Conventional collectivist created authority is a deception in consciousness. You are your own Authority!

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

TSA thugs brutalize mentally disabled terrified teen

Take a good long look at this picture. See for yourself what TSA airport security goons – United States government thugs – did recently to this innocent mentally disabled terrified teenager at Memphis International Airport. They put their menacing hands on her. She panicked and reflexively resisted. So they beat her bloody. That’s what they do. They use violence first and ask questions later.

Hannah Cohen was with her mother and on her way to undergo treatment for a brain tumor when she encountered her uniformed airport assailants. The security checkpoint metal detector sounded as she passed through so the thugs led their terrified victim away for additional screening.
 “They wanted to do further scanning, (but) she was reluctant — she didn’t understand what they were about to do,” said her mother, Shirley Cohen, who tried in vain to explain to them that her 19-year-old daughter is partially deaf, blind in one eye, paralyzed and easily confused, but police kept her away from the security agents. 
That prompted the frightened and confused victim to panic and try to run away so the goons wrestled her violently to the hard ground. “She’s trying to get away from them, but in the next instant, one of them had her down on the ground and hit her head on the floor,” mom explains. “There was blood everywhere.”
The thugs weren’t finished with their victim just yet. She was arrested and booked into jail. When they finally realized the gravity of their mistake, too late as it were, all charges were dropped and she was eventually released.
A lawsuit is pending against the goons. Naturally, their representatives aren’t talking. That’s because what they did to that girl was indefensible. A TSA spokesperson said passengers should notify agents ahead of time if they have special needs. “Passengers can call ahead of time to learn more about the screening process for their particular needs or medical situation,” she explained.
Well, that’s good to know. But it hardly would have prevented this incident as these government goons have violence imprinted upon their genes. They’ve not been trained to listen to explanations which might mitigate their compulsive aggressive tendencies. The mother tried to tell them. They don’t listen to mothers. They don’t practice restraint.

They just brutalize mentally disabled terrified teens.

Sunday, July 17, 2016


If anyone is unsure or still undecided on the question of whether Hillary Clinton’s legal problems were “fixed” by President Obama’s Department of Justice and the FBI this latest development should convince you once and for all that political corruption is involved at the highest levels of government and the stench of it all is permeating the nation.

FBI director James Comey has gagged his agents to prevent them from telling us the whole truth about Clinton’s crimes and exactly why and how she’s escaping justice.  

Clinton’s husband, former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, arranged a clandestine private meeting with Coney’s boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, just days before Comey announced that Hillary was off the hook. When reporters discovered the meeting Clinton and Lynch’s FBI and secret service bodyguard sycophants ordered them away from the spot and not to take any pictures.

Why? Well, because Clinton and Lynch had something to hide and didn’t want inquisitive reporters documenting their “secret” meeting. That’s when Bill Clinton got the news that the fix was in and he could tell his wife that the coast was clear. That’s when Loretta Lynch was told what would happen to her if Hillary were indicted.

Only hours before director Comey went on TV to tell the world that no one outside his bureau knew what his decision and recommendations were regarding Hillary Clinton – whether or not she would be charged with felonies -- Hillary Clinton was on Air Force One with president Obama on their way to a political event where the incumbent President was set to endorse her candidacy as next President of the United States.

Why? How did they know that the coast was clear and that Hillary’s legal problems had been fixed? Well, they know it because the fix was in and they were both part of the fix. President Obama would never have taken the chance to endorse Hillary Clinton then unless he knew for certain that the fix was in.

And now those who know all the facts and the truth about exactly what went down have been gagged. Every FBI agent who worked the case, and there were hundreds of them, was forced to sign a brand new form, entitled “Case Briefing Acknowledgment,” to affirm that they cannot talk about what they know.

“This is very, very unusual. I’ve never signed one, never circulated one to others,” said one retired FBI chief. “I have never heard of such a form; Sounds strange,” a current FBI agent admitted. Many of them have covertly expressed their disappointment over their boss’s decision to let Hillary go free. “FBI agents believe there was an inside deal put in place after the Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting,” said one anonymous source. Another source from the Justice Department was “furious” with Comey, saying he’s “managed to piss off right and left.”

Sadly for us, and for our country, they can’t talk openly about it now.

They’re gagged!

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Federal judicial pig grows wings and flies in Richmond

OK, I was wrong. Tom Knapp was right.

Last month I posted my humble legal opinion that a Dump Trump advocate from Virginia was hallucinating when he filed a federal lawsuit seeking to strike down a state law binding him to vote on the first ballot at the GOP convention for the winner of the Virginia primary – Donald Trump.

