Monday, September 27, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
No Freedom of Speech in America
Do we have freedom of speech in America? Do we have a right to peaceably assemble? You be the judge.
What would you do in a situation like this? A word of advice: Think about it now!!!
So what would you do? Stand there and watch? Some did.
Make a joke of it? Some did that to.
Or would you do something like this when you witness an abuse of power?
The answer is yours.
We have to take into account that the above is only a 10 minute or so clip and without knowing the whole facts it is hard to make a sound judgement. But we also have to take into account that some people in a position of power abuse that power, to the extremes, and what are we to do under such circumstances? Power corrupts and absolute power . . .
There may come a time in this country when we are going to need our best police officers on the side of the american citizens, on the side of common sense, and on the side of the Constitution and not on the side of whatever bogus law can be conjured up. Let us remember that slavery was once "Legal" in this country. Did that make it right? Once in this country, by "law" if a slave escaped up north you had to return them if asked, where they would be beaten, or killed upon your compliance of the "law". Does that make it right?
Please go and check out the organization below and their TEN ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY. Number 10 states: We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
There would have been no American Revolution without fiery speakers and writers such as James Otis, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Sam Adams “setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
Tell your cop friends to go and check them out and have them sign that oath if they think it worthy.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/
Also from their website: Tyrants know that the pen of a man such as Thomas Paine can cause them more damage than entire armies, and thus they always seek to suppress the natural rights of speech, association, and assembly. Without freedom of speech, the people will have no recourse but to arms. Without freedom of speech and conscience, there is no freedom.
Therefore, we will not obey or support any orders to suppress or violate the right of the people to speak, associate, worship, assemble, communicate, or petition government for the redress of grievances.
What would you do in a situation like this? A word of advice: Think about it now!!!
So what would you do? Stand there and watch? Some did.
Make a joke of it? Some did that to.
Or would you do something like this when you witness an abuse of power?
The answer is yours.
We have to take into account that the above is only a 10 minute or so clip and without knowing the whole facts it is hard to make a sound judgement. But we also have to take into account that some people in a position of power abuse that power, to the extremes, and what are we to do under such circumstances? Power corrupts and absolute power . . .
There may come a time in this country when we are going to need our best police officers on the side of the american citizens, on the side of common sense, and on the side of the Constitution and not on the side of whatever bogus law can be conjured up. Let us remember that slavery was once "Legal" in this country. Did that make it right? Once in this country, by "law" if a slave escaped up north you had to return them if asked, where they would be beaten, or killed upon your compliance of the "law". Does that make it right?
Please go and check out the organization below and their TEN ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY. Number 10 states: We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
There would have been no American Revolution without fiery speakers and writers such as James Otis, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Sam Adams “setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
Tell your cop friends to go and check them out and have them sign that oath if they think it worthy.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/
Also from their website: Tyrants know that the pen of a man such as Thomas Paine can cause them more damage than entire armies, and thus they always seek to suppress the natural rights of speech, association, and assembly. Without freedom of speech, the people will have no recourse but to arms. Without freedom of speech and conscience, there is no freedom.
Therefore, we will not obey or support any orders to suppress or violate the right of the people to speak, associate, worship, assemble, communicate, or petition government for the redress of grievances.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Happy Anniversary
WE THE PEOPLE:
On this day, September 17, 1787 the Constitution of the United States was signed by thirty-nine brave patriots.
On this day, September 17, 1787 the Constitution of the United States was signed by thirty-nine brave patriots.
The U. S. Constitution is the oldest constitution still in active use in the world today and is the oldest Federal constitution in existence. Let us once again start to read it and study it so we have a better understanding of the Miracle that took place through that hot summer in Philadelphia 1787.
"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon." George Washington
"Governments, in general, have been the result of force, of fraud, and accident. After a period of six thousand years has elapsed since the creation, the United States exhibit to the world the first instance, as far as we can learn, of a nation, unattacked by external force, unconvulsed by domestic insurrections, assembling voluntarily, deliberating fully, and deciding calmly concerning that system of government under which they would wish that they and their posterity should live." James Wilson
"I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance as the framing of the Constitution. . . should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler in whom all inferior spirits live and move and have their being." Benjamin Franklin
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Anti-Tax Protesters Put On List Of Terror Threats
Lawsuit planned after protesters put on terror list
By Andrew Conte, Mike Wereschagin and Brad Bumsted
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
An activist who believes he was improperly included on a state terror threat list said this morning he is preparing a federal lawsuit.
