This post was published at INFO WARS NEWS
Authored by Dan Backer via Investors.com,
In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of my client, Alabama engineer Shaun McCutcheon, in his challenge to the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) outdated “aggregate limits,” which effectively limited how many candidates any one donor could support.
Anti-speech liberals railed against McCutcheon’s win, arguing it would create supersized “Joint Fundraising Committees” (JFCs). In court, they claimed these JFCs would allow a single donor to cut a multimillion-dollar check, and the JFC would then route funds through dozens of participating state parties, who would then funnel it back to the final recipient.
Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer claimed the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon v. FEC ruling would lead to “the system of legalized bribery recreated that existed prior to Watergate.” The Supreme Court, in ruling for us, flatly stated such a scheme would still be illegal.
The Democrats’ response? Hold my beer.
The Committee to Defend the President has filed an FEC complaint against Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic state parties and Democratic mega-donors.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Wed, 12/27/2017.
Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon papers which exposed the government’s lies during the Vietnam war is vocalizing a warning. He says the United States is really close to a nuclear Armageddon.
Ellsberg, now 86-years-old, leaked the Pentagon papers back in 1969 and he’s now got a new book out which serves a warning to those who care to listen. According to the Daily Mail, Ellsberg’s 7,000-page report was the WikiLeaks disclosure of its time, a sensational breach of government confidentiality that shook Richard Nixon’s presidency and prompted a Supreme Court fight that was supposed to advance press freedom.
In his new book, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, Ellsberg details how easy nuclear bombs can be triggered and shot off on a false alarm – and that the president isn’t the only who can launch the nukes, as we are often told. Low-level military commanders are capable of launching nuclear weapons too.
‘All out-nuclear war – an irreversible, unprecedented and almost unimaginable calamity for civilization and most life on earth – has been, like the disasters of Chernobyl, Katrina, the Gulf oil spill, Fukushima Daiichi, and before these, World War I, a catastrophe waiting to happen, on a scale infinitely greater than any of these,’ writes Ellsberg in his new book.
This post was published at shtfplan on December 19th, 2017.
This week, the Supreme Court heard the first arguments regarding Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and as you can imagine, people immediately took to social media in order to voice their opinion on the matter. And if you pay attention to pop-culture and the mainstream news, you’ll find that the majority of those opinions ultimately end up asking ‘Why not just bake the cake?’ After all, how could you favor discrimination if you aren’t racist or prejudiced, right?
Actually, no. As you’ll see, it’s quite the opposite.
While it’s understandable for first impressions to fall prey to the idea that because it involves a gay couple against a business, the natural response should be to back the couple against injustice. This case is not about gay rights, though. Nor is it about freedom of speech or religion, despite what you may hear on the news. This case is about property rights, pure and simple.
Let’s start with the idea of self-ownership, as most people can agree on that sentiment, and it’s not a new concept. Property in the Lockean sense, where you own yourself and, therefore, that which you mix your labor with, dates back centuries. We acknowledge that as the rightful owner, you may choose what to do with your property as well.
This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on Dec 15, 2017.
After the President was elected and inaugurated, I wrote several articles specifically stating that if he didn’t accomplish significant changes by the Midterm Congressional elections, he would not be reelected. We are seeing this on its way to fruition with the Alabama race to fill the seat of Jeff Sessions. The Democrat Doug Jones has won it, and the Republican-held majority in the Senate now shrinks by one seat.
Not that it really matters. Susan Collins was one of the three Republicans quashing the attempt to remove the provision making Obamacare mandatory. Olympia Snow was the Republican Senator from Maine that allowed Obamacare to come up on the Senate Floor in the first place. Roberts (the ‘conservative’) the Supreme Court justice enabled Obamacare to be kept as a law.
The parties are merely an illusion of a two-party system. All of them are Statists, elitists, and Marxist-Progressives determined to completely rend the Constitution and enslave all of the citizen-serfs while they assume the positions of ‘uncrowned’ nobility. Will they remove the mandatory clause from Obamacare, or repeal the entire law? No.
