Category Archives: Police state

Trump signed into law unconstitutional House Joint Resolution 76 allowing search w/out warrant

A week ago, on August 22, 2017, President Donald Trump signed a very troubling Congressional resolution into law that should be the concern of every American.

Introduced on February 16, 2017 by Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, House Joint Resolution 76 was passed by the House 399-5 on July 17, and unanimously by the Senate on August 4. (Congress.gov)

In the name of providing safety oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Metrorail system, H. J. Res. 76‘s purpose is to authorize Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia to establish “a legally and financially independent state authority” — the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission. But in so doing, the resolution — which is now law — violates the  U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment on search without warrant.

Under H. J. Res. 76’s Article IV enumerating the powers of the newly created Washington Metrorail Safety Commission, Section 31 (b) stipulates that:

“31. In performing its duties, the Commission, through its Board or designated employees or agents, may: […]

(b) Enter upon the WMATA Rail System and, upon reasonable notice and a finding by the chief executive officer that a need exists, upon any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System, including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government, for the purpose of making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing as the Commission may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this MSC Compact, and such entry shall not be deemed a trespass. The Commission shall make reasonable reimbursement for any actual damage resulting to any such adjacent lands, waters, and premises as a result of such activities”.

H. J. Res. 76 therefore violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that:

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.”

This means that if you have a home or property “adjacent” to the WMATA Rail System, your property can be searched WITHOUT WARRANT by the sole authority of the newly created Washington Metrorail Safety Commission.

Below is a map of the WMATA Rail System (click map to enlarge):

Every member of the U.S. Senate and 99% (399 members) of the U.S. House of Representatives voted for H. J. Res. 76. Only five Congressmen, all Republicans, voted against it:

  1. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan)
  2. Rep. Walter Jones (R-North Carolina)
  3. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky)
  4. Rep. Alex Mooney (R-West Virginia)
  5. Rep. Mark Sanford (R-South Carolina)

In a tweet, Congressman Amash conveyed his dismay:

Ironically, the unconstitutional H. J. Res. 76 actually has the nerve to require the members of the new Washington Metrorail Safety Commission to take an oath of office swearing allegiance to the U.S. Constitution:

“I, ___________, hereby solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States as a Member (or Alternate Member) of the Board of the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission and will faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter.”

Rachel Blevins of The Free Thought blog points out that:

“This is not the first time Congress has quietly passed a bill that will take away some of the most basic rights from law-abiding citizens in the U.S., and it won’t be the last. One of the most important things to remember about this legislation is that it was ignored by the media, and while it may only affect the Washington D.C. metro area now, it could be laying the blueprint for future legislation across the country.

H/t FOTM‘s MomOfIV

~Eowyn

Advertisements

Roomba will sell interior map of your home to highest bidder

Roomba is the name for disc-shaped robotic vacuum cleaners sold by iRobot beginning in September 2002. The little robot is equipped with sensors enabling it to change direction upon encountering obstacles, and to sense steep drops to keep it from falling down stairs.

Founded in 1990, iRobot actually began building bomb disposal robots for the U.S. Army before launching the world’s first “robovac” in 2002. The company sold off its military unit last year to focus on making Roomba for consumers, which claims as much as 88% of the U.S. robovac market. (Reuters)

Roomba ranges in price from $375 to the $899 WiFi-connected model 980.

To maximize efficiency, Roomba models manufactured in the last couple of years are equipped with mapping technology that measures — and stores — the dimensions of a room as well as distances between sofas, tables, lamps and other home furnishings. Now, iRobot plans to sell that data to smart home device manufacturers, turning the cute robot vacuum into a little spy.

Rhett Jones reports for Gizmodo, July 24, 2017:

“While it may seem like the information that a Roomba could gather is minimal, there’s a lot to be gleaned from the maps it’s constantly updating. It knows the floor plan of your home, the basic shape of everything on your floor, what areas require the most maintenance, and how often you require cleaning cycles, along with many other data points. And, according to Reuters, that data is the future of its business strategy:

“There’s an entire ecosystem of things and services that the smart home can deliver once you have a rich map of the home that the user has allowed to be shared,” said [iRobot CEO Colin] Angle. […]

Angle told Reuters that iRobot, which made Roomba compatible with Amazon’s Alexa voice assistant in March, could reach a deal to sell its maps to one or more of the Big Three in the next couple of years.

