US News

US News

House and Senate Are Considering Bills to Allow Hemp Nationwide

House and Senate Are Considering Bills to Allow Hemp Nationwide

House and Senate Are Considering Bills to Allow Hemp Nationwide

By Beth Ethier | The Slatest

House and Senate Are Considering Bills to Allow Hemp Nationwide

Thomas Massie, official portrait, 112th Congress

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie is a man on a mission, and that mission is to get farmers in his home state of Kentucky and across the nation growing hemp again. Massie is a staunch libertarian with a disdain for intrusive federal regulation, and his Industrial Hemp Farming Act would chip off a bit of federal power by allowing cultivation of industrial hemp in the United States.

While Massie himself is something of an outsider in the Republican Party, having voted twice against John Boehner for Speaker of the House, this particular cause is moving further into the mainstream. His new bill boasts 47 co-sponsors*, forming a surprising coalition of lawmakers from both parties and suggesting there could be a groundswell of support for allowing marijuana’s strait-laced cousin back into American fields.

Industrial hemp can be made into a variety of products, including paper, food, clothing, and cosmetics. It does not contain enough of marijuana’s psychoactive ingredient, THC, to get anyone high from smoking it. Rep. Massie has taken to tweeting about the bill with the hashtag #ThinkRopeNotDope.

Massie’s work on hemp has attracted support from such far-removed corners of Congress that its co-sponsors include both liberal Democrat Keith Ellison of Minnesota and conservative Republican Don Young of Alaska; the Senate companion bill has been introduced by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul (both fellow Kentuckians), along with Oregon Democrats Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley. With all that bipartisan good feeling, a bill legalizing hemp is shaping up to be one of the best chances to unite an ideologically-divided Congress in 2015.

Source

 

Posted by Red Pill Reports in US News
Libertarian Party Response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address

Libertarian Party Response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address

Libertarian Party Response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address

By LP.org | Red Pill Reports

Libertarian Party Response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address

Full text of the response delivered by Arvin Vohra, vice chair of the National Libertarian Committee, on January 20, 2015:
Good evening. I’m Arvin Vohra, vice chair of the Libertarian National Committee.

Mr. President, in your State of the Union address, you propose to make Big Government even bigger.

You propose pouring more taxpayer dollars into another federal education program, this time for community colleges. But federal intervention has driven up the price of higher education.

What if we could make college affordable right now by simply getting government out of higher ed? Without subsidies and costly mandates, competition will force colleges to decrease their tuition or go out of business. Massive student debt would be a thing of the past.

Mr. President, we can have world-class education. The first step is defunding and eliminating the federal Department of Education, abolishing Common Core, and allowing parents to take full control over their children’s education. Free-market competition will raise educational standards, lower costs, and prepare students to compete in a global economy.

Mr. President, your attempts to raise the minimum wage will destroy one of the most important forms of education in this country. Many young people develop responsibility and marketable skills in entry-level, minimum-wage jobs. Those skills make workers more attractive to future employers.

The Republican answer, to leave the issue to the states, is a cop-out. All minimum wages kill jobs and hurt the poor. Libertarian candidates have pledged to sponsor legislation to eliminate the minimum wage in every state. That makes it easier for young people to gain experience, for the poorest workers to gain a foothold in the job market, and for small businesses to grow.

Here’s how we really grow the economy and create jobs: dramatically cut taxes and government spending. Libertarian candidates have pledged to sponsor legislation to cut federal spending to 1998 levels and eliminate the income tax. That means that you keep the money you earn, and spend it how you see fit: on charities and the arts, science research, education, and the health care of your choice.

Eliminating the income tax also defunds government’s ability to infringe on our privacy, to create enemies through needless wars, and to imprison our fellow citizens for victimless crimes.

Mr. President, so many of your supporters have begged you to defund and end the War on Drugs, but you have refused their pleas. Drug prohibition separates families, fosters violence, and destroys communities. You can end the war on drugs today, by doing what so many Libertarian gubernatorial and presidential candidates have pledged to do: pardon all nonviolent drug offenders.

Libertarian candidates have pledged to completely end the war on drugs, and thereby eliminate the black market profits that fund violent cartels. Ending the Drug War will make our streets safer, and people will no longer have to fear incarceration if they seek help overcoming an addiction.

Mr. President, over the last weeks you have repeatedly argued that Americans should be able to go online without risking their privacy. On that, we completely agree. Americans should be able to use their computers and phones without fear of anyone listening in or recording their communications through mass surveillance.

But your words, Mr. President, don’t match your actions. You have funded and enabled the surveillance state. To protect privacy, Libertarian candidates have pledged to defund the NSA’s mass surveillance program, repeal the Patriot Act, and massively downsize and consolidate redundant spy agencies.

Mr. President, your party and the Republican Party are damaging lives here and abroad through misuse and overuse of the military.

Libertarian candidates have pledged to sponsor legislation to end all foreign military operations, shut down needless foreign bases, cut military spending by at least 60 percent, and bring our troops home.

Even after those spending cuts, we will still outspend both Russia and China combined. We will also be safer, because our military will be focused on defense. We will stop creating enemies through unwarranted military intrusions.

Republicans have talked about repealing and replacing Obamacare. With what? Romneycare? That will continue to damage businesses and make health care worse.

When Republicans controlled the House, they had the chance to defund Obamacare. They refused.

Libertarian candidates have pledged to completely repeal Obamacare along with the many laws that stand in the way of low-cost, high-quality health care. Providers will compete for customers by lowering costs and increasing quality.

To help people in need, Libertarian candidates will make charitable hospitals legal. Doctors should not have to leave our borders to be able to offer free care.

