» Military & Police React to Obama’s Total Gun Confiscation Plan Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!
Dec 28, 2012
Alex talks about the growing momentum of Democrats led by California’s Dianne Feinstein to ram through legislation in the new year banning a large number of firearms and rolling back the Second Amendment following the Sandy Hook massacre in Connecticut earlier this month.
He talks about the collectivization of America and covers the so-called fiscal cliff as Democrats and Republicans fail to come up with a deal as the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 are scheduled to go into effect.
Military & Police Call in About Gun Confiscation Orders
Bernanke: Fiscal Cliff Poses ‘Substantial Threat’ to Economy
US Stocks Up With ‘fiscal cliff’ Talks to Resume
Belarus will not react yet to U.S. missile shield plan – Lukashenko
Why The Fiscal Cliff Is Set To Crush The Middle Class With 50% Tax Rates
New York Gov: Gun Confiscation and Forced Buy-back an Option
Firearm Confiscation Plan Announced For America
Debt now equals total U.S. economy
America’s Military Machine Gearing Up for Total War Politics
(Gunny G: What Some of “The Folks” Are Saying That The Rest Of Them Are Only Thinking!) ~ Newsflash! Obama has no plans to leave office!
Everyone keeps saying.. oh Obama won’t go over the fiscal cliff because he’ll be too worried about his legacy
.”People will attach bad economic times to his legacy”Obama has already stole 1.. maybe 2 elections.
He has successfully stolen the vote.He has NO plans on leaving office.
There will be a “crisis” .. either economically.. or otherwise.. which he will use to stay in power.
Obama will simply sign an executive order.
Do you really think Congress would stop him?
Two days after reports that hotels in Washington are not filling up ahead of Barack Obama’s second inauguration, the president emailed supporters to encourage them to come to the festivities scheduled for next month in Washington, D.C.
“Because of you, I’ll be taking the oath of office again on January 21st,” Obama wrote in an email to supporters. “I’d like you to be part of this historic moment — whether that’s in Washington, D.C., or wherever you call home. As we make plans, we want to make sure the people who made this inauguration possible are the first to know what’s happening.”
My friend Brett Joshpe has published an uncharacteristically soft-headed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle arguing that in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook, conservatives and Republicans should support what he calls “sensible” gun-control laws. It begins with a subtext of self-congratulation (“As a conservative and a Republican,
I can no longer remain silent . . . Some will consider it heresy,” etc.), casts aspersions of intellectual dishonesty (arguments for preserving our traditional rights are “disingenuous”), advances into ex homine (noting he has family in Sandy Hook, as though that confers special status on his preferences), fundamentally misunderstands the argument for the right to keep and bear arms, deputizes the electorate, and cites the presence of teddy bears as evidence for his case.
Brett, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing, “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions.
The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.
Oliver Stone to RT: ‘US has become an Orwellian state’ (“…American citizens live in a fish tank where their government intercepts more than 1.7 billion messages a day. “That is email, telephone calls, other forms of communication.””)
Americans are living in an Orwellian state argue Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone and historian Peter Kuznick, as they sit down with RT to discuss US foreign policy and the Obama administration’s disregard for the rule of law.
Both argue that Obama is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and that people have forgiven him a lot because of the “nightmare of the Bush presidency that preceded him.”
“He has taken all the Bush changes he basically put them into the establishment, he has codified them,” Stone told RT. “It is an Orwellian state. It might not be oppressive on the surface, but there is no place to hide. Some part of you is going to end up in the database somewhere.”
According to Kuznick, American citizens live in a fish tank where their government intercepts more than 1.7 billion messages a day. “That is email, telephone calls, other forms of communication.”
…..Christians who believe they are serving God by voting for the lesser of two evils are serving Satan instead. Righteousness and freedom are progressively obliterated when citizens in a democratic nation vote pragmatically. The only road to righteousness and freedom is pervasive, long term voting for the most righteous candidate.
It is not the responsibility of the Christian voter to determine the outcome of the election. Their responsibility is to obediently pursue righteousness leaving the outcome in the Hands of The King.
Gary DeMar grudgingly admits that Ron Paul’s honesty, obedience, decent private life, and plain talk might qualify him for president but chooses instead to support the lesser of two evils acting on the bogus promises and crafty inferences that have brought our nation to its lowest ebb. He is wrong! It is this spurious reasoning that is responsible for the election of our most pernicious leaders.
