Dystopian Nightmare.

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Wake up!

I ask those who disagree with me
Check out the info that follows

I know that the sources will be attacked

If you don't believe that we are in a Police State
Under The UN Agenda 21 doctrine. You are part of
The problem

WAKE UP !!!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Neighbors Call Cops On Man For Washing Car in His Own Driveway

?The cops in this town have nothing better to do??

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
December 17, 2013

Neighbors called police on a man in Garden City, New York for the egregious crime of washing a car in his own driveway.

A video shows a police officer approaching two men in their driveway to inform them washing their car on their own private property violates a city ordinance, telling them ?you?re not allowed to do it.?

?I don?t just make this shit up, I ain?t just driving down the street to come over here and break your balls,? remarks the cop as he shows them the ordinance which states that washing a motor vehicle is prohibited in a public place.

When the two men respond that the vehicle is on private property, the officer responds, ?OK that?s what you say, it?s still in public view.? So now according to New York police, all private property that is visible from public land is no longer private.

The cop then makes it clear that if the men begin washing their car, ?we will be back here to give you tickets.?

?This is a battle that you don?t want to start,? asserts the cop, threatening to return to the property.

?You don?t want us being upset with you, you don?t want cops coming over here to check everything out,? states the cop before asking if he is being filmed.

Respondents to the YouTube video expressed amazement at police resources being used to harass people for washing their car instead of targeting real criminals.

?The cops in this town have nothing better to do? Every robbery, assault, murder, and rape in this town have been solved?? wrote one YouTube user.
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Pennsylvanians Coerced Into Giving Cheek Swab at ?Voluntary? Checkpoint

Private firm backed by police to intimidate motorists into submission

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
December 17, 2013
A supposedly ?voluntary? survey checkpoint run by a private firm in Reading, Pennsylvania on behalf of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy caused outrage when residents said they were forced off the road into a car park and coerced into giving cheek swabs as a result of an intimidating police presence.


Image: Firm used police for intimidation (Wikimedia Commons).

The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation was hired by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to run the checkpoint, during which motorists were quizzed about their driving habits.

Reading resident Ricardo Nieves said that he had to repeatedly refuse to take part in the survey over a 5 minute period before the was allowed to leave. Nieves noted that the presence of city police and a police car with flashing lights was designed to ?intimidate motorists? into submission and ?gave the checkpoint an air of authority it would not otherwise have had,? according to the Reading Eagle.

Nieves told the City Council Monday that the company?s hiring of police officers to help run the checkpoint was ?a gross abuse of power on many levels? and that the firm running it refused to divulge why they were demanding to take swabs of people?s cheeks, with Nieves asserting, ?Clearly it was for DNA.?

City Police Chief William M. Heim later remarked that the cheek swabs were to test for the presence of prescription drugs, dismissing Nieves? assertion that the police presence was coercive by claiming, ?People are not pressured by police presence to do something they don?t want to.?

?Our rights are being violated more and more every day, it?s another way of government intrusion into our lives,? said Councilman Dennis M. Sterner, complaining that local police were unable to pick up local drug dealers after years of investigations, yet were perfectly happy to pull over motorists on a whim.

?A car driver or passenger cannot be required or pressured into providing a DNA sample and, in fact, can?t be stopped at all except on suspicion of a crime or for a properly conducted sobriety checkpoint,? Mary Catherine Roper, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, told the newspaper.

However, this hasn?t stopped police across the country running the supposedly ?voluntary? checkpoints at the behest of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which in some cases involve the collection of not just saliva but blood too.

Motorists in Fort Worth who were subjected to the same program also complained that the checkpoint did not seem voluntary at all and that police forced them to pull over. It also emerged that even without consent, police were taking ?passive alcohol sensor readings? from drivers.

?The NHTSA defended these non-stops by stating everything was ?voluntary? and that law enforcement officers were only on hand for ?safety? reasons. But the passive alcohol test wasn?t voluntary. And the officers never bothered to point out stopping was voluntary until after the test subjects had actually stopped,? reports TechDirt.

As we reported back in 2010, motorists who refuse to submit to a breath test at DUI checkpoints now face the prospect of police forcibly jabbing a needle in their arm and extracting blood.

Shocking video footage taken at the Gwinnett County jail in Georgia shows police strapping down citizens accused of drunk driving before using a needle forcibly draw blood as victims scream, ?what country is this??
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
EPA Water Police Coming to Your Farm, Business ? and Back Yard


EPA Water Police Coming to Your Farm, Business ? and Back Yard

The rollout fiasco of ObamaCare and the ongoing uproar over its hidden traps and broken promises has obscured another domestic agenda item of the Obama administration that may prove nearly as pervasive and invasive as his nationalized healthcare initiative.

