Tag Archive: Law

Josie Outlaw·


Published on Dec 1, 2013

Something you need to consider if you work in law enforcement–a question of life or death that you need to answer, and answer now.

(If you like what you see here, please consider visiting http://www.JOSIEtheOUTLAW.com and helping Josie to keep spreading the message of true freedom.)

Enhanced by Zemanta

Underwater Homeowners Press Conference in front of Richmond City Hall (Photo: ACCE)Using the authority of state government to actually help people has Wall Street bankers in a panic, spurring threats of aggressive legal retaliation against the town of Richmond, California simply for trying to help some of its struggling homeowners.

‘Eminent domain’ has long been a dirty term for housing justice advocates who have seen municipalities invoke public seizure laws to displace residents and communities to make way for highways, shopping malls, and other big dollar projects.

But in Richmond, city officials are using eminent domain to force big banks to stop foreclosing on people’s homes in an innovative new strategy known as ‘Principle Reduction’ aimed at addressing California’s burgeoning housing crisis.

Richmond became the first California city last week to move forward on a plan that has been floated by other California municipalities to ask big bank lenders to sell underwater mortgage loans at a discount to the city (if the owner consents), and seize those homes through eminent domain if the banks refuse. The city has committed to refinancing these homes for owners at their current value, not what is owed.

City officials launched this process by sending letters in late July to 32 banks and other mortgage owners offering to buy 624 underwater mortgages at the price the homes are worth, not what the owners owe.

“After years of waiting on the banks to offer up a more comprehensive fix or the federal government, we’re stepping into the void to make it happen ourselves,” Mayor Gayle McLaughlin said in late July.

Wall Street is furious at the plan and has vowed to sue the municipality, a threat that did not stop Richmond but did slow other California cities in adopting the strategy.

Big banks have been slammed for their damaging mortgage loan policies that target poor and working class people and communities of color with high risk loans, policies that have had a profound impact on Richmond, which has large latino, African American, and low-income communities.

Eminent domain laws also have a painful history in Richmond, but housing justice advocates are hopeful about this new twist on the seizure law.

“For years we have seen cases where eminent domain was used in a harmful way, and it really hurts low-income communities of color,” David Sharples, local director for Contra Costa Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, told Common Dreams. “People here in Richmond talk about when they built the big 580 Freeway, and people had their houses taken and were displaced.”

“But we see this as a way eminent domain is finally being used to help keep families in their homes,” he added. “It is finally a way for it to be used in a good way.”


Enhanced by Zemanta



Opinions  Presented  on  Harvard Law Blogs  by :


Arthur Caplan PhD, Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Langone Medical Center

Mary HollandDirector, Graduate Legal Skills Program Research Scholar

New York University School of Law


Dorit Rubinstein ReissLLB, Ph.D. ,  Professor of Law


With a  dissenting opinion with a Natural Health Point of  view from  : 


Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA)* is part of an international organization dedicated to promoting sustainable health and freedom of choice in healthcare through good science and good law.  Members  of Board of Directors





Liability for Failure to Vaccinate

By Art Caplan

Harvard Law Blogs

Measles are breaking out all over Britain.  Getting fewer headlines is the fact that measles are back in the USA too.  In fact they are in our region.  A mini-epidemic is raging in Brooklyn.  Measles for cripes sake!  The disease that many of us over 60 had as kids that should never occur is back with a vengeance.  The reason for the diseases reappearance is simple—failure to vaccinate.  Maybe it is time to get tough on those whose choices put others at risk.

For decades, there has been a safe, effective vaccine that works exceedingly well against the measles–95% full protection for a kid who has been vaccinated– and nearly equally well at preventing transmission to others.  The more people have been vaccinated the tougher it is for measles to gain a foothold.

NY City health officials have reported 30 cases so far–26 in Borough Park and four more in Williamsburg.  The NY Daily News reports that the consequences of this outbreak have been dire:

“There have been two hospitalizations, a miscarriage and a case of pneumonia as a result of this outbreak,” a Health Department spokeswoman said. “All cases involved adults or children who were not vaccinated due to refusal or delays in vaccination.”

So far the outbreak has been among religious Jews some of whom shun getting the vaccine for their kids out of fear it causes autism Dr. Yu Shia Lin of Maimonides Medical Center in Borough Park told The News.

Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn are not the only ones making poor, dangerous and sometimes fatal choices by avoiding vaccination.  20 people were sickened a few weeks ago in North Carolina when an unvaccinated person came back from India, attended two youth baseball games, and later, developed symptoms of measles having exposed many people.  An infant in Battle Creek, Michigan, whose parents traveled out of the country without vaccinating their child against measles likely exposed others to measles at a pediatric office and subsequently at the emergency room where their measles-infected child was taken.  And Britain is battling an enormous outbreak of measles directly attributable to non-vaccination

Pockets of measles spring up in places where parents choose for one reason or another not to vaccinate and then take an infected child on a bus, to an airport, to daycare, an amusement park, a church or other public places.

Read More Here

Crack Down on Those Who Don’t Vaccinate?: A Response to Art Caplan

By Mary Holland, J.D.

Harvard Law Blogs

Mary Holland is Research Scholar and Director of the Graduate Legal Skills Program at NYU Law School. She has published articles on vaccine law and policy, and is the co-editor of Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health and Our Children (Skyhorse Publishing, 2012). 

Dr. Art Caplan recently posted an editorial, “Liability for Failure to Vaccinate,” on this blog. He argues that those who contract infectious disease should be able to recover damages from unvaccinated people who spread it. If you miss work, or your baby has to go to the hospital because of infectious disease, the unvaccinated person who allegedly caused the harm should pay. Dr. Caplan suggests that such liability is apt because vaccines are safe and effective. He sees no difference between this situation and slip-and-fall or car accidents due to negligence. Arguing that “a tiny minority continue to put the rest of us at risk,” he suggests that public health officials can catch the perpetrators and hold them to account through precise disease tracing.

Dr. Caplan’s assertions to the contrary, vaccines are neither completely safe nor completely effective. In fact, from a legal standpoint, vaccines, like all prescription drugs, are “unavoidably unsafe.”  [See, e.g., Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 562 U.S. __ (2011).‎] Industry considered its liability for vaccine injury so significant that it lobbied Congress for the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, providing doctors and vaccine manufacturers almost blanket liability protection for injuries caused by federally recommended vaccines. [See Authorizing Legislation.] The liability risk was so serious that the federal government created a special tribunal under the 1986 Act, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, to pay the injured. Moreover, the Supreme Court in 2011 decided Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, prohibiting any individual from filing a civil suit for a defectively designed vaccine in any court in the country. Industry’s extraordinary protection against liability for vaccine injury does not correspond with glib statements, like those of Dr. Caplan, that vaccines are safe and effective. On the contrary, the law acknowledges that vaccines cause injury and death to some, with no screening in place to mitigate harm. Dr. Caplan notes that public health officials have “tried to debunk false fears about vaccine safety.” Yet the Institute of Medicine, one the country’s most prestigious health organizations, has acknowledged repeatedly that there are many known vaccine injuries, such as seizures from the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, anaphylaxis from the meningococcal vaccine, and encephalitis from the varicella vaccine. Even more troubling than the identified injuries is the number of potential vaccine adverse effect relationships for which the evidence is not sufficient to either prove or disprove causality. [Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines, Institute of Medicine, Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality (Kathleen Straton et al. eds., 2012).]

Read More Here


No liability for failure to vaccinate? The case has not been made: A Response to Mary Holland

By Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, LLB, Ph.D.

Harvard Law Blogs

Dorit Rubinstein Reiss (LLB, Ph.D.) is Professor of Law at UC Hastings College of the Law. She has published articles on regulation and administrative law and teaches tort law. She is also a member of the Parents Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines and writes the blog Before Vaccines

In a guest post on this blog, Mary Holland, JD, suggests that there are no grounds for imposing tort liability on parents for failure to vaccinate alone, even if it led to another person being infected. Holland’s post is courteous and matter-of-fact, and there are certainly arguments for that position, especially the argument that common law rarely imposes a duty to act. But Ms. Holland did not make that case.

A. Absence of a Common Law duty

Ms. Holland correctly identifies that courts are reluctant to impose a duty to act or rescue. Our legal system accords great weight to personal autonomy and therefore hesitates to require people to act. However, there are exceptions to this general approach, cases in which courts do impose a duty to act, so identifying that this is a duty-to-act situation is the start of a discussion, not the end of it. Duty is a legal determination by the court, not an objective, observable phenomenon independent of human will; “‘duty’ is not sacrosanct in itself, but only an expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection,’ Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728, 730 (Sup. Ct. 1968), quoting Prosser. Various courts have imposed a duty to act on a psychiatrist who knows of a threat a patient poses to others (Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976)); on a host to protect social guests from defects on the premises (Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968)); on friends on a “joint venture” to render assistance when the friend is injured (Farwell v. Keaton, 396 Mich. 281, 240 N.W.2d 217 (1976)). Legislatures, too, may impose a duty to act.

