Crazed Lowell Massachusetts Police Charge Man With Assault With A Dangerous Weapon – French Fries

June 25, 2012

LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS – A Lowell man is free following his arrest on charges he threw hot French fries at his young stepdaughter.

As a condition of his release, 26-year-old James Hackett must stay away from the girl.

Police say Hackett and his wife began arguing after leaving a McDonald’s. When his stepdaughter chimed in, Hackett allegedly threw the fries in her face.

She was not seriously hurt.

Hackett, who will be back in court in August, pleaded not guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon: French fries.

Appeared Here

Crazed North Carolina State Officials Censored Online Health Food Advice Website

May 30, 2012

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA – Steven Cooksey says all he wanted to do was help other diabetics get healthy, but a North Carolina agency tried to censor his online healthy food advice column, saying he was not a licensed dietitian.

Cooksey filed a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court, saying the state violated his free speech rights.

“When did it become illegal to tell people to eat meats and vegetables?” Cooksey said in an interview with The Associated Press. “How is it illegal to tell people not to eat grains? We’re talking about healthy eating. This is wrong.”

The North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition and several board members are named as defendants. The lawsuit was filed on Cooksey’s behalf by the Institute for Justice, a national civil liberties group.

Charla Burill, the agency’s executive director, said she couldn’t comment because the board hadn’t received the complaint. But the Board of Dietetics/Nutrition said it was illegal for anyone without a government-issued dietician’s license to offer diet advice.

Cooksey’s lawyers’ said the advice is protected speech, adding that the state “went through 19 pages” of Cooksey’s online writings with a red pen, indicating on a line-by-line basis what he may and may not say.

“This content-based censorship of Cooksey’s speech violates the First Amendment,” the lawsuit said.

Cooksey, 51, of Stanley, N.C., says he was hospitalized in 2009 after his blood sugar spiked. At the time, Cooksey, who works for a medical equipment company, weighed more than 240 pounds. By his own account, he was in bad physical shape; he ate poorly and didn’t exercise.

During his hospitalization, he was diagnosed with Type II diabetes — a chronic condition caused by a problem in the way the body makes or uses insulin. Cooksey says he was told by a doctor that he would probably be insulin-dependent for life.

At that point, Cooksey says he began reading as much as possible about diabetes and how it’s affected by exercise and diet. He says he quickly discovered that there were many opinions.

For him, he decided the healthiest diet was “a high-fat/low-carbohydrate diet of the sort that Stone Age people ate prior to agriculture. This diet is sometimes called a Paleolithic or caveman diet,” he said. It includes ordinary, unprocessed or minimally-processed foods such as beef, pork, chicken, eggs, leafy green vegetables and butter. He said he ate nuts and fruits sparingly.

Within a month of reducing his carbohydrate intake, Cooksey says his blood sugar normalized.

“Everyone who does what I do improves their health markers. Every one of them. It works,” he said.

Passionate about his life-altering change, Cooksey in early 2010 started a website to chronicle his personal transformation. He lost 78 pounds and now weighs 163 pounds. Later that year, he added a “Diabetes Support” life-coaching service, where he charged a “modest fee” for exactly “the same knowledge, opinions and advice” he had been providing for free in his personal mentorship of friends.

Cooksey says he never described himself as a doctor, dietician or nutritionist. His website has a disclaimer informing readers he has no special dietary qualifications.

In December, Cooksey says he started answering reader questions in a Dear Abbey-style column. A month later, he received a notice from the state asking him to stop “providing advice to readers, friends and family in private emails and conversations; and offering a paid life-coaching service.”

He believes the state’s interest stems from a nutritional seminar for diabetics. A director of diabetic services at a local hospital was the guest, and she said diabetics should eat a diet rich in whole-grain carbohydrates and low in fat, Cooksey says.

During a question and answer session, Cooksey disagreed. A few days later, he says he received a telephone call from the state agency that someone from the seminar filed a complaint against him, saying he was acting as an unlicensed dietitian.

They ordered him to take down the part of his website where he offered his life-coaching services.

Appeared Here

Congressmen And Senators Attempting Constitutuional Amendment Thats Strips Basic Right To Freedom Of Speech From Corporations

April 25, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – Does Comedy Central have a right to free speech?

Some congressional Democrats believe no association of human beings formed in the manner Comedy Central has been formed ought to have freedom of speech. Accordingly, they have sponsored constitutional amendments to incorporate this principal into our basic law.

This is no joke.

