Featured Posts

Thursday, September 11, 2014

DHS Fines American – But Not Illegals – $5,000 For Crossing Border

Image Credits: Steve Hillebrand, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Public domain)

Kit Daniels
September 11, 2014

The Department of Homeland Security has fined an American and a Canadian $5,000 each for crossing the U.S./Canada border, fines which are never assessed on thousands of illegal aliens who are detained by Border Patrol daily. The two men, a 40-year-old American and a 44-year-old Canadian, were walking down a dirt road with mountain bikes near the border when they were approached by a Border Patrol agent.

Illegals are instead given free food and transportation to anywhere in America

“Questioning by the agent revealed that the two suspects illegally entered the U.S. from Canada,” stated a Customs and Border Patrol press release. “Subsequently, both males were arrested for violation of U.S. law and transported to the Rangeley Station for further processing.”

“Following database verifications, Border Patrol agents turned over both subjects to CBP officers at the Coburn Gore port of entry for assessment of fines and penalties.”

Both men were “assessed a $5,000 civil penalty under 19 USC 1459 for Failure to Report” to border officials and it’s unlikely that either of them crossed the border in pursuit of Obama’s de facto amnesty for illegal aliens.

“Since this is an administrative fine, the individuals do not have to go through a judicial process and will have approximately 30 days to pay the fine,” the press release added. 

Of course, when it comes to illegals entering America who are eight times more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans, they’re not fined but rather pampered with free food, shelter, medical care, and bus tickets to anywhere in the nation.

Government officials claim the illegals are given “notices to appear” for immigration court before they are handed bus tickets to their destination of choice, but the courts are scheduling their court dates four years from now.

“They know they are going to be processed and released and they are free to go wherever they want to go in the United States and the likelihood of them ever showing up for their court date is slim to none,” Stu Harris of the National Border Patrol Council Local 1929 told Infowars.

This selective enforcement of immigration laws, in which an American is fined for crossing the border while thousands of illegal aliens are encouraged to do so, exemplifies how the Obama administration is directing federal agencies to target peaceful Americans but not illegal immigrants the White House is exploiting for political gain.

Back in July, for example, federal agents detained a Boy Scout Troop for taking photos near a border checkpoint, with one agent even aiming his gun at a boy scout’s head.

“He hears a snap of a holster, turns around, and here’s this agent, both hands on a loaded pistol, pointing at the young man’s head,” Troop 111 leader Jim Fox told KCCI, who also said the agent claimed it was illegal to take photos of officials.


Similar posts:

Don’t Give the Masters of the Universe Their Amnesty 

Proof: Illegal Aliens [may] Have it Better Than You 

IRS gives illegal aliens billions...

U.S. threatened massive fine to force Yahoo to release data

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The U.S. government threatened to fine Yahoo $250,000 a day in 2008 if it failed to comply with a broad demand for user data that the company believed was unconstitutional, according to court documents unsealed Thursday.

Craig Timberg
The Washington Post
September 11, 2014

The U.S. government threatened to fine Yahoo $250,000 a day in 2008 if it failed to comply with a broad demand to hand over user data that the company believed was unconstitutional, according to court documents unsealed Thursday that illuminate how federal officials forced American tech companies to participate in the NSA’s controversial PRISM program.

The documents, roughly 1,500 pages worth, outline a secret and ultimately unsuccessful legal battle by Yahoo to resist the government’s demands. The company’s loss required Yahoo to become one of the first to begin providing information to PRISM, a program that gave the National Security Agency extensive access to records of online communications by users of Yahoo and other U.S.-based technology firms.

The ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review became a key — but almost entirely secret — moment in the development of PRISM, helping government officials to convince other Silicon Valley companies that unprecedented data demands had been tested in the courts and found constitutionally sound. Eventually most major American tech companies complied, including Google, Facebook, Apple and AOL. Microsoft had joined earlier, before the ruling, NSA documents have shown.

A version of the court ruling had come out previously, in 2008, but was so heavily redacted that observers were unable to discern what company was involved, what the stakes were and how the court had wrestled with many of the issues involved.

“We already knew that this was a very, very important decision by the FISA Court of Review, but we could only guess at why,” said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University.

PRISM was first revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden last year, prompting intense backlash and a wrenching national debate over allegations of overreach in government surveillance.

U.S. tech companies have struggled to defend themselves against accusations that they were willing participants in government surveillance programs — an allegation that has been particularly damaging to the reputations of these companies overseas, including in lucrative markets in Europe.

