Category Archives: 4th Amendment

Enter the Gestapo: R.I Governor Closes State Borders, Searches Private Homes for Non-Residents

Welcom to Rhode Island. Pull pull over and show me your papers.

Rhode Island’s Democrat governor Gina Raimondo has closed the state’s borders and established a draconian set of repressive regulations that would have made Adolph Hitler proud. Now, armed military police man roadblocks at all interstate and major highways leading to into, and out of, the state. Armed National Guard soldiers and State Police officers search door-to-door looking for non-Rhode Island people. Local police drive through residential neighborhoods looking for out-of-state license plates. Armed National Guard soldiers are stationed at the T.F. Green airport, Amtrak train stations and at bus stops. The maximum penalty for not complying: a fine of $500 and 90 days in prison. (Prison time for disobeying a quarantine when actual felons are released by the thousands? What insanity!)

London Plague 1348 “Bring out your dead.”
Nazi Germany 1943: “Hand over your Jews.”
Rhode Island 2020: “Identify the the New Yorkers.”

And three golfers from Massachusetts, where all outdoor recreation has been banned, were arrested when they crossed the border to play on a Rhode Island course that was unrestricted for Rhod Islanders. Everyone who drives into the state is ordered to stop and submit to an interrogation. But Raimondo has an especially severe restriction on New Yorkers, since many have tried to avoid the New York outbreak by fleeing to other states. Raimondo’s order says any person coming into Rhode Island from another state for a non-work related purpose—especially from New York—must immediately self-quarantine for 14 days.

Issued March 28, the order repealed a previous emergency declaration that targeted only travelers from New York State. Anyone who doesn’t self-quarantine as ordered will face a fine, and for subsequent offenses could warrant large fines on top of prison time. Soldiers are relaying motorists’ and other non-residents’ contact information to the state’s health department. Health department workers are calling those people to check on their well-being and if necessary to keep track of any contacts they have had.

The lock down has had some truly bizarre, and quite frankly, frightening effects. It has turned ordinary citizens into spies and informants for the government. It is turned duffers who wanted nothing more than to play golf on an open-to-the public course into criminals.

One week after Massachusetts Governor Charles Baker ordered all outdoor recreational areas to be closedclosed, including golf courses and the rifle range where I shoot, Richmond, R.I. police bagged three golfers from Massachusetts on misdemeanor charges. Police said the three duffers went to elaborate lengths to hide their identities as out-of-towners so they could get in a round of golf at the Meadow Brook Golf Course in town.

Gregory Corbett, 51, Tyler Pietrzyk, 22, and Nye Cameron, 22, were apprehended at a nearby McDonald’s restaurant, where police say the men changed cars to drive to the club in a vehicle with Rhode Island license plates, the Attleboro (Mass) Sun Chronicle reported.

Employees at the McDonald’s ratted them out and called the cops.

Gib Mir deinen Pass!

Cops issued the three men summonses for violating the quarantine when they drove back from the golf course to their vehicles at the McDonald’s in the vehicle with the Rhode Island plates, the paper reported.

“It’s not the most heinous offense, but the reality is that we’re living in a whole different world this month, and it’s important we all follow the rules to keep one another safe,” Police Chief Elwood Johnson said.

The restrictions, however, are not without critics. The local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union blasted the new rules, objecting to the collection of motorists’ contact information in particular.

“While the Governor may have the power to suspend some state laws and regulations to address this medical emergency, she cannot suspend the Constitution,” Rhode Island ACLU executive director Steven Brown said in a statement. “Under the Fourth Amendment, having a New York state license plate simply does not, and cannot, constitute ‘probable cause’ to allow police to stop a car and interrogate the driver, no matter how laudable the goal of the stop may be.

“The ACLU remains very concerned about the enormous breadth of the governor’s latest directive and its focus on out-of-staters at a time when the state acknowledges that half of Rhode Islanders themselves are not following social distancing rules,” Brown said. “A two-week quarantine solely for the ‘offense’ of coming from out of state, and with no opportunity to contest this demand, is deeply troubling.