There are several ways to analyze duty. Using the traditional Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968) factors, we balance, among others, “the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.” Out of all these factors, Holland’s analysis focused solely on the burden to the defendant, ignoring all the other considerations.

Holland’s arguments that the duty creates too high a burden are that the duty violates religious freedom – addressed in part B – and that vaccines are unsafe. To show vaccines are unsafe Holland refers to Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 562 U.S. __ (2011), saying the court found vaccines “unavoidably unsafe”; note, however, the majority in that case actually rejected the application of that term to vaccine injuries: “… there is no reason to believe that §300aa–22(b)(1) was invoking it. The comment creates a special category of ‘unavoidably unsafe products,’ while the statute refers to ‘side effects that were unavoidable.’” That the latter uses the adjective “unavoidable” and the former the adverb “unavoidably” does not establish that Congress had comment k (where the “unavoidably unsafe” language originates) in mind. “Unavoidable” is hardly a rarely used word. Nowhere does the majority say or suggest that vaccines carry a particularly high level of risk. The Court actually speaks positively of vaccines’ contribution to public health and sees them as “victims of their own success.”

Holland uses the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) as evidence vaccines are unsafe; if that is our measure of vaccine safety, vaccines are extremely safe. In the 24 years of its operation, since 1989, the program awarded compensation for slightly less than 3300 cases. As calculated elsewhere, this is less than 0.003% of the vaccine administered. The fatalities  – not injuries – from motor vehicle accidents (35,900) and accidents around the home (65,200) were much more numerous in 2009 alone. Children are safer being vaccinated than driven in a car or being home. And Holland completely ignores the benefits from vaccinating, i.e. protection of the defendant’s own children against preventable diseases. Like driving or being at home, vaccines are not completely risk free. But serious harms from vaccines are rare and they provide benefits to the person vaccinated.

Read More Here



The Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) believes “informed choice” is crucial in weighing health-treatment options — especially vaccinations.

As Richard Gale and Gary Null have written: “Vaccines are suspensions of infectious agents used to artificially induce immunity against specific diseases. The aim of vaccination is to mimic the process of naturally occurring infection through artificial means. Theoretically, vaccines produce a mild to moderate episode of infection in the body with only symptomatic, temporary, and slight side effects.”1


Vaccine yes_no

Therefore, ANH-USA:

  • advocates for the freedom of choice to be vaccinated — or not.
  • believes that no one — children, pregnant women, adults, the military, seniors—should be forced to be vaccinated.
  • believes that for individuals to make up their minds about vaccination, they need accurate and impartial information.
  • believes that informed choice is the best way to protect the right to decide about vaccination.

The vaccine industry owns a billion-dollar market but has meager proof of its products’ efficacy or safety. Consumers are entitled to know exactly what is going into their bodies — its benefits and risks — and how safe and how effective that substance is.


There is mounting evidence that many vaccines are unsafe due to harmful ingredients, such as thimerosal (mercury) and aluminum. We at ANH-USA are worried that some inoculations may do more harm than good, and are very concerned about the apparent lack of urgency among federal regulators when vaccinations result in disability or death.

As America’s infant mortality rate and the number of autistic and chronically diseased children rise, those responsible for inoculation schedules (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other organizations that are funded in part by vaccine manufacturers) fail to provide unbiased studies on the probable link between vaccines and illness in children. And yet, federal policy currently encourages — and in many cases requires — that all children receive up to 36 vaccines by the age of 18 months. We believe that parents have the right to refuse compulsory vaccinations and are entitled to make their own informed decisions about which inoculations, if any, they (and their children) receive.

Big Pharma drug companies get over $10 billion per annum from the vaccine industry. It is no surprise, therefore, that companies such as Merck and Eli Lilly are constantly developing new vaccines, fast-tracking them through safety checks, spending little or no time studying the long-term side effects and failing to investigate reports of injury caused by vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies treasure their bottom line above our health and the health of our children.

Why do the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the CDC and other governmental agencies charged with protecting consumers allow drug companies to produce and distribute products that are tested inadequately and are sometimes even deadly?

The answer: Big PHARMA pays off researchers and top officials at the CDC. According to Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind.: “They routinely allow scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on intellectual advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines.” Dr. Sam Katz, a CDC committee chair, was a paid consultant for most of the major vaccine makers and was also part of the team that developed the measles vaccine. Dr. Neal Halsey, another CDC committee member, worked as a researcher for the vaccine companies and also received honoraria from Abbot Labs for his research on the hepatitis B vaccine.

