machine gun

The only reason to own a Slide Fire or any bump fire stock is for the pleasure of shooting 20 or 30 rounds in mere seconds. No one attaches a Slide Fire to a gun to go deer hunting. Not only is it considered a breach of hunting etiquette; the modified weapon is inaccurate. Someone who is not properly trained or very familiar with its firing style could spray bullets everywhere.

Modifying Jim’s AR-15 with my Slide Fire took all of 10 minutes the first time we tried it. The Slide Fire box contained only three objects: a plastic Slide Fire stock (or butt, which is placed against the shoulder when firing), a small square adapter to join the Slide Fire to the body of the weapon and an Allen wrench. We didn’t need the wrench. The only tool we required was a long-handled flat-head screwdriver to remove the original pistol grip.

I slid the original stock off by lifting a simple lever, unscrewed and removed the pistol grip, put the Slide Fire adapter where the pistol grip had been, slid the Slide Fire stock into place on the gun, screwed the pistol-grip screw back in and was done. After a couple of tries, following the simple directions on the box, I could make the switch effortlessly in about 3 minutes.

The next day we took the modified SAR back to the range. I asked Jim to try it first, and in a few short bursts Jim emptied a 20-round clip into the dirt 30 yards away.

He turned to me with a surprised smile and yelled, "Well, goddamn!" Clearly, the device didn’t disappoint.

It was my turn. The shooting, I found, started in short bursts. Firing the weapon was counterintuitive. Instead of pulling the trigger with my right finger, I had to hold my right hand steady on the pistol grip. My left hand, which was holding up the barrel, became my trigger finger. The movement felt like drawing an arrow back in a bow; the left hand, with pressure, pushed forward while the right hand pulled back.

I got the hang of it in short order. I emptied two 20-round magazines in about a minute, including the time I took to change out the magazines. The power I felt shooting it and the fear of the damage it could do were the recipe for an overwhelming adrenaline rush. It was at once one of the most terrifying and exhilarating experiences of my life.

The modified SAR looks almost exactly like an unmodified SAR, with only a slight difference in the stock profile. Unless someone knows what to look for, the difference isn’t obvious. But the sound is different; it doesn’t make the familiar pop-pop-pop of an SAR. A few people approached us on the gun range to tell us they had heard us shooting our "toy," and man, that sounded like fun.

The camaraderie on the range was evident when I took a break from shooting in the snack bar and was approached by Rose, an elderly woman who had come out to the Knob with her son-in-law and grandson. The boys had come to shoot, she said, but Rose just wanted some advice from the range shop’s guys about her new .12-gauge shotgun.

Rose also owns a .38-caliber handgun. Both of her guns she keeps for protection, she said. To stay sharp, she practices at home. "I have a little target range set up in my basement," she said. All you need is a bullet trap, she explained, a metal box about 2 feet square that a target is affixed to for shooting practice. The device captures, or traps, the bullets, preventing them from ripping into walls. But the new gun had been giving her trouble, she said.

"I wanted to hold [the shotgun] like this," she said, as she motioned an invisible gun into her armpit, "but they told me I can’t hold a gun like that," as it was too big for her. They suggested she get a smaller-caliber gun, one she could hold properly with the butt against her shoulder.

I asked her if she could return the gun. She couldn’t, but she wasn’t worried about getting her money back, she said, since "there is always someone willing to buy it from you."

The gun show loophole

Rose may not have specifically had gun shows in mind when she spoke about selling her shotgun, but they are notorious for person-to-person sales in which gun owners sell their weapons. Because the guns are considered their property, they are not legally required to perform a background check as licensed dealers must to sell weapons. This is commonly known as the gun-show loophole.

Gun shows are an integral part of the gun culture of the South. They provide meeting places where gun enthusiasts and die-hard Second Amendment supporters gather. A single gun-show aisle might showcase weapons, ammunition, black powder to make your own ammunition and literature as well as supplies to prepare for end-times such as water purifiers, meals ready to eat and a 40-gallon drums of beef jerky.

While I was in Kentucky, there was a gun show at the Indiana State Fairgrounds in Indianapolis, only an hour and a half away by car. It used to fill five exhibition halls but this year filled only one at the south edge of the grounds. There was a modest line to get in when I arrived on the opening day, and a huge orange sign out front instructed people to "unload weapons now." A woman staffed a plexiglass ticket booth; the cost of entry was $12. A row of Indianapolis police officers sat at a folding table, checking weapons to ensure they weren’t loaded. They also ran zip ties through firing mechanisms to guard against accidental discharge.

The licensed gun dealers there came in all sizes. Some booths consisted of just a folding table set up on the concrete floor, while others had elaborate exhibition spaces to show off their products. Each booth I saw was outfitted with a laptop to run instant background checks so people could legally purchase firearms on the spot.

But if I had wanted to evade a background check, I could just as easily have purchased someone else’s gun, checked and zip-tied by a policeman, if the price was right, no questions asked.

It took only about 10 minutes at the show before a private seller, an SAR slung over one shoulder, approached me about his weapon. I stood at a booth reading a book on how to modify an SAR into a fully automatic weapon with some minor machine work. "I’m asking $1,000 for this one," he said, gesturing to his rifle. "I built it myself."

And he wasn’t alone. Scores of people (the ones I saw were men and mostly white) were walking up and down the aisles, selling their guns. Some would-be sellers even put handwritten flags with an asking price "or best offer" in the barrels of their guns. These were cash-only transactions, I was told, but if I didn’t have that much on me, there were ATMs conveniently flanking each of the hall’s entrances.

But according to the NRA and other gun-rights advocates, the gun-show loophole — sellers offloading their guns informally in the aisles of guns shows like the one at I attended in Indiana — is a myth. (The NRA didn’t respond to my request for interview or comment.)

John Malcolm, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Edward Meese Center, a conservative think tank, said in a phone interview that what was a so-called loophole to some could as easily be seen by others as the right of a person to sell his or her personal property, a right that must not be infringed. In a February blog post for the foundation website, he wrote that the data that the gun-show loophole argument is based on — that roughly 40 percent of gun purchases are made at gun shows in private sales — is outdated and unreliable, akin to "citing data about current seat belt usage that is derived from a limited sample taken years before a mandatory seat belt law went into effect or before cars were even required to have seat belts."

If I had wanted to evade a background check, I could have easily purchased a firearm from a private seller at the gun show, no questions asked.

The night before I left Kentucky, Jim removed the bump fire from his AR-15 and replaced it with the original stock. "I could try and sell this for you, if you want," he said, putting it back in its box. But it was just as likely to end up in the corner of his gun closet. He wouldn’t be using it again.

I won’t be shooting one again either. As this story was being put to bed, the news broke about this week’s mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard. Twelve people dead, eight injured.

CONTINUE READING…

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Incarceration of HI marijuana minister at odds with Sixth Amendment, his supporters say

Posted on July 10, 2013. Filed under: Cannabis and Religion, CIVIL RIGHTS, Marijuana & the Law, Patriot Act | Tags: , , , , |


Screen-shot-2013-07-08-at-9.22.18-AM-297x300

By Malia Zimmerman | Watchdog.org

HONOLULU – An Hawaii Island minister in jail for three years on drug charges is treated more like a terrorist than a free-spirited minister whose religious beliefs include the cultivation and use of marijuana, some lawmakers and civil rights advocates say.

The minister, Roger Christie, is being held in Honolulu’s Federal Detention Center, without bail and, as of yet, without a trial.

Roger, his wife, Share Christie, and 12 others — the “Green 14” — in 2010 were charged with the sale and possession of cannabis, but only Roger Christie has been held at the jail since July 8, 2010. The others were either released on bail or are cooperating with authorities.

Christie’s 1,095-day incarceration has been costly to taxpayers, who have paid $116 per day — or $127,020 in hall — to keep him jailed.

The case has captured the attention of Hawaii lawmakers, drug legalization advocates, local Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats and civil rights advocates.

“The government is trying to put us at a distinct disadvantage denying me bail and bond and making me into a ‘political prisoner’ even though I have a clean criminal record,” Roger told Watchdog.org in an email.

Federal prosecutors deemed Christie, a state licensed and ordained minister who openly distributed marijuana as a part of his THC Ministry in Hilo, “a danger to the community.”

Prosecutors persuaded a magistrate judge and three judges on the U.S. District Court, as well as three panels for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, that the 64-year-old pacifist is dangerous because he’ll likely resume marijuana sales if released on bail.

In federal court papers, the government claims Christie operated a $1 million network, selling one-half pound of cannabis to 60 to 70 customers each day for a “donation” of the approximate street value, $400 per ounce.

The government seized nearly 2,300 marijuana plants, 33 pounds of marijuana, $55,000, nine weapons and four properties, court papers show.