“In addition,” Brown said, “targeting out-of-staters like this can only promote a divisive ‘us vs. them’ mentality that encourages vilification of others. We fully appreciate that the state is dealing with an emergency crisis that requires emergency actions, but it should not be at the unwarranted expense of our civil rights.”

Raimondo rebuffed the objections, pointing out that laws change during a state of an emergency, and added that she’s receiving federal guidance from the Trump Administration and legal advice from her administration as she makes these decisions.

“It’s the law,” she said. “We are serious about this.”

 

~ Grif

Checkpoint 13 – Check for contraband Line up the out-of-towners.

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

New York state bill to require review of gun-license applicants’ social media & search history

Behind the mask of the Left is the face of totalitarianism.

There is a bill in the New York State Assembly, S. 9191, which would require:

  1. A review of one’s social media and search engine prior to the approval of an application or renewal of a gun license.
  2. The consent of anyone applying for a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver or a renewal of such license to have his/her social media accounts and search engine history reviewed and investigated for certain posts and/or searches over a period of 1-3 years prior to the approval of such application or renewal.
  3. The state government investigator will look for slurs or “biased language” about race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation; threats against another’s health or safety; “acts of terrorism”; and the all-purpose “any other issue deemed necessary” by the investigator.
  4. All of this intrusion into one’s privacy and, therefore, violations of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, is justified in order “to show the good character, competency and integrity of each person or individual signing the [gun license] application.”

S. 9191 states:

In order to ascertain whether any social media account or search engine history of an applicant presents any good cause for the denial of a license, the investigating officer shall, after obtaining the applicant’s consent pursuant to subdivision three of this section, and obtaining any log-in name, password or other means for accessing a personal account, service, or electronic communications device necessary to review such applicant’s social media accounts and search engine history, review an applicant’s social media accounts for the previous three years and search engine history for the previous year and investigate an applicant’s posts or searches related to (i) commonly known profane slurs or biased language used to describe the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person; (ii) threatening the health or safety of another person; (iii) an act of terrorism; or (iv) any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer. For the purposes of this subdivision, “social media accounts” shall only include Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter and Instagram, and “search engine” shall only include Google, Yahoo and Bing.

On November 14, 2018, S. 9191 was referred to the Rules Committee.

S. 9191 is sponsored by state senator Kevin S. Parker, Democrat, who has a history of assaulting people. From Wikipedia:

  • In January 2005, Parker was arrested after punching a traffic agent in the face during a dispute over a traffic citation that he had been issu. He was subsequently charged with third degree assault, a misdemeanor, but the charges were dropped after he agreed to take anger management classes.
  • In 2008, an aide filed charges against Parker, claiming he pushed her during an argument and smashed her glasses.
  • On May 8, 2009, Parker was charged with felony criminal mischief for attacking a New York Post photographer, breaking his finger, and damaging the photographer’s camera and car door. Parker was stripped of his leadership position as majority whip and chair of the Energy Committee; convicted of a misdemeanor charge, criminal mischief; and sentenced to three years probation and a $1,000 fine.  Senate Democrats expressed an unwillingness to expel Parker.
  • In February 2010, Parker was restrained by his colleagues during a profane tirade against Senator Diane Savino in which Parker referred to Savino as a “b****”.
  • In April 2010, Parker launched into a 2-minute tirade while colleague John DeFrancisco of Syracuse was questioning a black nominee for the New York State Power Authority. When committee chairman Carl Kruger (D-Brooklyn) told Parker he would be removed from the hearing room if he didn’t settle down, Parker accused his colleagues of racism, and followed up in a radio interview by accusing his Republican “enemies” of being white supremacists.