The clock is ticking on the federal Environmental Protection Agency?s draft proposal to grab regulatory authority over virtually all surface water and groundwater throughout the United States. If not stopped by Congress, the agency could assert jurisdiction over even intermittent seasonal streams, isolated wetlands, ditches, trickles, puddles, and ponds. In September, the EPA issued a draft scientific study purporting to find that virtually all wetlands and streams are ?physically, chemically, and biologically connected? to downstream waters over which the EPA already claims authority. Moreover, says the EPA study, even many ?ephemeral streams? and ?prairie potholes, vernal pools and playa lakes? that are dry most of the year can be found to have some connectivity to downstream waters.

At the same time that it released its science report, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers sent a draft regulation to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for interagency review. The White House is supposed to release the proposed regulation to the public by mid-December, but preoccupation with ObamaCare and other matters could delay that release.

Predictably, the EPA?s expansive claim to regulatory power is being cheered by ?environmental? NGOs that applaud every move to expand, concentrate, and centralize the power and reach of government. And just as predictably, the EPA proposal is generating vigorous opposition from property owners, farmers, ranchers, and industry, as well as state and local governments, who will be directly affected by any new EPA rulemaking on these matters.

The EPA?s new study, Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence, is generating controversy for its claims and methodology, as well as for the political nature of its release before being subjected to scientific peer review. Since passage of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972, the EPA has been torturing the law?s text to claim practically unlimited jurisdiction over all waters. However, the act does not regulate all waters; it regulates ?navigable waters,? defined as ?waters of the United States? (33 U.S.C. ?? 1344, 1362(7). To a reasonable layman, the term ?navigable waters? would obviously not apply to puddles, vernal pools, ditches, and seasonal streams. But to EPA bureaucrats bent on limitless authority, the CWA wording was no obstacle; it has continued to assert its power despite being slapped down in court decisions.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the EPA?s ludicrous stretching of ?navigable waters? in two of its three decisions concerning this issue. In United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (1985), the court upheld the EPA?s claim to jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to navigable waters because it found that the adjacent wetlands were ?inseparably bound up? with the navigable waters.

In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001), the Supreme Court rejected the EPA?s claimed regulatory authority over isolated ponds because they were a ?far cry, indeed, from the ?navigable waters? and ?waters of the United States? to which the statute by its terms extends.?

Following their SWANCC defeat, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers adopted the scheme of claiming that isolated waters were not outside their jurisdiction if, somehow, those waters could be arguably ?connected? to navigable waters. This ?any connection? theory of water regulation was challenged in Rapanos v. United States (2006).

The Supreme Court, in its Rapanos decision, found that the Army Corps of Engineers had gone ?beyond parody? in claiming that land ? whether wet or dry ? somehow falls within the definition of ?waters? under the CWA. The court referred to Webster?s New International Dictionary (2nd edition, 1954) to inject some common sense into the agency?s absurd interpretation. The court ridiculed the corps? ?land is waters? interpretation, stating:

The definition refers to water as found in ?streams,? ?oceans,? ?rivers,? ?lakes,? and ?bodies? of water ?forming geographical features.? All of these terms connote continuously present, fixed bodies of water, as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows. Even the least substantial of the definition?s terms, namely ?streams,? connotes a continuous flow of water in a permanent channel ? especially when used in company with other terms such as ?rivers,? ?lakes,? and ?oceans.? None of these terms encompasses transitory puddles or ephemeral flows of water.

The restriction of ?the waters of the United States? to exclude channels containing merely intermittent or ephemeral flow also accords with the commonsense understanding of the term. In applying the definition to ?ephemeral streams,? ?wet meadows,? storm sewers and culverts, ?directional sheet flow during storm events,? drain tiles, man-made drainage ditches, and dry arroyos in the middle of the desert, the Corps has stretched the term ?waters of the United States? beyond parody. The plain language of the statute simply does not authorize this ?Land Is Waters? approach to federal jurisdiction.

The court also revisited again the navigable waters issue, noting that a reasonable interpretation requires ?at bare minimum, the ordinary presence of water.? Further, the court stated:

In addition, the Act?s use of the traditional phrase ?navigable waters? (the defined term) further confirms that it confers jurisdiction only over relatively permanent bodies of water?. Plainly, because such ?waters? had to be navigable in fact or susceptible of being rendered so, the term did not include ephemeral flows.

