It has long been an open secret that U.S. and other government agencies have been spreading disinformation and misdirection among dissident groups, including various “patriot myths” designed to disrupt activists and prevent them from making competent efforts. One of the just-released documents by Edward Snowden includes the British manual for doing that, which is shared with its allies. See http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/
So the next time you receive word from some “patriot” for actions that are too simple, obvious, direct, and appealing, the odds are high that is coming from a government agent.
-- Jon ---------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society http://constitution.org 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 firstname.lastname@example.org ---------------------------------------------------------- https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
Much more detailed information about the NSA is available that what you see below, but I’ve been short on time; therefore, I put this together regarding Senator Campfield’s SB1849 4th Amendment Protection Act. I do not expect Senator Overbey to stand against the NSA and for the privacy of we the people. He has never championed freedom, but I am willing to be pleasantly surprised.
Support Senator Campfield’s 4th Amendment Protection Act. The federal government is out of control, and the NSA is one of many ABC organizations that the federal government has failed to reign in.
Do you seriously trust Barack Obama to reign in the NSA? In case you need a refresher, here are 545 Examples of Obama’s Lying, Lawbreaking, Corruption, & Cronyism
Listen to NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake here: http://www.bcpublicrecord.com/?p=4644
The 4th amendment is already being trashed with domestic enemy Commissioner of Dept. of Safety and Homeland Insecurity Bill Gibbons teaming up with the feds for VIRP.
The Washington Post reports that the black budget costs $52.6 Billion a year, but that’s a conservative estimate when the Dept. of Homeland Security has admitted that it doesn’t know how much it’s spending on Fusion Centers.
Tennessee has already wasted $200 million expanding the police state. http://www.bcpublicrecord.com/?p=1150
This situation has gotten so out of control that Electronic Service Providers can’t even tell their lawyers what big snooping government wants.
Fusion center director: We don’t spy on Americans, just anti-government Americans. Right, except who defines who is anti-government? http://rt.com/usa/fusion-center-director-spying-070/
The US doesn’t even make the top 10 best countries to live in.
Does that come as a surprise given the ever expanding police state? I can provided hundreds of links to stories about police state expansion, police brutality, illegal spying and privacy violations if you want more.
Metadata collecting, parallel construction, loosely defined terms and flat out tyranny are taking place within the NSA and the federal government. It’s time to stand up and support the rights of the people against an out of control reckless federal government.
Let freedom ring!
Tona in Greenback
Car owners should be concerned about what data is being collected, how it’s being shared and how secure the information is. It’s still far less concern than what we’re facing with government violations of privacy, but concering nonetheless.
by Eric Holcombe
I believe the TN State Dept. of Ed. is guilty of fraud at the federal level for lying on the Race To The Top Application for hundreds of millions received in federal taxpayer funds.
I found the recent story of the petition circulating amongst various public school district leaders and the TEA’s version in Nashville and Williamson County stating a vote of “no confidence” in state education commissioner Kevin Huffman a little surprising, if not hypocritical. If you have looked at the State of Tennessee’s application for Race To The Top (RTTT), you know there was a requirement for the states to show solidarity among the public school districts by signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) committing themselves to the requirements contained in the 1100-page Race To The Top application which included great expansion of data collection on the students, mandatory online achievement testing, as well as implementing the Common Core “State” Standards (or if you had the time and resources, implementing your own multi-state consortium of academic standards instead). The state made the claim in this application that their goals were aligned to the federal department of education, so they used the MOU provided by the federal department of education and obtained signatures from not only the directors of schools, but the school board chairs and teacher’s union representative (as applicable) from nearly every district in TN.
From page 17 Section A(1)(ii)(a) in the RTTT application:
“We also used the U.S. Department of Education’s sample MOU because our goals were aligned with it and because our districts asked for an MOU as soon as possible so they could have discussions with their unions and school boards. The MOU, reflecting the terms and conditions of our application, is attached as Appendix A-1-2.