"When people's civil rights are trampled it's a federal issue," said Gene Stilp of Harrisburg, who holds a Virginia law license but does not practice as an attorney.
Gov. Ed Rendell, speaking Downtown this morning, said he does not believe activists' Constitutional rights were violated.
The statement was a reversal from what he said yesterday. Asked in Harrisburg on Tuesday whether monitoring activists was "tantamount to trampling" on their Constitutional rights, he said: "I would say so."
Rendell said he is "deeply embarrassed" by the disclosure that state Homeland Security officials included information about protesters on what was supposed to be a list of possible terrorist threats.
"Being embarrassed doesn't cut it," Stilp said.
The list, which included information on public hearings that opponents of Marcellus gas drilling might attend, was sent to drilling companies.
Stilp said he believes he was among those monitored, based on Rendell's comment that a 25-foot inflatable "pink pig" Stilp takes to rallies was included in the monitoring.
"The pig! They were after the pig," Rendell said Tuesday. "That pig is what makes Harrisburg a very special place."
Stilp owns the pig and frequently displays it at the Capitol at protests over what he sees as government excesses.
Stilp said an outside investigation is warranted, by the attorney general or federal authorities.
The state paid a Philadelphia-based nonprofit $125,000 to compile the list as part of the state Homeland Security's federally mandated mission to protect public infrastructure.
The list included a Washington County meeting that Rendell attended to discuss Marcellus shale gas drilling, a screening of a documentary on the industry, a rally supporting Rendell's education budget and anti-tax protesters who took an inflatable pig to Harrisburg.
Homeland Security officials distributed the list in a security bulletin to government and law enforcement officials — including Pittsburgh City Council members — as well as universities and gas drilling companies.
City Councilman Doug Shields said he was "flabbergasted" about the bulletin he received by e-mail last week.
"The governor was outraged. I'm outraged. I'm glad this was put an end to, but we will be seeking answers. ... There will be requests of information from the state government for an explanation of who these people are, who made the decision to essentially engage in espionage and who is behind it."
Shields said he wants to see the financial statements of York-based Institute Of Terrorism Research And Response, a registered nonprofit, according to state records.
"Am I on a list somwehere? Am I on someone's dossier?" Shields said.
"If there's a list I hope we're all on it," said Councilwoman Theresa Smith.
Rendell said he "should have been notified" about the contract, but that it didn't warrant firing Homeland Security director James Powers. It was a "cumulative responsibility" and it would do no good to "make him a scapegoat," Rendell said.
The state will not renew its one-year contract with the Institute of Terrorism Research and Response when it expires in October, Rendell said.
The nonprofit, which has offices in Washington and Jerusalem, provides "actionable intelligence briefings" and "threat and hazard monitoring," among other services, according to its website.
"We maintain confidentiality with our clients, and we respect that confidentiality," said Mike Perelman, co-director of the institute.
The gas industry has to know of physical threats to its workers and equipment, but it supports people's right to discuss the issues, said Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group in Cecil.
"Where we have to be vigilant, I believe, is ... if infrastructure is being targeted and the safety of employees and the communities we operate in are at risk," Klaber said.
Drilling industry opponents said they pose no danger. Barbara Pribila, 45, a founder of the anti-drilling Lincoln Place Action Group, said she never considered herself a rebel — and certainly not a threat to homeland security.
"I thought this was a free country and I was allowed to have my own opinion," Pribila said. "Now what, you're going to watch me and every move I make? That's not right."
By Andrew Conte, Mike Wereschagin and Brad Bumsted
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
An activist who believes he was improperly included on a state terror threat list said this morning he is preparing a federal lawsuit.
"When people's civil rights are trampled it's a federal issue," said Gene Stilp of Harrisburg, who holds a Virginia law license but does not practice as an attorney.
