On Oct. 3, a 20-year-old computer salesman and community college student—a U.S. citizen born in the San Francisco area—took his car for an oil change. His mechanic spotted an odd wire hanging from the undercarriage. The wire was attached to a magnetic device that puzzled the mechanic. The device was removed, images of it posted online, and help requested in identifying it.

Two days later, FBI agents arrived at the man’s Santa Clara, Calif. apartment, demanding the return of their property—a global positioning system tracking device now at the center of a raging legal debate over privacy rights.

AMERICAN FREE PRESS spoke with Zahra Billoo, the victim’s attorney. Billoo is the executive director of the California wing of CAIR, one of the nation’s largest civil rights advocacy groups.

The immediate question posed was: were they surprised that the FBI would just stick a tracking device on someone’s car who had not been accused of committing any crime in order to track his movement?

The attorney replied: “We were surprised more by the blatant disregard [by the FBI] for any attempt to cover it up . . . and that was probably the most appalling part of this story, not so much that my client found the device, but just the fact that they showed up at his home, no apologies, no nothing, just essentially, ‘It’s ours, give it back.’”

Asked why federal authorities would start tracking an American citizen with no regard for his rights, the man’s attorney offered several theories: that maybe there was an anonymous tip; that the defendant fit a certain profile associated with “terrorists”; or that maybe this is a test case of some sort.

Could other devices lurk under the cars of unsuspecting Americans the attorney was asked?

“Absolutely,” he replied, “and there’s no way of knowing whether or not you’re being tracked unless you find the tracking device.”

Unless this is immediately challenged, the FBI could keep placing tracking devices on vehicles in spots that are even harder to find. The attorney added that, so far, U.S. courts have usually sided with law enforcement on this issue.

“Very recently, there was a [U.S.] Ninth Circuit Court [of Appeals] decision that confirmed that law enforcement does not need a warrant to place a GPS tracking device on a car in a public place,” said Billoo.

“And I would assert that most people were not aware of that decision or the implications of that decision [which] really brings the issue home.”

Source: American Free Press

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Obama’s War on the Internet

Support Tyranny Or You’re A Terrorist

One Day Soon, We’ll All Be ‘Homegrown Terrorists’

Government from Federal all the way down to the local level has been transformed from the elected officials working for us to us working for them.  We need to send a message this election season that it is not about Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, it is about Insiders vs “We the People”.  We must first ans foremost  start by understanding our Constitutional duty to be informed on what are the President, Senators, Congressman, Governors, State Assembly, County and Township elected officials

The first step is to send a message in 2010 by throwing out the incumbents that have betrayed our trust and sold or futures down the river.  I’m talking about those folks who took away our natural right to make choices about our health care decisions, who decided to take tax payer money and give it to their friends in the banking, automotive industry.  The people who decided to increase borrowing and spending to get us out of a finacial catastrophe that was created by government borrowing and spending.  The crooks who decided passed the Financial Reform Act that gives more power to the unconstitutional Federal Reserve who are in charge of fiat money backed with nothing but a hope and a prayer.  The vermin who push for billions upon billions government contracts for projects that don’t need to be done or have be poorly managed.  To the President and his willful Congress who allowed him to shut down private businesses who provide energy to the American people due to their incompetence in maintaining adequate safety standards. Don’t forget the 20% unemployment they gave us do to increased regulations and taxes not just from this administration but those folks who have been doing this for decades,

Thanks these folks for rhe things they have done buy giving them a well deserved retirement.  These folks and there pals before them have slow chipped away at our civic liberties and theft of our labor through taxes, registration and licencing fees, fines, and on and on.  This November vote NO to the establishment.

The second thing we need to do is to follow those folks who we elect in there place.  Constantly monitor their voting record and what are they trying to get past us.  “Trust but verify” as Regan said.  Well, I say verify and then trust…we have done it the other way for way to long.  Your job as a good citizen doesn’t stop at the ballot box.  You must make sure these folks are follow the US Constitution as well as your State Constitution.  And if the Federal government is not obeying let them know by getting your State officials to act o n your behalf to rectify this wrong.  If they don’t act them move on down the line.  Even if it is your township supervisor telling County,State, and Federal officials NO! we will not stand for this affront to our rights.  We need to start some where and them build upon that.  As we gain a footing elected officials who have been feeling the same way you do but have been silent will act.

Third, make sure you push your newly elected officials to implement bills that Audit the Federal Reserve, that require Congress to read bills before they are passed.  More importantly make sure the bills are constitutional, and have them repeal unconstitutional laws.  If they don’t again get rid of them as soon as you can.  If we can folks who don’t follow the Constitution every election cycle those who run for office will get the message.