• Section A(1)(ii)(b): Similarly, we sent the U.S. Department of Education’s sample Scope of Work because we believed our goals were aligned with it. We are pleased that 100% of our 136 participating districts and 4 state special schools committed to each and every reform criterion, as the summary table demonstrates. We achieved this sign-on rate even though all participating LEAs will have to implement a bold set of policy and practice changes, including using student growth as one of multiple measures in evaluating and compensating teachers and leaders; denying tenure to teachers who are deemed ineffective as gauged partly by student growth; relinquishing control over their persistently lowest-achieving schools; increasing the number of students who are taught by effective teachers; and, in many cases, opening their doors to more charter schools. The sample Scope of Work is attached as Appendix A-1-3.
• Section A(1)(ii)(c): As a sign of our statewide approach, 131 of our 136 participating districts and 4 state special schools submitted all three applicable signatures – superintendent, school board president, and union leader.The summary table demonstrates that we had 100% success rates in obtaining the signature of every superintendent and applicable school board president, and a 93% success rate in obtaining the signature of every applicable local teachers’ union leader. (Not all Tennessee school districts have collective bargaining; nonetheless, we asked for the support of local union/association leaders regardless of whether they represented teachers in a collective-bargaining capacity.)”
I found it pretty interesting that all those directors of schools and union leaders who allegedly signed the Federal Dept. of Ed. MOU selling their souls for Common Core would develop convenient amnesia and start complaining about Huffman implementing the very things contained in the application they would have sworn assurance to “be familiar with” and agree to. I was figuring they really didn’t read the 1100-page application and possibly didn’t actually see the first “confidential” rough draft of the Common Core “state” Standards that were contained in the application. I suspected they had to hurry and rubber stamp their approval (like the legislators, gubernatorial candidates, charter operators, philanthropists and colleges did). I was particularly interested in the date they signed these MOUs. Here’s why:
1. The date of the Race To The Top application is January 18, 2010.
2. The “confidential” first rough draft of the Common Core “state” Standards contained within the application is dated January 13, 2010, only five days prior.
3. I figured there was no way these directors, school board chairs and union reps actually read this stuff, but it would be especially ridiculous if their signatures on the MOUs were dated prior to January 13, 2010 because that would mean it was not possible to even see the first rough draft of Common Core before committing to whatever it becomes in the future.
I requested an electronic copy of these signed MOUs from the state Dept. of Ed. After an initial written response announcing a 10-day delay to collect the information, I was told on day ten that these were on legal sized paper and it would be “easiest for them” for me to come to Nashville to pick up copies. I agreed and traveled to Nashville to pick them up. Upon receipt of the copies, I noticed that not only were the provided MOUs NOT the same federal-government-provided ones claimed to be signed in the Race To The Top application, but in addition they were only signed by the directors of schools. Also, I was surprised by the signature dates. They were all signed in May and June of 2010, four to five months AFTER the Race To The Top application and at least 45 days after the RTTT money was awarded to Tennessee.
I made a second request for the signed federal-government-provided MOUs including the quoted portion above from the RTTT application that explicitly states all the signatures were collected on the federal MOUs:
“1. Did the 131 participating districts and 4 special school districts submit this MOU included in Appendix A of the RTTT application signed by all parties as claimed in the RTTT application? If so, this was the information I originally requested and still want to obtain copies for all districts.
2. If not, did the local chairs of boards of education and/or the local union representative in these districts sign another MOU such as the altered one signed by the directors of schools that have been provided to me?
3. Were there any other MOUs related to RTTT requirements signed by these three parties (directors of schools, chairs of local school boards, union representatives) that are dated prior to the RTTT application date of January 18, 2010?
4. Who wrote this portion of the RTTT application quoted above regarding the “sign on” rate of the school districts to the sample MOU? Education First?”