The court also noted that the corps, like the EPA, had continued to assert its expansive regulatory claims despite the court?s SWANCC decision. According to the court:

Even after SWANCC, the lower courts have continued to uphold the Corps? sweeping assertions of jurisdiction over ephemeral channels and drains as ?tributaries.? For example, courts have held that jurisdictional ?tributaries? include ? a ?roadside ditch? whose water took ?a winding, thirty-two-mile path to the Chesapeake Bay,? ? and (most implausibly of all) the ?washes and arroyos? of an ?arid development site,? located in the middle of the desert.

Not to be deterred, the federal bureaucrats have, since SWANCC and Rapanos, focused on developing their ?connectivity? theory, in order to meet the ?significant nexus? standard that Justice Kennedy set down in his concurring Rapanos opinion.

The text of the EPA?s Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands study (also known as The Synthesis Report), together with the alarming trend of the agency's abuse of power ? especially under the current administration ? gives every reason to believe that the agency intends to run roughshod over private homeowners, farmers, ranchers, loggers, miners, manufacturers, energy producers, developers, and local and state governments. All under the pretext, of course, of protecting the purity of water from evil polluters. And ? with the blessing of ?science.?

The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers have fashioned their connectivity standards to trump the ?navigable waters? limitations and appear to meet the ?significant nexus? requirements of the Supreme Court. The Synthesis Report states:

All tributary streams, including perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, are physically, chemically, and biologically connected to downstream rivers via channels and associated alluvial deposits where water and other materials are concentrated, mixed, transformed, and transported.

Further, it signals that more wetlands battles are in the works, even though the ?wetlands? may be ?prairie potholes? unconnected to the ?waters of the United States.? According to the EPA?s report:

Wetlands in landscape settings that lack bidirectional hydrologic exchanges with downstream waters (e.g., many prairie potholes, vernal pools, and playa lakes) provide numerous functions that can benefit downstream water quality and integrity?.

In unidirectional wetlands that are not connected to the river network through surface or shallow subsurface water, the type and degree of connectivity varies geographically within a watershed and over time.

It continues:

Further, while our review did not specifically address other unidirectional water bodies, our conclusions apply to these water bodies (e.g., ponds and lakes that lack surface water inlets) as well, since the same principles govern hydrologic connectivity between these water bodies and downstream waters.

The Synthesis Report reconfirms agency plans to target ?ephemeral or intermittent? water flows, stating:

Even infrequent flows through ephemeral or intermittent channels influence fundamental biogeochemical processes by connecting the channel and shallow groundwater with other landscape elements.

The report?s glossary also provides cause for concern, giving, for example, this definition for ?connectivity?: ?The degree to which components of a river system are joined, or connected, by various transport mechanisms; connectivity is determined by the characteristics of both the physical landscape and the biota of the specific system.?

Considering past abuses of the EPA and other federal regulatory agencies, it does not require great imagination to realize this definition alone supplies enormous opportunities for tyrannical overreach. Will the EPA determine that your ?prairie pothole? with a few inches of seasonal water ? be it 5, 10, 20, or 32 miles from the nearest ?navigable waters? ? is ?connected,? nonetheless, because ?landscape? criteria developed by the agency?s ?scientists? say so?

And if that doesn?t work, there?s always the ?biota? criterion. ?What the heck is ?biota,?? you ask? The Oxford Dictionary defines it as ?the animal and plant life of a particular region, habitat, or geological period: the biota of the river.? Other reference sources say it refers to any ?organisms? ? animal or plant ? in a region or habitat. It is far from wild speculation to imagine that the EPA (perhaps with the assisting prod of a lawsuit by enviro-activists) may use its new connectivity weapon to find a bug, frog, fungus, weed, bird, bush, rodent ? any organism ? to claim a connection between one?s property and far off ?waters of the United States,? no matter how absurd and ?beyond parody? the contention may be.

The EPA?s connectivity theory and its proposed new regulations to implement it have been subjected to many critical legal reviews by many groups, including the Missouri-based Property Rights Coalition and the Waters Advocacy Coalition, which is composed of organizations such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Forest & Paper Association, Irrigation Association, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Realtors, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National Cattlemen?s Beef Association, National Mining Association, and National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, is among the members of Congress who have denounced the EPA?s new water regulatory plans as ?a massive power grab of private property across the U.S.?

