Filed under: 1984, atlanta, biden, Big Brother, big pharma, biometrics, cancer, Congress, Control Grid, dangerous vaccinations, deadly vaccinations, deadly vaccines, Dictatorship, Empire, Eugenics, Fascism, flu shot, Genocide, georgia, government control, gps, health and environment, House, Human Experiments, human rights, implantable microchips, john roberts, malthusian, malthusian catastrophe, mandatory microchips, mandatory vaccination, mandatory vaccinations, mandatory vaccine, medical Experiments, medical industrial complex, microchip, nanny state, Nazi, New World Order, NWO, orwell, parental rights, Police State, RFID, Senate, slavery, Spy, supreme court, Surveillance, Vaccine, Verichip, We Are Change | Tags: 2010 georgia legislative session, casey cagel, david ralston, don thomas, sharon cooper
Georgia: Mandatory Vaccination and Forced Microchipping
Hundreds of Public Workers Injured by Mandatory Vaccines
Filed under: 1984, 1st amendment, 2-party system, 2nd Amendment, 9/11 Truth, Al Gore, anti gun, Barack Obama, brownshirts, bush, climategate, Dictatorship, Dissent, Empire, Fairness Doctrine, Fascism, free specch, George Bush, Global Warming, global warming hoax, government bureaucrat, Gun Control, internet, Internet 2, internet blackout, internet censorship, internet police, john yoo, left right paradigm, nanny state, Neolibs, New World Order, NWO, obama czar, political dissent, provocateur, supreme court, truth movement | Tags: Information Czar
Obama’s Favorite For Supreme Court Justice Wants to Ban Guns, Free Speech
Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
January 15, 2010
 Obama’s Advisor Cass Sunstein is one of his top picks for a seat in the Supreme Court |
Cass Sunstein, president Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and the man who outlined a plan for the government to infiltrate “conspiracy groups” in order to undermine them, is in direct line for a promotion to Supreme Court Justice.
Sunstein, already in an advanced position of power in the White House as Regulatory czar, has already called for strict restrictions on gun ownership, an internet “Fairness Doctrine”, and an effective ban on free speech where dissenting opinions to those of the government are expressed.
Suntein’s name was on various shortlists to replace Justice David Souter last year following his retirement, and prior to the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor. Sunstein’s name was also touted for the Supreme Court before Obama even took office in November 2008.
His close personal relationship with Obama should set alarm bells ringing for anyone who values the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, particularly as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, now aged 75, is likely to take retirement soon following illness, and with Justice John Paul Stevens now aged 90.
Sunstein and Obama go way back from their faculty days at the University of Chicago law school and are firm friends. Sunstein worked as an advisor to Obama during his presidential campaign and was drafted into the White House soon after Obama won the election.
As Obama’s “Information Czar”, Sunstein effectively interprets the law for the Executive. Sunstein operates in a similar, but much more elevated, role to that of former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo, who infamously re-interpreted the law to legally sanction torture under the Bush Administration.
As we highlighted in our article yesterday, Sunstein has outlined plans for the government to infiltrate “conspiracy groups”, including the 9/11 Truth Movement, in order to undermine them via postings on chat rooms and social networks, as well as real meetings.
Sunstein has effectively penned the blueprint for a Cointelpro “provocateur” style program to silence what have become the government’s most vociferous and influential critics.
The specifics of the plans must be read in full in order to gauge their extreme nature and the threat Sunstein poses to the freedom in America.
On page 14 of Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” he proposed that “under imaginable conditions” the government “might ban conspiracy theorizing” and could “impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”
In effect, Obama’s information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, opinions and ideas that the government doesn’t approve of.
Sunstein’s definition of a “conspiracy theorist” encompasses those who question manmade global warming and, most bizarrely, anyone who believes that sunlight is healthy for their bodies.
Presumably if Sunstein had been in power in the latter middle ages he would have attempted to tax and then ban the work of Galileo Galilei for subscribing to the theory that the Earth was not the centre of the universe and that it actually revolved around the Sun.
When he’s not going after those evil sunlight lovers, Sunstein advocates Internet censorship via enforced and regulated links in news pieces to opposing opinions.
Sunstein himself later retracted that proposal, explaining that it would be “too difficult to regulate [the Internet] in a way that would respond to those concerns”, and admitting that it was “almost certainly unconstitutional.”
Sunstein has also called for the re-writing of the First Amendment, and has even proposed a mandatory celebration of tax day in America.
His views on the Second Amendment have also raised serious concerns. In his book “Radicals in Robes,” he wrote: “[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine.”
Sunstein is on record attacking the Second Amendment. Watch in the following clip as he says “The Supreme Court has never suggested that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to have guns.”
Given his extreme actions and stated intentions, Cass Sunstein should be forced out of office and barred from practicing law with immediate effect. If president Obama has his way, however, we may very soon see his good buddy Sunstein elevated to the highest judicial position in the country.
Bloggers and news organizations must declare war on Cass Sunstein
Sunstein: BAN Conspiracy Theories Against Global Warming and U.S. Government
Filed under: big pharma, Bio Weapons, biological warfare, deadly vaccinations, deadly vaccines, Dissent, forced vaccinations, h1n1, h1n1 clinic, h1n1 vaccine, health and environment, health care providers, health care workers, hospitals, Human Experiments, human rights, influenza, innoculation, mandatory vaccinations, medical industrial complex, New York, Pennsylvania, Protest, supreme court, swine flu, swine flu vaccine, unemployment, vaccinations, Vaccine | Tags: Richard Daines, sue field
Judge Halts Mandatory Vaccinations For Health Workers
New York Health Care Employees Won’t Be Forced To Get H1N1 Vaccine…For Now
CBS
October 16, 2009
Health care workers in New York will no longer be forced to get the H1N1 swine flu vaccine, CBS 2 has learned.
A state Supreme Court judge issued a restraining order Friday against the state from enforcing the controversial mandatory vaccination.
The order came as the Public Employees Federation sued to reverse a policy requiring vaccination against the seasonal and swine flu viruses, arguing that state Health Commissioner Richard Daines overstepped his authority.
Three parties – the Public Employees Federaion, New York State United Teachers, and an attorney representing four Albany nurses – challenged the order and for now the vaccination for nurses, doctors, aides, and non-medical staff members who might be in a patient’s room will remain voluntary.
The health department had said the workers must be vaccinated by November 30 or face possible disciplinary action, including dismissal. PEF said it encourages members to get flu vaccinations, but opposes the emergency regulation requiring the vaccine as a condition of employment.
A judge granted a temporary restraining order Friday morning, PEF spokeswoman Debbie Miles said. A court hearing is scheduled for October 30.
New York was the first state in the country to initially mandate flu vaccinations for its health care workers, but many health care workers quickly protested against the ruling. In Hauppauge, workers outside a local clinic screamed “No forced shots!” when the mandate came down at the end of September.
“I don’t even tend to the sick. I am in the nutrition field. They are telling me I must get the shot because I work in a health clinic setting,” said Paula Small, a Women, Infants and Children health care worker.
Small said she would refuse to be vaccinate, worried the vaccine is untested and unproven, leaving her vulnerable. In 1976, there were some deaths associated with a swine flu vaccination.
Registered nurse Frank Mannino, 50, was also angry. He said the state regulation violates his personal freedom and civil rights.
“And now I will lose my job if I don’t take the regular flu shot or the swine flu shot.”
When asked if he’s willing to lose his job, Mannino said, “Absolutely. I will not take it, will not be forced. This is still America.”
The protest also shook Albany. Hundreds of demonstrators demanded freedom of choice. After all, as health care professionals, they argue they’re already constantly washing their hands and aren’t likely to transmit or contract the flu.
