RGV Republican Liberty Club

Wow. I’m not sure what to say about this one. Perhaps the abusiveness of the security personnel is to blame. Perhaps they need to reexamine their policies on when they are actually able to engage with people. Mr. Hill made no threatening gestures whatsoever, but apparently was such a threat to security that he had to be taken down. Hard.

This is just one of the latest instances of small minded individuals given a modicum of power and taking that power to an abusive level. At the very least, they need to be disciplined. Arguably, they should be fired for attacking an individual that did not offer up any threats. Then we have the so-called State Trooper. Ummmmm, really? I sure couldn’t see his “identification”. Upon repeated requests for his name or badge number or identification, he failed to display it. That sure seems suspect, as if he is not really a real State Trooper. He comes off as another security guard that is abusing his power. Now, Alaska is a gun friendly state. There are also several gun owners in Alaska. What happens if you are a gun owner (with a gun on you) and you witness 2 people assaulting an individual and someone masquerading as a State Trooper? Well, it’s not a good scenario. Likely, more than one person would not be sleeping that night very soundly. And I’m not just talking about Mr. Hill.

Torches & Pitchforks. That scenario seems to be getting closer every day.

Activist Post brings us this one:

This first day of the 2010 Alaska State Fair starts with sunny skies and a brutal assault by security personnel on a LaRouche supporter.

At about 5pm Alaska Time, Thursday, August 26, 2010, security personnel approach Sidney Hill, a lone man peacefully displaying an impeach Obama sign near Pioneer Plaza on the Alaska State Fairgrounds in Palmer. Minutes later, a crowd assembles, additional security forces arrive, and they physically assault the man holding the sign. He’s taken to the ground with force and detained.

An unidentified Alaska State Trooper arrives to physically disperse the crowd, and at several points during the conflict, crowd members yell in support of the demonstrator’s right to speak his message. The demonstrator’s personal firearm is confiscated by fair security, and he is held captive until Palmer police arrive to escort the man away in cuffs.

Sidney Hill was in jail awaiting a pre-trial at 1:00 pm on August 27, 2010 at the Palmer Courthouse. He has been charged with Assault 4-Cause Fear Of Injury, Disorderly Conduct-Challenge To Fight, and Criminal Trespass 2- Upon Premises. However, according to the Valley Frontiersman newspaper, “Assistant District Attorney Trina Sears said her office decided not to prosecute Hill on the assault charge.”

Assault on protester at 3:30
Trooper distracts me, but I barely catch the gun in security guard’s left hand at 4:41

Court record of arrest: http://bit.ly/bPSx6D
ADN coverage: http://bit.ly/bwE3u9
Frontiersman coverage: http://bit.ly/9V4gyn
Newsminer coverage: http://bit.ly/bEEq2K
Alaska State Fair official statement: http://bit.ly/cY5U2u

Wow. We already knew it was going on, as the fine print in the procurement documents of the TSA had full body scanners with image recording capability as a desired option. Of course, Congresscritters didn’t much talk about it, saying that the imagery was just for security viewing, and wouldn’t go anywhere after you walked through the machine. Well, imagine my lack of surprise when Declan McCullagh, of CNET and politechbot fame, breaks the news that yes indeed – the U.S. Marshals now ADMIT to having over 35,000 full body naked images of people who passed through these machines in Orlando, Florida. Even Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has a great article up on this topic.

Hey, didn’t I read on El Monitor not so long ago that these pervert machines were now installed in valley airports? Keep that in mind next time you decide to hop on a plane. Choose to take the regular security aisle, where a TSA pervert can merely stroke you down and humiliate you physically instead of snapping a full body naked picture of you.

Yes, you CAN refuse to walk through the pervert machines.

These “devices are designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded, which is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing,” EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET. “We think it’s significant.”
William Bordley, an associate general counsel with the Marshals Service, acknowledged in the letter that “approximately 35,314 images…have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine” used in the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse. In addition, Bordley wrote, a Millivision machine was tested in the Washington, D.C. federal courthouse but it was sent back to the manufacturer, which now apparently possesses the image database.
The Gen 2 machine, manufactured by Brijot of Lake Mary, Fla., uses a millimeter wave radiometer and accompanying video camera to store up to 40,000 images and records. Brijot boasts that it can even be operated remotely: “The Gen 2 detection engine capability eliminates the need for constant user observation and local operation for effective monitoring. Using our APIs, instantly connect to your units from a remote location via the Brijot Client interface.”

