Ron Paul Cheated Out Of Nomination by 'Powers That Be' Obama Says in Leaked Tape

Also see:

Elections Are Frauds








Tweet

Reporter Hiding From FBI When He Was Killed

Despite the fact that police have ruled his death an accident, the theory that Rolling Stone journalist Michael Hastings was assassinated is gaining more traction as the L.A. Times reports he was being investigated by the FBI and was about to go into hiding, according to an email he sent to a friend just before his death. Hastings also wrote that he was working on a "big story."

Read more related coverage at the following sources:

KTLA 5

L.A. Times

InfoWars.com






Tweet

Felony to 'Annoy' Cops Bill Passes NY Senate

The following article compliments of CopBlock.org and their contributors. 

New York Legislators Seek to Make it Illegal to Annoy Cops

Their lives already are deemed, by law, to be more worthy than yours. In most, if not all states, there are special penal code sections for assault or battery on an officer, as opposed to assault or battery upon an ordinary person. Similarly, there are special penal code sections for killing police officers. You know, because writing traffic tickets and busting people for drugs is so noble a profession that all police officers are clearly a higher order of human being.

They have a right to kill people as long as they utter a few magic words – “I feared for my life.” Killings of innocent, harmless people almost always go unpunished as long as the offending officer claims that he was scared for his life – no matter how unreasonable, cowardly, or absurd the circumstances. Even if the victim was a half-deaf, hobbling, disabled old man.

Although many Americans are still deluded and patriotic enough to believe that Americans are free, and subject to a somewhat functional justice system in which people are “innocent until proven guilty,” this simply isn’t the case. The lives of the powerful and hallowed police, the foot soldiers of the state, are protected with harsher criminal laws, and their violent behavior is protected with qualified immunity. Because of course, while ordinary people should be personally accountable for negligence and personal injuries they cause, it would be simply absurd to hold the same standard to police.

Police, who are supposed to uphold the law and “protect” people, also have the right to arrest people for absolutely no reason. As it currently stands, in the vast majority of the states, police have the legal right to arrest people for no reason. Don’t even try to guess the reasons for that one – they are all bogus. “Oh, we have to be exempt from the law to properly execute the law. We have to arrest you to protect you. We have to break the law to uphold the law, etc.”

Despite all the very real ways in which police are subject to greater legal protections, and possess stronger, greater, legal rights, this is not enough.

There are now legislators who seek to make it illegal to annoy cops. I’ve often hyperbolically referred to police as “gods” in the past, since people illogically feel it is justified for police to be subject to different laws, and maintain greater power than the people they allegedly serve. Now it hardly seems like hyperbole or exaggeration in the least.

New York legislators are attempting to make it a felony for an individual to “annoy, harass, or threaten” a police officer. Offenders could be imprisoned for up to 4 years. Oh boy, that sounds like a great idea. I can’t possibly think of any First amendment or due process concerns there. That law definitely won’t be used by police to imprison, frame, harass, or silence random people they don’t like.

As justification, the legislators claim, “Police officers all across this state put their  lives on  the  line  every  day  to protect the people of New York. New York State must establish laws and toughen existing laws that  protect  the police   from   becoming  victims  of  criminals.  Far  too  many  law enforcement officers are being harassed, injured,  even  killed  while honoring  their  commitment  to  protect  and  serve  this  state…” More here.

As far as I can tell, injuring and killing police officers in unjustified situations are already illegal. Thus, the point of this law cannot possibly be to prevent that from happening, as there are already laws in place for that purpose. This would the same as saying that a law against annoying/pestering/harassing women should be passed, because too many women are being raped and killed. The former simply has nothing to do with the latter.

Secondly, police officers may put their lives on the line occasionally. Or everyday. I really don’t give a fuck. But for the most part, it has little to do with protecting people. They do what they do for a paycheck, like everyone else. Every day they show up at work, they tell themselves and each other, “officer safety first.” They do whatever they are told, whether it be shooting disabled old men, tasering children and half deaf women, beating teenagers for loitering, shooting Sunday school teachers in parking lots, shooting firemen in court, killing parents who smoke weed, stealing peoples’ property to pad their paychecks with civil asset forfeiture, or a slew of other less-than-noble pursuits.

They do good things sometimes too – fine. There are even cops that do good things all the time. I get it. But they are not gods. They are not infallible. They are human like everyone else. They want that paycheck, like everyone else. They do what their boss tells them, like everyone else – except when they do taser children and shoot old people, they don’t get fired, because they have a myriad of laws protecting them, and your endless taxpayer dollars to fund their endeavors.