Fourth, and this is probably most important.  Start locating people who  know the Constitution is the law of the land and is not some living document to be interpreted differently depending on the times, but a legal contract that means the same today as it did when it was written.  Who knows that person may be the same one you see in the mirror every morning when you brush your teeth.

I know there are many other things we can do but these are what I believe are our first steps on this long road to gut us back to what our founder’s intended.  If we fail because we didn’t give our best effort then we have ourselves to blame.  Best wishes and LET’S WIN THIS WAR!

Source:  The TGB Report

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Amnesty for the Banksters, Debtor’s Prison for the Serfs

One Day Soon, We’ll All Be ‘Homegrown Terrorists’

Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War?

Source: CNN

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Are Cameras the New Guns?

MSNBC Continues Propaganda Campaign Against Patriot Groups

Surveillance Drones To Zap Protesters Into Submission

The U.S. Federal Government under both the Bush and Obama administrations has made it perfectly clear that in the event of almost any major disaster scenario, including economic and environmental, they see the institution of Martial Law as not only viable, but inexorable. From legislative actions like the Patriot Act and the Enemy Belligerents Act (currently in committee) to continuity of government programs such as Rex 84 (formerly classified) and Presidential Directive PDD 51 (currently classified, even from Congress), all the “legal” precedents have been put into place to allow the Executive Branch to implement military oversight of civilian affairs, dissolution of Constitutional liberties, even the end of Miranda Rights and the right to a speedy impartial trial as protected under the Sixth Amendment. In some cases, government legislation allows for the rendition and torture of American citizens as combatants, all for the “greater good”, of course…

Some in this country dismiss such bills and directives as abstract novelties that don’t constitute any real threat to our freedoms or our daily life. People have a tendency to assume that the atmosphere we live in today will remain the same tomorrow and always. Many of us never consider that dramatic, even violent change in American domestic policy is possible on a moment’s notice. On the contrary, the continuity legislation now in place shows that our government under the direction of corporate globalists is not only prepared to implement a military lockdown of this country, they fully anticipate that such an event will occur in the near future.

In this article, we will examine how Martial Law will be presented to the citizens of the U.S., how it would likely evolve and progress, and what the ultimate end result will be if such action is not stopped by the Liberty Movement and the American public.

A “Reasonable” Tyranny

Tyranny does not always burst through your front door wearing body armor and brandishing an assault rifle. Sometimes, it waltzes through your living room and sweeps you off your feet. Sometimes it wears a glad mask that promises warmth and safety. Sometimes, tyranny invites you out to the party and makes you feel like you belong.

NEVER leave your drink unattended around tyranny…

Regardless of how apathetic the American public may seem at any given moment, the majority of them at their core hate false authority backed by thuggish jackboot mentality when directly faced with it, and will not capitulate to despotism easily. That’s just the way we are. Revolution is in our blood (though now slightly diluted), and it is an undeniable aspect of our national psyche. Widespread and immediate military control of U.S. streets would be met with a fury the world has never seen. If martial law were ever to be achieved by the Federal Government, it would have to be presented to Americans gradually, as absolutely reasonable and necessary to their personal well being not to mention that of their family. Globalists would have to twist the reality of martial law into a tapestry of fuzzy logic and two dimensional rationalizations, making the action appear almost mathematically evident. They would also need a crisis on a scale nearly beyond belief.

The U.S. is on the verge of many such crises. The economic health of this country is blatantly unstable, and even some mainstream analysts who called us “fear mongers” six months ago are now reluctantly admitting that some form of collapse is probable:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html?hp

The financial life of America hangs by the thinnest of threads, and any moderate disaster at this stage will most definitely send it spiraling out of control.

Reports of U.S. warships positioning off the coast of Iran are now verified by the Department of Defense, and the media is beginning to spew WMD propaganda once again:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=131181&sectionid=351020205

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R0HD20100628

The likelihood of a U.S. or Israeli attack on the major oil producing nation has increased drastically. It is only a matter of time before Iran gives the West an excuse, or the West fabricates an excuse from thin air. Any new war, anywhere, would spell disaster for the world economy. Period.

And, perhaps the most devastating of all circumstances, BP’s act of eco-terrorism in the Gulf of Mexico has turned from a distraction that should have been disentangled immediately, into a slow motion catastrophe whose consequences could be so far reaching they might turn out downright biblical, not to mention, an ample pretext to call for a coastal evacuation and even martial law:

http://www.examiner.com/x-17299-Hernando-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m5d9-Gulf-Oil-Spill-2010-Plans-to-evacuate-Tampa-Bay-area-expected-to-be-announced

These scenarios do not include the ever present threat of government sponsored false flag terrorism, which could exacerbate social tensions one hundred fold. A 9/11 scale attack, perhaps even nuclear in origin, would assuredly be followed by a declaration of martial law.