Well, that makes me feel safer already.

GovTrack, a civic project to keep tabs on those congresscritters has posted the text of H.R. 5741, the Universal National Service Act, as submitted by Representative Charles Rangel (NY-15) on 7/15/10. It has since been referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel where it will hopefully die a quick death. But what is H.R. 5741 you might ask? Well, remember when BHO was first talking about having a Civilian Corps as big and strong as the Military? You guessed it! This is the legislation which would draft you into forced servitude to such an entity. But don’t take my word for it! Read it yourself, particularly the opening paragraph

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

Yes, that’s right. You will be REQUIRED to serve for two years in this entity towards whatever designs BHO has for us. It doesn’t matter if you love it or hate it. You will be required to do so. Well, at least if you are in that age category, which is quite substantive. This is nothing short of a civilian Draft, a topic to which Rangel is no stranger. He has long been a proponent of re-instituting the military, as evidenced by his re-introduction of this similar legislation. He’s already done it 3 other times – H.R. 163 in 2003, H.R. 4752 in 2006, H.R. 393 in 2007, and this latest iteration only a week and a half ago.

It should be noted that the first implementation in 2003 of this proposed legislation had a roll call of 2-402. Only 2 Representatives voted in favor of it… Jack Murtha and Pete Stark. Every other Representative voted against it. But that doesn’t mean anything to Rangel. He went on to bring the same war conscription legislation up again, 3 more times!

As the dissatisfactions of Americans with their national government grow, so does the likelihood of the breakup of the United States. I believe that most Americans can improve their well-being by ending the national government, that is, ending the Union. I believe that this goal should shape politics if politics is to do much good.

I don’t think Americans are going to be the first people in the modern era to initiate a large-scale anarchy. But Americans might conceivably move back to a federal form of government something like that under the Articles of Confederation. If so, the problem is how to proceed. Many Americans feel (and are) trapped and thwarted by government power.

I see two paths. Americans can do this either acting as individuals formed into a body politic of 300 million Americans or as 50 body politics organized by state. I think action by state has a better chance of success.

To act as one body, Americans would have to alter their Constitution. The divisions among Americans make this highly unlikely. Even if it were pursued, the results would be highly uncertain.

Yes, indeed. The key to success on a large scale is mobilization and activation. Individuals ranting and raving about wrongdoings are portrayed negatively in the public and only get a 10 second soundbyte on the evening news. They aren’t taken seriously and assisted in their dilemma. Why do so when they can be paraded about as a malicious Angry White Man or crazed Right Wing Fringer “bitterly clinging to their guns and religion” as the illustrious BHO would say. They don’t have much to say about their own dilemma because they are ignored by the larger system itself. Good luck trying to get your point across to a newsie. Even if you find a sympathetic ear, you can oh so easily have the entirety of your story demolished by editorial oversight. Far too many people with an ounce of power over something have an agenda to Lord it over everyone else. Just ask a Mall Cop.

Rozeff makes another good point that

A tax revolt that works from and through the state legislatures directly undermines the Union. It directly challenges the power of Congress to tax. That’s a far stronger political platform for restructuring the United States.

which is certainly true, but is a concept so far down the road to most Americans that they haven’t even thought that far ahead. Mostly, they are concerned with just trying to live their lives and minimize Government intrusion and tyranny into it, rather than proactively attempting to fix what is broken within it.

Outright secession is one political measure in a spectrum of possible actions by which one or more states stand up to the U.S. government. Nullification is another. Withdrawal from the banking system is another. A separate payments system at the state level is a fourth. Refusal to obey any of hundreds of U.S. directives is a fifth. The formation of alliances among states is another.

Rozeff makes some points of interest here and almost blows right by them. Secession is certainly an interesting topic of conversation these days. What with Governor Rick Perry making allusions to it (and being attributed to a lot more – wishful thinking on someone’s part) and more than just the local so-called rednecks (one of my local Border Patrol agents) riding around with ‘Secede’ stickers affixed to their vehicles. The topic has gotten to the level of interest in the mainstream that much of the opposition is scoffing at it as illegal. Well, we know what that means. As Gandhi stated, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.” Well if this is true, then the Secessionists are probably transversing from stage 2 to stage 3…

Nullification is another topic worthy of discussion. These United States are a collective of 50 individual States (as well as some Protectorates and other Holdings which aren’t quite “states”) which incorporated a Federal Government to oversee a very specific and limited set of Powers. The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights explicitly enumerate a finite list of Rights and privileges thereon. Now, the States authorized themselves an Out when it comes to laws that the Federal Government comes up with. Normally, the various states would be beholden to Federal laws, except whereby they are outside the scope of the explicitly delegated Powers of the Federal Government. Nullification is the Right of the state in question to nullify, or invalidate the Federal law because of it’s Unconstitutionality. This is a topic that most citizens don’t understand. However, it is something they really need to understand, because it goes to the heart of an overpowering and tyrannical Federal Government. When all legal means of redress are subverted, how does one seek satisfaction?

