Archive for the ‘ Bill of Rights ’ Category

SWAT Team Called In For Unpaid Student Loans!

Education officials break down Stockton man’s door

12:15 AM, Jun 8, 2011  |   comments
Written by

Leigh Paynter

 

STOCKTON, CA – Kenneth Wright does not have a criminal record and he had no reason to believe a S.W.A.T team would be breaking down his door at 6 a.m. on Tuesday.

“I look out of my window and I see 15 police officers,” Wright said.

Wright came downstairs in his boxer shorts as a S.W.A.T team barged through his front door. Wright said an officer grabbed him by the neck and led him outside on his front lawn.

“He had his knee on my back and I had no idea why they were there,” Wright said.

According to Wright, officers also woke his three young children ages 3, 7, and 11 and put them in a Stockton police patrol car with him. Officers then searched his house.

As it turned out, the person law enforcement was looking for was not there – Wright’s estranged wife.

“They put me in handcuffs in that hot patrol car for six hours, traumatizing my kids,” Wright said.

Wright said he later went to the mayor and Stockton Police Department, but the City of Stockton had nothing to do with Wright’s search warrant.

The U.S. Department of Education issued the search and called in the S.W.A.T for his wife’s defaulted student loans.

“They busted down my door for this,” Wright said. “It wasn’t even me.”

According to the Department of Education’s Office of the Inspector General, the case can’t be discussed publicly until it is closed, but a spokesperson did confirm that the department did issue the search warrant at Wright’s home.

The Office of the Inspector General has a law enforcement branch of federal agents that carry out search warrants and investigations.

Stockton Police Department said it was asked by federal agents to provide one officer and one patrol car just for a police presence when carrying out the search warrant.

Stockton police did not participate in breaking Wright’s door, handcuffing him, or searching his home.

“All I want is an apology for me and my kids and for them to get me a new door,” Wright said.

News10/KXTV

Advertisements

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

Jun. 7 2011 – 2:04 pm | Source Link
TUCSON, AZ - JANUARY 15:  A woman shoots a gun...Image by Getty Images via @daylife

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

    1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
    2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
    3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
    4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
    5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Pages: 1 2 3

Weinergate and the American Public

This whole ‘Weinergate’ scandal needs to go away and Americans need to start getting back to real news.  OK, we all know that Anthony Weiner is guilty of being a schmuck! We need to recognize it and move on. There are wars being fought, a global worldwide depression going on and our constitution is under attack.

Scandals such as this are being hyped by the mainstream news media and are distracting us from the real issues that effect our daily lives.  If this scumbag refuses to resign his position in congress then we need not let it affect us. We need to wait until he’s up for re-election and vote him out of office and in the meantime start holding our politicians feet to the fire on more substantive issues such as exposing our corrupt politicians for trying to destroy our first, second and fourth amendment rights.

It’s already set in stone in the public consciousness that Anthony Weiner no longer holds any credibility. He self-destructed and is no longer relevant. His credibility has been severely diminished and Americans know it. So let’s recognize that this idiot is who he is and turn our focus and attention to politicians who matter.  While we are focused on this guys extra marital affairs and his weiner, America is fighting an unconstitutional war in Iraq and Libya. Unemployment continues to rise, the TSA continues to molest us as the airports, the government is fighting and information war in attempt to destroy our second amendment and corrupt law enforcement are trying to break our will by violating our first amendment rights.

Gadahn Call for Gun Violence Merges With Obama’s “Under the Radar” Anti-gun Agenda

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 5, 2011

Adam Pearlman, aka Adam Gadahn, has called for Muslims to fall on U.S. gun stores and gun shows, stock up on weapons, and start killing Americans. Pearlman’s remarks are contained in a video released on Friday.

“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms,” said Gadahn, who is also known as Azzam al-Amriki, or Azzam the American.

“You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card.”

In fact, the federal government controls who owns fully automatic weapons. The federal government has also outlawed a number of semi-automatic weapons, which are classified as “assault weapons.”

Azzam al-Amriki has a very poor understanding of gun laws in the United States.

Sale of a firearm by a federally licensed dealer must be documented by a federal form 4473, which identifies and includes other information about the purchaser, and records the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. Sales to an individual of multiple handguns within a five-day period require dealer notification to the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Violations of dealer record keeping requirements are punishable by a penalty of up to $1,000 and a year in federal prison.

“Getting to these criminals [all Americans] isn’t as hard as you might think,” Pearlman said in his two hour video tape. “I mean, we’ve seen how a woman knocked the Pope to the floor during Christmas mass, and how Italian leader Berlusconi’s face was smashed during a public appearance. So it’s just a matter of entrusting the matter to Allah and choosing the right place, the right time and the right method.”