So for christ’s sake, stop treating them like gods. If it isn’t illegal to annoy, pester, or irritate the guy who builds peoples’ homes, the farmer who feeds people and prevents starvation, and the millions of other fine folks without whose expertise people literally would not be alive – then it sure as fuck should not be illegal to annoy the police.

Also see our own previous coverage at this link:

It May Soon Be a Felony to Annoy a Cop in NY

Man Arrested For Filming NYPD

Shawn Randall Thomas, 47, was arrested and charged on two counts of disorderly conduct after police observed him photographing and videotaping the Brooklyn housing police sub-station in Bushwick over the course of an hour's time. The charges against him allege that he used obscene language and that he blocked the driveway to the police station. Thomas has subsequently filed a complaint with Brooklyn District Attorney's Civil Rights Bureau claiming he was harassed by an officer.


This sort of situation is a delicate one, that stands on the front line of the debate between freedom and security in modern America.

On the one hand, we have a photographer exercising his rights as an American to film as he pleases in a public area. In this instance, the man claims to be filming in order to prepare for another court case stemming from an earlier arrest. Others might say he was clearly trying to annoy the police, and to make a political statement with his actions. Nevertheless, he was not breaking any law.

Even the disorderly conduct charges against him have no merit. He did not actually block traffic in any way, as you can clearly see in the video. He was not "blocking" the driveway any more than a woman with a baby carriage would walking down the sidewalk. He did not impede the flow of traffic, even if he did repeatedly cross back and forth across the entrance. As far as the language goes, it's almost laughable that such a law is even on the books. But even if he did drop a few curse words after police attacked him, it is hardly the same as screaming obscenities over a loudspeaker to disturb the general public by offending children and little old ladies. I am sure I would not have to do much digging at all to pull out some videos of police saying some pretty nasty things to people.

On the other hand, the supposed police officer (in plain clothes refusing to properly identify himself) was within his rights to approach the photographer, to ask questions, and even to maintain an "uncomfortable" level of surveillance on him. Up to that point, the actions by police were no more harassment than the actions of the photographer. Police have as much right as any civilian to go where they please, and to talk to whoever they please. Of course, a civilian is under no obligation to engage in conversation or to answer questions, but the police there were not forcing him to either.

But then we see the arrest go down. We have already established that the arrest was without merit, and therefore now becomes a clear case of harassment by police against a photographer.  Harassment by way of assault and kidnapping.

Let's also keep in mind here that the NYPD operates the most pervasive video and electronic surveillance program in the country. They can spy on citizens all day every day, but don't like it so much when the cameras are turned back on them it seems.

Read more about this case at:

Photography Is Not a Crime

DNAinfo New York

Also see:

An Inside Look at NYPD's 'Stop and Frisk' Policy (VIDEO)






Tweet

Stink of Conspiracy Surrounds Burned Wreckage of Dead Reporter

The revelation that Rolling Stone journalist Michael Hastings was working on a story about the CIA before his death and had contacted a Wikileaks lawyer about being under investigation by the FBI hours before his car exploded into flames has bolstered increasingly valid claims that the 33-year-old was assassinated.

Read more at: InfoWars.com


Related:

The Runaway General by Michael Hastings

Michael Hastings' Takedown Of Stanley McChrystal Is Filled With Insights That Will Be Relevant For Years

Geraldo Rivera On Michael Hastings: 'Hard To Forget' Reporter Ruined General Stanley McChrystal's Career

Tweet

Hong Kong to Newark Flight Into Alarming Mystery

United Airlines Flight 116 from Hong Kong to Newark, NJ was met by Federal agents after a passenger caused a disturbance on board the plane, a little more than halfway though the 16-hour flight.

It was initially reported by many news agencies, citing the FBI as their source, that the man claimed to have poisoned the passengers aboard the plane. This turned out to be false however. Another instance of media and government lies.

What really happened is that a man named Daniel M. Perry began speaking loudly in an anti-government rant while also saying that he was in fear for his life. During his rant he claimed to have been poisoned with a dart shot into his neck. He claimed that he was being transferred by the CIA from Hong Kong, where whistle-blower Edward Snowden outed crimes by US spy agencies, to a government "safe house" where he would never be heard from again. Perry went on to claim that he had secret information to share, that Snowden was "right," that government workers' lives are in danger, and pleaded that the flight be diverted to Canada.

The Binghamton, NY native claimed to work for the American embassy in Abu Dhabi. Though that has not been specifically confirmed, sources have admitted he was indeed a Federal employee. He also declared his name to passengers, his social security number, and other identifying information. Some reports claim that he is married to a Chinese spy.

So was he really just some raving lunatic on a plane, was he telling the truth, or was this incident a psyop itself of some sort? We will probably never know. But this incident certainly opens another curious chapter in the saga of the the new spy wars American agents now find themselves embroiled in.

