NSA Creates Google-Like Search Engine to Help Other Agencies Access Collected Phone, Email Records
http://www.democracynow.org - A new report by The Intercept news site reveals the National Security Agency is secretly providing troves of data to nearly two...
By: democracynow
Read more:
Americans hesitant to discuss NSA online
Even some topics are too taboo for discussion on the internet. A study released by Pew Research reveals 86 percent of Americans are willing to discuss the National Security Agency and its surveilla...
By: RT America
Continue reading here:
NSA SWITCHING FACEBOOK HOME PAGE TO DUPLICATE HOME PAGE TO FILTER/CONTAIN TARGETS COMMUNICATIONS ETC
GO TO 1:50 SECONDS OF THIS VIDEO AND WATCH THE NSA CAUSE MY FACEBOOK HOME PAGE TO RELOAD TWICE. IT IS A DUPLICATE ALTERED FACEBOOK HOME PAGE SO THAT ALL THE COMMUNICATIONS ARE CONTAINED...
By: Bryan Tew
Read the rest here:
9/11 Free Fall 8/28/14: William Binney Former NSA Technical Director
William Binney is a former highly placed intelligence official with the United States National Security Agency (NSA) who, after more than 30 years of service, resigned in 2001 and became a...
By: Free Fall
Here is the original post:
9/11 Free Fall 8/28/14: William Binney Former NSA Technical Director - Video
Partido de Voleibol Clasificacin ICH v/s NSA 30/08/2014 a las 17:15 hrs.
Partido de Voleibol Clasificacin ICH v/s NSA.
By: Juegos Nacionales Maristas Chile
See the original post:
Partido de Voleibol Clasificacin ICH v/s NSA 30/08/2014 a las 17:15 hrs. - Video
Partido de Basquetbol Clasificacin ISM v/s NSA 30/08/2014 a las 16:00 hrs.
Partido de Basquetbol Clasificacin ISM v/s NSA.
By: Juegos Nacionales Maristas Chile
The rest is here:
Partido de Basquetbol Clasificacin ISM v/s NSA 30/08/2014 a las 16:00 hrs. - Video
Wildstein takes the 5th
David Wildstein invokes his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions before a state Assembly committee investigating the lanes closures at the GWB.
By: NorthJersey
Read more from the original source:
Fifth Amendment: Protection against abuse of government authorityWhat is the Fifth Amendment?No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensationThe Fifth Amendment Defined:The Fifth Amendment stems from English Common Law and traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215.The Fifth Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 5th Amendment:The Fifth Amendment is asserted in any proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, judicial, investigatory, or adjudicatory. The Fifth Amendment protects against all disclosures where the witness reasonably believes the evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution and can lead to the spawning of other evidence that might be used against the individual.The Fifth Amendment guarantees an American individual the right to trial by Grand Jury for specific crimes, the right not to be tried and subsequently punished more than once for the same crime, the right to be tried with only due process of the law and the right to be awarded fair compensation for any property seized by the government for public use.The Fifth Amendment also guarantees the individual the right to refrain from self-incrimination by pleading the fifth to any questions or inquiries that may give way to an additional punishment or the notion of a guilty plea.State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of RightsNew Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article IIMaryland:December 19, 1789; approved allNorth Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved allSouth Carolina: January 19, 1790; approved allNew Hampshire: January 25, 1790; rejected article IIDelaware: January 28, 1790; rejected article INew York: February 27, 1790; rejected article IIPennsylvania: March 10, 1790; rejected article IIRhode Island: June 7, 1790; rejected article IIVermont: November 3, 1791; approved allVirginia: December 15, 1791; approved all
Fifth Amendment: Protection against abuse of government authorityWhat is the Fifth Amendment? No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
The Fifth Amendment Defined:
The Fifth Amendment stems from English Common Law and traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215.
The Fifth Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.
The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 5th Amendment: The Fifth Amendment is asserted in any proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, judicial, investigatory, or adjudicatory. The Fifth Amendment protects against all disclosures where the witness reasonably believes the evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution and can lead to the spawning of other evidence that might be used against the individual.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees an American individual the right to trial by Grand Jury for specific crimes, the right not to be tried and subsequently punished more than once for the same crime, the right to be tried with only due process of the law and the right to be awarded fair compensation for any property seized by the government for public use.