Under circumstances like these, people tend to allow their fear to dictate what is “reasonable” at the moment. Principles often take a back seat to “moral relativity” in the face of misfortune, even though wisdom demands that principles be held as most important in the worst of times. Freedom and civilian control over government are vital not just when our wallets are stuffed, our stomachs are fed, and the weather is mild, but when the threat of national upheaval hangs in the sky like a sun-baked vulture. When an early and unpleasant demise becomes a distinct possibility for a significant majority of the citizenry, this is when liberty should take precedence over all things.

One argument is always presented by tyrants and their flock during the initial stages of social enslavement: “You can’t enjoy freedom if you are dead. It is always better to be alive, no matter the cost.”

However, what they fail to mention is that it is exceedingly difficult to enjoy being alive when you are a modern feudal peasant whose destiny is subject to the whim of power hungry corporatists and madmen. There is nothing meaningful in that kind of life, just as there is nothing meaningful in the life of a cog in a great machine except to turn around and around. You can’t enjoy freedom if you are dead, but you also can’t enjoy living if you’re not free.

At the beginning of any autocratic system, total authoritarian control is almost always presented as a panacea, a wonder-drug for the masses. When confronted with epic struggle, some people would rather defer responsibility for their survival to someone else rather than make the effort to save themselves, and thus, totalitarianism is born. Martial law in America would be no different. It will be presented to us as purely rational and absolutely necessary; an “extreme solution to extreme times”. Its success would rest solely on how many of us are willing to make the effort to determine our own destinies, and how many of us are too cowardly to do so.

Consequences Of Martial Law

Regardless of how well governments sugarcoat the prospect of martial law at its introduction, after it has been instituted, it doesn’t take very long for the people to realize they have been duped. The consequences of a militarized society cannot be hidden after the fact, nor does the establishment feel the need to hide those consequences after they have been handed unlimited power.

To peer into the future of what American martial law might look like, one need only research the history of martial law and dictatorships in general. From the Philippines to China to the Soviet Union, the stages of tyranny are pretty much the same no matter where you are in the world. Anyone who believes martial law in America will forgo any of these terrible steps, or that we will somehow maintain a sense of propriety and fairness, is going to be sorely disappointed.

Free Press Destroyed: The very first action of any government that has achieved military control of a country is to dominate the flow of information. The greatest threat to elitist domination is usually the people who they mean to rule over. Ending freedom of the press stalls chances that a view that opposes government control will gain footing. In America, the mainstream media is already under globalist control and would likely remain active during martial law, at least for a time. FOX, CNN, CNBC, etc, would change little, while the true free press (alternative web news which now dominates over the ratings of mainstream media) would be attacked, if not shut down completely. Government enforced web filters (like those in China and being legislated in Australia) could be put in place, and arrests of citizen journalists are liable to occur.

Dissolution Of Checks And Balances: In some cases, military rule allows for the dissolution of states rights and even of Congress itself. If Congress is allowed to remain, it would be in a ceremonial capacity only. Under martial law, all decision making is “streamlined” into the hands of the executive branch. The excuse given for this is often the same everywhere; the President (dictator) must not have his hands tied by checks and balances during a state of crisis, otherwise, his decisions are slowed, and more people could be hurt. Once the executive branch of a country removes checks and balances, they almost never put them back willingly, even after the so-called “crisis” has subsided.

Erasure Of Civil Liberties: Say goodbye to Habeas Corpus immediately. All tyrannies have abruptly suspended rights to fair trial, rights to legal representation, Miranda Rights, even the right to know what one has been charged with before being arrested. This process quickly devolves the justice system to the point where those who are detained simply disappear, and are never heard from again. The U.S. currently has many pieces of legislation that have passed or are pending which allow rendition and even torture of regular citizens, specifically in the event of a national emergency, which under current rules, the President can declare at his leisure.

Curfews, Checkpoints, Searches, Citizen Spies: Say goodbye to privacy. Expect ID checkpoints, and arrests for lack of ID. Expect nighttime curfews in cities enforced with extreme prejudice. Expect warrant-less searches of your home without cause, not to mention surveillance of web and phone traffic. Also count on the fact that some people, out of paranoia, or out of some twisted desire for petty influence, will start pointing an accusing finger at anyone who looks at them the wrong way, and the establishment will encourage this. Tyranny is much easier when the citizens police each other. We actually see some of this behavior today, however, under martial law, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of holding the authorities or anyone who supports them legally accountable for any wrongdoing. There is essentially no means to voice grievance. Martial law is like a free pass to law enforcement officials to do whatever they please, whenever they please.