The First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

On Capitol Hill last week, several congressmen and senators held a forum to draw attention to their efforts to ratify a constitutional amendment that — at a minimum — strips corporations of freedom of speech.

They have offered multiple amendments. Some seem to deny corporations all constitutional rights. Some focus more narrowly on limiting, or regulating, the money that could be raised and spent supporting or opposing candidates for office. All would diminish the Bill of Rights.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats, was a leading voice at the forum. He has cosponsored an amendment with Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida that may be the most radical of all.

The key language in the Sanders-Deutch Amendment says: “The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the Untied States, or any foreign state.”

It also says: “Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.”

How would this amendment apply to Comedy Central?

Well, Comedy Central is merely a cog in a larger conglomerate called Viacom — a self-described “multinational company.” Some of Viacom’s other components include MTV, Nickelodeon, BET, Spike TV, TV Land and Paramount Pictures.

Given that Viacom is not a “natural person” but a “for-profit corporation,” the Sanders-Deutch amendment literally says “the rights protected by the Constitution of the United States … do not extend” to it.

The Fourth Amendment says the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” Does the Sanders-Deutch Amendment, therefore, mean Congress could pass a law empowering federal agents to enter Comedy Central, and other Viacom facilities, and seize its papers without showing probable cause or securing a warrant?”

Why not? Sanders-Deutch expressly says the rights protected by the Constitution “do not extend to for-profit corporations.”

Some might object that a law targeting Viacom in this way would violate the principle of due process.

But in a nation whose Constitution included the Sanders-Deutch Amendment, the federal agents carrying out the congressional command to invade Viacom’s offices could say: So what?

After all, the Fifth Amendment says “nor shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” It does not say “any corporation.” And, again, Sanders-Deutch says constitutional rights are for “natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations.”

The second element of the Sanders-Deutsch Amendment appears no less radical. It says Congress can regulate corporations and other private entities “so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.”

Why does it expressly carve out just that part of the Bill of Rights that protects freedom “of the press”? The First Amendment, as it currently stands, also protects the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech generally, the freedom to peaceably assemble and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Yes, many of this nation’s most powerful — and liberal — news organizations are corporations and private entities that would like to keep — and ought to be able to keep — their freedom “of the press.” But are there not also many corporations and private entities in this country today that engage freely in exercising their religion, their right of speech, their right of assembly and their right to redress the government when they have a grievance with its policies?

No doubt Comedy Central — and its parent Viacom — enjoy exercising many of these rights and ought to be able to continue doing so.

Referring to the forum at which Sanders and Deutch promoted their proposed constitutional amendment, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said that her party now has a “clear agenda” to “amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns.” She did not specify which amendment this agenda embraced.

Does it seek to abridge just freedom of speech — or the entire Bill of Rights?

Appeared Here

Video Surfaces Of Top EPA Official Admitting Agency’s “Philosophy” Is To “Crucify” And “Make Examples” Of Oil And Gas Companies

April 25, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor today to draw attention to a video of a top EPA official saying the EPA’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies – just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience.

Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.

In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:

“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.

“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

“It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.

Soon after Armendariz touted the EPA’s “philosophy,” the EPA began a smear campaigns natural gas producers, Inhofe’s office noted in advance of today’s Senate speech:

“Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.

“In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best – and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.”

In his Senate speech, Sen. Inhofe said the video provides Americans with “a glimpse of the Obama administration’s true agenda.”

That agenda, Inhofe said, is to “incite fear” in the public with unsubstantiated claims and “intimidate” oil and gas companies with threats of unjustified fines and penalties – then, quietly backtrack once the public’s perception has been firmly jaded against oil and natural gas.

Appeared Here

Crazed Obama Administration Now Wants To Criminalize Those Whose Children Do Chores On Family Farms

April 25, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – A proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm chores has drawn plenty of criticism from rural-district members of Congress. But now it’s attracting barbs from farm kids themselves.

The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land.

Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”

“Prohibited places of employment,” a Department press release read, “would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.”

The new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA, replacing them instead with a 90-hour federal government training course.

Rossie Blinson, a 21-year-old college student from Buis Creek, N.C., told The Daily Caller that the federal government’s plan will do far more harm than good.

“The main concern I have is that it would prevent kids from doing 4-H and FFA projects if they’re not at their parents’ house,” said Blinson.

“I started showing sheep when I was four years old. I started with cattle around 8. It’s been very important. I learned a lot of responsibility being a farm kid.”