What’s worse is that the drug companies then lobby these same agencies to make their vaccine compulsory. For example, in 2007, lobbyists for Merck tried to get its Gardasil vaccine mandated for sixth-grade girls in every state, despite 15,000 adverse-event reports, 3,000 injuries, 48 deaths and speculation that its long-term effects could include infertility.

The presence of thimerosal in vaccines is also troubling. Although it has been removed from some vaccines, this deadly substance (which is 49.6 percent mercury by weight) still remains in others, including the flu shot. During the 1990s, after 11 more vaccines were added to the children’s immunization schedule, 70 million children were inoculated with vaccines containing thimerosal. At the same time, autism rates skyrocketed.

Read More  Here



Image source


Friday, 17 May 2013 09:22 PM


  • 0
Sheriffs of 54 Colorado counties sued Governor John Hickenlooper, challenging recently enacted state laws that ban ammunition magazines holding more than 15 rounds and require background checks for gun sales and loans.

The sheriffs, in a complaint filed today in federal court in Denver, said the ammunition law bans most magazines of any size in an attempt to prohibit those that can be converted to hold more than 15 rounds. They also alleged that compliance with the background checks will be practically impossible.

The effect of the ammunition law’s “various provisions is the widespread ban on functional firearms,” according to the complaint. “The prohibition of so many box and tube magazines of any size, and the prohibition of magazines greater than 15 rounds, directly and gravely harm the ability of law-abiding citizens to use firearms for lawful purposes, especially self- defense.”

The lawsuit is based on claims under the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms and due process.

Lawmakers in Colorado, New York, Connecticut and Maryland passed laws limiting firearms ownership after 20 children and six educators were shot to death Dec. 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.


Read Full Article Here

Image Source


Posted by

mainstreamDay after day, the media pounds out a relentless drumbeat against nullification.

Pundits, commentators and so-called legal experts demonize it as unconstitutional, villainize it as racist and trivialize it with slurs like “wacky” and “kookie.”

But while the political class continues to arrogantly ridicule Madison and Jefferson’s principles, everyday Americans embrace them in increasing numbers.

A Rasmussen poll released Monday indicates that nullification is growing more and more popular in mainstream America.   Pollsters found 38  percent support states taking actions to “block” federal acts that restrict the right to keep and bear arms.  Less than half (45 percent) oppose blocking these unconstitutional federal acts.

Even more revealing: more people than not approve of nullification in general.

“On the general question of ‘nullification,’ 44 percent believe states should have the right to block any federal laws they disagree with on legal grounds. Thirty-six percent disagree and 20 are undecided,” pollsters said.

Digging into the numbers, we find even broader support for nullification where it really counts – on Main Street.

A majority of everyday politically engaged Americans support the general principle of nullification. According to the Rasmussen poll, 52 percent of mainstream voters think states should have the right to block any federal laws they disagree with on legal grounds.

Think about it. Even enduring constant demonization from the mainstream media and the political elite, most average American voters approve of nullification efforts.


“People are finally starting to understand and accept the concept of decentralization. Our message is mainstream now and we have hard data to prove it,” Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center state chapter coordinator Lesley Swann said.

So, where does the vast majority of opposition to nullification come from?

The political class.

You know, the guys calling it “ludicrous” and “demented.”

Seventy-four percent of those polled identifying with the political class oppose nullification. Of course, most of those folks don’t even think anything warrants nullifying. A whopping 80 percent of the political class indicated they think the government operates within constitutional limits. A majority (56 percent) of mainstream voters disagree with their assessment.

Note the term used: block. In other words, a majority of everyday Americans believe states can interpose (verb; be an obstacle to, BLOCK, break into, come between, force in, hinder, impede, infiltrate, infringe, inject, insert, intercalate, intercede, intercept, interfere, interject, intermeddle, intermediate, interrupt, intervene, introduce, intrude, mediate, obstruct, obtrude, parenthesize, penetrate, place between, prevent, put in, stand in the way, thrust in) to stop unconstitutional federal act.

Of course, James Madison made that case more than 200 years ago.




Rep. Krause, Matt

member image

by: Rep. Krause, Matt


AUSTIN, TEXAS – Today, Rep. Matt Krause passed H.B. 928 on its third and final reading out of the Texas House of Representatives. H.B. 928 is the first bill Rep. Krause has successfully guided out of the chamber in his first term in office.