Parker should be the first to have his social media and search history investigated. Given his history of assaults, physical and verbal, he would also be the first to flunk the investigation.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

NY demorats push for social media review as part of firearm background check

From New York City Patch: Two Brooklyn politicians want cops to examine New Yorkers’ online activity to prevent more hate-fueled tragedies like the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre. State Sen. Kevin Parker and Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams proposed legislation Friday that would incorporate social media accounts into background checks for gun buyers.

They argue doing so would help law enforcement authorities spot dangerous people like Robert Bowers, who reportedly declared his hatred for Jewish people online before allegedly killing 11 people last Saturday.

“You would have thought this person was a model citizen until you examined his social media profile,” said Adams, a Democrat. “And you would have noticed he was not a model citizen, he was a broken citizen that was a time bomb that was waiting to explode.”

The pair of bills would empower the New York State Police and local departments like the NYPD to check three years of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat activity for anyone applying for a gun license in New York, Parker said.

Authorities would flag anything that is an “immediate threat to public safety,” he said. Gun buyers would also have to let police comb through a year’s worth of their search engine histories under the legislation.

The state’s SAFE Act — known as one of the nation’s toughest gun laws — requires instant federal background checks for all gun sales except those between immediate family members. But lawmakers have to do more in the wake of recent hate crimes such as the Pittsburgh shooting, Parker said.

“We certainly want to make sure that we’re adding to the protections that we need to make sure that people that we’re putting handguns and rifles and shotguns in the possession, that they in fact are the people that are using them in the right way,” Parker said.

The syngagogue massacre, in which 11 people died, came just a day after federal authorities arrested Cesar Sayoc, the Florida man accused of mailing bombs to high-profile Democratic figures. Sayoc had searched for his targets’ addresses online, federal prosecutors allege.

Lawmakers are still working out exactly how law-enforcement officials would go about accessing social media profiles that are not publicly viewable, Parker said, though he noted the legislation would require gun buyers to make their profiles available.

“We’re going look at what’s in the universe already and use that as one of the tools to determine the profile of a person who’s attempting to purchase a handgun,” Adams said.

The legislation also would not cover more obscure social media sites such as Gab, on which Bowers reportedly signaled that he was going to carry out violence. But Parker said officials wanted to go after the “low-hanging fruit.”

“How much is it going to cost in human lives if we don’t start checking people’s social media and trying to get a good sense of their understanding?” Parker said.

h/t Breitbart

DCG

 

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s curious questions to Judge Kavanaugh on military tribunals for U.S. citizens

The Trump White House insider who calls himself Q has repeatedly posted about military tribunals and sealed indictments, now numbering an extraordinary 40,483 as of June 30, 2018.

Military tribunals in the United States are military courts designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are not courts martial.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 limits military tribunal trials to non-citizens only.

On September 5, 2018, during Day 2 of the Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Kavanaugh a series of very interesting questions that seem to make a case for American citizens being subject to military tribunals.

In the event that YouTube is censoring the video, you can watch the exchange on C-SPAN here.

Here’s my transcript of the Graham-Kavanaugh Q & A:

Graham: So when somebody says, post-9/11, that we’d been at war, and it’s called the War on Terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept?

Kavanaugh: I do, senator, because Congress passed the authorization for use of military force, which is still in effect. That was passed, of course, on September 14, 2001, three days later.

Graham: Let’s talk about the law and war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict?

Kavanaugh: There is such a body, senator.

Graham: A body of law that’s called basic criminal law?

Kavanaugh: Yes, senator.

Graham: Are there differences between those two bodies of law?

Kavanaugh: Yes, senator.

Graham: From an American citizen’s point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you? If you’re in Paris, does the Fourth Amendment protect you as an American from your own government?

Kavanaugh: From your own government, yes.

Graham: So, if you’re in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government?

Kavanaugh: If you’re an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the U.S. government.

Graham: Isn’t there also a long settled law that goes back to the Eisentrager case (I can’t remember the name of it)….

Kavanaugh: Johnson v. Eisentrager.

Graham: Right, that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy are considered enemy combatants?

Kavanaugh: They can be, they’re often, sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military.