If a company like Amazon, for example, wanted to improve its Echo smart speaker, the Roomba’s mapping info could certainly help out. Spatial mapping could improve audio performance by taking advantage of the room’s acoustics. Do you have a large room that’s practically empty? Targeted furniture ads might be quite effective. The laser and camera sensors would paint a nice portrait for lighting needs that would factor into smart lights that adjust in real time. Smart AC units could better control airflow. And additional sensors added in the future would gather even more data from this live-in double agent.

And while Amazon seems like an obvious buyer—the kind that would pay huge money to shut out its competitors—don’t forget that Apple has its Siri speaker coming and it has a lot of catching up to do. The kind of data that iRobot is offering would give any developer a huge opportunity to fine tune the experience.

Maybe that doesn’t unnerve you, but it probably should. This is all part of the larger quest for a few major companies to hoover up every bit of data about you that they can. Now, they want to know all about your living space. Going through the iRobot terms of service, you can see just how much data is already being collected on a daily basis just by clicking like on a Facebook page or visiting a corporate website. And that data will likely be just as insecure tomorrow as it is today.

The question for iRobot and other manufacturers who are working with robovacs that use mapping is: Will users reject their product in favor of cheaper devices that offer more privacy? Angle doesn’t think that will be a problem. He tells Reuters that user data won’t be sold without permission and he thinks most people will want to take advantage of the greater functionality.

The iRobot Home app does clearly inform users that they are capable of turning off the cloud sharing functions on their Roomba. But the actual terms of service document is written in typically convoluted legal language. The privacy policy frames most data collection as something that will just make your device better and improve overall user experience. A section of the policy on sharing personal information with third parties bullet points out the situations in which iRobot could share this data.

At a glance it might seem like there’s only a narrow set of circumstances for third parties to get ahold of your info, but in reality, these guidelines give the company tons of freedom. It can share your data internally, with subsidiaries, third party vendors, and the government upon request. While a section about sharing data with third parties for marketing purposes specifies that the user must give consent, there’s this separate bullet point below that:

[We may share your personal information with] other parties in connection with any company transaction, such as a merger, sale of all or a portion of company assets or shares, reorganization, financing, change of control or acquisition of all or a portion of our business by another company or third party or in the event of bankruptcy or related or similar proceeding.

Depending on a court’s interpretation of that language, it would appear that your consent isn’t necessarily required if iRobot wanted to sell its user data in bulk to Apple. That doesn’t mean it would go forward with such a transaction without notifying users first.

Dyson, a high-end Roomba competitor, does a better job of giving users a quick breakdown of what’s in its privacy policy. But the particulars aren’t all that different than what iRobot sets out in its agreement. Dyson does promise to never “sell your personal information to anyone and only share it as outlined in this privacy policy or when you ask us to.” Of course, there’s still some wiggle room in there and Dyson also has agreements to interact with third party devices like the Amazon Echo.

[…] People will likely click “agree” to whatever terms are put in front of them. Hell, I never considered buying a Roomba until I started writing this article and thought about how much neater my apartment would be if I had one. Convenience trumps privacy every time. Just remember that the Roomba knows what room your child is in, it’s the one where it bumps into all the toys on the floor.

See also:

~Eowyn

British government wants to outlaw knives

Britain already has gun control.

Now, the government wants knife control as well.

Tom Newton Dunn reports for The Sun that on July 17, 2017, UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd proposed a complete ban on “street weapons” that “glamorize violence,” making possession of them illegal everywhere, whether in public or at home, and putting them on the same legal footing as unlicensed firearms.

The street weapons to be banned include:

  • zombie knives
  • butterfly knives
  • knuckledusters
  • sword sticks
  • blowpipes
  • a range of martial arts weapons such as deathstars and handclaws

Only people having the weapons for bonafied ceremonial or religious reasons — whatever that means — will be exempt from the ban.

Amber Rudd, 53, a member of UK’s Conservative Party, also wants to:

  • Make it compulsory to buy all knives in person rather than via mail or online order, so as to keep them out of children’s hands.
  • Make it an offense to deliver knives to private property.

In a statement for The Sun, Rudd writes:

“Violence such as knife crime has a devastating effect on families, communities and society.

Yet we are seeing knife attacks and the harm and suffering they cause all too often.