In a pig’s eye will any of these imperial statists remove a law that has every American citizen by the throat…a law the lawmakers exempted themselves from, ‘stamped’ with ‘King’ Obama’s approval with the Supreme Court solidifying it.
This post was published at shtfplan on December 14th, 2017.
It’s an unfortunate puzzle for the armed citizen…
You see, if you’re ever forced to defend yourself and those you love with your firearm, a jury is going to take a hard look at the training you’ve received.
Strangely, the more training you have, the higher the standard you may be held to in your actions.
But what about a LACK of training?
Turns out you can held liable for what you don’t know but ‘should’ have known – and it goes far beyond your shot group down at the range. In fact, below are 10 gun training skills you should master but can’t get at the range.
I know it doesn’t sound justifiable, but a certain court decision may suggest that without this training, you may even be held legally liable for the injury or death of someone in your line of fire whether it’s the criminal… a bystander… the neighbor who was sleeping in their bed across the street… or a responding police officer.
In Canton v. Harris the Supreme Court ruled against the city involved after a citizen was injured – because the responding officers hadn’t been trained properly for the situation they faced.
This post was published at Laissez Faire on Dec 13, 2017.
Authored by James Bovard via TheHill.com,
Politifact delivered a ‘pants on fire’ slam to Fox News on Friday because one of its commentators asserted that the Federal Bureau of Investigation ‘has become America’s secret police.’
The FBI has legions of new champions nowadays among liberals and Democrats who hope that its probes will end Donald Trump’s presidency.
This is a stunning reversal that may have J. Edgar Hoover spinning in his grave.
In order to boost the credibility of the FBI’s investigations of the Trump team, much of the media is whitewashing the bureau’s entire history. But the FBI has been out of control almost since its birth.
A 1924 American Civil Liberties Union report warned that the FBI had become ‘a secret police system of a political character.’
In the 1930s, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court feared that the FBI had bugged the conference room where justices privately wrangled over landmark cases, as Tim Weiner noted in his ‘Enemies: A History of the FBI.’
In 1945, President Harry Truman noted that ‘We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction.’
And FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover compiled a list of 20,000 ‘potentially or actually dangerous’ Americans who could be rounded up and locked away in one of the six detention camps the federal government secretly built in the 1950s.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Dec 12, 2017.
Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The case stems from the refusal of Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery, to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The bakery was found guilty of a civil rights violation and ordered to stop refusing to bake and design cakes because they are for same-sex weddings. The bakery was also required to file reports on the steps it takes to comply and whether it turns down any prospective customers.
The decision to force the bakery to change its business practices reflects a mistaken concept of rights. Those who support government intervention in this case view rights as a gift from government. Therefore, they think politicians and bureaucrats can and should distribute and redistribute rights. This view holds it is completely legitimate to use government force to make bakeries bake cakes for same-sex weddings since the government-created right to a cake outweighs the rights of property and contract.
This view turns the proper concept of rights on its head. Rights are not gifts from government, so the government cannot restrict them unless we engage in force or fraud. The bakery did not use force to stop any same-sex couple from getting a wedding cake. It simply exercised its right to decide who it would accept as a customer. No one would support private individuals forcing bakery employees to bake a cake at gunpoint, so why is it right for the government to do it?
Some people claim that forcing the bakery to bake the cake is consistent with libertarianism. The reason they make this claim is they view the bakery’s actions as rooted in bigotry toward homosexuals. But even if this were true, it would not justify government intervention. Bigots and others with distasteful views have the right to use their property as they choose. The way to combat bigotry is through boycotts and other means of peaceful persuasion.
This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on December 12, 2017.
The New York Times recently carried an interesting article on the wedding-cake controversy that is now before the U. S. Supreme Court. The article pointed out that prominent lawyers who specialize in First Amendment cases are ‘vexed’ by the controversy.
