Massachusetts Family Fights To Gain Control Of Daughter’s Medical Care – Parents Worst Nightmare

February 23, 2014 in "Bill of Rights", Children, Constitution, Founding Principles, Freedom, Nanny State, Progressivism, Socialism

Boston Children HospitalFamily Fights To Gain Control Of Daughter’s Medical Care – America’s News HQ
Massachusetts Court Takes Custody Away From Parents & Put A Gag Order On Parents! “Nuts”
Fighting For His Daughter
Attack On Parental Rights
Wake The Hell Up America

The Department of Children and Families (DCF) Has File Contempt Charges Against The Father For Going Public & Fighting For His Daughter Life – Is This America!


Father Speaks Out On Losing Custody Of Daughter Over Medical Issues – Parents Worst Nightmare

==============================­=========­=­===
**Please Click Below to SUBSCRIBE for More “Mass Tea Party” Videos:
http://goo.gl/Z5ShLs
==============================­=========­=­===

New Bill I Kansas Would Allow Spanking That Leaves Bruises On Kids – Forbes On Fox

February 22, 2014 in "Bill of Rights", Constitution, School

SpankingCorporal Punishment

98 Of 100 U.S. School Districts Prohibit Corporal Punishment  At School

2006 Data: More Than 223,00 U.S. Students Were Legally Hit In Public Schools

New Bill I Kansas Would Allow Spanking That Leaves Bruises On Kids – Forbes On Fox

==============================­=========­=­===
**Please Click Below to SUBSCRIBE for More “Mass Tea Party” Videos:
http://goo.gl/Z5ShLs
==============================­=========­=­===

FCC Chief To Congress We’re Not Going To Police U.S. Newsroom – ‘Net Neutrality’- America’s Newsroom

February 21, 2014 in "Bill of Rights", Net Neutrality, United States Constitution

Net NF.C.C. Seeks a New Way To Implement on ‘Net Neutrality’ Rules (Control The Internet?)
FCC Chief To Congress We’re Not Going To Police U.S. Newsroom America’s Newsroom
Wake The Hell Up America Your Republic & Freedom In Grave Danger!

==============================­=========­=­===
**Please Click Below to SUBSCRIBE for More “Mass Tea Party” Videos:
http://goo.gl/Z5ShLs
==============================­=========­=­===

News Police Exposed – Obama Admin Pushes FCC To Install Newsroom Spies – On The Record

February 20, 2014 in "Bill of Rights", Constitution, dictator, DICTATORSHIP, President Obama

NewsFCC News Police Exposed Lawmakers Demand Answers On FCC Pilot Program – On The Record
Fair Doctrine 2.0 – Silencing The Media – Wake The Hell Up America
News Police Exposed – Obama Admin Pushes FCC To Install Newsroom Spies – On The Record

FCC Proposed Newsroom Study – Is Gov Trying To Dictate The News – Special Report All Star


==============================­=========­=­===
**Please Click Below to SUBSCRIBE for More “Mass Tea Party” Videos:
http://goo.gl/Z5ShLs
==============================­=========­=­===

Obamacare – “The Employer May Not Reduce The size Of Its Workforce Or Overall Hours Of Service Of Its Employees”

February 11, 2014 in "Bill of Rights", 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, Congress, Constitution, dictator, DICTATORSHIP, Obamanation, President Obama, Progressivism, Socialism, Socialist

Dictator“The Employer May Not Reduce The size Of Its Workforce Or Overall Hours Of Service Of Its Employees”
“Bona Fide Business Reasons”
Under Pains Of Perjury
Final IRS Regs For US Code 4980H
“Shared Responsibility For Employers Regarding Health Coverage”

Obama Admin Delaying ACA Employer Mandate & Regulating Workforce Size Judge Andrew Napolitano -The Kelly File

Wake The Hell Up America!!!
Obama Admin Delaying ACA Employer Mandate & Regulating Workforce Size Judge Andrew Napolitano -The Kelly File

http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/reg-138006-12.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/pdf/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleD-chap43-sec4980H.pdf

Fed Judge Orders Obama Admin To Release Secret Foreign Aid Document – Judge Andrew Napolitano

December 18, 2013 in "Bill of Rights", Anarchy, Congress, Constitution, dictator, DICTATORSHIP, Foreign Policy, Government, Homeland Security, Justice, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama's America 2016, Obamanation, President Obama, Propaganda, Supreme Court

