Long Island man arrested for firing rifle near group of men on his lawn

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/09/06/2010-09-06_long_island_man_arrested_for_firing_rifle_near_group_of_men_on_his_lawn.html

By Scott Shifrel
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Monday, September 6th 2010, 3:57 PM

A “mild mannered” Long Island man accused of firing a rifle in the air during a confrontation with a large group of men on his lawn was charged with felony assault Monday.

George Grier, 31, fired the shots – without injuring anyone – on Sunday night after arguing with the men, police said.

Grier, who is black, was arguing the group of Hispanic men at his Uniondale home. His family told the Associated Press he was trying to protect them.

But police said there was no indication of a racial motivation and disparaged comparisons with a notorious 2006 case in which a black man was convicted of killing a white teen he said was threatening him.

“He’s a very mild mannered young man,” said Grier’s former lawyer, Jordan Stern, who successfully represented him in a lawsuit involving an automobile accident. “I would never expect anything violent from him.”

Stern was arraigned Monday on charges of first-degree reckless endangerment, criminal possession of a weapon and faces up to seven years in prison. Judge Angelo Delligatti ordered him held on $10,000 bail.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/09/06/2010-09-06_long_island_man_arrested_for_firing_rifle_near_group_of_men_on_his_lawn.html#ixzz0ywOIWDHU

Published in: on September 8, 2010 at 8:38 am  Leave a Comment  

California Cops Taser Senior Citizen in His Own Home

 

 
   

In America, now officially a police state, you will be tasered in your own home if you lip off to the police.

Senior citizen Peter McFarland of Marin County, California, discovered this after he fell down the stairs outside his home last year. On June 29, 2009, McFarland tumbled down the stairs and after his wife called paramedics the cops showed up. They entered McFarland’s home and tasered him because they claimed he was suicidal.

“We want to take you to the hospital for an evaluation, you said if you had a gun, you’d shoot yourself in the head,” a deputy can be heard saying on a video of the incident captured on a taser mounted camera. McFarland said the comment was hyperbole made because he was in pain.

“Stand up, put your hands behind your back or you’re going to be tased,” the deputy commanded. McFarland refused, told the police in no uncertain terms to get out of his house, so the cop tased him not once, but three times, as his wife looked on in horror and pleaded with the cops to stop because her husband has a heart condition.

McFarland’s lawyer, John Scott, said the cops did not have a search warrant or any reason to enter the McFarland residence. Scott told KGO-TV in San Francisco his client was arrested, jailed and charged with resisting arrest. A judge later dismissed the charge. McFarland has filed suit against the Marin County Sheriff’s Department.

Cops no longer need a search warrant in order to enter your home and torture you with a device akin to field telephone magnetos used on prisoners during the Vietnam War.

In fact, far too many cops have no idea what the Fourth Amendment stands for or do they understand that in large part the American Revolution was fought because agents of the crown used general warrants to enter homes, interrogate colonists, and seize “prohibited and uncustomed” goods.

John Adams, founding father and the second president of the United States, viewed these events “as the spark in which originated the American Revolution.” Adams and the founders understood a man’s home is his castle, as Edward Coke declared a century before, and a fortress “for his defense against injury and violence,” a concept that seems to be largely lost on many Americans.