Things need to change and today I am setting out further action to help make sure they do.

Those who carry out such horrific attacks must know they face the full weight of the law.

Since I joined the Home Office I have banned zombie knives. I have also worked with major retailers to stop un­derage knife sales.

And last October police forces took part in a week of action to tackle knife crime under Operation Sceptre. This week hundreds of officers will be involved in the operation’s latest wave.

I am launching proposals to make it illegal for knives sold online to be delivered to a private address. Retailers would deliver to a shop or lo­cation where the customer’s age can be checked.

We are also looking to make it illegal to possess a dangerous weapon in the home. Together we can stop a crime that has become a scourge on society and break the vicious cycle of violence.”

The proposals come after police had called for more powers to tackle spiralling incidences on knife crime, despite earlier crackdowns such as longer jail terms. More than 32,000 knife offenses took place last year in Britain – a 14% increase from 2015.

Will Secretary Rudd propose a ban on pencils if criminals commit violence with pencils?

H/t GiGi

~Eowyn

Threat to free speech: Unconstitutional S720/HR1697 will make it a felony to support anti-Israel boycott

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1791, states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The criminalization of political speech and activism against Israel has become one of the gravest threats to free speech in the West:

  • In France, activists have been arrested and prosecuted for wearing T-shirts advocating a boycott of Israel.
  • The U.K. has also enacted a series of measures designed to outlaw such activism.
  • In the U.S., state governors have implemented regulations barring businesses from participating in any boycotts of Israeli settlements in Palestine. On college campuses, punishment of pro-Palestinian students for expressing criticisms of Israel is so commonplace that the Center for Constitutional Rights refers to it as “the Palestine Exception” to free speech.

Now there are two companion bills in Congress which will criminalize free speech by making it a felony to support any boycott of Israel, in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment that members of Congress have sworn to protect.

The bills are S.720 and its companion in the House, H.R. 1697, with an identical name, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act.

Here’s the text of S 720:

Israel Anti-Boycott Act

This bill declares that Congress: (1) opposes the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel; and (2) encourages full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 through enhanced, governmentwide, coordinated U.S.-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in civilian areas.

The bill amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 to declare that it shall be U.S. policy to oppose:

  • requests by foreign countries to impose restrictive practices or boycotts against other countries friendly to the United States or against U.S. persons; and
  • restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by an international governmental organization, or requests to impose such practices or boycotts, against Israel.

The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

  • requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or
  • supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.

The bill amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include as a reason for the Export-Import Bank to deny credit applications for the export of goods and services between the United States and foreign countries, opposition to policies and actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the Government of Israel.

S 720’s companion bill, HR 1697, is much longer. It explains that:

“For a half century, Congress has combated anti-Israel boycotts and other discriminatory activity under the Export Administration Act of 1979.”

HR 1697 also specifies the punishment for violating the Israel Anti-Boycott Act: a minimum civil penalty of $250,000, and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison:

Whoever knowingly violates or conspires to or attempts to violate any provision of section 8(a) [of the Export Administration act of 1979] or any regulation, order, or license issued thereunder shall be fined in accordance with section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705).”

And what are those penalties? From 50 U.S.C. 1705:

“(b) Civil penalty

A civil penalty may be imposed on any person who commits an unlawful act described in subsection (a) in an amount not to exceed the greater of- (1) $250,000; or (2) an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed.

(c) Criminal penalty

A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of, an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.”

Both bills have widespread bipartisan support:

(1) S 720 was introduced by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) and has 45 co-sponsors:

  • 31 Republicans: John Boozman (AR), Richard Burr (NC), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Bill Cassidy (LA), Susan Collins (ME), John Cornyn (TX), Tom Cotton (AR), Mike Crapo (IA), Ted Cruz (TX), Deb Fischer (NE), Lindsey Graham (SC), Chuck Grassley (IA), Orrin Hatch (UT), Dean Heller (NV), John Hoeven (ND), Johnny Isakson (GA), James Lankford (OK), Jerry Moran (KS), David Perdue (GA), Rob Portman (OH), Pat Roberts (KS), Marco Rubio (FL), Ben Sasse (NE), Tim Scott (SC), Luther Strange (AL), Dan Sullivan (AR), John Thune (SD), Thom Tillis (NC), Roger Wicker (MS), Todd Young (IN).
  • 14 Democrats: Michael Bennet (CO), Richard Blementhal (CT), Maria Cantwell (WA), Christopher Coons (DE), Joe Donnelly (IN), Joni Ernst (IA), Kristen Gillibrand (NY), Margaret Wood Hassan (NH), Joe Manchin (WV), Claire McCaskill (MO), Robert Menendez (NJ), Bill Nelson (FL), Gary Peters (MI), Charles Schumer (NY), Ron Wyden (OR).

