cryztalwing

The one I posted was from Worldnet Daily..

So a SWAT team went into a womans home, and took her 11-year-old boy, and than told her that her "Rights" were "only in the movies" that she did not have any. [hide]The mother of an 11-year-old boy abducted by SWAT team members and taken to a hospital after he was bruised while horsing around is warning members of her community of the "Nazi" tactics she endured, including a statement from the officers that her "rights" were "only in the movies." The case involves Jon Shiflet, who injured himself while trying to grab the handle of a door on a car his sister was driving. He slipped and fell to the pavement, hitting his head. His parents treated him for the injury and rejected paramedics' demands that they be allowed to take him to a hospital. Nearly 36 hours later, SWAT team members broke into the family home in western Colorado near New Castle and took Jon to a hospital, where a doctor said the family should keep ice on his bruise, exactly the treatment the family already had been providing. Tina Shiflett, Jon's mother, has written a letter to the editor to a local newspaper, the Post Independent, "to awaken, alert and appall any who read it and hear the bells ringing." "A fully armed SWAT team broke into our home, slammed my children to the floor face down with their hands behind their backs and shoved a gun in my daughter's face and handcuffed herÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ" her letter said. In a separate letter to WND, she elaborated a little more fully During the attack, she wrote, "One (officer) grabbed my daughter Beth (18 years), who also had a gun to her face, slammed her down and kneed her in the back and held her in that positionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ My sons Adam (14) and Noah (only 7) lay down willingly, yet they were still forced to put their hands behind their backs and were yelled at to keep their heads down. "My daughter Jeanette was coming out from the back bedroom when she was grabbed, drug down the hallway, across a couch and slammed to the ground," she said. "The officers then began throwing scissors and screwdrivers across the room (out of our reach, I suppose) and going through our cupboards. "I asked if I could make a phone call and was told, 'no.' My daughter asked if that wasn't one of our rights. The reply was made, 'That's only in the movies,'" she told WND. It was some unidentified person, possibly a paramedic who had been refused permission to take Jon Shiflett to the hospital as she wanted, who provided information last week that convinced a magistrate to issue a court order that Jon be taken into state custody and examined by a doctor. He was taken by SWAT team members dispatched by the sheriff to the family's home at 11 p.m. at night, and they punched a hole in the front door and held guns on other children in the family in order to take Jon. "The armed men in black masks took my terrified son against his wishes to Grand River Hospital, where he was examined by a doctor and interrogated by Social Services. No evidence was found that he had not been properly taken care of. Upon his return, we were told to keep ice on his head," Tina Shiflett's letter to the editor said. "To the SWAT Team members ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ how far will you go in 'just doing your job?' If you feel no guilt busting into an innocent family's home, traumatizing young children and stomping the security found therein, will you follow more horrific orders?" she wrote. "May I remind you that in Nazi Germany, outrageous, monstrous crimes were committed by soldiers 'just doing their job?' What will be next? Where will this stop?" she wrote. "Fathers, mothers, families and countrymen, I challenge you to consider our story and ask yourself the question, 'If this were my family, what would I do?' For it very well could be you ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ next!" Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario told WND he simply ordered his officers to do exactly what the magistrate demanded. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=59616 [/hide]

I like to eat at Shakeys, I really don't count all the pizza I eat, since it's all you can eat there.

I am not happy that two CFR candidates won in Iowa, but that is expected any way. New Hampshire might be better for Dr. No...

Here is a screenshot of an incomplete puzzle, if it helps any one... :boohoo:

I really do think that this has really not much to do with Al Qaeda, but rather The Project for a ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅNew Middle EastÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

At 6min 12sec into the interview Bhutto states that Omar Sheik murdered Osama Bin Laden.. :boohoo: [hide] The new map of the Middle East? http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=7687 [/hide]

Since this is about Dr. No, I thout I whould post his Straw Poll Results...

Link about Boston doing knock and talks searchs.. http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.p ... &tb=1&pb=1 Sneak and Peek Search Warrants. http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profil ... triot.html

One of the reasons why they don't read you your rights more often now is becuse of the new Anti-terror laws, and that Department of Homeland Security tells them that it is ok for them not to do it. They are also starting sneak and peek searchs, and knock and talks searchs, were they just enter your car sneak and peek around with out telling you. Knock and talk searches is were they go to your home, and ask you to let them in your home and search it, with no warrant or probably cause. Boston is doing this to search students homes for guns and drugs. the reason for these type of searchs is to fight terrorism but they are also doing it for nomal crime.