Nightmarish Hospital Visit Capped by Beating, Accident Victim Says

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/25/29858.htm

By RYAN ABBOTT

     UPPER MARLBORO, Md. (CN) – A man who was hurt in a car crash but was misidentified as a cancer patient claims security guards at Prince George’s Hospital beat him up when he tried to leave the hospital to avoid chest surgery he didn’t need – “to have a potentially cancerous mass removed from his chest.” He adds that one guard repeatedly called him “bitch” as he roughed him up.
     Joseph Wheeler says a June 23 car accident put him in the hospital, which is owned by Dimensions Health Corporation. When he woke up hungry on June 24 and asked a nurse for food, she told him he couldn’t eat because he was scheduled for surgery, Wheeler claims in Prince George’s County Court.
     Wheeler says the nurse checked his identification bracelet and told him the surgery was “to have a potentially cancerous mass removed from his chest.”
     Wheeler says his ID bracelet “contained a name that was different from Mr. Wheeler’s, appeared to be that of a woman, and had a birth date that was 13 years prior to his own.”
     The complaint continues: “Mr. Wheeler, still in serious pain from the car accident and subsequent treatment from injuries sustained, was starting to fear for his safety as the hospital had misidentified him and he was being prepped to go into a surgery that he knew nothing about.
     “At this point, Mr. Wheeler’s wife, Felicia Ann Wheeler, came into the room to see her husband. Mr. Wheeler immediately told Mrs. Wheeler about what was taking place. The Wheelers decided that it was in their best interest to leave Prince George’s Hospital Center and seek medical care for Mr. Wheeler elsewhere.”
     Mrs. Wheeler confirmed with nurses outside her husband’s room that he was scheduled for cancer surgery, and when she told the nurses that she and her husband were leaving, “an argument ensued.”
     According to the increasingly bizarre complaint, Mr. Wheeler, “hearing the argument, took out his I/V, got out of the hospital bed, put his clothes on, and started to walk out of the room. He was bleeding from the spot on his hand where that I/V had been connected.
     “Mrs. Wheeler and the nurse met Mr. Wheeler at the door. The nurse told Mr. Wheeler that he was not allowed to leave. She put a bandage on Mr. Wheeler’s hand to stop the bleeding from the I/V spot, and then yelled for security.
     “Mr. Wheeler, now bandaged and clothed, began to walk toward the exit of the floor while his wife gathered the rest of his belongings. As he moved toward the exit, two large men in security uniforms moved quickly toward Mr. Wheeler.”
     These men, defendants William Reese and Donovan Scott, worked for the hospital and/or defendant Broadway Services, according to the complaint. The Wheelers say the two security guards were “immediately hostile.”
     “Defendant Scott harshly asked, ‘Where do you think you’re going?’ Mr. Wheeler told both Reese and Scott that his business was finished at the hospital and that he was on his way out,” the complaint states.
     “In the moments immediately following this exchange, defendant Scott began to appear angry and upset with Mr. Wheeler. He began to use profanity directed at Mr. Wheeler about getting back to Wheeler’s ‘damn room.’
     “At this point the two officers put on black padded gloves in front of Mr. Wheeler and defendant Scott started to hit his fist against his own hand and moved closer in proximity to Wheeler’s face. Defendant Scott appeared angry and agitated.”
     Wheeler, “in fear for his safety,” tried to reason with the guards.
     “He told the officers that he had been in a serious car accident and suffered from multiple injuries to the torso and shoulders. Wheeler also told the officers that he was retired from the St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office and that he knew that the security officers had no right or authority to detain him. Wheeler stated that he wanted to leave.”
     At that point, Wheeler says, Scott grabbed him and shoved him “hard from behind into the adjacent wall and metal railing,” hurting his ribs.
     The complaint continues: “Mr. Wheeler, in serious pain and feeling like he was going to black out, fell to floor. Defendant Scott stood over him and yelled, ‘Get off the floor bitch! This game is over!’
     “Defendant Scott continued, ‘I don’t care who you think you are, this is my camp, you listen to what I got to say!’ The vocal officer then grabbed Mr. Wheeler and pulled him up off of the ground as Wheeler pleaded with the officer to stop hurting him.
     “At this point the defendant Reese said to the vocal officer, ‘Man, ease up on him. He might really be hurt.’ Defendant Scott replied, ‘Hell no, he don’t come up in here and be telling us what the fuck to do!'”
     As the two guards “escorted” him back to his room, “Scott accused Wheeler of attempting to push the second officer down a flight of stairs,” and “continued to shout expletives at Wheeler,” according to the complaint.
     Wheeler says the men took him to the hospital security office, where an unidentified lieutenant questioned him.
     “After Mr. Wheeler explained what had happened, the lieutenant looked at Wheeler’s hospital-provided identification bracelet and acknowledged that Wheeler had been misidentified,” Wheeler says.
     But that was not the end of the conflict. Wheeler says the lieutenant became agitated when he would not return the incorrect bracelet, and ordered the security guards to stop him from leaving.
     He says a plainclothes hospital employee, a woman he identifies as an “administrator … intervened in the conversation” and after he explained the situation, said she would make sure he “would have his own private room and any type of drug he wanted, just to name the pain killer.”
     Wheeler says he and his wife chose to leave the hospital, but when he tried to leave with the incorrect ID bracelet, one of the security guards “charged Wheeler, again calling Wheeler ‘bitch,’ and shoved him against the wall.”
     “Mr. Wheeler spent the next three days at St. Mary’s Hospital and was diagnosed with four broken ribs, a sprained shoulder, a ruptured spleen, and a concussion,” he says.
     The Wheelers seek $3.2 million in compensatory damages and $9.5 million in punitive damages for assault and battery, false imprisonment and infliction of emotional distress.
     They are represented by Bryan Dugan with Dugan, McKissick, Wood & Longmore of Lexington Park, Md. 