Gov. Ed Rendell, speaking Downtown this morning, said he does not believe activists' Constitutional rights were violated.
The statement was a reversal from what he said yesterday. Asked in Harrisburg on Tuesday whether monitoring activists was "tantamount to trampling" on their Constitutional rights, he said: "I would say so."
Rendell said he is "deeply embarrassed" by the disclosure that state Homeland Security officials included information about protesters on what was supposed to be a list of possible terrorist threats.
"Being embarrassed doesn't cut it," Stilp said.
The list, which included information on public hearings that opponents of Marcellus gas drilling might attend, was sent to drilling companies.
Stilp said he believes he was among those monitored, based on Rendell's comment that a 25-foot inflatable "pink pig" Stilp takes to rallies was included in the monitoring.
"The pig! They were after the pig," Rendell said Tuesday. "That pig is what makes Harrisburg a very special place."
Stilp owns the pig and frequently displays it at the Capitol at protests over what he sees as government excesses.
Stilp said an outside investigation is warranted, by the attorney general or federal authorities.
The state paid a Philadelphia-based nonprofit $125,000 to compile the list as part of the state Homeland Security's federally mandated mission to protect public infrastructure.
The list included a Washington County meeting that Rendell attended to discuss Marcellus shale gas drilling, a screening of a documentary on the industry, a rally supporting Rendell's education budget and anti-tax protesters who took an inflatable pig to Harrisburg.
Homeland Security officials distributed the list in a security bulletin to government and law enforcement officials — including Pittsburgh City Council members — as well as universities and gas drilling companies.
City Councilman Doug Shields said he was "flabbergasted" about the bulletin he received by e-mail last week.
"The governor was outraged. I'm outraged. I'm glad this was put an end to, but we will be seeking answers. ... There will be requests of information from the state government for an explanation of who these people are, who made the decision to essentially engage in espionage and who is behind it."
Shields said he wants to see the financial statements of York-based Institute Of Terrorism Research And Response, a registered nonprofit, according to state records.
"Am I on a list somwehere? Am I on someone's dossier?" Shields said.
"If there's a list I hope we're all on it," said Councilwoman Theresa Smith.
Rendell said he "should have been notified" about the contract, but that it didn't warrant firing Homeland Security director James Powers. It was a "cumulative responsibility" and it would do no good to "make him a scapegoat," Rendell said.
The state will not renew its one-year contract with the Institute of Terrorism Research and Response when it expires in October, Rendell said.
The nonprofit, which has offices in Washington and Jerusalem, provides "actionable intelligence briefings" and "threat and hazard monitoring," among other services, according to its website.
"We maintain confidentiality with our clients, and we respect that confidentiality," said Mike Perelman, co-director of the institute.
The gas industry has to know of physical threats to its workers and equipment, but it supports people's right to discuss the issues, said Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group in Cecil.
"Where we have to be vigilant, I believe, is ... if infrastructure is being targeted and the safety of employees and the communities we operate in are at risk," Klaber said.
Drilling industry opponents said they pose no danger. Barbara Pribila, 45, a founder of the anti-drilling Lincoln Place Action Group, said she never considered herself a rebel — and certainly not a threat to homeland security.
"I thought this was a free country and I was allowed to have my own opinion," Pribila said. "Now what, you're going to watch me and every move I make? That's not right."
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Just In Case You Were Wondering
I have often heard people quoting the Declaration of Independence and both inalienable and unalienable have been used. So just in case you were wondering, as I was, which one is the correct one, here is your answer.
The question is often asked, "Is the word in the Declaration of Independence unalienable or is it inalienable?"
The final version of the Declaration uses the word "unalienable." Some earlier drafts used the word "inalienable," which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer. The two words mean precisely the same thing.
According to The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style from Houghton Mifflin Company:
The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away.