Both sides blame the other for legal delays that have kept Christie behind bars.

The simple act of scheduling an in-person interview with Roger Christie has been difficult.

Numerous requests for the interview from Watchdog.org to the U.S. attorney’s office have been ignored since first submitted March 5. Tom Blumm, the assistant warden, denied access to Christie unless the U.S. attorney’s office grants permission first. According to the Christies’, no other media requests have been granted, including requests from National Geographic and Newsweek.

In fact, Christie has not been allowed to see visitors, with the exception of his attorney, Thomas Otake, and two state senators — Will Espero and Russell Ruderman — who serve on the Senate Public Safety Committee. Share said she was banned from the facility about a year ago, and the warden, David Shinn, has failed to respond to numerous written requests from Share Christie asking to see her husband.

Sens. Will Espero and Russell Ruderman at the federal prison where Roger Christie is being held.

“The government is using unfair tactics on both of us — a process of trying to wear us down by denial of even the normal rights that prisoners have. Without the ability to visit my husband, it’s as if I have been in prison as well for three years as he has,” said Share, who married Roger while he was in prison after dating him for many years prior.

Sens. Russell Ruderman, a Democrat from Hawaii Island, and Sam Slom, the Senate Republican Minority Leader, introduced separate resolutions asking the federal government to release Christie on bail pending trial.

Senate Resolution 42 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 75 were heard March 21. Hundreds of people came out to testify in support of Christie’s release.

Ruderman, who has known Roger Christie for 25 years, said, ” He is one of the most peaceful persons I know. To anyone who knows him, the claim that he is a danger to the community is absurd.”

Ruderman said while the charges against Roger Christie are federal, holding a defendant without bail while denying the constitutional right to a speedy trial is virtually unheard of in Hawaii. He said even people accused of serious crimes, such as large-scale drug dealers and violent criminals, are routinely released on bail pending trial.

Espero, who chairs the safety committee, said after a meeting with Christie: “I still feel that Mr. Christie should be released pending a trial.”

The Hawaii Democratic Party  backed Christie in a 2012 resolution, and former Republican Sen. John Carroll and former Hawaii Island Mayor Harry Kim have supported him.

Tracy Ryan, vice chair of the Hawaii Libertarian Party, said Roger Christie poses no danger to the community.

“In 2008, voters of Hawaii County, where the THC Ministry operates, spoke clearly to this very issue. They passed a county resolution making marijuana the lowest priority of law enforcement. Clearly the ‘community’ does not agree that Reverend Christie poses any danger. If the people of the community do not consider the activity to be dangerous and the prosecution offers no evidence whatsoever as to its danger other than to say ‘it is illegal,’ no one is safe,” Ryan said.

Hawaii Senate Resolution 12 asked President Obama to “initiate a formal investigation into the conduct of federal law enforcement personnel in regard to the violation of the constitutional rights of Hawaii County Resident, the Reverend Roger Christie,” but the resolution never received a hearing.

Senate Judiciary and Labor Chair Clayton Hee ultimately decided to kill the measure, although it had already passed the Senate Public Safety Committee and received support from his colleagues and the public.

Challenging the Political System

Roger Christie was born in Colorado and raised in New Jersey. After graduating with a degree from a two-year college and obtaining a commercial pilot’s certificate, he went on to careers in the military, in business and in the religious community.

He enlisted in the Army in 1970 and trained as an intelligence analyst but refused orders to deploy to Vietnam and was discharged honorably as a conscientious objector.

In 1991, just five years after he moved to Hawaii, Roger Christie launched one of the world’s first hemp retail outfits, Hawaiian Hemp Co.. But the company was accused of importing 25 pounds of hemp seeds that law enforcement called “active,” which led to marijuana charges. He and his partners, Aaron Anderson and Dwight Kondo, were never convicted.

An ordained minister for the Religion of Jesus Church, a division of the Universal Life Church, Christie founded his own THC Ministry, also known as the Hawaii Cannabis Ministry. The group believes is a “gift from God” and should be used as a part of religious services. The ministry’s web site stated: “We use Cannabis religiously and you can, too.”

Roger Christie ran for mayor in 2004 on a platform of legalizing marijuana garnering 3.3 percent of the vote.

The state Department of Health granted Christie license number 00-313, which allowed him to perform marriages as a “cannabis sacrament” minister.

He ran for mayor in 2004 on a platform of legalizing marijuana, getting 3.3 percent of the vote. Share Christie ran for mayor in 2012 on the same platform and received 1.2 percent of the vote.

“We were always open and public about what our ministry did,” Share Christie said on their websites and You Tube, noting the government spent an enormous amount of money to discover facts they openly proclaimed at the Hawaii Island County Council. 

“We thought we had federal immunity from prosecution due to Roger’s sincerity and the legitimacy of his ordainment and unique state license as a ‘cannabis sacrament’ minister,” she said.

“All the local and state cops left him and us alone and even said we were all good with them,” Roger Christie said.

“I’m sure our founding fathers, who grew Cannabis hemp, would be appalled at how we have treated what they fought for,” Share Christie said.

Roger said marijuana prohibition is a “modern-day witch-hunt,” and the Christies hope their case will be the “last marijuana trial” in U.S. history.

Christie’s next hearing in federal court is scheduled for 10:30 a.m.  July 29, and his attorney plans to argue a religious defense motion.

Federal prosecutors did not respond to multiple media inquiries for this story.

The Christies, if convicted, face between five and 40 years in prison. They’ve started a website and a Facebook page in their defense.

The Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Postal Inspector, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and U.S. Attorney have spent millions of dollars more on its two-year investigation and prosecution of the ministry’s network, the Christies’ estimate.

Reach Malia Zimmerman at Malia@hawaiireporter.com

Please, feel free to "steal our stuff"! Just remember to credit Watchdog.org. Find out more

Malia Zimmerman

CONTINUE READING…

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Uphold the Third Amendment

Posted on July 9, 2013. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, Opinions, Political | Tags: , , |


Glenn Harlan Reynolds 2:14 p.m. EDT July 7, 2013

It’s our right as American citizens to have privacy in our own homes.

 

 

Everyone has heard of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment gets a lot of discussion, and so does the Second. On Independence Day this year, many people rallied in support of the Fourth Amendment in response to the National Security Agency spying scandal.

Several government officials — like embattled IRS official Lois Lerner — lately seem particularly enamored of the Fifth Amendment’s right not to testify. But how many Americans could even tell you what the Third Amendment protects?

Even among those who could, many would consider it a bit of a joke. But they just may be wrong about that. The Third Amendment may be coming into its own. It provides: "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

I often tell my constitutional law students that the Third Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that really works — because there are almost no cases of troop-quartering. If only the rest of the Bill of Rights were so effective.

In an article published in the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal last year, however, Prof. Tom W. Bell points out that such violations, while perhaps rare, are not unknown. In 1942, for example, inhabitants of the Aleutian Islands were forced out of their homes, and in some cases troops were actually quartered there, but it took the federal government decades to admit wrongdoing or pay damages.

Likewise, in a 1982 case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, prison guards evicted from their quarters and replaced with National Guard troops during a strike sued, and the Court of Appeals found that this action implicated their rights under the Third Amendment, which it characterized as "designed to assure a fundamental right of privacy."

Now we see another Third Amendment case, from Henderson, Nev., in which the plaintiffs, the Mitchell family, claim that Henderson police seized their home — battering the door open with a battering ram — so as to secure an advantageous position in addressing a domestic violence report involving a neighboring house. The police were quite rude — calling the inhabitants "assholes" and shooting both Anthony Mitchell and his dog with a pepper-ball gun — before setting up a lookout post in the house.

Should the Third Amendment have something to say about this? Well, it speaks only to "troops," not police — but then, professional police in the modern sense hadn’t been invented at the time of the framing. And given the extreme militarization of police nowadays — with Nomex coveralls, body armor, AR-15 rifles, grenades, armored vehicles, etc., all documented in Radley Balko’s new book, The Rise of the Warrior Cop, — maybe that’s a distinction without a difference anyway. Armed minions of the state seizing your home by force seem close enough to "troops" for me.

Personally, I think we need to return to the sense of one’s home as a castle, a "fundamental right of privacy" that the Third Amendment was intended to protect. Police, except in those rather rare cases where they reasonably think someone inside is being held hostage or the like, should have to knock politely at the door and — unless they have a warrant — should have to depart if the homeowner doesn’t want them to come in. Those who violate this rule should be prosecuted as criminals, and opened up to lawsuits without benefit of official immunity.