This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on Friday, December 28, 2012 1:31:11 PM by Admin Moderator, reason:
(Note: Go on to next thread (duplicate) after reading this one…above link…)
Skip to comments.
Feinstein’s Gun Control Bill Will Trigger The Next American Revolution (Must read alert)
Zero Hedge ^ | December 28, 2012 | Brandon Smith
Posted on Friday, December 28, 2012 1:29:55 PM by Zakeet
All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party – Mao Tse Tung
After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military – William Burroughs
Ex-Feds & Wall Street Execs Are Going Into Hiding-Why? (Part Two) …Tagged: depopulation, false flag, FEMA, government, new world order, obama – 36 comments underground structures 2…| Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show
by Dave Hodges – thecommonsenseshow.com
December 25, 2012 – Conspiracy, Main
Tagged: depopulation, false flag, FEMA, government, new world order, obama – 36 comments
underground structures 2
Ex-Feds and Wall Street Execs Are Going Into Hiding – Part One
In my role as a talk show host, I have been approached by individuals who claim to have “insider information” about what is coming, and according to these individuals, what is coming is very bad. Most credible sources demand complete anonymity. As a result, I have found myself in a position to try and evaluate whether to write about and broadcast some very controversial information. Sometimes, my insider information turns out to be stunningly accurate as evidenced by the Chris Stevens murder story which was spot on. My information on the Aurora Batman shootings has also proven to be very accurate.
Black Racism Unchained… (“Jesse Lee Peterson declares, ‘It’s time for whites to speak out’ White Americans are under assault, and with the re-election of President Barack Obama, black racism is on the rise!”)
Exclusive: Jesse Lee Peterson declares, ‘It’s time for whites to speak out’
There’s no better example of black racism than when actor Jamie Foxx hosted “Saturday Night Live” and joked about his new film, “Django Unchained”: “I get free. I save my wife and I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?” He went on to say, “My president, President Obama, is back up in the White House for four more years. How black is that?”
How dumb is that? Just imagine if a white actor joked about how much he enjoyed shooting black people. And what if that same actor gloated about how great it is to have a white president like George W. Bush back in the White House? The NAACP, the godless Congressional Black Caucus, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest of the liberals would be marching in the streets.
Exclusive: Erik Rush charges Obama et al. with ‘lobotomizing’ African-Americans
Once upon a time in America’s black communities, distinctions were indeed made between a “black man” and a “nigger.” Any black person who denies this is either very young, or they’re lying in an attempt to validate the current liberal racial orthodoxy.
It probably isn’t of much use to belabor the fact that not only is Barack Hussein Obama not the post-racial president people hoped and claimed he would be (whatever that is), but that he and his political ilk have created a more racially divided and racially tense atmosphere than we have seen since before the Civil Rights Movement.
School security? Here am I – send me!… (“Jeff Knox wants parents, grandparents to serve as armed volunteers on campus”)
With the NRA’s call for an armed police officer in every school, a debate has erupted over cost of such a strategy, but there is a much more efficient and inexpensive path to secure schools. For some reason the teachers’ unions, politicians and school administrators think that teachers are somehow less responsible, less capable and less trainable than those who choose a career in law enforcement, and that having anyone with access to a gun in school besides a uniformed police officer would interfere with children’s ability to learn. Setting aside those confused perceptions for a moment, what about those of us who are not teachers or school administrators? What about parents, grandparents and other concerned citizens?
The South Carolina legislature will consider a bill that would nullify a considerable amount of assumed federal power over firearms – the Firearms Freedom Act.
Senate Bill 85 (SB85) states that, “A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in South Carolina and that remains within the borders of South Carolina is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”
The bill was filed by Sen. Lee Bright (R-Spartanburg) on Dec. 13
The bill rests on the foundation of the Tenth Amendment, correctly asserting that powers not delegated are retained.
Obama ignores senator’s dying wish… (“Everything seemed in place for Hanabusa until Obama decided to take the family to Hawaii for Christmas.”)