The response I received truncated my questions to answer only #1 above, ignoring the follow-ups. The answer: They do not exist.
Now the protest and petition by the directors of schools makes sense. So do the words of White County HS Assistant Principal Jerry Lowery in the Senate Education Committee “fact-finding” hearing: “We were presented with a done deal and now we are caught in a web that we never spun”.
Bottom line: The State of Tennessee committed federal fraud in obtaining hundred of millions of taxpayer dollars by lying on the RTTT application about the non-existent, local “unanimous support” for RTTT and the Common Core standards to improve their grant score.
The Common Core “state” Standards first became available for the public to view and comment on March 17, 2010. This is nearly 60 days after Tennessee’s RTTT application was submitted on January 18, 2010 committing TN schools to the standards that didn’t exist yet. Round one RTTT money was awarded on March 29, 2010, less than two weeks later.
Not a single Tennessee director of schools, school board chair or TEA representative had signed either the Federal Dept. of Ed. MOU or the altered state version MOUs yet. This would not happen for another 60-90 days. These were all signed in May and June, presumably in order for the State Board of Ed. To pass Common Core in their special called meeting in July as they promised to do in the RTTT application.
If you would like to see the MOUs that were actually signed (only by the directors of schools), those can be found on the state’s RTTT website here at the bottom of the page under “Approved District Scopes of Work” by school district. These are identical to the copies that were provided to me. I am not certain why the department didn’t simply refer me to these electronic versions rather than give me the run-around with the paper copies, but it is possible they didn’t know they existed since the two contacts I made were not employed there in 2010 (Bredesen’s administration). Within these documents, you can also see what spending each district committed to for the amount of RTTT money they were to be awarded. Of course this is all taking place after the federal grant was awarded to the state. There is an additional “scope of work” signature block with spaces for the director of schools, school board chair and TEA representative or funding agency for the district that is not signed. The TEA representative block has been made “optional” when it is used. A second, rotated copy of this page follows with the signatures. However, these signatures only assure their awareness that the money provided is one-time and will not cover any recurring expenses the district commits to in spending the RTTT money. Only the directors of schools committed the school districts to implementation of RTTT requirements with the altered state-version MOUs two months after the money was awarded. These state-version signed MOUs and LEA commitments follow the scope of work tables with projected expenditures. Note that these MOUs are even more vague than the one provided by the Federal Dept. of Ed, such that it is certainly not clear what you are committing to. I hope your director of schools read all 1100 pages before selling you out for some one-time money and signing onto that last line:
“Although all programs listed in the commitments have not been developed, my LEA will participate as they become available. Even though my LEA may or may not spend RTTT funds on the elements of RTTT, I do understand my LEA will be expected to support/implement the commitments listed above.”
Good luck with that. Might be worth looking back at your April, May, June 2010 board meeting minutes for discussion on completely changing all the academic standards, mandatory online testing, etc.
So, my questions to the State Dept. of Ed remain:
Were there any other MOUs related to RTTT requirements signed by these three parties (directors of schools, chairs of local school boards, union representatives) that are dated prior to the RTTT application date of January 18, 2010?
Who wrote this portion of the RTTT application quoted above regarding the “sign on” rate of the school districts to the sample MOU? Education First?
This article in entitled, What’s Wrong with Police in Iceland? It should be called what’s wrong with Americans for putting up with a murderous police state.
Here in Blount County, I’ve read about cops shooting at least a couple of individuals in situations where the cops faced no danger. Immediately the Sheriff’s Dept. and local rag go into defense of murder and spin it. It wasn’t long ago that we were fed the story of Sheriff Be-Wrong (Berrong) saving us from the Grainger County Coffee Monster.
Recently there was a front page story about a cop shooting a dog, making it sound like it was a good thing simply because the dog was barking and moving toward the officer, while a man who shot a lady’s dog is going to face trial. Both were wrong, but The Daily Slime acted like the officer was just doing his job. Murder is ok, so long as a cop is doing it. Several of the Commissioners want to put more of these murderers on the streets to harass us even more, using “free” money from the feds.