Some may protest that this rule will make it harder to go after drug dealers and such, who may flush their drugs away before police can get in. To which I respond, tough. Protecting Americans’ homes from invasions by armed hooligans is more important than protecting prosecutions under the drug war. One would think, in fact, that preventing such invasions is the first duty of police. It’s unfortunate that so many in law enforcement seem to have forgotten that.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He blogs at InstaPundit.com.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.

CONTINUE READING…
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Nullification Door can Swing Both Ways

Posted on June 24, 2013. Filed under: Civil law and order, CIVIL RIGHTS | Tags: , , , , , , , |


By Bruce Johnson  June 24, 2013

Patrick Henry, John Calhoun, and George Mason would be delighted that States are showing some backbone after 220 years of Federal power encroachment. States are again beginning to question Federal authority by, in effect, nullifying some Federal mandates. But the "nullification door" is swinging both ways. Is it not nullification of law by the Federal Government itself when they who hold the federal reins refuse to enforce the laws currently on the books? And when no enforcement of the law is at the whim of an administration, what recourse exists for the citizenry? For the States?

Both ends of the political spectrum have engaged in nullification, the rejection of Federal law. As noted in this piece by David Leib, the current focal points of dissonance between State and Federal revolve around a strange mix of topics; healthcare, guns, illegal immigration, citizen identification, and marijuana. We can clearly identify both ends of the sociopolitical spectrum and note they have become strange bedfellows in disobeying the federal government. Coloradans thumb their nose at federal marijuana laws while Montanans do the same with federal gun laws.

Mr. Leib in his article " Federal Nullification Efforts Mounting in States", lists a few of today’ de facto nullifications:

"About 20 states now have medical marijuana laws allowing people to use pot to treat chronic pain and other ailments — despite a federal law that still criminalizes marijuana distribution and possession. Ceding ground to the states, President Barack Obama’s administration has made it known to federal prosecutors that it wasn’t worth their time to target those people…

Federal authorities have repeatedly delayed implementation of the 2005 Real ID Act… about half the state legislatures have opposed its implementation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

About 20 states have enacted measures challenging Obama’s 2010 health care laws…

After Montana passed a 2009 law declaring that federal firearms regulations don’t apply to guns made and kept in that state, eight other states have enacted similar laws…"

But the nullification door swings both ways. As States issue an affront to select federal law, the federal authorities elected and appointed seem also to have some issues themselves with federal law. Even though they have pledged via their oaths of office to enforce these laws, when it serves their political purposes we often get nonenforcement. Despite vowing diligence there is a steady record that is in effect "legislation via non action" by federal agencies and apparently done so at the direction of the Executive and Judicial branches.

In some instances the federal authorities reject any local, police, or State assistance in enforcing federal law as in the Arizona illegal immigration situation. In many marijuana cases, the federal government seems uninterested that State law conflicts with the law on the federal books. Illinois and Chicago in particular drag out a federal mandate to comply with the Second Amendment. Yet most assuredly those same federal authorities will expect local enforcement of new gun laws in Montana.

When polling place violations go unprosecuted, when sanctuary cities invite illegal immigrants and guarantee no pursuit, when immigration agents are told to ease up, and when the War Powers Act that requires the president to consult with Congress but the president only delivers mere notification… are these not de facto nullifications of law?

When States detect that they are being harmed by new federal law, it is more justifiable for them to act than those oath obligated federal office holders channeling their political wishes by choosing which laws to enforce and which to ignore.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

As Madison noted in his Federalist Paper #45,

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.".

Article I, sect 8 of the Constitution clearly delineates that which the Federal Government "can" do, and section 10 of the same Article clearly states what the States "can’t" do. State governments preceded the "federal experiment" and it was from these 13 States the powers so delegated to the "federal experiment" originated. But now add in the Supremacy Clause noting State law can not be in conflict with Federal Law, and if such occurrence arise, Federal law will be "supreme’. More complications arise when the powers of Article I, sect 8 are deemed unbound by how activists interpret the "necessary and proper" clause. All of this sets before us a cauldron of countervailing double- entendre laden documents that often seem internal contradictory. Is it a ‘mish mash’ or a brilliant work of governance?

The Federal Papers lend guidance to the Constitution. These papers fill in the gaps and clarify instances in which the English language within the Constitution sometimes falls short. In Federalist #32 and #33, Hamilton, a devout federalist, points to a certain sovereignty status retained by the States.

32nd:

As the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.

Today’s resurgence of nullification of federal law by the States is perhaps the greatest since 1861. John C. Calhoun led a nullification movement in South Carolina in 1832 regarding the collection of federal tariffs on imports. Prior to that, there were the instances of opposition to a National Bank, New England’s opposition to the War of 1812 voiced in the Hartford Convention and also New England’s opposition to the Mexican War and their sending of troops to that effort. Thomas Jefferson himself led nullification efforts in 1798 with the Kentucky Resolution in which "the states had the right and the duty to declare unconstitutional any acts of Congress that were not authorized by the Constitution". Madison followed with the Virginia Resolution in the same spirit.

"If prudently limited and wisely directed, almost any government can be a blessing; yet unless firmly constrained, any government of whatever form will tend to augment its powers in excess, going beyond even the plainest legal limits on its just authority, and will sooner or later become dangerous." Thomas Jefferson (A Constitutional History of Secession, Graham)

Nullification has three stages. (as noted by Graham pp. 108, 109)

Interposition: This involves the identification of the grievances by the offended party (State), adopted by the legislator of that State, and noting the unconstitutional nature of the proposed act by the Federal Government or by other States as being injurious to the offended State. A demand for "appropriate redress" is included.

State Declaration of Nullification: The State will call for assemblies and authorities within the State to then empower such bodies to then craft an ordinance of nullification.

Ordinance of Secession: If the ordinance of nullification should fail to restore proper balance between the Federal Government and the State, by act of sovereign power and ordinance of secession will be adopted.

Secession is unlikely today, but the concept was unresolved in 1861. State sovereignty was a more justifiable position. Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York all ratified the Constitution with the proviso that if they became harmed by the "federal experiment", they retained the powers to withdraw. To extrapolate, and because these ratifications were unconditionally accepted at the convention in which all States were equal partners, these rights to ‘withdraw’ radiated to all the States ratifying at that time.

State resistance to harmful federal legislation is an important component to our federal system. Nullification must be promoted cautiously but once committed, States must hold firm even if it draws an extortion such as the withholding of Federal highway funds. Turnabout is fair play, and as an administration selectively ignores passed law, States gain traction in challenging new Federal law. Principle must trump financial consideration and the promise that is our form of government must not be whittled away.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/the_nullification_door_can_swing_both_ways.html#ixzz2XB1xZEFz

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Federal nullification efforts mounting in states

Posted on June 21, 2013. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, Constitution | Tags: , |


By DAVID A. LIEB — Associated Press

 

 

ohhhh-so-beautiful

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Imagine the scenario: A federal agent attempts to arrest someone for illegally selling a machine gun. Instead, the federal agent is arrested – charged in a state court with the crime of enforcing federal gun laws.

Farfetched? Not as much as you might think.

The scenario would become conceivable if legislation passed by Missouri’s Republican-led Legislature is signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.

The Missouri legislation is perhaps the most extreme example of a states’ rights movement that has been spreading across the nation. States are increasingly adopting laws that purport to nullify federal laws – setting up intentional legal conflicts, directing local police not to enforce federal laws and, in rare cases, even threatening criminal charges for federal agents who dare to do their jobs.

An Associated Press analysis found that about four-fifths of the states now have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on marijuana use, gun control, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver’s licenses. The recent trend began in Democratic leaning California with a 1996 medical marijuana law and has proliferated lately in Republican strongholds like Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback this spring became the first to sign a measure threatening felony charges against federal agents who enforce certain firearms laws in his state.

Some states, such as Montana and Arizona, have said "no" to the feds again and again – passing states’ rights measures on all four subjects examined by the AP – despite questions about whether their "no" carries any legal significance.

"It seems that there has been an uptick in nullification efforts from both the left and the right," said Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who specializes in constitutional law.

Yet "the law is clear – the supremacy clause (of the U.S. Constitution) says specifically that the federal laws are supreme over contrary state laws, even if the state doesn’t like those laws," Winkler added.

The fact that U.S. courts have repeatedly upheld federal laws over conflicting state ones hasn’t stopped some states from flouting those federal laws – sometimes successfully.

About 20 states now have medical marijuana laws allowing people to use pot to treat chronic pain and other ailments – despite a federal law that still criminalizes marijuana distribution and possession. Ceding ground to the states, President Barack Obama’s administration has made it known to federal prosecutors that it wasn’t worth their time to target those people.

Federal authorities have repeatedly delayed implementation of the 2005 Real ID Act, an anti-terrorism law that set stringent requirements for photo identification cards to be used to board commercial flights or enter federal buildings. The law has been stymied, in part, because about half the state legislatures have opposed its implementation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

About 20 states have enacted measures challenging Obama’s 2010 health care laws, many of which specifically reject the provision mandating that most people have health insurance or face tax penalties beginning in 2014.