In a November 12, 2013 press statement, Rep. Smith declared:

The EPA?s draft water rule is a massive power grab of private property across the U.S. This could be the largest expansion of EPA regulatory authority ever. If the draft rule is approved, it would allow the EPA to regulate virtually every body of water in the United States, including private and public lakes, ponds and streams.

?The Obama administration?s latest power play to regulate America?s waterways is an unprecedented effort to control the use of private property,? Smith said.

A week prior, on November 6, Rep. Smith and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Chris Stewart (R-Utah) sent a letter to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) outlining concerns about the ?rush? process by which the EPA is attempting to expand its jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.

?Rather than allowing time for a review of their proposed regulations, the EPA is rushing forward regardless of whether the science actually supports the rule,? the chairmen wrote. ?The proposed rule could give the EPA unprecedented power over private property in the U.S. Racing through the approval process without proper peer review and transparency amounts to an EPA power play to regulate America?s waterways. Such unrestrained federal intrusion poses a serious threat to private property rights, state sovereignty and economic growth.?

As we have reported previously (see here and here), last year the U.S. Supreme Court handed down another slap to what it called the EPA?s ?high-handedness? in the agency?s abuse of ?wetlands? regulations to stop the Sackett family of Priest Lake, Idaho, from building their dream home on a residential lot. In spite of having gotten all the necessary local permits, the Sacketts were prevented from building their home for five years and threatened with outrageous fines of $75,000 per day.

Nevertheless, it doesn?t seem to matter how many times the Supreme Court or other courts may rebuke and rebuff the regulatory overreach of the EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Forest Service, or any of the other myriad federal alphabet soup agencies; the bureaucrats unrepentantly and relentlessly return to their grasping agenda with nary (or barely) a pause.

The Sacketts were fortunate to have been represented by capable counsel provided pro bono by the Pacific Legal Foundation; many thousands of other American homeowners, farmers, and business owners have been bankrupted by similar federal regulatory attacks, or have simply given up, caved in to the demands of federal agencies, and paid exorbitant fines. Who, besides the likes of Bill Gates or George Soros have the financial wherewithal (not to mention the time and energy ? which could involve many years of litigation) to take on the federal government?

Should American citizens be forced to undergo such extortion, humiliation, and abuse at the hands of our ?public servants?? Unfortunately most members of Congress ? even those who claim to oppose the notorious ?overreach? of the EPA and other agencies Congress has created, funded, and is charged with overseeing ? do little more than plead with the agencies to stop abusing powers they are not authorized under our Constitution to exercise in the first place. On November 13, Senate Western Caucus Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wy.) and Congressional Western Caucus co-chairs Stevan Pearce (R-N.M.) and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wy.) joined 27 other Caucus Members in sending a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in a futile effort to convince the agency head to ?change course.?

?We urge you to change course and to commit to operating under the limits established by Congress, even if those limits are impermissibly overlooked in the so-called Connectivity Report,? the 30 senators and congressmen implored. ?We ask that you work with Congress to address these issues keeping in mind the need to provide clean water for our environment and communities, while also acknowledging the important role states play as a partner in achieving these goals.?

Any members of Congress that seriously expect Administrator McCarthy to take their plea to heart probably also believe the Easter Bunny delivers the eggs to the White House for its annual Easter egg hunt. Or, more likely, they believe that by this practically empty gesture they can engage in a defiant pose that will (they hope) satisfy their constituents that they are doing their jobs and defending their constituents rights and interests.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has gone a different route, proposing genuine, substantive remediation, in the form of the Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2013 (S. 890). The legislation, which he introduced in May ? five months before the EPA unleashed its new proposed power grab ? would thwart the connectivity gambit of the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers by, among other things, strictly defining ?navigable waters? and ?waters of the United States,? as well as requiring any federal agency that issues a regulation that ?diminishes the fair market value or economic viability of a property? to pay ?the affected property owner an amount equal to twice the value of the loss.?

Sen. Paul?s bill has six cosponsors: Mike Lee (R-Utah), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), David Vitter (R-La.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). The federal legislation-monitoring website govtrack.us gives S. 890 only a ?5% chance of getting past committee? and an even slimmer ?2% chance of being enacted.? That dismal prognosis is based upon a legislative history, the website notes, in which ?only 11% of bills made it past committee and only about 3% were enacted in 2011?2013.?

An identical House version of the bill, H.R. 3377, sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and cosponsored by Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) and Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) is given a slightly better (but still bleak) chance of passage by govtrack.us: 9% chance of getting past committee; 3% chance of being enacted.