Graham: Let’s talk about can be. I think there’s a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military, is that correct?

Kavanaugh: That is correct.

Graham: I think a couple of them were executed.

Kavanaugh: Yeah.

Graham: So, if anybody doubts there’s a longstanding history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don’t have a constitutional right to turn on your own government and collaborate with the enemy of the nation. You’ll be treated differently. What’s the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you can hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Are you familiar with that case?

Kavanaugh: Yes, Hamdi [v. Rumsfeld].

Graham: So the bottom line is on every American citizen know you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There is a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict. Do you understand those difference?

Kavanaugh: I do understand that there are different bodies of law of course, senator.

Q picked up on the significance of Graham’s questions. On the same day as the confirmation hearing, Sept. 5, Q published post #2093, which highlights the distinction Graham made between military law vs. criminal law.

Lindsey Graham has a J.D. from the University of South Carolina. Before he entered politics, he was a U.S. Air Force officer and JAG (judge advocate general).

It is noteworthy that of all the constitutional rights to which American citizens are entitled, Sen. Graham specifically mentioned the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires “reasonable” governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant, judicially sanctioned by probable cause. On December 21, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order blocking the property of persons involved in “serious human rights abuse or corruption”.

See also “Did John McCain really die from brain cancer?

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Too-stupid-to-understand-FISA-memo Americans inundate Rep. Adam Schiff & Sen. Feinstein with 'I'm not a Russian bot' phone calls

Update: Full FISA Memo released!!!
Our elected politicians just don’t get it: They are not our overlords — they work for us.
Remember Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), 57, who said the House Intelligence Committee (on which he is a ranking member) should not release the FISA memo to the public because the American people simply can’t understand it?
Adam Schiff
The now-infamous 4-page FISA memo is described as so “shocking” and “explosive”, it could lead to the removal of senior officials in the NSA, FBI and DOJ, the end of Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation, and even people going to jail.

See “Tell Congress to release the ‘explosive’ FISA memo that’ll put officials in jail!

But Schiff dismisses the FISA memo as a set of “distorted” “talking points” drafted by Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee. He also invoked the Democrats’ favorite boogeyman — the Russians — accusing his Republican colleagues on the committee of colluding with “Russian trolls and bots”.
When news went viral — of the FISA memo and Schiff’s characterization of the American people as too stupid to understand it — there was a popular outcry to #ReleaseTheMemo.
Still thinking the American people to be stupid, Democrats dug in with their Russian boogeyman meme, accusing the #ReleaseTheMemo social-media campaign of being Kremlin-orchestrated social media actors or LARPers pretending to be Americans.
On Tuesday, January 23, Schiff and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) actually sent a letter (see below) to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, demanding a forensic examination into the #ReleaseTheMemo campaign being the work of “Russian bots” or fake Americans.
Schiff-Feinstein letter on Russian bots
News of the Schiff-Feinstein letter unleashed a tsunami of phone calls to their respective offices, from American citizens confirming they are not Russian bots. One Twitter user said Schiff’s office is now hanging up on American citizens calling to say they’re not Russian bots. LOL
Here’s a sample of tweets from Americans who called:

“Adam Schiff’s office is now hanging up on citizens calling to say they are not Russian Bots.”
” I called Schiff’s office and actually got a live person, he wasn’t too happy with my message and hung up???
“A very rude young man in Adam Schiff’s office just hung up on me. After he talked over me and wouldn’t even let me finish a sentence.”
“Schiff’s office not accepting voicemail. I’m an EXDemocrat – NOT a BOT!”
“My husband just got through to Schiff’s office. Told them ‘Censorship is Communism!’ That he was an American Citizen and didn’t eat Borscht and drink Vodka! We the People Want the Memo! Schiff is a Mental case and should resign!”

Call Schiff and Feinstein and tell them you’re not a Russian bot!

