Police State
Off-duty cops collect DNA samples at Alabama roadblocks
0Source: http://dailycaller.com
By Caroline May
Off-duty cops collect DNA samples at Alabama roadblocks

Image source: http://www.freedomsphoenix.com
Off-duty cops in two counties in Alabama spent the weekend collecting saliva and blood samples from drivers at roadblocks.
According to Lt. Freddie Turrentine with the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department, drivers were asked to voluntarily offer samples of their saliva and blood for a study being conducted by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.
The drivers were compensated for their samples.
“They’ve got big signs up that says ‘paid volunteer survey’ and if they want to participate they pull over there and they ask them questions and if they are willing to give them a mouth swab they give them $10 and if they are willing to give them a blood sample they give them $50. And if they don’t do anything they drive off,” Turrentine explained to The Daily Caller.
…
Turrentine said that Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs asked the county to participate and that the funding for the study is coming from the National Highway Safety Administration.
Victory: Declaring Ban ‘Repugnant’ to Constitution, Federal Court Affirms First Amdt. Rights of Protester Arrested in Front of U.S. Supreme Court
0Source: http://libertycalling.net
Posted by Judy Morris
Victory: Declaring Ban ‘Repugnant’ to Constitution, Federal Court Affirms First Amdt. Rights of Protester Arrested in Front of U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, DC — Declaring a federal ban on expressive activity on the U.S. Supreme Court plaza to be “repugnant” to the Constitution, a District of Columbia federal court has struck down a 60-year-old statute which broadly prohibits speech and expression in front of the United States Supreme Court. The court’s ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by The Rutherford Institute on behalf of Harold Hodge, a 46-year-old African-American man who was arrested in January 2011 while standing silently in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building wearing a sign voicing his concerns about the government’s disparate treatment of African-Americans and Hispanics. In a ruling issued in Hodge v. Talkin, et al., District Court Judge Beryl L. Howell struck down a federal law that makes it unlawful to display any flag, banner or device designed to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement while on the grounds of the U.S. Supreme Court, declaring that the “the absolute prohibition on expressive activity [on the Supreme Court plaza] in the statute is unreasonable, substantially overbroad, and irreconcilable with the First Amendment.”
“Judge Howell’s frank, no-holds-barred ruling affirming the Supreme Court plaza as a free speech zone throws a lifeline to the First Amendment at a time when government officials are doing their best to censor, silence and restrict free speech activities,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State.
Read the rest at The Rutherford Institute, here.
The Electronic Concentration Camp: Video from The Rutherford Institute
0Source: http://www.dailypaul.com
The Electronic Concentration Camp: Video from The Rutherford Institute
NOW PLAYING: In conjunction with the upcoming release of his new book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, John W. Whitehead sits down to discuss several “pressure points” that are threatening the Bill of Rights and undermining our essential freedoms.
In part four of this special series, Whitehead examines the collusion between corporations and government officials in erecting a system of mass surveillance aimed at all Americans.
More | Source The Rutherford Institute – Pressure Points: The Electronic Concentration Camp
###
Related post:
The EyeOpener Report- The AP Spying Story: What You Aren’t Being Told
Use of secretive ‘Stingray’ FBI cell phone tracking tool ruled lawful by judge
0Source: http://endthelie.com
By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
Despite the fact that the FBI was accused of hiding information from judges when obtaining authorization for use of the secretive “Stingray” cell phone tracking device, a judge has ruled that the use of the device by federal agents was lawful.
This case could quite unfortunately have wide-ranging effects on how the government conducts the type of dragnet surveillance enabled by the Stingray device.
Interestingly, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) also recently received a new batch of documents from the FBI about the Stingray.
On Wednesday, Judge David Campbell dismissed the motion to suppress the information gathered through the Stingray device in the case of Daniel Rigmaiden.
Campbell refused to dismiss the motion even though the ACLU pointed out in an amicus brief that by “failing to apprise the magistrate that it intended to use a stingray, what the device is, and how it works, it prevented the judge from exercising his constitutional function of ensuring that warrants are not overly intrusive and all aspects of the search are supported by probable cause.”
This is precisely the issue that has been raised in previous coverage of this technology.
Campbell ruled that the warrant was valid and the suspect “did not have an expectation of privacy society is willing to accept as legitimate.”
According to Campbell, since Rigmaiden allegedly rented the apartment and purches the computer fraudulently using false identities, Rigmaiden could not “credibly argue that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy.”
While that ruling is quite understandable, it gets troubling when one realizes that Campbell’s ruling goes much further.
Campbell ruled that the use of the Stingray did not in fact constitute a “severe intrusion” and ruled that “no Fourth Amendment violation occurred.”
The ACLU said that this ruling “trivializes the intrusive nature of electronic searches and potentially opens the door to troubling government misuse of new technology.”
According to the ACLU, the judge dismissed the significance of the Stingray’s ability to gather data from innocent third parties who just happen to be in the area.
“The violation arises from the fact that the government searched people who are not suspected of any wrongdoing,” the ACLU stated. “This is a violation even if the government doesn’t later use the information against those third parties.”
“Natural Rights vs The Patriot Act” by Judge Andrew Napolitano
0
Posted by JudgeNapolitanoFTW
Judge Napolitano discusses Natural Rights and why The Patriot Act is exactly the type of legislation the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to PREVENT! Courtesy of Campaign For Liberty.
Sheriff Bradshaw and the Palm Beach County Psihuska
0Source: http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com
By Will Grigg












This is a work in progess, a self learning tool and fun little project. Please excuse the slow development as it seems the needed proper time is always lacking. It is my hope that the combination of content and links to other sources of information in this simple blog may help awaken a few of the sleeping masses and encourage and inspire others to initiate their own research, ultimately for each person to be a light to help awaken others. Opinions expressed belong to me, myself and I. Also, a big thank you to all that take the time to visit, it is appreciated :)