The Fifth Amendment also guarantees the individual the right to refrain from self-incrimination by pleading the fifth to any questions or inquiries that may give way to an additional punishment or the notion of a guilty plea.State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of Rights New Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article II
Maryland:December 19, 1789; approved all
North Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved all
More:
From News Tribune staff and AP wire reports
Thursday, August 28, 2014
A Missouri ballot measure that would allow allegations of past actions to be used against people facing child sexual abuse charges could lead to more wrongful convictions of the falsely accused, a prominent defense attorney said Wednesday.
The proposed constitutional amendment is backed by prosecutors, sheriffs and police chiefs groups.
It would allow past criminal acts even alleged crimes that didnt result in convictions to be used to corroborate victim testimony or demonstrate a defendants propensity to commit such crimes when people face sex-related charges involving victims younger than 18. However, the evidences admissibility is at the judges discretion, meaning if the judge doesnt think it is relevant to the matter being tried then it can not be used.
Currently the previous acts of defendants cannot be presented as evidence to a jury unless they waive their Fifth Amendment rights and testify. The past allegations can also be taken into consideration by judges during sentencing hearings after the defendant has been found guilty.
If approved by Missouri voters in November, Constitutional Amendment 2 could make it more difficult for defendants to persuade juries and judges of their innocence, said Kim Benjamin, a Belton attorney who is the past president of the Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Youre now defending your entire life, your entire reputation, rather than this one act, she said. It causes a tremendous risk for more people to be wrongly convicted.
One of Benjamins most prominent clients was Burrell Mohler Sr., the patriarch of a western Missouri family who was accused along with his four sons of sexually abusing young relatives over many years. The charges ultimately were dropped in March 2012, after Mohler had spent more than two years in jail while awaiting trial.
The proposal, which was referred to the ballot by the Legislature in 2013, is a backlash against a December 2007 Missouri Supreme Court decision of State v. Ellison that struck down a state law allowing evidence of past sexual crimes to be used against people facing new sex-related charges involving victims younger than 14. Before Ellison, the Legislature had twice tried to establish legislation that would make the states statues regarding these issues mimic federal law, but both attempts were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
View post:
Sexual abuse measure could lead to wrongful convictions, attorneys say
Lonestar1776 at Illegal Checkpoint 80 Miles Inside Border - Standing UP Pushing Back! pt 2/2
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially...
By: Imagine369hz
Visit link:
For The Second Amendment
Government. -All audio/images used are not owned by me, and belong to their rightful owners.
By: Kaveh Chong
Continue reading here:
Assemblyman Brian Jones Speaks on the Second Amendment - Senate Bill 53 Floor Speech
Your Second Amendment Rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
By: Brian Jones
Here is the original post:
Assemblyman Brian Jones Speaks on the Second Amendment - Senate Bill 53 Floor Speech - Video
In 1776, America's Founders came together in Philadelphia to draw up a "Declaration of Independence," ending political ties to Great Britain. Written by Thomas Jefferson, it is the fundamental statement of people`s rights and what government is and from what source it derives its powers:
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.
The Founders were declaring that we are all equal, and that we are defined by rights that we are born with, not given to us by government. Among those rights is the right to pursue happiness--to live our lives as we think best, as long as we respect the right of all other individuals to do the same. The Founders also declared that governments are created by people to secure their rights. Whatever powers government has are not "just" unless they come from us, the people. Read more
More:
A girl killed a gun instructor as he was teaching her to shoot an Uzi at this Arizona outdoor shooting range.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Editor's note: Jay Parini, a poet and novelist, teaches at Middlebury College in Vermont. He has just published "Jesus: The Human Face of God," a biography of Jesus. Follow him on Twitter@JayParini. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
(CNN) -- The gun outrages continue, the latest the shooting of a gun instructor in Arizona by a 9-year-old girl who was taken to the range by her parents so she could shoot an Uzi, an Israeli-made submachine gun.
The question that the whole world asks is this: Why was a 9-year-old girl allowed even to try to shoot a submachine gun?
Jay Parini
I have a further question: Why does anybody not on the front lines of the military in a war zone need to have access to a submachine gun?