  • Adam Schiff: (202) 225-4176
  • Diane Feinstein: (415) 393-0707

By the way, Rep. Schiff said we won’t be able to understand the FISA memo because we don’t have the memo’s classified background information. But we do have that information — the 99-page United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated April 26, 2017, which is a blueprint of how the Obama administration and the Deep State illegally spied on President Trump, as well as on U.S. citizens.

See “‘Explosive’ FISA memo: ‘Top secret’ source document details Obama NSA illegal spying/doxxing of U.S. citizens

H/t Gateway Pundit
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

'Explosive' FISA memo: 'Top secret' source document details Obama NSA illegal spying/doxxing of U.S. citizens

Update: Full FISA Memo released!!!
On January 18, 2018, members of the House of Representatives were given a four-page memo, described by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL)and journalist Sara Carter as so “shocking” and “explosive”, it could lead to the removal of senior officials in the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), the end of Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation, and even people going to jail.

See “Tell Congress to release the ‘explosive’ FISA memo that’ll put officials in jail!

House members have been blocked from discussing the memo in detail due to a waiver they signed, according to The Hill. A day later, on January 19, 65 lawmakers signed a letter calling on House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif) to publicly release the memo.
On January 20, Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) tweeted that the process to release the memo has begun, although it may take 19 or more Congressional work days.
On January 21, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said the memo should not be released because the American people simply can’t understand it because we don’t have the classified information that provides the background for the 4-page FISA memo.
Well, the American people’s inability to understand the FISA memo is no longer a concern for Demonrat Schiff because yesterday morning, a National Security Agency (NSA) whistle blower — former NSA tech head William Binneysent InfoWars a link to a 99-page document that’s been “confirmed” by “congressional sources” to be be “a primary source of information” for the 4-page FISA memo.
The classified (“top secret”) document is a 99-page “United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Memorandum Opinion and Order,” dated April 26, 2017. It is a blueprint of how the Obama administration and the Deep State had spied on President Trump, as well as on U.S. citizens.

Note: FISA or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is a federal law that establishes procedures for the U.S. government’s physical and electronic surveillance of foreign powers and domestic (U.S.) agents of foreign powers suspected of espionage or terrorism. The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

In 2016, the Obama Administration used the “Russian dossier” and its  baseless claim of a Russian-Trump collusion as the pretext for a FISA court-approved surveillance on then-candidate Donald Trump and members of the Trump campaign, including phone- and wire-taps. But as you will see in the 99-page FISC memorandum, the Obama Administration’s surveillance went way beyond Trump and his team to include innocent U.S. citizens, whose personal identities were doxxed and their personal information leaked.


Below is a summary of the main points in the 99-page FISC memorandum:

(1) The NSA, under the Obama Administration, spied on U.S. citizens through something called the “Section 702 upstream collection”:

As explained by Sean D. Carberry of FCW, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorizes the NSA to monitor internet traffic without a warrant and sweep up any communications that simply mention a foreign target, regardless of the sender or receiver of the email, who may be innocent U.S. citizens. That means the NSA has been spying on and intercepting U.S. citizens’ emails.
Page 33 of the 99-page FISC memorandum states:

Information acquired by FISA electronic surveillance and physical search, which often involve targets who are United States persons and typically are directed at persons in the United States.

(2) The NSA, under the Obama Administration, went beyond FISA’s Section 702 to “unmasking” (doxxing) and leaking information about Americans, including associates of Donald Trump:

All this is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which prohibits the government’s unreasonable searches and seizures and requires governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant, judicially sanctioned by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Below are some relevant quotes from the 99-page FISC memorandum:

Page 15 – “…NSA analysts had used US-person identifiers to query the results on Internet ‘upstream’ collection, even though NSA’s Section 702 minimization procedures prohibited such queries.”
Page 19 – “Since 2011, NSA’s minimization procedures have prohibited use of US-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collection under Section 702. The Oct. 26, 2016 Notice informed the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the Court.
Page 21 –The government still had not ascertained the full range of systems that might have been used to conduct improper US-person queries.