NEW YORK – Barack Obama has overruled the wish of the late Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, to name a Japanese-American congresswoman as his Senate successor, choosing instead to reward a Hawaii ally who played a key role in sidestepping Obama’s birth certificate controversy to certify him for the Hawaii presidential ballot in 2008.
Hanabusa will “represent Hawaii with the same fervor and commitment that I brought to the Senate chamber since 1962,” Inouye wrote Abercrombie, as reported by Hawaii’s KHON-TV.
Everything seemed in place for Hanabusa until Obama decided to take the family to Hawaii for Christmas.
By Jim Fetzer and Dennis Cimino
“The page you requested was not found.”–Anthony J. Hilder facebook page notice
There are obvious signs that tell the difference between genuine and fabricated event. The recent shooting of police and firemen responding to a deliberately-set fire has all the signs of being a bona fide event: there is a single consistent narrative, one shooter has been clearly identified, and there has been no good reason to doubt that the subject, William Spengler, went off the rails and committed the crimes.
There are many articles about it, which relate the same basic themes: “Killer of 2 NY Firemen had semiautomatic rifle, left note”: “Police say the man who lured firefighters in Webster, N.Y., into a deadly ambush had the same make and caliber semiautomatic rifle as the one used in the Connecticut school massacre. Webster Police Chief Gerald Pickering said Tuesday that 62-year-old William Spengler was armed with a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, a .38-caliber revolver and a 12-gauge shotgun in Monday’s ambush. Spengler killed two firefighters and wounded two others before fatally shooting himself.”
Exclusive: Phil Elmore insists gun-hating liberals ‘want to murder you’
The war has begun.
The cultural war, the roiling but barely concealed “cold” war in which you have been enmeshed for years, has exploded into a full-fledged conflict.
Where once the libs, the leftists, the Democrats in the United States were content to try to marginalize you – to define you through flawed “studies” and junk “science” as stupid, as uninformed, as less compassionate, as inferior – they are no longer satisfied with this cowardly tactic. Where once the major news media at least went through the motions of concealing their advocacy for lib candidates and “progressive” policies, they now proclaim their naked, brazen favor for them. Where once there were enough Americans to counter-balance the useless eaters, the “low-information voters,” the unemployed, disengaged flotsam of humanity who vote for “free stuff” from Uncle Sugar Barack, we have now reached a tipping point.
We’re outnumbered, and they know it.
There are no less than 5 Presidents in the Constitution.
The President Elect has never taken the proper oath to the Office of President.
No President has ever taken an oath to support the written Constitution.
The President elected by the Electors appoints the President of the United States.
George Washington established the precedent of appointing himself to be President of the United States.
The Communist in the Room … (“Political operatives have necessarily become experts in this word play, like the left using terms such as “homophobia” to place the onus of presumed dysfunction upon the “homophobe” rather than the homosexual.”)
By Erik Rush Friday, December 28, 2012
I personally abhor the term “gun control” because, like so many other idioms advanced by political operatives, it frames the discussion in peremptory language which maintains a presupposition; here, that controlling guns is necessary, further, that it is something the government is legitimately empowered to do.
Political operatives have necessarily become experts in this word play, like the left using terms such as “homophobia” to place the onus of presumed dysfunction upon the “homophobe” rather than the homosexual.
Like altogether too many examples of societal malaise, Americans continue to examine and discuss the symptoms thereof. Politicians and the press are more than happy to indulge them in this folly, since they are vested in the underlying disease remaining undiscovered and thus, untreated.
The latest from “DHS Insider”… (“After a lengthy, self-imposed informational black-out, my high-level DHS contact known as “Rosebud” emerged with new, non-public information about plans being discussed and prepared for implementation by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the near future. “)
By Doug Hagmann Thursday, December 27, 2012
Introduction: After a lengthy, self-imposed informational black-out, my high-level DHS contact known as “Rosebud” emerged with new, non-public information about plans being discussed and prepared for implementation by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the near future. It is important to note that this black-out was directly related to the aggressive federal initiative of identifying and prosecuting “leakers,” at least those leaks and leakers not sanctioned by the executive office—the latter of which there are many.
Due to those circumstances, my source exercised an abundance of caution to avoid compromising a valuable line of communication until he had information he felt wassignificant enough to risk external contact.