Tom challenged my assessment. I offered to make a wager that the lawsuit was frivolous and would be dismissed. I lose. Congratulations! You should have bet me, Tom.

U.S. District Judge Robert Payne in Richmond said the Virginia state law creates “a severe burden” on First Amendment rights. That’s right. A judicial pig grew wings and took to the sky in Richmond. Virginia cannot require GOP convention delegates to do what they were delegated to do; honor their pledge to primary voters who elected Donald Trump, said Payne.

The GOP Virginia primary voters apparently have no First Amendment rights – their votes don’t count -- but the delegates who promised to do their will in the primary election enjoy a First Amendment right to stiff them and do as they please. The result of the primary election sponsored by the State of Virginia is meaningless.  The winner, Trump, has won nothing. The primary was a sham according to Judge Payne.

Why even conduct a primary election at all if the delegates aren’t really delegates, but rather free agents who can simply disregard the election results and vote at the convention for anyone they like? This judge just gave the delegates a judicial license to defraud the Virginia Republican primary voters.

I don’t know if there is enough time left to appeal this bizarre decision, but for the sake of justice I hope it is appealed. For now, however a federal judicial pig has grown wings and flies in Richmond.  

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Consequences of criminal incompetence

FBI director James Comey and his army of G-men have discovered a mountain of evidence indicating  beyond any reasonable doubt that Democrat Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is a serially incompetent dishonest criminal having feloniously violated federal statutes prohibiting the mishandling of classified information during her tenure as U.S. Secretary of State. 

Democrat Clinton, however, won’t face trial and be convicted for her many crimes because Comey, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the Democrat Obama Administration have refused to prosecute her. That’s because, as I posted last week, the case against her has been Fixed! She’s guilty as sin but the fix is in.

This mind numbing revelation, startling as it is, has completely overshadowed the other mountain of additional evidence against Hillary Clinton recently reported by the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi indicating that the result of her criminal incompetence likely contributed to the cause of U.S. Libyan Ambassador Chris Steven’s tragic death at the hands of murderous Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2012

Hillary Clinton and her State Department knew all along that the security environment in Benghazi was precarious. Ambassador Stevens and his diplomatic compound were left virtually unprotected in the midst of a civil war with Benghazi serving as the home to the opposition and rebel forces.

The State Department’s own threat rating system considered Libya to be a grave risk to American diplomats. Despite all this, over 600 urgent requests by Stevens to Hillary Clinton and her State Department for additional security personnel and equipment at the compound were ignored or denied. Clinton simply didn’t care about Stevens’ predicament.

Yes, they were ignored by Hillary Clinton, but they most likely were not ignored by hostile actors who probably intercepted Steven’s communications and requests by hacking into Clinton’s unprotected private e-mail server. FBI director Comey indicated in his report that Clinton’s server was probably hacked.  Highly classified information on her unsecured server, including the itinerary and daily whereabouts of Ambassador Chris Stevens was easily available to any skilled hacker. That server was like an open book to hostile actors.

The latest Clinton e-mail disclosures include at least one document which pinpoints the whereabouts of Ambassador Stevens before the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack. How many other e-mails that Clinton deleted disclosed similar highly classified information? Those terrorists likely knew that Stevens was in the Benghazi compound when they initiated their deadly assault which left him dead.

Stevens’ tragic death is just one of the likely consequences of Hillary Clinton’s criminal incompetence.

Wednesday, July 6, 2016


FBI director James Comey released his long awaited report on TV today concerning the results of his yearlong Investigation into Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System. In it he meticulously listed in detail every false statement, lie and serious crime Ms. Clinton committed with regard to her private e-mail scheme during her tenure in office.

Then he looked straight into the camera and concluded with a straight face that he would not be recommending to the Department of Justice that Clinton be prosecuted. Previously, his boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, promised the nation after her private meeting with Clinton’s husband, Bill, that she would accept Comey’s recommendation.  

In short, director Comey told us today that Hillary’s criminal problems have finally been resolved, eliminated -- fixed. She’s guilty as sin but the fix is in.