Cops are unconstitutional and this country didn’t have them for the first half century of it’s existence. For your reference, Roger Roots law review article, Are Cops Constitutional.
Let freedom ring!
Proper”, “Plenary”, and Preamble
It was not until NFIB v. Sibelius, 132 S.Ct. 2566 (2012), that the Supreme Court began to address the meaning of “proper” in the Necessary and Proper Clause, on which most of the powers of government have been erected since the breakthrough case of McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), in which CJ John Marshall interpreted “necessary” to mean “convenient”, and said nothing about “proper”. It and Sibelius also did not address the meaning of “carrying into execution”, discussed elsewhere (see links at the end).
Ilya Somin has an article on this, The Individual Mandate and the Proper Meaning of “Proper” at SSRN. He explains that five of the justices agreed that “proper” does not allow “plenary” (unlimited) power, but they did not offer clear guidance on where the boundaries are.
CJ Marshall also introduced the term “plenary” into Supreme Court jurisprudence in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), in which he found that delegations of power were “plenary” within their sphere (subject matter). Ever since government lawyers have been building power on that opinion.
It requires only a little research into the historical background of legal delegation of power, and usage of the term “plenary”, to find that no delegations of constitutional power can ever be literally unlimited, that is, “plenary”. There is always an implicit constraint that a power only be exercised for a legitimate public purpose, and that is what the Framers meant by “proper”, not just for incidental “necessary and proper” powers, but all powers.
So where can we find authoritative guidance for what is proper? We can go back to Edward Coke, William Blackstone, and other legal authorities on whom the Founders relied, but we can also find a large part of it in the Constitution itself, indeed at the very beginning of it, the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Now the conventional view that that the Preamble adds no real content to the Constitution. It is merely what lawyers call “aspirational”. It delegates no powers, defines no rights or duties, creates no structures or procedures. But it is not without constitutional meaning, because it defines six constraints on what are legitimate exercises of power, and therefore on delegations of power. Those are not the only constraints, but it is a good start.
Let us consider some delegations of power in the Constitution, and consider what it would mean if the delegations were “plenary”:
Art. I Sec. 4 Cl. 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
If the pre-emptive power of Congress over the time, place, and manner of congressional elections (except the place of senatorial elections) were plenary, they could require the elections be held within a 1-second timeframe, at a polling place on the moon, while standing on one’s head. Ridiculous? Of course. The power may only properly be exercised to make elections more accurate, convenient, and representative. That is an implied restriction on the delegation, which is not made explicit in the Preamble, but may be expressed as being for a “legitimate public purpose”.
Or consider this:
Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. “The Congress shall have power … To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
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.
Which clearly implies the intent that militia be kept in a high state of readiness. A proper exercise of the power would be to enhance the effectiveness of militia, not impair it. It may be regulated, but only in one direction.
Here is another that some lawyers have been arguing is plenary:
Art. IV Sec. 3 Cl. 2. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; …
They actually argue this clause confers plenary, unlimited, power to dispose of any property in any way Congress may choose, even to drain the treasury to give all public funds to themselves or their cronies (which seems to be what they are doing), or to give any or all of the land of the country to a foreign enemy to be used to attack us. That obviously can’t be correct. In fact the power is that of a fiduciary, with government officials acting as trustees of the trust defined by the Constitution, having the duty to manage public trust assets for the general benefit of the people as a whole, not for the special benefit of a part of the people.
We also see this indicated in
Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
In this clause, “common defense and general welfare” are not distinct delegations of power, but restrictions on the purposes of taxing and spending, that they be for the general benefit of all and not for the special benefit of a few.
Improper exercises of power are also what give rise to complaints of “abuse of discretion”, which are in principle justiciable. If the powers of officials were plenary there could be no abuse of discretion.