We need to massively downsize and defund the federal government. But Republican and Democratic politicians only want to make it bigger. Get involved with the Libertarian Party in your state by going to LP.org, and by voting Libertarian.

Politicians can do one thing well: count votes. When you vote for a Democrat or Republican, it tells them, “Keep doing what you’re doing.” But when you vote for a Libertarian, it tells them, in no uncertain terms, “You have neither my approval nor my permission to grow or sustain Big Government. Shrink it now.”

Thank you for listening. Let’s bring liberty back to our communities and to the United States of America.

Source

Listen to Joshua Cook’s full interview with Arvin Vohra, vice chair, Libertarian National Committee.

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/187412983″ params=”auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=”100%” height=”450″ iframe=”true” /]

Posted by Red Pill Reports in US News
Local and State Police Can’t use Federal Law to Seize Assets Anymore

Local and State Police Can’t use Federal Law to Seize Assets Anymore

Local and State Police Can’t use Federal Law to Seize Assets Anymore

By | Ars Technica

Local and State Police Can’t use Federal Law to Seize Assets Anymore

Image credit: SnaPsi Сталкер

Attorney General Eric Holder announced Friday that the Department of Justice would be putting a stop to local and state police participation in a federal asset seizure program called “Equitable Sharing.”

The program has allowed local and state police to seize assets—usually cash and vehicles—without evidence of a crime. If the former owner of the seized property fails to make a case for the return of his or her property, the local and state police were allowed to keep up to 80 percent of the assets, with the remaining portion returning to federal agencies.

“This is a significant advancement to reform a practice that is a clear violation of due process that is often used to disproportionately target communities of color,” Laura Murph, the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington legislative office director told Ars in a statement.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation also did its own research into how much of the federal asset forfeiture funds were going back into surveillance and wiretapping, finding that California spent $13.6 million on spying.

“Holder’s announcement could have a significant impact on how law enforcement agencies fund electronic surveillance,” Dave Maas, an EFF spokesman, told Ars. “However, it’s important to remember that the next administration’s attorney general could easily reverse this policy decision. Further, many states also have their own asset forfeiture programs, so a whole second layer of funding remains on the state level.”

Billions and billions

The Washington Post reports that since 2008, local and state police departments have seized approximately $3 billion in assets from 55,000 seizures around the country. In an earlier article published by the paper, government documents detailed that police departments spent their share of that money on “Humvees, automatic weapons, gas grenades, night-vision scopes and sniper gear,” and “electronic surveillance equipment” as well as less high-tech items like coffee makers, “challenge coin” medallions, and clown appearances (“to improve community relations”).

Data collected by the Post revealed that as a whole, local and state law enforcement agencies spent at least $121 million of the funds springing from these asset forfeitures on electronic surveillance equipment. Such equipment purchases are usually made with little oversight, and can include stingrays, license-plate readers, or wiretap equipment.

The seizure program began three decades ago as part of the federal government’s War on Drugs and was meant to confiscate airplanes and boats that drug smugglers used to transport narcotics. In the 1980s, the program expanded to permit the seizure of cash and, especially after 2001, upticks in seizures were seen and justified as part of the efforts to fight terrorists.

Read more

 

Posted by Red Pill Reports in US News
Watch Out! More Gun Laws In Sight in 2015

Watch Out! More Gun Laws In Sight in 2015

Watch Out! More Gun Laws In Sight in 2015

By Joshua Cook | Ben Swann

Gun Laws

Representative Mike Honda (D-California) is taking aim at the Second Amendment with 3 proposed bills, which include making it illegal to make your own gun at home.

“These bills are sensible, reasonable measures to limit the damage that can be inflicted by guns and those who mean harm with them,” Congressman Honda said. “We have seen too many people injured and killed by guns to just stand by and do nothing. These bills will modernize our gun laws to reflect how weapons are currently getting into the wrong hands.”

The three bills include:

The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act – This bill allows law enforcement to respond to active shooting situations more effectively. The bill prohibits the purchase, sale, or possession of military-grade body armor by anyone except certain authorized users, such as first-responders and law enforcement.

The Homemade Firearms Accountability Act – This bill will require that guns that are self-assembled or manufactured at home be regulated the same as those that are purchased. It will require that all homemade guns have serial numbers, so if they are used in the commission of a crime, the police are able to trace the bullet back to the weapon.

The Home-Assembled Firearms Restriction Act – This bill will ban the sale and purchase of “incomplete lower receivers,” which are easily purchased and converted into functioning firearms. Banning these transactions would severely reduce the number of untraceable weapons on our streets.

“We need a common sense approach to reduce gun violence,” Congressman Honda said. “These bills can make our streets safer, and protect our citizens, police, and first responders. I will continue to fight for sensible public safety laws.”

Rep. Thomas Massie stated on Facebook that he would oppose all three bills.

Source

Posted by Red Pill Reports in US News
Lawmaker Proposes Required Classes on Gun Safety in Public Schools

Lawmaker Proposes Required Classes on Gun Safety in Public Schools

Lawmaker Proposes Required Classes on Gun Safety in Public Schools

By Rachel Blevins | Ben Swann

Lawmaker Proposes Required Classes on Gun Safety in Public Schools

A proposed Second Amendment Education Act in South Carolina would require all public schools in the state to provide a three-week course on gun safety, with curriculum approved by the National Rifle Association.

The bill, which was written by Representatives Alan Clemmons, Richard Yow, and Gary R. Smith, mandates that all public elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools in South Carolina “provide instruction in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution for at least three consecutive weeks” each academic year.

CarolinaLive reported that Clemmons filed the bill, in order to provide an alternative for the current “Zero Tolerance” policies in schools that prohibit students from bringing guns on campus.

Clemens said that he felt the current polices were “subjecting the rising generation to the mindset of the instrument, the firearm, is evil regardless of the hand that the firearm is in.”

