Drones & Homeland Security: This is Why Rand Paul’s Questions Are So Important.

from Brietbart:

Recently uncovered government documents reveal that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) unmanned Predator B drone fleet has been custom designed to identify civilians carrying guns and track cell phone signals.

 

“I am very concerned that this technology will be used against law-abiding American firearms owners,” said founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, Alan Gottlieb. “This could violate Fourth Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights.”

 

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) obtained a partially redacted copy of Homeland Security’s drone requirements through a Freedom of Information Act request; CNET uncovered an unredacted copy.

 

Homeland Security design requirements specify that its Predator B drones “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not” and must be equipped with “interception” systems capable of reading cell phone signals.

 

The first known domestic use of a drone to arrest a U.S. citizen occurred last year in the small town of Lakota, North Dakota when rancher Rodney Brossart was arrested for refusing to return six of his neighbor’s cows that had wandered on to his property. Critics say the fact that domestic drones are being used in such minor matters raises serious concerns about civil liberties and government overreach.

for full article: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/05/Homeland-Security-Drones-Designed-To-Identify-Civilians-Carrying-Guns

Who’s The Stupid One

Billboard: Navy Seals Removed One Threat; The Voters Will Remove the Other

http://etruth.com/article/20120809/NEWS01/708099903

“A Time For Choosing”: Timeless Words of Ronald Reagan

Constitution Flash Mob

America Under Surveillance: Judge Napolitano Asks “Where’s The Outrage?”

OpEd from FoxNews contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano:

For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the  government’s use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News  Channel where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done  if — had drones existed at the time — King George III had sent drones to peer  inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect that Jefferson and his  household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I  offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as one who is  urging the use of violence against the government.

Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take  pictures of us on our private property and in our homes, and the government uses  the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that  when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent  of violence against us. The folks who hear about this, who either laugh or  groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored  and photographed by the government.

Don’t believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take  may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long  as the “recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful  governmental function” in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil  War, the federal government will deploy military personnel inside the United  States and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them “to collect  information about U.S. persons.”

Did you consent to the American military spying on Americans in  America? I don’t know a single person who has, but I know only a few who are  complaining.

-It gets worse. If the military personnel see something of interest from a  drone, they may apply to a military judge or “military commander” for permission  to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them. And,  any “incidentally acquired information” can be retained or turned over to local  law enforcement. What’s next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the  U.S.?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/07/where-is-outrage/?test=latestnews#ixzz1xEVULtP7

EPA and Drones

The Environmental Protection Agency declined to answer questions this week as the Omaha World-Herald sought to clarify whether the agency had the legal authority to conduct overflights of cattle operations to determine if cattle are pooping in streams in the Midwest.

I don’t know much about bovine latrine habits, but I’ve been around enough pastures to know that cattle really aren’t that particular.

It seems to me that they let go pretty much wherever they are, stream or no.

So I think I can say with some authority, that, yes, cattle all around the Midwest are indeed pooping in streams, legally or otherwise.

That’s the kind of rugged individualists that cow herds appear to be now in face of the bullying- pun intended-cowards in the Obama administration. It’s gotten so bad that not content to rough up people, the Obama administration has to go do some environmental cow-tipping.

What’s supposed to be sport for drunk people, is now official policy

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2012/06/05/epa_takes_to_air_to_watch_cow_pies

Lawmaker Suggests Obama Should “Back Off SCOTUS”; Let them Do Their Work!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/04/mcconnell-to-obama-back-off-scotus-119717.html

“The President crossed a dangerous line this week. And anyone who cares about liberty needs to call him out on it. The independence of the Court must be defended. Regardless of how the justices decide this case, they’re answerable, above all, to the Constitution they swore to uphold. The fact that this President does not appear to feel similarly constrained to respect their independence doesn’t change that one bit.”

“So respectfully, I would suggest the President back off. “

“Let the Court do its work. Let our system work the way it was intended. The stability of our system and our laws and our very government depends on it. And the duties of the Presidency demand it.”

Controversial Painting Depicts Obama “Trampling” on Constitution as Madison Begs Him to Stop

Provo, Utah (CBS Las Vegas) - In front of the White House a man is sitting on a park bench in the throes of depression. He is surrounded by 43 presidents. In the forefront, purposefully ignoring the depressed man is President Obama, whose right foot is stepping on the Constitution. James Madison is next to Obama, pleading with him to stop.

This tableau is called “The Forgotten Man”, a painting by Jon McNaughton, an artist who is known for his politically-charged work.

The painting, which uses objects such as discarded dollar bills as symbols and scraps of paper with individual constitutional amendments scrawled onto them, has been making the rounds across the Internet.

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/02/03/controversial-artist-depicts-obama-trampling-the-constitution/

“?”: Should Anwar Al-Awlaki Been Afforded “Due Process” Rights as American Citizen, Per Our Constitution?

      Talk about the Constitutional question of the day!

      It has been a legal question, a quagmire, from the moment that his name was added to the CIA list….. the first time an American was a target for death by his own country. OK, albeit a country that he HATED, that he was intenet to commit jihad, that he successfully rallied support from within the US to commit acts of terrorism within the borders of the US.

      Yet, Anwar Al-Awlaki was an American citizen. Born in New Mexico to Yemini parents, he was educated here as well. The 5th Amendment guarantees us due process under the law. Placing national security above all else, the acts that Al-Awlaki is suspected to be a part of were treasonous, but he did not receive a trial in our courts; he was not found guilty by a jury of his peers; he wasn’t even tried in abstentia!

        So I ask, as we strive to retain every shred of the preciousness of the liberties afforded us by the US Constitution, do the ends justify the means in the Al-Awlaki matter by not providing him his constitutional due process rights?