(2) HR1697 was introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) and has 240 co-sponsors:

  • 177 Republicans
  • 63 Democrats

S 720 was referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on March 23, 2017. Its companion bill, HR 1697, was referred to the House Financial Services Committee also on March 23, 2017.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports on July 20, 2017, that HR 1697/S 720 “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee” (AIPAC). Indeed, AIPAC’s 2017 lobbying agenda identifies passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year.

The two bills that will make it a felony if you support any boycott of Israel also have the support of the thoroughly-cucked Christians United for Israel.

Did you know that, according to a list compiled in 2012, there are 41 members of Congress (29 in the House; 12 in the Senate) who have dual US-Israeli citizenship, which means they have dual loyalties?

The above list is dated in that Barney Frank, Henry Waxman and Anthony Weiner are no longer representatives.

Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), 73, who introduced S720 and whose grandparents were Russian Jewish immigrants, is on the above list. The family name was originally Kardonsky.

In 2015, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL), 55, who introduced HR 1697, wrote a letter to the New York Times condemning the paper for a graphic on members of Congress opposed to Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement, which initially identified Jewish lawmakers with a bold yellow highlight. Roskam, who opposed the nuclear deal, called the graphic “anti-Semitic” and that it “feeds the canard of dual loyalty that legitimizes prejudice toward Jews worldwide.”

What is needed is an updated list. Alas, as L. Michael Hager — co-founder and former director general of the International Development Law Organization, Rome — discovered, it is extremely difficult to identify members of Congress who hold dual citizenship and to ascertain the second nationality of those members.

In October 2014, Hagen filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Congressional Research Service (CRS) for the names of members of Congress with dual citizenship. In January 2015, he finally got a non-answer in a telephone call from a legal officer of the Library of Congress. After reminding Hagen that Congress and the CRS by extension are exempt from FOIA requests, the officer said CRS does not collect dual citizenship data.

Hagen writes:

“That’s bad news for those of us who believe that citizens should know if their representatives in Congress (and senior government officials and judges, for that matter) owe allegiance to any other nation….

Without transparency on dual citizenship, Americans remain in the dark, free to speculate on which representatives may have divided loyalties…. The lack of transparency is dangerous, for it erodes trust in government, creating credibility doubts where there should be none and allowing some conflicts to continue undetected, without question or debate.

Thus the first requirement is transparency. We need a government agency (presumably the CRS) or a non-governmental organization to disclose the names and non-U.S. national affiliations of Members of Congress and senior government officials and to track and report on this issue.

Secondly, we need more media attention to the subject of dual citizenship….

Beyond the threshold issue of transparency are equally important questions of whether a dual citizen elected to Congress or appointed to a senior USG position should be required to renounce his or her citizenship in the second nation. Even if American law continues to allow the government service of dual citizens, should it not require such persons at least to recuse themselves from participating in decisions or policy debates that relate to their second nationality?….

Conflicts of interest and apparent conflicts by public officials erode trust in government. Allowing dual citizenship in Congress (and in the Executive and Judicial Branches) to flourish under cover of non-disclosure puts our democracy at risk.

It’s time to bring this issue into open debate.”

To their credit, both the ACLU and MoveOn.org oppose S720/HR1697. In a letter urging senators to oppose the bill, the ACLU’s national political director Faiz Shakir wrote:

“We take no position for or against the effort to boycott Israel or any foreign country, for that matter. However, we do assert that the government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, punish U.S. persons based solely on their expressed political beliefs.”

See also:

~Eowyn

Democrat bill in Congress, HR 1987, to remove President Trump for ‘mental incompetence’

Ever since Donald Trump was inaugurated President, Democrats have agitated and schemed for his removal, via either impeachment or the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment states:

“Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

On Feb. 18, 2017, writing in the New York Times less than a month after Trump’s inauguration, Nicholas Kristof ruled out impeachment because “it’s hard to imagine a majority of the House voting to impeach, and even less conceivable that two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict so that Trump would be removed. Moreover, impeachment and trial in the Senate would drag on for months, paralyzing America and leaving Trump in office with his finger on the nuclear trigger.”