“The more we debunk and demystify the forbidden,” said Clemmons. “The better it is for the education of children and the better it is for the child who finds an unattended firearm where a catastrophe could occur.”

The bill would require schools to use a curriculum for teaching the Second Amendment that has been “developed or recommended by the National Rifle Association.”

Read more

Video: NRA Win: Public Schools To Teach 3-Week Gun Rights Course In South Carolina

“Legislation proposed last month by three members of the South Carolina legislature would require public school teachers in that state to spend three weeks each year extolling the virtues of the Second Amendment — as that amendment is understood by the National Rifle Association. The bill requires all South Carolina public schools to ‘provide instruction in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution for at least three consecutive weeks during one grading period in each academic year.’ Moreover, ‘the State Superintendent of Education shall adopt a curriculum developed or recommended by the National Rifle Association or its successor organization’.”

Posted by Red Pill Reports in US News
Obama Declares War On Extremism – Are You An Extremist According To His Definition?

Obama Declares War On Extremism – Are You An Extremist According To His Definition?

Obama Declares War On Extremism – Are You An Extremist According To His Definition?

By Michael Snyder | The Economic Collapse Blog

Obama Declares War On Extremism - Are You An Extremist According To His Definition?

Do you know what an “extremist” is? In the wake of the horrible terror attacks on the offices of Charlie Hebdo in France, Barack Obama is speaking very boldly about the need to win the war against “extremists”, and he has announced plans to host a major global summit on “extremism” next month. And on the surface that sounds great. But precisely how are we supposed to determine whether someone is an “extremist” or not? What criteria should we use? As you will see below, your definition of an “extremist” may be far, far different from the definition that Barack Obama is using. When you do a Google search, you will find that an “extremist” is defined as “a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.” According to Wikipedia, “extremism” is “an ideology (particularly in politics or religion), considered to be far outside the mainstream attitudes of a society or to violate common moral standards. Extremism can take many forms, including political, religious and economic.” Please notice that neither of those definitions uses the word violence. In this day and age, you can be considered an “extremist” simply based on what you believe, and as you will see later in this article there are now tens of millions of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” according to official U.S. government documents.

When you use the word “extremist”, you may have in your mind a picture of ISIS fighters or the terrorists from the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

But for elitists such as Barack Obama, the word “extremist” has a much broader meaning. In recent years, it has become a code word for those that do not have an “enlightened” view of the world. If your views on politics, religion or social issues are extremely different from the liberal, progressive views of “the mainstream” (as defined by the mainstream media and by “mainstream” politicians such as Barack Obama), then they consider you to be an extremist.

Early in the presidency of George W. Bush, we were told that Islamic terrorists were the enemy. And so most of the country got behind the idea of the War on Terrorism. But over the years that has morphed into a War on Extremism. In fact, the Obama administration has gone so far as to remove almost all references to Islam from government terror training materials

Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.

“I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security,” Cole told a panel at the George Washington University law school.

Now, much of the focus in law enforcement training materials is on “domestic extremists”. We are being told that “domestic extremism” is just as great a threat to our national security as terror groups overseas are.

But exactly who are these “domestic extremists”?

Well, the truth is that you may be one of them.

I want to share with you a list that I have shared in a couple of previous articles. It is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” or “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents. This list will really give you a good idea of what Barack Obama means when he uses the word “extremist”. Each of these 72 items is linked, so if you would like to go see the original source document for yourself, just click on the link. As you can see, this list potentially includes most of the country…

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”

2. Those that advocate for states’ rights

3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”

4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”

5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”

6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”

7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”

8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”

9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”

10. “Anti-Gay”

11. “Anti-Immigrant”

12. “Anti-Muslim”

13. “The Patriot Movement”

14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”

15. Members of the Family Research Council

16. Members of the American Family Association

17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”

18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol

19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform

20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition

21. Members of the Christian Action Network

22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”

23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”

24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21

25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps

26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”

27. The militia movement

28. The sovereign citizen movement

29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”

30. Anyone that “complains about bias”

31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”

32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”

33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”

34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”

35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”

36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”

37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”

38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”

39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”

40. “Militia or unorganized militia”

41. “General right-wing extremist”

42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.

43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”

44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”

45. Those that are “anti-global”

46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”

47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”

48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”

49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”

50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”

51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”

52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”

53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”

54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”

55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”

56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”

57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”

58. “Rightwing extremists”

59. “Returning veterans”

60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”

61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”

62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”

63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”

64. “Anti-abortion activists”

65. Those that are against illegal immigration

66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner

67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations

68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”

69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr

70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)

71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies

72. Evangelical Christians

Do you fit into any of those categories?

Personally, I fit into a couple dozen of them.

That is why alarm bells should go off whenever Barack Obama speaks of the need to crack down on “extremism”.

If Barack Obama wants to denounce Islamic terror, he should do so. But because of his extreme political correctness, he goes out of his way to avoid any connection between Islam and terror. Instead, he speaks of the need to recognize “Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings” and he insists that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Meanwhile, our liberties and freedoms are being eroded a little bit more with each passing day. In the name of fighting “terrorism” or “extremism”, our government is constructing a Big Brother police state control grid all around us. I like the way that Ron Paul described what is happening to us just the other day

If Americans were honest with themselves they would acknowledge that the Republic is no more. We now live in a police state. If we do not recognize and resist this development, freedom and prosperity for all Americans will continue to deteriorate. All liberties in America today are under siege.

It didn’t happen overnight. It took many years of neglect for our liberties to be given away so casually for a promise of security from the politicians. The tragic part is that the more security was promised — physical and economic — the less liberty was protected.