The Department of Homeland Security have been training officers all over the United States to act that way, mostly throw Blackwater USA. They are getting them ready for the new laws that will soon come into effect, such has the Real ID Act. Also for Martial Law if Bush decides to declare it. Many of the new Cops are also Iraq vets back from Iraq, were they were train to act that way towards the Iraqi people, and they are told to treat American's just the same. Heck they are even hiring illegal aliens from Mexico who are not citizens to be cops.

They are being use in the new passports that American's need to get into and out of the country, yes even into. In Fact starting January 31, 2008 having the passport will not be good anothe for American's to get back into the United States. You will need to have ID and a copy of your birth certificate. Also starting in 2009 thank's to the real ID Act, new ID's will have RFID Chips in them, thow few states have rejected the Real ID Act. Also becuse of the Real ID Act your going to have to have an ID under it to enter any federal building, travel on trains, buses and planes. IF you live in any of the States that have rejected the Real ID Act, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington and Maine. your going to need to get a domestic Passport to do any of that.

Three states have all ready ban force and manditory chipping of human's with RFID Chips. North Dakota, Wisconsin have ban force chipping, and California have ban Manditory chipping. Oklahoma had a bill to ban Chipping of humans with any RFID Chips, but the bill was killed in it's State Senate. However thow, The Department of Defense is planning to implant microchips in soldiers' brains starting in 5 year's. [hide]The Department of Defense is planning to implant microchips in soldiers' brains for monitoring their health information, and has already awarded a $1.6 million contract to the Center for Bioelectronics, Biosensors and Biochips (C3B) at Clemson University for the development of an implantable "biochip". Soldiers fear that the biochip, about the size of a grain of rice, which measures and relays information on soldiers vital signs 24 hours a day, can be used to put them under surveillance even when they are off duty. But Anthony Guiseppi-Elie, C3B director and Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and Bioengineering claims the that the invivo biosensors will save lives as first responders to the trauma scene could inject the biochip into the wounded victim and gather data almost immediately. He believes that the device has other long-term potential applications, such as monitoring astronautsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ vital signs during long-duration space flights and reading blood-sugar levels for diabetics. ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅWe now lose a large percentage of patients to bleeding, and getting vital information such as how much oxygen is in the tissue back to ER physicians and medical personnel can often mean the difference between life and death,ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

More news about the One-child and Two child Policy's, now a De-Facto Two Child Policy Urged in Australia. ya Australia. See were the global warming issue is heading? [hide]COUPLES who have more than two children should be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring's carbon dioxide emissions, a medical expert says. The report in an Australian medical journal called for parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800. And couples who were sterilised would be eligible for carbon credits under the controversial proposal. Perth specialist Professor Barry Walters was heavily critical of the $4000 baby bonus, saying that paying new parents extra for every baby fuelled more children, more emissions and "greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour". Instead, it should be replaced with a "baby levy" in the form of a carbon tax in line with the "polluter pays" principle, he wrote in the latest Medical Journal of Australia. "Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being," said Prof Walters, an obstetrician at King Edward Memorial Hospital. Sustainable Population Australia suggested a maximum of two, he said. By the same reasoning, contraceptives like diaphragms and condoms, as well as sterilisation procedures, should attract carbon credits, the specialist said. "As doctors, I believe we need to think this way," he wrote in a letter to the journal. "As Australians I believe we need to be less arrogant. "As citizens of the world, I believe we deserve no more population concessions than those in India or China." Garry Eggers, director of the NSW Centre for Health Promotion and Research, agreed with the call, saying former treasurer Peter Costello's request for three children per family - "one for mum, one for dad and one for the country" - was too single-minded. "Population remains crucial to all environmental considerations," wrote Professor Eggers, a leading advocate of the personal carbon trading debate. "The debate (around population control) needs to be reopened as part of a second ecological revolution." Family groups rejected the calls, saying larger families used less energy than smaller ones and should not be penalised. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22899785-2,00.html[/hide]

the Electoral College is not really stupid. It was set by America's founding fathers. Your vote has a great deal of significance. Under the Electoral College system, we do not elect the President and Vice President through a direct nation-wide vote. The Presidential election is decided by the combined results of 50 State elections and D.C. It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely. Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your State's electoral votes. The founders of the nation devised the Electoral College system as part of their plan to share power between the States and the national government. Under the Federal system adopted in the U.S. Constitution, the nation-wide popular vote has no legal significance. As a result, it is possible that the electoral votes awarded on the basis of State elections could produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote. Nevertheless, the individual citizen's vote is important to the outcome of each State election. I see the reason why getting rid the Electoral College is to advance the agenda for the North American Union.