Big Brother Facebook

The introduction of something called Facebook “Places” this week should have everyone just a little bit concerned about where, exactly, this technological world is taking us. As I understand it, users of iPhones can use Places to let people know where they are by “checking in” when they arrive at, say, Moe’s for a beer. Other Places users see you’re there and, voila! Your posse is in place.

How I would have loved this back in my analog high school days, when missing a key phone call on a Friday night could leave me high and dry — something today’s cell-phone wielding teens cannot remotely imagine. Now, Places takes that info-overload a step further, and one can certainly imagine its appeal for the most socially inclined among us.

Of course, there’s a vast potential for misuse of this technology. You could be set upon by annoying advertisers, old boyfriends, that guy you all just ditched or, horror of horrors: your parents, who pop by the party house since they were “in the area.” Extend those scenarios and you have the ex who’s under a restraining order popping up at the restaurant, the stalker you’ve been trying to evade showing up at the mall or the IRS tracking your spending patterns. That’s why privacy groups like the ACLU have already started weighing in on the dangers of Places, and why we’re likely to hear a lot about all this in the weeks and months to come.

Facebook, no doubt, will counter that the service is entirely voluntary. But while that may be true, the reality is today’s teens and 20-somethings are so embedded in the FB culture that being on the Places bus may be hard to resist — and it’s likely many young users won’t give much though to the potential pitfalls when they click whatever box to join. This is the generation that posts compromising photos of themselves or other personal information that comes back to bite them later (some employers now do routine Google searches on prospective employees just to see what might turn up to offer unsavory character references).

Places is so Orwellian as to surpass even what Orwell imagined in books like “1984” and “Animal Farm.” It’s not cameras or listening devices checking up on everyone; it’s even worse: voluntarily putting monitoring devices on our person to be exploited in who knows what evil ways. What’s next, I wonder — the FB Places Chip that goes under the skin?

I’m no conspiracy theorist, but this stuff scares me. New studies coming out about the connected world are raising alarms about how always being “on” is detrimental to our well-being. When work follows us via e-mail, 24/7 on our Blackberries; when our every mood or thought is recorded for all to see on Facebook; when our laptop or smart phone is always on, always online and always making us available to the world — where’s the down time? As many hyper-wired folks will admit, voluntarily turning stuff off or stepping away is tough to do when these devices — and the connectivity they provide — become part of the very fabric of our lives. A decade ago, a cell phone was an optional accessory. Today, not having one is like saying you don’t have a television. When my 9-year-old asks for a cell phone for his birthday (a deadly serious request that was denied; the standard, we told him, is when he starts middle school), it’s time to wonder why we all think we need to be so in touch and on the grid at all times.