Yahoo, which endured heavy criticism after The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper used Snowden’s documents to reveal the existence of Prism last year, was legally bound from revealing its efforts in attempting to resist government pressure. The New York Times first reported Yahoo’s role in the case in June 2013, a week after the initial PRISM revelations.

Both the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, an appellate court, ordered declassification of the case last year, amid a broad effort to make public the legal reasoning behind NSA programs that had stirred national and international anger. Judge William C. Bryson, presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, ordered the documents from the legal battle unsealed on Thursday. Documents from the case in the lower court have not yet been released.

Yahoo hailed the decision in a Tumblr post Thursday afternoon. “The released documents underscore how we had to fight every step of the way to challenge the U.S. Government’s surveillance efforts,” said company General Counsel Ron Bell in the post.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment.

At issue in the original court case was a recently passed law, the Protect America Act of 2007, which allowed the government to collect data on people it “reasonably believed” to be outside of the United States at the time without getting an individual search warrant for each target. That law has since lapsed but became the foundation for the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which created the legal authority for many of the NSA programs later revealed by Snowden.

The order requiring data from Yahoo came in 2007, soon after the Protect America Act passed. It set off alarms at the company because it side-stepped the traditional requirement that each target be subject to court review before surveillance could begin. The order also went beyond so-called “metadata” — meaning records of communications but not their actual content — to include the actual content of e-mails.

A government filing from February 2008 describe the order to Yahoo as including “certain types of communications while those communications are in transmission.” It also made clear that while this was intended to target people outside the United States, there inevitably would be “incidental collection” of the records of Americans. The government promised “stringent minimization procedures to protect the privacy interests of United States persons.”

Rather than immediately comply with the sweeping order, Yahoo sued.

Central to the case was whether the Protect America Act overstepped constitutional bounds, particularly the Fourth Amendment prohibition on searches and seizures without a warrant. An early Yahoo filing said the case was “of tremendous national importance. The issues at stake in this litigation are the most serious issues that this Nation faces today-to what extent must the privacy rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution yield to protect our national security.”

The appeals court, however, ruled that the government had put in place adequate safeguards to avoid constitutional violations.

“We caution that our decision does not constitute an endorsement of broad-based, indiscriminate executive power,” the court wrote on Aug. 22, 2008. “Rather, our decision recognizes that where the government has instituted several layers of serviceable safeguards to protect individuals against unwarranted harms and to minimize incidental intrusions, its efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts. This is such a case.”

The government threatened Yahoo with the $250,000 a day fine after the company had lost an initial round before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court but was still pursuing an appeal. Faced with the fine, Yahoo began complying with the legal order as it continued with the appeal, which it ultimately lost several months later.

Efforts to reach the Justice Department for comment Thursday afternoon were not successful.

Stewart Baker, a former NSA general counsel and Bush administration Homeland Security official, said it’s not unusual for courts to order compliance with rulings while appeals continue before higher courts.

“I’m always amazed how people are willing to abstract these decisions from the actual stakes,” Baker said. “We’re talking about trying to gather information about people who are trying to kill us and who will succeed if we don’t have robust information about their activities.”

The ACLU applauded Thursday’s move to release the documents but said it was long overdue.

“The public can’t understand what a law means if it doesn’t know how the courts are interpreting that law,” said Patrick Toomey, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s national Security Project.

Carol Leonnig and Julie Tate contributed to this report. 


Should we be proud? This a short step away from Soviet-style tactics. Has "land of the free and home of the brave" really become "land of the sheep and lair of big brother"? And, shockingly, we just simply let them continue. They are supposed to work for us!!!

Similar posts:

NSA collects millions of text messages daily in 'untargeted' global sweep

Inside the "Electronic Omnivore": New Leaks Show NSA Spying on U.N., Climate Summit, Text Messaging

Feds tell Web firms to turn over user account passwords

Don’t Give the Masters of the Universe Their Amnesty

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has pushed hard for the Senate immigration-reform bill. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Jeff Sessions
National Review Online
September 11, 2014

The Senate isn’t doing anything to stop Obama’s plans — thank the plutocrats.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, delivered a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday evening about Senate Democrats’ refusal to support legislation to block the president’s proposed executive actions on immigration policy, and the interests supporting amnesty. Following is an adapted version of his remarks.

Earlier this week I spoke about the president’s promise that he would issue an executive amnesty to 5 or 6 million people. The planned amnesty would include work permits, photo IDs, and Social Security numbers for millions of people who illegally entered the U.S., illegally overstayed their visas, or defrauded U.S. immigration authorities.