No, I mean taxes for paying real money for virtual items..

Now you probably know how important voting is, but whould trade your right to vote, for an Ipod? I don't understand how any body whould do that! Let along for money! [hide]Two-thirds say they'll do it for a year's tuition. And for a few, even an iPod touch will do. That's what NYU students said they'd take in exchange for their right to vote in the next presidential election, a recent survey by an NYU journalism class found. Only 20 percent said they'd exchange their vote for an iPod touch. But 66 percent said they'd forfeit their vote for a free ride to NYU. And half said they'd give up the right to vote forever for $1 million. But they also overwhelmingly lauded the importance of voting. Ninety percent of the students who said they'd give up their vote for the money also said they consider voting "very important" or "somewhat important"; only 10 percent said it was "not important." Also, 70.5 percent said they believe that one vote can make a difference ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

I can easy see Taxes will be comming soon for this.

By law you have to show up were you are told to go to if a new draft happens. But you do not have to step across the line, and they can't force you to, when it comes down to it, even if you do pass the tests to see if your fit to serve.

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution. [hide]First letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s take a look at the definitions of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as defined in Section 899A of the bill. The definition of violent radicalization uses vague language to define this term of promoting any belief system that the government considers to be an extremist agenda. Since the bill doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government. Considering how much the government has done to destroy the Constitution they could even define Ron Paul supporters as promoting an extremist belief system. Literally, the government according to this definition can define whatever they want as an extremist belief system. Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below. `(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change. The definition of homegrown terrorism uses equally vague language to further define thought crime. The bill includes the planned use of force or violence as homegrown terrorism which could be interpreted as thinking about using force or violence. Not only that but the definition is so vaguely defined, that petty crimes could even fall into the category of homegrown terrorism. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below. `(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. Section 899B of the bill goes over the findings of Congress as it pertains to homegrown terrorism. Particularly alarming is that the bill mentions the Internet as a main source for terrorist propaganda. The bill even mentions streams in obvious reference to many of the patriot and pro-constitution Internet radio networks that have been formed. It also mentions that homegrown terrorists span all ages and races indicating that the Congress is stating that everyone is a potential terrorist. Even worse is that Congress states in their findings that they should look at draconian police states like Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom as models to defeat homegrown terrorists. Literally, these findings of Congress fall right in line with the growing patriot community. The biggest joke of all is that this section also says that any measure to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism should not violate the constitutional rights of citizens. However, the definition of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as they are defined in section 899A are themselves unconstitutional. The Constitution does not allow the government to arrest people for thought crimes, so any promises not to violate the constitutional rights of citizens are already broken by their own definitions. `SEC. 899B. FINDINGS. `The Congress finds the following: `(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism. `(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security. `(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens. `(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States. `(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States. `(6) The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions. `(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion. `(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. `(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations. Section 899C calls for a commission on the prevention of violent radicalization and ideologically based violence. The commission will consist of ten members appointed by various individuals that hold different positions in government. Essentially, this is a commission that will examine and report on how they are going to deal with violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. So basically, the commission is being formed specifically on how to deal with thought criminals in the United States. The bill requires that the commission submit their final report 18 months following the commissionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s first meeting as well as submit interim reports every 6 months leading up to the final report. Below is the billÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s defined purpose of the commission. Amazingly they even define one of the purposes of the commission to determine the causes of lone wolf violent radicalization. (B) Purpose- The purposes of the Commission are the following: `(1) Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or `lone wolf' violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important. `(2) Build upon and bring together the work of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of-- `(A) the Center of Excellence established or designated under section 899D, and other academic work, as appropriate; `(B) Federal, State, local, or tribal studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence; and `© foreign government studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence. Section 899D of the bill establishes a Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States. Essentially, this will be a Department of Homeland Security affiliated institution that will study and determine how to defeat thought criminals. Section 899E of the bill discusses how the government is going to defeat violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism through international cooperation. As stated in the findings section earlier in the legislation, they will unquestionably seek the advice of countries with draconian police states like the United Kingdom to determine how to deal with this growing threat of thought crime. Possibly the most ridiculous section of the bill is Section 899F which states how they plan on protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism. Here is what the section says. `SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY-BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM. `(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. `(B) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security's commitment to racial neutrality. `© Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security will develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not result in a disproportionate impact, without a rational basis, on any particular race, ethnicity, or religion and include the results of its audit in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'. (B) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents in section 1(B) of such Act is amended by inserting at the end of the items relating to title VIII the following: It states in the first subsection that in general the efforts to defeat thought crime shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights and civil liberties of the United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. How does this protect constitutional rights if they use vague language such as in general that prefaces the statement? This means that the Department of Homeland Security does not have to abide by the Constitution in their attempts to prevent so called homegrown terrorism. [/hide] [hide]According to supporters, the measure will play an important role in helping government and law enforcement officials understand and prevent domestic terrorism. In a speech on the House floor advocating passage of the bill, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) -- the coauthor and initial sponsor of the measure -- warned that the next time the U.S. faces a terrorist threat, "my assumption is that many who attack us will already be here, and some will be US citizens." To prevent that attack, she said, the new "legislation will help the nation develop a better understanding of the forces that lead to homegrown terrorism, and the steps we can take to stop it." Critics of the measure allege that it is a thinly veiled and dangerous attempt to criminalize dissent. Such concern is based on the bill's vague and open-ended language that, critics say, could be used by the government to trample basic rights to free speech and assembly and turn legitimate dissent into thought crimes. The legislation, for instance, defines "violent radicalization" as "the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change." The bill makes no attempt to define what an "extremist belief system" might be. Nor does it define the action of "facilitating ideologically based violence." In its section on key findings related to homegrown terrorism, the measure gives lip-service to constitutional rights, but also singles out the Internet and its open market for the flow of ideas and information as part of the problem. According to the measure, "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens." The unspoken threat implied by that passage is that the government might have to clamp down on free speech online. "At base," wrote retired Col. Dan Smith in Counterpunch, "Harman's proposal seems to be a direct attack on First Amendment rights." Bill Status: H.R. 1955 passed the House by a landslide vote of 404-6 on October 23, 2007 (Roll Call Vote 993). The bill has been received by the Senate and was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=10528846[/hide]