“There has been a lot of discussion on firearms and our rights as Americans in the wake of the recent mass killings in Colorado and Connecticut,” said Rep. Matt Krause. “H.B. 928 simply ensures that Texas will frame the discussion on these issues and that we will not aid the federal government in enforcing unnecessarily restrictive or punitive measures designed to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.”

H.B. 928 would establish a new cooperative framework between Texas and the federal government solely as it relates to firearms. The bill declares that no state resources (i.e. law enforcement or any state or local agency) can be utilized for the enforcement of federal firearm regulations that do not also exist in state law. The bill also prohibits state resources from being deputized by the federal government for the express purpose of enforcing federal firearm regulations.

“My bill completely respects the federal government’s right and ability to make and enforce its own laws,” continued Rep. Krause. “Federal law is the supreme law of the land and H.B. 928 does nothing to refute that; however, my bill does make it clear that where federal laws do not align with state laws, Texas will not spend its resources and time enforcing those laws for them. The FBI or ATF is more than welcome to come to Texas and enforce those laws in which the federal government has overstepped the state, but our local and state tax dollars won’t be helping them.”
H.B. 928 instructs our state resources on their conduct while respecting the federal government’s ability and right to create and enforce its own laws.

“We love to call H.B. 928 the ‘Come and Take It’ bill, because it truly encompasses that mentality. Critics who claim that its ‘unconstitutional’ or wrongfully invoke ‘nullification’ are simply scared at how simple it is for a state to lawfully and meaningfully assert its sovereignty on an important issue such as the 2nd Amendment,” said Rep. Matt Krause.

Elliott Griffin
(512) 463-0562

Contact Info

Capitol Address:
District Address:
Room E1.424, Capitol Extension
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0562
(512) 463-2053 Fax

Texas’ Firearm Protection Act: Fact and Fiction

Posted by

The Texas House recently passed multiple gun measures designed to protect Texans from undesired, if not unconstitutional, federal gun laws. Two bills related to federal gun laws, HB 1076 and HB 928, are proceeding and at the time of this writing HB 1076 has passed the final vote in the Texas House, 100-47 and HB 928 has passed as well, 102-31. The bills seek to deny state and local resources for enforcement of federal gun laws and in support of this deny funding to state and local officials that do enforce federal gun laws.

Unfortunately, there is a wealth of misinformation published that obscures the legitimacy of this legislation. For instance, the  Dallas Morning News makes numerous claims inconsistent with facts.

Key statements made in this article are incorrect and mislead the reader regarding the content and legitimacy of the bill’s language. Starting in the third paragraph, Ms. Hoppe begins her summary of a “proposal to nullify new federal gun control laws.”. This is in regards to Steve Toth’s HB 1076.

Ms. Hoppe states: “Those gun laws not already on the books in Texas couldn’t be enforced here under the sweeping and unadjudicated argument that they wouldn’t be constitutional under the Second Amendment.”

It is true that the legislation would reject local enforcement of federal laws. That is the point of the legislation in general. In contrast to the implication, it is very workable in practice as state laws would be put in place as needed. This allows the Texas legislature to draft gun laws that are consistent with the Texas Constitution.

However, Ms. Hoppe’s claim that the legislation challenges the constitutionality of any federal law is false. No such argument is being made regarding the Second Amendment. In HB 1076, Texas is merely refusing to participate in the local enforcement of federal gun laws. In fact, the constitutionality of the gun laws is neither challenged nor validated. They simply deny resources and manpower to enforcement. The Constitutionality of this bill from the federal perspective is clear.  In Printz v. U.S., a 1997 Supreme Court case, Scalia rejected federal comandeering of state and local officers regardless of the constitutionality of the federal law. In other words, the federal government cannot, in any case, force states to uphold federal laws.

Ms. Hoppe states: “And for those cities or counties that tried to enforce a new federal gun law, their entities would lose any state grant money.”


Next, Ms. Hoppe states: “Supporters of the bill said they worked with the attorney general’s office in shaping the so-called Firearms Protection Act. But other lawmakers — all of them Democrats — said the bill ignored the constitution, especially the supremacy clause that establishes federal laws override state ones.”