After Montana passed a 2009 law declaring that federal firearms regulations don’t apply to guns made and kept in that state, eight other states have enacted similar laws. Gun activist Gary Marbut said he crafted the Montana measure as a foundation for a legal challenge to the federal power to regulate interstate commerce under the U.S. Constitution. His lawsuit was dismissed by a trial judge but is now pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The states created this federal monster, and so it’s time for the states to get their monster on a leash," said Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that local police could not be compelled to carry out provisions of a federal gun control law. But some states are now attempting to take that a step further by asserting that certain federal laws can’t even be enforced by federal authorities.

A new Kansas law makes it a felony for a federal agent to attempt to enforce laws on guns made and owned in Kansas. A similar Wyoming law, passed in 2010, made it a misdemeanor. The Missouri bill also would declare it a misdemeanor crime but would apply more broadly to all federal gun laws and regulations – past, present, or future – that "infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms."

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter in late April to the Kansas governor warning that the federal government is willing to go to court over the new law.

"Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities," Holder wrote.

Federal authorities in the western district of Missouri led the nation in prosecutions for federal weapons offenses through the first seven months of the 2013 fiscal year, with Kansas close behind, according to a data clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Felons illegally possessing firearms is the most common charge nationally. But the Missouri measure sets it sights on nullifying federal firearms registrations and, among other things, a 1934 law that imposes a tax on transferring machine guns or silencers. Last year, the federal government prosecuted 83 people nationally for unlawful possession of machine guns.

So what would happen if a local prosecutor actually charges a federal agent for doing his or her job?

"They’re going to have problems if they do it – there’s no doubt about it," said Michael Boldin, executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based entity that promotes states’ rights. "There’s no federal court in the country that’s going to say that a state can pull this off."

Yet states may never need to prosecute federal agents in order to make their point.

If enough states resist, "it’s going to be very difficult for the federal government to force their laws down our throats," Boldin said.

Missouri’s governor has not said whether he will sign or veto the bill nullifying federal gun laws. Meanwhile, thousands of people have sent online messages to the governor’s office about the legislation.

Signing the measure "will show other states how to resist the tyranny of federal bureaucrats who want to rob you of your right to self-defense," said one message, signed by Jim and Arlena Sowash, who own a gun shop in rural Stover, Mo.

Others urged a veto.

"Outlandish bills like this – completely flouting our federal system – make Missouri the laughingstock of the nation," said a message written by Ann Havelka, of the Kansas City suburb of Gladstone.

Follow David A. Lieb at: http://www.twitter.com/DavidALieb

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/06/21/2686935/federal-nullification-efforts.html#storylink=cpy

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Anger swells after NSA phone records collection revelations

Posted on June 7, 2013. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, Political | Tags: , , , , , , |


 

outrage

 

Senior politicians reveal that US counter-terrorism efforts have swept up personal data from American citizens for years


NSA taps in to internet giants’ systems to mine user data, secret files reveal

 

The scale of America’s surveillance state was laid bare on Thursday as senior politicians revealed that the US counter-terrorism effort had swept up swaths of personal data from the phone calls of millions of citizens for years.

After the revelation by the Guardian of a sweeping secret court order that authorised the FBI to seize all call records from a subsidiary of Verizon, the Obama administration sought to defuse mounting anger over what critics described as the broadest surveillance ruling ever issued.

A White House spokesman said that laws governing such orders "are something that have been in place for a number of years now" and were vital for protecting national security. Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, said the Verizon court order had been in place for seven years. "People want the homeland kept safe," Feinstein said.

But as the implications of the blanket approval for obtaining phone data reverberated around Washington and beyond, anger grew among other politicians.

Intelligence committee member Mark Udall, who has previously warned in broad terms about the scale of government snooping, said: "This sort of widescale surveillance should concern all of us and is the kind of government overreach I’ve said Americans would find shocking." Former vice-president Al Gore described the "secret blanket surveillance" as "obscenely outrageous".

The Verizon order was made under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa) as amended by the Patriot Act of 2001, passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. But one of the authors of the Patriot Act, Republican congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, said he was troubled by the Guardian revelations. He said that he had written to the attorney general, Eric Holder, questioning whether "US constitutional rights were secure".

He said: "I do not believe the broadly drafted Fisa order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act. Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American."

The White House sought to defend what it called "a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats". White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Fisa orders were used to "support important and highly sensitive intelligence collection operations" on which members of Congress were fully briefed.

"The intelligence community is conducting court-authorized intelligence activities pursuant to a public statute with the knowledge and oversight of Congress and the intelligence community in both houses of Congress," Earnest said.

He pointed out that the order only relates to the so-called metadata surrounding phone calls rather than the content of the calls themselves. "The order reprinted overnight does not allow the government to listen in on anyone’s telephone calls," Earnest said.

"The information acquired does not include the content of any communications or the name of any subscriber. It relates exclusively to call details, such as a telephone number or the length of a telephone call."

But such metadata can provide authorities with vast knowledge about a caller’s identity. Particularly when cross-checked against other public records, the metadata can reveal someone’s name, address, driver’s licence, credit history, social security number and more. Government analysts would be able to work out whether the relationship between two people was ongoing, occasional or a one-off.

The disclosure has reignited longstanding debates in the US over the proper extent of the government’s domestic spying powers.

Ron Wyden of Oregon, a member of the Senate intelligence committee who, along with Udell, has expressed concern about the extent of US government surveillance, warned of "sweeping, dragnet surveillance". He said: "I am barred by Senate rules from commenting on some of the details at this time, However, I believe that when law-abiding Americans call their friends, who they call, when they call, and where they call from is private information.

"Collecting this data about every single phone call that every American makes every day would be a massive invasion of Americans’ privacy."

‘Beyond Orwellian’

Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said: "From a civil liberties perspective, the program could hardly be any more alarming. It’s a program in which some untold number of innocent people have been put under the constant surveillance of government agents.

"It is beyond Orwellian, and it provides further evidence of the extent to which basic democratic rights are being surrendered in secret to the demands of unaccountable intelligence agencies."

Under the Bush administration, officials in security agencies had disclosed to reporters the large-scale collection of call records data by the NSA, but this is the first time significant and top-secret documents have revealed the continuation of the practice under President Obama.

The order names Verizon Business Services, a division of Verizon Communications. In its first-quarter earnings report, published in April, Verizon Communications listed about 10 million commercial lines out of a total of 121 million customers. The court order, which lasts for three months from 25 April, does not specify what type of lines are being tracked. It is not clear whether any additional orders exist to cover Verizon’s wireless and residential customers, or those of other phone carriers.

Fisa court orders typically direct the production of records pertaining to a specific, named target suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set of individually named targets. The unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is extremely unusual.

Senators Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, and Saxby Chambliss, the vice chairman, speak to reporters about the NSA cull of phone records.

Senators Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, and Saxby Chambliss, the vice chairman, speak to reporters about the NSA cull of phone records. Photograph: Alex Wong/Getty Images

Feinstein said she believed the order had been in place for some time. She said: "As far as I know this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years. This renewal is carried out by the [foreign intelligence surveillance] court under the business records section of the Patriot Act. Therefore it is lawful. It has been briefed to Congress."

The Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement that the secret court order was unprecedented. "As far as we know this order from the Fisa court is the broadest surveillance order to ever have been issued: it requires no level of suspicion and applies to all Verizon [business services] subscribers anywhere in the US.

"The Patriot Act’s incredibly broad surveillance provision purportedly authorizes an order of this sort, though its constitutionality is in question and several senators have complained about it."

Russell Tice, a retired National Security Agency intelligence analyst and whistleblower, said: "What is going on is much larger and more systemic than anything anyone has ever suspected or imagined."

Although an anonymous senior Obama administration official said that "on its face" the court order revealed by the Guardian did not authorise the government to listen in on people’s phone calls, Tice now believes the NSA has constructed such a capability.

"I figured it would probably be about 2015" before the NSA had "the computer capacity … to collect all digital communications word for word," Tice said. "But I think I’m wrong. I think they have it right now."

Daily Email

Get the Guardian’s daily US email

Our editors’ picks for the day’s top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.

Sign up for the daily email

Continue Reading…

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

State Lawmaker Wants To Take All Misdemeanor Offenders’ DNA

Posted on February 9, 2013. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, LATEST NEWS |


Originally posted on CBS Denver:

DENVER (CBS4) – There’s a proposal to collect DNA from everyone who commits a crime in Colorado, no matter how small.