Around 500,000 health care workers would have been slated to receive the vaccine
“It’s certainly their prerogative to voice their opinion,” said Dr. Susan Donelan of Stony Brook University Hospital.
Donelan said most in the medical community see the benefits and safety of the shots and welcome them, and that hospitals must obey the law.
“Our hospital is committed to following the mandate to have our personnel vaccinated,” she said.
The state said change was needed this year to save lives. Typically only about 45 percent of health care workers take advantage of voluntary flu vaccines.
More than 150 institutional outbreaks of seasonal and H1N1 flu are expected this year in hospitals, nursing homes and hospice centers.
There is also a strong resistance to the vaccine from the general public. A new Harvard University poll shows that only four in 10 adults intend to take the vaccine themselves, and only six in 10 plan to give it to their children.
NY Nurse Sues To Block Mandatory Flu Vaccines
Filed under: 1st amendment, 4th amendment, abraham lincoln, big government, Britain, civil liberties, civil rights, Congress, constitution, Detainee, Dictatorship, domestic terror, domestic terrorism, Empire, enemy combatant, Europe, european union, Extraordinary Rendition, FBI, fearmongering, free speech, George Bush, government bureaucrat, Guantanamo, Habeas Corpus, House, john ashcroft, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Judge Napolitano, knock and talk, london, neocons, oligarchy, Oppression, Patriot Act, Police State, search warrant, Senate, slavery, supreme court, thomas jefferson, Torture, United Kingdom, US Constitution, War On Terror, warrantless search
Judge Napolitano on the Patriot Act
Filed under: 13th amendment, 2-party system, 2008 Election, 9/11, Barack Obama, Communism, Congress, Dictatorship, Draft, Empire, Fascism, House, Income Tax, John McCain, left right paradigm, Military, militia, Nazi, neocons, Neolibs, obama, Senate, slavery, supreme court, tax, US Constitution | Tags: involintary servitude, mandatory national service, mandatory service, national service, selective service
Obama and McCain endorse National Slavery
Deprogram
September 12, 2008
Yesterday, at ground zero, John McCain and Barack Obama announced their cooperation and favorability for so-called “National Service” legislation. When the Democrats and Republicans agree on something, you know you’ve got something to worry about. You can read all about it.
But what is really behind this call for service? Moreover, why do we need a law to get people to voluntarily help out in their local communities? This is what those at nationalserviceact.org have to say about the legislation:
This website presents information for both voluntary and mandatory National Service. This begs the question of which type of National Service does ANSA prefer.
Neither.
There it is right there in the open: “National Service” does not imply voluntary participation. Of course, any normal reading of the 13th amendment would tell you this is simply illegal:
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Seems pretty obvious, involuntary servitude is illegal by the thirteenth amendment. But then again, we still have “Selective Service” and every male must involuntarily sign his life away to the State when he turns 18, so we can assume that the constitution doesn’t matter to these people.
Here is what the lawyers for the National Service Act have to say about the legality of their involuntary servitude:
Is mandatory National Service constitutional?
Yes.
The United States has practiced several forms of mandatory National Service throughout its history. The Militia Act of 1792 and the Selective Service System (a.k.a. the Draft) are the two most referenced examples. Probably the most commonly experienced form of mandatory service is jury duty. Also, it can be argued that paying taxes is a form of mandatory National Service.
One can reference dozens of US Supreme Court Cases that weighed individual rights versus civic obligations. The most prominent case on this matter is Butler v. Perry (1916). In this instance the Court ruled that the 13th Amendment does not apply to mandatory national service. For further information on the legal precedence of National Service click HERE
Apparently the 13th amendment only applies to individuals enslaving other individuals, slavery is ok and to be considered a good thing when it’s the State who is the slavedriver.
Read the entire FAQ on this soviet bill.
Update:
[Obama] said he would make federal assistance conditional on school districts establishing service programs and set the goal of 50 hours of service a year for middle and high school students.
For college students, Obama would set the goal at 100 hours of service a year and create a $4,000 annual tax credit for college students that would be tied to that level of service.
Filed under: CIA, Dick Cheney, Dictatorship, Empire, federal crime, George Bush, Iraq, Karl Rove, nation building, neocons, occupation, scandal, scooter libby, Sex Scandal, supreme court, US Constitution, Valerie Plame, War On Terror, Washington D.C., White House
Cheney & Rove Win Plame Suit Dismissal Appeal
Bloomberg
August 12, 2008
A federal appeals court today upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit accusing U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, former White House political adviser Karl Rove and former Cheney aide I. Lewis Libby of illegally conspiring to reveal the identity of a CIA agent.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said a trial judge was correct to dismiss the suit by Valerie Plame, who worked at the Central Intelligence Agency’s headquarters in Virginia, and her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson. They sued the three and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in July 2006.
Plame and Wilson accused the four men of violating their constitutional rights by leaking Plame’s identity to the media in retaliation for a New York Times opinion piece by Wilson that questioned the Bush administration’s basis for going to war in Iraq.
The decision “allows outrageous government conduct to go unpunished,’’ said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that represented Plame and Wilson. She said the group is considering asking the full D.C. Circuit to review the case and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Filed under: ACLU, Afghanistan, al-qaeda, Child Abuse, civil liberties, civil rights, Congress, Cuba, Detainee, enemy combatant, Extraordinary Rendition, George Bush, Guantanamo, Habeas Corpus, human rights, Military, mukasey, nation building, neocons, occupation, rendition, supreme court, Taliban, Torture, Troops, US Constitution, War Crimes, War On Terror, White House | Tags: gitmo, John Walker Lindh, US Bagram Theater Internment Facility
Leaked photo shows detainee’s lips sewn shut, wires coming out of the face
Wikileaks
July 22, 2008
Photo leaked from a military computer
Photo of a detainee held by the United States, with his face wired, lips sewn, red eyes and torso sacked. According to digital camera metadata the image was taken on Feb 9, 2003 03:49:25. The 6 Aug 2004 is also mentioned in relation to this photo. The facial wiring is clearly non-medical. The location of the detainee is unknown, possibly the US Bagram Theater Internment Facility in Afghanistan. Although there is a resemblance to the US Taliban supporter John Walker Lindh, the connection is superficial. The negative image to the right was created by Wikileaks to draw attention to certain regions of the photo on the left. Wikileaks staff have verified that the photograph came from a US military computer network.
ACLU: AG Wants Congress To Subvert Constitution
Raw Story
July 21, 2008
Attorney General Michael Mukasey prompted Congress Monday morning, during a speech to the conservative American Enterprise Institute, to create new rules governing the rights of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The American Civil Liberties Union immediately responded to Mukasey’s request, calling his proposals nothing short of asking Congress to subvert the Constitution.
Mukasey “proposed that Congress subvert the right of habeas corpus with a new scheme of procedures that will hide the Bush administration’s past wrongdoing – an action that would undermine the constitutional guarantee of due process and conceal systematic torture and abuse of detainees,” the group charged.
“Mukasey is asking Congress to expand and extend the war on terror forever,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, in a media advisory. “Anyone that this president or the next one declares to be a terrorist could then be held indefinitely without a trial. This is clearly the last gasp of an administration desperate to rationalize what is a failed legal scheme that was correctly rejected four times by the Supreme Court.”
The Associated Press, acknowledging a Congress eager to transition into a busy election season, notes the rules are not likely to be approved. Mukasey’s requests come on the heels of a Supreme Court decision granting detainees the right to challenge their captivity in US federal court. Under Mukasey’s proposals, a detainee would be able to challenge their detention, but would receive no extradition to the United States for the proceedings.