So Kristof turned to the 25th Amendment as a more likely method:

“But the cleanest and quickest way to remove a president involves Section 4 of the 25th Amendment and has never been attempted. It provides that the cabinet can, by a simple majority vote, strip the president of his powers and immediately hand power to the vice president. The catch is that the ousted president can object, and in that case Congress must approve the ouster by a two-thirds vote in each chamber, or the president regains office.

The 25th Amendment route is to be used when a president is ‘unable’ to carry out his duties. I asked Laurence Tribe, the Harvard professor of constitutional law, whether that could mean not just physical incapacity, but also mental instability. Or, say, the taint of having secretly colluded with Russia to steal an election?

Tribe said that he believed Section 4 could be used in such a situation.”

Kristof concludes:

“And what does it say about a presidency that, just one month into it, we’re already discussing whether it can be ended early?”

Kristof should have defined and qualified what he meant by “we” because his observation really is about his fellow Demonrats and himself. If he were honest, he would phrase his question as follows:

“And what does it say about Democrats and me that, just one month into a duly-elected presidency, we’re already issuing death threats and discussing whether it can be ended early?”

The Democrats have moved beyond mere talk to actual action in Congress.

On April 6, 2017, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) introduced a bill, HR 1987: Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity Act, the objective of which is to form a special commission in the House which will be charged with activating Section 4 of the 25th Amendment against President Trump.

Note: Democrat Jaime Raskin, 54, “was born in Washington, D.C. on December 13, 1962 to a Jewish family”. A law professor at American University who teaches constitutional law, Raskin is a former Maryland state senator who became Maryland’s 8th congressional district’s representative in the U.S. House of Representatives in January 2017. Raskin’s first action as a Congressman was his objection, with several other members of House of Representatives, to certifying the election of Donald Trump as President because of Russian interference in the election, never mind the fact that to this day, neither the Democrats nor the FBI could actually produce evidence of Russia’s interference. Vice President Joseph Biden ruled the objection out of order because it had to be sponsored by at least one member of each chamber, and there was no Senate sponsor. (Wikipedia)

HR 1987 is co-sponsored by 21 representatives — all Democrats. They are, in alphabetical order:

  • Earl Blumenauer (OR)
  • Anthony Brown (MD)
  • Judy Chu (CA)
  • David Cicilline (RI)
  • Steve Cohen (TN)
  • John Conyers (MI)
  • Lloyd Doggett (TX)
  • Dwight Evans (PA)
  • Raul Grijalva (AZ)
  • Luis Gutierrez (IL)
  • Pramila Jayapal (WA)
  • Henry “Hank” Johnson (GA)
  • Barbara Lee (CA)
  • Sheila Jackson Lee (TX)
  • Zoe Lofgren (CA)
  • James McGovern (MA)
  • Jerrold Nadler (NY)
  • Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL)
  • Darren Soto (FL)
  • Mark Takano (CA)

On May 1, 2017, HR 1987 was referred to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

This is what HR 1987 says:

To establish the Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity, and for other purposes…. The Commission shall serve as the body provided by law by Congress to carry out section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Section 3 of HR 1987 says that the duty of the Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity is twofold:

(a) In general.—If directed by Congress pursuant to section 5, the Commission shall carry out a medical examination of the President to determine whether the President is mentally or physically unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, as described under subsection (b).

(b) Determination.—The determination under subsection (a) shall be made if the Commission finds that the President is temporarily or permanently impaired by physical illness or disability, mental illness, mental deficiency, or alcohol or drug use to the extent that the person lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to execute the powers and duties of the office of President.

The Commission will be composed of 11 members:

  • The Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, the House Speaker and Minority Leader each appoints two members, both of whom shall be physicians, with one of the two a psychiatrist M.D.
  • The Republican Party and the Democratic Party each selects a member, who shall be a former statesman, like a retired president or vice president.
  • The final group of 10 would meet and choose an 11th member, who would be the committee’s chairman.

Within 72 hours after conducting an examination of the President, “the Commission shall submit a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate describing the findings and conclusions of the examination.”