Cell phones, maybe, but Places? No thanks.

Summit Daily editor Alex Miller can be reached at amiller@summitdaily.com or (970) 668-4618.

TSA getting even tougher on searches!

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1276131

New Logan searches blasted

TSA tests frisky frisking policy

By Donna Goodison
Saturday, August 21, 2010 – Updated 3 days ago

Logan airport security just got more up close and personal as federal screeners launched a more aggressive palms-first, slide-down body search technique that has renewed the debate over privacy vs. safety.

The new procedure – already being questioned by the ACLU – replaces the Transportation Security Administration’s former back-of-the-hand patdown.

Boston is one of only two cities in which the new touchy-feely frisking is being implemented as a test before a planned national rollout. The other is Las Vegas.

“We’re all for good effective security measures,” American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts spokesman Christopher Ott said. “But, in general, we’re concerned about this seemingly constant erosion of privacy, and we wonder whether or not it’s really going to be effective.

“Accepting these kinds of searches may keep people safer in some situations, but not in every situation, and we’re encouraging people to stop and think about what is the right balance between privacy and security,” Ott said.

A TSA spokeswoman yesterday confirmed the switch to what the agency calls an “enhanced patdown.”

“TSA is in the process of implementing an enhanced patdown at security checkpoints as one of our many layers of security,” said Ann Davis, TSA spokeswoman for the Northeast region. “Patdowns are designed to address potentially dangerous items, like improvised explosive devices and their components, concealed on the body.”

The body searches are conducted by same-gender TSA officers, and passengers can request private screenings at any time.

Previously, TSA screeners used patdown motions of their hands to search passengers over their clothes, switching to the backs of their hands over certain ’sensitive’ body areas, such as the torso.

But now the searches will be done using all front-of-the-hand sliding motions over greater areas of passengers’ bodies, including sensitive areas.

“The pat down just (because I) was wearing jewelry seems like overkill,” one woman wrote on Logan’s Twitter account yesterday.

But Justine Griffin, a senior vice president at Rasky Baerlein Communications and frequent flier, said yesterday, “The most important thing is to have an effective patdown. If using the back of the hand is less effective, then security trumps niceties.”

The TSA implemented the new body-search procedures at Logan and Las Vegas-McCarran because both airports are using the greatest number of the walk-through full-body scanners. Those scanners use low-dose X-rays to produce two-sided, head-to-toe images of passengers’ bodies – including discernible but not distinct images of their private parts – but blur their facial features.

Passengers who opt not to walk through the full-body scanners – which have also been assailed by privacy advocates – must instead walk through a metal detector and submit to a body search. If the full-body scanners detect an image on a person’s body that screeners can’t decipher, those passengers also are subjected to body searches.

If there is no full-body scanner at a security checkpoint, passengers go through a metal detector and are subjected to a body search if the alarm sounds. The TSA also subjects random passengers to body searches.

Does the new body search policy go too far? Take the poll and tell us your Logan security story by e-mailing HeraldSquare@bostonherald.com.
 

Coloradans Outraged Over Police Beating of Dog Owner

http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-second-police-beating-txt,0,3693269.story

New case & new video: Man walking dogs alleges police used excessive force

Heidi Hemmat Investigative Reporter

8:18 PM MDT, August 17, 2010

DENVER – What started as a walk to the park with his dogs ended with a trip to the hospital for a Denver dog owner. 32-year-old Mark Ashford says he was beaten black and blue by two Denver Police officers.

“They punched him and pinned him up against the fence and forced his head into the concrete.” Ashford’s attorney, Will Hart, said the beating that was caught on camera is a clear case of Excessive Force. “This happened when he was walking his dogs, he has a conversation with another citizen that the police officer doesn’t like and as a result, he ends up in the hospital,” said Hart.