The state already has DNA from the worst felons. Now Rep. Dan Pabone, D-Denver, wants to add the DNA of people convicted of misdemeanors. That’s more than 33,000 people a year in Colorado.

From disorderly conduct to public intoxication, DUIs to shoplifting, anyone convicted of a misdemeanor would have to provide a sample of DNA if state lawmakers go along with Pabone’s bill.

“This bill is going to protect people and save lives,” Pabone said.

[worldnow id=8291076 width=420 height=278 type=video]

The DNA would be collected as a saliva swab and put in the state database, which already holds the DNA of felons, giving police a massive genetic lineup.

“It does same thing that fingerprints do, but just in more a accurate, sophisticated way,” Pabone said.

Pabone says statistics show…

View original 301 more words

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Behind the lines…

Posted on January 31, 2013. Filed under: Civil law and order, CIVIL RIGHTS, LATEST NEWS |


Courts and rights: One two Iraqi men who pleaded guilty to multiple terrorism charges in Kentucky was sentenced to life in prison yesterday, while his co-defendant was given 40 years, The Louisville Courier News notes. FBI agents set a complicated psychological trap for an Oregon teen by rewarding his compliance and praising his intellect while luring him into a terror plot, AP hears a psychologist testifying yesterday. An activist who has sued TSA over its use of body scanners is now litigating NYPD use of a futuristic concealed weapons scanner that hasnt even been deployed yet, The New York Daily News notes while Army Times sees a Florida woman charged with defrauding a church of benefits by claiming her four sons died while serving in the War on Terror. The five accused masterminds of the 9/11 attacks did not show up to yesterdays pre-trial hearing at the Guantanamo, Voice of America mentions.

Follow the Money: Minnesotas TCF Financial Corp. has been fined $10 million for inadequately monitoring suspicious transactions, including some possibly linked to terrorism, The Minneapolis Star Tribune tells. IED attacks on U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan earn jihadists between $100 to $1,000 apiece, rewards funded partly by Pakistans intel service, Money Jihad relays while another MJ post slams The Associated Press almost sympathetic portrayal of Algerian gas field hostage-taker Mokhtar Belmokhtar as a pragmatist more interested in ransom than jihadist mayhem. Cocaine snorted in the pubs and clubs of Britain is helping finance the al-Qaida factions behind the Algerian hostage siege and the Islamist takeover of northern Mali, The Sunday Telegraph is told. Turkey may not meet other countries demands to freeze terrorists assets unless they reciprocate, Bloomberg hears its justice minister saying as a parliamentary committee approves a draft law to curb terror finance.

To Detect and Serve: The FBI is partnering with CBP to identify border trespassers by exchanging digital eye scans of booked offenders, Washington Business Journal relays. A new generation of technologies is emerging that can identify you by your physiology, Danger Room reports, itemizing the eleven body parts by which biometric scanners of the future will ID us. The controversial GT200 dowsing bomb detector, $20,000 a pop from Britains Global Technical Ltd, is worthless as a substance detector, Technology Review hears independent researchers judging from double-blind trials as The Hill eulogizes a Secret Service bomb-sniffing dog who died falling from a New Orleans parking garage during a sweep preceding a Veep Joe Biden appearance. (Ponder also Nanowerks tech tutorial on the detection of trace explosives.) Utahs disease-tracking GermWatch website is a hybrid of a program pioneered during the 2002 Winter Olympics to detect bioterror threats, Salt Lake Citys KSL 5 News highlights.

Behind the Lines for Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3 P.M.
By David C. Morrison, Special to Congressional Quarterly

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama turns doctors into gun control snitches running health care spy network

Posted on January 18, 2013. Filed under: Civil law and order, CIVIL RIGHTS, LATEST NEWS | Tags: , , , , , , |


Mike Adams
NaturalNews

If you needed another reason to avoid visiting a doctor, Obama just gave you a new one: as part of Obama’s 23 executive orders announced today, doctors will be transformed into gun control snitches who are ordered by Obama to ask patients about guns they might have at home.

Here’s the doublespeak from the executive order text:

Doctors and other mental health professionals play an important role in protecting the safety of their patients and the broader community by reporting direct and credible threats of violence to the authorities. But there is public confusion about whether federal law prohibits such reports about threats of violence. The Department of Health and Human Services is issuing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits these reports in any way.

What this means is that doctor-patient confidentiality is now history. Even worse, doctors are being pressed to start interrogating patients about whether they own guns so that this information can be reported to the government. This is all being done under the cover of so-called “gun safety” but it’s really about turning doctors into devious government spies who conduct covert patient interrogations under the cover of providing them with health care. Once collected by the government, this information will then be used to seize guns from those individuals under some kind of mental health designation.

This is all an extension of the current medical police state in which parents who say no to vaccinations for their children are threatened with having their children kidnapped by government thugs (CPS) if they don’t provide consent for the mass vaccination of their child (often with 6+ vaccines all at once).

Parents have also been arrested and / or threatened for refusing to consent to chemotherapy for their teen children who are diagnosed with cancer.

It’s not clear how these new executive orders are intended to prevent people from having their guns stolen and then used in a violent crime, as happened with the recent Sandy Hook shooting. Rather than actually preventing crime, this executive order seems aimed at labeling gun owners mentally ill by recruiting doctors into a government-run health care spy network.

CDC ordered to treat gun ownership as a disease

The Centers for Disease Control — the same government agency that routinely lies about flu pandemics and vaccines — is also being ordered by Obama to “research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”

This is doublespeak for having the CDC label gun ownership a “pandemic” and produce maps showing the “hot spots” of gun ownership that must be targeted with disarmament efforts in order to stop the spread of the “disease.”

Remember: The CDC routinely fabricates information to pursue its political agenda. The oft-quoted “35,000 flu deaths a year” statistic put out by the CDC, for example, is a complete fabrication with no scientific basis in reality. The CDC also fabricates numbers of flu shot effectiveness, putting out completely fabricated claims such as “this year’s flu shot was 62% effective.”

These numbers are pulled out of thin air. They have no basis in actual science or statistics. The CDC makes stuff up, including much of the mythology behind the so-called “AIDS epidemic.” (The CDC ran a massive AIDS fear mongering campaign in the 1980′s that scared the entire nation into increasing CDC funding.)

Now, the CDC is going to attack gun ownership as if it were a disease. Anyone who expresses a desire to own a gun will be described as “mentally imbalanced” and possibly suffering from a mental disease. After all, the argument goes, what sane person would ever want to own a gun in the first place? That’s the kind of irrational, emotional and manipulative argument we’re going to hear in the years ahead. You can also expect all private gun owners to be painted as complete nut jobs and whackos.

You can be 100% sure that as the CDC researches “the causes of gun violence,” the agency absolutely will not conclude that psychiatric drugs had anything whatsoever to do with all the school shootings. Much like the FDA, the CDC runs interference for Big Pharma, deflecting blame at every opportunity. This is the same agency that continues to promote vaccines which inject babies with mercury!

Doctors: Sellouts to Big Pharma and the police state

All this makes (conventional) doctors even worse sellouts than we already suspected. Everybody knows doctors come out of medical school as Big Pharma’s dealers who routinely accept bribes from Big Pharma to prescribe their brand name drugs. But now doctors are also going to be snitching for the government.

That’s Obama’s new society: Everybody’s a snitch. Children are encouraged by school teachers to snitch on their parents, psychiatrists are now being ordered in New York to snitch on their patients, and now doctors across the country are being ordered to snitch on their patients.

These are classic signs of a police state where every other person is part of the government spy network (Stasi) reporting on anyone who dares to believe they still have a Bill of Rights (or privacy).

With the stroke of a pen, Obama has just transformed the entire health care system into a government spy network that snitches on innocent people under the pretense of providing them with health care.

That’s your Obamacare, folks: An interrogation, a band-aid and a bill in the mail. America is being screwed over on so many levels today, we’re all going to need emergency colon surgery just to pull the large metal objects out of our asses that have been jammed in there by Big Government.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038707_executive_orders_doctors_health_care_spies.html#ixzz2IKJyVRir

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Trading Sex for a "F–cking Happy Meal?

Posted on December 28, 2012. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, Drug War, LATEST NEWS, Marijuana & the Law, WTF! | Tags: , , , , , |


Mom Can’t Get Food Stamps After Drug Offense, Resorts to Prostitution to Feed her Kids

If she’d committed murder, Carla could have gotten assistance to feed her children. But because the crime she committed was related to drugs, she can’t.

December 21, 2012  |  

images2

Carla walked into my office with despair in her eyes. I was surprised. Carla has been doing well in her four months out of prison; she got off drugs, regained custody of her kids, and even enrolled in a local community college. 

Without much prodding she admitted to me that she had retuned to prostitution: “I am putting myself at risk for HIV to get my kids a f—ing happy meal.”