According to the Washington Post: “Under the Justice plan that Mukasey talked about today, the U.S. government could hold prisoners indefinitely so long as the armed conflict with al-Qaeda persisted.”
http://rawstory.com//news/2..ps_over_opposing_0721.html
Lawyer: U.S. Military Jails Are Legal Black Holes
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US..black_holes_say_U_07202008.html
US tells lies about torture, say MPs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/20/humanrights.uksecurity
Conservative Lawyers Urge Bush To Issue ‘Pre-Emptive Pardons’ To Officials Involved In Illegal Programs
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/21/bush-preemptive-pardons/
Guantánamo children
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/20..gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, anti gun, bill of rights, Dictatorship, Empire, Gun Control, supreme court, US Constitution, Washington D.C. | Tags: dick heller, gun registration, handguns, revolvers, semi-automatic
D.C.’s New Gun Regulations Lock-Up Handguns
Residents only able to own guns IF handguns are unloaded, locked in a safe, disassembled or secured with a trigger lock.
DC Rejects Handgun Application
9NewsNow
July 18, 2008
District residents can start registering their guns today. But at least one very high profile application was already rejected.
Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.
But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.
Besides obtaining paperwork to buy new handguns, residents also can register firearms they’ve had illegally under a 180-day amnesty period.
Though residents will be allowed to begin applying for handgun permits, city officials have said the entire process could take weeks or months.
Filed under: al-qaeda, asia, Britain, Coup, Europe, european union, False Flag, Fascism, Hegelian Dialectic, italy, latin america, madrid, mason, middle east, NATO, Nazi, Operation Gladio, Problem Reaction Solution, Psyops, spain, State Sponsored Terrorism, supreme court, United Kingdom, War On Terror | Tags: Emilio Suarez Trashorras, José María Aznar, Juan Jesus Sanchez Manzano, Mohamed Almallah Dabas, Othman el-Gnaoui, P2 Masonic lodge, Rabei Ousmane Sayed Ahmed, Rafa Zouhier, Raul Gonzalez Pena
More Evidence Madrid Bombing was a False Flag
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
July 17, 2008
Agence-France Presse reports:
Spain’s supreme court Thursday overturned the guilty verdicts on four of the 21 people convicted over the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.
It also upheld a lower court’s decision to acquit one of the alleged masterminds of the Al Qaeda-inspired attacks, Rabei Ousmane Sayed Ahmed, known as “Mohammed the Egyptian”.
And it handed down a four-year prison term to a Spaniard, Antonio Toro, who had been acquitted on charges of transporting explosives.
Note: the attack is no longer considered the direct handiwork of al-Qaeda but is rather an “al-Qaeda inspired attack.” Back in March, 2004, the corporate media resoundingly declared al-Qaeda to be responsible.
The supreme court Thursday overturned the convictions of Basel Ghalyoun and Mohamed Almallah Dabas, both condemned to 12 years in prison for belonging to a terrorist group.
It also cleared Abdelilah El Fadual El Akil, condemned to nine years for collaborating with a terrorist group, as well as Raul Gonzalez Pena, who had received five years for supplying explosives.
In other words, according to Spain’s Supreme Court, these people did not belong to a terrorist group, at least not an Islamic terrorist group. Apparently, there was not enough evidence to stay the conviction of “Mohammed the Egyptian,” said to be the ringleader, and his conviction was thrown out as well.
The court in October had handed down the heaviest sentences to two Moroccans — Jamal Zougam and Othman el-Gnaoui — and a Spaniard, Jose Emilio Suarez Trashorras.
As it turns out, Trashorras and a compatriot, Antonio Toro, were government informants, a fact reported by the New York Times and the Times Online. Toro was recently handed a four-year prison for transporting explosives.
The History Commons on the Cooperative Research website notes the following:
It is revealed that the man accused of supplying the dynamite used in the March 2004 Madrid train bombings was an informant who had the private telephone number of the head of Spain’s Civil Guard bomb squad. Emilio Suarez Trashorras, a miner with access to explosives, as well as an associate named Rafa Zouhier both regularly informed for the Spanish police, telling them about drug shipments. Trashorras began working as an informant after being arrested for drug trafficking in July 2001, while Zouhier became an informant after being released from prison early in February 2002. Shortly after the Madrid bombings, investigators discover that Trashorras’ wife Carmen Toro has a piece of paper with the telephone number of Juan Jesus Sanchez Manzano, head of Tedax, the Civil Guard bomb squad. She and her brother Antonio Toro are also informants.
In short, Trashorras and Toro are patsies and the evidence indicates the Spanish Civil Guard bomb squad was behind the bombing and a phantom “al-Qaeda inspired” terrorist group was simply a contrivance designed to feed public hysteria.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE3eIdDRpLc
All of this is reminiscent of murderous Operation Gladio false flag operations carried out by the CIA, NATO, the P2 Masonic lodge, and their fascist allies in Italy in the 1970s and 1980s, operations designed to be blamed on communists. “One of P-2’s specialties was the art of provocation. Leftist organizations like the Red Brigades were infiltrated, financed and / or created, and the resulting acts of terrorism, like the assassination of Italy’s premier in 1978 and the bombing of the railway station in Bologna in 1980, were blamed on the left. The goal of this ’strategy of tension’ was to convince Italian voters that the left was violent and dangerous-by helping make it so,” writes Mark Zepezauer.
It now appears obvious the Madrid bombing was a Gladio-like operation designed to frighten and stampede the Spanish public into supporting the bogus war against terror and, as well, re-elect as prime minister José María Aznar, the grandson of a prominent Franco fascist and a favorite of Bush and the neocons. Aznar, however, was roundly trounced in the elections.
Spain’s supreme court clears four convicted Madrid bombers
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080717/ts_afp/spainattacksappeal
Bali Bomber Claims CIA/Mossad Involvement
http://noworldsystem.com/2008/03/09/bali-bomb..mossad-involvement/
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, anti gun, bill of rights, Gun Control, supreme court, US Constitution, Washington D.C.
DC To Vote On New Gun Laws
AP
July 15, 2008
The District of Columbia Council plans to vote on new gun legislation Tuesday as officials scramble to comply with last month’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down the city’s 32-year-old ban.
The emergency legislation announced Monday would allow handguns if they are used only for self-defense in the home and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.
The proposal, which maintains some of the city’s strict gun ownership rules and adds more regulations, was immediately criticized by gun rights advocates threatening more legal action.
The emergency legislation, which has strong support from the council, would remain in effect for 90 days. It adopts many of the regulations proposed earlier this month by D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson.
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, anti gun, Antonin Scalia, bill of rights, Gun Control, militia, Nancy Pelosi, New World Order, NRA, Police State, supreme court, US Constitution, Washington D.C.
Top Court: No Inalienable Right To Bear Arms
Lee Rogers
Rogue Government
June 27, 2008
Today the U.S. Supreme Court released their ruling on the District of Columbia gun ban case. The court ruled that the Second Amendment did guarantee an individual’s right to bear arms, but also went on to say that the government still has the right to control and regulate firearms. The mainstream press is hailing this as a victory for gun owners and a defeat for anti-American gun control advocates. Unfortunately, this is incredibly misleading spin by the mainstream press as the ruling essentially says that the government still has the authority to implement regulations to control who has access to firearms and who doesn’t. The Second Amendment specifically states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, yet these egghead Supreme Court Justices have gone out of their way to try to redefine what it actually means. Either these Supreme Court Justices can’t read or they have been paid off by the criminals that run the federal government. Not only that, but it is incredibly frightening that the court only ruled 5-4 in favor of the Second Amendment with limitations. The dissenting Justices essentially said that the people don’t have the right to bear arms. It doesn’t get much more insane than this. This is totally unacceptable as the main purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people can stand up against a tyrannical government and defend their lives, liberty and property. This ruling is more proof that the establishment is continuing its agenda of disarming the American people so they can setup a global dictatorship of death.