In Kansas, Cherokee County Farm Bureau president Jeff Clark was out in the field — literally on a tractor — when TheDC reached him. He said if Solis’s regulations are implemented, farming families’ labor losses from their children will only be part of the problem.

“What would be more of a blow,” he said, “is not teaching our kids the values of working on a farm.”

The Environmental Protection Agency reports that the average age of the American farmer is now over 50.

“Losing that work-ethic — it’s so hard to pick this up later in life,” Clark said. “There’s other ways to learn how to farm, but it’s so hard. You can learn so much more working on the farm when you’re 12, 13, 14 years old.”

John Weber, 19, understands this. The Minneapolis native grew up in suburbia and learned the livestock business working summers on his relatives’ farm.

He’s now a college Agriculture major.

“I started working on my grandparent’s and uncle’s farms for a couple of weeks in the summer when I was 12,” Weber told TheDC. “I started spending full summers there when I was 13.”

“The work ethic is a huge part of it. It gave me a lot of direction and opportunity in my life. If they do this it will prevent a lot of interest in agriculture. It’s harder to get a 16 year-old interested in farming than a 12 year old.”

Weber is also a small businessman. In high school, he said, he took out a loan and bought a few steers to raise for income. “Under these regulations,” he explained, “I wouldn’t be allowed to do that.”

Appeared Here

Savages Tweeting Call For Murder Of Florida Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester And George Zimmerman

April 23, 2012

SANFORD, FLORIDA – George Zimmerman, the accused murderer of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, has been released from jail on bail. Meeting Zimmerman’s release are calls (on Twitter) for him to be killed. As Twitchy reports, “Twitter lynch mob: George Zimmerman is out on bail? Let’s kill him!”

But it’s not just Zimmerman who is at risk. In fact, there’s already been a call on Twitter for the murder of the judge, Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester, who agreed to release Zimmerman on bail.

Writing on a Twitter, someone named @Rick_Cobain writes, “Zimmerman released from jail someone kill the judge!!!!!”

Zimmerman released from jail someone kill the judge!!!!!

—  (@Rick_Cobain) April 23, 2012

Already 25 other people have retweeted @Rick_Cobain’s call for murder.

Appeared Here

Crazed Louisiana Lawmakers Ban Cash When Buying Other People’s Trash

October 19, 2011

LOUISIANA – Cold hard cash. It’s good everywhere you go, right? You can use it to pay for anything.

But that’s not the case here in Louisiana now. It’s a law that was passed during this year’s busy legislative session.

House bill 195 basically says those who buy and sell second hand goods cannot use cash to make those transactions, and it flew so far under the radar most businesses don’t even know about it.

“We’re gonna lose a lot of business,” says Danny Guidry, who owns the Pioneer Trading Post in Lafayette. He deals in buying and selling unique second hand items.

“We don’t want this cash transaction to be taken away from us. It’s an everyday transaction,” Guidry explains.

Guidry says, “I think everyone in this business once they find out about it. They’re will definitely be a lot of uproar.”

The law states those who buy or sell second hand goods are prohibited from using cash. State representative Rickey Hardy co-authored the bill.

Hardy says, “they give a check or a cashiers money order, or electronic one of those three mechanisms is used.”

Hardy says the bill is targeted at criminals who steal anything from copper to televisions, and sell them for a quick buck. Having a paper trail will make it easier for law enforcement.

“It’s a mechanism to be used so the police department has something to go on and have a lead,” explains Hardy.

Guidry feels his store shouldn’t have to change it’s ways of doing business, because he may possibly buy or sell stolen goods. Something he says has happened once in his eight years.

“We are being targeted for something we shouldn’t be.”

Besides non-profit resellers like Goodwill, and garage sales, the language of the bill encompasses stores like the Pioneer Trading Post and flea markets.

Lawyer Thad Ackel Jr. feels the passage of this bill begins a slippery slope for economic freedom in the state.

“The government is placing a significant restriction on individuals transacting in their own private property,” says Ackel.

Pawn shops have been forced to keep records of their clients for years. However under this bill they are still allowed to deal in cash.

Appeared Here

Crazed Philadelphia Pennsylvania TSA Agents Go Through Woman’s Checkbook, Call Husband Thinking She Was Clearing Out Bank Account

August 18, 2010

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA – At what point does an airport search step over the line?

How about when they start going through your checks, and the police call your husband, suspicious you were clearing out the bank account?

That’s the complaint leveled by Kathy Parker, a 43-year-old Elkton, Md., woman, who was flying out of Philadelphia International Airport on Aug. 8.

