noworldsystem.com


Capturing Rainwater is Illegal in the U.S.

Utah: Capturing Rainwater is Illegal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jjxg8f3Gq0

 

S.787 Would Regulate All Water Sources in the U.S.

Ching Lee
CFBF
June 24, 2009

Despite strong opposition from agricultural groups and private property rights advocates, a bill that would expand the federal reach of the Clean Water Act, and that could have sweeping effects on everyday farming activities, passed out of a key U.S. Senate committee last week.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted 12-7 to advance S. 787, also known as the Clean Water Restoration Act, which now faces consideration by the full Senate.

If adopted, the legislation would give the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers authority over nearly every wet area in the nation, including farm ponds, intermittent streams, ditches and, potentially, groundwater, said Elisa Noble, director of livestock, public lands and natural resources for the California Farm Bureau Federation.

Read Full Article Here

In Colorado, Rain Barrels Are Illegal (no bull)
http://www.groovygreen.com/groove/?p=3135

 



Glenn Beck on Fema Concentration Camps

Glenn Beck on Fema Concentration Camps

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izjfdfDHjWQ

 

Rule by fear or rule by law?

San Francisco Chronicle
February 4, 2008

Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the
federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law,
arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and
detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of
“an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid
development of new programs.”

Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of
single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and
Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the
United States. The government has also contracted with several
companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with
shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.

According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract
is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its
goal the removal of “all removable aliens” and “potential terrorists.”

Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have
complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars
should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question
is: What kind of “new programs” require the construction and
refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the
union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?

Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),
“Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies,” gives the
executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more
than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in
response to “a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack
or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic
violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot
maintain public order.”

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just
before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite
imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on
a list of “terrorist” organizations, or who speaks out against the
government’s policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and
noncitizens alike.

Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security
Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure “continuity of
government” in the event of what the document vaguely calls a
“catastrophic emergency.” Should the president determine that such an
emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he
deems necessary to ensure “continuity of government.” This could
include everything from canceling elections to suspending the
Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a
single hearing on NSPD-51.

U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up
with a new way to expand the domestic “war on terror.” Her Violent
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955),
which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a
commission to “examine and report upon the facts and causes” of
so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make
legislative recommendations on combatting it.

According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her
colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a
native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping
investigative power to combat it.

A clue as to where Harman’s commission might be aiming is the Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who “engage in
sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name
of animal rights” as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could
be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists,
environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights
supporters … the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf,
the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000
“terror suspects” with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.

What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make
contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own
citizens?

The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked
power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president
to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

H.R. 645 Authorizes FEMA CAMPS In The U.S.
http://noworldsystem.com/2009/02/0..horizes-fema-camps-in-us/

Secret FEMA Plan To Use Pastors as Pacifiers in Preparation For Martial Law
http://www.prisonplanet.com/art..2006/240506femaplan.htm

 



Capturing Rainwater Illegal in Utah

Capturing Rainwater Illegal in Utah

 



Speed Cameras Issue 3,500 Tickets In One Day

Speed Cameras Issue 3,500 Tickets In One Day

McClatchy
August 12, 2008

The leafy capital suburb of Chevy Chase Village is a great place to live but you wouldn’t want to visit there.

At least not by car. Easy-to-miss automated speed cameras on its half-mile main drag, where the speed limit is 30 mph, caught 3,500 speeders on their first day of operation last fall. Before that, the norm was six tickets a day.

Many speeders first learn they’ve been caught when citations, along with photographic evidence, show up at the addresses that match the violators’ license plates.

Be forewarned: More than 300 U.S. communities use automated “cop cam” systems like Chevy Chase’s. They’re after not just speeders but also red-light violators and railroad-crossing jumpers.

In the works are bus-mounted cop cams that ticket bus lane intruders, cop cams to punish speeders in highway construction zones, even cop cam systems that ticket motorists based on a car’s average speed over a mile. They catch drivers who brake for known camera sites, then resume speeding.

Want to fight a cop cam ticket?

The same software that processes violations lets drivers view the five seconds before and after their alleged offenses on their home computers.

“It’s very compelling evidence,” said Cristina Weekes, the executive vice president for sales and marketing at Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., of Scottsdale, Ariz., a leading cop-cam maker.

“It’s almost a no-win,” admitted Horace Bradshaw, Washington’s best-known traffic court defense lawyer.