It turns out that Tony Blair privately conceded two weeks before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein did not have any usable weapons of mass destruction, Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, reveals today. http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e18676.htm

More news about how bad the dollar is doing. [hide]ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s no secret that the dollar is on a downward spiral. Its value is dropping, and the Fed isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t doing a whole lot to change that. As a result, a number of countries are considering a shift away from the dollar to preserve their assets. These are seven of the countries currently considering a move from the dollar, and how theyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll have an effect on its value and the US economy. Saudi Arabia: The Telegraph reports that for the first time, Saudi Arabia has refused to cut interest rates along with the US Federal Reserve. This is seen as a signal that a break from the dollar currency peg is imminent. The kingdom is taking ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åappropriate measuresÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Wexler Will Urge House Judiciary Committee to 'Schedule Impeachment Hearings Immediately "I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months. Only through hearings can we bring begin to correct the abuses of [bleep] Cheney and the Bush Administration; and, if it is determined in these hearings that Vice President Cheney has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors, he should be impeached and removed from office. It is time for Congress to expose the multitude of misdeeds of the Administration, and I am hopeful that the Judiciary Committee will expeditiously begin an investigation of this matter." The Congressman said.. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5263 http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/28504

Because Kucinich brought up a priveledged resolution that was not defeated, he can raise the issue again "anytime he wants." This could be used to continue to put pressure on the administration. A priviledged resolution can be brought by any member of Congress for whatever reason. It basically calls for a vote here and now, and can be raised at any time until it is defeated. A member submitting a privileged resolution, memorial or motion proposing impeachment is entitled to recognition for one hour in which to debate it. A member recognized to present a privileged resolution may not be taken from the floor by a motion to refer. So Kucinich can bring it up time and time again to be debated for one hour every night if he chooses. http://www.inetresults.com/impeach/strategy.html