Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 17, 2011
In the Soviet Union and communist countries, photography in public
was considered suspect. It is now the same in the New Soviet Union, the
United States of America, formerly the land of the free and the home of
the brave, now land of the surveilled and home of the cowed.
As the web form below demonstrates, photography is now considered
suspicious and possibly criminal, the same as theft and physical
intrusion.
The Spokane County Sheriff’s Office may actually believe a certain
number of photographers are working for al-Qaeda – or the Sovereign
Citizens movement – but the actual reason for listing such normally
innocuous behavior as suspect is to get subjects of the state to realize
they are living in a dictatorship… minus all the Stalinesque statues.
The entire Stasi rat-out-your-neighbor form can be viewed here.
Laurence Vance LewRockwell.com
May 17, 2011 Editor’s note: Newt is just another garden variety statist who
thinks government should lord over subjects for their own damn good. In
addition to supporting Obamacare, or Gingrichcare, he also advocates drug testing everybody in the country.
In other words, if this guy becomes president – and he won’t – he would
force you at gunpoint to demonstrate to the state you don’t take drugs imported by the CIA and the banksters. A vote for Newt would be a vote for radically expanding the prison-slave complex.
Gingrich made the case on Meet the Press
yesterday, not for a free market in medical care and medical
insurance, but for Gingrichcare. Interesting that back in 1993 Gingrich
said he favored the federal government requiring individuals to buy
health insurance and then subsidizing individuals’ purchase of health
insurance on a “sliding scale” determined by their income. Now he
supports requiring all individuals to buy health insurance, post a bond
to pay for health care, or in some way indicate that they are going to
be accountable.
Is any of this a surprise? I think Gingrich for president will turn out to be a total flop like Giuliani for president.
A few hours ago, the Food and Drug Administration declared it no longer
needs credible evidence to seize food that may be contaminated.
Ignoring the Fourth Amendment entirely, the FDA claims that based on
mere suspicion that a food product has been contaminated or mislabeled,
and that serious illness or death will result, it can hold the food for
30 days while it then looks for evidence. It claims this power under
the Food Safety Modernization Act, which President Monsanto, I mean,
Obama, signed in January.
On May 4th, the FDA stated:
Previously, the FDA’s ability to detain food products applied only when
the agency had credible evidence that a food product presented was
contaminated or mislabeled in a way that presented a threat of serious
adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.
Beginning July, the FDA will be able to detain food products that it has
reason to believe are adulterated or misbranded for up to 30 days, if
needed, to ensure they are kept out of the marketplace. The products
will be kept out of the marketplace while the agency determines whether
an enforcement action such as seizure or federal injunction against
distribution of the product in commerce, is necessary.
Credible evidence no longer applies, it seems.
The Fourth Amendment states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
FDA thinks it can engage in search and seizure willy nilly. They’ve
already been doing this, of course — but only at natural food
facilities. Factory farms like DeCosta Eggs can sicken thousands of
people over a period of years, without ever being shut down or having
its product seized or destroyed. But, if you raise natural foods without
pasteurizing them or adulterating them with drugs and genetically
modified ingredients, even though no one becomes ill from your product,
then be assured, the FDA will seize your products, your computers, your
paperwork, and shut you down.
Most recently, the FDA shut down Pennsylvania farmer Dan Algyer, though no one became ill from his natural milk. Morningland Cheese and Estrella Family Creamery
are but two more in a long line of victims of the corporate war on
natural food, though their products sickened no one. And most of the
nation knows of the armed raid on Rawesome Foods last year. (Also see David Gumpert’s book, The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America’s Emerging Battle Over Food Rights.)
In the May 2011 edition of the Minneapolis St. Paul Magazine (hat tip FTCLDF), Greg Breining summarizes the issues in MILK vs milk:
Do consumers have the right to choose? Well, of course we do. Food
freedom is as inalienable as the right to breathe. The freedom to eat
the food with which humans evolved is requisite to our survival as
individuals and as a species. Thomas Jefferson agrees: “Was the
government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be
in such keeping as our souls are now.”
That’s often paraphrased as: “If people let the government decide what
foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be
in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”
Another rule announced by the FDA requires importers to declare if any
nation refused their food or feed product for any reason, and to give
the reason. Both rules go into effect July 3, 2011.
Amanda Simon ACLU
May 17, 2011
Tucked inside the National Defense Authorization Act, being marked up by the House Armed Services Committee this week, is a hugely important provision that hasn’t been getting a lot of attention — a brand new authorization for a worldwide war.