When polled, substantial majorities approve of cop cams. When ticketed, however, lots are outraged.

“It’s like Nazi Germany!” sputtered Dan Bradley, 41, a federal personnel investigator who routinely runs the six-lane Chevy Chase gantlet. “They ticket you for speeds that aren’t dangerous.”

In the peaceable United Kingdom, where cop cams are 10 times more widely used, saboteurs have shot out cameras lenses, disabled them with bolt cutters, set fire to them and pulled them down with a tractor’s help, according to news reports.

Read Full Article Here

 



Police officer who beat suspect on tape quits

Police officer quits, Two others terminated after being caught on tape beating suspect…
Cop: ” I punched him again because I thought he was going to spit blood on me due to me kicking him in the face when he was handcuffed on the ground.”

Palm Beach Post
August 12, 2008

One city police officer resigned and two more were placed on administrative leave after a dashboard camera captured images of them punching and kicking a handcuffed man in the face.

On May 26, Officer Louis Schwartz had pulled a car over outside a CVS pharmacy at 6800 South Dixie Highway when a pharmacy clerk told him a man in a black ski mask looked like he was about to rob the store.

As Schwartz walked in, the man, later identified as Pablo Gilberto Valenzuela, 42, of West Palm Beach, ran out through an emergency exit, turning to spray Schwartz with pepper spray as the officer gave chase, according to police reports.

Read Full Article Here

 

Martial Law Declared in Arkansas Town

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
August 11, 2008

Areas of a town in Arkansas have been placed under a 24-hour, non-stop curfew described by the mayor as “almost akin to martial law”.

The lockdown, issued after a spate of robberies, home invasions and shootings, applies to everyone in Helena-West Helena, no matter what age or what time of day it is.

Mayor James Valley has indicated that the curfew could be extended indefinitely.

Residents have described the lockdown as “like being in jail” and critics have slammed it as unconstitutional given that it effectively suspends the fourth amendment.

Read Full Article Here

 

Teen Gets Beaten By Sheriff’s Deputy

Pro-impeachment group sues over ‘Free Speech Zones’ at Republican convention
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/..ver_Free_Speech_0812.html

 



Thought Crimes Agenda Already Being Implemented

Thought Crimes Agenda Already Being Implemented

Lee Rogers
Rogue Government
August 8, 2008


The Department of Homeland Security is moving towards implementing a provision of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 otherwise known as the thought crimes bill. This is despite the fact that the legislation has not been signed into law. The House version of the bill HR 1955 was passed by a margin of 404-6 where as the Senate version of the bill S 1959 is still awaiting action. One of the bill’s provisions gives the Department of Homeland Security the authority to fund a University based Center of Excellence to study ways to thwart what the government believes are extremist belief systems and radical ideologies of individual Americans. In other words, if the government doesn’t like the way you think, they are going to have teams of social scientists and behavioral experts trying to figure out the best way to deal with you. As it turns out, the Department of Homeland Security is already funding a Center of Excellence to study thought criminals in the United States at the University of Maryland. This shows that it doesn’t matter if S 1959 is defeated or not, as they are moving forward with this agenda with or without Congressional approval. In reality, Congress is nothing more than a staged circus to make people falsely believe that they actually have a say in what the government does. The Department of Homeland Security is funding research to setup an Orwellian system to deal with political dissenters under the guise of fighting terrorism and they care not if it is in accordance with what the people want. Another words, be prepared for the possibility of a future with re-education camps as a real life Ministry of Love system is implemented.

The following is taken from Security Products Online detailing the Department of Homeland Security’s funding of this Center of Excellence that will study thought crimes or as they like to call it the threat of homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization.

A team of more than 50 social scientists, armed with new federal funding, will extend its research into radicalization and the formation of terrorist groups in the United States and abroad. The researchers will also study the effectiveness of counter-terror strategies, as well as efforts to build community resilience to attacks.

Now, let’s take a look at section 899D of HR 1955 and we’ll see that what’s proposed in the bill has for all intents and purposes already become a reality.

`SEC. 899D. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR THE STUDY OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES.

`(a) Establishment- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States (hereinafter referred to as `Center’) following the merit-review processes and procedures and other limitations that have been previously established for selecting and supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence. The Center shall assist Federal, State, local and tribal homeland security officials through training, education, and research in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. In carrying out this section, the Secretary may choose to either create a new Center designed exclusively for the purpose stated herein or identify and expand an existing Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence so that a working group is exclusively designated within the existing Center of Excellence to achieve the purpose set forth in subsection (b).