It's not as though we haven't had plenty of evidence that this gun thing in America isn't working. Since the ghastly massacre of elementary school children at Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012, by a deranged teenager, as of June there were at least 74 school shootings, on school grounds or in schools themselves. It's commonplace in this country now: A deranged shooter appears, armed to the teeth, out of his mind. Everyone ducks or runs for cover. The shooter proceeds calmly through the building, taking out innocents.
What kind of country have we become? Was this what the Founding Fathers had in mind?
The NRA will scream: The Second Amendment! The Second Amendment! Please be aware that most of what you think you know about the history of this amendment is nonsense. Many good books and articles exist on the subject, all neatly summarized by Saul Cornell a couple of years ago. He wrote: "If the nation truly embraced the Second Amendment as it was originally written, it would be the NRA's worst nightmare."
See original here:
In March 2008 I chatted with a silver-haired law school professor under the marble pillars of the U.S. Supreme Court building. He was very excited. The court was to about hear Heller v. D.C. The case would decide whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to own and carry guns. He had 20 law students with him. He said anxiously, When I put in the paperwork to get seats months ago I didnt know wed get to see one of the last unresolved constitutional questions debated. He said this while looking at a line of people hoping to get seats that went down the block, around a corner and out of sight.
Hours later a mainstream reporter next to me in the press section gasped, Oh no, when Justice Anthony Kennedy hinted that he believed the Second Amendment to be an individual right while asking the governments attorney a question.Months later, when the high court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right from government infringement, the media was paying attention. Many, however, are missing whats happening now. The Second Amendment is having its defining moment in history. The decisions now percolating up to the Supreme Court are deciding what guns the Second Amendment covers, when requirements become infringements and more.
Gun-rights and gun-control groups understand that these court decisions illustrate how much elections matter, as the federal judges making these decisions are nominated by the president and voted on by the senate. However, two recent federal court decisions from judges appointed by former president Bill Clinton show how difficult these decisions can be to handicap.
In one just-decided case, California Senior U.S. District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii found that 10-day waiting periods of Penal Code violate the Second Amendment as applied to people who fall into certain classifications. He found this arbitrary wait time burdens the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. (The decision can be read here.) This court decision orders the California Department of Justice to allow the unobstructed release of guns to those who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a Department of Justice-issued Certificate of Eligibility and already possess at least one firearm known to the state. Basically, it says if someone already legally has a gun in California the state cant make that person wait 10 days for a second gun just because it wants to. If that sounds like common sense to you, youre right, but common sense isnt a given in the courts.
Brandon Combs, a plaintiff in the case who is also director of the executive director of the Calguns Foundation, said the decision clears the way for them to challenge other irrational and unconstitutional gun-control laws. We look forward to doing just that.
United States Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
A flurry of such challenges began right after Heller, led to McDonald v. Chicago (2010) and are still ongoing. In an important example, in February 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry firearms for self-defense in public. The decision came in Peruta v. San Diego County. The majority opinion in Peruta said, We are called upon to decide whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.
The California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation brought the case on behalf of five individuals who were denied the right to carry a handgun by the San Diego sheriff. According to California law, a person applying for their Second Amendment right to carry a concealed handgun must: (1) be a resident of their respective city or county; (2) be of good moral character; (3) have good cause for such a license; and (4) pass a firearms training course. Many rural California counties accept self-defense as good cause for a person to get a license to carry a handgun, but some urban sheriffs and chiefs of police disagreed. In those jurisdictions the few who attain permits had to beg, plead, and show imminent danger to their lives before they could exercise their right to bear arms.
The Ninth Circuit decided 2 to 1 that the restrictive good cause policy of the San Diego County Sheriffs Department was unconstitutional. The majority opinion accepted that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Rather, it is a right subject to traditional restrictions, which themselvesand this is a critical pointtend to show the scope of the right.
The majority decision in Peruta said, Our reading of the Second Amendment is akin to the Seventh Circuits interpretation [in Shepard v. Madigan] and at odds with the approach of the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits. We are unpersuaded by the decisions of the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits for several reasons. First, contrary to the approach in Heller, all three courts declined to undertake a complete historical analysis of the scope and nature of the Second Amendment right outside the home. As a result, they misapprehend both the nature of the Second Amendment right and the implications of state laws that prevent the vast majority of responsible, law-abiding citizens from carrying in public for lawful self-defense purposes.