The Senate Democratic conference has supported and enabled the president’s unlawful actions and blocked every effort to stop them. Not even one of our Democratic colleagues has backed the House legislation that would stop this planned executive amnesty or demanded that Senator Reid bring it up for a vote. Every Senate Democrat is therefore the president’s partner in his planned lawless acts.

Tonight I would like to talk about the influence of special interests on our nation’s immigration system. How did we get to the point where elected officials, activist groups, the ACLU, and global CEOs are openly working to deny American workers the immigration protections to which they are legally entitled? How did we get to the point where the Democratic party is prepared to nullify and wipe away the immigration laws of the United States of America?

Just yesterday Majority Leader Reid wrote in a tweet something that was shocking. He said: “Since House Republicans have failed to act on immigration, I know the President will. When he does, I hope he goes Real Big.”

Let this sink in for a moment. The majority leader of the Senate is bragging that he knows the president will circumvent Congress to issue executive amnesty to millions, and he is encouraging the president to ensure this amnesty includes as many people as possible. And the White House has acknowledged that 5 to 6 million is the number they are looking at.

Has one Senate Democrat stepped forward to reject Mr. Reid’s statement? Has one Senate Democrat stepped forward to say: I support the legislation passed by the House of Representatives that would secure the border and block this executive amnesty? Have they ever said they support that? Have they ever said: I will do everything in my power to see that the House legislation gets a vote in the Senate so the American people can know what is going on? No. All we hear is silence.

This body is not run by one man. We don’t have a dictator in the great Senate. Every member has a vote. And the only way Senator Reid can succeed in blocking this Senate from voting to stop the president’s executive actions is for members to stop supporting him.

Every senator needs to stand up and represent their constituents — not big business, not the ACLU, not activist groups, not political interests, but the American interests, the workers’ interests. That is what we need to expect from them, and we don’t have but a few weeks, it looks like, to get it done.

In effect, the entire Senate Democratic conference has surrendered the jobs, wages, and livelihoods of their constituents to a group of special interests meeting in secret at the White House. They are surrendering them to executive actions that will foist on the nation what Congress has refused to pass and the American people have rejected. They are plotting at the White House to move forward with executive action no matter what the people think and no matter what Congress — through the people’s House — has decided.

Politico reports that “White House officials conducted more than 20 meetings in July and August with legal experts, immigration advocates and business leaders to gather ideas on what should be included in the order.”

So who are these so-called expert advocates and business leaders? They are not the law-enforcement officers; they are not our ICE officers; they are not our Border Patrol officers; they are not the American working man and woman; they are not unemployed Americans. They weren’t in the room. You can be sure of that. Their opinions weren’t sought.

No, White House officials are meeting with the world’s most powerful corporate and immigration lobbyists and activists who think border controls are for the little people. The administration is meeting with the elite, the cosmopolitan set, who scorn and mock the concerns of everyday Americans who are concerned about their schools, jobs, wages, communities, and hospitals. These great and powerful citizens of the world don’t care much about old-fashioned things like national boundaries, national sovereignty, and immigration control — let alone the constitutional separation of powers.

Well, don’t you get it? They believe they are always supposed to get whatever it is they want. They are used to that. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, one report says they have spent $1.5 billion since 2007 trying to pass their desired immigration bill — $1.5 billion. They tried and tried and tried to pass the bill through Congress, but the American people said: No, no, no. So they decided to just go to the president. They decide to go to President Obama, and they insist that he implement these measures through executive fiat. And Senate Democrats have apparently said: Well, that is just a wonderful idea. We support that. Just do it. Go big. But, Mr. President, wait a little bit. Wait until after the election. We don’t want the voters to hold us accountable for what you are doing. We want to pretend we in the Senate have nothing to do with it.



Similar posts:

Illegal immigrants protest outside White House, with little fear of repercussions

Border Patrol facilities have become MS13 recruiting grounds...

GOP Immigration Plans Could Grant Amnesty to up to 6.5 Million

13th Anniversary of 9/11: An Open Letter to Americans

At least they got the caption right.

Bryan Douebleu
Clinical Cynic
September 11, 2014

Here we are now, a few hours shy of what will be thirteen years since that infamous day in 2001. I'm writing this post not to tow the line, but instead, to try and encourage people to ask questions, do their own research, use common sense, and think for themselves.

