Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
September 01, 2014, 03:33:25 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 71   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Police State - Official Thread  (Read 74453 times)
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3533


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #900 on: December 27, 2012, 08:59:45 PM »

Jack, the question is loaded to a certain extent. I don't agree they are widely despised and distrusted.

I'm glad you have faith in the idea that you, being a cop, could possibly have an accurate view of such things.

Quote
I've seen local polls that back me up.

Not so glad you have such faith in media.  I could cast a seemingly fair poll that would give a brutal reflection of the police.

Quote
I'd be living in a dream world if I wasn't aware that there are people that despise and distrust the police. In my opinion, some of them have reason to feel that way because of personal experiences they have had. When I was 16 I had a horrible experience with a small town police department that disgusted me. Completely unprofessional and abusive.  Then there are those who have grown up in a culture that distrusts and hates police, and while they have no personal experience one way or the other, they hate the police. Then there are people wired to dislike authority of any kind. Parents, police, teachers, government etc. Not a thing you can do to change their minds.

I absolutely disagree.  We can face the fact that we're talking about ghetto residents (to say poor, whatever the race), who will almost certainly become rightly conditioned to have distrust for the police.  A person growing up in the 'hood--no matter whether he is inclined to commit crimes, whether or not there is any valid evidence to suggest that he has committed a crime relative to a particular interaction with the police--will have his rights violated as a matter of routine.  It is cut, dry, and plain as day to those who are forced to experience it.  And if a person thinks that such things will not erode respect for the law, to witness the supposed enforcers of the law routinely and completely disregard the law, that person should be considered as delusional.

As a cop, if you can keep this fact close to your heart, you'll be ahead of the game. 

Quote
I don't think the police did themselves any favors over the last 50 yrs as far as building trust. It seems everytime we take a step foward, some moron with a badge sets up back 10 yrs.

What are your thoughts on it?

Respect, A007.  You're a communicator, which tells me you give a shit.  The world needs more of that.
Report to moderator   Logged

Agnostic007
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3768



« Reply #901 on: December 28, 2012, 07:42:57 AM »


I'm glad you have faith in the idea that you, being a cop, could possibly have an accurate view of such things.

Not so glad you have such faith in media.  I could cast a seemingly fair poll that would give a brutal reflection of the police.

I absolutely disagree.  We can face the fact that we're talking about ghetto residents (to say poor, whatever the race), who will almost certainly become rightly conditioned to have distrust for the police.  A person growing up in the 'hood--no matter whether he is inclined to commit crimes, whether or not there is any valid evidence to suggest that he has committed a crime relative to a particular interaction with the police--will have his rights violated as a matter of routine.  It is cut, dry, and plain as day to those who are forced to experience it.  And if a person thinks that such things will not erode respect for the law, to witness the supposed enforcers of the law routinely and completely disregard the law, that person should be considered as delusional.

As a cop, if you can keep this fact close to your heart, you'll be ahead of the game. 

Respect, A007.  You're a communicator, which tells me you give a shit.  The world needs more of that.

Thanks Jack, appreciate that. Perception is reality is a cliche' but in this business, it is closer to the truth than false. I'm looking at it from this side, and have observed first hand a vast majority of good officers, handling very volatile situations with very good outcomes for 30 yrs. 10 in the military and 20 in the civilian sector. I've watched this department evolve over the years from an us against them mentality to a more open, community oriented ideal. I'm glad it's moving in this direction and I believe I was always well ahead of the curve in fostering a "what can I do for you?" attitude verses "What do you want?" one. At 20 yrs here, part of my initial talk with any new subordinate or detail is about customer service and the reason we are here.
But you're right. I'm not in the hood 24/7 though most of my patrol career was spent there and I fostered a lot of good relationships, I'm sure I dropped the ball too. I recently read an interesting book called Corruption of the Noble Cause where the author says it's almost inevitable that police will cross the line, not because they are wanting to do bad, but because they want to get the bad guys off the street. So they rationalize inappropriate behavior or breaking rules or laws for the greater good. I gained a lot of insight into the motivation of new officers and we are aiming our focus on training them from the get go that it's not acceptable to blur the lines in order to catch the bad guy. (Not talking about outright criminal behavior, that's a seperate animal). I've always felt I would rather lose a case than win it by cheating. Not to make light of it, but it is kind of a game. The cops have their rules and the bad guys have theirs so to speak. If they win, there is always next time. It's not worth losing your credibility over.
I don't think we'll ever have police forces without any bad apples, or over zealous cops who don't understand the big picture, but it is certainly something the good cops should strive for and do their part to weed out the bad ones as soon as they sprout.       
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8381


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #902 on: December 28, 2012, 07:46:19 AM »

You say that now.... but at 1am, on a dark road after you've had a few drinks, I'm sure it's a different story  Wink

I can't disagree w that. 

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8381


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #903 on: December 28, 2012, 08:30:50 AM »

 Cheesy


* 557296_579145958769071_1541741540_n.jpg (44.29 KB, 480x347 - viewed 50 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3533


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #904 on: December 28, 2012, 11:48:19 AM »

Thanks Jack, appreciate that. Perception is reality is a cliche' but in this business, it is closer to the truth than false. I'm looking at it from this side, and have observed first hand a vast majority of good officers, handling very volatile situations with very good outcomes for 30 yrs. 10 in the military and 20 in the civilian sector. I've watched this department evolve over the years from an us against them mentality to a more open, community oriented ideal. I'm glad it's moving in this direction and I believe I was always well ahead of the curve in fostering a "what can I do for you?" attitude verses "What do you want?" one. At 20 yrs here, part of my initial talk with any new subordinate or detail is about customer service and the reason we are here.
But you're right. I'm not in the hood 24/7 though most of my patrol career was spent there and I fostered a lot of good relationships, I'm sure I dropped the ball too. I recently read an interesting book called Corruption of the Noble Cause where the author says it's almost inevitable that police will cross the line, not because they are wanting to do bad, but because they want to get the bad guys off the street. So they rationalize inappropriate behavior or breaking rules or laws for the greater good. I gained a lot of insight into the motivation of new officers and we are aiming our focus on training them from the get go that it's not acceptable to blur the lines in order to catch the bad guy. (Not talking about outright criminal behavior, that's a seperate animal). I've always felt I would rather lose a case than win it by cheating. Not to make light of it, but it is kind of a game. The cops have their rules and the bad guys have theirs so to speak. If they win, there is always next time. It's not worth losing your credibility over.
I don't think we'll ever have police forces without any bad apples, or over zealous cops who don't understand the big picture, but it is certainly something the good cops should strive for and do their part to weed out the bad ones as soon as they sprout.       