With cradle-to-grave welfare protecting all citizens from any mistakes and a perpetual global war on terrorism, which a majority of Americans were convinced was absolutely necessary for our survival, our security and prosperity has been sacrificed.

It was all based on lies and ignorance. Many came to believe that their best interests were served by giving up a little freedom now and then to gain a better life.

The trap was set. At the beginning of a cycle that systematically undermines liberty with delusions of easy prosperity, the change may actually seem to be beneficial to a few. But to me that’s like excusing embezzlement as a road to leisure and wealth — eventually payment and punishment always come due. One cannot escape the fact that a society’s wealth cannot be sustained or increased without work and productive effort. Yes, some criminal elements can benefit for a while, but reality always sets in.

Reality is now setting in for America and for that matter for most of the world. The piper will get his due even if “the children” have to suffer. The deception of promising “success” has lasted for quite a while. It was accomplished by ever-increasing taxes, deficits, borrowing, and printing press money. In the meantime the policing powers of the federal government were systematically and significantly expanded. No one cared much, as there seemed to be enough “gravy” for the rich, the poor, the politicians, and the bureaucrats.

The country that our forefathers founded is dying.

Now, individuals and organizations that attempt to restore the values that our founders once believed in so strongly are regarded as dangerous “extremists” that need to be watched carefully.

Sadly, most Americans don’t even realize what is happening to this nation. As long as they are fed a constant diet of mindless entertainment, most Americans are perfectly content to let “the experts” do their thinking for them.

We are steamrolling toward oblivion, and most of the country is dead asleep.

Source

 

Posted by Red Pill Reports in US News
The Police Threat Is Too High

The Police Threat Is Too High

The Police Threat Is Too High

By Paul Craig Roberts | PaulCraigRoberts.org

The Police Threat Is Too High

Image credit: Ryan Adams, Twitter

 

The hypocrisy of American police is beginning to bother even law and order conservatives. The New York Police Department is rivaling the black community in Ferguson in keeping alive the murders of their community members.

We are constantly reminded of how dangerous it is to be a police officer. A total of 50 police officers were reportedly killed last year in the “line of duty,” but the police themselves managed to kill 1,029 Americans during the same time period, most of whom were unarmed and innocent of wrongdoings.

In other words, any encounter between the public and the police is more than 20 times more dangerous for the public than for the police.

That should raise questions about the absence of restraint on the ability of police to use deadly force as a first resort. Yet authorities and white communities invariably defend police violence against the public.

If Americans had half-decent educations, Americans would know that power comes from precedent. The police, like the executive branch, have now established themselves above the law. The laws that apply to the public do not apply to police, US presidents, presidential appointees, NSA, and CIA.

The URL below provides two short videos of Montana police officer Grant Morrison shooting to death in separate incidents two unarmed drivers pulled over by Morrison in routine traffic stops. In both cases, Morrison’s first actions are to scream obscenities and pull the trigger. Morrison comes across as completely crazed. It is inexplicable that Montana permits an armed lunatic to roam the streets pulling over cars. You try doing that.

Clearly the police are privileged and, thereby, unaccountable.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/09/1356607/-Montana-officer-Grant-Morrison-shoots-and-kills-his-second-unarmed-man-No-charges-in-either-case

Read more

Posted by Red Pill Reports in US News
All Over America, Government Officials Are Cracking Down On Preppers

All Over America, Government Officials Are Cracking Down On Preppers

All Over America, Government Officials Are Cracking Down On Preppers

By Michael Snyder | The Economic Collapse Blog

Government Officials Are Cracking Down On Preppers

Why would the government want to punish people that are just trying to work hard, become more self-sufficient and take care of their families?  There are approximately 3 million preppers in the United States today, and often they appear to be singled out for punishment by bureaucratic control freaks that are horrified at the thought that there are families out there that actually want to try to become less dependent on the system.  So if you use alternative methods to heat your home, or if you are not connected to the utility grid, or if you collect rainwater on your property, or if you believe that parents should have the ultimate say when it comes to health decisions for their children, you could become a target for overzealous government enforcers.  Once upon a time, America was the land of the free and the home of the brave, but now we are being transformed into a socialist police state where control freak bureaucrats use millions of laws, rules and regulations to crack down on anyone that dares to think for themselves.

For example, people have been burning wood to heat their homes since this country began.  And this is still very common in rural areas.  But the Obama administration does not like this at all.  The Obama bureaucrats at the EPA fear that our little wood stoves may be contributing to “global warming”, so they have outlawed the production and sale of 80 percent of the wood stoves that are currently in use.  The following comes from a recent Forbes article

It seems that even wood isn’t green or renewable enough anymore. The EPA has recently banned the production and sale of 80 percent of America’s current wood-burning stoves, the oldest heating method known to mankind and mainstay of rural homes and many of our nation’s poorest residents. The agency’s stringent one-size-fits-all rules apply equally to heavily air-polluted cities and far cleaner plus typically colder off-grid wilderness areas such as large regions of Alaska and the American West.

While EPA’s most recent regulations aren’t altogether new, their impacts will nonetheless be severe. Whereas restrictions had previously banned wood-burning stoves that didn’t limit fine airborne particulate emissions to 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air, the change will impose a maximum 12 microgram limit. To put this amount in context, EPA estimates that secondhand tobacco smoke in a closed car can expose a person to 3,000-4,000 micrograms of particulates per cubic meter.

Most wood stoves that warm cabin and home residents from coast-to-coast can’t meet that standard. Older stoves that don’t cannot be traded in for updated types, but instead must be rendered inoperable, destroyed, or recycled as scrap metal.

Does that make you angry?

It should.

There are other preppers that try to use very “clean” methods to power their homes, but that is still not good enough for some government control freaks.