No plenary powers
All powers delegated in this Constitution are constrained to be exercised only for a proper, or reasonable, rational, and legitimate, public purpose, as a fiduciary trust for the general benefit of all the people and not for the special benefit of any part of them, partially but not completely stated in the Preamble. No power is plenary or without limits, and no power may be extended to accomplish a purpose without amendment.
Maryland: Speed Camera Cash Used To Shock, Shoot And Spy On Drivers
Tasers, Glocks and cell phone spying device bought with speed camera profit in Salisbury, Maryland.
Under Maryland law, jurisdictions that operate speed cameras face strict limits on how much revenue can be generated and what local officials can buy with the money. Last month, the city council in Salisbury voted unanimously to take the automated ticketing cash and buy Glock training handguns, Tasers and a device that police can use to crack passwords and download data off the cell phones of motorists during a traffic stop.
Maryland’s law autorizing the use of traffic cameras was highly controversial, first passing in 2006 over the veto of then-Governor Robert L. Ehrlich (R). To obtain the needed votes when expanding the speed camera program statewide in 2009, lawmakers agreed to a few compromises. Cities are not allowed to collect more than ten percent of their municipal budget from camera revenue, and profit must go “solely for public safety purposes, including pedestrian safety programs,” according to Maryland Code Section 7-302.
In August, the city put in an order for nine Tasers at a cost of $12,500. Last month it approved purchase of eight Glock simunitions handguns and the purchase of a $12,083 mobile device used to crack the passwords and grab the data from mobile phones while in the field.
“The upgrade will allow police investigators to pull data from the most technically advanced cell phones and tablets,” Salisbury Police Major David Meienschein wrote in a September 5 memo. “The Cellebrite UFED Touch is a device that is used to perform data extractions from cell phones, tablets, iPads, GPS and other electronic devices. Investigators have been able to obtain stored and deleted data files to include but not limited to: text messages, photographs, videos and contact lists.”
Ron Ely, head of the Maryland Drivers Alliance, says this is one of many examples of municipalities are making a mockery of the law.
“The so called ‘public safety restriction’ is a meaningless joke intended for public relations and has no practical effect,” Ely told TheNewspaper. “Salisbury’s interpretation of this provision is not surprising at all. Chevy Chase Village previously earmarked such funds on things like new locker rooms, office equipment, cable TV lines, and a new office for the police chief.”
It’s obvious that all across this country governments have declared war on we the people. The only way to stop this, absent divine intervention, is to stop making excuses and fight your corrupt governments.
Earlier this week we saw Sheriff Be-Wrong cross into another jurisdiction and put another County Jail in “lock down“, military style with a grenade launcher on hand, all to keep the people safe from the Grainger Co. Coffee monster. Truthfully the ones running the jail are far more dangerous than the petty thieves in the jail. The petty thieves usually just make off with a tv and copper wire. Government stills more than half of what you make if you are a working person. Worse if you don’t give them them at least half, they will take it all by putting your house for sale on the courthouse steps to pay the debts they rack up, all in our names of course. Don’t you just love freedom? It’s so darn expensive. The petty thief pales in comparison.
St. Augustine provides a good lesson in the evils of government vs. the petty thief. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdQRl17ixwg
Governments keep hostile possession of the roads, eliminating practical travel for most people except with government permission. Look at all the cops occupying the roads, as though we’re at war, needing constant surveillance and “patrol”.
It’s time to stop making excuses about how busy you are with your lives and push back evil luciferian government.
I suspect that the cost is much higher.
This coming Tuesday Nov. 5th, I will give a presentation on Fusion Centers, discussing the REAL ID Act of 2005 and biometrics to the Smoky Mt. Tea Party Patriots at the Blount County Library at 6:30 PM. Come out and learn about the surveillance police state.
The scathing U. S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report is available here. As usual Congress did nothing with this information.