Despite looking high and low for a job, Carla explained, she was still unemployed. Most entry-level jobs felt out of reach with her drug record, but what’s worse, even the state wasn’t willing to throw her a temporary life preserver.

You see, Carla is from one of the 32 states in the country that ban anyone convicted of a drug felony from collecting food stamps. With the release of the Global Burden of Disease Study last week, it bears looking at how we are perpetuating burdens among the most vulnerable Americans with our outdated laws.

If she’d committed rape or murder, Carla could have gotten assistance to feed herself and her children, but because the crime she committed was a drug felony, Carla joined the hundreds of thousands of drug felons who are not eligible.

The 1996 passage of the Welfare Reform Act was supposedly implemented to prevent drug addicts from selling their food stamps for drugs. But that concern is virtually unwarranted today. Unlike old food-stamp coupons, today’s food stamps are distributed electronically, which makes selling or trading them quite difficult.

Nonetheless, the law persists.  According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nine states have a lifetime ban for food-stamp eligibly for people convicted of drug felonies.  Twenty-three states have a partial ban, such as permitting eligibility for persons convicted of drug possession but not sale, or for persons enrolled in drug treatment programs.

Denying food stamp benefits to people convicted of drug offenses is an excessive and ineffective crime control strategy. The policy increases an individual’s risk of returning to prison by making it more difficult for people to survive after they get out, slowing or possibly even preventing their reintegration into society. People without the financial cushion necessary to get through the initial period of job searching and re-establishing a life have little choice but to turn to illegal means to make ends meet.

What’s more, the food-stamp ban is a law that works against good public health policy. As a doctor who cares predominantly for people who are released from prison, I see the damaging consequences of this ban on food stamps. I have seen patients of mine with diabetes go without food and end up hospitalized with low blood sugar, and still others with HIV skip their antiretrovirals because they don’t have food to take with their pills.  Not having access to food is associated with bad health outcomes including worsening diabetes, HIV, depression. Young children face anemia, diabetes, and depression.

Women with children are especially affected. It’s estimated that 70,000 women and their children are banned from obtaining food stamps. This means mothers who are simply trying to feed themselves and their children, and who are trying to get back on their feet after serving their time, are banned from receiving the money to pay for the basics necessary to survive.  Meanwhile, 46 million others, including college graduates and PhDs with far more resources, can receive food aid.

No other criminal conviction results in such a ban—not arson, not rape, not even murder.

Carla was arrested at 20 for selling marijuana.  At the time, she had also been making money working for her “boyfriend” as a sex worker.  Her boyfriend was also arrested for robbery.  He could qualify for food stamps upon release. But not Carla. She continues to pay for selling marijuana— a drug which two states have now voted to legalize outright—and the price is health risks for herself and for her children. 

CONTINUE READING….PAGE 2…

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Prohibitionists are Overstating Feds vs. State Marijuana Legalization Case to Media

Posted on December 11, 2012. Filed under: Cannabis/Marijuana, CIVIL RIGHTS, Union vs. State (or Federal vs. State) | Tags: , , , , , |


by David Borden, December 10, 2012, 02:54pm

Posted in:

A mostly great piece in Rolling Stone this weekend, "Obama’s Pot Problem," missed the mark on the federal preemption question — can the feds shut down Washington and Colorado’s legalized regulation systems? Tim Dickinson wrote the following on that subject:

[T]he administration appears to have an open-and-shut case: Federal law trumps state law when the two contradict. What’s more, the Supreme Court has spoken on marijuana law: In the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich contesting medical marijuana in California, the court ruled that the federal government can regulate even tiny quantities of pot – including those grown and sold purely within state borders – because the drug is ultimately connected to interstate commerce. If the courts side with the administration, a judge could issue an immediate injunction blocking Washington and Colorado from regulating or taxing the growing and selling of pot – actions that would be considered trafficking under the Controlled Substances Act.

But a former Bush administration official quoted in the New York Times on Thursday, former DOJ civil division head Gregory Katsas, made the opposite prediction. Katsas was "skeptical" that a preemption lawsuit would succeed, according to the Times. Why? Perhaps because it’s not just that the feds can’t force states to criminalize drug possession, as Kevin Sabet selectively pointed out to Dickinson. It’s also the case that they probably can’t directly force the states to criminalize sales either. The Controlled Substances Act in fact leans against federal preemption of state drug policy, as pointed out in a law professors brief on preemption submitted in a California case this year.

Dickinson also pointed out that federal officials had used threats to prosecute state employees involved in implementing regulations for medical marijuana. In my opinion the US Attorney letters were deliberately vague — scary enough to influence state officials, but in most if not all cases stopping short of explicitly making that threat. A better piece of evidence, I think, is that in 16 years of state medical marijuana laws, no federal prosecutor has ever tried to actually invalidate such a law in court, not even after the Raich ruling. Why not? They must not think they have a slam dunk case. And if preemption is not a slam dunk for medical marijuana, then it’s not a slam dunk when it comes to legalization either, although there are additional arguments to throw against full legalization.

The reality is that no one knows how this will turn out if it goes to court. Raich established that federal police agencies can use their powers in medical marijuana states to continue to criminalize marijuana federally, justified by the Interstate Commerce Clause. But that is not the same as having the power to forbid states from granting exceptions to the states’ own anti-marijuana sales laws, which in legal terms is what the regulatory frameworks do, and plenty of smart lawyers are skeptical that they can do that. This is not a slam dunk either way.

CONTINUE READING HERE….

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

IN FEDERAL COURT WEDNESDAY; MORE COUNTS ADDED TO INDICTMENT AGAINST BARREN COUNTY SHERIFF AND DEPUTIES

Posted on December 2, 2012. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, Federal Government, Prisoners | Tags: , , , , |


An indictment was filed today in the Western District of Federal Court  that supersedes the earlier indictment against Barren County Sheriff Chris Eaton. 

Essentially,  more charges have been added to Sheriff Chris Eaton’s indictment that he and other deputies aided and abetted each other in assaulting Billy Ray Stinnett on February 24, 2010.

WCLU obtained a copy of the superseding indictment and the two new counts added to the indictment.  Those additions read as follows:

COUNT 11

On or about February 24, 2010 in the Western District of Kentucky, defendant Christopher Eaton while acting under color of law, assaulted B.R.S. by striking him in the area of his groin, thereby willfully B.R.S. of a right secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, specifically, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, which includes the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force, by one acting under color of law.

And COUNT 12

Between February 24, 2010 and April 24, 2010 in the Western District of Kentucky, defendant Christopher Eaton along with “someone whose initials are T. P.  (not charged herein), aiding and abetting one another, while acting in relation to and in contemplation of a matter within the jurisdiction of the FBI, an agency of the United States, did knowingly alter, destroy, conceal and cover up a record, document and tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct and influence the investigation and proper administration of that matter, to wit, deleting photographic evidence which depicted defendant Eaton in the act of assaulting B.R.S.

Eaton, along with deputies Aaron Bennett and Eric Guffey are scheduled for trial on Monday, December 3.

This is an indictment only and all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

CONTINUE READING …

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

“You are being watched” H.R. 4310: National Defense Authorization Act

Posted on November 30, 2012. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, legislation, Prisoners, WTF! | Tags: , , |


 

The link hereto is a direct link to the PDF Document of the new “Patriot Act”, revised effective June 19, 2012 for the fiscal year of 2013.

There is much discussion about what is happening with this legislation.

H.R. 4310: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013

112th Congress, 2011–2012

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction,

and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

Sponsor:
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon [R-CA25]
Status:
Passed House

 

Here’s the added clause in question:

“Nothing in the AUMF or the 2012 NDAA shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to the AUMF and who is otherwise entitled to the availability of such writ or such rights.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-americans-indefinite-detention2012-11#ixzz2DfrztPqV

 

 

Use the above link to Twitter your Congressman and tell them to end indefinite detention.  It could be you!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Why Are We Testing Newborns for Pot?

Posted on November 29, 2012. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, Drug War | Tags: , , , , , |


The science is alarmingly inconclusive, but the punishment for mothers is severe.

November 23, 2012  |  

Employees at US hospitals are testing more and more newborns for cannabis exposure. And, with alarming frequency, they are getting the wrong results. So say a pair of recent studies documenting the unreliability of infant drug testing.