The facts of the case are simple: A Colorado bakeshop refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. The state charged the baker with unlawful discrimination. Those vexed lawyers are having trouble deciding whether the baker has a First Amendment right to refuse to create a wedding cake for the gay couple. Some of them say yes and some say no.
Floyd Abrams, who the Times calls the nation’s most prominent First Amendment lawyer, at first leaned toward the baker, repelled by the notion that the state could require him to create some sort of artistic rendering that violated his conscience. But then he started leaning the other way, asking ‘Could a painter invite the public to his gallery at which he painted portraits of them for a fee but refused to paint black people?’ Abrams finally came down on the side of the gay couple.
Eugene Volokh, who the Times describes as a ‘leading First Amendment scholar,’ sided with the gay couple as well. While photographers and painters have the First Amendment right to decide which commissions to take, Volokh says, it’s different with bakers. A chef cannot claim a free speech right not to serve people at his restaurant, he said, no matter how beautiful his dishes look.
This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on Dec 5, 2017.
The Illinois Supreme Court has used STRICT CONSTRUCTION to defend the State against State Employee pensions that have been bankrupting the State. Previously, back in 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that health care benefits provided to state employees were a ‘permanent benefit’guaranteed by the state constitution. That has led to a complete disaster as healthcare costs have risen out of control thanks to Obamacare, which handed insurance companies more money and a monopoly status that everyone had to have insurance even the y7outh who never used it.
Those health care costs are destroying the fabric of the entire economy pushing pension costs over the top. The Supreme Court is mindful of the disaster he caused with its 2014 ruling and they have been obvious under political pressure to reverse it. They figured a way to do this using STRICT CONSTRUCTION. Therefore, the benefit cannot be greater than what was expressed in the statute. Consequently, they now delivered a six-word ruling on Thanksgiving eve refusing to hear the retirees’ appeal of a state Appellate Court ruling that essentially upheld Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s now-completed, three-year phase-out of retiree health care coverage.
This post was published at Armstrong Economics on Nov 28, 2017.
‘I believe the women. I think he should step aside.’ – Mitch McConnell ‘These allegations are credible. He should step aside.’ – Paul RyanI don’t know whether Judge Roy Moore cruised around malls 40 years ago looking for teenage girls. He might be a pedophile, or the women stepping forward decades after the alleged incidents might be lying. To quote a famous scandal ridden establishment politician, ‘At this point what difference does it make’. He will win the run-off election for Jeff Sessions’ vacant Senate seat on December 12. He will win because we are in the midst of a Fourth Turning, where the mood of the populace has shifted strongly against the status quo/establishment.
This mood shift has been so strong Donald Trump’s endorsement of establishment hack and Mitch McConnell acolyte Luther Strange over Moore during the primary meant absolutely nothing. Moore won in a landslide. Moore is Alabama’s version of candidate Trump (as opposed to president Trump). He says outrageous things. He tells his opposition to f**k off. He brandishes handguns during campaign speeches. He lost his Chief Justice-ship because he refused to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court building. He was suspended for directing judges to continue to enforce the ban on same sex marriages after the ban had been deemed unconstitutional.
This post was published at The Burning Platform on Nov 24, 2017.
In a lawsuit that could have wide-ranging ramifications for the nightlife industry in Las Vegas, Business Insider reports, hundreds of victims of the Oct. 1 mass shooting have joined class-action lawsuits against MGM Resorts International, owner of the Mandalay Bay resort and casino, where shooter Stephen Paddock fired on a crowd of 20,000 country music fans from his perch in a 32nd floor hotel suite in what became the deadliest mass shooting in US history.
Several lawsuits – the largest of which was filed on behalf of 450 people – attempt to hold MGM legally liable for not doing more to prevent the attack. Victims are additionally suing the shooter Stephen Paddock’s estate and the concert organizer Live Nation Entertainment Inc. as well as, in some cases, the manufacturer of the bump stocks that allowed Paddock to fire as if he were using automatic weapons.
