Election Day Alternative Media Selections

Here is a little selection of articles from less-than-mainstream information sources talking about things you won't see on FOX or MSNBC.

Foreign election officials amazed by trust-based U.S. voting system

Election Fraud, 42 Ways it’s Institutionalizing Corruption and Tyranny

What’s Wrong With Ohio Voting Machine Software?

7 Technologies That Will Make It Easier for the Next President to Hunt and Kill You

The End of America As We Knew It

Tweet

George Carlin: Illusion of Choice (Video)

BONUS ROUND:

Tweet

Underwear Goes Inside the Pants

Why is marijuana not legal? Why is marijuana not legal?

It's a natural plant that grows in the dirt.

Do you know what's not natural?

80 year old dudes with hard-ons. That's not natural.

But we got pills for that.

We're dedicating all our medical resources to keeping the old guys erect,

but we're putting people in jail for something that grows in the dirt?

You know we have more prescription drugs now.

Every commercial that comes on TV is a prescription drug ad.

I can't watch TV for four minutes without thinking I have five serious diseases.

Like: "Do you ever wake up tired in the morning?"

Oh my god I have this, write this down. Whatever it is, I have it.

Half the time I don't even know what the commercial is:

people running in fields or flying kites or swimming in the ocean.

I'm like that is the greatest disease ever. How do you get that?

That disease comes with a hot chick and a puppy.

The schools now: It is all about self-esteem in the schools now.

Build the kids' self-esteem, make them feel good about themselves.

If everybody grows up with high self-esteem, who is going to dance in our strip clubs?

What's going to happen to our porno industry?

These women don't just grown on trees.

It takes lots of drunk dads missing dance recitals before you decide to blow a goat on the internet for fifty bucks.

And if that disappears, where does that leave me on a Friday night with my new high speed connection?

Masterminds are another word that comes up all the time.

You keep hearing about these terrorists masterminds that get killed in the middle east.

Terrorists masterminds.

Mastermind is sort of a lofty way to describe what these guys do, don't you think?

They're not masterminds.

"OK, you take bomb, right? And you put in your backpack. And you get on bus and you blow yourself up. Alright?"

"Why do I have to blow myself up? Why can't I just:"

"Who's the fucking mastermind here? Me or you?"

Americans, let's face it: We've been a spoiled country for a long time.

Do you know what the number one health risk in America is?

Obesity. They say we're in the middle of an obesity epidemic.

An epidemic like it is polio. Like we'll be telling our grand kids about it one day.

The Great Obesity Epidemic of 2004.

"How'd you get through it grandpa?"

"Oh, it was horrible Johnny, there was cheesecake and pork chops everywhere."

Nobody knows why were getting fatter? Look at our lifestyle.

I'll sit at a drive thru.

I'll sit there behind fifteen other cars instead of getting up to make the eight foot walk to the totally empty counter.

Everything is mega meal, super sized. Want biggie fries, super sized, want to go large.

You want to have thirty burgers for a nickel you fat mother fucker. There's room in the bag. Take it!

Want a 55 gallon drum of Coke with that? It's only three more cents.

Sometimes you have to suffer a little bit in your youth to motivate yourself to succeed in later life.

Do you think if Bill Gates got laid in high school, do you think there'd be a Microsoft?

Of course not.

You got to spend a long time in your own locker with your underwear shoved up your ass before you start to think,

"You'll see. I'm going to take of the world of computers! I'll show them."

We're in one of the richest countries in the world,

but the minimum wage is lower than it was thirty five years ago.

There are homeless people everywhere.

This homeless guy asked me for money the other day.

I was about to give it to him and then I thought he was going to use it on drugs or alcohol.

And then I thought, that's what I'm going to use it on.

Why am I judging this poor bastard.

People love to judge homeless guys. Like if you give them money they're just going to waste it.

Well, he lives in a box, what do you want him to do? Save it up and buy a wall unit?

Take a little run to the store for a throw rug and a CD rack? He's homeless.

I walked behind this guy the other day.

A homeless guy asked him for money.

He looks right at the homeless guy and says why don't you go get a job you bum.

People always say that to homeless guys like it is so easy.

This homeless guy was wearing his underwear outside his pants.

Outside his pants. I'm guessing his resume isn't all up to date.

I'm predicting some problems during the interview process.

I'm pretty sure even McDonalds has a "underwear goes inside the pants" policy.

Not that they enforce it really strictly, but technically I'm sure it is on the books.

Tweet

Big-Brother Needs No Warrant to Put Surveillance Cameras on Private Property, Federal Court Rules

In a precedent-setting case, U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled that it was reasonable for DEA agents to enter private property without permission and without a warrant. Further, the judge adopted the recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan that evidence collected by surveillance cameras, which were placed on the property by trespassing Federal agents, did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendants who now face life in prison for growing marijuana. The property in this case, was protected by a locked gate and marked with "no trespassing" notice signs.