Could this be merely providing a convenient excuse for allowing the existence of what could only be described as a Police State?  Because that's what it sounds like.
Report to moderator   Logged

Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8381


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #905 on: December 28, 2012, 01:18:54 PM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/fisa-warrantless-wiretapping-senate_n_2376039.html


Nice - I'm sure O-Choom will sign off on this too. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3768



« Reply #906 on: December 28, 2012, 01:49:54 PM »

Could this be merely providing a convenient excuse for allowing the existence of what could only be described as a Police State?  Because that's what it sounds like.

Not sure. I enjoyed the book, but wasn't sold on 100% of his assumptions or conclusions. I read the book along with several other officers and some disagreed more than others based on their experience. I think it is more accurate to say it is a concern, and a possibility if left unchecked by supervisors, FTO's and Senior officers. I don't think we're at the point where we throw up our hands and say "Oh well, it is what it is". I believe that many departments that have extensive academy and training, that are evolving to the professional side of policing are reducing the perception of "police state" little by little. We have units designed to work soley with the community on short and long term problem solving within their neighborhoods. We are trying to foster an atmosphere of empowering the citizens to be part of the solution and assisting them rather than shoving our ideas for a solution down their throats. But I know there are a lot of departments that don't have the luxury and perhaps less desire to address things that way. We were that department 15 yrs ago. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3533


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #907 on: December 28, 2012, 02:38:08 PM »

Not sure. I enjoyed the book, but wasn't sold on 100% of his assumptions or conclusions. I read the book along with several other officers and some disagreed more than others based on their experience. I think it is more accurate to say it is a concern, and a possibility if left unchecked by supervisors, FTO's and Senior officers. I don't think we're at the point where we throw up our hands and say "Oh well, it is what it is". I believe that many departments that have extensive academy and training, that are evolving to the professional side of policing are reducing the perception of "police state" little by little. We have units designed to work soley with the community on short and long term problem solving within their neighborhoods. We are trying to foster an atmosphere of empowering the citizens to be part of the solution and assisting them rather than shoving our ideas for a solution down their throats. But I know there are a lot of departments that don't have the luxury and perhaps less desire to address things that way. We were that department 15 yrs ago. 

If such officers held these ideas themselves, it could, and would, support a culture of this behavior.  Wouldn't you agree?


Report to moderator   Logged

freespirit
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9267


Revolt!


« Reply #908 on: December 28, 2012, 02:51:38 PM »

.


* 423207_401120326639436_1526541806_n.jpg (39.51 KB, 480x384 - viewed 114 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8381


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #909 on: January 02, 2013, 02:48:17 AM »

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-banks-and-law-enforcement-together-ows-domestic-security-alliance-council2013-1


This is fucked up!!!! 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8381


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #910 on: January 02, 2013, 09:34:32 AM »

Plead Guilty or Go to Prison for Life: The Medical Marijuana Grower's Stark Choice
 Townhall.com ^ | January 2, 2013 | Jacob Sullum

Posted on Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:47:05 AM by Kaslin

Chris Williams, a Montana medical marijuana grower, faces at least five years in federal prison when he is sentenced on Feb. 1. The penalty seems unduly severe, especially because his business openly supplied marijuana to patients who were allowed to use it under state law.

Yet five years is a cakewalk compared to the sentence Williams originally faced, which would have kept the 38-year-old father behind bars for the rest of his life. The difference is due to an extremely unusual post-conviction agreement that highlights the enormous power prosecutors wield as a result of mandatory minimum sentences so grotesquely unjust that in this case even they had to admit it.

Of more than two dozen Montana medical marijuana providers who were arrested following federal raids in March 2011, Williams is the only one who insisted on his right to a trial. For that, he paid a steep price.

Tom Daubert, one of Williams' partners in Montana Cannabis, which had dispensaries in four cities, pleaded guilty to maintaining drug-involved premises and got five years of probation. Another partner, Chris Lindsey, took a similar deal and is expected to receive similar treatment. Both testified against Williams at his trial last September.

Williams' third partner, Richard Flor, pleaded guilty to the same charge but did not testify against anyone. Flor, a sickly 68-year-old suffering from multiple ailments, died four months into a five-year prison term.

For a while, it seemed that Williams, who rejected a plea deal because he did not think he had done anything wrong and because he wanted to challenge federal interference with Montana's medical marijuana law, also was destined to die in prison. Since marijuana is prohibited for all purposes under federal law, he was not allowed even to discuss the nature of his business in front of the jury, so his conviction on the four drug charges he faced, two of which carried five-year mandatory minimums, was more or less inevitable.

Stretching Williams' sentence from mindlessly harsh to mind-bogglingly draconian, each of those marijuana counts was tied to a charge of possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, based on guns at the Helena grow operation that Williams supervised and at Flor's home in Miles City, which doubled as a dispensary. Federal law prescribes a five-year mandatory minimum for the first such offense and 25 years for each subsequent offense, with the sentences to run consecutively.

Consequently, when Williams was convicted on all eight counts, he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 80 years for the gun charges alone, even though he never handled the firearms cited in his indictment, let alone hurt anyone with them. This result, which federal prosecutors easily could have avoided by bringing different charges, was so absurdly disproportionate that U.S. Attorney Michael Cotter offered Williams a deal.