 

 

In the most recent trial, published in the September edition of the Journal of Clinical Chemistry , investigators at the University of Utah School of Medicine evaluated the rate of unconfirmed "positive" immunoassay test results in infant and non-infant urine samples over a 52-week period. Shockingly, authors found that positive tests for carboxy THC, a byproduct of THC screened for in immunoassay urine tests, were 59 times less likely to be confirmed in infant urine specimens as compared to non-infant urine samples. Overall, 47 percent of the infant positive immunoassay urine samples evaluated did not test for the presence of carboxy THC when confirmatory assay measures were later performed.
Immunoassay testing – the standard technology used in workplace drug testing – relies on the use of antibodies (proteins that will react to a particular substance or a group of very similar substances) to document whether a specific reaction occurs. Therefore, a positive result on an immunoassay test presumes that a certain quantity of a particular substance may be present in the sample, but it does not actually identify the presence of the substance itself. A more specific chemical test, known as chromatography, must be performed in order to confirm any preliminary analytical test results. Samples that test positive on the presumptive immunoassay test, but then later test negative on the confirmatory test are known as false positives.
False positive test results for cannabis’ carboxy THC metabolite are relatively uncommon in adult specimens. Among newborns’ specimens, however, false positive results for alleged cannabis exposure are disturbingly prevalent.
In April, researchers at the University of North Carolina reported in the journal Clinical Biochemistry that various chemicals present in various baby wash products, such as Johnson’s Head-to-Toe Baby Wash and CVS Baby Wash, frequently cross-react with the immunoassay test to cause false positive results for carboxy THC.

“[The] addition of Head-to-Toe Baby Wash to drug-free urine produced a dose dependent measureable response in the THC immunoassay,” the investigators concluded . “Addition of other commercially available baby soaps gave similar results, and subsequent testing identified specific chemical surfactants that reacted with the THC immunoassay. … Given these consequences, it is important for laboratories and providers to be aware of this potential source for false positive screening results and to consider confirmation before initiating interventions.”

Following the publication of the UNC study, researchers at the University of Utah screened for the presence of baby soap contaminants in infant urine. Surprisingly, they didn’t find any . Rather, they concluded that the disproportionately high rate of false positive test results discovered among their samples were the result of a cross-reaction with some other yet-to-be determined constituent. They cautioned: “Until the compounds contributing to positive urine screen results in infants are identified, we encourage the use of alternative specimens for the detection and investigation of neonatal exposure to cannabinoids. Screen-positive cannabinoid results from infant samples should not be reported without confirmation or appropriate consultation, because they cannot currently be interpreted.”
Yet despite these warnings, in many instances, hospitals fail to confirm the results of presumptive drug tests prior to reporting them to state authorities. (Because confirmatory testing is more expensive the immunoassay testing, many hospitals neglect to send such presumptive positive urine samples to outside labs for follow-up analysis.) Ironically, such confirmatory tests are required for all hospital employees who test positive for illicit substances. But presently, no such guidelines stipulate that similar precautions be taken for newborns or pregnant mothers. Explains Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women : “NAPW has had calls from numerous parents who were subjected to intrusive, threatening, and counterproductive child welfare interventions based on false or innocent positive test results for marijuana. We have learned that pregnant patients receive fewer guarantees of accuracy than do job applicants at that same hospital.” 

Regardless of whether or not the drug screen results are confirmed, the sanctions for those subjects who test positive are often swift and severe. Typically, any report of alleged infant exposure to cannabis will trigger a host of serious consequences ranging from the involvement of social services to accusations of child endangerment or neglect. In some instances, mothers whose infants test positive for carboxy THC will lose temporary child custody rights and be mandated to attend a drug treatment program. In other instances they may be civilly prosecuted. At least 18 states address the issue of pregnant women’s drug use in their civil child neglect laws; in 12 states prenatal exposure to any illegal drug is defined by statute as civil child abuse. (One state, South Carolina, authorizes the criminal prosecution of mothers who are alleged to have consumed cannabis, or any other illicit substance, during pregnancy and carry their baby to term.) 
Of further concern is the reality that the hospital staff’s decision to drug test infants or pregnant mothers appears to be largely a subjective one. There are no national standards delineating specific criteria for the drug testing of pregnant women, new mothers, or their infants. In fact, the only federal government panel ever convened to advise on the practice urged against its adoption. As a result, race and class largely influence who is tested and who isn’t. A study published in the  Journal of Women’s Health reported that "black women and their newborns were 1.5 times more likely to be tested for illicit drugs as non-black women," after controlling for obstetrical conditions and socio-demographic factors, such as single marital status or a lack of health insurance. A separate study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported similar rates of illicit drug consumption during pregnancy among both black and white women, but found that “black women were reported [to health authorities] at approximately 10 times the rate for white women.”
How many mothers have been accused of child neglect or abuse because of false positive drug test results? Nobody knows for sure. But no doubt some mothers have been penalized solely as a result of the test’s inherent fallibility – and many more are likely to face similar sanctions in the future. That’s because the practice of drug testing infants for cannabis exposure remains a relatively popular even though there exists limited, if any, evidence to justify it.
“No child-health expert would characterize recreational drug use during pregnancy as a good idea,” writes Time.com columnist Maia Szalavitz. “But it’s not at all clear that the benefits, if any, of newborn marijuana screening – particularly given how selectively the tests are administered – justify the potential harm it can cause to families.”
Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform agrees, telling Time.com that the emotional damage caused by removing an infant child from their mothers, as well as the risk of abuse inherent to foster care, far outweigh any risks to the child that may be caused by maternal marijuana use during pregnancy. 
In fact, the potential health effects of maternal marijuana use on infant birth weight and early development have been subject to scientific scrutiny for several decades. One of the earliest and most often cited studies on the topic comes from Dr. Melanie Dreher and colleagues, who assessed neonatal outcomes in Jamaica, where it is customary for many women to ingest cannabis, often in tea, during pregnancy to combat symptoms of morning sickness. Writing in the journal  Pediatrics in 1994, Dreher and colleagues reported no significant physical or psychological differences in newborns of heavy marijuana-using mothers at three days old, and found that exposed children performed better on a variety of physiological and autonomic tests than non-exposed children at 30 days. (This latter trend was suggested to have been a result of the socio-economic status of the mothers rather than a result of pre-natal pot exposure.)
Separate population studies have reported similar results. A 2002 survey of 12,060 British women reported, “[C]annabis use during pregnancy was unrelated to risk of perinatal death or need for special care.” Researchers added that “frequent or regular use” of cannabis throughout pregnancy may be associated with “small but statistically detectable decrements in birthweight.” However, the association between cannabis use and birthweight failed to be statistically significant after investigators adjusted for confounding factors such as the mothers’ age, pre-pregnancy weight, and the self-reported use of tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, and other illicit drugs.”

THIS STORY CONTINUES THRU THIS LINK….PLEASE CONTINUE READING

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

AIN’T NO WAY! JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT CHURCH AND STATE WERE SEPARATE

Posted on November 27, 2012. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS |


Originally posted on Teresa's Simplicity In Words:

Ain’t no way-http://www.alternet.org/belief/year-jail-not-believing-god-how-kentucky-persecuting-atheists. Read-not according to the state of Kentucky. In the Department of Homeland Security according to this article you must acknowledge the “Almighty God’s” security. For those who don’t you risk twelve (12) months in prison. Now I am only reading this article but you might want to research it. Good to know and check your states homeland security. They believe it or not might have the same thing.

In New Jersey the office is located in Newark, NJ for the Department of Homeland Security. Since it has two offices listed I will put all two office names down and then when you call you can verify which is address is for which.

The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Newark Field Office 614 Frelinghuysen Avenue, 3rd Floor Newark, NJ 07114; Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations Field Office Director (973) 776-3300; Homeland Security Investigations…

View original 237 more words

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Court overturns murder conviction of Ky. man

Posted on November 16, 2012. Filed under: Civil law and order, CIVIL RIGHTS |


BRETT BARROUQUERE, Associated Press

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — A man convicted of murder as a teenager won a new trial after the Kentucky Court of Appeals concluded Friday that his attorney was ineffective in handling the case.

The appeals court ordered the Madison Circuit Court to retry 27-year-old Christopher McGorman Jr. in the Jan. 29, 2000, shooting death of a classmate, 14-year-old Larry Raney of Winchester.

McGorman was 14 at the time of the shooting but was tried as an adult. He’s serving life in prison at the Kentucky State Penitentiary in Eddyville.

Writing for the court, Judge Denise Clayton found that the defense attorney allowed McGorman to be interviewed by police without independently investigating the incident or having his client evaluated. Clayton concluded those mistakes permeated the entire trial, rendering it unfair. Chief Judge Glenn Acree and Judge Michelle Keller concurred in the opinion.

"In this case, it does not seem ‘reasonable’ trial strategy to allow a juvenile to be interviewed by the police and confess when defense counsel has not had the juvenile evaluated by a mental health professional nor spoken to a prosecutor about the effect of the statement," Clayton wrote.