"The Supreme Court has upheld the use of technology as a substitute for ordinary police surveillance," -Magistrate Callahan

There are actually two separate arguments to be made here. The first, is the Constitutional matter of the Fourth Amendment. The second would be to ask if the police have the right to vilate the law in order to enforce the law, which we will discuss below in a few moments.

Were the judge's wrong in stating that the rights of the defendant's had not been violated?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -4th Amendment

Debatable, but the Amendment does not specify property, other than to say "effects" which is also defined as moveable property. Land is not moveable (though it is transferable.) This interpretation is more than likely they basis of  a 1984 Supreme Court case called Oliver v. United States, in which a majority of the justices said that "open fields" could be searched without warrants because they're not covered by the Fourth Amendment.

On the other hand, the word "houses" can be interpreted to include land in the common area immediately surrounding a home, any enclosed area of property adjoining a habitated building, and so forth. This is referred to as curtilage.

The word house is defined as: A structure serving as a dwelling for one or more persons, especially for a family.

In other words, once a fence is put up, the land could certainly be considered as part of the structure of the house and no longer an "open field." Again, in this particular case, the property was protected by a locked gate and signs notifying potential transgressors that they would be guilty of trespassing, should they cross the marked boundary.

So now we see that this land could indeed fall under the purview of the Fourth Amendment, through the word "house" if the enclosed property is a part of the dwelling of the property owner. Other examples might include your enclosed porch, a garage, a carport, a barn, and so forth.

The second argument to be noted here, is the fact that the Federal agents committed a crime in order to gather their evidence, and that the evidence was obtained as a direct result of that criminal act. Can police break the law in order to enforce the law? In many instances, the answer is an unfortunate yes.

Breaking the Law to Enforce It: Undercover Police Participation in Crime

However, in these cases, the breaking of the law is given special permission by operational commanders and may be specified by a court in individual cases or through "affirmative defense" clauses written in at the time a law is adopted. Statutory protections for law-enforcement are in place for run-of-the-mill police work, such as when a police officer makes a drug-buy from a criminal, and the drugs are turned over immediately as evidence, rather than taken home by the officer for personal use.Deception is permissible and cannot itself be said to be a violation of law.

Other more questionable but often approved activity might be deemed as necessary as part of peripheral concerns in an ongoing operation. An example of this might be when a narcotics officer operating in an undercover capacity is forced to ingest narcotics in order to maintain operational integrity and even his own personal safety.

While arguments could be made for or against these sanctioned violations of law by government agents, one place where we should certainly draw the line is when evidence is obtained through a direct violation of law. An extreme example of this might be to have a police officer carry out a killing at the behest of a mafia boss, in order to bring a murder-by-proxy charge against that mafia boss. Another example might be that a police officer can't buy a joint from a drug dealer, smoke it, and then arrest the drug dealer for selling him the joint. Yet nother example might be in a case where a police officer assaults a person in order to glean information. It is not and should not be allowed.
 
In essence, that is what we have here in this case though. Even if the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights were not violated the police still committed a criminal act against the property owner, in order to gather their information, and said information is a direct result of that violation. This is an important distinction. The police did not just violate a law, like maybe smoking a joint in order to get more information, they committed an act directly against the law in place to protect a citizen property owner.

If the police surveillance had been done from outside of the property and looking in, there might still be grounds for a Fourth Amendment defense. Do police need a warrant to use a telephoto lens to peer into the windows of your home? Do police need a warrant to fly overhead and take a heat-signature snapshot of your home and it's contents? Maybe, maybe not. Such evidence might be allowed or thrown out on a case by case basis.

But in this instance, we are talking about government agents actually breaking the law, not simply pushing back the boundaries of their legal purview to conduct a search. They did indeed knowingly pass onto private property. That is a violation of trespass law. The violation is elevated to a criminal trespass because the property was fenced. In some states, trespassing while armed is a felony, and it is more than likely that they were carrying firearms. The property owner might also be able to show that the placement of the surveillance equipment did damage to his property, which would constitute an additional charge of criminal mischief. Often too, each of these charges may be elevated when each act is committed while in the commission of another crime. In other words, their violation of law is no small thing, and if you as a civilian were to commit such an act, you would likely spend years in prison and be sued for extensive civil liability as well.

All in all, there is one final question you should ask yourself. Why should police and government agents have this power? Why didn't they just go get a warrant in the first place? The simple but scary answer is because the government is now setting the precedent that your private property is no longer private. That with or without cause, they can come onto your property and do whatever they want. Sounds like Communism to me, not the America I was raised to believe in.

How do you define police-state?

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras- In latest case to test how technological developments alter Americans' privacy, federal court sides with Justice Department on police use of concealed surveillance cameras on private property.











Tweet