For example, one prepper down in south Florida that had gone “off the grid” was recently ordered by a court to connect back to the grid or face eviction from his home.  The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Guiles Hendrik

Think you are still free to make choices in your life? Do you think the government will allow you to live independent of their utility monopolies? If you think so, try opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting toilets and your own self-sufficient water supply. Today, those life choices could land you in jail if you live in South Florida. Take the case of Robin Speronis.

Robin Speronis has lived off the grid, independent of the city’s water and electric system. A Florida court ruled this off-the-grid living illegal last week and has given Robin until March to connect her home to a municipal water line or face possible eviction. Further, officials in the city of Cape Coral have justified this by deeming Robin’s home “unsanitary,” citing the International Property Maintenance Code. First of all, since when did we begin to locally recognize “international codes?” Where in the US Constitution does it provide for international jurisdiction over local codes? Ironically, this “international” code mandates that homes be connected to an electricity grid and a running water source, even though most of the world lives without reliable electricity and municipal water and sewer. Further, the code is outdated and obsolete because it was written without consideration to both old and new technologies that relegate the need for grid tied power and municipal water as unnecessary and expensive; especially, in locations where it simply isn’t feasible to have grid tied utilities. Nonetheless, Speronis’ home does in fact have power and water through far cheaper and more environmentally friendly means — solar panels and rainwater, but that reality is ignored by the local government.

Incredibly, most Americans still seem to believe that we live in a “free country”.  But we don’t.  Our lives are very tightly constrained by literally millions of laws, rules and regulations, and more are being added every single day.

Even some of our most basic fundamental rights have been seriously eroded.  One of these is the right to make basic health decisions for our own children.  In New York state, children that have not received all of the designated vaccines can now be banned from attending public school, and this requirement was recently upheld by a federal appeals court

New York state’s requirement that children be vaccinated before attending public school does not violate their constitutional rights, a federal appeals court in Manhattan said on Wednesday.

In affirming the requirement’s constitutionality, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also upheld a previous ruling by a federal judge that students exempted from the requirement for religious reasons can be barred from school when another child has a disease preventable by a vaccine.

The decision was the latest to go against three parents from New York City who say their religious rights were violated when their children were kept out of school as a result of the immunization policies. The parents’ lawyer, Patricia Finn, said her clients planned to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

So what are we free to do without government interference these days?

Not much.

In fact, in some states we can’t even sit on our own land and collect the rain as it falls from the sky for our own personal use.

If you do this in the state of Oregon, for example, you could go to prison

Gary Harrington, the Oregon man convicted of collecting rainwater and snow runoff on his rural property surrendered Wednesday morning to begin serving his 30-day, jail sentence in Medford, Ore.

“I’m sacrificing my liberty so we can stand up as a country and stand for our liberty,” Harrington told a small crowd of people gathered outside of the Jackson County (Ore.) Jail.

Several people held signs that showed support for Harrington as he was taken inside the jail.

And of course these are just a few examples.  Almost every single day there are more stories in the news about government bureaucrats cracking down on preppers.  They almost seem to relish the opportunity to go after the “non-conformists”.

But the good news is that the number of Americans that are seeking to become less dependent on the system just continues to grow.

So what about you?

Are you a prepper?

My friend Daisy Luther recently wrote a piece entitled “45 MORE Signs That You Might Be One of Those Crazy Preppers“.  The following are some of the most interesting “signs” from her list…

*You spend your days off digging an underground bunker in your backyard.

*Your family doesn’t dare take something from the food stockpile without marking it off the list.

*Your kids know how to don a gas mask in 30 seconds.

*Everyone in your survival group carries the same firearm so that ammo is standardized.

*Your family is no longer surprised when you announce, “Hey, we’re going to learn how to make (insert anything here)!”

*You have long since accepted the idea that if you’re not on someone’s list, you’re probably not doing it right.

*You don’t just rotate food, you rotate ammo.

*Moving to a new house is no longer “moving”, but “strategic relocation”.

*Your kids think it’s a fun game to see who can find the most potential weapons in a room.

*Your EDC includes a knife, firearm w/extra mag, flashlight, mylar blanket, Chapstick, and an ounce of silver — and that’s just for when you’re walking the dog.

*One criterion for your new winter coat is that it fits over your body armor.

You can read her entire article right here.

America was built by people that loved their families, worked hard and were self-sufficient.

Now our government is specifically targeting those kinds of people.

What in the world is happening to us?

Source

 

Posted by Red Pill Reports in US News
House Republicans Just Voted to Change Obamacare For the Worse

House Republicans Just Voted to Change Obamacare For the Worse

House Republicans Just Voted to Change Obamacare For the Worse

By Peter Suderman | Reason

House Republicans Just Voted to Change Obamacare For the Worse

Joint session of Congress regarding health care reform. Image credit: Public Domain

Yesterday afternoon, the newly Republican controlled House took its first shot against Obamacare.

In a 252 to 172 vote, the House voted down the health law’s 30-hour workweek, which as part of the employer mandate requires businesses with 50 or more workers to provide coverage to employees who work at least that many hours in a week. In its place, the House adopted a 40-hour week.

For many Republicans in Congress, the vote was seen a way of easing the pain the 30-hour rule has caused on workers and employers. Many employers were adamantly against the provision, saying the requirement adds a significant benefit expense; workers say their hours have been cut or capped in order to keep them under the 30-hour threshold.

The requirement is widely disliked. Most legislators on the Hill, from both parties, have heard from constituents about problems related to the rule. There was hope that, as a result, the bill might garner significant Democratic support. In the end, it picked up just 12 Democratic votes.