The following information is the result of an in-person contact between this author and “Rosebud” within the last 48 hours. With his permission, the interview was digitally recorded and the relevant portions of the contact are provided in a conversational format for easier reading. The original recording was copied onto multiple discs and are maintained in secure locations for historical and insurance purposes.
Originally posted on Flyover-Press.com:
Lawrence Wasden is the kind of person who would be expansively accommodating toward a violent degenerate in a government-issued costume, while seeking to imprison an elderly woman for the supposed crime of being a conscientious juror. He splendidly embodies one of my oft-repeated maxims: People who don’t despise prosecutors simply aren’t paying attention.
Prosecution as Persecution: The Carol Asher Case by William Norman Grigg of the Pro-Libertate
“Hi, my name is Larry Wasden,” explained the short, stocky man, flashing a politician’s practiced smile and extending a hand. “I’m the Attorney General.”
“Mr. Wasden, my name is Will Grigg,” I replied, shaking
his hand. “Several years ago you tried to put a 66-year-old retired nun named Carol Asher in prison for fourteen years because she acted as a conscientious juror. Have you ever apologized to her for that abuse of discretion?”
My ice-breaker caused Wasden’s smile to evaporate, and it was quickly replaced with an expression of perplexed surprise.
“What — what abuse of discretion? What case are you talking about?” he stammered.
“Carol Asher is a retired nun from northern Idaho who was called to serve on a jury in a narcotics case,” I explained. “She was one of several jurors who voted to acquit, and during the deliberations — made in the confidentiality of the jury room — she apparently made some comments about the fully-informed jury principle. This was seen as a violation of assurances that she would be bound by the judge’s instructions. After the case was dismissed, one of the jurors reported her to the prosecutor — and your office filed felony perjury charges against her.”
“Well, I don’t remember any of the details of this matter,” Wasden replied as he started to sidle away from me.
“Perhaps you should re-acquaint yourself with them,” I suggested.
“I don’t really see any reason to,” he said, walking away while displaying a dismissive smirk.
The occasion that brought about this brief but telling conversation was a December 12 meeting held at the Portia Club in Payette, Idaho to discuss the state’s open records and open meetings law. Wasden and several of his associates — people whose livelihood depends on official opacity, not public transparency — were present to teach us how to ask just the right questions in order to get the self-serving answers they were willing to provide.
Wasden was obviously caught off-guard by a polite but pointed question, and more than likely offended by it. After all, a meeting to discuss the open records law was hardly the proper forum at which to demand accountability from a public servant such as himself.
My only purpose in attending the meeting was to ask Wasden about the Asher case. I knew he would be in attendance, and intended to confront him about his misconduct – but since he was the one who approached me, I can’t honestly be accused of ambushing him. Our conversation took place about five minutes before the meeting began, which meant that I was able to devote most of my evening to more productive pursuits.
Wasden was utterly mystified by the mention of the Carol Asher case, which was the source of considerable controversy in Idaho back in 2006. He honestly didn’t remember who Carol Asher is, which is understandable. But he absolutely didn’t care about what his office did to her, which is unforgivable.
“It’s interesting that Mr. Wasden doesn’t remember me or anything about my case, because he was certainly aware of it at the time,” Asher told Pro Libertate. “And after the charge against me was dismissed I wrote him a long, polite letter letting him know that I held no rancor toward him, and explaining why I took the stand that I did. He never responded to my letter.”
If I had inflicted needless misery on an innocent, law-abiding, 66-year-old woman, sleep would be a stranger to me until I had done everything possible to make amends. Beyond what I’ve learned from the public record and a very brief conversation I know nothing of Larry Wasden. The fact that he has forgotten everything about his attempt to imprison Asher for life suggests to me that his is the untroubled sleep known only to the most innocent of children, and the most incurable of sociopaths.
In late 2005, Asher was called to jury duty for the narcotics trial of William Edward Clark, a young man of Indian ancestry who lived in a northern Idaho village called White Bird. Clark was employed at a local restaurant. He also had a police record replete with petty charges of the kind that suggested he was the focus of frequent and largely unwarranted police attention.
One afternoon the previous March, Clark was given the keys to the company vehicle – an old pickup truck – and sent to Grangeville with a large load of aluminum cans to be recycled. He stopped at the Tolo Lake Mammoth Replica, locked the truck, and went to see the exhibit. A Grangeville City Police Officer drove by and spotted the truck.