Here is a listing of known versions of the Declaration, showing which word is used:
The Declaration on parchment, now in the Department of State: unalienable
The Declaration as written out in the corrected Journal: unalienable
The Declaration as printed by Dunlap under the order of Congress: unalienable
The draft of the Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in The American Philosophical Society, in Philadelphia: inalienable
The Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in the New York Public Library: inalienable
The draft of the Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in the Massachusetts Historical Society, in Boston: inalienable
The copy in the handwriting of John Adams of the "Rough draught" of the Declaration, now at the Massachusetts Historical Society: unalienable
In a footnote in "The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas" by Carl Lotus Becker, published 1922, we learn:
The Rough Draft reads "[inherent &] inalienable." There is no indication that Congress changed "inalienable" to "unalienable"; but the latter form appears in the text in the rough Journal, in the corrected Journal, and in the parchment copy. John Adams, in making his copy of the Rough Draft, wrote " unalienable." Adams was one of the committee which supervised the printing of the text adopted by Congress, and it may have been at his suggestion that the change was made in printing. "Unalienable" may have been the more customary form in the eighteenth century.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable.htm
The question is often asked, "Is the word in the Declaration of Independence unalienable or is it inalienable?"
The final version of the Declaration uses the word "unalienable." Some earlier drafts used the word "inalienable," which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer. The two words mean precisely the same thing.
According to The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style from Houghton Mifflin Company:
The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away.
Here is a listing of known versions of the Declaration, showing which word is used:
The Declaration on parchment, now in the Department of State: unalienable
The Declaration as written out in the corrected Journal: unalienable
The Declaration as printed by Dunlap under the order of Congress: unalienable
The draft of the Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in The American Philosophical Society, in Philadelphia: inalienable
The Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in the New York Public Library: inalienable
The draft of the Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in the Massachusetts Historical Society, in Boston: inalienable
The copy in the handwriting of John Adams of the "Rough draught" of the Declaration, now at the Massachusetts Historical Society: unalienable
In a footnote in "The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas" by Carl Lotus Becker, published 1922, we learn:
The Rough Draft reads "[inherent &] inalienable." There is no indication that Congress changed "inalienable" to "unalienable"; but the latter form appears in the text in the rough Journal, in the corrected Journal, and in the parchment copy. John Adams, in making his copy of the Rough Draft, wrote " unalienable." Adams was one of the committee which supervised the printing of the text adopted by Congress, and it may have been at his suggestion that the change was made in printing. "Unalienable" may have been the more customary form in the eighteenth century.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable.htm
Monday, September 13, 2010
I believe It, Do You?
So not only are we going to have U.S. trained Mexican drug dealers fighting our border agents with U.S. weapons that we have supplied to Mexico but now we are going to sell arms to Saudi Arabia? Someone tell me I forget: How many 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? And this deal comes right after 9/11? Doesn't make sense to me. I am no nut job conspiracy theorist but this stinks!!!
All in the name of saving jobs. This president is unreal. Call you Congressmen and tell them to vote this down today!!!!
U.S. preparing massive arms deal for Saudi Arabia, defense official says
By Barbara Starr,
CNN Pentagon Correspondent
Washington ((CNN) -- The Obama administration is preparing to notify Congress of plans to sell $60 billion of military equipment to Saudi Arabia, according to a U.S. defense official.
The official, who would not be identified because the proposal has not yet been sent to Congress, described the deal as "enormous."
"We believe this is the largest of its kind in history," the official said.
Congress would have to approve the deal.
The proposed package includes 84 newly manufactured F-15/SA fighter aircraft; 70 upgraded aircraft, 70 Apache helicopters, 72 Black Hawk helicopters, and 36 AH-6 Little Bird helicopters. A number of bombs and missiles also are in the deal, including the Joint Direct Attack Munition, a satellite-guided bomb, as well as a laser-guided Hellfire missile variant and some advanced targeting technology.
The Saudi arms effort is in large part directed at providing a modernized capability against Iran.
"This gives them a whole host of defensive and deterrent capabilities," the official explained.
The official emphasized that nothing in the sale would change the qualitative edge that Israel seeks to maintain. A point reiterated by State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley.
"Suffice it to say that at the core of our policy is making sure that, you know, there is stability in the region and part of that stability is making sure that Israel has what it needs ... to be able to provide for its own security," Crowley said Monday. "So the United States would do nothing that would upset that -- the current ... balance in the region."
