the RINO establishment has picked Huntsman, who's now fine with obamacare: "health care is a right"...note that Rand has also fought this bankrupt, never-ending-debt approach.

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/26/reid_rand_pauls_opposition_to_patriot_act_giving_terrorists_the_opportunity_to_plot_against_our_country.html

Reid: Rand Paul's Opposition To PATRIOT Act Gives "Terrorists The Opportunity To Plot Against Our Country"

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blasted Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on the Senate floor late Wednesday night. Reid called Rand Paul's opposition to the renewal of the PATRIOT Act "political grandstanding." However, that wasn't the worst thing Reid accused the freshman Senator from Kentucky of.

"When the clock strikes midnight tomorrow, we will be giving terrorists the opportunity to plot against our country undetected," Reid said on the Senate floor. "Now, the Senator from Kentucky is threatening to take away the best tools we have for stopping them."

Oddly, Reid cities James R. Clapper, the gaffe-prone Director of National Intelligence, as someone who is encouraging Congress to renew portions of the PATRIOT Act that are due to end.

"Does this mean the PATRIOT Act is perfect? Of course not. But today, the Republican Leader and I received a letter from James Clapper, a three-star retired general from the United States military The nation's Director of National Intelligence. He knows better than any of us the real effect of letting terrorists fighting tools expire," Reid said.

Clapper, you may remember, did not know about the 2010 London bomb plot and once called the Muslim Brotherhood a "largely secular" group.


-

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110525/15411414434/senators-reveal-that-feds-have-secretly-reinterpreted-patriot-act.shtml

Senators Reveal That Feds Have Secretly Reinterpreted The PATRIOT Act

from the this-is-a-problem dept

We had mentioned, briefly, the amendment that Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall had tried to push for with relation to the renewal of controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act, however didn't spend much time discussing it. The details are important -- even if we can't know what most of them are. Basically, what becomes clear is that both Senators -- who are on the Senate Intelligence Committee -- are aware of the fact that the feds have interpreted the PATRIOT Act provisions much more broadly than the wording suggests, but they've kept this interpretation secret. In other words, though the law says one thing, the federal government has announced internally that it's "interpreting it" an entirely different way, but it's kept that interpretation secret. The speculation is that these provisions are being massively abused for widespread warrantless wiretapping.

In an interview with Wired, Wyden makes the point clear:

“We’re getting to a gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says."
He notes that he has no problem with keeping the techniques the feds use secret, but the interpretation should be public, and that's what their amendment is about.

And it's not just the public that's having the wool pulled over their eyes. Wyden and Udall are pointing out that the very members of Congress, who are voting to extend these provisions, do not know how the feds are interpreting them:
As members of the Senate Intelligence Committee we have been provided with the executive branch's classified interpretation of those provisions and can tell you that we believe there is a significant discrepancy between what most people - including many Members of Congress - think the Patriot Act allows the government to do and what government officials secretly believe the Patriot Act allows them to do.

Legal scholars, law professors, advocacy groups, and the Congressional Research Service have all written interpretations of the Patriot Act and Americans can read any of these interpretations and decide whether they support or agree with them. But by far the most important interpretation of what the law means is the official interpretation used by the U.S. government and this interpretation is - stunningly -classified.

What does this mean? It means that Congress and the public are prevented from having an informed, open debate on the Patriot Act because the official meaning of the law itself is secret. Most members of Congress have not even seen the secret legal interpretations that the executive branch is currently relying on and do not have any staff who are cleared to read them. Even if these members come down to the Intelligence Committee and read these interpretations themselves, they cannot openly debate them on the floor without violating classification rules.
In the understatement of the year, Wyden and Udall state "this is not acceptable." I think it goes beyond unacceptable. It's downright scary. That Congress is about to rubberstamp the extension of the law when they think it says one thing, while the feds pretend it says something entirely different, is a travesty.
-

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/feds-threaten-texas-with-no-fly-zone-over-anti-tsa-legislation_05252011

Feds Threaten Texas With No-Fly Zone Over Anti-TSA Legislation

The State of Texas is currently considering legislation that would make it illegal for any official, State or Federal, to perform intrusive searches of persons or personal property without probable cause.

Under Texas Law, HB 1937 would punish, through criminal prosecution, those involved in “official oppression by the intrusive touching of persons seeking access to public buildings and transportation…”

In response, the Federal Government has threatened to essentially enact a no-fly zone over Texas by restricting flights out of the state due to security concerns.

US Attorneys (Federal) object to the legislation and responded directly to the Texas Legislature on May 24, 2011:


May 24, 2011

[On U.S. Department of Justice, Western District of Texas, stationery. Addressed to Speaker Joe Straus, Dewhurst, the House Clerk and the Senate Secretary]

Dear Leaders,

I write with regard to HB 1937, which I understand will imminently be presented to the Texas Senate for a vote.