At the time, Clark was the subject of a “fugitive warrant,” but the available record in the Idaho Repository doesn’t clearly state why. He was sentenced to probation on a misdemeanor battery charge, and then slapped with a statewide “failure to appear” bench warrant that appears to have been revoked in January. In any case, the officer recognized either Clark or the vehicle he was driving, executed a U-turn, and pulled in behind the truck.
When the officer approached Clark, he demanded the keys in order to search the truck. Clark quite properly refused to turn over the keys, pointing out that the pickup was, in effect, a company vehicle that didn’t belong to him. The officer called for backup, and an Idaho County Sheriff’s Deputy soon arrived. The two of them ganged up on Clark, seized the keys, and searched the truck.
On the dashboard of the truck the officers found a CD case containing a tiny ziplock bag in which was hidden .15 of a gram of meth, which had an estimated street value of about five dollars.
“No physical evidence or eyewitness testimony connected Clark to the drugs,” Asher recalls of Clark’s two-day trial. “The prosecution wasn’t able to demonstrate that Clark was aware that it was in the vehicle. Since it was used by many other people, and the drugs were very carefully hidden, there was plenty of room for reasonable doubt. And since the search was clearly illegal, there wasn’t really any reason for the arrest in the first place. But the court-appointed defense attorney just sat there like a stump and didn’t raise the issue, and the trial judge wouldn’t allow jurors to raise it, either.”
In his smug assurance that the case was a slam-dunk, the Idaho County Prosecutor Kirk MacGregor didn’t bother to prove it. After all, Clark was a socially marginal Indian kid with a bad reputation and a growing rap sheet; his accusers were two valiant defenders of the public weal; and besides, this was a drug case, which means that the defendant simply must be guilty of something.
What MacGregor didn’t realize is that there was at least one member of the jury who intended to force the state to prove its case against the defendant.
Prior to the trial, Judge John Bradbury had informed the jurors that they would be able to submit questions directly to him.
“Each of us was given a notepad on which to write our questions, and several of them were given to Judge Bradbury,” Asher relates. “All of them were read by the judge verbatim – except for the two I submitted, which he paraphrased and then dismissed.”
During the testimony of the two police officers involved in the arrest, Asher asked the same question: “In your understanding of the law, Officer, was it lawful and proper to force a search of the defendant’s pickup without first obtaining a warrant?”
“The first time I posed that question, rather than reading it aloud Bradbury simply said that a juror had asked about the legality of the search and he said that at some point prior to the trial it had been `agreed’ that the search was legal,” Asher recalls. “The second time he said something to the effect of, `There’s a juror here who is still having trouble regarding the legality of the search. That matter is decided and must be left aside.’”
When the jury began its deliberations, Asher was amazed – and somewhat disgusted – by the eagerness displayed by the other jurors to offer an uncritical ratification of the prosecution’s case.
“I listened to various initial comments from at least half of the jurors,” she summarized in an affidavit filed prior to her own trial in 2006. “Rather than focusing on real evidence presented against him (or the lack of it), the young man was being criticized for everything from his casual dress to `looking cocky’ to his (supposed) cocky eye contact and confident smiles he frequently directed to members of the jury.”
When it was Asher’s turn to speak, she expressed “concern about what seemed to me a wrongful search on the part of the police. The jury foreman then reminded me that the judge had ruled out the matter of the search, and that we were not allowed to consider it.”
Displaying the dutiful docility so commonplace among collectivist drones, the foreman insisted that the proper role of the jury was to act as an instrument of state power, rather than an impediment to it. Asher tried to remind her fellow jurors that their duty was to follow the law, rather than ratify the prosecution’s case.
“I can’t take my orders merely from a judge, but am bound by a higher authority to render fair and just judgment according to the dictates of my own conscience in trying to protect the rights of the accused,” Asher explained.
“Well, then, it looks like you could be facing big trouble here,” sneered the foreman. “You just could be charged with perjury.”
After taking comments from the other jurors, the foreman called for a vote. Eight members of the panel voted guilty; Asher and three others voted to acquit. The hung jury resulted in a mistrial.