The following is taken from a Reuters report which summarizes what Justice Antonin Scalia said on behalf of the majority opinion.
In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Second Amendment protected an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter.
He said the ruling should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in places like schools and government buildings or laws imposing conditions on gun sales.
This is proof that Scalia and the other Justices in the majority opinion simply do not have an understanding of the Second Amendment or refuse to interpret it properly. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written so that the vast majority of people could understand them. They were not written so that only lawyers and judges could understand its contents. Let’s take a look at the full text of the Second Amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The words “shall not be infringed” is what is key. The Second Amendment doesn’t say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except in certain cases. It doesn’t get anymore clear than this yet Scalia and the majority opinion Justices some how get the impression that the right to bear arms is not unlimited? How can someone make such a statement and be a Supreme Court Justice? This is proof that Scalia and the other Supreme Court Justices in the majority opinion are not competent to hold office and should be removed immediately. The founding fathers were saying that the right to bear arms is an inalienable right. Any regulation of firearms is unconstitutional and the government does not have the authority under the Constitution to dictate who is allowed to bear arms and who doesn’t.
With that said, the Justices in the minority should also be removed from the bench because according to their interpretation they believe that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect the individual’s right to bear arms. This is of course total idiocy.
It becomes even more ridiculous when a so called pro-gun lobby like the National Rifle Association claims that this ruling is a victory for gun owners. How is this ruling good for gun owners? The U.S. Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that the right to bear arms can be infringed when the language of the Second Amendment indicates that this is totally false. Clearly, this shows how the NRA is a phony gun rights group. They hail this ruling as a victory when it simply isn’t.
Either way it doesn’t matter. We know what the agenda is and it involves incrementally abolishing the Second Amendment so that the American people can eventually be enslaved to the New World Order. All of the propaganda and lies cannot change the fact that this ruling is contrary to what the Second Amendment says. These Supreme Court Justices should all be removed from the bench for this ruling. It proves that they either can’t read properly or they are corrupt establishment hacks that love being slaves to this coming global dictatorship of evil.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080626..QRKaAHvoDGgoXIr0F
Pelosi Says D.C. Could Continue Gun Regulation
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/20..-dc-should-continue-gun-regulation/
Filed under: 2008 Election, 9/11, Afghanistan, Alberto Gonzales, bill of rights, CIA, Congress, Dennis Kucinich, Dick Cheney, Dictatorship, electron fraud, Empire, Fascism, gas prices, George Bush, gore vidal, gulf, Habeas Corpus, halliburton, House, Impeach, Iran, Iraq, kuwait, magna carta, Media, Nazi, neocons, Oil, Petrol, republic, supreme court, Tehran, Troops, US Constitution, us sovereignty, Valerie Plame, vote fraud, vote scam, War Crimes, War On Terror, WW3, ww4
Gore Vidal: Bush ended the U.S. as a Republic
Press TV
June 28, 2008
Gore Vidal, US novelist, historian and social critic says the Bush regime has killed all of the constitutional links that made the US a republic.
On early Friday morning Iran time, in an exclusive interview with Press TV, Vidal said that President Bush has rid the country of the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus and the entire legacy of the Magna Carta in the name of war on terror.
He also criticized the House of Representatives for not impeaching President Bush, over a wide array of subjects such as disclosure of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s covert status. Vidal did however single out Rep. Dennis Kuchinich for drawing up articles of impeachment against the president.
Vidal, long strongly critical of the Bush administration, said the administration has both an an explicit and covert expansionist agenda.
In his writings he has made the assessment that for several years, the administration and its associates, many of whom are magnets in the oil and gas industry have had clear aims to control the oil of Central Asia which is to follow on the heels of gaining effective control of the oil of the Persian Gulf–a project that took a new twist with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991.
That event inadvertently served as the basis for the neo-conservative American Project for the 21st Century document and policy guideline that has been the hallmark of the Bush-Cheney years.
Regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks, Vidal has written the American intelligence community clearly warned it was coming but the event provided political cover and pretext for the plans that the administration already had in place for invading Iraq–plans that can be traced to the waning days of the first Bush family presidency. .
Filed under: Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, civil liberties, civil rights, CNN, death threat, Detainees, Extraordinary Rendition, Fascism, Geneva Convention, glenn beck, Guantanamo, Habeas Corpus, interrogation, Media, nation building, Nazi, neocons, occupation, rendition, supreme court, Torture, War On Terror
President Beck: I Wouldn’t Detain Terror Suspects, I’d ‘Shoot Them All In The Head’
Think Progress
June 26, 2008
Today on his radio show, CNN host Glenn Beck expressed his disdain of the recent Supreme Court ruling granting terror suspects the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts, exclaiming that if he were President, he would do away with detaining and prosecuting terrorism suspects altogether. Instead, a President Beck would “shoot them all in the head [if] we think that they are against us.”
BECK: We’re going to shoot them all in the head. If we think that they are against us, we’re going to shoot them and kill them, period. Because that’s the only thing we’ve got going for us is we can put them away and get information. If we can’t put them away and they’re going to use our court system, kill them.
Listen here:
Filed under: biometrics, Congress, DHS, Dictatorship, Empire, Homeland Security, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, michael chertoff, North American Union, Real ID, supreme court | Tags: sierra club
Chertoff waives 37 laws; Supreme Court doesn’t have a problem with that
Texas Observer
June 23, 2008
Today the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff’s all encompassing powers to waive federal laws to build a border fence, effectively ending the case.
The Defenders of Wildlife and Sierra Club had petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court. Their argument was a simple one: Chertoff, a political appointee who is not directly accountable to American voters, should not have the authority to bypass almost any federal law that he chooses.
On April 1, Chertoff waived 37 federal laws ranging from the Antiquities Act to the Native American Grave Repatriation Act.
Apparently, the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t have a problem with Chertoff’s all encompassing powers. It was a sad day for the rule of law.
Matt Clark, the southwest representative for Defenders of Wildlife, has been working on the lawsuit for more than a year. He was especially crushed that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t even deem it necessary to explain why it declined to hear the case.
“I’ve worked for many years on some very hard environmental battles,” says Clark. “But I can say this is the first time I’ve ever been really really depressed about how our government is handling things.”
Congress gave Chertoff the power to steamroll the legal system through an obscure provision in the Real ID act, the gift that keeps on giving. Not only does it grant Chertoff unprecedented power, his waivers cannot be challenged in court. The only ray of light in a very dark judicial tunnel is a constitutional challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is under no obligation to hear the case.
Both Defenders and Sierra Club say their focus is now Congress (don’t hold your breath). “Our hope is that Congress will pass something to rectify its mistake,” Clark says. “We need accountability, transparency and a government who listens to its people.”
There is also a similar challenge in a federal court in El Paso. “We still insist that this is a violation of the separation of powers and that it’s unconstitutional,” says Oliver Bernstein of the Sierra Club. The club is not involved in the El Paso case but is watching with interest. “We don’t see any reason the outcome [of the El Paso case] would be redetermined,” says Bernstein.
Clark says Defenders of Wildlife will continue to push Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva’s legislation to repeal Chertoff’s waiver authority. To date, 49 congressional members have signed on to Grijalva’s bill doing so, including every single border legislator with the exception of two. No Republicans have signed on as of yet, however.
Clark says he watches the progress of the border fence daily in Arizona. Just the other day he visited the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument where Chertoff is erecting an 18-foot steel wall and destroying the natural environment in the process. Building in the desert will still be easier than the logistical challenges that await them in Texas. “They have no idea what they are up against, particularly in South Texas,” says Bernstein.
At $4 million a mile, taxpayers can be rest assured the only thing our government is securing is our tax dollars.
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, anti gun, Child Abuse, Founding Fathers, George Bush, Gun Control, mississippi, rape, supreme court, US Constitution, Washington D.C.
Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment Stays in the Constitution
Jacob Dawson
One News Now
June 26, 2008
After the Supreme Court decided yesterday that child rapist have more rights than the children they rape. Today, they actually got one right, however, the court did leave some wiggle room for further challenges to the 2nd Amendment. The key sentence that kills the 2nd Amendment is:
“Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
So they are saying that you can only have weapons that are considered “normal”, but my question is who defines what is normal? And “normal” guns in Mississippi are not what are “normal” in New York. So I’ll take this as a temporary win, but James Madison is rolling over in his grave on this one.
Residents in the District of Columbia can own handguns.
AP
June 26, 2008
Residents in the District of Columbia can own handguns. The Supreme Court ruled today that Americans have an individual right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, ending the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns.
The court’s 5-4 decision is the first major ruling on gun rights in U.S. history. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most gun control laws intact.
Justice Antonin Scalia writes in the majority opinion that the Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”
He does say the ruling would not affect laws that ban felons and the mentally ill from owning guns or prohibit people from carrying guns in sensitive places like schools and government buildings.
Reactions of the Supreme Court ruling
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/reaction-suprem.html
Filed under: 2-party system, Congress, George Bush, left right paradigm, neocons, Neolibs, poll, supreme court
Only 12% Have Confidence In Congress
Politico
June 20, 2008
Only 12 percent of Americans now have confidence in Congress, the lowest percentage in the 35 years that the Gallup Poll has tracked the number.
Americans now view Congress less favorably any of the 14 other American institutions tracked by Gallup, including big business, newspapers and health maintenance organizations.
Even as President Bush’s approval rating languishes at a record low, more than twice as many Americans have confidence in the presidency — 26 percent — than have confidence in Congress.
The Democrats have controlled both houses of the Congress since January 2007. It remains to be seen whether the Democratic Party brand will find itself chained to the poor public view of the legislative branch. A recent analysis of ABC News-Washington Post polls found that in April the Democrats held a 24-point lead over President Bush as “the stronger leadership force in Washington.” Today, it’s a tie.
While Americans have long viewed their local representative more favorably than Congress as a whole, the public’s current view of Congress is exceptionally poor. Today’s 19 percent approval rating (a different measure than “confidence”) ties the record low of August 2007 and March 1992.
Friday’s survey showed an across-the-board disapproval of Washington, with only 32 percent of Americans expressing confidence in the Supreme Court.
The sense of malaise extends beyond the capital — Americans show less confidence than in 2004 in all 15 of the American institutions tracked by Gallup. That includes schools, organized labor and the military (which about 7 in 10 Americans show confidence in; it receives the highest percentage of the 15 institutions). Only banks and the criminal justice system have seen as precipitous a decline as the three branches of the federal government.
Filed under: 5th Amendment, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, army, civil liberties, civil rights, Colin Powell, deaths, Detainees, enemy combatant, Extraordinary Rendition, Geneva Convention, George Bush, Guantanamo, Habeas Corpus, Iraq, John McCain, john yoo, lindsey graham, Military, nation building, neocons, occupation, red cross, rendition, Seymour Hersh, supreme court, Torture, Troops, US Constitution, War Crimes, War On Terror, White House | Tags: Jerrold Nadler, Lawrence Wilkerson
2-star General Accuses WH of War Crimes
Washington Post
June 18, 2008
The two-star general who led an Army investigation into the horrific detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib has accused the Bush administration of war crimes and is calling for accountability.
In his 2004 report on Abu Ghraib, then-Major General Anthony Taguba concluded that “numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees.” He called the abuse “systemic and illegal.” And, as Seymour M. Hersh reported in the New Yorker, he was rewarded for his honesty by being forced into retirement.
Now, in a preface to a Physicians for Human Rights report based on medical examinations of former detainees, Taguba adds an epilogue to his own investigation.
The new report, he writes, “tells the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. This story is not only written in words: It is scrawled for the rest of these individual’s lives on their bodies and minds. Our national honor is stained by the indignity and inhumane treatment these men received from their captors.
“The profiles of these eleven former detainees, none of whom were ever charged with a crime or told why they were detained, are tragic and brutal rebuttals to those who claim that torture is ever justified. Through the experiences of these men in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, we can see the full-scope of the damage this illegal and unsound policy has inflicted –both on America’s institutions and our nation’s founding values, which the military, intelligence services, and our justice system are duty-bound to defend.
“In order for these individuals to suffer the wanton cruelty to which they were subjected, a government policy was promulgated to the field whereby the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice were disregarded. The UN Convention Against Torture was indiscriminately ignored. . . .
“After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
Pamela Hess of the Associated Press has more on the report, which resulted from “the most extensive medical study of former U.S. detainees published so far” and “found evidence of torture and other abuse that resulted in serious injuries and mental disorders.”
At Least 25 Detainees Murdered In U.S. Custody
Think Progress
June 20, 2008
At today’s House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Rights hearing on torture, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, told Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) that over 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody, with up to 27 of these declared homicides:
NADLER: Your testimony said 100 detainees have died in detention; do you believe the 25 of those were in effect murdered?
WILKERSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the number’s actually higher than that now. Last time I checked it was 108.
A February 2006 Human Rights First report found that although hundreds of people in U.S. custody had died and eight people were tortured to death, only 12 deaths had “resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official.”
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/n..etainee_dies_youre_doing_i.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/200608_b_mccain.htm
Documents confirm U.S. hid detainees from Red Cross
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/41394.html
John Yoo’s ongoing falsehoods in service of limitless government power
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/17/yoo/index.html
Filed under: 5th Amendment, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, Detainee, enemy combatant, Extraordinary Rendition, fear mongering, Guantanamo, Habeas Corpus, Iraq, John McCain, nation building, neocons, Newt Gingrich, occupation, Pentagon, rendition, supreme court, Torture, Troops, US Constitution, War On Terror, waterboarding
Glenn Greenwald
Salon
June 17, 2008
Even when set against all the reckless fear-mongering being spewed in response to last week’s Supreme Court ruling — which merely held that our Government can’t abolish the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus and must provide minimum due process to people before locking them in cages for life — this comment by Newt Gingrich on Face the Nation this weekend is in a class all by itself:
On the other hand, I will say, the recent Supreme Court decision to turn over to a local district judge decisions of national security and life and death that should be made by the president and the Congress is the most extraordinarily arrogant and destructive decision the Supreme Court has made in its history. . . . . Worse than Dred Scott, worse than–because–for this following reason: . . .
This court decision is a disaster which could cost us a city. And the debate ought to be over whether or not you’re prepared to risk losing an American city on behalf of five lawyers . . . .
We better not allow people we seek to imprison for life to have access to a court — or require our Government to show evidence before it encages people for decades — otherwise . . . we’ll “lose a city.”
Bush: Critics Of US Torture Chambers ’Slandering America’
http://noworldsystem.com/2008/06/02/gingrich-bu..-more-terror-attacks/
U.S. Abuse Of Detainees Common In Afghanistan
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/38775.html
McCain: Habeas Corpus a Privilege not a Right
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/140608_a_mccain.htm
McCain To Introduce Legislation Undermining Supreme Court Decision On Guantanamo
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/15/kristol-court-guantanamo/
Waterboarding, slapping, sensory deprivation – all on US tactics list
http://news.scotsman.com/world/..-deprivation-.4194720.jp
Pentagon Looked Into Torture Early
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy..8/06/16/AR2008061602779_pf.html
Supreme Court Restores Habeas Corpus
http://noworldsystem.com/2008/06/15/supreme-court-restores-habeas-corpus/
Filed under: 5th Amendment, Cuba, Detainee, enemy combatant, Founding Fathers, George Bush, Guantanamo, Habeas Corpus, HR 6166, John McCain, magna carta, military commissions act, neocons, supreme court, Torture, US Constitution
Supreme Court Restores Habeas Corpus
Glenn Greenwald
Salon
June 13, 2008
In a major rebuke to the Bush administration’s theories of presidential power — and in an equally stinging rebuke to the bipartisan political class which has supported the Bush detention policies — the U.S. Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 decision (.pdf), declared Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutional. The Court struck down that section of the MCA because it purported to abolish the writ of habeas corpus — the means by which a detainee challenges his detention in a court — despite the fact that the Constitution permits suspension of that writ only “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion.”