The Obama administration hopes to send the proposed package to Capitol Hill no later than next week. The official emphasized it's not clear yet whether the Saudis would follow through to buy all of the weapons and aircraft in the package because they are continuing to evaluate their own financial concerns.
Boeing Corp. has told the administration that if the entire package is sold, 77,000 company jobs would be "involved," but there was no calculation on how many new jobs might be created over the five- to 10-year period of potential delivery, according to the official.
The official also indicated the United States is discussing with the Saudi government additional sales of a ballistic missile defense system and more modern warships.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/13/us.saudi.arms.deal/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29
All in the name of saving jobs. This president is unreal. Call you Congressmen and tell them to vote this down today!!!!
U.S. preparing massive arms deal for Saudi Arabia, defense official says
By Barbara Starr,
CNN Pentagon Correspondent
Washington ((CNN) -- The Obama administration is preparing to notify Congress of plans to sell $60 billion of military equipment to Saudi Arabia, according to a U.S. defense official.
The official, who would not be identified because the proposal has not yet been sent to Congress, described the deal as "enormous."
"We believe this is the largest of its kind in history," the official said.
Congress would have to approve the deal.
The proposed package includes 84 newly manufactured F-15/SA fighter aircraft; 70 upgraded aircraft, 70 Apache helicopters, 72 Black Hawk helicopters, and 36 AH-6 Little Bird helicopters. A number of bombs and missiles also are in the deal, including the Joint Direct Attack Munition, a satellite-guided bomb, as well as a laser-guided Hellfire missile variant and some advanced targeting technology.
The Saudi arms effort is in large part directed at providing a modernized capability against Iran.
"This gives them a whole host of defensive and deterrent capabilities," the official explained.
The official emphasized that nothing in the sale would change the qualitative edge that Israel seeks to maintain. A point reiterated by State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley.
"Suffice it to say that at the core of our policy is making sure that, you know, there is stability in the region and part of that stability is making sure that Israel has what it needs ... to be able to provide for its own security," Crowley said Monday. "So the United States would do nothing that would upset that -- the current ... balance in the region."
The Obama administration hopes to send the proposed package to Capitol Hill no later than next week. The official emphasized it's not clear yet whether the Saudis would follow through to buy all of the weapons and aircraft in the package because they are continuing to evaluate their own financial concerns.
Boeing Corp. has told the administration that if the entire package is sold, 77,000 company jobs would be "involved," but there was no calculation on how many new jobs might be created over the five- to 10-year period of potential delivery, according to the official.
The official also indicated the United States is discussing with the Saudi government additional sales of a ballistic missile defense system and more modern warships.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/13/us.saudi.arms.deal/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Finally Someone Besides Me Said It
Facebook users 'are insecure, narcissistic and have low self-esteem'
Using Facebook is the online equivalent of staring at yourself in the mirror, according to a study.
Those who spent more time updating their profile on the social networking site were more likely to be narcissists, said researchers.
Facebook provides an ideal setting for narcissists to monitor their appearance and how many ‘friends’ they have, the study said, as it allows them to thrive on ‘shallow’relationships while avoiding genuine warmth and empathy.
The findings, published in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behaviour And Social Networking, also suggested that those with low self-esteem also checked their Facebook pages more regularly than normal.
This may not be altogether surprising as it is widely thought, however contradictory it may appear, that narcissism is linked to a deep-rooted lack of self-esteem.
Read More: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1310230/Facebook-users-narcissistic-insecure-low-self-esteem.html
Using Facebook is the online equivalent of staring at yourself in the mirror, according to a study.
Those who spent more time updating their profile on the social networking site were more likely to be narcissists, said researchers.
Facebook provides an ideal setting for narcissists to monitor their appearance and how many ‘friends’ they have, the study said, as it allows them to thrive on ‘shallow’relationships while avoiding genuine warmth and empathy.
The findings, published in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behaviour And Social Networking, also suggested that those with low self-esteem also checked their Facebook pages more regularly than normal.
This may not be altogether surprising as it is widely thought, however contradictory it may appear, that narcissism is linked to a deep-rooted lack of self-esteem.
Read More: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1310230/Facebook-users-narcissistic-insecure-low-self-esteem.html
Monday, September 6, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)