Gadahn’s call arrives as the Obama administration prepares to launch a concerted effort against gun ownership and the Second Amendment.

In April, Obama discussed his administration’s intentions concerning gun control with Jim and Sarah Brady, founders of the anti-gun group the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control). We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,” Obama told them.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Gadahn’s hyped threat will add impetus to the call by the government to further roll back the Second Amendment. It will also act as fodder for the ongoing fake war on manufactured terror and its associated pro-war propaganda.

The fact Gadahn’s Jewish paternal grandfather, Carl Pearlman, was on the Board of Directors of the Anti-Defamation League has led more than a few people to believe there is something fishy about his conversion to radical Islam and joining al-Qaeda. According to the popular mythology, he is “translator, video producer, and cultural interpreter” to Osama bin Laden, who died before Pearlman joined the shadowy group named after a CIA database of Mujahideen warriors.

Dancing protesters return to Jefferson Memorial in DC to challenge court decision, arrests

WASHINGTON — U.S. Park Police broke up another protest Saturday by demonstrators who want to dance at the Jefferson Memorial in the nation’s capital.

Officers shut down the memorial and cleared dozens of people from the rotunda a week after five dancing demonstrators were forcefully arrested for dancing there. Instead of making arrests this time, officers pushed the latest demonstration out onto the memorial’s front steps and briefly closed the memorial to tourists.

The demonstrators are challenging a recent federal appeals court decision that upheld a ban on dancing inside the memorial. The demonstrators argue dancing is free expression. The case stems from a 2008 incident during which a group came to the memorial as part of a flash mob to dance to music on their headphones.

A Park Police spokesman did not immediately respond to telephone calls requesting comment Saturday.

Park Police are investigating whether officers were too aggressive in arresting the demonstrators a week earlier. Videos posted online show an officer with his hands around a protester’s throat. A demonstrator is also shown being slammed to the ground.

In the latest protest, dozens of people gathered at the memorial at noon Saturday. Police allowed the demonstrators to dance for about 15 minutes — some with headphones in their ears — before ordering them to leave.

One man wore a huge Thomas Jefferson head, and another wore an Abraham Lincoln top hat.

Police closed the memorial to tourists as well for about an hour, posting a sign that read “Monument Temporarily Closed.”

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Following Shooting, Miami Cops Grab Cell Phones at Gunpoint, Destroy Them

Carlos Miller
Pixiq.com
June 3, 2011

Miami Beach police did their best to destroy a citizen video that shows them shooting a man to death in a hail of bullets Memorial Day.

First, police pointed their guns at the man who shot the video, according to a Miami Herald interview with the videographer.

Then they ordered the man and his girlfriend out the car and threw them down to the ground, yelling “you want to be fucking paparazzi?”

Then they snatched the cell phone from his hand and slammed it to the ground before stomping on it. Then they placed the smashed phone in the videographer’s back pocket as he was laying down on the ground.

And finally, they took him to a mobile command center where they snapped his photo and demanded the phone again, then took him to police headquarters where they conducted a recorded interview with him before releasing him.

But what they didn’t know was that Narces Benoit had removed the SIM card and hid it in his mouth, which means the video survived.

Benoit showed the video to Miami Herald reporters on Thursday, who described it in their article.

The three-minute video captured on Narces Benoit’s HTC EVO phone begins as officers crowd around the east side of Herisse’s car with guns drawn. Roughly 15 seconds into the video, officers open fire.

Benoit filmed the incident from the sidewalk on the northeast corner of 13th Street and Collins Avenue, close enough to see some officers’ faces and individual muzzle flashes.

Shortly after the gunfire ends, an officer points at Benoit and police can be heard yelling for him to turn off the camera. The voices are muffled at times. The 35-year-old car stereo technician drops his hand with the camera and hurries back to his Ford Expedition parked further east on 13th Street.

The video shows Benoit get into the car, where his girlfriend, Ericka Davis, sat in the driver’s seat. He raises his camera and an officer is seen appearing on the driver’s side with his gun drawn, pointed at them.

The video ends as more officers are heard yelling expletives, telling the couple to turn the video off and get out of the car.

“They put guns to our heads and threw us on the ground,” Davis said.

Benoit has not posted it on Youtube because he is asking to be compensated. But it sounds as if he won’t have much trouble getting compensated through a settlement with the police department.

However, he first must post the video for the world to see.