However, there are many current dynamics that could change those gloomy forecasts. Widespread anger over the broken promises of ObamaCare and the hidden mandates, fines, and taxes that are coming to light could betoken a significant shift in public opinion against more fedgov regulatory intrusion. The NSA spying and warrantless search scandals are stirring bipartisan outrage across the political spectrum. The administration?s continuing assault on our crumbling economy is causing widespread defections across all of Obama?s key demographic support bases. Then there is the current Supreme Court case of Bond v. United States, another astonishing example of fedgov officials reaching ?beyond parody? to the realm of the absurd. In this case, currently being heard by the court, defendant Carol Anne Bond is being prosecuted by the federal government under legislation to implement the United Nations Chemical Weapons Convention. What did Bond do? She caused minor burns to the fingers of her husband?s paramour (whom he had impregnated) by putting a homemade caustic chemical on the door handles of the woman?s home, car, as well as on her mailbox. For that minor act of soap opera revenge federal prosecutors leapfrogged state jurisdiction and made it a federal case based on a UN treaty! With this kind of outrageous overreach being the rule of the day for the Obama administration, many people will have no difficulty at all in recognizing the frightening potential for horrendous abuse imbedded in the EPA?s inventive ?connectivity? doctrine.

Opposition to the administration?s ever growing cascade of executive orders, regulations, abuses, and usurpations could hit a critical mass that coincides with incumbent jitters about voter retaliation in the fast-approaching 2014 elections. Significant input from agitated citizens could propel Sen. Paul?s S. 890 and Rep. Thornberry?s H.R. 3377 to passage.

However, it may begin to dawn on a great many people that even these bills are far too little too late; even if enacted, they deal only with one facet of the EPA?s vast abuses and usurpations, leaving intact its many other unconstitutional arrogations of power.

In an essay earlier this year, entitled ?Is It Time to Get Rid of the EPA?,? Henry I. Miller, M.D. answered that question in the affirmative. Dr. Miller, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and adjunct fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, was himself for many years a federal regulator (at the Food and Drug Administration, FDA). His extensive dealings with the EPA convinced him that it is ?a miasma populated by the most radical, disaffected and anti-industry discards from other agencies? with an ?entrenched institutional paranoia and an oppositional worldview.?

?I found EPA to be relentlessly anti-science, anti-technology and anti-industry,? Miller said. ?Since it was created in 1970, EPA has been a rogue agency ? ideological, poorly managed and out of touch with sound science and common sense. It is past time to consider whether the nation?s experiment with a free-standing environmental agency has failed, and whether its few essential functions should be relegated to less science-challenged agencies and departments.?

As many articles published by The New American have shown (see links below), Dr. Miller?s characterization of the EPA as a ?rogue agency? is far from exaggeration. Its abolition is the ultimate solution that Congress should be aiming at. Any legitimate functions it serves and police powers it exercises can be, and should be, left to the state and local governments to perform, as our nation?s Founders intended, as our Constitution mandates, and as experience proves is not only more efficacious in protecting the environment, but also in encouraging prosperity and preserving liberty.

Related articles:

Supreme Court Ruling: Victory for Property Owners, Defeat for EPA

TONIGHT!: Sen. Rand Paul Hosts Tele-Town Hall on EPA Regulatory Overreach on ?Navigable Waters?

EPA Closure of Last Lead Smelting Plant to Impact Ammunition Production

EPA Shutting Down Last-standing U.S. Primary Lead Smelter

Obama EPA War on Coal to Shut 200+ Coal-Fired Plants, Devastate Economy

EPA Proposes Stricter New Standards for Soot Pollution

EPA Announces New Smog Limits

Just Freeze! EPA Says Burning Wood Is Bad, but so Is Natural Gas, Coal, Oil

EPA Declares Human Breath (CO2) a Pollutant

Obama Eyes "Executive Orders" to Circumvent Congress

Coal: The Rock That Burns

Sky-high Electric Bills Courtesy of Obama EPA?s War on Coal

The EPA's Property Wrongs in America

Danger: Federal ?Regulatory Cliff? Ahead

10,000 Commandments ? The Hidden Tax

Regulators R Us: Feds Crank Up Regulations ? on Everything
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Related articles:

Supreme Court Ruling: Victory for Property Owners, Defeat for EPA

TONIGHT!: Sen. Rand Paul Hosts Tele-Town Hall on EPA Regulatory Overreach on ?Navigable Waters?