Hart says Mark Ashford was walking his dogs near 20th and Little Raven in LoDo, when he saw police pull over a driver for failing to stop at a stop sign. Ashford told the driver he saw him stop and would be willing to testify in court. Hart says the officer overheard him and “wasn’t very happy.”

That’s when Ashford says the Denver police officers demanded his I.D. and detained him. Ashford tried to take a picture of the officers to document the incident, and a few second later he was on the ground.

Police charged Ashford with interference and resisting arrest. Hart says, the charges were later dropped because the officers violated Ashford’s 4th amendment rights, “they had no reason to stop him, take his ID or detain him.”

An Excessive Force complaint was filed against both officers involved. A Denver police spokesperson says the internal affairs department has completed its investigation, but they are now turning the case over to the independent police monitor. Police won’t say if the officers were disciplined in any way until the investigation is complete.

Watch the raw video below: 

Man walking his dogs has violent confrontatio…

(01:02) 

How Many Guns Are Too Many?

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/how-many-guns-are-too-many_08132010

After responding to a burglary call at a Rockford, Illinois home, police failed to apprehend the thief but found something that is perhaps much more interesting. WTVO reports that upon entering the home of an unnamed 67 year old resident they were surprised to find a weapons cache of over 300 weapons ranging from shotguns to rifles.

The homeowner, a registered firearm owner, was out of town at the time of the burglary. According to police, the weapons were taken for safekeeping. The guns will be cross-checked against police databases to ensure they have not been used for criminal activity.

While it’s probably a good idea to take the weapons for safekeeping, considering that the house was broken into and the homeowner was out of town, what’s equally as interesting is the reaction of the neighbors:

“It’s just un-real to see this many guns involved a regular residential neighborhood,” says concerned resident McArthur Tennin.

Coley Woods lives across the street from the home. He says, “I’m thinking it’s an accident or something, but I look over and I see them with all them rifles.”

Woods’ says, “Even if he’s a registered gun owner or not, that just seems like its too many rifles.”

This brings to the forefront the question of how many guns are too many?

Three hundred may seem like quite a large number to the average, non-gun collecting American. But the homeowner in this particular case is 67 years old, suggesting he may have been a collector of fine weaponry for several decades. Considering this, it is not out of the question for a retiree to amass a large gun collection.

Hopefully the homeowner will have his guns returned when he gets back to town, but he’ll most certainly have a lot of questions to answer at the local police station.

A recent Austin, Texas search warrant executed against a resident who had been involved in digging an under ground bunker yielded a variety of self defense armaments, including large amounts of ammunition and 19 weapons, as well as compressed gas tanks used for welding.

The neighbors in this case also responded with fear:

“It’s scary to know that he had all that down there. What if something had exploded,” Landon said.

Another example of police seizing weapons for “safe keeping” was recently reported in Anatomy of a Police State Setup and Coverup, where police arrived at the home of a San Luis Obispo, California resident who was legally target shooting on his land. After executing an illegal search warrant, police found a safe containing several weapons and subsequently seized those weapons for safe keeping. The justification for the search and seizure was that the homeowner negligently discharged his firearm, something he had done for years without issue.

It seems that anytime law enforcement enters a home, be it legally or illegally, and a weapons cache is found, anything more than perhaps a handgun and a rifle rings the alarm, resulting in a painstaking process for the gun owner if they ever want to retrieve the weapons.

Since the second amendment of the Constitution makes no specific reference the number of arms an individual can store for personal defense, there should be no question as to how many weapons one can personally own and keep at home. Has law enforcement and the citizenary come up with an imaginary and arbitrary number that’s safe for everyone? Perhaps one gun per household, or maybe a bit more leniency and we can make it one gun per resident of the home?

Where should we draw the line?

Maybe the best thing to do is to first determine if the individual in question has or had ill intentions with the weapons before we use the media to spread fear about extremist, right-wing pistol packers.