Next we have the topic of withdrawal from the banking system. This is yet again a difficult topic to discuss due to the vast majority of people’s misunderstanding of it. When you ask the man on the street about our banking system, he almost assuredly talks about saving and checking accounts. He thinks that the bank holds your money to loan to other people at higher interest so it makes money and can pay you smaller amounts of interest. This is a bald faced lie. Their are two types of banking prevalent to this conversation, Central Banking and Fractional Reserve Banking. The former is the macro system while the latter is the micro system. Central Banking in short, is ‘Money as Debt’ which is why we in America have a debt-based economy. It’s all about pushing debt around and debt management. You take on an amount of debt and pay it back with interest. That’s how money is made here. The problem with this is that the debt grows from interest and can never be paid back because their is not enough money in existence to pay it back. This eventually leads to bankruptcy of someone or something. On the large scale, the Federal Government doesn’t even print it’s own money! They buy it from the Federal Reserve through the issue of Bonds in the Bond Market. It is distributed in turn to the regional Federal Reserve branches and then to local banks in said regions.

Fractional Reserve Banking is where the real theft occurs. This is the kind of theft that the man on the street can wrap his head around because it doesn’t have an illustrious number of zeroes after it, boggling his mind. When I deposit $1,000 into a bank, they aren’t holding that money and loaning it to other people to make more money for me. Instead, through the miracle of Fractional Reserve Banking, they have just created more money out of thin air! Banking law allows the bank to loan out more money than they hold on deposit. That $1,000 in the vault means they get to issue “Lines of Credit” to everybody to the ratio of 10 to 1. There are several cartoons on YouTube which eloquently explain this better than I could.

Rozeff’s last 3 arguments are perhaps beyond the scope of this article, and quite a bit more in depth as to their requirements.

In short, the impending tides of  turbulence can bring on any number of effects if the citizenry of the nation unites under their respective States to do battle with the Monsters in the Swamp.

Imagine how much worse this could have been if Frau Clinton had been elected…

from Leagle:

No more illegal wiretapping of American citizens….This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. – Barack Obama, Aug. 1, 2007 **************

On second thought, never mind.

With the world’s attention riveted by the earthquake in Haiti, few noticed when, late last month, a federal judge took a pair of sharp scissors to the Bill of Rights. But on Jan. 22, federal district judge Vaughan Walker agreed to dismiss a lawsuit over warrantless wiretapping, as the administration – the current one – had requested.

The suit was the second of its type to get tossed out. The first suit was filed against AT&T, and it accused the company of forking over to federal agents the calls and e-mails of customers in the United States. But Walker dismissed that suit last June, after Congress passed legislation granting retroactive immunity to telecom companies for cooperating with federal surveillance efforts.

The second suit was filed against the National Security Agency. Walker threw it out on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not show they had been individually harmed, because they could not “differentiate themselves from the mass of telephone and Internet users in the United States.” They needed a “direct, personal stake” to claim standing for the right to sue, not merely “a right to have the government follow the law.”

This seems to suggest that as long as the government is hoovering up vast amounts of communications records from many thousands of Americans – “dragnet surveillance,” as the Electronic Frontier Foundation calls it – no harm done: The more people the government wiretaps, the more authority the federal government has to do so.

That is…interesting. Because the Obama administration had asked to have the case dismissed on entirely different grounds – the state- secrets doctrine: Litigating the dispute would require the government to disclose “a range of facts concerning whether, when, how, why, and under what authority the NSA may have utilized certain intelligence sources and methods,” it argued, which could lead to “exceptionally grave harm to national security.”

“Congress has not waived sovereign immunity,” says the administration’s brief, “and summary judgment for the Government on all of plaintiffs’ remaining claims against all parties…is required because information necessary to litigate plaintiffs’ claims is properly subject to and excluded from use in this case by the state secrets privilege.”