EPA Closure of Last Lead Smelting Plant to Impact Ammunition Production

EPA Shutting Down Last-standing U.S. Primary Lead Smelter

Obama EPA War on Coal to Shut 200+ Coal-Fired Plants, Devastate Economy

EPA Proposes Stricter New Standards for Soot Pollution

EPA Announces New Smog Limits

Just Freeze! EPA Says Burning Wood Is Bad, but so Is Natural Gas, Coal, Oil

EPA Declares Human Breath (CO2) a Pollutant

Obama Eyes "Executive Orders" to Circumvent Congress

Coal: The Rock That Burns

Sky-high Electric Bills Courtesy of Obama EPA?s War on Coal

The EPA's Property Wrongs in America

Danger: Federal ?Regulatory Cliff? Ahead

10,000 Commandments ? The Hidden Tax

Regulators R Us: Feds Crank Up Regulations ? on Everything

According to Lumi, this is a Gawd-awful country.

Lumi should move to Afghanistan. NO government will fuck with him there. No regulations, ammo and full auto weapons on every street corner, every JIhadist with an AK and six clips. no EPA clean water and air crap, no electric bills at all. No FDA control on drugs, No USDA telling him what he can eat, no cops messing with him. Nobody to force him to pay taxes. Lumi can load up his M-16, "marry" a six year old girl he's bought for twenty dollars, gun down dogs for chow, pay zero taxes, keep every penny he can get hold of and smoke hash until his nose bleeds. No soap, no hot water, no deodorant. No running water, no sewerage. Shit on the road, and step in someone elses'. No cars, no roads, no shoes. Lumi should take Randy Paul with him. They'd both stink and be infested with parasites. They'd be in paradise.

Maybe Randy would put on a burka and be Lumi's bitch.
 

buddy

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 21, 2000
10,897
85
0
Pittsburgh, Pa.
According to Lumi, this is a Gawd-awful country.

Lumi should move to Afghanistan. NO government will fuck with him there. No regulations, ammo and full auto weapons on every street corner, every JIhadist with an AK and six clips. no EPA clean water and air crap, no electric bills at all. No FDA control on drugs, No USDA telling him what he can eat, no cops messing with him. Nobody to force him to pay taxes. Lumi can load up his M-16, "marry" a six year old girl he's bought for twenty dollars, gun down dogs for chow, pay zero taxes, keep every penny he can get hold of and smoke hash until his nose bleeds. No soap, no hot water, no deodorant. No running water, no sewerage. Shit on the road, and step in someone elses'. No cars, no roads, no shoes. Lumi should take Randy Paul with him. They'd both stink and be infested with parasites. They'd be in paradise.

Maybe Randy would put on a burka and be Lumi's bitch.

"Lumi On Horseback"

"Listen, my children, and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.

He said to his friend, "If the British march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
Of the North Church tower as a signal light,?
One, if by land, and two, if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country folk to be up and to arm."
Then he said, "Good night!" and with muffled oar
Silently rowed to the Charlestown shore,
Just as the moon rose over the bay,
Where swinging wide at her moorings lay
The Somerset, British man-of-war;
A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
Across the moon like a prison bar,
And a huge black hulk, that was magnified
By its own reflection in the tide.

Meanwhile, his friend, through alley and street,
Wanders and watches with eager ears,
Till in the silence around him he hears
The muster of men at the barrack door,
The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet,
And the measured tread of the grenadiers,
Marching down to their boats on the shore.

Then he climbed the tower of the Old North Church,
By the wooden stairs, with stealthy tread,
To the belfry-chamber overhead,
And startled the pigeons from their perch
On the sombre rafters, that round him made
Masses and moving shapes of shade, ?
By the trembling ladder, steep and tall,
To the highest window in the wall,
Where he paused to listen and look down
A moment on the roofs of the town,
And the moonlight flowing over all.
Beneath, in the churchyard, lay the dead,
In their night-encampment on the hill,
Wrapped in silence so deep and still
That he could hear, like a sentinel's tread,
The watchful night-wind, as it went
Creeping along from tent to tent,
And seeming to whisper, "All is well!"
A moment only he feels the spell
Of the place and the hour, and the secret dread
Of the lonely belfry and the dead;
For suddenly all his thoughts are bent
On a shadowy something far away,
Where the river widens to meet the bay, ?
A line of black that bends and floats
On the rising tide, like a bridge of boats.

Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride,
Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride
On the opposite shore walked Paul Revere.
Now he patted his horse's side,
Now gazed at the landscape far and near,
Then, impetuous, stamped the earth,
And turned and tightened his saddle girth;
But mostly he watched with eager search
The belfry-tower of the Old North Church,
As it rose above the graves on the hill,
Lonely and spectral and sombre and still.
And lo! as he looks, on the belfry's height
A glimmer, and then a gleam of light!
He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns,
But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight
A second lamp in the belfry burns!
A hurry of hoofs in a village street,
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet:
That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with its heat.
He has left the village and mounted the steep,
And beneath him, tranquil and broad and deep,
Is the Mystic, meeting the ocean tides;
And under the alders, that skirt its edge,
Now soft on the sand, now loud on the ledge,
Is heard the tramp of his steed as he rides.

It was twelve by the village clock,
When he crossed the bridge into Medford town.
He heard the crowing of the cock,
And the barking of the farmer's dog,
And felt the damp of the river fog,
That rises after the sun goes down.

It was one by the village clock,
When he galloped into Lexington.
He saw the gilded weathercock
Swim in the moonlight as he passed,
And the meeting-house windows, blank and bare,
Gaze at him with a spectral glare,
As if they already stood aghast
At the bloody work they would look upon.

It was two by the village clock,
When he came to the bridge in Concord town.
He heard the bleating of the flock,
And the twitter of birds among the trees,
And felt the breath of the morning breeze
Blowing over the meadows brown.
And one was safe and asleep in his bed
Who at the bridge would be first to fall,
Who that day would be lying dead,
Pierced by a British musket-ball.

You know the rest. In the books you have read,
How the British Regulars fired and fled, ?
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farm-yard wall,
Chasing the red-coats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.

So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm, ?
A cry of defiance and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo forevermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

(Except our enemies this time are FAR MORE INSIDIOUS than the British)
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Hey Duff,

The next time you visit that part of the world will be your first time you visit that part of the world

Do you not think the bloated US Government is over reaching
And meddling in our lives?

What we have is to the total destruction of the Constitution
And the Bill of Rights.
But you're ok with that?

You used to be against the man,
But now you are totally for the man

Your Boy has committed more treasonous
Acts than Nixon could have committed if The Dick had
Served for 4 terms

You whitewash, close your eyes and plug your ears
Or smoke copious amounts of herb to avoid the fart
In the car.

Drone Strikes, still torturing Enemy Combatants, Benghazi,
IRS, Fast and Furious, beer Summit, bowing to terrorists,
Supplying Arms to terrorists...
NSA, rendition ...Obamacare fiasco
Sign it to see what's in it
Yeah, we seen that turd float up

Should I go on?

Why should I have to 'settle' for an oppressive and intrusive
Government?

Since you enjoy all the intrusiveness in the US
Maybe France is a good place for you?

The workers, the employers, the business owners
Pay for your free ice cream
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
It's a long video Duff
I hope in your advanced age
You can pay attention

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 

Jaxx

Go Pokes!
Forum Member
Jan 5, 2003
7,084
88
48
FL
Hey Duff,

The next time you visit that part of the world will be your first time you visit that part of the world

Do you not think the bloated US Government is over reaching
And meddling in our lives?

What we have is to the total destruction of the Constitution
And the Bill of Rights.
But you're ok with that?

You used to be against the man,
But now you are totally for the man

Your Boy has committed more treasonous
Acts than Nixon could have committed if The Dick had
Served for 4 terms

You whitewash, close your eyes and plug your ears
Or smoke copious amounts of herb to avoid the fart
In the car.

Drone Strikes, still torturing Enemy Combatants, Benghazi,
IRS, Fast and Furious, beer Summit, bowing to terrorists,
Supplying Arms to terrorists...
NSA, rendition ...Obamacare fiasco
Sign it to see what's in it
Yeah, we seen that turd float up

Should I go on?

Why should I have to 'settle' for an oppressive and intrusive
Government?

Since you enjoy all the intrusiveness in the US
Maybe France is a good place for you?

The workers, the employers, the business owners
Pay for your free ice cream

Duff is one the sheeple Lumi. You are wasting time.
His brain is washed dirty.

:SIB
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Hey Duff,



Your Boy has committed more treasonous
Acts than Nixon could have committed if The Dick had
Served for 4 terms


/QUOTE]

I don't think Obama is any different that any other president in the last 50 years. All this NSA shit, clandestine CIA ops, sticking our nose in other countries business goes back a long time. Remember Viet Nam? When did that start? When did the EPA and OSHA start? Social Security? Medicare?