Drop your appeal, Cotter said, and we'll drop enough charges so that you might serve "as little as 10 years." No dice, said Williams, still determined to challenge the Obama administration's assault on medical marijuana providers. But when Cotter came back with a better offer, involving a five-year mandatory minimum, Williams took it, having recognized the toll his legal struggle was taking on his 16-year-old son, a freshman at Montana State University.

"I think everyone in the federal system realizes that these mandatory minimum sentences are unjust," Williams tells me during a call from the Missoula County Detention Facility. But for prosecutors, they serve an important function: "They were basically leveraging this really extreme sentence against something that was so light because they wanted to force me into taking a plea deal." Nine out of 10 federal criminal cases end in guilty pleas.

The efficient transformation of defendants into prisoners cannot be the standard by which we assess our criminal justice system. If the possibility of sending someone like Chris Williams to prison for the rest of his life is so obviously unfair, why does the law allow it, let alone mandate it?
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3533


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #911 on: January 02, 2013, 04:23:41 PM »

Plead Guilty or Go to Prison for Life: The Medical Marijuana Grower's Stark Choice
 Townhall.com ^ | January 2, 2013 | Jacob Sullum

Posted on Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:47:05 AM by Kaslin

Chris Williams, a Montana medical marijuana grower, faces at least five years in federal prison when he is sentenced on Feb. 1. The penalty seems unduly severe, especially because his business openly supplied marijuana to patients who were allowed to use it under state law.

Yet five years is a cakewalk compared to the sentence Williams originally faced, which would have kept the 38-year-old father behind bars for the rest of his life. The difference is due to an extremely unusual post-conviction agreement that highlights the enormous power prosecutors wield as a result of mandatory minimum sentences so grotesquely unjust that in this case even they had to admit it.

Of more than two dozen Montana medical marijuana providers who were arrested following federal raids in March 2011, Williams is the only one who insisted on his right to a trial. For that, he paid a steep price.

Tom Daubert, one of Williams' partners in Montana Cannabis, which had dispensaries in four cities, pleaded guilty to maintaining drug-involved premises and got five years of probation. Another partner, Chris Lindsey, took a similar deal and is expected to receive similar treatment. Both testified against Williams at his trial last September.

Williams' third partner, Richard Flor, pleaded guilty to the same charge but did not testify against anyone. Flor, a sickly 68-year-old suffering from multiple ailments, died four months into a five-year prison term.

For a while, it seemed that Williams, who rejected a plea deal because he did not think he had done anything wrong and because he wanted to challenge federal interference with Montana's medical marijuana law, also was destined to die in prison. Since marijuana is prohibited for all purposes under federal law, he was not allowed even to discuss the nature of his business in front of the jury, so his conviction on the four drug charges he faced, two of which carried five-year mandatory minimums, was more or less inevitable.

Stretching Williams' sentence from mindlessly harsh to mind-bogglingly draconian, each of those marijuana counts was tied to a charge of possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, based on guns at the Helena grow operation that Williams supervised and at Flor's home in Miles City, which doubled as a dispensary. Federal law prescribes a five-year mandatory minimum for the first such offense and 25 years for each subsequent offense, with the sentences to run consecutively.

Consequently, when Williams was convicted on all eight counts, he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 80 years for the gun charges alone, even though he never handled the firearms cited in his indictment, let alone hurt anyone with them. This result, which federal prosecutors easily could have avoided by bringing different charges, was so absurdly disproportionate that U.S. Attorney Michael Cotter offered Williams a deal.

Drop your appeal, Cotter said, and we'll drop enough charges so that you might serve "as little as 10 years." No dice, said Williams, still determined to challenge the Obama administration's assault on medical marijuana providers. But when Cotter came back with a better offer, involving a five-year mandatory minimum, Williams took it, having recognized the toll his legal struggle was taking on his 16-year-old son, a freshman at Montana State University.

"I think everyone in the federal system realizes that these mandatory minimum sentences are unjust," Williams tells me during a call from the Missoula County Detention Facility. But for prosecutors, they serve an important function: "They were basically leveraging this really extreme sentence against something that was so light because they wanted to force me into taking a plea deal." Nine out of 10 federal criminal cases end in guilty pleas.

The efficient transformation of defendants into prisoners cannot be the standard by which we assess our criminal justice system. If the possibility of sending someone like Chris Williams to prison for the rest of his life is so obviously unfair, why does the law allow it, let alone mandate it?


Here's the thing.  These guys were running and supplying a four-location operation that was conceivably netting them in the mid-five figures, cash money, every single day.  They were enjoying the income, no doubt about it.  I notice the article didn't mention the number of plants or product, and probably for good reason. 

If an amount approaching 99+ plants can be traced to some person, that person is giving a green light to federal authorities to make a bust.  It couldn't be more simple.  If the person allows a gun to be linked to him on top of that, it will weaken his ability to legally defend himself worse than almost any other factor.

I'd love to find out what he was thinking.  Did he buy into the stream of lies from Obama on the issue, to the point he didn't seek guidance for his four-location operation, because, as he suggests, he didn't think he was "doing anything wrong"?  Did he think that state or local authorities would back him up, despite violating federal law?  Did he stop and think long enough to even understand that he was violating certain laws that may fuck him up?

It's all too bad.  I feel extremely sad for the ailing 68-year-old in the story, who was most likely killed by the stress.
Report to moderator   Logged

Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6453



« Reply #912 on: January 03, 2013, 01:33:39 PM »

Even when I agree with you Skip, you argue. Have you wondered why that is?


You and I didn't agree on anything.  You're really struggling to keep up, eh?
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6453



« Reply #913 on: January 03, 2013, 01:37:33 PM »

When I get pulled over - two hands on the wheel , respectful, if I have to grab something I tell the officer first etc. 