It should also be pointed out here, that the man who was hauled off by agents did not actually threaten anyone. So is it a crime now to speak out against the government, even if you are just some wacko who has no clue about anything? Worse though, is the thought that this Federal employee might have had real reason to be alarmed, and to plead for help from his fellow passengers.

"He did not seem excessively disturbed. He was not running up and down the aisles. He was not attempting to hurt anyone. He was not moving about in any agitated fashion. He was just yelling in a loud voice to make certain that everyone heard him." -Passenger

See related stories at these links from:

SHTFplan.com

Before It's News

CBS 2 NY

ABC 6 Philadelphia

The Washington Post

Reuters









Tweet

Illegal to Let Your Kids Play Outside

Tammy Cooper of LaPorte, Texas was arrested on child endangerment charges after the mother let her two children, 6 and 9 ride scooters in the cul-de-sac where they live. A neighbor called police and said the children were not supervised. Cooper says she was sitting in a lawn chair in the front yard with an eye on her children the entire time.

Police arrived to the home after the children were already done playing for the day and getting ready for bed. After contacting the local District Attorney's office, Cooper was arrested in front of her children, and hauled off to jail where she was held for the next 18 hours.

The charges against here were eventually dropped, but a $7,000 bill for legal expenses remains, not to mention the emotional and psychological damage that comes from being wrongfully arrested as well as the damage done to her children's well-being by seeing their mother hauled off to jail.

In the video below much of the blame is laid on the neighbor who called police. Having a nosy
neighbor like that would certainly annoy me, but I think the blame here lays squarely with the police and the DA's office. Are the police so woefully incompetent that they cannot discern between an actual crime and the complaint of a busy-body neighbor? It's either that, or they are intentionally using any excuse, no matter how weak, to threaten, harass, intimidate, imprison, and financially shake down citizens who are not guilty of any crimes whatsoever.

Now let's imagine for a moment that the mother wasn't actually in the front yard the entire time? So what? When I was a boy I used to ride my bicycle around my entire apartment complex all day long. I also had to walk a mile to school, through a crime-ridden and violent part of town because students who lived within a one-mile radius were not allowed to ride a school bus. It is hardly uncommon for youngsters to ride their bicycles and skateboards and scooters up and down the streets and sidewalks of their own neighborhoods, and more often than not they are not under the constant visual surveillance of a parent. Not only do children actually need to be independent, within reason, but parents cannot possibly be expected to never take their eyes off their children. It is simply impractical.

Again, when I was boy, I was told where my boundaries were. At first, I was not allowed to leave sight of my building. My mother didn't sit staring at me the entire afternoon as I played on the swings or rode my Big-Wheel, but I was still within earshot if I screamed, and she could casually glance out the window from time to time to make sure everything was okay. The next year I was a little older, and knew little better how to get help if I needed it and how to avoid danger, I was confined to the apartment complex. When visiting other neighborhoods with friends, their parents would tell us we were not allowed to go further than the local corner store, or beyond a certain street, or to ride on a dangerous roadway. The boundaries were expanded as we got older and our parents recognized our gorwing need for independence as well as our ability to be responsible.

Perhaps there are those who think this is child abuse though. That children who are being taught to be independent are actually being put in harm's way, and that if anything were to happen to them the parent must be blamed for the natural fact that the world is and always will be a dangerous place. Perhaps these folks believe that children should be placed in front of the television and not allowed to leave their seats. Of course those children will wind up with diabetes and will suffer a heart attack by the time they are 30. But at least they won't get skin cancer from sunlight or lung cancer from unfiltered fresh air, right? When the kid gets their driver's license, they won't be able to find their own way ten blocks to a new job and will wind up lost in some hellish ghetto in a soccer-Mom van, but at least they won't get kidnapped or hit by a car before they turn 17. Right?

It is absolutely ludicrous that we see something like this even happens at all in a so-called "free country" but Ms. Cooper should be awarded an enormous settlement to make damn sure that something like this never happens again. Sadly though, that is not the trend in America today, as we continually slip into this fascist police-state of tyranny and oppression, for our own good they say.

Dallas News | myFOXdfw.com
Read more at: FOX 4







Tweet

TWA Flight 800 Documentary (FULL VIDEO)

Also see more info at:

Retired Investigators Come Forward to Claim TWA Flight 800 Was Shot Down





Tweet

Boston Bombing Top Investigator Resigns From FBI Under Cloud of Suspicion

The special agent in charge of the FBI's headquarters in Boston has resigned. Richard DesLauriers took over the office in 2010 and was in charge of the Boston Marathon Bombing investigation.