As a result, Guantanamo detainees accused of being “enemy combatants” have the right to challenge the validity of their detention in a full-fledged U.S. federal court proceeding. The ruling today is the first time in U.S. history that the Court has ruled that detainees held by the U.S. Government in a place where the U.S. does not exercise formal sovereignty (Cuba technically is sovereign over Guantanamo) are nonetheless entitled to the Constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus whenever they are held in a place where the U.S. exercises effective control.
In upholding the right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees, the Court found that the “Combatant Status Review Tribunals” process (“CSRT”) offered to Guantanamo detainees — mandated by the John-McCain-sponsored Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 — does not constitute a constitutionally adequate substitute for habeas corpus. To the contrary, the Court found that such procedures — which have long been criticized as sham hearings due to the fact that defendants cannot have a lawyer present, government evidence is presumptively valid, and defendants are prevented from challenging (and sometimes even knowing about) much of the evidence against them — “fall well short of the procedures and adversarial mechanisms that would eliminate the need for habeas corpus review.” Those grave deficiencies in the CSRT process mean that “there is considerable risk of error” in the tribunals’ conclusions.
The Court’s ruling was grounded in its recognition that the guarantee of habeas corpus was so central to the Founding that it was one of the few individual rights included in the Constitution even before the Bill of Rights was enacted. As the Court put it: “the Framers viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty, and they understood the writ of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure that freedom.” The Court noted that freedom from arbitrary or baseless imprisonment was one of the core rights established by the 13th Century Magna Carta, and it is the writ of habeas corpus which is the means for enforcing that right. Once habeas corpus is abolished — as the Military Commissions Act sought to do — then we return to the pre-Magna Carta days where the Government is free to imprison people with no recourse.
Filed under: 1984, 4th amendment, Australia, Big Brother, Britain, Checkpoints, Control Grid, DNA Database, Europe, Fascism, India, Martial Law, militarized police, Military, Military Industrial Complex, minnesota, Police State, supreme court, Surveillance, United Kingdom, War On Terror, Washington D.C. | Tags: DUI
Court: Police Can Take Blood Without Warrant
Star Tribune
May 31, 2008
Related: San Antonio Cops Force Blood Test on Drives
Editor’s Note: There are other ways to determine if somebody is drunk than by taking their blood. DUI laws are ridiculous to begin with because if you are driving dangerously, you are driving dangerously regardless of if you are drunk or not drunk. This is an incredibly stupid decision by the fools on the Minnesota Supreme Court.
When authorities have reason to believe that a drunken driver has caused a serious or fatal accident they have a right to draw the driver’s blood to test its alcohol content without their consent and without a search warrant, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The ruling was greeted with relief by law enforcers.
The high court reversed a ruling by a Dakota County district judge in the case of Janet Sue Shriner, 48, of Burnsville.
Charges of drunken driving and criminal vehicular homicide were dismissed against Shriner involving a 2006 accident in Burnsville because the lower court ruled that police should have at least tried to obtain a warrant before taking her blood without her consent.
In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court said that the “rapid, natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood creates … a circumstance [requiring immediate attention] that will justify police taking a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw from a defendant” provided the officer has probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed criminal vehicular homicide or operation.
The case against Shriner has been on hold pending the Supreme Court ruling, but will now move forward.
“This decision in the Shriner case is very much appreciated,” Dakota County Attorney Jim Backstrom said. “It’s very positive news for law enforcement across our state.”
State Patrol Maj. Mike Asleson, who was messaging all patrol staff about the ruling Friday afternoon, said it “will keep us from having to go through what we sort of felt were unnecessary hoops that just delayed the inevitable, which was getting the blood draw from the driver.
“We’re grateful to the court for their ruling,” Asleson said.
http://www.radioaustrali..806/s2261531.htm?tab=latest
Surveillance Society To Quadruple By 2013
http://www.thought-criminal.org/article/node/1666
Terror law turns thousands of council officials into spies
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4036231.ece
UK: Police Punishing Middle Class To Fill Quotas
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new..middle-classes-to-hit-targets.html
Indianapolis To Become “Mock Battlefield”
http://infowars.net/articles/may2008/290508Indianapolis.htm
Big Brother’s Candid Camera At 30,000 Feet
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2456
’Big Brother’ policing to target youths
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews..o-target-youths.html
DC Police To Get AR-15 Machine Guns
http://www.b92.net//eng/news..5&dd=17&nav_id=50325
Washington DC Police Arm Officers With Military Assault Rifiles
http://www.badcopnews.com/2008/05/3..-assault-rifiles-this-wont-end-well/
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, 4th amendment, bill of rights, Canada, Checkpoints, DHS, Dictatorship, Drivers License, George Bush, Germany, Homeland Security, Illegal Immigration, Martial Law, Mexico, michael chertoff, national id, Nazi, Patrick Leahy, Police State, Real ID, supreme court, US Constitution, Vermont, WW2
Chertoff To Turn Vermont Into Nazi Germany
Lee Rogers
Rogue Government
April 9, 2008
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is continuing their agenda to turn the United States of America into a 21st century version Nazi Germany. According to a report from WCAX, the Department of Homeland Security is seeking to setup a permanent internal checkpoint in the middle of Vermont so they can look for illegal immigrants, drug dealers and terrorists. These types of checkpoints are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment which prohibits the government from conducting searches and seizures without a warrant. In addition, the DHS is attempting to use the illegal immigration issue as a way to justify the establishment of this checkpoint. This is another example of the government capitalizing on a problem they created in order to implement a phony solution. The government has given all the incentive in the world for Mexicans to come here illegally and has done little to empower the border patrol agents on the U.S. Mexico border to stop them. In fact, they’ve actually done a great deal to ensure that the agents do not do their job. The U.S. actually gave a drug trafficker immunity to testify against border patrol agents after the agents shot the drug trafficker while he was attempting to bring drugs over the border. Both of the border agents are now sitting in prison and the decider George W. Bush has decided not to pardon them. It is laughable that the DHS wants to setup an internal checkpoint in the middle of Vermont under the guise that they are attempting to stop illegal immigrants, drug dealers and terrorists when they have set policies to discourage border patrol agents from doing their job on the U.S. Mexico border.
Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont questioned DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff about the proposed checkpoint during his testimony in front of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security on April 2nd, 2008. Below is a blurb taken from the Brattleboro Reformer on the exchange between Leahy and Chertoff.
Sen. Patrick Leahy chastised Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff Wednesday for his agency’s plan to build a permanent immigration checkpoint in central Vermont, wryly exclaiming that Chertoff should just “federalize Vermont.”
The interaction comes as the Bush administration is proposing a $4 million project to build fixed facilities within 100 miles of the Canadian border to conduct random vehicle checks for illegal immigrants, drugs and weapons, according to Leahy.
“So what you’re saying is in a little state like mine everyone should be stopped going down that interstate, no matter whether they’re going to visit a sick relative at the VA hospital?” Leahy prodded Chertoff in a Judiciary Committee hearing.
“We’re all sort of presumed guilty until proven innocent,” the Vermont Democrat added. “It sounds like Big Brother gone awry.”
Chertoff said, “Here’s the bottom line. Having checkpoints make sense.”
He said drug dealers and child molesters have been captured at similar checkpoints.
It is amazing that Chertoff would actually have the nerve to say that having internal checkpoints is a sensible approach. Chertoff is advocating something that is illegal and forbidden by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Not only that, but when a government sets up internal checkpoints within its own borders that is a sure fire sign that tyranny has come. The Nazis setup a system of internal checkpoints during World War II Germany and demanded citizens furnish the appropriate papers when questioned by government agents. The DHS is already attempting to setup a National ID card system through the implementation of the Real ID Act. It is clear that they want Real ID complaint identification cards to serve as America’s equivalent to the papers that the Nazi’s made their citizens carry.
Amazingly the criminals in the U.S. Supreme Court have already ruled that sobriety checkpoints are within the bounds of the Constitution. As a result, police are allowed to setup checkpoints and go on fishing expeditions to look for drunk drivers. This combined with the DHS attempting to setup this particular internal checkpoint and the implementation of the Real ID Act is more proof that this country is turning into a 21st century version of Nazi Germany.
This country is gone. When we have a government agency that is trying to setup an internal checkpoint under the guise of searching for drug dealers, terrorists or illegal immigrants it is clear that tyranny is here. There are more effective ways to deal with the illegal immigration problem but the only solutions the government brings forward are phony ones that serve their agenda. Setting up an internal checkpoint in the middle of Vermont is entirely idiotic and insane. Chertoff should be removed from office for this attempt to violate the Constitution with internal checkpoints as well as the countless other violations of the Constitution that the DHS has been involved in during his tenure as DHS Secretary. Not only that, but he also has an uncanny resemblance to the evil Skeletor character in the 1980s cartoon He-Man. Imagine all the children he scares each time he appears on the TV. All jokes aside, Chertoff needs to be fired immediately otherwise the enslavement agenda at the DHS will continue.
Filed under: 1st amendment, 2nd Amendment, anti gun, bill of rights, free speech, Gun Control, militia, supreme court, US Constitution, Washington D.C. | Tags: Founding Fathers, George Bush, james madison, john adams, neocons, noah webster, Paul D. Clement, Ron Paul, Senate, tenche coxe, thomas jefferson
Media Declares “Victory” For Gun Rights As Second Amendment Is Systematically Destroyed
DC handgun ban case poses grave threat to constitutional rights
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
March 19, 2008
Comments made by justices in an ongoing landmark case, which seeks to address the very meaning of the second amendment, have been heralded as a “victory” for the individual right to bear arms, but in reality the second amendment is being completely eroded altogether.
Individual Right to Bear Arms Wins Favor in Court Argument, the headline from the New York Law Journal, was typical of the media output yesterday after most of the nine Supreme Court justices hinted that the right to bear arms is a “general right.”
However, the case is likely to conclude with the introduction of several new regulations on hand gun ownership at the very least, and, if the government gets its way, a total ban on handguns.
The outcome will set the precedent for gun laws nationwide.
The NY Law Journal writes:
Justice Kennedy’s comments appeared to spell trouble for efforts by the District of Columbia to revive its strict handgun ban, although lawyers for both the Bush administration and gun-rights advocates acknowledged that some lesser regulation of the right would be acceptable.
Counting Justice Kennedy, it appeared that five or more justices were ready to recognize some form of an individual right to keep and bear arms that is only loosely tethered, if at all, to the functioning of militias. What kind of regulation of that individual right will be allowed by those justices is uncertain.
[…]
When the arguments were over, gun-control advocates seemed less pessimistic than before the session began, though they did not predict victory.
Joshua Horwitz, director of the Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence, who filed a brief in the case and watched the arguments, conceded he cannot count five votes for a strictly militia-rights view of the Second Amendment that would allow for almost unlimited regulation of firearms. But he could conceive of five justices adopting an individual-rights view that will mean “a lot of regulations will be OK. The outcome is not necessarily poor for us.”
The case, DC v. Heller, stems from proceedings filed by lawyers for security guard Mr Dick Anthony Heller, which state that the District’s categorical restrictions are so broad that they cannot comply with the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms.
An amicus curiae brief filed by U.S Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, on behalf of the Bush administration and the government, says that federal gun control measures should not be limited and proposes that a court may determine that a full scale ban on almost all self-defense firearms may be upheld as constitutional if it constitutes a “reasonable” restriction of constitutional rights.
Lawyer Alan Gura, opposing the law and representing Mr Heller said “We have here a ban on all guns for all people in all homes at all times in the nation’s capital.”
Read the transcript of yesterday’s argument.
Read briefs in D.C. v. Heller.
Advocates of the ban and the representatives of the District of Columbia have attempted to argue that the history and context of the second amendment applies to the rights of militias and not to individuals.
However, there are thousands of quotes from the founding fathers that pour water on this weak argument. The founders said over and over that when a government seeks to take away individual weapons it constitutes tyranny and that government must be removed.
Here are a few choice quotes:
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
— Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
—Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
—James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
—John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
Furthermore, even if you argue that the second amendment applies to militias, the very definition of the militia, according to the founders and their contemporaries, is THE PEOPLE:
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
—Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
—Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Last month a majority of the Senate and more than half of the members of the House issued a brief in which they urged the Supreme Court to uphold it’s previous ruling that the District’s handgun ban violates the second amendment.
The brief asked the Supreme Court to uphold the lower courts decision and allow the precedent of applying a stricter standard of review for gun control cases to stand.
In a separate letter, other representatives, including Congressman Ron Paul, called for the Clement/Bush administration brief to be withdrawn as it sets a precedent for further erosion of individuals’ Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
Citing Constitutional concerns the letter stated:
“If the Supreme Court finds that the D.C. gun ban is a “reasonable” limitation of Second Amendment rights, the Court could create a dangerous precedent for the nation in the future. Such a decision could open the door to further regulation on American citizens’ Second Amendment rights on a large scale.”
Essentially the government is saying “You have the right to bear arms, unless we say so.”
Where there is individual ownership of weapons there is liberty, where there is not there is tyranny because powerful organizations and governments will have a monopoly on it. The latest developments in this case are not a “victory” for the second amendment, on the contrary, they constitute its very undoing.
http://www.physorg.com/news125077084.html
New Bill to Register Ammunition
http://www.usavsus.info/US-AmmoRegistr.htm
If Courts Can Gut Second Amendment…
http://www.rense.com/general81/gut.htm
Good News or Bad? Local Gun Shop Jammed w/ Buyers
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/6078
Supreme Court To Rule On 2nd Amendment
http://www.washingto..ticle/2008/03/15/AR2008031502358_pf.html
Filed under: anti gun, Britain, Europe, Gun Control, gun free zones, Gun Owners, Media, Media Fear, methamphetamines, Propaganda, prozac, supreme court, United Kingdom, US Constitution, veterans, virginia tech, Washington D.C.
Psychotropic Drugs & Gun Free Zones Again The Cocktail For A Killer
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
February 16, 2008
As the media prepares to launch another blitz of gun control propaganda in the wake of the Northern Illinois University shootings, it’s no surprise to learn that killer Steven Kazmierczak had been taking psychotropic drugs and that the campus was a victim disarmament zone – the two major factors which always breed this kind of tragedy.
Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, as well as 15-year-old Kip Kinkel, the Oregon killer who gunned down his parents and classmates, and Cho Seung Hui, the Virginia Tech killer, were all on psychotropic drugs. Scientific studies proving that prozac encourages suicidal tendencies and psychopathic behavior in young people are voluminous and span back nearly a decade.
Jeff Weise, the Red Lake High School killer was on prozac, “Unabomber” Ted Kaczinski, Michael McDermott, John Hinckley, Jr., Byran Uyesugi, Mark David Chapman and Charles Carl Roberts IV, the Amish school killer, were all on SSRI psychotropic drugs.