Nothing to be gained by starting a confrontation and it makes it easier to get the item tossed later on.



I'm polite, of course, but I don't concern myself with not making him nervous.

I don't care for that mind set.  They work for us.  They need to remind themselves of that fact more regularly.





And Agnostic,

Pity is a poor and pathetic argument.  Fact is...you have a LOW chance of getting hurt on a traffic stop.  Of course, you clowns still deal with lie detectors, so I guess factually based info isn't much of a concern for you, lol.





Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8381


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #914 on: January 03, 2013, 01:59:46 PM »

NDAA Signed Into Law By Obama Despite Guantanamo Veto Threat, Indefinite Detention Provisions


Posted: 01/03/2013 11:33 am EST  |  Updated: 01/03/2013 11:55 am EST




President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 on Wednesday, despite his own threat to veto it over prohibitions on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

Civil liberties advocates had roundly criticized the bill over Guantanamo and a separate section that could allow the military to indefinitely detain American citizens on suspicions of supporting terrorism. Just as he did with last year's version of the bill, however, Obama decided that the need to pass the NDAA, which also sets the armed forces' $633 billion budget for the 2013 fiscal year, was simply "too great to ignore," according to a presidential signing statement released in the early morning hours Thursday.

Members of the human rights coalition that had urged Obama to follow through on his veto threat blasted his decision as a cave to congressional Republicans.

"President Obama has utterly failed the first test of his second term, even before inauguration day,” American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony Romero said in a statement. “His signature means indefinite detention without charge or trial, as well as the illegal military commissions, will be extended.”

"It's the second time that the president has promised to veto a piece of a very controversial national security legislation only to sign it," said Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee. "He has a habit of promising resistance to national security initiatives that he ultimately ends up supporting and enabling."

After the president issued his veto threat in November, a House-Senate conference committee made one minor change: it shortened the length of the bill's prohibition on transferring Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. to one fiscal year, instead of the open-ended ban in the original Senate version.

Obama's signing statement did reiterate his opposition to restrictions on when he can move prisoners out of the Guantanamo camp. Such statements signal how a president plans to put a law into effect but do not have the force of law themselves, leaving future administrations to make their own interpretations.

As Politico's Josh Gerstein notes, however, Obama’s recent signing statement significantly toned down his promises to reverse parts of the bill he objected to. Last year, Obama’s signing statement said his administration had “worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions” he found objectionable. Obama’s latest statement made no such claim.

Obama also allowed provisions of the law that require his administration to place certain terrorism suspects into military custody to stand without comment, though the administration’s interpretation of that section of the law renders it nearly irrelevant. Under procedures released by the White House in February, the military custody requirement can be waived in a wide variety of cases, including if the suspect’s home country objects to military custody; if the suspect is arrested for conduct conducted in the U.S.; and if the suspect is originally charged with a non-terrorism offense. The administration also claimed the military custody requirement didn’t apply in cases where the suspect was originally arrested by state or local law enforcement, when a transfer to military custody could interfere with efforts to secure cooperation or confession or when a transfer would interfere with a joint trial.

Obama's signature caps an intense sequence of events for opponents of indefinite detention. In November, a bipartisan group of senators amended their chamber's NDAA bill to prohibit the military from detaining American citizens on American soil. But when the House and Senate met to reconcile their versions of the NDAA, that amendment was stripped out behind closed doors.

"The president seemed to have nothing to say about that," Buttar said. "The whole process, quite frankly, was a reflection of the worst parts of Washington -- the institutional dysfunction, the lack of historical memory, the unwillingness to consider relatively limited reforms that would make these powers responsible and limited."

Outside of Congress, civil liberties groups are pushing forward with a lawsuit against the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg denied their efforts to reinstate an injunction against indefinite detention on Dec. 14, but the case against the law is still proceeding in the Second Circuit Court.

Demonstrations and political pressure around Guantanamo, meanwhile, will also continue. Civil liberties groups argue that despite the provisions in the NDAA, the president may still be able to close the detention camp or at least free some of the inmates there. Still, they were disappointed by his signature.

"It's not encouraging that the President continues to be willing to tie his own hands when it comes to closing Guantanamo," Dixon Osburn, the director of Human Rights First's Law and Security Program, said in a statement. "The injustice of Guantanamo continues to serve as a stain on American global leadership on human rights."

Jan. 11 marks the 11th anniversary of the prison camp's opening there.

Michael McAuliff contributed reporting.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/ndaa-obama-indefinite-detention_n_2402601.html

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8381


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #915 on: January 05, 2013, 10:02:19 AM »

FBI Surveillance Of Occupy Wall Street Detailed


Posted: 01/05/2013 7:42 am EST  |  Updated: 01/05/2013 10:33 am EST


VIA hp


WASHINGTON -- Was Tim Franzen stockpiling weapons? What was Tim Franzen's philosophy? What was his political affiliation? Did Tim Franzen ever talk about violent revolution?

The Federal Bureau of Investigation wanted to know. In late 2011, an agent or agents -- Franzen still isn't quite sure -- began trying to find out. It was during this time that Franzen became a well-known and central presence in Occupy Atlanta. He helped start the Occupy Wall Street offshoot, and had been arrested when police razed their encampment in a downtown Atlanta park.

After the first police sweep of the park, Franzen told The Huffington Post that the FBI began interviewing his fellow Occupy Atlanta activists about whether Franzen might have a cache of weapons for a future violent revolution. He said the feds interviewed three different activists at their homes about his activities and beliefs.

"It definitely rattled my cage to have these kids getting knocks on their door," Franzen said.

Here's what the feds would have found out in the course of a background check on the activist: Franzen had a criminal record related to teenage drug use and robberies that supported his habit. But he last spent time in prison when he was 19. Franzen, now 35, went on to found a chain of halfway houses to help people make the transition from addiction to recovery. He later became a community organizer with the Quaker social justice organization American Friends Service Committee, a position he continues to hold while working within Occupy Atlanta.