Here in relevant part is how it all went down:  
“… What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice…”
“… Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
By his own admission, Comey confirms that the only intent or gross negligence required under the law is to improperly store or transmit classified material. (18 U.S. Code § 793).  That is precisely what Ms.Clinton did. She wanted total control of her work related communications even if it meant improperly storing and transmitting the material.  She knew exactly what she was doing at all times. And there is no question whatever that she knowingly removed classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities, i.e., State Department facilities.
“… Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain…”  
“… From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent...”
“… The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014…”
“… With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level…”
“… Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails...”
This by itself is a serious violation of the law.
“…Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation…”
“… Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
Extremely careless equals gross negligence.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails)
This is clear evidence of intent.
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government — or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
Clinton absolutely knew that the information was classified and that she was handling it improperly in violation of the law.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
This is tantamount to an admission that Ms. Clinton’s servers were probably hacked by hostile actors.
So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case…”
Comey candidly admits that he has the evidence; he has plenty of evidence that Hillary Clinton violated the law. She committed a felony. And I can find several “reasonable prosecutor’s” who would prosecute her in a heartbeat, including former U.S. Attorney General’s.
“… In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
He doesn’t need a case directly on point. He has the federal statute – the law – and under that law Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted. Her conduct was unprecedented in the history of the United States of America. That’s the flimsy reason Comey comes up with to let her off the hook.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case…”

Sunday, July 3, 2016

Elementary speech crimes in New Jersey

Statist elementary school masters, police and prosecutors in Camden County New Jersey have clamped down hard on the fundamental First Amendment rights of all the captive kids in the school district.

Teachers and administrators were recently given a strict directive by the prosecutor’s office to call the police and report to the New Jersey Division of Child Protection “just about every incident” of even the slightest most minor of “speech infractions,” such as name calling, committed by the children at school.  

Since then, in this district of only 1,875 students, the cops and Child Protection Services have been called five times on average per day in the past month over the most trivial of incidents imaginable.

On June 16, for example, the police were called to the “crime scene” of an end-of-the-year class party at the William P. Tatem Elementary School in Collingswood where a little 9-year-old third grader had, according to another kid, made an allegedly "racist" comment about the brownies being served to the class.

A cop spoke to the boy at the “crime scene” and later his father was contacted by the Collingswood police department advising him that the incident had been referred to the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency.

The boy’s mother said he was "traumatized" by the incident and stayed home for his last day of third grade. She hopes to send him to a different Collingswood public school in the fall. "He was intimidated, obviously,” said Mom.  “There was a police officer with a gun in the holster talking to my son, saying, 'Tell me what you said.' He didn't have anybody on his side."

Before this directive, the school district had only reported incidents it deemed serious, like those involving weapons, drugs, or sexual misconduct. Several parents say now that they consider the recent police involvement not only ridiculous but harmful. "Some of it is just typical little-kid behavior," explained one parent. Most of all, parents said they were concerned that undue police involvement threatened their children's well-being.

That’s an understatement if there ever was one. Police being called to an elementary school end of the year party to grill a little 9-year-old kid about brownies and what he said about them is about as bizarre as it gets.

What happened to the First Amendment?

What happened to common sense?

It’s been replaced by elementary speech crimes in New Jersey.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Equal means color blind -- Not

No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Does that sound familiar? It should. That’s what the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says – verbatim. All persons in every state in the United States are considered equal under the law. The laws must therefore protect all persons equally. White, black, yellow or red doesn’t matter under the plain meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Equal means color blind.

One would think that every Justice sitting on the United States Supreme Court would know that. It should be a no brainer for them. No law may apply differently to persons based upon the color of their skin – their race; period. That is the clear and obvious intent of the Fourteenth Amendment which was ratified after the Civil War in order to guarantee equality to all persons regardless of race.

So every SCOTUS justice should, by the mandate of his or her sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, vote to strike down any state law which does not protect all persons in the jurisdiction equally, right?

Wrong, say Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Anthony Kennedy, in a 4 to 3 decision upholding a Texas affirmative action policy which blatantly takes the race of student applicants for admission to the University of Texas into account, and thereby denies equal protection of the law to whites.

When it comes to college admissions all persons are not necessarily equal they ruled. Equal is not color blind. Blacks are entitled to racial preferences and that’s OK under the Fourteenth Amendment. In order to achieve a diverse student body at colleges and universities, Texas' unique method of singling out some minority students for admission to its flagship campus in Austin is constitutional.

Never-mind that some white students, like the girl who brought this case, who was indeed better qualified for admission than the blacks who were admitted, will be denied equal protection of the law. You see majorities on the U.S. Supreme Court sometimes just make up the rules as they please in spite of what the Constitution says.  

"Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission," Justice Kennedy opined. "But still, it remains an enduring challenge to our nation's education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity."

But… but… the Constitution doesn’t say anything about the pursuit of diversity of student bodies at universities… nothing! It plainly says that all persons are entitled to equal protection of the law… that’s what it says. Tough luck says Kennedy; universities may consider a person’s race in the admissions process and that doesn’t violate equal protection.

Oh, Nino (Scalia)… where were you when justice needed you – when a majority on the SCOTUS decided that equal means unequal; equal is not color blind.