The supremacy clause is irrelevant in this case since there is no challenge to any specific federal gun laws. It’s just not part of the bill. However, it is worth pointing out the the suggestion made here, that federal law always trumps state law, is false as well. The supremacy clause is a not a blank check on power, it only applies to laws made in pursuance of the enumerated powers of the Constitution.  Texas State Representative James White posted this to Facebook regarding the general misinterpretation of the Supremacy Clause:

Read Full Article Here

Posted by

Today, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback sent a letter in response to Eric Holder’s direct threat against the state for its new law, the 2nd Amendment Protection Act.  It reads, in part:

The State of Kansas is in receipt of your letter in which you place Kansas on notice regarding the view of the Obama Administration concerning the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act.

This first sentence of Brownback’s letter is the most important. Holder’s letter took the position that the new Kansas law is unconstitutional – without question. And because of Holder’s view that he is the decider of all that is constitutional or not in this country, he threatened the state – and thus the People – of Kansas.

Brownback showed quite a bit of savvy with that sentence. He absolutely brushed off Holder by pointing out that his letter only represented “the view of the Obama Administration…”

Just because Eric Holder claims that the Kansas law is unconstitutional, doesn’t make it so. And Holder’s claim that he had no idea about “fast and furious” probably doesn’t make that so either.

Sam Brownback did a great service to the People of Kansas by reminding them that Holder is just sharing his opinion.

He also noted that the Kansas nullification law comes from the source of political power to which no American government is above – the People themselves.

“The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will.”

Eric Holder doesn’t get to tell the People what THEIR constitution means. It’s the other way around.

Read the full statement below. Take action in support of Kansas – details here:

Sam Brownback responds to Eric Holder over 2nd Amendment Protection Act by Tenth Amendment Center

Read More Here

Caution Now  Entering The Twilight Zone ………….

Caution Now  Entering the Twilight Zone photo TwilightZonePropagandaPoster_zps97e51d83.jpg

There  is  quite a  big  difference  between  presenting  evidence  that  is  pertinent  to the  case.  Evidence  that  might   give  some  clue  as  to the  reasoning  behind  such an act.  Now  I  may  be  way  off  base  here  ,  but  what in the  hell  does   this  woman  having  been arrested  for  shoplifting  have anything to do with what  her  sons  are  accused  of  doing?

Immigrants are not  the only  ones  who may  be  guilty  of  shoplifting….Plenty  of  American  born   people that  have never  even  been to  another  country   much less be  involved with  a terrorist  plot are  arrested on a  daily  basis   for  shoplifting  from  Stores  all over  America. 

So  what   the  hell is the  point  of  this?  

Haven’t  these  people  been  through  enough? 

Last  I checked   even if their  sons  are   guilty it  does not  make  them   guilty  by  association. 

Or  will they  also  be   treated  as  enemy  combatants?

And  then  we  have these  details that are  being  “reported” here.  Somewhat  strange  and  begging t he   questions  why  and  what  for  …..at  least  in  my  mind.

Tamerlan reportedly had a bomb strapped to his chest when he was killed while he and his brother robbed a 7-Eleven, tried to steal an SUV and threw explosives at police officers.

They used the carjacking victim’s debit car to withdraw $800 from an ATM.

OK……  If  they  robbed the  7Eleven   why  did  they  take the  800  out of the  carjacking  victims account?

If they had  planned this  would it  not  stand to  reason that  they  would  have prepared  a  getaway?  Supposedly  these  were  two  very  smart  guys. 

They  didn’t  have  an  escape  plan? 

It  was  obvious  this  was  not a  suicide  bombing  otherwise   they  would  both  be  dead .  So  we  know  it  wasn’t  the typical  Jihad suicide  bomb  deal.  So  not  typical  and   not very  well planned  out.  It  seems


If he  had a  bomb  strapped  to  his  chest   why  not say  he was  giving  himself  in and   detonate  when there  were  enough  cops  close  enough  to  take  out ?

Or just  take  himself  out  so  he  could not  be taken  alive?  I  mean  it’s  not like he  knew  he  was   going to get  away  by  some  miracle  the  cops  were  just  going  to  walk away  and  leave  him  be,  right ?

All actions  would indicate  he  wanted to  live or  so it  seems.

Does  that  seem  like the  type  of plan  two  highly intelligent guys  would come  up  with? 

Knowing  they  were  not  going  to  kill themselves in the  explosion,  having  no  escape  plan  and  hoping  that the  oldest brother’s  Facebook  messages to  friends  that  they  stay  safe  would  throw  people  off  their trail? 

The  entire  Nation  witnessed  on   TV  the  manhunt  for  Chris  Dorner , they  would have  seen it  just  like the  rest  of  us  did.  The extent  to  which  law  enforcement  went ,  the  amount of  manpower  used. 