During one interview, an FBI agent gave one of Franzen's fellow activists a business card, which was handed over to Franzen, who decided to call the agent and have a little fun.

"I have an expert on all things Tim Franzen," Franzen remembers telling the agent over the phone. "I said, 'I'm Tim Franzen.' ... He was sort of dumbfounded. He didn't know what to say."




Franzen chastised the federal agent for scaring his younger activist friends. "At first he started denying it," he said. "He tried to write it off as not a big deal, as sort of protocol."

At the end of December, the FBI released internal documents that revealed a coordinated -- if quixotic -- surveillance of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Just about every law enforcement agency gets a cameo in the correspondence: Homeland Security, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, an entity known as the Domestic Security Alliance Council -- and even the Federal Reserve. But the extremely limited disclosure makes it difficult to assess exactly with whom the government agencies were coordinating, or why. Was the FBI attempting to infiltrate and undermine the Occupy movement, or simply trying to keep tabs on protesters who were hoping to spark political change?

Of the 110 pages released -- first obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund through a Freedom of Information Act request -- dozens are heavily redacted. The documents state that 287 additional pages on the FBI's Occupy activities were "deleted" from the release by the agency for various reasons, including nine labeled "outside the scope" and 14 tagged "duplicate."

At times, the documents are contradictory and show FBI agents spreading false information. The earliest memo erroneously describes Adbusters, the Canadian magazine that came up with the idea behind Occupy, as a "self-identified American revolutionary anarchist group." In another, OWS is lumped in with the "Caucasian Nations (sic)" and hacker-activists Anonymous as "domestic terrorists."

In response to a request for comment, FBI spokesperson Christopher Allen replied via email, "The FBI cautions against drawing conclusions from redacted FOIA documents." He continued, "While the FBI is obligated to thoroughly investigate any serious allegations involving threats of violence, we do not open investigations based solely on 1st Amendment activity. In fact, DOJ and the FBI's own internal guidelines on domestic operations strictly forbid that."

If there was a unified mission behind the Occupy surveillance, it appears the purpose was to pass information about activists' plans to the finance industry. In one memo from August 2011, the FBI discusses informing officials at the New York Stock Exchange about "the planned Anarchist protest titled 'occupy Wall Street', scheduled for September 17, 2011.[sic] Numerous incidents have occurred in the past which show attempts by Anarchist groups to disrupt, influence, and or shut down normal business operations of financial districts."

The documents reveal that the FBI met with officials from four banks and one credit union, and spoke over the phone with a representative from a fifth bank. The FBI also talked with officials from the Richmond Federal Reserve, a branch of the central bank that covers much of the American South. If the FBI communicated with any of the trillion-dollar banks that were the primary subject of Occupy Wall Street's economic critique, however, those discussions have been redacted from the documents.

Citigroup, for example, is not mentioned anywhere the documents, while Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan are each mentioned once in passing. No documents show coordination between the FBI and any of those banks -- although it would be conspicuous for the FBI to have communicated with smaller banks that were not a major focus of the Occupy movement while ignoring the much larger institutions that were recipients of the 2008-2009 bailouts.

The few direct communications with banks that are detailed in the documents reveal little evidence of improper behavior. On Oct. 6, 2011, the FBI called Zions Bank to inform the bankers that "Anonymous hactivists" had distributed the personal phone numbers of "the CEOs of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase" online, implying that Zions executives might also be subject to such treatment per an impending Occupy rally in Salt Lake City, where Zions is headquartered. Zions declined to comment on the call for this article, but the bank -- which has about 2 percent of the total assets of JPMorgan -- has not been a target of Occupy rhetoric before or since the FBI call.

The only other banks named in the FBI documents are Hancock Bank, Peoples Bank, Bancorp South and Regions Bank -- all of which declined to comment for this article. The FBI attended a Nov. 16, 2011, meeting of officials from those banks in Biloxi, Miss., where someone from Hancock Bank warned attendees to expect an Occupy protest on Dec. 7 that could include a "sit-in" or efforts to "lock the bank doors."

None of the banks mentioned in the FBI file would comment on whether the FBI met regularly with bank officials. Bank robbery is a federal crime, which gives FBI jurisdiction.

All of these banks would have been small-ball for a protest movement that targeted massive income inequality and outrageous executive pay. But if the FBI was issuing warnings to and meeting on security issues with these smaller banks, they were almost certainly having talks with bigger New York banks -- meaning the portrait of the FBI's activities around Occupy, insofar as the internal documents are concerned, is likely incomplete in a significant dimension.

Recent FBI investigations have at times put big banks in a negative light, but have yet to result in major actions against financial institutions. In July 2012, an FBI probe found that Bank of America had allowed a Mexican drug cartel to launder money through the bank. While BofA has yet to face any fines for the episode, the head of the FBI in Charlotte, N.C., BofA's headquarters, recently left the law enforcement agency for a job at Bank of America.

While the FBI communicated with the financial sector about Occupy, it's unclear the degree to which they engaged with actual Occupy activists like Franzen.

Kevin Zeese was one of the founding organizers of Occupy Washington, D.C., which set up camp just blocks from FBI headquarters and the Department of Justice. Zeese told HuffPost that infiltration by law enforcement agents or informants was an issue, but whether much of it was just shadowy conspiracy or serious agitating remains a mystery.

In one exchange he had with a Homeland Security officer, Zeese said the agent knew a key detail about a scheduled protest at the Environmental Protection Agency. Zeese joked that the officer knew more than he did about what was going on.

Zeese did remember one FBI agent who would bike over to the camp. Some of the younger activists talked regularly with the agent. "He was open about it," Zeese said. "He would ride through on a bike with the FBI thing on his back." The agent ended up spending a weekend at the camp and even donating funds to help pay for security.