JudgeFOIA Case Ruling On Obama admin Document “Branch Without The Public Oversight, To Engage In What Is In Effect Governance By ‘Secret Law.'” -Ellen Segal Huvelle Judge, U.S. District Court December 17, 2013
Bill Clinton Appointee Fed Judge Orders Obama Admin To Release Secret Foreign Aid Document – Judge Andrew Napolitano – The Kelly File

Barack Hussein Obama’s Obsession with Providing Enemy Combatants with Constitutional Rights is Irrational

March 7, 2013 in "Bill of Rights", Abuse of Power, Constitution, Constitutional, Liberty, National Security, President Obama, United State Military

Enemy CombatantsAs a former practicing Constitutional Lawyer and Professor, Barrack Hussein Obama is not only demonstrating irrational behavior, but also unconstitutional behavior that is setting a dangerous precedent. Forget that his decision will prevent us from obtaining important or crucial intelligence about our enemies.  His behavior is Irrational in that it took a filibuster by  Senator Rand Paul to get him to state that American Citizens on American soil, not posing an immediate threat  are to be afforded their Constitutional rights and are not  to be treated as enemy combatants. Irrational because  he is providing enemy combatants  with Constitutional Rights reserved for American Citizens. The following Supreme Court Case is the precedent for the treatment for enemy combatants. Other cases reinforce this decision.

“Supreme court decision, “Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S.1 (1942), is a Supreme Court of the United States case that upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of several Operation Pastorius German saboteurs in the United States. Quirin has been cited as a precedent for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant against the United States.

It was argued July 29 and July 30, 1942 and decided July 31, 1942 with an extended opinion filed October 29, 1942.

 …the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.”

What in the world could Barack Hussein Obama’s rationale be, for on the one hand attempting to deny Constitutional Rights to American Citizens, while on the other providing them to enemy combatants?

[subscribe2]

DHS built domestic surveillance tech into Predator drones

March 7, 2013 in "Bill of Rights", Abuse of Power, Constitutional, Homeland Security, Liberty in Jeopardy, Political Deception, President Obama, Senate

Senator Rand Paul has good reason to be concerned about Barack Hussein Obama and his CIA Nominee John Brennan’s potential use of drones to kill American Citizens on American Soil.


predator1_610x346You see, the DHS developed standards and built in domestic surveillance technology into the Predator drones! Since John Brennan  w
ould not unequivocally state, during his Senate nomination hearings,  that killing American citizens on Americans soil who are not imminent threats, with drones is unconstitutional. WE cannot allow the Senate consent to his nomination as CIA chief .  You need to call your Senators and tell them to Vote NO!

 

cnet by Declan McCullagh  

DHS built domestic surveillance tech into Predator drones

Homeland Security’s specifications say drones must be able to detect whether a civilian is armed. Also specified: “signals interception” and “direction finding” for electronic surveillance
Homeland Security required that this Predator drone, built by General Atomics, be capable of detecting whether a standing human at night is “armed or not.”

(Credit: U.S. Department of Homeland Security)

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has customized its Predator drones, originally built for overseas military operations, to carry out at-home surveillance tasks that have civil libertarians worried: identifying civilians carrying guns and tracking their cell phones, government documents show.

The documents provide more details about the surveillance capabilities of the department’s unmanned Predator B drones, which are primarily used to patrol the United States’ northern and southern borders but have been pressed into service on behalf of a growing number of law enforcement agencies including the FBI, the Secret Service, the Texas Rangers, and local police.

Homeland Security’s specifications for its drones, built by San Diego-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, say they “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not,” meaning carrying a shotgun or rifle. They also specify “signals interception” technology that can capture communications in the frequency ranges used by mobile phones, and “direction finding” technology that can identify the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center obtained a partially redacted copy of Homeland Security’s requirements for its drone fleet through the Freedom of Information Act and published it this week. CNET unearthed an unredacted copy of the requirements that provides additional information about the aircraft’s surveillance capabilities.

Homeland Security’s Predator B drone can stay aloft conducting surveillance for 20 hours.

Drone 2

Concern about domestic use of drones is growing, with federal legislation introduced last month that would establish legal safeguards, in addition to parallel efforts underway from state and local lawmakers. The Federal Aviation Administration recently said that it will “address privacy-related data collection” by drones.

The prospect of identifying armed Americans concerns Second Amendment advocates, who say that technology billed as securing the United States’ land and maritime borders should not be used domestically. Michael Kostelnik, the Homeland Security official who created the program, told Congress that the drone fleet would be available to “respond to emergency missions across the country,” and a Predator drone was dispatched to the tiny

(Credit: U.S. Department of Homeland Security)

town of Lakota, N.D., to aid local police in a dispute that began with reimbursement for feeding six cows. The defendant, arrested with the help of Predator surveillance, lost a preliminary bid to dismiss the charges.