Arrests Of Activists And Dissidents: Political opponents of the establishment, no matter how honorable and peaceful they may be, would likely be arrested. Those who have the capability to lead a movement in opposition of the current government or those who have the respect of a sizable percentage of the populace will become priority targets during martial law. All tyrants seek to quash other voices, especially strong voices, so that they can create an environment in which THEIR voice is the only one that can be heard. Activists are normally labeled as subversives, insurgents, or terrorists. They are arrested and treated as enemy combatants. The reigning government will claim that such people are “dangerous” to the stability of the country, and a threat to national security. Associating activists with terrorists also makes the idea of rendition and torture slightly more palatable to the fearful public.

Economic Feudalism: In an autocracy, everything becomes a matter of national security, even the state of the workforce. All jobs become state jobs. The very poor become a possible burden. The middle class and the very rich (if not already part of the establishment) become possible competition. This is why most tyrannies seek to establish “harmonization”, which is really just a flowery way of saying that everyone is made equally dependent on the system for their survival. It is hard to become a successful man in an oppressive society if you are not one of the elite. It is even harder to be a pauper in the same society because you are seen as a parasite feeding off the collective (though you are probably hurting no one). Martial law is always followed by an end to economic prosperity for the average citizen and the removal of the traditional middle class. In the end, this causes the public to subjugate themselves. It creates a system which rewards those who submit with a semblance of the status they once had. The alternative: barely eking out an existence while under constant fear that you could be labeled an impediment to social progress. Given this choice, many would choose to conform.

Food, Water, and Healthcare Rationing: Food and water are life. Control these two things in a culture, and you have the makings of a tyranny. One of the most notable aspects in the elitist quest for empire is the trail of hunger and starvation they leave in their wake. All methods are greenlighted. Burning of farmland, hording of grain, heavy taxation on livestock or harvests, government micromanagement of planting, everything is fair game. Food regulation can be taken to a whole other level in our modern age. With malicious corporations like Monsanto in operation, genetically modified crops can be created to control diet, ‘terminator seeds’ which yield only one crop can be used to keep the masses from replanting, and the pollen from these plants can be used to infect the genus of non-GMO crops birthing mutant strains which damage the food chain. By creating a food shortage, rationing then becomes inevitable, and with rationing comes greater influence. Healthcare rationing would be a natural extension, until every moment of ones life relies on the good graces of a centralized bureaucracy.

It is rare for a government to implement all of these actions in a single instant. Usually, they are introduced slowly over a period of years, and with each new decree a problem is preemptively engineered by the elites to give a “reasonable” cause, or generate a concrete fear. As time passes, people forget what life was like before, left only with the dreadful circumstances of the present, and a disquieting sensation in the pit of their stomachs, telling them that the world they have been presented is not the world we should have settled for.

Never Compromise Liberty

Tyrants prevail when they are able to fool the masses into compromising their ideals, and their conscience. They enjoy devising scenarios by which we are made to tread through a “grey area”, a place where the truth is supposedly a matter of perspective, and that which is right and balanced could become unbalanced and destructive. Once you choose to compromise a fundamental principle, they then use that moment to set precedence.

“If torture is tolerable in the chance that it could save some lives, then perhaps it is tolerable in other situations…” they say. “If some freedoms are expendable in the name of security, then perhaps others are as well.”

How do we stop elites from setting precedence in this way? We never compromise.

“Grey Area” scenarios are a charade. A rigged casino game in which there is only a single outcome and a single winner, and the winner is definitely not you. The crisis is usually one that the establishment created in the first place, i.e. the economic collapse, the BP oil spill, false flag terror, etc. And, the solution is always predetermined. No obstacle has only one solution, there are a myriad of answers to every dilemma, some far better than others. Yet, time and time again, we are offered only one way to resolve every disaster; greater centralization and extended government power.

Most disingenuous of all is the constant promise by government to keep us safe. No government has the power to offer security. Security provided by others is an illusion. The only true safety is that which one provides for himself. We accomplish this by becoming self reliant, self aware, and tough minded. We do not wait for some abstract ruling body to come to our aid, and we do not trade our freedom on the false promise that they will honor their agreement.