Whether law enforcement had a hand in breaking up camps, Zeese said, "I can't tell." To which he added, "Down the road, there may be proof."

Franzen suggests that federal agents conducted more clandestine activities than simple Internet searches and protest monitoring. Occupiers frequently complained that the more outspoken activists within their ranks appeared to be targeted by police for arrest. Franzen said there is a connection between the agent who inquired about him among his friends and his subsequent arrest at a protest. He chronicled the incident on his blog a year ago:

Before the police officers warned the crowd to disperse from the street I had already gotten onto the side walk. One of the police Lieutenants yelled to his officers, 'Get him' and pointed at me. The police had to worm their way through the crowd in order to grab me and drag me into the street.
 When I was dragged into the street, I asked the lieutenant what he was doing and he said, 'arresting you.'

'For what,' I asked.

'For being in the street,' he said.

'But I was on the sidewalk,' I replied.

'You're not now,' he said with a smile.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8381


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #916 on: January 07, 2013, 07:19:50 AM »

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Police drug search intrudes on husband's final moments with deceased wife
Deseret News ^ | Jan. 3 2013 | Dennis Romboy
Posted on January 7, 2013, 4:48:37 AM EST by Slings and Arrows

VERNAL — A man says Vernal police disrupted an intimate moment of mourning with his deceased wife of 58 years when they searched his house for her prescription medication without a warrant within minutes of her death.

-snip-

Ben D. Mahaffey, 80, said he was distraught and trying to make sure his wife's body would be taken to the funeral home with dignity, when he says officers insisted he help them look for the drugs.

"I was holding her hand saying goodbye when all the intrusion happened," he told the Deseret News.

-snip-

Mahaffey said he was treated as if he were going to sell the painkillers, which included OxyContin, oxycodone and morphine, on the street.

"I had no interest in the drugs," he said. "I'm no addict."

Mahaffey filed a federal lawsuit Thursday, alleging police violated his Fourth and 14th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure and for equal protection under the law, respectively.

The officers' actions "at the deeply intimate setting, and during a highly distressing time, added a great amount of pain and distress to any already difficult situation," the lawsuit states.

-snip-

Following the incident, Mahaffey asked Vernal city officials and police administrators why officers would search his home without a warrant. He said he was told the Utah Controlled Substances Act provides authority for the search.

According to the lawsuit, Mahaffey also said city manager Ken Bassett dismissed his concerns, saying he was "overly sensitive" and that police were just trying to protect the public from illegal use of prescription drugs.

-snip-

Fackrell said there's nothing in the controlled substances act that allows police to enter a home and search for prescription drugs without a warrant.

He said it's apparently common practice for Vernal police when someone dies, but that it's selectively applied.

(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8381


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #917 on: January 08, 2013, 02:03:52 PM »

Family Pet Shot in Lafayette Backyard by Police on House Alarm Call
 99.9 KTDY ^ | January 7, 2013 | Debbie Ray

Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2013 3:25:48 PM by Altariel

A Lafayette family’s 15 year old pet dog was shot inside their fenced backyard today by Lafayette Police. Officers were dispatched when the Sonnier family’s house alarm was set off because a door was not properly closed when they left the house this morning. According to the Sonniers, when the alarm went off, the monitoring company called the contact list, including Michelle Sonnier, a nurse practitioner who was with a patient at the time. Her husband Matt was also unable to answer, so they called Michelle’s mother, next on the list. She then called Matt – he was able to answer this time – who called the alarm company and told them it was a false alarm- all of this happened within 9 minutes time. About thirty minutes later, Michelle arrived at home, coming in through the garage entrance in back, and saw the commotion outside. She went out to get the mail and that’s when police asked where she came from and told her that they had shot their dog inside their fenced backyard.

A statement from Lafayette Police reads:

On Monday, January 7, 2013, at approximately 12:20 pm, Lafayette Police responded to a residence in the 200 block of Montauban Drive regarding an alarm activation at a residence. Two Lafayette Police Officers arrived on the scene and began checking the perimeter of the residence. The two officers entered into the backyard that was surrounded by a fence. As officers moved in the direction of the back of the home, a large dog approached them in an aggressive manner. Both officers fired one shot, killing the dog. The officers were not injured during the incident. The incident is being investigated by the Lafayette Police Department’s Internal Affairs Section, which is standard procedure when an officer discharges a firearm.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8381


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #918 on: January 08, 2013, 02:08:08 PM »


[Channel] 2 Investigates: Nearly 100 dogs shot by metro police since 2010 [Atlanta]
 WSBTV (Atlanta) ^ | October 30, 2012 | Erin Coleman

Posted on Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:57:38 AM


ATLANTA —

A Channel 2 Action News investigation found nearly 100 cases of local officers shooting dogs within the past two years.

The investigation looked into the heartbreaking circumstances when a police officer kills a family pet -- probably one of the most difficult scenarios for a pet owner and for police.

Nearly two years after Basil was shot and killed in an empty lot by Fulton County Marshals, Elizabeth and Carey Cullifer said they still feel every bit of the pain.

"She was a really kind and gentle dog," said Elizabeth Cullifer.

She left their 45-pound dog outside alone for a moment. Marshals then came to their address with a civil lawsuit for someone who had not lived there in eight years.

Then Cullifer heard gunshots.

"I came out to see my dog in a pool of blood under the truck," said Carey Cullifer.

It is a story Channel 2 Action News has heard over and over from pet owners whose dogs had been shot and killed by police.

A Channel 2 Action News investigation uncovered dozens of cases all over the metro area. Individual department records show since 2010, dogs were shot 25 times in Atlanta, 32 times in DeKalb county, 19 times in Gwinnett County, 10 times in Clayton County and eight times in Cobb County, including the most recent shooting this past September.

"I had to watch him bleed to death and gasp for air and they just stood there looking at me like I was stupid," a Cobb County man said.

Cobb County officers responding to an alarm call shot and killed Luke, a chocolate lab when he ran out of the home barking. It was a false alarm.