See more here:
Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBCs Morning Joe more >
Former Florida Rep. Joe Scarborough said Wednesday that the Founding Fathers did not write the Second Amendment to allow children to fire semi-automatic machine guns.
Mr. Scarborough, the Republican co-host of MSNBCs Morning Joe, was responding to the news that a 9-year-old girl lost control of an Uzi at an Arizona shooting range this week and accidentally killed her instructor.
SEE ALSO: Girl, 9, kills firing instructor with Uzi in Arizona range accident
Why are you putting an Uzi in the hands of a 9-year-old girl? It is sick, Mr. Scarborough said. What is wrong with these people? What is wrong with this culture?
NBC reported that shooting range allowed children as young as 8 years old to fire weapons.
I find it hard to believe that our Founding Fathers put together a Second Amendment to give 8-year children the right to fire semi-automatic weapons, and if you think that is what the Constitution of the United States, says you should really go back and read the Second Amendment, Mr. Scarborough said.
Original post:
Joe Scarborough: Second Amendment shouldn't open door for kids to wield Uzis
By Justine McDaniel, Robby Korth and Jessica Boehm August 29
Across the country, a thriving dissatisfaction with the U.S. government is prompting a growing spate of bills in state legislatures aimed at defying federal control over firearms more than 200 during the last decade, a News21 investigation found.
Particularly in Western and Southern states, where individual liberty intersects with increasing skepticism among gun owners, firearms are a political vehicle in efforts to ensure states rights and void U.S. gun laws within their borders. State legislators are attempting to declare that only they have the right to interpret the Second Amendment, a movement that recalls the anti-federal spirit of the Civil War and civil-rights eras.
I think the president and the majority of Congress, both in the House and Senate, are just completely out of touch with how people feel about Second Amendment rights, said Missouri state Sen. Brian Nieves, who has fought for bills to weaken the federal governments authority over firearms in his state.
In Idaho, the Legislature unanimously passed a law to keep any future federal gun measures from being enforced in the state. In Kansas, a law passed last year says federal regulation doesnt apply to guns manufactured in the state. Wyoming, South Dakota and Arizona have had laws protecting firearms freedom from the U.S. government since 2010.
A News21 analysis shows 14 such bills were passed by legislators in 11 states, mainly in Western states, along with Kansas, Tennessee and Alaska. Of those, 11 were signed into law, though one was later struck down in court. In Montana, Missouri and Oklahoma, three others were vetoed.
More than three-quarters of U.S. states have proposed nullification laws since 2008. More than half of those bills have come in the last two years after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. All but three have been introduced since President Barack Obama took office.
Underneath the policy jargon lies a culture of firearms woven into the heritage and politics of states whose histories were shaped by guns.
(The federal government) is diving off into areas unchecked that theyre not supposed to be involved in, said Montana state Rep. Krayton Kerns, who introduced a bill in 2013 to limit the ability of local police to help enforce federal laws. Not only is it our right in state legislatures to do this, its our obligation to do it. Somebodys got to put a whoa on it.
Opponents say its not federal gun regulation thats unconstitutional, but laws to nullify it.
Here is the original post:
GovBeat: In states, a legislative rush to nullify federal gun laws
First Amendment Rights Can Be Terminated
According to this Chicago Police Officer, "Your First Amendment Right can be terminated if you #39;re creating a scene OR whatever". I figured they must have broke the #39;whatever #39; clause, but the...
By: Savas Kenan
See the original post:
Sallyport Shakedown SPRyan821792
Read More at, http://thefreethoughtproject.com/officer-citizen-you-wrong-invoke-rights/ Two videographers were in Jacksonville Florida conducting a First Amendment Audit on Wednesday. They...
By: HONORYOUROATH
Read more from the original source:
Free State Reacts: First Amendment Rights
Fellow students at Lawrence Free State High School react to questions about their rights. Our website: fsfreepressonline.com Follow us! Twitter : @fsfreepres...
By: FS Free Press
See the original post here: