Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: 1984, agriculture, big brother, camera ban, corruption, Dictatorship, Empire, farm, farming, fascism, felony, florida, Jim Norman, justice system, nanny state, orwell, PETA, photograph, photographing, Police State, prison industrial complex, SB 1246, Senate, stupid laws, us constitution, Washington D.C.
Photographing cows or other farm scenery could land you in jail under Senate bill
Florida Tribune
February 23, 2011
Taking photographs from the roadside of a sunrise over hay bales near the Suwannee River, horses grazing near Ocala or sunset over citrus groves along the Indian River could land you in jail under a Senate bill filed Monday.
SB 1246 by Sen. Jim Norman, R-Tampa, would make it a first-degree felony to photograph a farm without first obtaining written permission from the owner. A farm is defined as any land “cultivated for the purpose of agricultural production, the raising and breeding of domestic animals or the storage of a commodity.”
Media law experts say the ban would violate freedoms protected in the U. S. Constitution. But Wilton Simpson, a farmer who lives in Norman’s district, said the bill is needed to protect the property rights of farmers and the “intellectual property” involving farm operations.
Simpson, president of Simpson Farms near Dade City, said the law would prevent people from posing as farmworkers so that they can secretly film agricultural operations.
He said he could not name an instance in which that happened. But animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Animal Freedom display undercover videos on their web sites to make their case that livestock farming and meat consumption are cruel.
Jeff Kerr, general counsel for PETA, said the state should be ashamed that such a bill would be introduced.
“Mr. Norman should be filing bills to throw the doors of animal producers wide open to show the public where their food comes from rather than criminalizing those who would show animal cruelty,” he said.
Simpson agreed the bill would make it illegal to photograph a farm from a roadside without written permission. Norman could not be reached for comment.
Judy Dalglish, executive director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said shooting property from a roadside or from the air is legal. The bill “is just flat-out unconstitutional not to mention stupid,” she said.
And she said there are laws already to prosecute trespassing onto property without permission. And if someone poses as a farm employee to shoot undercover video, they can be fired and possibly sued.
“Why pass a law you know will not stand constitutional muster?” Dalglish said.
Simpson said he doesn’t think that “innocent” roadside photography would be prosecuted even if the bill is passed as introduced.
“Farmers are a common-sense people,” he said. “A tourist who stops and takes a picture of cows — I would not imagine any farmer in the state of Florida that cares about that at all.”
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, CPAC, cpac 2011, end the fed, freedom movement, GOP, House, liberty movement, patriot movement, Ron Paul, Senate, tea party, truth movement, us constitution
Ron Paul Wins Presidential Straw Poll at CPAC — Again
FOX News
February 12, 2011
For the second year in a row, Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, earning 30 percent of the vote.
The Texas congressman, known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a 2008 GOP candidate who is expected to run again, came in second place with 23 percent of the vote. Romney won the previous three presidential straw polls before Paul snapped his streak last year.
Many convention-goers booed when the results were announced but the Paul supporters drowned them out with chants of “Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!”
Paul’s consecutive victories in the straw poll have frustrated many GOP faithful who would rather see a more credible contender win. A CPAC official told Fox News that the big story is not Paul winning again but rather the strength of Romney’s second-place finish.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: 2-party system, 4th amendment, afghanistan, army, civil liberties, civil rights, Congress, CPAC, cpac 2011, dicatorship, Empire, end the fed, Federal Reserve, foreign aid, GOP, House, iraq, left right paradigm, liberty movement, military, military industrial complex, military spending, national debt debt budget, patriot act, patriot movement, rand paul, Ron Paul, Senate, tea party, troops, truth movement, us constitution
The Best Speeches at CPAC 2011
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: 1984, agriculture, Codex Alimentarius, Congress, control grid, corporatism, DHS, Dictatorship, Empire, farming, fascism, FDA, food ban, food nazis, food police, food safety, Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, gardening, gardens, government bureaucracy, government control, government regulations, health and environment, homeland security, House, malthusian, malthusian catastrophe, Michael R. Taylor, monsanto, nanny state, nazi, Oppression, organic, orwell, permaculture, Police State, rima laibow, s.510, s510, Self Sufficiency, Senate, small farmers, survivalist, survivalists, US farms, victory gardens
Homeland Security’s War on Food
Alan Villegas
Official Wire
August 31, 2010
The words “homeland security” are found 41 times in the text of the bill S. 510, also known as the Food Safety Modernization Act. Unprecedented powers over food are set to be handed over to Homeland Security if the bill is not stopped.
The bill opens opens the door to even more federal control over the everyday lives of American citizens. Since they are already engaging in organic raw milk raids without the increased powers of S. 510, the question is going to be how many more guns-drawn raids are we to expect after the bill becomes law?
It gets worse. Not only does the bill grant the FDA more power, Michael R. Taylor was named deputy commissioner for foods at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2010.
Michael R. Taylor also worked for Monsanto, was a lobbyist for them, according to Wikipedia. And all of this activity is happening at a time when a flourishing self-sufficiency movement is taking hold in this country, at a time when demand for fresh, local, and organic food is at an all time high.