As soon as court was adjourned, the foreman – in violation of the confidentiality of jury deliberations – did his duty to the State by reporting Asher’s comments to MacGregor. The vindictive functionary immediately contacted Wasden and demanded that the State of Idaho file a felony perjury charge against Asher. This was clearly an act of petty retaliation. It was also an actionable instance of malicious prosecution for which neither MacGregor nor Wasden has ever been held accountable.
There is no legal basis in the State of Idaho for the prosecution of a juror who ignores a judge’s instructions regarding the law. Although the Idaho Code dictates that the court will “decide all questions of law which may arise in the course of the trial,” it also states that the judge “can give no charge to the jury” – in other words, he cannot bind them to his interpretation of the law.
Idaho’s official Guide for Jury Deliberations repeatedly and explicitly state that once the jury begins its deliberations, it has plenary authority to decide the case as it sees fit. The purpose of a judge’s instructions, according to the guide, is to “tell you if there are special rules or a set process you should follow. Otherwise, you are free to conduct your deliberations in whatever way is helpful.”
Some measure of the poverty of the state’s case against Asher can be seen in the haste with which it was dismissed by Magistrate Judge Michael Griffin following a March 7, 2006 evidentiary hearing.
“I’m pretty sure that the charge was dismissed so quickly because they wanted the issue of fully-informed jurors to go away,” Asher observes. “The courtroom was full the day of the evidentiary hearing, and I’ve been told that the court had received hundreds of phone calls from people who were really upset over what was being done to me. It seems clear that the people behind the prosecution simply wanted the matter to disappear and be forgotten.”
Carol Asher was neither the first nor the only woman face a “perjury” charge for thwarting the punitive impulses of an ambitious prosecutor. Sitting next to her in the Grangeville courtroom on March 7, 2006 was Colorado attorney Paul Grant, who had represented Laura Kriho, another woman who had been maliciously prosecuted for exercising her authority as a fully informed juror in the 1996 narcotics trial of a 19-year-old girl charged with possession of methamphetamine.
Along with other potential jurors, Kirho was asked by the judge if there was “anything” in her past that “would interfere with your sitting as a fair and impartial juror.” She didn’t disclose that as a teenager she had received a deferred sentence on a minor drug charge, which was subsequently dismissed (but not removed from the record – nothing ever is). She also supported both drug de-criminalization and jury nullification.
During jury deliberations, Kriho annoyed the other panelists by casting doubt on the reliability of the chief prosecution witness – the arresting officer in the case. She also pointed out that the likely sentence seemed wildly disproportionate to the offense. One juror sent a note to District Judge Kenneth Barnhill demanding that Kriho be dismissed. This led to a mistrial – after which a juror contacted the judge to accuse Kriho of conspiring to hang the jury by not disclosing her beliefs.
Initially charged with felony perjury, Kriho was acquitted of that offense but found guilty of “contempt” and fined $1,200 by Gilpin County Judge Henry Nieto.
As Paul Grant pointed out, Kriho was the first American to be convicted of “the newly minted crime of failure to volunteer information during jury selection. No longer is it enough to honestly answer the questions you are asked; now you also have to answer the questions you were not asked, but that you `knew’ the judge wanted answered.”
This was the supposed crime for which Larry Wasden wanted to imprison Carol Asher – and the struggle to beat back that spurious prosecution cost her thousands of dollars she didn’t have.
“At the time, I was 66 years old, and although I’ve tried to take care of myself a 14-year sentence would probably have meant that I would have died in prison,” Asher pointed out to me.
This isn’t to say that Wasden is incapable of exercising discretion, and modulating his zeal for justice, as he pretends to understand it, on behalf of first-time offenders. About a year after he tried to arrange for Asher to finish her mortal days in prison, Wasden approved a ridiculously lenient sentence for Kevin Buttars, a former Montpelier, Idaho Police Officer who beat, choked, and sexually assaulted a man named Jared Finley.
Given that he was armed and committed his crime with the aid of several armed colleagues, his act qualified as aggravated battery under Idaho law, for which the prescribed penalty is up to fifteen years in prison. (By itself, the chokehold he inflicted on Finley constitutes “attempted strangulation,” which is also punishable by a term of fifteen years.)
At the very least, Buttars was guilty of “unnecessary assault by a police officer,” which for some reason is considered a misdemeanor in Idaho. The specified punishment for that crime is a year in jail and a $5000 fine. This is a lighter punishment than the typical Idaho resident would receive for driving with a suspended license.