I have heard it argued that America is different, that we should not suspect our government capable of tyranny because “we are the government”. I find this assumption extraordinarily naïve. Our government has not represented the wishes of the people for decades. The leaderships of both major parties have supported almost identical legislative measures and extolled parallel globalist ideologies, making a mockery of our election process by giving us only one choice in the casting of our vote. We should be very suspect of such a government, for we are not the same, our goals are entirely opposed, and only one group can be allowed to endure; those who wish to dictate, or those who wish to be free.

I have also heard it said that freedom exists under the purview of government. That the liberties we enjoy are only possible because of the protections that government provides. Elitists often take advantage of our presumption that government is some kind of cultural obligation, one that we must bow to, and that by attrition, we must bow to them. In reality, government is a philosophical construct; a framework that only exists because we will it so, and that administrates freedoms only so far as we allow it to do so. WE are the source of our liberty, NOT government. It is we as individuals who ultimately must protect the freedoms we enjoy. Under no circumstance is any government more vital than our personal liberty. The choice is eternally simple; when asked to sacrifice one or the other, government must go.

The Constitution of the United States was drafted as a means to reign in government and force it to respect the freedoms of the people. It exists to deter the power hungry, for under the Constitution they are supposed to be denied the control they thirst for, not given unrestrained supremacy. Martial law is a tool by which the power hungry can remove the restraints of the Constitution and cast aside freedoms on a whim. This is unacceptable no matter the state of affairs. War, terrorism, economic collapse, environmental catastrophe, none of these events gives anyone the license to usurp our liberties. It cannot and will not be allowed. As the 4th of July approaches, we here in America should remember what it means to call ourselves a “sovereign people”. It is a title every man is born with but few men have the strength and fortitude to keep. “Independence” requires taxing vigilance, a persevering spirit, and the determination to see that neither is tread upon. Independence has a price. In the event that we are confronted with martial law in this country, it is a price we may have to pay all over again.

Source: Neithercorp Press

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Welcome To Our Hell: The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA)

Why Are Internment Camps Being Built?

One Day Soon, We’ll All Be ‘Homegrown Terrorists’

Should you teach your teenager how to safely handle a firearm and when to use it in self defense?

The father of this particular teenager happens to be a Harris County Constable, and it looks like he taught his son exactly what to do.

When two would-be burglars attempted to break into a home occupied by a 15 year old boy and his 12 year old sister, rather than leaving with a wide screen TV and jewelry, one of them left with a piece of lead in his gut.

If the four justices on our Supreme Court who support city gun bans and rejected Constitutional protections had their way, we’d be hearing a completely different news report, more than likely about a teen and his sister being tied up, gagged, beaten or worse.

Source: SHTFPlan

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Are Cameras the New Guns?

International Effort to Grab Your Guns

ATF Seizes 30 Toy Guns, Says “They Can Be Converted Into Machine Guns”

The quest for freedom is worldwide. People have been tyrannized for too long and wish relief from such tyranny that freedom would provide. Governments wish to maintain their power and control over the common folk and continue striving to keep them down and obedient in any way possible. In some countries, particularly those of lesser means, governments brutalize their citizens without a qualm. There is a multitude of examples of this happening throughout history, but these governments continue such practices even in modern times. More “civilized” countries, such as those we in the Western world reside in, use far more subtle means to apply their tyranny. All governments seem to have an interest in keeping certain information from getting out to the populace.

Recently the Bangladeshi government decided to block facebook. They did so, according to reports, because of pressure from Islamic extremists. The extremists were a little perturbed that someone had posted a cartoon critical of the prophet Muhammad. So, rather than just accepting that not all people are going to view the world and religion as they do and that some might actually disrespect their beliefs, they decide to ask the government to force an entire social networking site to be shut down. Rather than just letting others have the freedom to believe what they want to believe, they look to the inherent violence of the state to try to force others to follow the same beliefs they have. That is not acting in a very neighborly or spiritual manner.

Now, I’m not a huge fan of facebook or twitter because of privacy concerns, but I do use them. Even though they collect far too much data on individuals, in my humble opinion, and they are likely either working with government to provide that information or will cave to government demands if pushed, the social networking sites are quite effective tools. They are a great way of keeping up with events both public and in the private lives of friends and family. I feel one should understand the nature of these sites and the dangers of using them, but I certainly think government should not shut them down. Individuals have the natural right to associate with who they want to associate with and governments should learn to stop violating this right.

The only reason I could see for a government shutting down such a site is because they want to keep certain information from being disseminated. Or perhaps they’d like to keep certain points of view from being expressed. In any case, they have to measure the benefits of shutting down such a site against the benefits of being able to monitor just about everyone’s activities. The Bangladeshi government apparently felt it would gain more power and control by shutting down facebook than by letting people associate freely and express their own feelings.