The 26-year veteran announced he would be retiring from the agency 4 years early, in order to take a private sector job as vice-president of corporate security for the Penske Corporation. He said in an interview that he was offered the position in March, but delayed because of the Boston Bombing investigation. While a move like this is not particularly unusual under normal circumstances, in this instance, it does raise some curiosities when other irregularities surrounding the Boston Bombing are considered.

To begin, it is coincidental that he is leaving for a job with Penske in particular. On the day of the bombing the FBI told Boston police to locate a suspicious Penske rental truck, and one police official told the press that they were "desperately seeking" the yellow vehicle and its driver.

The following video shows clips of DesLauriers at a press conference. 


The fact that he outright refused to answer the questions about the supposed bomb drill should be cause for concern for any honest American.

Live 'Controlled Explosion' Drill Continues After Real Bombing In Boston

Strong Evidence 'Drill' Was Cover For Actual Bombing In Boston

He then goes on to give the impression that the FBI do not know the identity of the suspects shown in the pictures they released. This contradicts the fact that the two men they were looking for had been known to the FBI for at least 5 years.

Mother Claims Bombing Suspect Counseled By FBI For Years

He then goes on to become very adamant that the public ignore all other pictures that may be floating around. This is quite disturbing when one considers that there are several images of two women placing what is believed to be one of the bombs, and that the FBI destroyed photo evidence at the crime scene. This seems to add credibility to the claim of the suspects' family that they were framed.

Father Claims Bombing Suspect Sons Were Framed

Boston Bombing Witness Says FBI Deleted His Crime Scene Photos

Do These Images Reveal The Real Boston Bombers?

Add this to the fact that the first suspect was killed under questionable circumstances, and that the second suspect was not armed when officials opened fire on him. There has been no explanation as to why police and agents tried to murder an unarmed man, and there has been no accountability for their actions. It makes no difference what a person is accused of, officials have no right to try to kill an unarmed person.

Bombing Suspect Was Not Armed

Who Was the Naked Suspect?

DesLauriers himself should be held accountable and be made to publicly explain these alarming questions, rather than treated as a hero and dashing out the side door before the case is even brought before a court. So under these circumstances, it is indeed curious that the special agent in charge is leaving his post.

There have also been a several curious deaths since the Boston Bombing. In May, two agents assigned to the elite FBI Hostage Rescue Team were reported killed in an apparent fall from a helicopter during a training exercise. That team was directly involved with the arrest of Boston Bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. In other words, the two men that were killed likely had intimate knowledge of the attempt to kill that suspect.

FBI: Agents died in fall from helicopter off Va. coast

In another case, an acquaintance of the suspects was killed by an FBI agent during questioning regarding an unsolved murder.The circumstances of that death are also very disturbing.

Acquaintance of Alleged Boston Bomber Killed by FBI

Even if the retirement of the Boston Bombing lead investigator is simply a coincidence, many other questions still remain, and must be answered.

Tweet

'Enemies of Israel' Targeted in Domestic Terror Plot

ALBANY, NY - Two men have been arrested by Federal authorities after a lengthy investigation which began in April of last year. Eric Feight, 54, of Hudson and Glendon Crawford, 49, of Galway, each face 15 years in prison. 

The duo are alleged to have designed and constructed a radiation weapon, but the FBI claims the device had been rendered inoperable and never posed any danger at any point during the undercover investigation.

The device was designed to operate as an  x-ray gun capable of delivering a fatal dose of radiation to remotely targeted individuals. The victims would not know that they had abosrbed a lethal dose of radiation until debilitating symptoms appeared days later.

The investigation began after Crawford approached Jewish organizations and synagogues soliciting interest in a device that could kill enemies of Israel "while they slept." Alternately, he claimed to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan and was arrested trying to sell the device to Federal agents posing as members of the KKK. Crawford was also a member of Tea Party Patriots and listed himself on Linkedin as an "obedient drone" working for General Electric.

Feight

Crawford

Crawford Complaint - Searchable

Tweet

TWA Flight 800 Was Shot Down Whistleblowers Claim

Conspiracy theorists appear to be vindicated yet again, as six original investigators of the Flight 800 disaster have come forward to claim the airliner was shot down by a missile. The official cause of the crash was reported to be an electrical short circuit in the plane's fuel tank, but there is substantial evidence which contradicts the findings of the NTSB.



Read more details on the story at: CNN, and FOX News

Read more about the so-called "missile theory" at the following links:  

Wikipedia    

WhatReallyHappened.com    

TWA800.com





Tweet

Stray Dogs of Moscow Learn to Navigate Subways

Stray dogs of Moscow, Russia have discovered that the best way to find food is to commute into the city via public transportation.

Tweet