Wasden signed off on a plea deal under which Buttars served two weeks in jail, paid a $500 fine and court costs, and spent a year on probation – time he put to productive use by filing a “wrongful termination” lawsuit against the City of Montpelier.
Lawrence Wasden is the kind of person who would be expansively accommodating toward a violent degenerate in a government-issued costume, while seeking to imprison an elderly woman for the supposed crime of being a conscientious juror. He splendidly embodies one of my oft-repeated maxims: People who don’t despise prosecutors simply aren’t paying attention.
- Prosecution as Persecution: The Carol Asher Case (informationliberation.com)
- Wrongful conviction lawyers seek to talk to jurors (sfgate.com)
By Doug Hagmann Friday, December 28, 2012
Gun and ammunition sales have been rising over the last few years, as have the number of concealed weapon permits being issued across the country. Please note I am not referring to the recent panic buying spree of semi-automatic weapons since the Sandy Hook school shooting. What is the real reason behind the rise of weapon sales and increase in concealed carry permits? Who might be to blame, or if you are a manufacturer or gun store owner, who could be thanked? What if I told you it is national talk show host Michael Savage? Don’t believe me? Read on.
Reason for owning an “assault weapon”
Contrary to the recent claims by Progressives, err, Socialists is that men who own such big and scary guns is to compensate for physical deficiencies below the waist, owning a semi-automatic weapon is due to the realization that the government will not be able to protect you when needed, or will simply not protect you at all. While everyone points to major visible natural disasters and man-made crises from hurricanes to riots, there is a much more subtle and arguably, much more serious threat that everyone seems to be missing. It is no better illustrated by the situation of well-known talk show host Michael Savage.
(“There’s Never Been Anyone Like Ron Paul As the Republican shills at the NRA discover.”) ~ Retiring Rep. Ron Paul Becomes First Republican To Rip NRA’s Plan for Armed Guards at Schools, Saying That It Would Create ‘Orwellian Surveillance State’
Outgoing Republican Senator Ron Paul from Texas took on the National Rifle Association this week, arguing that the gun lobby‘s recent proposal to place armed guards at every U.S. school is ‘just another kind of violence.’
In a statement released on Monday, the uncompromising libertarian lawmaker said that the federal government should not try to ‘pursue unobtainable safety’ and claimed that Democrats and Republicans have ‘zero moral authority to legislate against violence.’
‘This is the world of government provided “security,” a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse,’ the 77-year-old congressman wrote on his website. ‘School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.’
In the fortnight since Chuck Hagel‘s name was floated for secretary of defense, we have witnessed Washington at its worst. Who is Chuck Hagel?
Born in North Platte, Neb., he was a squad leader in Vietnam, twice wounded, who came home to work in Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign, was twice elected U.S. senator, and is chairman of the Atlantic Council and co-chair of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
To The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, however, Hagel is a man “out on the fringes,” who has a decade-long record of “hostility to Israel” and is “pro-appeasement-of-Iran.”
Lest we miss Kristol’s point, Standard blogger Daniel Halper helpfully adds that a “top Republican Senate aide” said, “Send us Hagel, and we will make sure every American knows he is an anti-Semite.”
(Gunny G: “Uncle Sugar” should be: Citizen Sucker!) ~ U.S. Taxpayers Will Continue to Pay More Than One-Fifth of U.N. Budget
Cybercast News Service ^ | December 28, 2012 | Patrick Goodenough
Posted on Friday, December 28, 2012 7:00:12 AM by Olog-hai
In one of its last actions of the year, the United Nations General Assembly on Christmas Eve agreed to extend for another three years the formula that has U.S. taxpayers contributing more than one-fifth of the world body’s regular budget.
No member-state called for a recorded vote, and the resolution confirming the contributions that each country will make for the 2013-2015 period was summarily adopted. The assembly also approved a two-year U.N. budget of $5.4 billion.
Originally posted on GUNNY G: "THE PEOPLE WHO CAST THE VOTES DECIDE NOTHING...":
Today’s Toons 12/28/12
| 12/28/12 | pookie18
Posted on Friday, December 28, 2012 6:46:19 AM by pookie18