Beyond mitigating the damage done by the provision, Republicans understand the change as illustrative of their new approach to Obamacare. It’s intended as a way to show that the GOP can fix the health care law, making small changes to improve the way it works in addition to the radical opposition the party has demonstrated for the last several years.

The problem is that, far from being a practical improvement, the change the Republicans have chosen makes the health law worse.

For one thing, it would make it more expensive. By rewriting the rules so that businesses no longer have to cover individuals working between 30 and 40 hours a week, the change would shift roughly a million people off of employer coverage. About half would then end up enrolled in coverage either through Medicaid or Obamacare’s subsidized exchanges. The public, in other words, would be picking up the tab. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the change would increase the deficit by about $53 billion by 2025.

Read more

 

Posted by Red Pill Reports in US News
Police: Bill Gates’ Estate Staff Member Alleged to Trade Child Porn

Police: Bill Gates’ Estate Staff Member Alleged to Trade Child Porn

Police: Bill Gates’ Estate Staff Member Alleged to Trade Child Porn

By Levi Pulkkinen | SeattlePI

Police: Bill Gates’ Estate Staff Member Alleged to Trade Child Porn

Home of Bill Gates on Lake Washington. Image credit: Jeff Wilcox, Flickr

A Seattle man employed as an engineer at Bill and Melinda Gates’ home is now accused of amassing a 6,000-image child pornography collection and trading child rape photos by Gmail.

King County prosecutors say Rick Allen Jones admitted he’d been collecting child rape videos and photos for a decade before police intervened in March. According to police, Jones, 51, was first contacted by police at the Microsoft founder’s estate while working for the billionaire couple.

Jones drew investigators’ attention in late 2013 after sharing a suspicious photo through Google’s email service. According to charging papers, the photo captured the sexual exploitation of two pre-teen boys.

Investigators tracked the image to Jones’ Ballard apartment, which they searched on March 20, a Seattle Police Department detective said in court papers. Jones was not there at the time, but investigators learned he was likely working at the Medina home.

Two detectives drove to the sprawling, lakefront estate and met Jones in the estate security office, according to charging papers. They then interviewed him in a parked SUV.

Having been read his rights, Jones claimed he shared child pornography online just once but then admitted he’d been collecting it for years, the Seattle detective said in charging papers.

“Jones said that he had been collecting (child pornography) for about 10 years now and has had an interest in young boys since he himself was a teenager,” the detective told the court.

Read more

Posted by Red Pill Reports in US News
Are You Aware of the Ziplock Method for DUI Checkpoints?

Are You Aware of the Ziplock Method for DUI Checkpoints?

Are You Aware of the Ziplock Method for DUI Checkpoints?

By Mike Sawyer | The Free Thought Project

Are You Aware of the Ziplock Method for DUI Checkpoints

Chiefland, FL —  In a video posted to youtube this week, a novel and simply astonishing example of how to deal with DUI checkpoints, was illustrated by the guys from FairDUI.org.

Sobriety checkpoints — also known as DUI checkpoints — are the most common roadblocks you might encounter. They function as a general purpose investigatory tactic where police can get a close look at passing motorists by detaining them briefly. A roadblock stop is quick, but it gives police a chance to check tags and licenses, while also giving officers a quick whiff of the driver’s breath and a chance to peer into the vehicle for a moment.

Remember that your constitutional rights still apply in a roadblock situation. Though police are permitted to stop you briefly, they may not search you or your car unless they have probable cause that you’re under the influence or you agree to the search. As such, you are not required to answer their questions or admit to breaking the law.

In the video, a man hangs his registration, insurance, and driver’s license from his rolled up window inside a Ziploc freezer bag, in order to proceed through a DUI checkpoint.

Also in the bag is a flyer, which states:

I remain silent

No Searches

I want my lawyer

Please put any tickets under windshield wiper.

–CPLR §308 & Pacamor, 132 Misc.2d 269 (1986)

I have to show you my papers not hand them to you.

–VTL §312(b), §401(4), §507

Thus I am not opening my window.

I will comply with clearly stated lawful orders.

This DUI checkpoint was put on by the Levy County Sheriff’s Office and the Florida Highway Patrol.

The checkpoint was held on New Year’s Eve, starting at 10:00 pm, in Chiefland, Florida.

According to FairDUI.org, the idea behind the flyer is that you keep it in your car and show it to police at checkpoints and traffic stops. This is NOT for everyone, nor for every situation.

To find out whether the flyer is for you, and when you should (and shouldn’t) use it, you can visit their Flyer page, here.

As long as it takes the officers to read the flyer is as long as the driver is held up. It was amazing.

Now, without further ado, one of the best DUI checkpoint refusals that we’ve ever seen.

Source

Posted by Red Pill Reports in US News
Fed Hiring Emergency Preparedness Specialist Familiar With DHS Directives

Fed Hiring Emergency Preparedness Specialist Familiar With DHS Directives

Fed Hiring Emergency Preparedness Specialist Familiar With DHS Directives

By Paul Joseph Watson | Prison Planet.com

Fed Hiring Emergency Preparedness Specialist

The Federal Reserve is set to hire an “emergency preparedness specialist” familiar with “Homeland Security directives” and Hazmat procedures according to a post on the official Fed Careers Twitter account.

The job posting has raised eyebrows because it was made at around the same time that the Treasury Department announced it was set to spend $200,000 dollars on survival kits to be delivered to every major bank in the United States which would include a solar blanket, food bar, water-purification tablets, a dust mask, bandages and medicines amongst numerous other items.

The position description requires that the individual serve “as the coordinator in the Management Division (MGT Div.) for emergency preparedness, encompassing the development, coordination, and implementation of: unified planning, disaster preparedness, response and recovery, policies and procedures, emergency preparedness and exercise program training for Board staff.”