“I am very concerned that this technology will be used against law-abiding American firearms owners,” says Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. “This could violate Fourth Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights.”

Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection agency declined to answer questions about whether direction-finding technology is currently in use on its drone fleet. A representative provided CNET with a statement about the agency’s unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) that said signals interception capability is not currently used:

 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is not deploying signals interception capabilities on its UAS fleet. Any potential deployment of such technology in the future would be implemented in full consideration of civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy interests and in a manner consistent with the law and long-standing law enforcement practices.

 

CBP’s UAS program is a vital border security asset. Equipped with state-of-the-art sensors and day-and-night cameras, the UAS provides real-time images to frontline agents to more effectively and efficiently secure the nation’s borders. As a force multiplier, the UAS operates for extended periods of time and allows CBP to safely conduct missions over tough-to-reach terrain. The UAS also provides agents on the ground with added situational awareness to more safely resolve dangerous situations.

 

During his appearance before the House Homeland Security committee, Kostelnik, a retired Air Force major general who recently left the agency, testified that the drones’ direction-finding ability is part of a set of “DOD capabilities that are being tested or adopted by CBP to enhance UAS performance for homeland security.” CBP currently has 10 Predator drones and is considering buying up to 14 more.

If the Predator drones were used only to identify smugglers or illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican and Canadian borders, or for disaster relief, they might not be especially controversial. But their use domestically by other government agencies has become routine enough — and expensive enough — that Homeland Security’s inspector general said (PDF) last year that CBP needs to sign agreements “for reimbursement of expenses incurred fulfilling mission requests.”

“The documents clearly evidence that the Department of Homeland Security is developing drones with signals interception technology and the capability to identify people on the ground,” says Ginger McCall, director of the Open Government Project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “This allows for invasive surveillance, including potential communications surveillance, that could run afoul of federal privacy laws.”

A Homeland Security official, who did not want to be identified by name, said the drones are able to identify whether movement on the ground comes from a human or an animal, but that they do not perform facial recognition. The official also said that because the unarmed drones have a long anticipated life span, the department tries to plan ahead for future uses to support its border security mission, and that aerial surveillance would comply with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and other applicable federal laws.

The documents show that CBP specified that the “tracking accuracy should be sufficient to allow target designation,” and the agency notes on its Web site that its Predator B series is capable of “targeting and weapons delivery” (the military version carries multiple 100-pound Hellfire missiles). CBP says, however, that its Predator aircraft are unarmed.

Gene Hoffman, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who’s the chairman of the Calguns Foundation, said CBP “needs to be very careful with attempts to identify armed individuals in the border area” when aerial surveillance touches on a constitutional right.

“In the border area of California and Arizona, it may be actively dangerous for the law-abiding to not carry firearms precisely due to the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the border in those areas,” Hoffman says.

CBP’s specifications say that signals interception and direction-finding technology must work from 30MHz to 3GHz in the radio spectrum. That sweeps in the GSM and CDMA frequencies used by mobile phones, which are in the 300MHz to 2.7GHz range, as well as many two-way radios.

The specifications say: “The system shall provide automatic and manual DF of multiple signals simultaneously. Automatic DF should be able to separate out individual communication links.” Automated direction-finding for cell phones has become an off-the-shelf technology: one company sells a unit that its literature says is “capable of taking the bearing of every mobile phone active in a channel.”

Although CBP’s unmanned Predator aircraft are commonly called drones, they’re remotely piloted by FAA-licensed operators on the ground. They can fly for up to 20 hours and carry a payload of about 500 lbs.

 
Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People’s Money column for CBS News’ Web site.
see more at:   http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57572207-38/dhs-built-domestic-surveillance-tech-into-predator-drones/
[subscribe2]

Don’t Allow Colorado’s Blatantly Unconstitutional Gun Laws to Become a Harbinger for MA

March 5, 2013 in "Bill of Rights", 2nd Amendment, Abuse of Power, Constitutional, Deval Patrick, Founding Principles, Freedom, Generational Theft, Liberty, Liberty in Jeopardy, MA, Obamanation, Political Deception, Political Incompetence, President Obama, United States Constitution, US Sovereignty

Judge NapolitanoOUR Declaration of Independence states that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

Consequently, one  can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights. They are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken.  All individual’s have unalienable rights.