The press has tried to spin the fact that Kazmierczak was known to be on the same drugs by pushing the line that he was off his medication. Whether as a result of side-effects or during actual use, psychotropic drugs are admitted to increase psychopathic behavior in young people, read any bottle of prozac and you will see this fact freely admitted.
Gun free campus zones, as was the case again at Northern Illinois University, contribute only to ensuring victim disarmament and a friendly environment for the killer to conduct his rampage unopposed.
The media automatically blame the second amendment whenever a school shooting takes place, but when law-abiding people are allowed to own guns, the fatality toll is always reduced, as was the case at Virginia Appalachian School of Law, where Peter Odighizuwa shot three people dead before other students were able to retrieve guns from their cars and put an end to the carnage before there was more bloodshed.
85% of Americans support the right of a principle or a teacher to have instant access to a safely stored firearm in order to defend the lives of students and prevent a school massacre, but a drive is already underway to disarm more victims and grease the skids for more horrors similar to what unfolded on Thursday.
Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago has already seized on the tragedy for the political purposes of pushing gun control, asserting Friday that the incident provides the latest evidence gun control legislation is needed.
The shootings coincide with an imminent Supreme Court decision on whether or not to overturn the handgun ban in Washington DC, a case that could set the precedent for other cities with strict gun control. Many in the past have noted that school shootings almost always closely precede important legislative gun control cases.
Before serving in the Army for six months, Kazmierczak intended to build a career in the criminal justice system.
“I really believe in the cliche now that the further I go in college, the less I realize I know about a multitude of subjects,” he wrote. “All I know is I want to work in the [criminal justice system] in some capacity; as a social worker or as an overly litigious advocate of prisoners,” said Kazmierczak.
http://www.infowars.com/?p=288
Another Massacre At A “Gun Free Zone” College Campus
http://www.kxmb.com/News/Nation/209747.asp
UK: Schools Get Knife Detectors
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/..ticle_id=514719&in_page_id=1770
Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html
Legislators jump on gun control issue
http://www.sj-r.com/index.asp
Daley says NIU shootings underscore need for gun control
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/02/daley-says-niu.html
Filed under: 4th amendment, Canada, Police State, Robert Dziekanski, supreme court, Taser Guns, US Constitution
Supreme Court Kills 4th Amendment
The Supreme Court rules it’s okay for the feds to steal your stuff. Seriously
NY Times
January 22, 2008
Federal law enforcement officers are immune from lawsuits for mishandling, losing or even stealing personal property that comes under their control in the course of their official duties, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday in a 5-to-4 decision.
The case was brought by a federal prison inmate, but the ruling was not limited to the prison context. It was an interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which applies to federal employees’ liability for damages and generally waives immunity from being sued.
The statute has numerous exceptions that preserve immunity in particular situations, however. The exception at issue in the case provides that “any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer” will be immune from suit for “any claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax or customs duty or the detention of any goods, merchandise or other property.”
The question was the meaning of the phrase “any other law enforcement officer.” Did Congress mean to confer blanket immunity for property-related offenses on the part of any federal law enforcement officer? Or was the immunity limited to officers engaged in tax or customs work?
http://www.motorists.org/blog/motoris..ourth-amendment-is-dead/
Grandma Gets Arrested Waiting For Fries
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/…ets_arrested_waiting_for_fries.html
Vancouver Airport Tragedy
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IYV9UDhc0k4
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, anti gun, Antonin Scalia, Bill Kristol, DOJ, George Bush, Gun Control, neocons, Neolibs, paul clement, paul wolfowitz, supreme court, US Constitution, Washington D.C.
Neocons: 2nd Amendment Has Restrictions
Kurt Nimmo
Truth News
January 15, 2008
In Bushzarro world, up is down, black is white, and the Second Amendment permits the government to make firearm possession illegal.
“Since ‘unrestricted’ private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration,” reports . “The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.”
Clement was an understudy of the neocon Laurence H. Silberman, a federal judge appointed co-chair of the Iraq Intelligence Commission — the official excuse making body designated to minimize the impact of neocon lies about Iraq — and the reactionary Supreme Antonin Scalia, a member of the Federalist Society, a fascist club aligned with the American Enterprise Institute, the CIA asset Richard Mellon Scaife, and a smattering of neocons, including Bill Kristol, the latest edition to the “liberal” New York Times. “Clement clerked for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and worked as chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights. He joined the Department of Justice in 2001 and moved into his current position in 2005.”
“Clement is the Bush administration’s chief lawyer before the court, and submitted the arguments in the case that is to determine whether the D.C. limit is constitutional. He said the 2nd Amendment, ‘protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations,’ and noted the D.C. ban probably goes too far,” WorldNetDaily continues.
However, Clement argues that nothing “in the 2nd Amendment properly understood… calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms.” In other words, according to Clement and the neocons, you have a right to possess firearms under the Constitution while at the same time the government has the right to make possession of firearms illegal. In Bushzarro world, up is down, black is white, and Orwellian doublethink – the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously – rules the day.
It should come as no surprise the neocons are gun-grabbers while at the same time claiming to be conservatives. “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” the neocon sock puppet Bush told Republican Congressional leaders back in 2005 when some of them complained about the USA Patriot Act. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
Neocon guru Leo Strauss “abhorred liberal democracy,” not the modern version of lefty liberalism, but classic liberalism, i.e., natural rights of the sort at the bedrock of the Constitution. He engendered this hatred of individual rights in his followers, including Allan Bloom, Henry Jaffa, Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, and many others, a handful now at the very pinnacle of power and pulling Bush’s strings. Strauss’ vision was of “a hierarchical society based on natural inequalities and welded together with the fanatical devotion state religion engenders,” writes Michael Doliner.
Strauss’s political program is designed to counter the ills of liberalism. He believed in, and proposed, a state religion as a way of reviving absolutes, countering free thought, and enforcing a cohesive unity. Strauss argued against a society containing a multiplicity of coexisting religions and goals, which would break the society apart. He thought that ordinary people should not be exposed to reason. To rely on reason is to look into the abyss, for reason provided no comforting absolutes to shield one against the blank sky. Strauss opposed not reason itself, but reason stripped of its secrecy. Reason is for the few, not the many. The Enlightenment, the exposing of reason, was the beginning of the disaster. A reliance on reason, as opposed to religion, produced “modernity” which is nothing more than nihilism made political.
Jeffrey Steinberg expands on this:
The hallmark of Strauss’ approach to philosophy was his hatred of the modern world, his belief in a totalitarian system, run by “philosophers,” who rejected all universal principles of natural law, but saw their mission as absolute rulers, who lied and deceived a foolish “populist” mass, and used both religion and politics as a means of disseminating myths that kept the general population in clueless servitude. For Strauss and all of his protégés (Strauss personally had 100 Ph.D. students, and the “Straussians” now dominate most university political science and philosophy departments), the greatest object of hatred was the United States itself, which they viewed as nothing better than a weak, pathetic replay of “liberal democratic” Weimar Germany.
It stands to reason, then, that the hated, resented, and feared masses should be stripped of all rights, including the bedrock right promised by the Second Amendment, as they may eventually come to their senses, abandon Faux News and propaganda catapulted, storm the castle, and bring the warmongering and liberty hating protégés of Strauss to justice.
As Hitler, Mao, and Stalin realized — in fact as all dictators and tyrants understand — in order to run roughshod over the people and enslave them, you have to disarm them first and foremost.
It is the job of U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement to begin this process.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59674
Bush Administration Backs Gun Control
http://noworldsystem.com/..tration-backs-gun-control/
noworldsystem.com 