The applicant must also be, “a recognized expert in emergency preparedness and (have) working knowledge of Department of Homeland Security directives” as well as be responsible for the Fed’s “Hazardous Materials Response Team (HMRT) training, equipment, and response program.”

“The individual must be able to maintain a secret clearance,” states the position description, suggesting that part of the work is national security related.

“The only question is why does the Fed – a uniformly safe institution, where economists engage in deep contemplation and decide how much of the US deficit they will monetize – need a person with these qualifications?” asks Zero Hedge.
According to economist Martin Armstrong, the Treasury Department’s purchase of emergency survival kits was part of preparations for a potential “Mad Max” style event, with the man who predicted the 1987 stock market crash labeling the solicitation “a very strange request.”

Could the Fed’s hiring of an emergency preparedness specialist also be a sign that the central bank is anticipating a massive economic calamity in 2015?

 

Posted by Red Pill Reports in US News
2014: The Year the American Justice System Officially Died

2014: The Year the American Justice System Officially Died

2014: The Year the American Justice System Officially Died

By Carey Wedler | AntiMedia

2014: The Year the American Justice System Officially Died

Madison County courthouse in London, Ohio. Image credit: Derek Jensen (Tysto)

In 2014, the problem of police brutality forced itself to the forefront of the national conversation following the brutal killing of Americans at the hands of the police. This increased attention has been a success for activists from all walks of life and for the well-being of citizens. The problem of racism and police murders that involve it is finally receiving widespread acknowledgment and opposition.

But as much as the issue of police abuse needs attention, it remains that injustice in America permeates layers of society that transcend law enforcement, race, and problems of direct violence against citizens.

Rather, police brutality is a symptom of much deeper decay in the concept and system of “justice” in the United States. As much as murderous cops escaping punishment is outrageous, here are other travesties that occurred in 2014:

The Senate attempted to stifle the free speech of any journalist it did not define as “press,” calling the bill a protection of the first amendment. Most of Congress cheered Israel on from June through the summer while it pummeled Gaza. They authorized hundreds of millions in material support. At the end of the summer, President Obama began illegally bombing Syria while drone attacks exposed for killing civilians and children continued.

In just the time since the non-indictment of Darren Wilson, the government has committed a litany of offenses: it stole 2400 acres of Apache native lands to give to a foreign mining company that had been lobbying Congress for a decade. The FDA approved an addictive painkiller to combat addiction to painkillers. Congress moved to invalidate the electoral vote in Washington D.C. that legalized marijuana. It further enabled the NSA to spy on Americans in spite of empty rhetoric promising reform.

Naturally, lawmakers continued the state of perpetual war by renewing the military funding bill, the National Defense Authorization Act (where it gave away the Apache lands). It still guarantees the government’s right to indefinitely detain Americans without trial and it can still torture non-Americans however it likes.

All of these cruel, violative, and often violent instances prove that “justice,” which is supposed to mean “moral rightness,” is as dead as unarmed black men at the hands of police in America. But within the so-called “justice system,” there are more flagrant, direct examples of this lack of justice:

The government, via the IRS and DOJ, is authorized to confiscate the life savings of law-abiding Americans who are not suspected of crimes. There is little redress for the robbery committed against them (cops are also guilty of stealing possessions under the shelter of the DOJ).  At the same time, the IRS directly funds tangible, violent crimes by federally funding murderous police and military. Further, banks tied to illegal money laundering for drug cartels (a clearly illegal action) are given what amount to slaps on the wrist.

Take the problem of dogs murdered by police. While individuals who harm police dogs are viciously charged with assaulting an officer and sent to jail for decades, it is a rare occurrence to see a cop reprimanded for murdering a dog while on duty. In some cases cops have been put on paid leave, but police are rarely charged for killing family pets. The same can be said for a civilian killing a cop versus a cop killing an unarmed civilian: to kill a cop is capital punishment. To kill a civilian is a paid vacation and maybe some bad press for police.

At this discrepancy rages on, non-violent individuals are thrown in jail for possessing marijuana (fortunately in 2014, the tide began to turn) while pharmaceutical companies that produce lethal pills are not only emboldened by the FDA, but free from punishment in court.

While the government spies on all American citizens, collects their data, and cops create “threat ratings” based on social media posts, there is zero transparency on the part of the state. On multiple occasions the DOJ has argued in court to keep documents sealed.

It took years for the government to release the legal “justification” for the president’s kill list. It did so only when pressed.

2014 made it clear that there is not only an utterly destroyed sense of justice in the United States, but that the justice system in particular is a sham.

While the problem of racist police forces and more systemically, universally violent cops (whose violence affects people of all colors more and more each day) is absolutely necessary to discuss, it is important not to forget the system that enabled such problems in the first place. Police are the enforcement class of the government and the more power a government exercises, the more power their foot soldiers will, as well.

This fact demonstrates that stopping police brutality will not solve the much deeper problems of corrupt institutions. Even if all racial profiling, police brutality and corruption were stopped, the justice system would still destroy lives. It will still favor the elites and warmongers.

In 2015, the fight against police injustice must continue. But that fight must not forget the multitude of other ways that justice is trampled.

In fact, if the system is allowed to continue, any small, superficial wins made in the fight against brutality will surely be reversed at the hands of a government whose foundational power is never questioned.

Carey Wedler writes for TheAntiMedia.org, where this first appeared. Tune-in to The Anti-Media radio show Monday-Friday @ 11pm EST, 8pm PST.

 

Posted by Red Pill Reports in US News
Isolated Incidents? A Lawsuit is Filed Against the NYPD Every 2 1/2 Hours

Isolated Incidents? A Lawsuit is Filed Against the NYPD Every 2 1/2 Hours

Isolated Incidents? A Lawsuit is Filed Against the NYPD Every 2 1/2 Hours

By Matt Agorist | The Free Though Project

Isolated Incidents? A Lawsuit is Filed Against the NYPD Every 2 1/2 Hours

If these staggering numbers show us anything, it’s that the time for discussing solutions is well overdue.

New York, NY — New York City comptroller, Scott Stringer, recently released a map of all lawsuits filed against the NYPD in 2013. This graphic representation of police misconduct was then analyzed and compiled into a compelling report which illustrates the dire need of reform.

The report put out by the comptroller’s officer, titled Claimstat, shows that the lawsuits are derived “primarily of allegations of police misconduct, civil rights violations, and injury and/or damage from accidents involving police vehicles.” The report was put out in July and is used as a way of using data-driven methods to try and save money.

However, it doesn’t look like counting the incidents of police brutality is doing anything to save the city money, as Stringer’s original report said that the 2015 budget would have to include $674 million for settlements and judgments (an amount greater that the budget for the Parks Department, Department of Aging and New York Public Library combined).

The move to release this data was done in an effort to apply more transparency to the NYPD. However, as quantitative analyst Ben Wellington points out, the comptroller gave us only a map and failed to release the underlying data in regards to these lawsuits.

Wellington, who runs the NYC data blog I Quant NY, then unlocked the data contained in the Claimstat report and organized it by location, to give us a better understanding.

I started by creating a heat map, showing how the 3,800 police lawsuits were distributed in 2013:

heat map, showing how the 3,800 police lawsuits

While these lawsuits were present throughout the five boroughs, the map shows that they were anything but evenly distributed.

The largest hotspot in the map is clearly in the Bronx, but there are others.  A look at the number of lawsuits filed per one-thousand residents in each borough also shows that Bronx residents were more than two times as likely to file a suit than residents from Brooklyn and more than six times more likely than residents of Staten Island:

lawsuits filed per one-thousand residents in each borough

I Quant NY also took a look at Eric Garner’s neighborhood, finding that there were 109 lawsuits that originated in Staten Island and three within a two block radius of Garner’s home, marked by the red star on the map below.

I Quant NY also took a look at Eric Garner’s neighborhood, finding that there were 109 lawsuits that originated in Staten Island and three within a two block radius of Garner’s home, marked by the red star on the map below.

109 lawsuits that originated in Staten Island

3,800 lawsuits may not seem like that large of a number, but we must take into account that these are actual lawsuits from people who are able to find an attorney to represent them. Many times over, victims of police misconduct are unable to secure council for the simple fact that it is their word against the officers.

As the Free Thought Project reported, there are literally tens of thousands of complaints filed against the NYPD every year and this number is on the rise.

If these staggering numbers show us anything, it’s that the time for discussing solutions is well overdue.

A sure fire way to force police accountability would be to have officers carry their own personal liability insurance. Every time a victim of police brutality is awarded monetary damages, it is the innocent tax payers who are held responsible, not the individual police officer.

If the individual’s job was directly effected by the quality of their service, you could rest assured that excessive force claims would plummet as this would effectively get rid of problem officers who would have to either stop being a problem, or become uninsurable, thereby becoming unemployable.

The dilemma of police brutality however, does not arise from a lack of solutions, but from a lack listening, by those with the “authority” to implement them.

Nonetheless, if enough of us, even a small and irate minority, keep pushing these ideas to the forefront, we can and will rein in the police state.

Source

Posted by Red Pill Reports in US News
Supreme Court Rules; No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations

Supreme Court Rules; No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations

Supreme Court Rules; Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers

By The Rutherford Institute

Supreme Court Rules; No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations

Image credit: Phil Roeder (Flickr: Supreme Court of the United States) [CC BY 2.0]


WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a blow to the constitutional rights of citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Heien v. State of North Carolina that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police during a traffic stop that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law. The Rutherford Institute had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold law enforcement officials accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s lone dissenter, warned that the court’s ruling “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.”

“By refusing to hold police accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law, the Supreme Court has given government officials a green light to routinely violate the law,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of the award-winning book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “This case may have started out with an improper traffic stop, but where it will end—given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption—is not hard to predict. This ruling is what I would call a one-way, nonrefundable ticket to the police state.”

In April 2009, a Surry County (N.C.) law enforcement officer stopped a car traveling on Interstate 77, allegedly because of a brake light which at first failed to illuminate and then flickered on. The officer mistakenly believed that state law prohibited driving a car with one broken brake light. In fact, the state traffic law requires only one working brake light. Nevertheless, operating under a mistaken understanding of the law, during the course of the stop, the officer asked for permission to search the car. Nicholas Heien, the owner of the vehicle, granted his consent to a search. Upon the officer finding cocaine in the vehicle, he arrested and charged Heien with trafficking. Prior to his trial, Heien moved to suppress the evidence seized in light of the fact that the officer’s pretext for the stop was erroneous and therefore unlawful. Although the trial court denied the motion to suppress evidence, the state court of appeals determined that since the police officer had based his initial stop of the car on a mistaken understanding of the law, there was no valid reason for the stop in the first place. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that even though the officer was wrong in concluding that the inoperable brake light was an offense, because the officer’s mistake was a “reasonable” one, the stop of the car did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the evidence resulting from the stop did not need to be suppressed. In weighing in on the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Rutherford Institute attorneys warn against allowing government agents to “benefit” from their mistakes of law, deliberate or otherwise, lest it become an incentive for abuse.

Affiliate attorney Christopher F. Moriarty assisted The Rutherford Institute in advancing the arguments in the amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Source

Legal action: Click here to read The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in Heien v. State of North Carolina

Press Contact
Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
(434) 466-6168 (cell)
nisha@rutherford.org

Posted by Red Pill Reports in US News