J Edgar was tapping phones 70 years ago.

And it will be the same under the next president, whoever it is. The problem is that even the President doesn't know what's going on inside agencies like the NSA. They lie to him just like they lie to everyone else.

Not much new to see here. Same old shit.

The last President who had a clue what was going on was JFK. He was set to end Viet Nam in his second term and had decided to disband the CIA because he, like Eisenhower, trusted none of them.

If you want to read a good article about JFK and what he would have done, check out the most recent issue of RS. It's an eye-opener as to how little control the president had back then, and it's much worse now.

Maybe Oswald didn't act alone....but it wasn't the Ruskies or the Mafia. If it was a plot, it was an inside job.
 
Last edited:

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Hey Duff,



Your Boy has committed more treasonous
Acts than Nixon could have committed if The Dick had
Served for 4 terms


/QUOTE]

I don't think Obama is any different that any other president in the last 50 years. All this NSA shit, clandestine CIA ops, sticking our nose in other countries business goes back a long time. Remember Viet Nam? When did that start? When did the EPA and OSHA start? Social Security? Medicare?

J Edgar was tapping phones 70 years ago.

And it will be the same under the next president, whoever it is.

Not much new to see here. Same old shit.


Former Top NSA Official: ?We Are Now In A Police State?


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/12/former-top-nsa-official-now-police-state.html

32-year NSA Veteran Who Created Mass Surveillance System Says Government Use of Data Gathered Through Spying ?Is a Totalitarian Process?

You are correct by saying, "same old shit"

Because you spasmatically post the same diatribe everytime
I say the system is fucked. ' move here, go there, live without
This government control...'

As Buddy had posted the midnight ride,
Had you been around during the Revolutionary War,
You would have spied for the Brits and called
The Founding Fathers Terrorists

You would have sided with the rest of the Cake Eaters
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Former Top NSA Official: ?We Are Now In A Police State?


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/12/former-top-nsa-official-now-police-state.html

32-year NSA Veteran Who Created Mass Surveillance System Says Government Use of Data Gathered Through Spying ?Is a Totalitarian Process?

You are correct by saying, "same old shit"

Because you spasmatically post the same diatribe everytime
I say the system is fucked. ' move here, go there, live without
This government control...'

As Buddy had posted the midnight ride,
Had you been around during the Revolutionary War,
You would have spied for the Brits and called
The Founding Fathers Terrorists

You would have sided with the rest of the Cake Eaters

You're wrong, Lumi.

Yes, I believe we need government to serve useful purposes. Look at the countries which have no government - Somalia for example.

However the government I believe in is of, for and by the people, and is completely open for all to see how it works. I'm opposed to the occult part of government which hides from the people.
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Have I ever said I wanted a Somali Style of Rule?

You have lived long enough to have witnessed the
Radical change of thi Republic

There is a huge difference between Edgar and the
The most recent directors of the alphabet soup agencies

Edgar was wrong, and anyone else who followed him are wrong

Saying that this is intrusive government has been doing it for 70 years still doesn't make it right

How many more of your rights are you willing to sacrifice?
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
There are many of us who try to
Pull back the curtain
However when I , we do
You hit the chicken switch,
And fire off the usual attacks and insults
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
There are many of us who try to
Pull back the curtain
However when I , we do
You hit the chicken switch,
And fire off the usual attacks and insults

"Pulling back the curtain", IMO, isn't pointing out some stupid thing done by one employee, or one glitch in a program, or one foolish law. Those are just normal things and they are out in the open for us all to see. What we can see, we can fix.

The curtain which needs to be pulled back is all the secrecy about programs and entire agencies and what they are up to. There are g'mint agencies you've never heard of. They operate below the radar with secret budgets, secret assignments, secret courts. Those are the real danger, not some obvious foolishness.

Think about the FISA secret court. What rulings have they made, and who can challenge them when they act wrongly?

Secret courts? That sounds like something from North Korea. Secret budgets? Secret programs? How is that democracy?

You and I agree, but you can't just pick at scabs. I'd rather rip the bandages off.
 

buddy

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 21, 2000
10,897
85
0
Pittsburgh, Pa.
The curtain which needs to be pulled back is all the secrecy about programs and entire agencies and what they are up to. There are g'mint agencies you've never heard of. They operate below the radar with secret budgets, secret assignments, secret courts. Those are the real danger, not some obvious foolishness.

You're preaching to the choir.

Where d'ya think Lumi got his name?

LOL
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top