One thing’s for sure, however. Because of failures by our federal policing agencies to stop the flow of illegal aliens through our southern border, namely those related to drug smuggling and violence, ranchers in states like Texas and Arizona should probably be heavily armed, lest they end up either stabbed to death or have their land taken over by paramilitary drug organizations. If those living in violence prone areas ever need to call upon neighbors or local militia to assist with defending their land against would-be drug smugglers, kidnappers and thieves, it’s better that they be armed to the teeth with 300 shotguns and rifles than sling shots and BB guns.

Hat tip Check It News

Author: Mac Slavo
Date: August 13th, 2010
Visit the Author’s Website: http://www.SHTFplan.com/

Senate Bill S510 Makes it illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food

The World’s Prophecy
August 13, 2010

Update:

Since the story first broke, a lot has happened. One reason for this could be that food is being poisoned. Collecting rainwater is now illegal in many states. Your intake is being controlled. For more information, visit the following articles as well:

Raiding organic food stores. A sign of new times?

Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states as Big Government claims ownership over our water

Why do people in America refuse to take active interest in their future?

S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010,  may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US.  It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money.

“If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes.  It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.”  ~Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower

It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food.

Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto’s Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create — without judicial review — if it passes.  S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food and farming.

History

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry.  Clinton’s HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization “WTO”) meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control.  Monsanto promoted HACCP.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president.  Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto.  Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband’s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510.

S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.

1.  It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency.  It resembles the Kissinger Plan.

2.  It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security.  It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection.  Instead, S 510 says:

COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.

Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.

3.  It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.” Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, “entry of food into the US” covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and “entering into” it by virtue of being produced.

    4.  It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements.  Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.

    5.  It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds – How to criminalize them, for more details.

    6.  It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease.  Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents.  Animal diseases can be falsely declared.  S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.

    7.  It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production – put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety.

    8.  It deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer.  The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.

    9.  It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs. This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase global warming from increased use of oil-based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe.  The five items listed — the Five Pillars of Food Safety — are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger.

    10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control. The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied.  It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review. It is (similar to C-6 in Canada) the end of Rule of Law in the US.

    For further information, watch these videos:

    Food Laws – Forcing people to globalize

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia-P4rL2IWc

    State Imposed Violence … to snatch resources of ordinary people

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onw_PkVvpts&feature=related

    Corporate Rule

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PwqUQ_HIlg&feature=related

    Reclaiming Economies

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXoJHG-er7A&feature=related

    Oak snake image at Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park, Florida

    http://snipurl.com/vrg6p

    Source

    Security Tackles and Chokes Deaf Customer for Failure to Respond

    YouTube
    August 13, 2010

    Two deaf shoppers at XXI in Los Angeles, CA were approached by security and asked for their receipts. One was tackled and choked for an extended length of time while the other pleaded with security to stop, trying to explain that they are deaf. Police responded and arrested the alleged shoplifter for robbery and assault. By the looks of this video, it is hard to imagine how the deaf man laying on the ground turning purple from lack of oxygen assaulted anyone.

    Published in: on August 16, 2010 at 11:32 am  Leave a Comment  

    Proposed Law Would Put Video Cameras In Cars

    Cryptogon
    August 10, 2010

    I’m sure the FBI wouldn’t access these cameras, like they access the microphones on the cell phones that people are carrying around. Oh no. Never.

    Via: CBS:

    Lawmakers are considering controversial new legislation this week that would allow vehicles to be equipped with dashboard cameras to record the moments leading up to accidents.

    The proposed law, AB1942, would promote safer driving habits and reduce accidents by permitting video recorders to be installed on the windshield. The bill currently allows devices to record video, audio, how fast and which direction the vehicle is traveling, a history of where your car has been, steering and brake performance and seat belt usage.

    Proponents say there are enough safety measures to avoid an invasion of privacy, but others call the proposal a huge overreach of government power.