The officer said he felt threatened by the dog and was cleared by the department of any wrongdoing.

In fact, every single case found in multiple departments, the officer was exonerated.

"There isn't an officer out there I know that wants to shoot a dog, any animal!" said Kliff Grimes a national representative for the International Brotherhood of Police Officers.

Grimes told Channel 2 that every day officers encounter dogs, some of them vicious.

"That officer unfortunately has to make a split-second decision to protect himself so that he can go home to his family," said Grimes.

When it comes to making that decision, Channel 2 only found one metro area department that requires officers to have training, specifically on how to respond to dogs. Cobb County started its training just this year.

"Even if the officer is trained to deal with the dog, the dog isn't trained to deal with the officer," said Grimes.

"I think it would be a help. It would be information that's certainly valuable," said Cyndy Dougan a dog trainer for 22 years.

Dougan is an expert on dog behavior and she says the issue is not black and white.

"I tell people even though you think you know how your dog is going to react in a situation where the police are called to the scene you may not be correct about that," said Dougan.

Elizabeth Cullifer said in her case she knows Basil was not aggressive and she believes officer training is key.

"With training there would be some accountability. There is no accountability in the situation with us. It was like he felt threatened, he shot your dog. That's it," she said.

Animal behavior experts tell Channel 2 knowing animal behavior is everything in these types of situations. A dog that appears to be aggressive may really just be nervous.

Dougan showed Channel 2's Erin Coleman how dogs at her kennel would respond to Coleman, a stranger. After letting several of the dogs go, one by one, unrestrained out into the yard.

"It's going to be a surprise to them that we're even here," said Dougan.

Some dogs did not pay attention to Coleman during the experiment, others started barking right away, running for her.

"Sometimes tail high and wagging isn't really a good sign. Didn't that scare you?" Dougan asked Coleman.

"A little bit," said Coleman.

"A little bit, I saw you jump. If you push this dog hard enough, this dog would be dangerous," said Dougan.

Another dog approached Coleman, "He's running away, he did not approach us, that is good," said Coleman.

Dougan said knowing animal behavior is key. For years the U.S. Postal Service has trained its mail carriers on dealing with dogs. Georgia Power meter readers also receive some training.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8381


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #919 on: January 08, 2013, 10:18:43 PM »

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_22333563/little-canada-man-videotaped-sheriffs-deputies-and-got


Insane. 
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19164


Psalms 150


« Reply #920 on: January 09, 2013, 12:48:27 AM »

.
they also owned slaves and discriminated against everyone who wasnt a white, property owning male.
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15817


With a keen eye for details, one truth prevails.


WWW
« Reply #921 on: January 09, 2013, 01:58:54 AM »

they also owned slaves and discriminated against everyone who wasnt a white, property owning male.

And yet all of those people who they discriminated against are extremely happy that those men did what they did and can't even be pissed about it today.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8381


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #922 on: January 09, 2013, 04:34:02 AM »

America Is Being Systematically Transformed Into A Totalitarian Society
Right Side News ^ | January 7, 2013 | American Cream
Posted on January 8, 2013 12:46:47 PM EST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

If someone were to ask you for an example of a “totalitarian society”, how would you respond?  Most Americans would probably think of horribly repressive regimes such as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China, East Germany or North Korea, but the truth is that there is one society that has far more rules and regulations than any of those societies ever dreamed of having.

In the United States today, our lives are governed by literally millions of laws, rules and regulations that govern even the smallest details of our lives, and more laws, rules and regulations are constantly being added.  On January 1st, thousands of restrictive new laws went into effect all over America, but most Americans have become so accustomed to the matrix of control that has been constructed all around them that it does not even bother them when even more rules and regulations are put into place.  

In fact, a growing number of Americans have become totally convinced that “freedom” and “liberty” must be tightly restricted for the good of society and that “the free market” is inherently dangerous.  On the national, state and local levels, Americans continue to elect elitist control freaks that are very eager to tell all the rest of us how to run virtually every aspect of our lives. According to Merriam-Webster, the following is one of the ways that the word “totalitarian” is defined: “of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures”. 

And that is exactly what we are witnessing in America today – nearly all aspects of our lives and of the economy are very tightly controlled by a bunch of control freaks that just keep tightening that control with each passing year.  We still like to call ourselves “the land of the free”, but the truth is that we are being transformed into a totalitarian society unlike anything the world has ever seen before. 

Where will we end up eventually if we keep going down this road? If you still believe that America is “free”, just consider some of the things that are illegal in America today…

-Starting on January 1st, it is now illegal to make or import 75 watt incandescent light bulbs anywhere in the United States.

-In Oregon, it is illegal to collect rainwater that falls on your own property.

-In New Jersey, it is illegal to have an “unrestrained” cat or dog in your vehicle while you are driving.

-If you milk your cow and sell some of the milk to your neighbor, you could end up having your home raided by federal agents.

-In Miami Beach, Florida you must recycle your trash properly or face huge fines.

-All over the United States, cops are shutting down lemonade stands run by children because they don’t have the proper “permits”.

-Down in Tulsa, Oklahoma one unemployed woman had her survival garden brutally ripped out and carted away by government thugs because it did not conform to regulations.

-Over in Massachusetts, all children in daycare centers are mandated by state law to brush their teeth after lunch.  In fact, the state even provides the fluoride toothpaste for the children.

-At one public school down in Texas, a 12-year-old girl named Sarah Bustamantes was arrested for spraying herself with perfume.

-A 13-year-old student at a school in Albuquerque, New Mexico was arrested by police for burping in class.

-All over the United States cities have passed laws that actually make it illegal to feed the homeless.

With each passing year, the number of decisions that we are allowed to make for ourselves gets smaller and smaller.

This includes some really fundamental things such as basic health decisions.