We live in a day and age where people have the attention span of yesterday's children; we cannot hold anyone accountable for anything; we allow invasions of sovereign countries based on outright lies, we allow our tax dollars to bail out crooked corporations, we allow the Obama administration to aid and arm terrorists in places like Egypt, Libya, and Syria - and either don't remember this fact or perhaps many just never knew as they choose to be spoon-fed their "news", we allow incursions on our Constitutional rights and our privacy, we allow the Obama administration to arm Mexican cartels... and much more.

With all that said, it's no wonder people haven't really dug deep into the reality of what happened on September 11, 2001. While I do not claim to know exactly what happened on that day, I do know, and am here to tell you, that the official line is nonsense. Three towers collapsed into their own footprints that day... and one was not even struck by any aircraft. While there is a multitude of information I could include in this post I am going to keep it very simple in an attempt to hopefully awaken some inquisitive minds that may have been in some form of a dormant state.

Remember, the heat was so tremendous it "brought the towers down", yet passports floated safely from the inferno to be discovered essentially unscathed... discovered in an extremely quick fashion.

The material that provided the support for the entire WTC complex was steel; steel is an alloy of iron and carbon. The melting point of iron is 2,750 Fahrenheit, and steel is 2,500 Fahrenheit. Jet fuel is basically refined kerosine, and burns at maximum, under control, at 1800 Fahrenheit (regular open fire temps tend to reach 500-700 Fahrenheit). We are not talking about the adiabatic process that describes the temperature required for fuel to ignite without a spark - an aircraft colliding with a building is indeed a very big spark. Further, I'd hardly call the floors that absorbed the impact of the two doomed flights on 9/11 a control environment; I'd call Jet-A fuel burning office furniture and papers an open fire... and if you bother yourself to look, you will see that these temps would fall well below the temperature required to significantly weaken and/or melt the steel within those structures. With that said let's continue.

Never in history, has a building collapsed into its own footprint due to fire (or collapsed at all for that matter). The following is some examples:

One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours on February 23, 1991. Eight floors were destroyed in a fire that began on the 22nd floor resulting in $100 million in damage. Philadelphia officials touted this event as "the most significant fire in this century".

On May 4, 1988, The First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles burned for three and a half hours; the fire caused $200 million in damages. 64 fire companies fought the fire in total.

Due to an explosion, 1 New York Plaza burned for more than six hours on August 5, 1970.

Caracas Tower
Caracas Tower in Caracas, Venezuela, burned for more than seventeen hours on the night of October 17, 2004. Over twenty-six floors were engulfed in flames.

The Windsor Building, in Madrid, Spain, burned for almost twenty-four hours on February 12, 2005. Although there was partial collapse of some floors, it did not collapse neatly into its own footprint. It was demolished.

The Hotel Mandarin Oriental
The Hotel Mandarin Oriental, in Beijing, China, burned severely across all floors for over three hours on February 9, 2009. The building stood. The fire was popularly referred to as the Beijing Torch.

World Trade Center 1 & 2 burned for less than one hour. Both collapsed at free-fall speed, neatly into their own footprints, taking nearly 3,000 lives with them.

WTC Building 7
World Trade Center 7 (Building 7), was never struck by any aircraft, nor had it sustained any massive structural damage outside of random fire. Yet, this building, at free-fall speed (indicating no resistance onto itself), collapsed neatly, again, into its own footprint.

The BBC even announced its collapse prior to Silverstein's decision to "pull it":

And here is footage of Silverstein discussing Building 7:

And here is what architects, engineers, and some family members have raised funds to air:

There really is a hornets nest of information one can add to this... but I am not trying to write a book here. I think this is ample evidence that something was and continues to be afoul regarding the official tale of 9/11.

That reminds me. They began removing the WTC debris nearly immediately, and cleanup continued 24 hours per day, seven days per week... culminating in what was the structural support of the building escaping any private third party investigation. The material was quickly exported to nations like China for recycling. Along the same line, we still have never seen any footage of what really hit the Pentagon... arguably, one of the most secure buildings in the nation, encircled by security cameras. Security footage was quickly commandeered from local businesses such as a Citgo gas station... and, perhaps after the footage was deemed clean, it was "released" years later. To date, nothing showing any aircraft out of normal flight paths, or on collision trajectory with the Pentagon, has been released (much like the supposed Osama bin Laden 'raid').

Hungry for more? Visit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.


Similar posts:

The world is on the brink of utter insanity...

Building 7 – Still The Smoking Gun

Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I.