She says she was heading to Charlotte, N.C., for work that Sunday night – she’s a business support manager for a large bank – and was selected for a more in-depth search after she passed through the metal detectors at Gate B around 5:15 p.m.

A female Transportation Security Administration officer wanded her and patted her down, she says. Then she was walked over to where other TSA officers were searching her bags.

“Everything in my purse was out, including my wallet and my checkbook. I had two prescriptions in there. One was diet pills. This was embarrassing. A TSA officer said, ‘Hey, I’ve always been curious about these. Do they work?’

“I was just so taken aback, I said, ‘Yeah.’ “

What happened next, she says, was more than embarrassing. It was infuriating.

That same screener started emptying her wallet. “He was taking out the receipts and looking at them,” she said.

“I understand that TSA is tasked with strengthening national security but [it] surely does not need to know what I purchased at Kohl’s or Wal-Mart,” she wrote in her complaint, which she sent me last week.

She says she asked what he was looking for and he replied, “Razor blades.” She wondered, “Wouldn’t that have shown up on the metal detector?”

In a side pocket she had tucked a deposit slip and seven checks made out to her and her husband, worth about $8,000.

Her thought: “Oh, my God, this is none of his business.”

Two Philadelphia police officers joined at least four TSA officers who had gathered around her. After conferring with the TSA screeners, one of the Philadelphia officers told her he was there because her checks were numbered sequentially, which she says they were not.

“It’s an indication you’ve embezzled these checks,” she says the police officer told her. He also told her she appeared nervous. She hadn’t before that moment, she says.

She protested when the officer started to walk away with the checks. “That’s my money,” she remembers saying. The officer’s reply? “It’s not your money.”

At this point she told the officers that she had a good explanation for the checks, but questioned whether she had to tell them.

“The police officer said if you don’t tell me, you can tell the D.A.”

So she explained that she and her husband had been on vacation, that they’d accumulated some hefty checks, and that she was headed to her bank’s headquarters, where she intended to deposit them.

She gave police her husband’s cell-phone number – he was at her mother’s with their children and missed their call.

Thirty minutes after the police became involved, they decided to let her collect her belongings and board her plane.

“I was shaking,” she says. “I was almost in tears.”

When she got home, her husband of 20 years, John Parker, a self-employed plastics broker, said the police had called and told him that they’d suspected “a divorce situation” and that Kathy Parker was trying to empty their bank account. He set them straight.

“I was so humiliated,” she said.

What happened sounds to me like a violation of a TSA policy that went into effect Sept. 1, after the American Civil Liberties Union sued the agency on behalf of the former campaign treasurer of presidential candidate Ron Paul.

In that case, Steven Bierfeldt was detained after screeners at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport discovered he was carrying about $4,700 in cash. He challenged their request that he explain where his money came from.

The new TSA directive reads: “Screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security.” If evidence of a crime is discovered, then TSA agents are instructed to contact the appropriate law enforcement agency.

So just what evidence made them treat Kathy Parker like a criminal?

Lt. Frank Vanore, a Philadelphia police spokesman, said that TSA personnel had called his officers, who found the checks to be “almost sequential.” They were “just checking to make sure there was nothing fraudulent,” he said. “They were wondering what the story was. The officer got it cleared up.”

TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis said the reason Parker was selected for in-depth screening was that her actions at the airport had aroused the suspicion of a behavior detection officer, and that she continued to act “as if she feared discovery.”

“We need to ascertain whether fear of discovery is due to the fact a person is concealing a threatening item, be it a dangerous weapon or some kind of explosive,” Davis said. “If the search is complete, and shows individuals not to be a threat to the aircraft or fellow passengers, they are free to go.”

But why call police? Davis said, “Because her behavior escalated.”

When Parker first told me her story, she didn’t know the initial TSA officer was a behavior specialist. She told me he peppered her with questions about her trip as she knelt to consolidate three bags into two, and suddenly realized that her shirt was revealing too much for her comfort. When the man then volunteered to examine her belongings, she felt “it was just strange.”

“When they decided to search me, there was nothing wrong with my behavior,” she said. “I was trying to keep a positive demeanor about everything. My behavior didn’t escalate. I did ask questions.”

Vic Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania ACLU, called what happened to Parker “preposterous” and a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches.

“I think they clearly crossed the line,” he said, adding that no one had probable cause to examine her checks.

“None of this makes any sense except as a fishing expedition, which under the U.S. Constitution is not allowed. They can’t rummage through her personal life. I’m not surprised this woman is outraged. She should be.”

Appeared Here


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 48 other followers