But then, some may think, Bangladesh is only a small, third world country. Certainly nothing like that kind of censorship could happen in a more modern country, like those of the west. Yet Australia and the UK have already started to censor content their citizens are allowed to access, just like China. They have used excuses such as hate speech to censor or remove content that expresses political points of view, or points out governmental corruption, or in some other way challenges those who hold power. In the United States laws are being proposed that move in the same direction. The Constitution provides US citizens with the first amendment which is supposed to protect us against such abuses, but law abiding politicians seem few and far between these days. With the war on drugs, the war on terror, and just war in general, they love to use these excuses to violate the laws they have sworn an oath to uphold. After the passing of all the unconstitutional laws of the past decade, the bailouts, the recently passed health care bill, the power elite have proven that they’ll more or less do anything they please and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they pass laws allowing them to censor the web.

Ordinary folk are not stupid. They seek honest opinion and truthful reporting and they don’t seem able to get it through more traditional outlets. They see things on television and read things in the newspapers that don’t jibe with what they experience in real life. This likely isn’t a recent phenomenon as there is an old saying about not believing everything you read in the papers, but there was a time when these news outlets were more trusted. Modern society has come to find the Internet and now many use it as a source for their information. Blogs and Youtube give one a much more honest and truthful view of what’s happening in the world, in my humble opinion, many times without spin. That’s likely a big reason why television news and print newspapers have lost so many of their customers.

Should the government decide to censor the Internet as we know it, people will not stop seeking the truth. The genie has been let out of the bottle. It is not going to be put back in. People will figure out other methods to disseminate honest and truthful information. They will still gather together and associate with who they please. Those who seek to deny alternative views and control thought with propaganda will not only meet with stiff opposition, they will soon enough have the light shone upon them and will likely lose their relevance and the trust of the populace they may have once enjoyed.

More disturbing still is the move many government entities have made toward criminalizing the video and audio recording of public officials while they carry out their public duties in a public setting. It seems that it is okay for government entities to record our movements and our possible violations of the law, but that is not reciprocal. They don’t want their criminal activity recorded. They’d like their abuses to remain in the dark. They want anyone accusing them of abuse to have no evidence so that any account of the incident remains one’s word against the word of an officer. I mean, we are told that if we have nothing to hide and we do nothing wrong, then we have nothing to worry about with all this surveillance. Shouldn’t the same be true for them? As long as they are doing nothing wrong, they should have nothing to hide from us. These anti video laws should be vehemently opposed by anyone concerned with government accountability.

Better than that, the populace needs to continue to ignore such laws and work toward a more open society. We need to let the control freaks know that we demand they respect our individual rights and that we will ignore their supposed authority should they continue to violate those rights. We have the right to defend ourselves against those who abuse the power the populace entrusts them with. We can do so by providing honest, truthful accounts of events. We can do so by carrying and using video cameras to record encounters with public servants. These are principles that need not be compromised.

In the third world, corruption and tyranny are more out in the open. People are not safe in their homes from government thugs who will break down their door, arrest and even kill innocent people for nothing more than their political views. They will do so for believing in the wrong religion. Or even because someone with power just doesn’t like you. They might even do so because you happen to belong to the wrong tribe, a tribe who is not in power or who cannot afford the weapons necessary to defend themselves. There are horrific acts of violence that take place in such areas. These acts are made possible not only because one group manages to get so much power over another, but because they believe they will not be held accountable for their actions. Perhaps things would be different if the poor in the third world could carry around video devices, capture such terror on video and get it out on the Internet for all to see.

This is why government “authorities” wish to see such practices criminalized. They’d like to get away with their abuses. They’d like to know they have the power to do whatever they want and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. They aren’t going to police themselves. It is up to us to police them. The more we continue to challenge the authorities, the more we continue to record, broadcast and speak out against the abuses we see carried out by those in power, the safer we will all be in the long run.

Source: Uncover The News

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Support Tyranny Or You’re A Terrorist

One Day We’ll All be Terrorists

The Constitutional Bankruptcy of our Republic

Obama trekked to Quincy, Illinois, today to pitch his Wall Street shell game. Obama’s pitch is designed to coincide with the Goldman Sachs dog and pony show now dominating the corporate media.

The local Tea Party decided to greet the president but the local constabulary was having nothing to do with it — they sent out riot cops to intimidate the Tea Party protesters. It seems they were in cahoots with the Secret Service.