Here’s former NSA official William Binney on the FISC memorandum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6fHU6eq5wg
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) must certify each year that the NSA is in compliance with Section 702 provisions.
In March 2017, some members of Congress threatened that they would have a hard time renewing Section 702 before its expiration at the end of 2017 unless the Trump Administration prosecutes those responsible for the leaks.
In a press release on April 28, 2017, the NSA described the changes it will make so that its Section 702 powers could be renewed:

  • The NSA said it would take steps “as soon as practicable” to delete data already collected in the illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens.
  • The NSA would halt “about” collection of U.S. citizens’ personal information. However, due to limitations of its current technology, the NSA “is unable to completely eliminate ‘about’ communications from its upstream 702 collection without also excluding some of the relevant communications directly ‘to or from’ its foreign intelligence targets.”
  • The NSA will still conduct “upstream” and “downstream” surveillance to collect emails sent to or from a foreign target located outside the U.S., for which the agency, under FISA’s Section 702, does not require a warrant.

In 2017, after an extensive review, the FISC approved changes made by the NSA “to fix the problems” before the government submitted a new application for the agency’s continued Section 702 certification.
Reactions from members of Congress (FCW):

  • Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has long accused the government of using Section 702 as an end run around warrant requirements to collect the communications of Americans, and he has been calling on the NSA to release data on the number of Americans who have had their communications “incidentally collected.” Wyden said after the NSA’s April press release: “This transparency should be commended. To permanently protect Americans’ rights, I intend to introduce legislation banning this kind of collection in the future.”
  • Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Ca.), a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, called Section 702 a vital collection tool and commended the NSA for self-reporting the issues and discontinuing “about” collection. Schiff said: “I will continue to expect strict compliance with the FISA Court orders and will push for Section 702’s reauthorization along with any additional reforms needed to further strengthen and institutionalize protections for privacy and transparency.”
  • Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), a ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said: “This development represents the due diligence and extensive review applied across the United States Government pertaining to the Section 702 collection activities. I believe we can now look forward to Congress and, in particular, the Senate Intelligence Committee…quickly turning to the consideration and debate of this critical authority prior to its expiration set for December 31, 2017.”

Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander and Admiral Michael Rogers headed the National Security Agency under the Obama Administration. Rogers is still the NSA Director. Alexander, Rogers, NSA agents, and Barack Obama should be indicted and arrested for violating the Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

Here’s what you can do:

(1) Tell the Department of Justice to arrest the above criminals:

  • Phones: 202-353-1555 (comment);  202-514-2000 (main switchboard)
  • Online form: https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice

(2) Tweet President Trump: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump
(3) Tell your Congress critter(s): https://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
This is the message I wrote on the DOJ’s onine Contact Form (feel free to copy and paste as yours):

To Attorney General Jeff Sessions:
The 99-page April 2017 “U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Memorandum Opinion and Order” shows that the NSA’s spying and doxxing egregiously violated the Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. Why haven’t you arrest NSA Directors Michael Rogers and Keith Alexander, NSA agents who conducted the spying and doxxing, and former President Barack Obama? Are they above the law?

#ArrestNSA
#ArrestKeithAlexander
#ArrestMichaelRogers
#ArrestBarackObama

H/t John Molloy and FOTM‘s greenworxx

Update (Jan. 26, 2018):

Too-stupid-to-understand-FISA-memo Americans inundate Rep. Adam Schiff’s office with ‘I’m not a Russian bot’ phone calls
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Spew alert: Former FBI Director and Clinton hack James Comey to teach "ethical leadership" class

james comey

This is how much I care about “ethics”