The question is: Do America’s small farmers want a pro-Monsanto lobbyist in charge of the nation’s food supply?
The answer is clear and this may turn out to be a draw-the-line-in-the-sand moment for many people. May God bless America!
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: 1984, agriculture, Codex Alimentarius, Congress, control grid, corporatism, DHS, Dictatorship, Empire, farming, fascism, FDA, food ban, food nazis, food police, food safety, Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, gardening, gardens, government bureaucracy, government control, government regulations, health and environment, health nazis, homeland security, House, malthusian, malthusian catastrophe, nanny state, nazi, Oppression, organic, orwell, Police State, rima laibow, s.510, s510, seed ban, Senate, small farmers, UN, united nations, US farms, victory gargens, WHO, WTO
Freedom to Grow and Eat Your Own Food in Danger
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: civil liberties, civil rights, Congress, corruption, detainee, detention, DHS, Dictatorship, domestic terrorism, domestic terrorist, Empire, enemy belligerent, enemy of the state, extraordinary rendition, fascism, federal crimes, geneva convention, government crimes, homeland security, House, human rights, interrogation, Joe Lieberman, john mccain, judicial system, justice system, mccain, miranda rights, Oppression, prison industrial complex, S. 3081, scott brown, Senate, torture, us constitution, war crime, war crimes, War On Terror, Washington D.C.
McCain wants U.S. citizens imprisoned without trial
McCain introduced a bill that will allow the federal government to detain any U.S. citizen they consider a hostile ‘enemy belligerent’, held indefinitely and without trial
Examiner
March 12, 2010
Last week, John McCain introduced a bill into the U.S. Senate which, if passed, would actually allow U.S. citizens to be arrested and detained indefinitely, all without Miranda rights or ever being charged with a crime.
The stated purpose of S. 3081 (The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act) reads: “To provide for the interrogation and detention of enemy belligerents who commit hostile acts against the United States, to establish certain limitations on the prosecution of such belligerents for such acts, and for
other purposes.”
The bill has nine co-sponsors including Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA).
Section 5 of S. 3081 states:
- “An individual, including a citizen of the United
States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent
under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article
5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of
Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal
charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities
against the United States or its coalition partners in which
the individual has engaged, or which the individual has
purposely and materially supported, consistent with the
law of war and any authorization for the use of military
force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.”
This bill, introduced by McCain, who despite overwhelming evidence, claims to be a “conservative,” would not only take away our right to a trial, but would also allow the federal government to arrest and imprison anyone the current administration deems hostile.
Of course, that would be the same administration whose Homeland Security Secretary has classified veterans, retired law enforcement, Ron Paul supporters, and conservatives as “terrorists.”
If it was not clear before, it should be now that John McCain has as little respect for the Constitution as he does for our borders.
Filed under: Afghanistan, army, Iraq, Military, nation building, occupation, Troops, veterans | Tags: Chuck Roeder, Congress, fort sill, House, Maj. Gen. Peter Vangjel, neglect, Pentagon, Senate, soldier, u.s. soldiers, walter reed
Army official forced to quit for reporting mold in veteran’s barracks
Think Progress
August 20, 2008
On Monday, USA Today reported that barracks for wounded soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan at the Army’s Fort Sill were infested with mold. In addition, soldiers living in the units said that “their complaints about mold and other problems” have been ignored for months and that they were told to keep quiet about the problems:
Twenty soldiers, who spoke to USA Today early last week, said their complaints about mold and other problems went unheeded for months. They also said they had been ordered not speak about the conditions at Fort Sill.
The base commander, Maj. Gen. Peter Vangjel, said in response to inquiries about the ongoing problems, “We’re going in and we’re going to take care of this for these guys.” In a later Associated Press report, Vangjel acknowledged that soldiers who knew about the mold were ordered to “remain silent,” but added that suggestions that the complaints were ignored are “simply not true.”
But now the Army appears to have retaliated against the Army social services official, Chuck Roeder, who first reported the poor conditions at Fort Sill — and their neglect — to the media. USA Today reports that Roeder has been forced out of his job:
An Army social services coordinator…who told USA Today about poor conditions at Fort Sill’s unit for wounded soldiers has been forced out of his job, the employee and base officials said Tuesday.
Soldiers meeting with Army Secretary Pete Geren…on Tuesday said Chuck Roeder, 54, was a strong advocate for their problems and should not have been forced to leave. […]
Roeder, a retired soldier, said he was told to resign or he would be fired.
An executive officer at Fort Sill said Roeder’s departure is “purely coincidental.”
The episode at Fort Sill is reminiscent of the handling of the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed uncovered by the Washington Post last year. In the aftermath of the Post’s report, CQ Today revealed that Walter Reed’s problems were long-known to officials in the Army and Congress, the Army accused the media of propagating “misinformation,” and the Pentagon tried to quiet criticisms by blocking the congressional testimony of the former Walter Reed Chief.
Noting that Fort Sill is the second Army installation in recent months to have such problems with barracks for returning soldiers, VetVoice writes, “this is pathetic.”
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