This office, as well as the Southern, Northern, and Eastern District of Texas United States Attorneys, would like to advise you of the significant leagal and practical problems that will be created if the bill becomes law. As you are no doubt aware, the bill makes it a crime for a federal transportation official (“TSO”) to perform the security screening that he or she is authorized and required by federal law to perform. The proposed legislation would make it unlawful for a federal agent such as a TSO to perform certain specified searches for the purpose of granting access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation. That provision would thus criminalize searches that are required under federal regulations in order to ensure the safety of the American public. The legislation also makes it a crime for a public servant, as defined by the bill, to deny or impede another person in the excercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege, knowing that the public servant’s conduct is unlawful. As a result, it appears the intent of the bill is to preclude a TSO from turning away from the secure area of an airport someone who otherwise would have been subjected to a pat down as a condition of entry.

The effect of this bill, if enacted, would be to interfere directly with the Transportation Security Administration’s (“TSA”) responsibility for civil aviation security. 49 U.S.C. §114(d); 6 U.S.C. §202(1). Congress has directed the Administrator of TSA to take “necessary actions to improve domestic air transportation security,” 49 U.S.C. §44904(e), and directed him to “prescribe regulations to protect passengers and property on an aircraft … against an act of criminal violence or aircraft piracy.” ID. §44903(b). Congress has directed TSA to provide for “the screening of all passengers and property … before boarding,” in order to ensure that no passenger is unlawfully carrying a dangerous weapon, explosive, or other destructive substance. Id. §44901(a), §44901(a), §114(e). If the Administrator determines that “a particular threat cannot be addressed in a way adequate to ensure … the safety of passengers and crew of a particular flight, he “shall cancel the flight or series of flights.” Id. §44905(b). HB 1937 would conflict directly with federal law. The practical import of the bill is that it would threaten criminal prosecution of Transportation Security Administration personnel who carry out the security procedures required under federal statutes and TSA regulations passed to implement those statutes. Those officials cannot be put to the choice of risking criminal prosecution or carrying out their federal duties. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Texas has no authority to regulate federal agents and employees in the performance of their federal duties or to pass a statute that conflicts with federal law.

If HR [sic] 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute. Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.

We urge that you consider the ramifications of this bill before casting your vote.

Very truly yours,

[signed]

John E. Murphy
United States Attorney

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, several other states are considering similar legislation to prevent TSA’s gross violations of the 4th Amendment, which protects and guarantees the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Battles over the tenth amendment, which gives States the rights to exercise their own sovereignty over issues not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution, are coming to a head across the country – and not just over TSA anti-groping legislation. In recent years 10th amendment arguments and attempts to nullify Federal legislation have included immigration concerns in Southern states, marijuana legalization, firearms freedom, food freedom, and the rejection of Federally mandated universal health care laws.

Regardless of whether we agree with certain arguments made by States with respect to federal legislation or their own, we must wholeheartedly support the right of the people of those states to pass (or reject) legislation that they deem best for their states, even if it is contrary to the beliefs of the people of another state or the Federal government.

References: Tenth Amendment Center, Lone Star Report, Texas Legislature, Jeff Rense


Author: Mac Slavo
Date: May 25th, 2011
Website:www.SHTFplan.com

-

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/05/salem_woman_says_fbi_raided_her_home_to_get_suicide_hoods.html

California woman says FBI raided her home to get suicide hoods

-

http://danielisright.blogspot.com/2011/05/portland-commies-get-lesson-in.html

Portland commies get an economics lesson.

Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Portland commies get a lesson in economics
Black Rose Threatened with Extinction
[A] call out for support that emphasizes our immediate need for funds.

The long, chilly, rainy seasons are finally departing, leaving the Black Rose far behind in our finances. We have until June 5th to catch up, otherwise the Blackrose will be evicted.

As always no one turned away for lack of funds but, we really encourage folks to pitch in and donate in this time of need.

The Black Rose doesn't have it's own website (what successful business does?) but they do have a Myspace page. If you want to "friend" them please note: We will not add anyone whose profile has oppressive content.

Black Rose is a non-profit, all volunteer, consensus-based, collectively run infoshop in Portland, Oregon. In addition to our bookstore and lending library, we also have a freestore with clothes, books, small household items, and more - all for free! We strive to be an anti-oppressive, anti-authoritarian, safer, sober community space.

So a store run on socialist principles is about to fail and they blame it on the rainy weather. It has nothing to do with the fact that they don't charge for products but instead rely on the kindness of their fellow hippies.

Free is not fair. You achieve fairness when a willing seller and a willing buyer reach a mutual agreement that they both believe will benefit themselves. This is true for labor, for books and everything else.

Good riddance Black Rose, I look forward to seeing your old "customers" at Wal-Mart!

-