This stealth provision was added to the bill by the committee’s
chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), but has a bit of a history. It
was first proposed by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in 2008
after the Bush administration lost the Boumediene v. Bush
case, in which the Supreme Court decided that federal courts would
subject the administration’s asserted law of war basis to hold
Guantanamo detainees to searching review. An idea that may have
originally been intended to bolster the Bush administration’s basis for
holding Guantanamo detainees is now being promoted as an
authorization of a worldwide war — and could become the single biggest
ceding of unchecked war authority to the executive branch in modern
American history.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
The current authorization of war provided the constitutional
authority for the executive branch to go to war in Afghanistan.
Subsequently, it has reportedly been invoked by the executive branch
much more broadly to also use military force in Yemen and elsewhere, to
justify torture and abuse of detainees, to eavesdrop and spy on American citizens without warrants, and to imprison people captured far from any battlefield without charge or trial.
Before Congress this week, the proposed authorization of a worldwide
war goes much further, however, allowing war wherever there are
terrorism suspects in any country around the world without an expiration
date, geographical boundaries or connection to the 9/11 attacks or
any other specific harm or threat to the United States. There have
been no hearings on the provision, nor has its necessity been
explained by Rep. McKeon or anyone else in Congress. Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)
The idea that Congress is about to pass new authority for a
worldwide war as we’re trying to ramp down our efforts in both Iraq and
Afghanistan is startingto getattention.
We’re hoping that the House Armed Serviced Committee, and the full
House, will reconsider this troubling and dangerous provision. We’ll
keep you updated as this troubling provision progresses, but you can
help now by telling your representative to oppose any new and expanded war authority.
The
U.S. Supreme Court has put an end to a lawsuit over the CIA's so-called
torture flights, refusing to consider a long-running case against a San
Jose-based subsidiary of Boeing accused of participating in the
operations.
In a one-line order, the Supreme Court on Monday
refused to review a federal appeals court ruling that found the lawsuit
could not proceed because of the possibility it might reveal national
security secrets. As a result, the ruling stands, derailing an American
Civil Liberties Union lawsuit against Jeppesen Dataplan, the Boeing
subsidiary accused of carrying out the flights under a contract with the
government.
ACLU lawyers expressed disappointment in the Supreme
Court's decision, and the Brennan Center for Justice urged the Obama
administration to reconsider its approach to invoking the state secrets
privilege in legal battles around the country.
"With today's
decision, the Supreme Court has refused once again to give justice to
torture victims and to restore our nation's reputation as a guardian of
human rights and the rule of law," said Ben Wizner, the ACLU's
litigation director for national security issues.
The Supreme
Court's action also means the justices declined to jump into reviewing
one of the more controversial methods used in the government's war on
terrorism, which has been in the forefront with the recent killing of
Osama bin Laden.
Both the Obama and Bush administrations had fought hard to
Advertisement
block the lawsuit from going
forward, arguing that it could expose government secrets. The case
tested the government's power to invoke the "state secrets" privilege to
fend off lawsuits.A sharply divided panel of the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 6-5 ruling last year, sided with the U.S.
Justice Department's arguments, saying the case "presents an
unacceptable risk of disclosure of state secrets no matter what the
legal or factual theories Jeppesen would choose to advance during a
defense."
The four-year legal battle stems from a case filed by
five former terrorism suspects who allege they were transported to
foreign countries and subjected to brutal CIA interrogation tactics.
ACLU lawyers insisted the government was abusing its state secrets
privilege to conceal the handling of the terrorism suspects.
Jeppesen
and Boeing have refused to discuss the company's relationship with the
CIA and the government's "extraordinary rendition" program, which was
launched in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
The
Supreme Court, meanwhile, has two other major California cases to
decide before it finishes up its term next month. The justices are
considering a legal challenge to California's law banning the sale of
violent video games to minors, and also federal court orders requiring
the state to shed nearly 40,000 inmates from its overcrowded prison
system.
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
May 17, 2011
The TSA has issued a laughable response to the news that the state
of Texas has passed a bill to officially make it a misdemeanor to
pat-down breasts, buttocks, or genitals.
The Agency contends, via its blog, that Texas cannot do anything to
restrict TSA procedures because, as a federal agency it is protected
under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
“Blogger Bob”, the TSA’s propaganda mouthpiece, writes:
“What’s our take on the Texas House of Representatives
voting to ban the current TSA pat-down? Well, the Supremacy Clause of
the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2) prevents states from
regulating the federal government.”
How ridiculous it is for the TSA to cite the Constitution in its own
defense! While citing one section, it is completely ignoring two
others – namely the Fourth and Tenth Amendments.
The Fourth Amendment protects “The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches” without “probable cause”.
As far as we can recollect, no where in the Constitution does it say
that the federal government has the right to touch Americans’ private
parts in the first instance.
Therefore, under the Tenth, States have the right to pass their own laws against this abuse of power, because:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
The TSA’s contention that the Supremacy Clause bars states from
regulating the federal government is a total lie. The Supremacy Clause
states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be
bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the
contrary notwithstanding.