“In addition, the Secret Service told the Riot Police to ‘push the crowd back as far as you can, out of sight’… So, this is what your dear leader thinks of YOU America. He doesn’t want to even see your face or know of your existence if you don’t agree with his policy,” notes a blogger.
Meanwhile, in Arizona, pro-illegal alien demonstrators throw water bottles at cops and nothing happens. No riot cops are dispatched.
Is something wrong with this picture?
From the Sharp Elbows blog:
11PM UPDATE from Gateway Pundit: We did everything the local police asked. We moved where they directed us. We moved when they asked us to. We double-checked that we were in an acceptable place on the street. We did not disobey the police and stand and sing God Bless America as some kind of protest. We stood on the corner and sang because we were told it was OK to stand on the corner and sing. That report is a complete whitewash for the Obama Administration’s overreaction to old ladies with American flags. And, if the Whig-Herald wants us to post video of the entire event…
Herald Whig: There were a few tense moments when the crowd moved west down York toward Third Street after the president’s motorcade arrived. A Secret Service agent asked the crowd to move back across the street to the north side. When the crowd didn’t move and began singing “God Bless, America” and the national anthem, Quincy Deputy Police Chief Ron Dreyer called for members of the Mobile Field Force to walk up the street.

Source: Prison Planet

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Support Tyranny Or You’re A Terrorist

One Day Soon, We’ll All Be ‘Homegrown Terrorists’

MSNBC Continues Propaganda Campaign Against Patriot Groups

A recent ‘tea party’ rally showed lots of anger toward President Obama, but little consistent support for liberty in America.

Rockville, Md.

Many “tea party” activists staunchly oppose big government, except when it is warring, wiretapping, or waterboarding. A movement that started out denouncing government power apparently has no beef with some of the worst abuses of modern times.

Unfortunately, there is scant evidence that most tea partyers have studied the copies of the Constitution they generously hand out to bystanders.

At a Tax Day tea party in Rockville, Md., the speaking venue was draped with a huge banner: “Tired of Big Government?” Members of the “Tyranny Response Team” stood near the front of the rally with their official blue T-shirts. Giant American flags and ones with “Don’t Tread on Me” (with a coiled rattlesnake) were carried around by men with tri-corn hats. Political campaigns busily sold “9/11 Remembrance” bracelets.

And yet, the crowd of 300 seemed most outraged that the US government is not being sufficiently aggressive in using its power.

Ken Timmerman, the author of “Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America” and other hawkish books, declaimed that the US government must take every step to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Mr. Timmerman denounced the Obama administration for being soft on Tehran and urged support for legislation to impose harsh sanctions on Iran. Timmerman previously advocated a US naval blockade of Iran, which he claimed was planning a nuclear attack on the United States.

Running through a litany of President Obama’s greatest failings, Timmerman denounced him for forcing US agents to “stop using enhanced interrogation methods. Has that made us safer?”

“No!” the crowd hollered indignantly.

Jeffrey Kuhner, a local talk-show host, sneered that Obama “has found his inner Muslim” and raged against his bowing to foreign leaders and kings. He complained that Obama has “taken over college loans,” and warned that illegal immigrants could be “the shock troops of Obama’s socialist revolution.” The crowd ate it up.

One of the MCs gushed about how he and everyone else in the crowd loved the police. There was not a word spoken about the video released earlier that week showing a nearby horrendous police beating of an innocent University of Maryland college student.

The rally featured a string of Republican candidates praising fiscal responsibility and denouncing the national debt. One would have thought that it had been 50 years, rather than 15 months, since the Republicans controlled the White House.

There was almost no dissent from any of the 300 attendees. One 50-something man in a faded green T-shirt walked around with a handmade sign declaring, “Stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – Bring Our Troops Home Now!” He told me that almost no one he’d talked agreed with his message.

Source: Christian Science Monitor

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Obamanoids “Crash” Tea Party, Claim Dear Leader Has Cut Taxes

Tea Party Patriots vs. Patriot Majority

Subverted Tea Party Movement Told to Embrace Republican Platform

Judges with the Colorado Court of Appeals say students and employees at the University of Colorado should be able to pack heat on campus.

In a ruling issued Thursday, the court sided with Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a gun-rights group that sued CU and argued that a 1994 university policy banning concealed weapons from its campuses violates state gun laws.

Attorneys for the group pointed to the Concealed Carry Act of 2003, a state law that prohibits local governments from adopting an ordinance to limit state concealed-carry rights. In Thursday’s opinion, the judges wrote that the Concealed Carry Act applies to universities.

The ruling revives a lawsuit that had been dismissed last spring by El Paso County District Judge G. David Miller, who said he found nothing in the state constitution that would stop CU from ordering a campus gun ban.