We are  told  that  according to  cryptic  messages  left  on   Facebook accounts  that  this  was  planned for  a very  long time.  We  are  also  expected  to  believe  that  while  they  were  planning  this  bombing  for  months they  never once  considered  planning for their  escape  and the  fact  that they  would need  money?

Months  of planning   came  down  to  robbing a  7 Eleven to  get  money  to  what –  get  out of the  country ?  WOW!

Really  ?

As  with   Aurora Colorado, Sandy Hook and  Chris  Dorner there   seems to  be  more  questions  than  answers  to the  official reports.  I  don’t have  any  answers , only  more   questions.  This is becoming  a  very  disturbing  trend.

One  wonders  if   next  we  will be  told  there  were actually  mentally  unstable ,  under  psychiatric  care  and the influence  of  psychotropic  drugs…….

~Desert Rose~


Mother of Boston bombing suspects arrested last year for ‘stealing $1,600 worth of clothes from Lord & Taylor’

  • Mom charged in June 2012 for shoplifting from the upscale department store
  • Her sons were caught on CCTV from a different Lord & Taylor along the marathon route
  • Tamerlan, 26, was killed Thursday night after shootout with law enforcement
  • Dzhokhar is still on the run and considered armed and very dangerous

By Daily Mail Reporter


The mother of the two Chechnyan brothers suspected of setting off two bombs at the Boston Marathon was arrested last year for allegedly stealing $1,600 worth of clothes from an upscale department store.

Zubeidat K. Tsarnaeva, 45, was charged with two counts of malicious/wanton damage and defacement to property after allegedly swiping the merchandise from a Lord & Taylor in Natick, Mass. in June 2012.

She also spoke today to proclaim that her son’s didn’t plant the bombs and that they are ”100 per cent innocent.’

Scroll down for video

Zubeidat K. Tsarnaeva

Zubeidat K. Tsarnaeva, mother of the terrorist suspect brothers Dzokhar and Tamerlan, said her sons’ are ‘100 per cent innocent’


Zubeidat K. Tsarnaeva’s two sons have been accused of planting the two bombs that exploded at the Boston Marathon on Monday. She was arrested last year for allegedly shoplifting from a Lord & Taylor

Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev is still on the loose after being identified as one of the Boston Marathon bombers

Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev is still on the loose after being identified as one of the Boston Marathon bombers


Tamerlan Tsarnaev attended Bunker Hill Community College and was studying to become an engineer but took a year off to pursue boxing. He is a two-time Golden Glove champion


It’s a set-up: Mother of Boston bomb suspects speaks out

‘This is a set up, my son would never ever carry out such terror attack,’ she said Friday.

She went on to say: ‘FBI knew everything what my son was doing, told me he was serious leader, that they were afraid of him.’

Mrs Tsarnaeva went on to say that Dzhokhar was raised in the US and insisted that ‘no one ever talked about terror’ in their house.

She stole $1,624 in women’s clothes, according to a Patch.com story.

Her sons allegedly left two bombs, packed with ball bearings and other materials, near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday.

The terror attack left three dead and 183 injured.

They were captured on CCTV by a different Lord & Taylor store on Boylston Street.

The FBI released those CCTV images of the two brothers Thursday evening and later that night
Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, was killed in a shootout with law enforcement in Watertown, Mass.

A police officer was shot dead near the campus for Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Her other son, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, is still on the run and considered by authorities to be armed and extremely dangerous.


Law enforcement gather near the scene of the shootout that killed Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev late Thursday night

Tamerlan reportedly had a bomb strapped to his chest when he was killed while he and his brother robbed a 7-Eleven, tried to steal an SUV and threw explosives at police officers.

They used the carjacking victim’s debit car to withdraw $800 from an ATM.

The entire city of Boston is on lock down with residents warned to stay indoors, public transport shut down and a no-fly zone around the city.

A transit police officer was critically wounded in the exchange of gunfire with the suspects.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Duke Professor Suggests Simple Solution to Counter “Ag-Gag” Laws 

Activist Post

The old maxim that if you knew how sausage was made you would never eat it has been highlighted by many undercover videos taken by employees of factory farming operations and activists alike.

In response, the industry has increasingly lobbied for “Ag-Gag” laws that criminalize whistleblowing and undercover investigations, essentially rendering animal cruelty completely invisible.