This is precisely the position taken by the Bush administration. Indeed, by some lights the Obama position is even worse, since the Bush program was created while the country was in full panic mode after 9/11. Obama not only has had time to reflect from a distance; having reflected, he concluded the Bush position was wrong. Then he turned around and embraced it.

All of which raises two points.

First, candidate Obama’s vilification of the Bush administration’s warrantless-wiretapping program may have been profoundly naive. Perhaps, once in office and provided with highly classified information about the true nature of the terrorist threat, he realized the country continues to face tremendous peril. And that – just as the Bush administration had claimed – the warrantless-wiretapping program had indeed helped thwart plots that would make 9/11 pale by comparison.

This is rank speculation and cannot be proved or disproved, at least here. But it is frightening to contemplate, and seems at least plausible. What else could make such a left-wing former professor of constitutional law go back on his fervent word about civil liberties?

Second – and equally frightening – the Obama administration seems to be arguing that the Fourth Amendment is, in certain circumstances, null and void.

The amendment guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” There’s no “unless” clause. Now suppose someone thinks the NSA has violated his Fourth Amendment rights by spying on him. The only way to find out is to take the issue to court – where the administration says the case should be summarily dismissed. Yet if individuals can’t even learn whether their rights have been violated, then they certainly can’t seek redress, or generate pressure to change surveillance policies.

Which means, if the Obama administration continues to get its way, the federal government effectively will have carte blanche to spy on American citizens.

The two points lead to one of two conclusions. Either President Obama owes the Bush administration a big apology – or he owes the rest of us a very good explanation.

The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right. – Judge Learned Hand.

Contact A. Barton Hinkle at (804) 649-6627 or bhinkle@timesdispatch.com.

Originally published by A. BARTON HINKLE.

(c) 2010 Richmond Times – Dispatch. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.

A service of YellowBrix, Inc.

On December 16, 2009, Obama signed Executive Order 12425.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425

AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983 [Reagan Era], as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

BARACK OBAMA

An analysis of this Amended ExOrder may be found at

http://noisyroom.net/blog/2009/12/22/of-executive-orders-and-trojan-horses/

(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.

This now says that Interpol is no longer subject to the Freedom of Information Act. In reality, we have just handed over our sovereignty and laid the foundation for an international governing and policing body.

Interpol has been granted diplomatic immunity now by Obama – they have exemption from being subject to search and seizure by law enforcement, US taxes and immunity from FOIA requests,

Reagan’s XO 12425

Presidential Executive Orders from the National Archives

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/executive-order-12425

Executive Order 12425

International Criminal Police Organizations

Delivered on 16 June 1983.

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.

RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
June 16,1983.

There may have been a couple of other amendments to 12425 or other ancillary ExOrders.  But, it appears that Section 2C is the main point of contention.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGY3MTI4YTRjZmYwMGU1ZjZhOGJmNmQ0NmJiZDNmMDY

http://tinyurl.com/yfka65h

Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law?

Andy McCarthy

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

You just can’t make up how brazen this crowd is. One week ago, President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law.

Interpol is the shorthand for the International Criminal Police Organization. It was established in 1923 and operates in about 188 countries. By executive order 12425, issued in 1983, President Reagan recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it some of the privileges and immunities customarily extended to foreign diplomats. Interpol, however, is also an active law-enforcement agency, so critical privileges and immunities (set forth in Section 2(c) of the International Organizations Immunities Act) were withheld. Specifically, Interpol’s property and assets remained subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act. Being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans is what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical

On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol’s property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and
its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America’s defense).

Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?

The ever-wise Senators of Massachusetts have decided that it is important to violate your Constitutional Rights if they “suspect” you might be infected with the so-called ‘Swine Flu’. Instead of checking you into the hospital and having you tested to see if you are infected and do indeed need to be treated for it, they immediately authorize nearly any State-licensed health official to make the call and require you to be submitted to a forced vaccination. Never mind your own acceptance of the consequences to your health from the installation of dead or partially dead retrovirals into your blood stream. No, you don’t get the chance to even see if any of it is true! You even have the pleasure of being fined $1,000/day for refusing to submit to the whims of the State. Yes, the Nanny State is alive and well.  Should we expect anything less than this sort of abuse from Those Who Lord It Over Us?