Benoit and his girlfriend also said police smashed several phones from other witnesses, so hopefully they were able to recover the videos as well.

The new details emerged a day after police announced they had found a gun in the car they had shot up.

It took police two-and-a-half days to find the gun in the Hyundai but they still haven’t determined if it was discharged that night.

For all we know, it could have been locked away in the trunk of the car.

Four innocent bystanders were shot during that shooting, most likely from police bullets.

Also, an hour after that shooting, another officer shot at a man who she believed was driving towards her. But he turned out to be allegedly drunk, which is why he was driving erratically and eventually into a police cruiser.

Obama solicitor general: “If you don’t like mandate, earn less money!”

By: Philip Klein 06/02/11 12:52 PM
Senior editorial writer Follow Him @Philipaklein

President Obama’s solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn’t like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center. (Listen to oral arguments here.)  The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government’s defense of the health care law than the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based Obamacare challenge last month in Richmond. The Fourth Circuit panel was made up entirely of Democrats, and two of the judges were appointed by Obama himself.

During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.

Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.

“They’re in the business,” Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.”

Kaytal responded by noting that the there’s a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.

“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”

Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this…the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money.”

The so-called “hardship exemption” in the health care law is limited, and only applies to people who cannot obtain insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. So earning less isn’t necessarily a solution, because it could then qualify the person for government-subsidized insurance which could make their contribution to premiums fall below the 8 percent threshold.

Throughout the oral arguments, Kaytal struggled to respond to the panel’s concerns about what the limits of Congressional power would be if the courts ruled that they have the ability under the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something.

Sutton said it would it be “hard to see this limit” in Congressional power if the mandate is upheld, and he honed in on the word “regulate” in the Commerce clause, explaining that the word implies you’re in a market. “You don’t put them in the market to regulate them,” he said.

In arguments before the Fourth Circuit last month, Kaytal also struggled with a judge’s question about what to do with the word “regulate,” to the point where the judge asked him to sit down to come up with an answer. (More on that exchange here). Kaytal has fallen back on the Necessary and Proper clause, insisting that it gives broader leeway to Congress.

Judge James Graham, a Reagan district court appointee who is temporarily hearing cases on the appeals court, said, “I hear your arguments about the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, and I’m having difficulty seeing how there is any limit to the power as you’re defining it.”

Kaytal responded by referencing United States v. Morrison, in which the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act, and United States v. Lopez, which struck down gun free school zones. In those cases, Kaytal responded, the Supreme Court set the limit that the Commerce Clause had to regulate economic activities.

The health care market is unique, Kaytal insisted, because everybody will eventually participate. With the mandate, Kaytal said, “What Congress is regulating is not the failure to buy something. But failure to secure financing for something everyone is going to buy.”

Graham acknowledged Kaytal’s arguments, yet reiterated that he was “having trouble seeing the limits.”

The problem with the “health care is unique” argument – and this is me talking – is that it just creates an opening for future Congresses to regulate all sorts of things by either a) arguing that a particular market is also special or b) finding a way to tie a given regulation to health care.

For instance, the example that’s come up often is the idea of a law in which government forces individuals to eat broccoli.

During the Sixth Circuit argument, Kaytal said that such an example doesn’t apply, because if you show up at a grocery store, nobody has to give you broccoli, whereas that is the case with health care and hospital emergency rooms.

Yet that argument assumes that Congress passes such a law as a regulation of the food market. What if the law was made as part of a regulation of the health care market? It isn’t difficult to see where that argument can go.

The broccoli example is really a proxy for a broader argument about whether the government can compel individuals to engage in healthy behavior – it could just as well be eating salad, or exercising. There’s no doubt that a huge driver of our nation’s health care costs are illnesses linked to bad behavior. People who are overweight and out of shape cost more because they have increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and so on. Those increased costs get passed on to all of us, because government pays for nearly half of the nation’s health care expenses, a number that’s set to grow under the new health care law. Is it really unrealistic to believe that future Congresses, looking for ways to control health care costs, could compel healthy behavior in some way? More pertinently, is there any reason why that would be unconstiutional under the precedent that would be set if the individual mandate is upheld?

With most experts expecting the case to go before the Supreme Court, it seems the biggest obstacle for the Obama administration is figuring out where power would be limited if the mandate were upheld. Those challenging the law have made a clear and understandable limit by drawing a distinction between regulating activity and regulating inactivity (i.e. the decision not to purchase insurance). But simply saying the health care market is unique doesn’t actually create a very clear or understandable limit to Congressional power.

The 11th Circuit hears the case next week brought by 26 states led by Florida.