The ruling does not mean people will immediately be able to bring guns to campus. Instead, it sends the case back to the lower courts — in this case, to Miller — a process that can take two to three months. Miller, this time taking into consideration the higher court’s opinion on the Concealed Carry Act, would also need to rule in favor of the student gun rights group for the ban to be reversed.

As prescribed in state law, gun owners would still need a concealed-carry permit to legally bring their weapons on campus.

CU officials could appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. The Board of Regents will discuss how to proceed at a meeting next week, said CU system spokesman Ken McConnellogue.

“For us, this is not so much an issue about guns or no guns,” McConnellogue said. “This is an issue of the autonomy of the Board of Regents to govern CU campuses. That autonomy is set out in the constitution. The regents are in the best position to make these decisions.”

Regent Michael Carrigan said Thursday that he disagreed with the appeals court.

Not only is Carrigan against allowing guns on campus, but he worries that the ruling will undercut the “deference the Board of Regents should receive as an independently elected body.”

“We’re independently elected and given broad authority to make decisions about what’s right for the university’s campuses,” he said.

Regent Tom Lucero, who has the opposite perspective when it comes to guns on campus, shared Carrigan’s disappointment in the ruling. He said it should be up to the regents to allow concealed weapons on campus, an effort he said he will continue to push.

“It really strikes at the heart of regent authority,” Lucero said of the appeals court decision. “This has implications for more than just concealed carry — it has implications for the board’s overall decision-making authority.”

The CU Board of Regents banned weapons in 1970 and, in 1994, strengthened its policy requiring that students be expelled and employees be fired if found guilty of using a weapon to “intimidate, harass, injure or otherwise interfere with the learning and working environment of the university.”

Since then, the weapons issue hasn’t come up for another vote, although students protesting the ban have made their pitch to the regents.

Attorney Jim Manley, who represents Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, said at the very least people with concealed-carry permits should be able to keep guns in their cars while on the CU campus, which is now against university rules. Manley argued to the Court of Appeals that CU is violating students’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

In response, CU attorney Patrick O’Rourke argued the Concealed Carry Act does not apply because CU is a constitutionally created institution of higher education. While the Board of Regents is part of the state government, it is not a “local government” like a city or county, he said.

The state Legislature passed a law in 2003 allowing concealed weapons to be carried by permit in most parts of the state, including college campuses. But then-state Attorney General Ken Salazar issued a formal opinion that the CU regents’ order trumped state law.

Nationwide, 26 states ban concealed weapons on any school property. Twenty-three states, including Colorado, allow individual campuses to decide for themselves. A Utah Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that colleges are not an exception to a state law allowing concealed weapons on state property.

Some students have argued they would feel safer if they had concealed-carry rights on campus, and it could help prevent rapes and other violent attacks — citing the shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech University that left 33 people dead in 2007.

“It seems really odd to me that a college campus is the only place where a rapist, or a criminal, has a government guarantee that none of his potential victims will be armed,” said Gregory Carlson, chairman of the College Republicans on CU’s Boulder campus.

He said he agrees with the appeals court’s opinion, and thinks CU’s weapons ban is unconstitutional.

“If you feel safe in a supermarket or a movie theater, you shouldn’t worry about legal citizens having a gun on campus,” Carlson said.

Source: Colorado daily

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Amid cuts, Ohio judge tells citizens to carry gun

5th state exempts guns. Is Washington noticing?

Tennessee Follows Texas In Banning Private Gun Shows

Expert: Pact would ban spankings, homeschooling if children object

A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families’ religion is on America’s doorstep, a legal expert warns.

Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under theU.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child’s best interest.

“It’s definitely on our doorstep,” he said. “The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we’re stuck with it even if they lose the next election.”

The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there’s been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.

Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives’ efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.

The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that “the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” While the treaty states that parents or legal guardians “have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child,” Farris said government will ultimately determine whether parents’ decisions are in their children’s best interest. The treaty is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.

According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:

• Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

• A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

• Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

• The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.

• A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

• According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.

• Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

• Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

• Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

• Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

“Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government,” Farris said. “The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children.”

The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children’s lives.

“If you think your child shouldn’t go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that’s what’s best for your child,” he said. “If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child.”

He continued, “If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance.”

He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.

Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because “the political world has changed.”

At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.

“It’s embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land,” Obama said. “I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty’s submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.

Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.

In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been signed by the U.S. but not ratified.

Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report.

While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of the treaty will face fierce opposition.

“I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime,” he said. “There’s not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it.”

Source: WND

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Forget Cap and Trade: EPA Regulation of CO2 Emissions Will Begin in 10 Months

Obama Surrendering Internet to Foreign Powers

UN maneuvers to create “Global Gun Control”