Read the entire article for Mike’s take on the individual abuses of your Constitutional Rights. For my part, I would recommend those Liberty loving individuals of Massachusetts remove themselves from their environs and make way for a more Liberty minded state… Texas perhaps?

from http://www.naturalnews.com/026934_health_public_health_quarantine.html

The United States of America is devolving into medical fascism and Massachusetts is leading the way with the passage of a new bill, the “Pandemic Response Bill” 2028, reportedly just passed by the MA state Senate and now awaiting approval in the House. This bill suspends virtually all Constitutional rights of Massachusetts citizens and forces anyone “suspected” of being infected to submit to interrogations, “decontaminations” and vaccines.

It’s also sets fines up to $1,000 per day for anyone who refuses to submit to quarantines, vaccinations, decontamination efforts or to follow any other verbal order by virtually any state-licensed law enforcement or medical personnel. You can read the text yourself here: http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/sen…

from the illustrious Monitor: http://www.themonitor.com/articles/cameras-29361-police-series.html

Police have deployed a series of surveillance cameras in some public parks — and other undisclosed locations — across the city in an attempt to monitor possible criminal activity.

“We hope that this will help revitalize and move us in a different direction of policing,” Mission Police Chief Leo Longoria said. “We want to further enhance security.”

Why is this to monitor “possible criminal activity” instead of ACTUAL criminal activity?

Funded by seized drug assets, the $150,000, eight-camera system is monitored from the Mission Police Department as well as from the department’s mobile command center.

Let’s see, that makes it $18,750 PER CAMERA! These had better be military grade infrared/FLIR thermal pan/tilt/zoom cameras for that price tag. For that single amount of money, you could just about hire a full time security guard. But hey, why not go a step beyond that and hire full out police officers who can actually be mobile and check multiple locations for criminal activity… Instead of watching a camera and hoping to catch it. Oh wait, this article doesn’t even tell us who is watching the cameras….

Longoria said cameras are already installed in other areas throughout the city, though he refused to disclose those locations.

Oh, so now I could be surveilled by my local Police department while walking down the streets of Mission minding my own business because I don’t know where Chief Leo has placed the tools for his big brother mentality viewing.

He hopes to expand the surveillance system across the city on a “full mesh network” within the next two years.

Great… more tax dollars spent on a dubious project… Hey, how about we ask the State of Texas how the border camera project is doing? Let’s see, a couple million dollars and only some 14 cameras set up… Yeah, this is a wise investment of tax dollars.

But a 2008 University of California-Berkeley study of a city-wide camera system installed by police in San Francisco found that the technology had little effect on violent crime, prostitution or vandalism. It did, however, help reduce property offenses.

Hey, finally a bit of sanity is mentioned in this article, and lo and behold, where does it come from? Why it’s our very own infamous friend Jared Taylor! Thanks Jared for bothering to look at more than one thing in this article.

Elvia Perez sat in the shade at Banworth Park late Thursday afternoon as her two boys played on the pier at the goose pond. The 33-year-old McAllen resident said she did not mind the idea of cameras across Mission and McAllen. “Maybe it will be a good idea,” she said. “I don’t have anything to hide.”

This is the worst part of the article I think. Elvia doesn’t even know that the intrusiveness of publicly posted cameras that will be monitoring HER as well as everyone else in the park is a bad thing. Having “nothing to hide” is irrelevant. You shouldn’t have to even be suspect. Is she displaying any criminal tendencies or acting in a potentially criminal behavior? If not, then she should not be under scrutiny. This is purely a case of ignorance allowing an overly invasive policy by the very same people who are supposed to be protecting you to actually watch your every move. Oh wait, you all knew that the police are not even legally required to protect you, right? See http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html for more info. Here is a snippet:

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is “You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980′s when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole.”

Wow. The ACLU has had a recent record for the past couple of decades for only supporting Liberal causes and people. If you were a wronged homosexual, minority, female, or some other ‘oppressed’ group which needs help, you could count on the ACLU to take your case to the highest court in the land. If you were a mere ‘angry white male’ then you had to pay your own way! This is good news in this article, as apparently the ACLU has actually taken up a cause worthy of it’s name. I can’t quite pin a time on when the organization transitioned from a worthy Liberty fighter into the sordid morass of ultra-Leftie defense attorneys they currently are. If you can recall when this happened, let us know…

Treasurer Of Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty Detained And Interrogated For Carrying Cash At St. Louis Airport

NEW YORK, June 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is subjecting innocent Americans to unreasonable searches and detentions that violate the Constitution, according to a lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU filed the complaint on behalf of a traveler who was illegally detained and harassed by TSA agents at the airport for carrying approximately $4,700 in cash.