Our Second Amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

There are today, people in our country,  who are attempting to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms and would thereby place our personal safety, our family’s safety  and our country’s safety in jeopardy of being overrun by criminality and anarchists.  However, our forefathers understood that our right to bear arms is  so basic and intrinsic a right that not even Government can not eradicate it.  Consequently, we have  an obligation to future generations to guard this right jealously from Federal encroachment by Barack Hussein Obama and State encroachment by Deval Patrick and his minions in our Legislature.

The following are but a few of the multitude of writings by our forefathers regarding this subject:

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. …Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.–Thomas Jefferson, quoting with approval a noted criminologist of his day.

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) 

Today Megan Kelly talked to Judge Andrew Napolitano about Colorado’s blatantly unconstitutional gun law proposals:

Megan Kelly:  Colorado is becoming a hot spot in the fight over second Amendment Rights today after a legislative committee approves a controversial bill that would make weapons manufacturers and sellers liable for crimes committed with their guns.

This legislation would become one of the most dramatic gun laws in the country and is polarizing the state. The lawmakers in Colorado believe that they have the votes. And what they are trying to do is impose criminal liability or civil liability?

Judge Andrew Napolitano:  Civil liability for the manufacturer or the re-seller if the gun is used to commit a crime .

Megan Kelly:  So  if I have I’m in a gun shop business  and  I got a gun shop and I sell someone a gun and they use it and kill somebody, I could  potentially get sued as the gun shop owner?

Judge Andrew Napolitano:  Yes, as is could the manufacturer from whom you bought the gun.  And if the person to whom you sold it sells it to another person, then the person to whom you sold it could be liable for the criminal behavior of the ultimate user. That’s why you heard in one of the clips you just ran, police saying, police testifying at this hearing; this is un- enforceable. You can’t possibly impose a burden on on-d the third person down the line.

Megan Kelly:  How far down the line can you go?

Judge Andrew Napolitano:  Think about it. Can we , we hold General Motors liable because an automobile kills someone even if its used recklessly, even if it’s used criminally? Of course not! We just don’t do that in America. This transference of liability is basically wrong and unfair.

[subscribe2]

 

 

 

 

 

Own A Gun? – State Consider Mandating Firearm Insurance! – Gun Control! – Unconstitutional!

February 6, 2013 in "Bill of Rights", 2nd Amendment, Gun Control

Gun InsuranceThey Are Looking For A Way To Infringe On Your Constitutional Rights! – Wake Up America!

BOSTON —  As lawmakers cast around for ways to curb gun-related violence, some are hoping the insurance market might offer incentives.

A bill filed Friday in Massachusetts would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance in the event that a firearm is used to injure.

The insurance policies would give those injured by a weapon a legal recourse, backers of the bill say, but they also would create financial incentives that could reduce accidents and fatalities. Gun owners, for example, might see lower insurance rates if they agreed to take firearms training courses and properly stored their weapons.

“Insurance companies were able to discourage smoking through the marketplace and make cars safer through the marketplace,” said state Rep. David Linsky, the bill’s sponsor.

And insurers have more leeway than law enforcement in some cases, he said.

Massachusetts already has gun storage laws, but police cannot come into a person’s home without a warrant, Linsky pointed out. An insurance company, however, would be able to verify that there is proper gun storage before writing a policy.

Officials at the National Conference of State Legislatures say that, to their knowledge, no state has adopted a gun insurance requirement.

The idea is already meeting with resistance from gun rights advocates, who say it amounts to more regulation aimed at law-abiding gun owners.

“Now we’re going to have insurance companies telling us how we are supposed to be trained and where we are going to store our guns?” said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League in Massachusetts.

Craig Baenziger, who works at a gun- and ammunition-seller in North Attleboro called Northeast Trading Co., said requiring liability insurance for guns makes little sense because it targets people who buy the weapons legally instead of going after criminals who illegally possess them.

“Insurance on your gun isn’t really going to decrease crime or accidents. Nobody shoots their friend on purpose. It’s not going to do anything,” Baenziger said. “It’s just a way to increase revenue for the state.”

But supporters say requiring liability insurance could cut down on accidents, because gun owners who store their weapons safely would pay less for their insurance. It could also curb the flow of illegal guns because insurance policies would reward owners who secure weapons against theft.

Other recent gun-control proposals being pushed in the wake of the shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., have focused more directly on banning the sale or possession of certain weapons.

President Barack Obama is pushing a series of steps including requiring background checks on all gun sales, reinstating the ban on guns classified as assault weapons and renewing a 10-round limit on the size of ammunition magazines.

By Steve LeBlanc THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.telegram.com/article/20130119/NEWS/101199988/1052