For example, the CDC will soon be recommending that nearly every single American be vaccinated for the flu every single year.  The following is from a recent Natural News article…

An advisory panel to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended that every person be vaccinated for the seasonal flu yearly, except in a few cases where the vaccine is known to be unsafe.

“Now no one should say ‘Should I or shouldn’t I?’” said CDC flu specialist Anthony Fiore.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 11-0 with one abstention to recommend yearly flu vaccination for everyone except for children under the age of six months, whose immune systems have not yet developed enough for vaccination to be safe, and people with egg allergies or other health conditions that are known to make flu vaccines hazardous.

These “recommendations” are often made into mandatory requirements by school districts and employers all over the country.  Will employers all over the nation soon require all of their employees to take these vaccines each year based on these CDC “recommendations”?  This is already happening in the healthcare field.  Hundreds of healthcare professionals all over the nation are being fired for refusing to take certain vaccines.  It doesn’t matter that there is a tremendous amount of evidence that many of these vaccines are dangerous.  Many health professionals today are being faced with the choice of either submitting to the “recommendations” of the “experts” or losing their jobs.

We see this kind of “creeping totalitarianism” in the business world as well.  As I have written about previously, small businesses all over the country are being absolutely suffocated by mountains of laws, rules and regulations.

One of the biggest changes that small businesses will be dealing with in the next couple of years is Obamacare.  Many small businesses have been cutting back hours in an attempt to get around the new requirements contained in Obamacare.  The following is one example from a news story that was published earlier this week…

Around 100 local Wendy’s workers have learned their hours are being cut. A spokesperson says a new health care law is to blame.

“Thirty-six to 37 hours a week.” That’s how many hours T.J. Growbeck works at the 84th and Giles Wendy’s restaurant. The money he earns helps him pay for the basics, but that’s not the case for all his co-workers. “There are some people doing it trying to get by.”

The company has announced that all non-management positions will have their hours reduced to 28 a week. Gary Burdette, Vice President of Operations for the local franchise, says the cuts are coming because the new Affordable Health Care Act requires employers to offer health insurance to employees working 32-38 hours a week. Under the current law they are not considered full time and that as a small business owner, he can’t afford to stay in operation and pay for everyone’s health insurance.

But the IRS has announced that it is going to make it very hard for employers to avoid these new Obamacare regulations.  According to new IRS rules, all firms that “have at least 50 full-time employees or an equivalent combination of full-time and part-time employees” will be required to provide healthcare for their employees and their dependents.  The following is from a recent New York Times article…

Under the rules, employers must offer coverage to employees in 2014 and must offer coverage to dependents as well, starting in 2015.

The new rules apply to employers that have at least 50 full-time employees or an equivalent combination of full-time and part-time employees. A full-time employee is a person employed on average at least 30 hours a week. And 100 half-time employees are considered equivalent to 50 full-time employees.

Thus, the government said, an employer will be subject to the new requirement if it has 40 full-time employees working 30 hours a week and 20 half-time employees working 15 hours a week.

So conceivably an employer could have only part-time employees and still be required to provide healthcare coverage under Obamacare.

Of course many small businesses will not be able to afford to do this, so expect to see a significant number of them shut down or to try to survive with skeleton crews in 2014 and 2015.

As the number of laws, rules and regulations that govern our lives continues to multiply, the control freaks that run things will continue to try to use technology to watch us all and make sure that we are obeying their rules.

One way that they are doing this is with automated traffic cameras.  Of course much of the time the performance of these cameras is terribly flawed.  Just consider the following example which recently appeared in the Baltimore Sun…

The Baltimore City speed camera ticket alleged that the four-door Mazda wagon was going 38 miles per hour in a 25-mph zone — and that owner Daniel Doty owed $40 for the infraction.

But the Mazda wasn’t speeding.

It wasn’t even moving.

The two photos printed on the citation as evidence of speeding show the car was idling at a red light with its brake lights illuminated. A three-second video clip also offered as evidence shows the car motionless, as traffic flows by on a cross street.

But even though technology sometimes fails, the control freaks that run things seem absolutely obsessed with using it to monitor us.  After all, there are so many of us and watching all of us is a very big job.

For example, did you know that listening devices are being installed on public buses all over the United States?  The following is from a recent Wired article…

Transit authorities in cities across the country are quietly installing microphone-enabled surveillance systems on public buses that would give them the ability to record and store private conversations, according to documents obtained by a news outlet.

The systems are being installed in San Francisco, Baltimore, and other cities with funding from the Department of Homeland Security in some cases, according to the Daily, which obtained copies of contracts, procurement requests, specs and other documents.

According to the article, some of these systems are incredibly advanced and pair the audio that is being recorded with video that is being taken at the same time…

In Eugene, Oregon, the Daily found, transit officials requested microphones that would be capable of “distilling clear conversations from the background noise of other voices, wind, traffic, windshields wipers and engines” and also wanted at least five audio channels spread across each bus that would be “paired with one or more camera images and recorded synchronously with the video for simultaneous playback.”

But that is just one example of how the surveillance of the American people is rapidly growing.  For many more examples, please see my previous article entitled “29 Signs That The Elite Are Transforming Society Into A Total Domination Control Grid“.

If America continues down the path that it is on right now, the United States will eventually be transformed into a “Big Brother society” that is far more restrictive than anything George Orwell ever dreamed of.

We need a fundamental cultural revolution in this nation.  We need a revival of the principals of liberty and freedom that were so important during the founding days of this country.  We need to teach people that even though liberty and freedom may be unpredictable at times, such an environment is greatly preferable to a society where all of our decisions are made for us by a tiny elite.

Please share this article with as many people as you can.  Time is running out, and we need to wake up as many as we can while there is still time.

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8381


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #923 on: January 09, 2013, 12:17:27 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jB2qxsmkUk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jB2qxsmkUk</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8381


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #924 on: January 13, 2013, 11:41:49 AM »

http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully

Obama admn. Out of control.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 71   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!