#ReleaseTheMemo!
From CNN: Former FBI Director James Comey will teach a course on ethical leadership at William and Mary beginning in the fall, according to an article on the Virginia college’s website.
The course will meet primarily at the college’s Washington, DC, center and once at the campus in Williamsburg, Virginia. Comey will co-teach the course with Drew Stelljes, executive assistant professor of education and assistant vice president for student leadership, in fall 2018 and spring and summer 2019.
Comey, who graduated from the college in 1982, told the school he is “thrilled” at the chance to teach this course.
“Ethical leaders lead by seeing above the short term, above the urgent or the partisan, and with a higher loyalty to lasting values, most importantly the truth,” Comey says in the article. “Building and maintaining that kind of leadership, in both the private sector and government, is the challenge of our time.”
William and Mary’s president, Taylor Reveley, said in statement quoted in the article that Comey has been “deeply committed” to the college over the years.
“He understands to the core of his being that our leaders must have an abiding commitment to ethical behavior and sacrificial service if we are to have good government.”
Comey led the FBI from 2013 until last year, when he was fired by President Donald Trump. Comey, as director, oversaw the investigation into whether Trump campaign members colluded with Russians who hacked the 2016 election.
See also:

DCG

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Not from The Onion: Inmate can sue prison for removing marbles from his penis

No words as to why any doctor would even implant marbles in a man’s penis. Unreal.

Adrian King/Photo from West Virginia Dept. of Corrections

Adrian King/Photo from West Virginia Dept. of Corrections

From NY Post: A federal appeals court on Tuesday revived a lawsuit in which a West Virginia inmate accused state prison officials of invading his privacy by surgically removing marbles he had implanted in his penis.
By a 3-0 vote, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Adrian King could pursue claims that officials at Huttonsville Correctional Center illegally threatened him into consenting to the June 2013 surgery, or risk being segregated from other inmates and lose his eligibility for parole.
Circuit Judge Roger Gregory found “overwhelming evidence” that the intrusion was unreasonable, despite the asserted need by prison officials to police the security threat posed by inmates carrying contraband within their bodies.
“The interest in bodily integrity involves the most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy, and here, the nature of the surgery itself, surgery into King’s penis, counsels against reasonableness,” Gregory wrote for the Richmond, Virginia-based appeals court.
King had had the marbles implanted in and tattoos drawn on his penis in late 2008, prior to his incarceration, during a “body modification” craze.
He said the surgery left his penis with tingling and numbness, and pain when it is touched or when it rains, snows or gets cold.
King said the surgery also resulted in mental and emotional anguish, saying that prison officials call him “Marble Man” and ask when searching him where his marbles are, and that gay inmates approach him because of how staff gossip about him.
Tuesday’s decision restores claims that King’s Fourth Amendment right against illegal searches and seizures, Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection, were violated.
It reversed much of a February 2015 ruling by Chief Judge Gina Groh of the federal court in Martinsburg, West Virginia, and returned the case to her for further proceedings. King is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
Lawyers for the prison officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for King did not immediately respond to similar requests.
The appeals court upheld the dismissal of claims against some defendants, including Commissioner Jim Rubenstein of the West Virginia Division of Corrections.
The case is King v Rubinstein et al, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 15-6382.
DCG

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Add one more name to the dead pool…

Add the name, Peter Schweizer, to the death watch list

Andrew Breitbart, Joan Rivers, Loretta Fuddy, Michael Hastings, Ron Johnson, Vince Foster…

President Lucifer and the Clintons have some things in common. People who become inconvenient to them have a tendency to die.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFwK196evs4?rel=0&controls=0&showinfo=0]


clintoncash

The author of a book hammering Hillary Clinton says he now has full-time security

by COLIN CAMPBELL
The author of a controversial new book about Bill and Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that he has arranged full-time security for himself.
Asked during a Bloomberg interview if he received any death threats over his controversial book, “Clinton Cash,” Peter Schweizer would only say he has “security.”
“I’ll just say we have security. And that security is not something that just came because we decided to have security. And we’ll just leave it at that,” he said.
Read more: https://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-cash-peter-schweizer-security-2015-4#ixzz3Yo5hqbko


Clintons’ Dead Pool

https://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/liberty/liberty/bdycount.txt
Click the link above to check out the incredibly long list of suspicious deaths connected to the Clintons. I’ve removed the list out of mercy to the readers, but if you have time to spare, this will shock you.