The shooting left nearly 60 people dead, and more than 400 injured.
Unfortunately for MGM, Nevada legal precedent suggests the company could be held liable for Paddock’s rampage. In October, the Nevada Supreme Court found that MGM could be held liable in a 2010 assault on a California couple at one of the company’s hotels, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. The court ruled that the attack was ‘foreseeable’ because there had been similar cases of violence at the hotel. The question of whether the Las Vegas shooting was foreseeable will be central to the plaintiff’s case.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Nov 21, 2017.
The Department of Justice is taking its first tentative steps toward dismantling the 40-year-old system of affirmative action that governs admissions at US colleges and universities by opening an investigation into the admissions practices of America’s oldest and most venerated institution of higher education: Harvard.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the DOJ’s investigation into the use of race in its admissions process was inspired by a federal civil lawsuit filed in 2014 that alleged the university discriminates against Asian-Americans. The Department of Education dismissed the group’s allegations back in 2015. The lawsuit was brought by Edward Blum, a conservative lawyer who has focused on eliminating affirmative action. Blum, who successfully sheparded a case alleging the University of Texas discriminated against a white student all the way to the Supreme Court last year, laid out his arguments in a Washington Post op-ed published back in August, where he pointed out that the DOJ was already investigating incidences of discrimination against Asian Americans.
It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court has allowed universities to grant preferences to applicants based on race and ethnicity. Last year in Fisher v. University of Texas – in which Students for Fair Admissions provided counsel to the plaintiff – the Supreme Court allowed the University of Texas at Austin to continue the practice. Nonetheless, in Fisher and earlier cases, the court has been clear about the how these racial preferences must be implemented: Purposeful quotas and racial balancing are strictly prohibited. And, of course, diversity can never be a justification for invidious discrimination.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Nov 21, 2017.
Charles Manson, the mass-murderer and leader of the “drug-induced flock of followers ” known as the Manson family died aged 83 of natural causes at 8.13pm on Sunday night.
Although his followers committed the seven ‘Tate-La Bianca’ murders in the summer of 1969, Manson was convicted of murder for directing them and was sentenced to death in 1971. He was spared when the death penalty was abolished in California following a supreme court ruling in 1972. Footage of Manson and his female followers in the Manson family have surfaced a number of times over the years as their bids to be released were repeatedly rejected at parole hearings. During a parole hearing in 2012, John Peck, a member of the parole panel, quoted Manson as saying to one of his prison psychologists.
‘I’m special. I’m not like the average inmate. I have spent my life in prison. I have put five people in the grave. I am a very dangerous man.’
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Nov 20, 2017.
Staff at the Northeast Atlanta Health and Rehabilitation Center laughed as a decorated World War II veteran took his last gasps of air after frantically calling for help six different times, according to a shocking new investigation from 11Alive.com.
The investigation included the release of a never before seen hidden camera video that not only completely contradicted statements given by the nursing home staff but also proved, without a shadow of doubt, that the nursing home essentially let the decorated veteran die as if it were a joke.
The video is so disgusting that attorneys for the nursing home repeatedly tried to stop its release, going through a series of court battles with the local news station in which they hoped that the media would be ordered to censor the footage.
Thankfully, the judge in the case ruled in favor of actual journalism and the nursing home, after seeing no other possible outcome, eventually dropped their appeal to the Georgia State Supreme Court.
In the 11Alive investigation, the news outlet details the fact that a nurse who was on duty at the time directly lied about what actually happened before being confronted with the hidden camera video.
This post was published at shtfplan on November 18th, 2017.
“It never happened… If you abuse a 14-year-old you shouldn’t be a Senate candidate. I agree with that,” Moore said. “But I did not do that.”
In his first interview since the Washington Post published the explosive allegations regarding his sexual misconduct with a 14-year-old girl in 1979, Moore – the Republican nominee for the U. S. Senate in Alabama – appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio show Friday. The former Alabama Supreme Court justice told the host that:
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Nov 10, 2017.