“Airport searches are the most common encounters between Americans and law enforcement agents. That’s why it is so important for TSA agents to do the job they were trained to do and not engage in fishing expeditions that do nothing to promote flight safety,” said Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “It is, of course, very important to ensure the safety of flights and keep illegal weapons and explosives off planes. But allowing TSA screeners to conduct general purpose law enforcement searches violates the Constitution while diverting limited resources from TSA’s core mission of protecting safety. For the sake of public safety and constitutional values, these unlawful searches should stop.”

full article: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-18-2009/0005046676&EDATE=

The gall of this Trooper is quite disgusting. He alleges that he never knew there was a patient in the ambulance until long into the heated debate. This is patently false. He was told multiple times and chose to ignore it. It sounds like it is a poor attempt to cover himself from liability after he has recognized the trouble he has caused and gotten himself into. This is a sad testament to the “Us vs. Them” mentality that many Law Enforcement personnel inevitably develop. They far too often forget that they are PUBLIC SERVANTS in the service of keeping the peace in the community. Instead, they have been transmogrified into revenue gathering agents of the State. In this case, a 15 year veteran of such a force has demonstrated his lack of control and reason in the field. And this is the kind of person that has a firearm strapped on his hip and ready to deploy? From prior articles, the Trooper has already confirmed his thoughts on having to deployed his service pistol in this altercation against the Paramedics. Imagine what would have happened then?

from the AP: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5guJxbV_-vibDczPSeMTEOpldCrXwD98RFQJ80

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Bothered that an ambulance driver failed to yield to him as he raced to provide backup on a call — and angered further when he thought the driver flipped him an obscene gesture — state Trooper Daniel Martin decided to stop the ambulance and give the driver a piece of his mind.

What Martin didn’t know then, his lawyer said Monday, was that there was a patient in the back of the ambulance.

“He’s not this ogre, this depriver of people’s rights,” the trooper’s attorney, Gary James, said. “He’s a good man.”

Since a cell phone video of the dispute taken by the patient’s son was released last month, Martin has faced criticism and has been placed on paid leave pending an investigation. The patient, Stella Davis of Boley, was eventually treated and released from the hospital, but relatives and others have questioned why the ambulance was stopped and pushed for answers.

After the trooper stopped the vehicle, a paramedic jumped from the back and demanded that Martin talk to him instead of the driver, according to a longer video, taken by the dashboard camera in Martin’s cruiser, that authorities released over the weekend.

“You get back in the ambulance, I’m talking to the driver,” Martin said.

“I’m in charge of this unit, sir,” the paramedic tells Martin, an Iraq war veteran who returned from the Middle East about a month before the May 24 incident in Paden, 40 miles east of Oklahoma City.

Martin tells the driver he’s going to give him a ticket for failure to yield.

“I ain’t going to be putting up with that (expletive),” Martin said. “You understand me?”

Then the paramedic, Maurice White Jr., said: “And I won’t put up with you talking to my driver like that.”

The situation escalates, with White repeatedly telling Martin he has a patient that he wants to take to the hospital, and Martin telling him to get back in the ambulance. They soon begin scuffling on the side of the road as Martin attempts to arrest White, at one point grabbing him by the throat, video shows.

Martin’s attorney said the trooper — whom he described as a decorated sailor and a 15-year law enforcement veteran — didn’t realize there was a patient in the ambulance until well after the situation had intensified. He either didn’t hear it or it didn’t register, he said.

Martin was trying to make a legitimate traffic stop, James said, when White became hostile, refused to comply with the patrolman’s orders and caused the situation to spiral out of control.

James said the law allows an officer to pull over an ambulance if its emergency lights and sirens aren’t running, as was the case in this incident.

Thompson Gouge, spokesman for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, which employs White as a paramedic, said the use of lights and sirens depends on the patient’s medical situation. Sometimes the lights and sirens often won’t be used when patients are transported to the hospital in order to keep them calm.

White’s attorney, Richard O’Carroll, said the veteran paramedic was trying to protect his patient and that the trooper had no reason to stop the ambulance, let alone try and arrest White. The trooper’s arms were bruised when White resisted arrest, James said.

“If the guy was bruised, it didn’t make any difference,” O’Carroll said. “He ought not to stop ambulance drivers for hurting his feelings.”