In other words, The constitution is the supreme law and any federal laws made in line with the constitution are supreme. No where does it say that states cannot regulate federal government.
But why would we expect the TSA to understand the Constitution when it violates it every hour of every day?
The Supremacy Clause, as with every other part of the Constitution,
is there to protect against potential federal government abuses of
power, not to effectively enable them as the TSA claims. The
Constitution protects the rights of the people, not the rights of the
federal government.
In addition, there is no enumerated power in the Constitution that
gives the federal government the authority to regulate local airports.
Under the Tenth Amendment, airport operation falls under state
jurisdiction.
The TSA’s version of the US Constitution, like much of the federal
government’s, is a complete perversion of it’s actual meaning.
The TSA blog goes on to state:
“We wish we lived in a world where you could just walk
on a plane with no security screening, but that just isn’t the case
unfortunately. Aviation security agencies worldwide have been using
pat-downs long before TSA was created to prevent dangerous items from
getting onto airplanes. The pat-down is a highly effective tool to
resolve certain alarms and keep these dangerous items off of planes
that could cause catastrophic damage.”
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Again, this is a pathetic attempt at justification of full on
government groping. To claim that “Other countries did it first” is
just plain weak. Other countries do not have a written constitution
safeguarding the privacy rights of their citizens. And besides,
specifically, what other countries governments are putting their hands
inside people’s pants and literally touching their genitals?
The Texas House of Representatives passed the legislation on Friday to prohibit “intrusive touching” when people are seeking access to public buildings and forms of transportation.
The bill, sponsored by Republican House member David Simpson,
outlaws public servants from “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly
touching anyone’s anus, sexual organ, buttocks or breasts, including
touching through clothing, and any manner of touching that would be
offensive to a reasonable person.”
Should the bill also pass the Senate and be signed into law,
convicted TSA agents could face a $4,000 fine and up to one year in
jail.
Representative Simpson appeared on the Alex Jones Show Friday to discuss the bill:
Texas, and in particular Austin, has been at the forefront of the
revolt against the TSA since it began increasing its presence in
airports some eighteen months ago. In December, Austin’s Airport Advisory Commission approved a resolution advising the city council to oppose airport body scanners and invasive body searches. Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)
The TSA has signaled its intention to install the scanners at
Austin, but the date has continually been put back, with the agency
saying it could now be as late as 2012 before the devices are activated.
Meanwhile, in related news, the revolt against the TSA continues as a House Appropriations Subcommittee last week stripped $76 million out of the TSA budget for 2012.
The funds had been designated for the purchase of 275 more naked body
scanners. Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said that the body scanners
are “a nuisance. They’re slow. And they’re ineffective.”
— Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
Pakistani officials say NATO helicopters crossed into Pakistan and
fired on troops, wounding two soldiers in an incident that drew a strong
protest from the Pakistani military.
Tuesday's attack in the
Datta Khel area of North Waziristan came amid heightened tensions
between the United States and Pakistan, following the U.S. raid that
killed Osama bin Laden in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad.
Pakistan's
army says troops fired on NATO helicopters after they crossed into
Pakistan's northwestern tribal region from neighboring Afghanistan. Two
soldiers were wounded when the helicopters returned fire.
NATO has confirmed it had helicopters flying near the border, and said it is investigating the incident.
A
Western military official said the two helicopters were on the Afghan
side of the border and were fired on from inside Pakistan. He said the
helicopters only fired back after receiving fire twice.
North
Waziristan is known to be a hub for Taliban and al-Qaida-linked
militants who carry out attacks in neighboring Afghanistan. The tribal
region has repeatedly been targeted by U.S. drone strikes.
Pakistan's
army lodged a protest Tuesday and demanded a meeting with NATO on the
alleged cross-border attack. Pakistan briefly closed the main land
route for NATO supplies in Afghanistan after a similar incident last
year in which two Pakistani soldiers were killed.
Tuesday's
incident in North Waziristan is likely to add to tensions between
Islamabad and Washington, despite a visit by U.S. Senator John Kerry
Monday meant to repair bilateral relations following the U.S. operation
that killed bin Laden.
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has
warned that any future unilateral actions by the U.S. would carry
serious consequences. U.S. officials have questioned how the al-Qaida
leader was able to live in Pakistan for years without being detected.
During
a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in Washington on Tuesday,
Kerry said the U.S.-Pakistan relationship remains at a critical juncture
and that the United States has vital national security interests in the
region.
Senator Richard Lugar warned that the U.S. does not
give out "blank checks," referring to billions of dollars in aid given
to Pakistan. Lugar called on Pakistan to do more to root out terrorists
in the country.
Separately on Tuesday, Pakistani police say
security forces foiled a major suicide attack in Quetta, the capital of
southwestern Baluchistan province. Officials say five militants,
including three women, were planning to attack an army checkpoint when
police intercepted them. The attackers were killed in the resulting
exchange of fire.