Obama’s ‘Dead Pool’

https://www.nachumlist.com/deadpool.htm
Click the link above to check out the incredibly long list of suspicious deaths connected to Obama. I’ve removed the list out of mercy to the readers, but if you have time to spare, this will shock you.


Conclusion: Peter Schweizer needs to pray Psalm 91 daily.

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Pentagon pressed to change program arming police with military gear

In the six years of Obama’s presidency, America has become increasingly militarized — not our troops abroad, but right here at home — and transforming before our eyes into a police state. (See “Police State U.S.A.”)
40 civilian agencies of the federal government now have armed divisions. Those of us who are not low-information voters are familiar with the alarming purchases of guns, rifles, and lethal hollow-point bullets by the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies, including the Department of Education!
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Increasingly, however, police across America are violating the 4th Amendment by storming into homes, armed to the teeth in military gear, under the pretext of apprehending some suspected criminal. (See “Obama regime supplies military-grade arms to police”)
The most egregious example took place on April 19, 2013.
During a manhunt in the Boston suburb of Watertown, MA, for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, heavily-armed SWAT police and federal agents spent the day storming people’s homes and performing illegal searches, ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised above their heads in submission, and then storming into their homes to perform warrantless searches. (See “Boston Bombing: Getting the sheeple used to the police state”)
Watertown2Watertown1
Charles Hoskinson reports for the Washington Examiner that last Thursday, Nov. 13, 2014, reacting to images of heavily armed police amid the Ferguson racial protests, a House Armed Services subcommittee looked into the issue of the militarization of police.
“In light of these and other disturbing events around the country, it is incumbent on us to review this Department of Defense program,” said Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.), referring to Ferguson.
But Pentagon officials and representatives of national law enforcement groups told the committee that although the Defense Department is overhauling the program that gives surplus military equipment to local police departments, there is good reason to keep it going.
Alan Estevez (principal deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition, logistics and technology) and Vice Adm. Mark Harnitchek (director of the Defense Logistics Agency) said that 96% of the equipment transferred under the program is non-lethal items such as commercial vehicles, office furniture and supplies, generators, tents, tarps, tool kits, first-aid kits, blankets, safety glasses and hand tools — not the small arms and armored vehicles such as the MRAPs used by troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

___________

Translated, that means at least 4% of the equipment “transferred” to local police are LETHAL (see below). Don’t you feel better now? /sarc

police state
Harnitchek said that the program does not include items that have only offensive military value, such as belt-fed machine guns. “None of those are authorized for transfer.” He said Pentagon officials have removed some items that were previously provided after determining they were not appropriate for police use, such as military helmets, body armor and camouflage uniforms currently used by U.S. troops.
I don’t like seeing any of the police agencies in my state in military-style uniforms. I think that’s un-American,” responded Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga).
But the program remains controversial, and lawmakers have been putting pressure on the Pentagon for further changes and stricter accountability of how the equipment is used. Some want the program eliminated outright, a proposal that drew pushback from representatives of national police groups.
1. Mark Lomax, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association, said, “The 1033 program has provided the necessary equipment to protect our brave officers and provide security and effective response to our communities.”
2. Jim Bueermann, president of the Police Foundation and the retired chief of the Redlands, Calif., police department, said, “Completely eliminating it could have substantial impact on public safety and local budgets.” Bueermann proposed a number of reforms that would make the program more accountable to local communities, including:

  • Public input and approval of a local governing body before police receive any surplus military equipment.
  • Public disclosure of how and how often the equipment is to be used.
  • Requiring police officers be trained on the proper use of the equipment.

Though the Pentagon requires police departments to demonstrate eligibility for transfers and to maintain control of inventory, the program as it is today does not include local oversight, and the Defense Department does not dictate the ways in which they are used by local police.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0