`(b) Purpose- It shall be the purpose of the Center to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States and methods that can be utilized by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

`(c) Activities- In carrying out this section, the Center shall–

`(1) contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;

`(2) utilize theories, methods and data from the social and behavioral sciences to better understand the origins, dynamics, and social and psychological aspects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;

`(3) conduct research on the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and

`(4) coordinate with other academic institutions studying the effects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism where appropriate.

The Department of Homeland Security is providing roughly $12 Million over 3 years to fund this research. Among the planned research includes building a database of U.S. extremist crime, studying how social networks spread thought crime, tracking sympathy and support for terrorism in the United States among various communities, studying the phony European white Al-Qaeda threat and much more.

The government has no business funding research studying the political beliefs of people and determining who may or may not be a potential terrorist based upon a vague definition of homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization. In fact, the definitions of these terms as defined in HR 1955 and S 1959 are up to the interpretation of the government. This means that a homegrown terrorist could potentially be anybody the government doesn’t like. Not only is it unconstitutional, but it opens up the flood gates for a tyranny only theorized in novels like George Orwell’s 1984. The social scientists that are being funded in this program could potentially suggest the implementation of programs that could include the round up of people for re-education based upon any sort of criteria even if no real crime has been committed. Literally, the Department of Homeland Security is funding research to go after people who have political beliefs and ideologies that are contrary to the agenda of the establishment. Unfortunately for the American people, they are employing the services of some very smart people to do this. Who knows what these people will come up with but considering what they’ve already done, it won’t be in the best interest of freedom.

In the Soviet Union, political dissidents and intellectuals were labeled crazy and put in mental institutions or slave labor camps. Could the same thing happen in the United States? After these scientists finish their research, it very well could considering what we see with the militarization of police and growing technological spy grid here in the United States. How can we assume that their recommendations will defend liberty when everything else the government has done in order to fight this phony terror threat has been contrary to the principles of freedom?

Particularly interesting is how they are concerned about activity on the Internet. Many freedom oriented radio networks and web sites have been formed over the past decade to protest what is becoming an increasingly corrupt and criminal government. The free flow of information is a real threat to the establishment and they are scrambling for ways to determine how to put the lid on it.

In closing, it is disturbing that the Department of Homeland Security would fund a program before a bill authorizing the action is signed into law. The provisions in the thought crimes bill represent the potential for total despotism and tyranny and even if a few of the provisions are implemented like this Center for Excellence funding, it marks a severe threat for liberty. These government terrorists must be defeated and there needs to be an investigation into the funding of this research which is unconstitutional on its face.

Obama Supports Thought Crime Bill
http://noworldsystem.com/2007/12/13/obama-supports-thought-crime-bill/

 



Fairness Doctrine May Give Web Control to Government

Fairness Doctrine Might Give Control of Web Content to the Government

Business and Media Institute
August 12, 2008

There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks.

The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.

“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”

“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”

McDowell told BMI the Fairness Doctrine isn’t currently on the FCC’s radar. But a new administration and Congress elected in 2008 might renew Fairness Doctrine efforts, but under another name.

“The Fairness Doctrine has not been raised at the FCC, but the importance of this election is in part – has something to do with that,” McDowell said. “So you know, this election, if it goes one way, we could see a re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine. There is a discussion of it in Congress. I think it won’t be called the Fairness Doctrine by folks who are promoting it. I think it will be called something else and I think it’ll be intertwined into the net neutrality debate.”

A recent study by the Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute argues that the three main points in support of the Fairness Doctrine – scarcity of the media, corporate censorship of liberal viewpoints, and public interest – are myths.

 

Some Web Firms Say They Track Behavior Without Explicit Consent

Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post
August 12, 2008

Several Internet and broadband companies have acknowledged using targeted-advertising technology without explicitly informing customers, according to letters released yesterday by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

And Google, the leading online advertiser, stated that it has begun using Internet tracking technology that enables it to more precisely follow Web-surfing behavior across affiliated sites.

The revelations came in response to a bipartisan inquiry of how more than 30 Internet companies might have gathered data to target customers. Some privacy advocates and lawmakers said the disclosures help build a case for an overarching online-privacy law.

Read Full Article Here