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 17, 2011
With the Obama administration fast approaching a July deadline that
mandates troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan, Pakistan is moving into
the cross hairs as the next targeted conquest of the “war on terror,”
with NATO helicopters launching an attack on a Pakistani military
outpost today, triggering a firefight that injured two soldiers, as
Pakistan moves closer to China in an effort to avoid geopolitical
isolation.
Although NATO claimed it was responding to an unprovoked attack,
Pakistan lodged a “strong protest,” stating that its soldiers were
merely responding to an illegal incursion into Pakistani airspace.
“The incident is certain to weigh on relations between the U.S. and
Pakistan have been pushed almost to the breaking point after the May 2
raid on Abbottabad that killed bin Laden, with Pakistan’s parliament
condemning the operation as a violation of the nation’s sovereignty,” reports Reuters.
Pakistan’s political leaders as well as its citizens have been
vociferous in their protests against US Predator drone strikes in the
country that have killed 10 innocent people for every “militant” killed. These demonstrations reached fever pitch in the days before Obama’s announcement that Navy SEALS had killed Bin Laden at a compound in Abbottabad.
Washington was also furious about the Pakistani ISI’s role in outing
CIA operative Raymond Davis, who shot dead two Pakistanis he claimed
were trying to rob him in January.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
The narrative behind the Osama fable was used to accuse Pakistan of hiding the whereabouts of Bin Laden, when in reality it was the US government that refused numerous clear opportunities to kill Bin Laden despite the fact that they knew his precise location over the course of several years.
As Washington increasingly tries to isolate Pakistan following the
dubious Bin Laden raid, Islamabad is turning to its old ally for
support – China – a partnership that is, “Looking more attractive after
the U.S. killing of Osama bin Laden further strained Islamabad’s ties
with Washington,” reports the Associated Press.
“The sentiment is mutual, with China now in the process of shoring
up its relations with Islamabad, Afghanistan and several other Central
Asia states in step with an expected diminished U.S. presence as it
winds down military operations in Afghanistan.”
The NATO attack occurred just hours after Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani arrived in Beijing. Firedoglake’s David Dayen
characterizes the deepening crisis as an “undeclared war” on Pakistan,
pointing out that the Obama administration is now looking to “deal its
war in Afghanistan for a war in Pakistan.”
The US has accelerated talks with Taliban leaders
as it prepares to exit the country, but far from coming home it looks
likely that American troops will be used as cannon fodder for the next
lurch of the empire into Pakistan. Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)
Given nuclear-capable Pakistan’s warm relations with China, in
addition to its hostility toward fellow member of the nuke club India,
it doesn’t take a genius to figure out where all this could lead. Any
US conflict with Pakistan could potentially escalate and lead to a
major confrontation with China, a scenario that could move the hands
of the doomsday clock a few minutes closer to midnight.
— Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.
As
50 carefully selected families prepare to join President Barack Obama
for a ceremony at the World Trade Center site Thursday, one of the
invited 9/11 families have decided to pass on the Commander-in-chief's
visit.
"There is no closure," a sobbing John Vigiano said. "There is none."
"I'm honored the President of the United States is coming to New York," he said. "[But] to me its just going to be a photo op."
Jeannie
Evans, of Elmont, who lost her baby brother firefighter Robert Evans on
9/11 will also not be there Thursday. She wasn't invited.
"Why not show us proof, that Bin Laden was killed? I would like to see that," wondered Evans.
A Tacoma seventh grader faced federal interrogation at school for what
he posted on his Facebook page. His mom said it all happened without
her knowledge or permission.
Timi Robertson said she had just
finished lunch with a friend Friday when she got a phone call from her
son's school. Topics U.S. Secret Service Mass Media
Facebook See more topics »
"I answered it, and it's the
school security guard who's giving me a heads up that the Secret Service
is here with the Tacoma Police Department and they have Vito and
they're talking to him," Robertson said.
After Osama bin Laden was killed, 13-year-old Vito LaPinta posted an update to his Facebook status that got the Feds attention.
"I was saying how Osama was dead and for Obama to be careful because there could be suicide bombers," says LaPinta.
A week later, while Vito was in his fourth period class, he was called in to the principal's office.
"A
man walked in with a suit and glasses and he said he was part of the
Secret Service," LaPinta said. "He told me it was because of a post I
made that indicated I was a threat toward the President."
The
Tacoma school district acknowledged a Secret Service agent questioned
Vito and that it was a security guard who called Vito's mom because the
principal was on another call. The school district said they didn't wait
for Vito's mother to get there because they thought she didn't take the
phone call seriously.
"That's a blatant lie," Robertson said.
The
teen's mom says she rushed to Truman Middle School immediately and
arrived to discover her son had already been questioned for half an
hour.
Laurence Vance