HR 1987 ends with an Orwellian clincher. Sec. 6(a) says:

Any refusal by the President to undergo such examination shall be taken into consideration by the Commission in reaching a conclusion in the report….

Reporting for the Daily Mail on June 30, 2017, David Martosko points out that although HR 1987:

“has predictably failed to attract any Republicans . . . the U.S. Constitution’s 25th Amendment does allow for a majority of the president’s cabinet, or ‘such other body as Congress may by law provide,’ to decide if an Oval Office occupant is unable to carry out his duties – and then to put it to a full congressional vote. Vice President Mike Pence would also have to agree, which could slow down the process – or speed it up if he wanted the levers of power for himself. […]

Raskin’s plan could have a fatal flaw, however: Legal scholars tend to agree that when the Constitution’s framers first provided for the replacement of a president with an ‘inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office,’ they weren’t talking about mere eccentricities. And when the 25th Amendment was sent to the states for ratification in 1965, the Senate agreed that ‘inability’ meant that a president was ‘unable to make or communicate his decisions’ and suffered from a ‘mental debility’ rendering him ‘unable or unwilling to make any rational decision.‘ […]

Raskin has made no bones about the fact that his intentions are specific to President Trump. ‘Trump’s mental incapacity is no laughing matter,’ he tweeted last month. ‘#25thAmendment gives us a way to deal with this problem.’ Raskin summed up his reasoning for Yahoo News on Friday: ‘In case of emergency, break glass.’ ‘I assume every human being is allowed one or two errant and seemingly deranged tweets,’ he said. ‘The question is whether you have a sustained pattern of behavior that indicates something is seriously wrong.'”

President Trump shows no signs of being insane. But if Democrats have their way, the Oversight Committee on Presidential Capacity will declare him mentally incompetent and replace him with a more palatable and malleable President Pence.

The Soviet Union — and China today — used to do that. The Communist Party would declare perfectly sane political dissidents as insane and imprison them in mental hospitals.

That is what America’s Democrats want to do with President Trump — and with you and me.

~Eowyn

London Bridge Terror was a hoax: CCTV shows ‘victim’ getting up from ground

At around 9:58 pm on the night of June 3, 2017, just 12 days after the terrorist bombing at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, Britain experienced a third terrorist attack of the year when three men drove a van into pedestrians on London Bridge. Wielding knives, the men left the van and went to the nearby Borough Market, where they stabbed people in and around restaurants and pubs. Seven people were killed and 48 wounded, including four unarmed police officers who attempted to tackle the assailants.

The three attackers wearing fake explosive vests — Khuram Shazad Butt, Rachid Redouane and Youssef Zaghba — were shot dead by police. ISIS has claimed “responsibility” for the attack. Twelve people were arrested and four properties raided the following day, with more raids on the day after. (Wikipedia)

Or so we are told.

On June 6, I published a post on a curious video taken by a citizen journalist of what appears to be a group of police officers changing their clothes behind a police van during the London Bridge incident. One of the officers pulled on a pair of camouflage pants, which certainly is not standard police uniform. He was later seen, in camouflage pants, lying on the ground as one of the three terrorists shot dead by police at 10:16 pm.

Below is a longer video of the police changing their clothes AFTER the terrorists drove their van into pedestrians on the London Bridge attack, but BEFORE the Borough Market stabbing.

The video shows not only the red-hair officer changing into camouflage pants, but also officers in white tops and black pants, as well as others donning all-black hoodie jumpsuits.

Later in the video, CCTV footage of the Borough Market stabbing shows supposed restaurant “waiters” dressed in white tops and black pants being “stabbed” by “terrorists” wearing all-black hoodie jumpsuits.

Hmm . . . .

There is also a telling and quite funny CCTV footage of a stabbing “victim” (or a “terrorist” whom the police just “shot”) miraculously getting up from the ground to avoid being run over by a runaway police car that the cops had forgotten to brake.

Here’s a screenshot I took, followed by a GIF I had made.

See also “Fake News: CNN Becky Anderson stages fake Muslim ‘peace protest’ in London“.

~Eowyn

Do you find this cool or creepy?

Below is a Google Earth video:

I don’t know about you, but I find it really creepy that Google Earth can actually take pics of individuals, like the woman “Louise” lying on a lawn at the beginning of the video.

Imagine a government using Google Earth for surveillance of citizens.

~Eowyn