Arguably, animal rights activists are the most tenacious; so much so, that they have routinely been labeled anarchists and terrorists by various governmental organizations the world over. Yet, beyond the general demonization campaign of anyone who professes sympathy for the proven suffering of factory farm animals, we arrive at much the same question asked by those who wish to know if their food has been genetically modified — Do consumers have the right to independently investigate the origin and production of the food they choose (and pay) to ingest?

The Big Ag lobby has countered investigations into animal cruelty and health hazards at industrial farm facilities with issues rooted in contractual agreements that bind employees to certain conduct, and the issue of private property rights.

Karen De Coster summarized the legal and moral issues very well when she stated:

Indeed, there is a libertarian case to be made for private property rights, and thus the owners of property banning the filming of their business matters – right or wrong – within the confines of their property lines. This is something the public has a tough time dealing with because the emotional issues (animal abuse, disease, and degrading quality food) override reason in terms of understanding property rights and non-aggression against those rights. For instance, these same people would never allow for “whistleblowers” to enter their home property to film so-called “inappropriate” goings-on within their home. But while it is libertarian, and perfectly reasonable, for a private food producer to disallow video and photography on private property, there is a larger, moral issue here. (source)

We initially reported on new legislation in early 2011, and said the following in regards to both morality and the clear health impacts of being kept in the dark:

Strangely, consumers may actually want to know if their meat is being electrocuted, beaten, or ground up alive as some recent videos have exposed. Consumers may also want to know what the animals eat, if they ever see sunlight, if they are injected with chemicals, or even genetically cloned. Since the FDA does little to shine light on these and other concerns, activists have been the only source of this information. Now, they will face jail time for doing so if this measure passes. (source, with some horrific videos)

Read Full Article Here

Execution  style killings of  law enforcement  officers in  3 states  ( Texas, Colorado and  West  Virginia) in   one month

Sheriff Murdered in W.Va. Town Had Cracked Down on Drugs

April 4, 2013

JOHN RABY and VICKI SMITH, Associated Press

sheriffThis undated photo shows Mingo County Sheriff Eugene Crum, who was gunned down Wednesday, April 3, 2013 in the spot where he usually parked and ate lunch in Williamson, W.Va. (AP Photo/Williamson Daily News)

WILLIAMSON, W.Va. (AP) – Just months before being gunned down, Sheriff Eugene Crum made good on a campaign promise to do what many in law enforcement have attempted for years in southern West Virginia — crack down on drugs, especially the illegal sale of prescription pills.

In three months and two days on the job, he’d already helped indict dozens of suspected drug dealers through Mingo County’s new Operation Zero Tolerance. Authorities haven’t said whether that crusade was related to his shooting death at mid-day on a Williamson street Wednesday, but residents and county officials suspect it.

Crum’s team has targeted people “who spread the disease of addiction among our residents,” said County Commission President John Mark Hubbard.

Resident Jerry Cline stood near the site of the slaying hours later, the drug crackdown clearly at the forefront of his thoughts.

“He told them right before he got in as sheriff, `If you’re dealing drugs, I’m coming after you. I’m cleaning this town up,'” Cline said. “… He got out just to do one thing, and that’s to clean this town up. That’s all that man tried to do.”

Authorities were mum on any motive and the connection between Crum and their suspect, 37-year-old Tennis Melvin Maynard, and did not announce what charges he would face. A Mingo deputy shot and wounded Maynard after a chase and after the suspect pulled a weapon, state police said.

At a news conference hours after the killing, officials mourned the fallen sheriff, but State Police Capt. David Nelson and others released few details on what happened blocks away from the county courthouse in the small town or later with the suspect.

“We were and we are proud of him and his service,” Hubbard said. “To say Eugene will be missed is a vast understatement.”

A bouquet of red roses with a red ribbon was fastened to a guardrail above the parking lot where the shooting happened.

Though there is no indication of any connection, Crum’s killing comes on the heels of a Texas district attorney and his wife being shot to death in their home over the weekend, and just weeks after Colorado’s corrections director also was gunned down at his home. Those bold killings and others have led authorities to propose more protection for law enforcers.

Crum was killed in the same place where he parked his car most days to eat lunch, near the site of a former pharmacy known for illegally distributing pills, a “pill mill” the sheriff wanted to be sure remained shut, said Delegate Harry Keith White, who campaigned with Crum last year.

“I think anybody you ask would tell you he was a great guy, always with a positive attitude, always trying to help people,” White said. “It’s just a sad, sad day for Mingo County and the state of West Virginia.”

Read Full Article Here