McGorman’s defense at trial was that he was legally insane and was not responsible for his actions at the time he shot and killed Raney. During the trial, the jurors watched a 45-minute videotaped police interview in which McGorman described how he’d shot Raney in the back of the head, dragged his lifeless body out of a barn and left it in a cornfield.

The shooting took place behind his home in Clark County. The body of Raney, a soccer player and member of Future Farmers of America, was found in the cornfield after McGorman called a classmate and asked for help burying it.

Two mental health professionals testified that McGorman was suffering from mental illness at the time of the murder and during the police interrogation.

On appeal, McGorman claimed he was coerced into giving a confession and that the statement should have never been allowed into the trial. McGorman’s trial attorneys said allowing the interview was part of a trial strategy after McGorman was transferred from Juvenile Court to Circuit Court.

Clayton found that because the defense attorney didn’t speak to a prosecutor before the police investigation or take any other steps to aide his client before the interview, McGorman did not have effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Constitution. Those failures impacted the entire trial, rendering the proceedings unfair, Clayton wrote.

"His counsel’s failure to conduct an investigation, have him evaluated, and talk to a prosecutor prior to his surrender to the police for an interrogation clearly affected his ability to receive a fair trial," Clayton wrote.

___

Follow Associated Press reporter Brett Barrouquere on Twitter: http://twitter.com/BBarrouquereAP

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Court-overturns-murder-conviction-of-Ky-man-4043660.php#ixzz2CPfIVGzi

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

US Supreme Court to consider challenge to 1965 Voting Rights Act

Posted on November 16, 2012. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS | Tags: , , , |


By Tom Carter
12 November 2012

On Friday, the Supreme Court announced that it would consider a legal challenge to the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act ranks among the most significant reforms that emerged from the upheavals of the civil rights period. The act overruled and abolished the myriad state laws designed to disenfranchise black voters in many Southern states, and established a strict regime of federal oversight for those areas of the country that had a history of discriminatory voting practices.

The Voting Rights Act followed on the heels of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed racial segregation in schools, workplaces and other institutions. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks were in attendance when President Lyndon Johnson signed the act into law on August 6, 1965. Soon after its enactment, the Supreme Court ruled that the act was constitutional.

In the period leading up to the enactment of the act, demands for the abolition of the racist institutions maintained in the southern region of the United States won broad and determined support in the working class, both inside the United States and internationally.

One of the stricter provisions of the act, known as “Section 5,” requires certain local authorities with a history of voter discrimination to obtain “pre-clearance” from the federal government before enacting any laws or regulations that pertain to voting. The purpose of Section 5 is to prevent those authorities from reenacting the antidemocratic legislation that existed before the passage of the act.

Since 1982, the “pre-clearance” provisions have been invoked more than 2,400 times to prevent state and local laws and regulations from being enacted, including several times in the run-up to last week’s presidential elections.

In July of this year, the Voting Rights Act was successfully invoked on appeal to block a reactionary voter ID law in the state of Texas that could have prevented 1.5 million people from voting in that state. (See “Voting rights in America under attack”) Similar legislation was recently blocked in Florida and South Carolina.

The Voting Rights Act has always been a thorn in the side of right-wing local administrations, particularly in the southern region of the US, and in recent years the attacks on the act have grown bolder. This year, the state of Texas argued through one of its attorneys that it should be free to enact literacy tests, which are strictly prohibited by the 1965 act.

In 2009, Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts stated that “things have changed in the South” and that he thought certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act raised “serious constitutional questions.” Supreme Court commentators have generally understood this statement to mean that the court will welcome cases challenging the act.

The challenge to the Voting Rights Act accepted by the Supreme Court on Friday was brought by Shelby County, Alabama. The suit alleges that legislation signed into law in 2006 by President George W. Bush reaffirming and reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional because the problems that the act sought to address have already been cured. Naturally, a decision on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act would affect not just that county in Alabama, but tens of millions of voters throughout the South. Naked short-term political interests are no doubt in play, as the direct beneficiary of any weakening of the Voting Rights Act would be the Republican Party, and, in particular, its various Southern groupings.

The emerging pretext for weakening or abolishing the Voting Rights Act—namely that “things have changed” and that voting rights are more or less secure—should be viewed with the deepest skepticism. Voting rights in the US are, in fact, under mounting attack, as documented by a recent World Socialist Web Site report: “The 2012 elections and the assault on voting rights in the US”.

Reactionary “Voter ID” laws such as were recently passed in the state of Indiana threaten to disenfranchise millions of voters. Meanwhile, restrictive ballot access laws in effect in many states limit access to the ballot to those parties with millions of dollars to spend petitioning and litigating in court. Parties fortunate enough to secure ballot access return the following election to find that the ballot access requirements have been raised.

In all, 13 Republican congressmen retained their seats in last week’s elections because they were the only candidates on the ballot.

The borders of congressional districts are redrawn almost every year (a process known as “gerrymandering”), resulting in voting districts with absurd spaghetti-like shapes. Many people in the recent elections went to the same polls they visited in previous years only to discover that they were now voting in a different district.

Last week’s election, like many previous elections, was plagued with myriad troubles, and details are still emerging of voter intimidation, malfunctioning voting machines, confusing directions, misleading automated phone calls (voters were reminded on election day to “vote tomorrow”), discouraging long lines at the polls (four hours in one area of Detroit), and official results at odds with exit polls.

In one cellphone video posted on YouTube, a voter repeatedly attempts to cast a vote for Obama using a touchscreen voting machine, but even though the voter’s finger clearly touches Obama’s name, the screen repeatedly selects Romney’s name instead.

A decision by the Supreme Court overturning or weakening the Voting Rights Act would open the floodgates for antidemocratic and discriminatory laws and regulations to be enacted at the local level around the country, and would constitute a further blow to democratic legal protections won by the working class in earlier struggles. Most importantly, such a decision would add momentum to the campaign by the ruling class to strip down or eliminate all significant social reform legislation dating from the 20th century.

A decision in the case is expected by June.

CONTINUE READING….

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

“Any person who has committed a belligerent act” against the US can be detained

Posted on July 4, 2012. Filed under: Civil law and order, CIVIL RIGHTS, Constitution, Federal Government, Political, Prisoners | Tags: , , , , , , , |


“Any person who has committed a belligerent act” against the US can be detained.

S.1253 has become S.1867

H.R. 1540: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540&tab=summary

S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1867

S.1867: http://bit.ly/S1867 and http://1.usa.gov/S1867b

Final Senate vote on the bill: http://1.usa.gov/NDAAvote

Final Vote in the House: http://bit.ly/NDAAHouseVote

How it unfolded in the Senate: http://1.usa.gov/NDAAsteps

Synopsis: http://bit.ly/NDAAsynopsis

NDAA Final Transcript from the Senate Floor: http://bit.ly/NDAAfinal

List of Twitter IDs for senators who voted for/against the NDAA: http://on.fb.me/TweetListNDAA

Impeach Every Senator Who Votes for “U.S. is a Battlefield” Bill that Violates Basic Rights”: http://bit.ly/Impeach

Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law: http://bit.ly/NDAAscoop

Laws governing recall – http://bit.ly/u1QNeH

Recall of state officials – http://bit.ly/cXXIL

Recall of local officials – http://bit.ly/1x04rd

Recall the ndaa traitors. – http://bit.ly/utc7wx

The full legislation and voting – http://bit.ly/lH31x3

Procedure for recall state and local officials pdf – http://1.usa.gov/7MMKXD

NDAA: Liberty Preservation Act – http://bit.ly/zIpCmX

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Congress Approved H.R. 347 Could Make Most Forms of Protest Illegal

Posted on March 10, 2012. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, Constitution, Federal Government, legislation, Political | Tags: , , , , , |


 

 

Congress Approved H.R. 347 Could Make Most Forms of Protest Illegal

by talkingmonkeynews

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” —President John F. Kennedy

Tim McCown reports on the Examiner:

On Ron Paul’s website it was duly noted that H.R. 347 could make the First Amendment illegal. No one is really covering this bill and the major media call it non-controversial. The innocent sounding bill titled The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 was passed Tuesday with only three dissenting votes including Ron Paul, and passed unanimously in the Senate. This bill dubbed the Anti-Occupy law was passed without one single Democrat speaking up for the First Amendment.

Once this Bill is signed into law some including Ron Paul believe it will make it a felony to exercise your first Amendment rights of Free Speech. Several of those commenting opined that the nearly unanimous vote proves that despite all the posturing both parties stand shoulder to shoulder in their defense of the greed and entitlement of the 1% from the rest of us. When you couple this with the indefinite detention of Americans in the National Defense Authorization Act it is clear that Obama is part of a ruling corporate oligarchy and is surely no Progressive.

Read more here.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 16,202 other followers

%d bloggers like this: