This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Indiana Supreme Court Dispenses With Magna Carta, Constitution

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Simon Black of Sovereign Man

Indiana Supreme Court dispenses with Magna Carta, Constitution

May 16, 2011
Santiago, Chile

Constitution toilet paper Indiana Supreme Court dispenses with Magna Carta, ConstitutionOn
June 10, 1215 AD, after prolonged rebellion and frustrating
negotiation, a group of England’s most influential barons entered London
to force the disastrous King John Softsword into accepting a
revolutionary charter of individual freedoms.

Five days later in the Runnymede meadow of Surrey County, John
affixed his royal seal onto what became known as the Magna Carta. It
still exists on the books today in England and Wales.

This document was one of the more important antecedents to the US
Constitution; its proclamations ended the absolutism of England’s
monarchy and spelled out very clear rights and freedoms, including,
among others, the right of a man to enjoy his private property without
trespass from government officials.

Over 550 years later, the framers of the Constitution codified this
right in the 4th Amendment to be secure in one’s private property.  Last
week, the Indiana Supreme Court effectively rejected both documents in
two separate cases.

In the first case of Lacey v. State of Indiana, the Court ruled that
police officers serving a warrant on a private home may simply walk
right in without knocking.

The second case of Barnes v. State of Indiana is far more startling.
The case deals with one Richard Barnes, a regular Joe citizen of
Indiana, who was in the midst of marital problems with his wife one
evening in 2007. The couple was arguing when police arrived to the scene
and attempted to enter the home.

Barnes made it very clear to the officers that they were not to enter
his home. The officers did not have a warrant, and they did not have
probably cause to believe that anything illegal was happening. But they
entered regardless.

Barnes tried to block the door, and as the police officers muscled
their way past him, he shoved one of them against the wall in defense of
his property.  Barnes was choked and tasered in his own home,
subsequently hospitalized, then charged with misdemeanor battery on a
police officer.

The case went to court, and the Barnes defense team cited a private
citizen’s right to resist unlawful entry into one’s home. They lost. The
case was appealed, all the way up to the Indiana Supreme Court. Here’s
where it gets interesting.

The Court agreed that the police officers entered the Barnes home
illegally. The Court further agreed that one’s right to resist illegal
entry has existed since the Magna Carta. The Court further agreed that
the US Supreme Court has reaffirmed this right to resist unlawful entry
in numerous court cases.

Seems pretty cut and dry, no?

Yet, in summarizing the court’s opinion, Justice Steven David writes,
“We hold that there is -no right- to reasonably resist unlawful entry
by police officers.”

Wait. Full stop. A citizen has no right to resist unlawful entry by
police officers on his private property? Apparently we’re all supposed
to lay down like two-toed tree sloths while these jackbooted monkeys
turn private property into yet another ‘rights free’ zone.

Americans already have to put up with dispensation of the
Constitution at airports, border checkpoints, political events, many
train station, and soon to be bus terminals and shopping malls. We’d
better add ‘private residence’ to that list as well.

The right to protect oneself and one’s property against unlawful
entry is the hallmark of any free civilization.  Conversely, it is the
hallmark of a totalitarian police state when government goons have the
authority to go stomping around on private property without oversight of
a judicious, impartial court.

There is no middle ground here… and a government that is on the way
to denying this right is not far down the road from denying other basic,
seemingly no-brainer rights– like assembly, criticizing the government,
and possession of firearms.

One of the reasons I travel so much is so I don’t have to deal with
this kind of nonsense. I enjoy spending time in countries where I have
no fear of some government agent forcing his way into my home.

There are a number of such places in the world– Chile is definitely one of them.



- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:57 | 1281265 anynonmous
anynonmous's picture

it seems JPM has been doing it for years


via 4closurefraud

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:11 | 1281337 The They
The They's picture

I live in indiana and can say that they have had this policy of warentless police searches of homes for at least a couple years (i know a few people that suffered from it).


By the way, do any cops read zerohedge?

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:20 | 1281377 Dejean Splicer
Dejean Splicer's picture

Time for a woopsie in Indiana.

"I thought it was fake police attempting home invasion so I started shooting".


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:25 | 1281627 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

Michigan, Police have been downloading info from cell phones during stops since 2006!


electronic search.. physical search.. whatever.. it will never happen to you.. so why worry about it!


nothing bad happens to good people! LMFAO!!!

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 01:15 | 1282026 Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

SEAL team number 6 has the right to enter any home anywhere in the world, shoot the occupants and bury them at sea.

Get over it.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 01:55 | 1282100 old naughty
old naughty's picture

It does not matter if you have a Constitution, or not.

We The People... are f-US-ked.



Tue, 05/17/2011 - 02:17 | 1282131 Michael
Michael's picture

Thank God the American people have 200 million+ firearms in their possession.

Shoot the intruders into your home first and ask questions later.

Aim for the skull, don't waste your expensive ammo on body armor.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 02:30 | 1282142 Transformer
Transformer's picture

More like 480 million

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 02:18 | 1282132 Michael
Michael's picture


Tue, 05/17/2011 - 02:18 | 1282133 Michael
Michael's picture


Tue, 05/17/2011 - 06:04 | 1282240 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

SEAL team number 6 has the right to enter any home anywhere in the world, shoot US CITIZENS and bury them at sea.

Get over it.

(fixed it)

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:08 | 1281750 Widowmaker
Widowmaker's picture

You are absolutely fucking right -- except you will go to prison for it (unless cornered and you or a family member has apprehension of deadly harm).

Shit why not, at least you could earn your way to the clink, instead of all the victimless criminals and butt fucks eating three free meals and cable TV for drugs and a bad attitude.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 08:00 | 1282335 Aristophanes
Aristophanes's picture

Though your way may be justified, I think a little creativity might be more fun:

1. Get the home address of the judge.

2. Wait until a big holiday when you are likely to get a rookie cop and dispatch team who are gung-ho and don't know who the untouchables like the judge are.  (The 4th of July would be especially poignant).

3. Call in some sort of domestic dispute with enough detail to get the cops all fired up and tazer happy.

4. Film and Utube the judge getting the same "legal" reception he legislated.


Tue, 05/17/2011 - 09:11 | 1282530 tsx500
tsx500's picture

i like the way u think ...........

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:32 | 1281394 Arius
Arius's picture

are you joking ? seen police academy lately? you really expect cops to read all of these nonsense about Soros, swaps, derivatives etc...

they are cops....dont give them too much credit

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:29 | 1281631 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

Literacy Standards for the Entry Level Criminal Justice Practitioner

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
functional literacy level of high school graduates in Florida?" There is no answer. The ... A Florida Department of Law Enforcement legal update ... Community College, which includes the Michigan Police Academy, said, "There is no ...
Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:28 | 1281637 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

you will notice the test scores since 9-11 have fallen off...



they flooded the departments with morons to meet numbers for the Federal Matching Funds!!!


these scumbag monkeys can not even fucking read! public school scores a big hit with lil dicked ego maniacs with badges! LMFAO!!!


Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:37 | 1281969 Debt is Slavery
Debt is Slavery's picture

+CMFAO....crying, not laughing

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 08:42 | 1282419 trav7777
trav7777's picture

they've also had a diversity mandate on those hires

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 09:44 | 1282652 InconvenientCou...
InconvenientCounterParty's picture

yea, it's the only practical way to balance out the Klan presence in the police. By the way, the klan was unhappy with that development.

Tribalism is platonic and childlike. True evil is mature and very messy.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 05:20 | 1282227 Incubus
Incubus's picture

I had the pleasure of having an over-night stay in jail one time.  Kind of funny how you're just a piece of shit goin' in.  As soon as you post bail, you're addressed as "Sir." 

The justice system is a joke, as is everything else in this pseudocapitalistic system. As long as you've got the fiat to play, you can buy respect. 

I lost any respect I had for those pigs that day.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 01:08 | 1282016 Dirt Rat
Dirt Rat's picture

I live in Indiana, too. I wasn't aware about warrantless searches by police. However, conservation officers have some very broad powers and can conduct a warrantless search, if certain conditions are met and certain protocols are followed.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 05:19 | 1282230 jpalm
jpalm's picture

By the way, do any cops read zerohedge?

Yes, some of us do. And the ones who still believe in individual freedom are sick and tired of being lumped together with those who have no problem trampling all over the Constitution. The problem is that - just like the rest of our society - police officers don't really know the Constitution. They only know what case law allows them to do.


I have a friend who is an academy instructor. One day he asked a class of young, eager recruits if they would obey an order from the sheriff to go door-to-door confiscating guns. Half of the class said they would. Face it, they are groomed as children, just like the rest of the youth in this country. With that said, the good news is that lately I have seen the tide turning. More and more of my colleagues are pro-personal freedom and rabid defenders of the Constitution. They tend to have the stronger personalities that are required to shape the younger generations, so long as they are permitted to do so. They just don't make the nightly news with a headline that reads "cop believes in defending and upholding the Constitution, film at 11".


Not all of us are bad guys.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 06:31 | 1282252 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

I smell bullshit.  Half the force is corrupt, the other half it too stupid to keep secrets so they aren't allowed to join the club.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 06:55 | 1282261 blindfaith
blindfaith's picture

you are not worth replying to, so I will no longer read your idiotic opinions.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 19:19 | 1285166 mkkby
mkkby's picture

I don't believe it either.  If so many LEOs believed in the the constitution, there would be a lot more op-eds, a lot more resignations, promotions of them to policy-making levels.  Anybody heard of this happening.  I didn't think so.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 07:11 | 1282274 earnulf
earnulf's picture

Like any group of people, you have a small minority that are actually trying to do good and believe in the Constitution and the rule of law.    They normally do not get the publicity that the "bad cop" does.     Most of the time I've found that most law enforcement treat you as you treat them.   There are exceptions, such as the cop who didn't appreciate me pointing out the guy driving the wrong way on a one way street and instead of pulling that person over, pulled me over from behind with the spurious claim of "where's your front license plate?"   (This cop never saw the front of of my truck and at least did apologize when he walked to the front of my truck and saw there was a plate on it.  Of course he then claimed to have gotten my black truck mixed up with another black truck which was non-existant during the five or so blocks that he claimed to have watched me)

I still treated him with respect, and I didn't call him on the BS storyline, giving him no reason to further his little power trip.    He had no choice but to let me go after "slowing me down" for a bit.

I don't hate all the cops because of that one and I won't stop showing respect to others until they do something to lose that respect.

There are cops out there that revere the Constitution, a strong gun-ownership favoring folks who don't like the over-reach being practiced by the state.     They do a tough job and I thank them for it.    But when it comes to my home, it's my responsibility first and foremost, especially when I'm occuping my home at night.      This should go to the US Supreme Court so that we can get a firm fix on where the nation stands and whether it is time to dissolve the government.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 08:40 | 1282420 TheTmfreak
TheTmfreak's picture

Your story is way way way too typical. That is why the laws should be behind protecting the POSSIBLE INNOCENT rather than bolstering the law enforcers.

I believe no questions asked, I'd rather have a murderer who got away than an innocent man behind bars.

Its like the quesiton of taking OBL. I'd rather have had us never gotten him (what difference would it make) than to act like a bunch of tyrannical, empire thugs and who don't believe in the law and violate soverign countries borders. I'm shocked and appalled we thought, or think that is ok. Justice served? Really? I guess anybody can act as judge jury and executioner (except the populace, they have to have a badge, or in another country as the military, particularly ones where we have no legal control over)

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 07:41 | 1282306 alpha60
alpha60's picture

officer, police thyself.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 08:35 | 1282404 TheTmfreak
TheTmfreak's picture

I say it all the time. It is the grouping and generalizations that is going to kill us in the end.  Of course there are "good police officers."

I tried telling my girlfriend about this last night. All of these laws and rulings are "great and fine" when we are talking about a government that is just. I can no longer trust the police just because they're used as a revenue collecting service, and are prone just as much (if not more) to political manipulation.

The question your academy instructor posed is something I've said about the military. My fellow marine friends who are all "similar to me," I asked what would you do if your superiors gave you orders you absolutely didn't agree with? Would you follow them? What would happen if all of a sudden "martial law" was issued and the marine corps was used to do something VERY not allowed (such as taking weapons from citizens) would you do it? You would be punished if you didn't.

Is it really reasonable to believe that all German Nazi's back in the day were "so far different" from anybody of today? I doubt it.


The worst part about this ruling in my opinion is that if you were to transplant this incident with jews and nazi's you would say while the Nazi's were wrong, the jews SHOULD NOT HAVE RESISTED a tyrannical government.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 08:40 | 1282411 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Oathkeepers is a group of ex-military and police dedicated to upholding the Constitution- to the extent of refusing to take orders that would be in conflict with it. 

Lumping all people into one group is just another form of prejudice.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 08:45 | 1282426 TheTmfreak
TheTmfreak's picture

Dead on.

This is why for me, the marines corps is even more a hate love relationship for me. Just the other day at an IRR drill this general stated "You swore and alligence to the constitution." Some people take that very seriously.

I remember when I was at MEPS and was swearing in. Even at 18 years old I knew nobody around me was taking this seriously. They were gaffing off the entire process like a bunch of dumb shit sheeple.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 08:57 | 1282462 mikeyv1970
mikeyv1970's picture

The nice thing about being an officer is that I swear an allegiance to the Constitution...not to a Government.  These kind of discussions are being had way up the food chain Tmfreak...


Tue, 05/17/2011 - 09:11 | 1282512 TheTmfreak
TheTmfreak's picture

I am certainly not ignorant to the facts you speak about. I read an article in amconmag not too long ago that threw out the idea of a military coup, which I hadn't considered (or taken seriously) until I read it. I think we are quite a ways away from something like that happening, but it is actually more reasonable than people might assume. Yes military industrial complex, yada yada yada (not denying it) but I think there is more to the story.

We have the same name by the way hah.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 09:03 | 1282501 nmewn
nmewn's picture

+1 Sean7k.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 09:07 | 1282506 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

Here's the problem, and if you are as you say you are I am sure this is not lost to you: the courts and legislatures all too often blindly "support" police officers by legalizing anything they do.  Too many cops caught abusing people on video?  Well, we could either stop police from abusing people, or we could make it illegal to videorecord cops.  Guess which one is chosen?  With decisions like this one, courts and legislatures are driving a wedge between cops and the public

How, then, is the average person to protect himself from bad cops?  If the courts (who allegedly work for me) won't do it, and the legislatures (who also allegedly work for me) won't do it, and the executive branch (who also allegedly works for me) won't do it, and if the cops themselves won't do it, then I have to do it myself.  If you can offer another alternative, please do so; I can't think of one.  Which leaves me with a very very serious quandary: is the cop who is walking up my sidewalk a good cop or a bad cop?  What happens if he is a bad one?  What happens to me?  I am forced to choose between either immediate and total submission or personal injury and criminal charges.  Those are my only two choices.  And that is completely unacceptable.

On the subject of abuse: I am a human being, I have emotions, and it is possible for me to lose my cool.  Not so much now that I am a bit older, but nonetheless.  In any interaction with police, the courts will forgive an officer losing his cool and going too far in a violent confrontation.  But if a citizen merely displays anger in the presence of a police officer, the officer will be deemed justified to do whatever is needed to "control" the subject.  Why is that?  Because subjects have two choices in the presence of police officers, and those choices are: complete and total submission, or personal injury and arrest.  And that is completely unacceptable.

Too often mutual respect is absent from these interactions.  When a court system can justify this: it becomes very clear to me that I am on my own, and that no one is really on my side except me.  I know how to do that, and no one will like it, least of all myself.  Is that where we are?

King County Sheriff Sue Rahr says her office is "working on it."

Am I supposed to be satisfied with that?  Are you?

Now, in Indiana, police can just barge in, warrant or not.  This forces the homeowner / resident into a split-second decision: cops, or bad guys?  If they announce, real cops, or phony ones?  Life, or death?  This very chain of thought is the reason for the castle doctrine, and probably the reason for the right once enshrined in the Magna Charta. 

Locke, a few hundred years later:

But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war; and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, though he be in society and a fellow subject. Thus, a thief whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat, because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot [or will not] interpose to secure my life from present force, which if lost is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority puts all men in a state of Nature; force without right upon a man's person makes a state of war both where there is, and is not, a common judge.

Christopher Harris is sill in a coma.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 09:15 | 1282536 TheTmfreak
TheTmfreak's picture

I've been really waking up to this fact for awhile. Its like i said the other day, the whole arizona tuscon thing and the talk of banning guns near congressman. Should congressman's rights really come over citizens? In other words, just because they are higher profile they should somehow negate everyone else's rights? Really?

I say this all the time about the president. HE IS JUST ONE MAN. He isn't THAT big a deal. Why do we keep ascribing SO much of our assets to this guy (ignoring who he is, it doesn't matter if its ron paul or not.) Like having how many ships protect him when he was in India? IS IT REALLY WORTH IT? Who gives a fuck if he is shot dead? There are thousands of other bozos that could keep the cogs flowing.

I hate trite statements, but I'm starting to accept that these trite and stereotypical statements actually have some real value. I'm speaking of course of "there are laws for some and laws for others."

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 09:24 | 1282566 iinthesky
iinthesky's picture

Something that may help police 'get it' would be explaining to them that the District Attorneys and Judges who work for these so-called criminal courts (Please find me where such named jurisdiction comes from) are in fact working for private corporations. If you go on Dunn and Bradstreet and type in for example 'New York Unified Court System' you wll see every single court in every county pop up with a credit rating as a for profit / municipal corporation. I personally watched the Manhattan DA come on television and talk about how he made a 80% return on investment in the court system for the 'taxpayer' and was damned proud of it too. I personally did not recieve my dividend check, did you? Its smoke and mirrors and the whole scam is to seperate you from as much fiat as they are able to through deception, intimidation, and violence. Police officers are their canon fodder. They are USING YOU people to do their dirty work and drag people into their system of extortion and racketeering while hiding behind another corporate 'legal system' monopoly called the BAR association. They make people believe that you can't learn and practice law without a license. Well, go ask any lawyer if they have a license to practice law. As far as I know, such a thing does not exist and no state government will tell you it does. If you ask they will refer you to the BAR association. Point being, police, you're being used and abused.

Wed, 05/18/2011 - 01:39 | 1285904 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

If you understood the principles of unalienable rights America was founded upon, rights that provided Americans more individual liberty than any other nation on earth, rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights but not granted in the Bill of Rights (because they pre-exist the Bill of Rights), you would REFUSE to be a policeman.

If you understood the MOST important of those rights, the right of DUE PROCESS, you would REFUSE to be a policeman, since police are TRAINED to violate citizens' right of due process. 

The very PRESENCE of police outside property owned by their employer is a violation of the Bill of Rights and is unconstitutional.

The elected sheriff is the ONLY constitutional "law enforcement" presence in any county / parish, and they're in the judicial branch, not the executive branch (where police are).

In America's 3-branch system of government, legislative - executive - judicial, ANY government action against a citizen is done by the JUDICIAL branch, NOT the executive branch, and ONLY on a COURT ORDER from a JUDGE (elected by the people, therefore accountable to the people), to be carried out by the OFFICER OF THE COURT, the SHERIFF (also elected by the people and accountable to the people). 

Issuing court summons ("tickets") is a JUDICIAL function, NOT an executive-branch police function.

ARREST is a JUDICIAL function, NOT an executive-branch police function.

SEIZURE of property is a JUDICIAL function, NOT an executive-branch police function.

ANY action against a citizen by executive-branch police OUTSIDE property owned by their employer is a violation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of DUE PROCESS, therefore is unconstitutional by definition. 

City police and every other type of police exercising general jurisdiction are unconstitutional by definition.

Their only constitutional authority is in the role of hired security guards on property owned by their employer, like airport police and railroad police for example.

A city government does NOT own all the property within "city limits".  The ONLY place city police have constitutional authority is on property OWNED BY THE CITY GOVERNMENT.

So you support the constitution huh?  You support the Bill of Rights huh?

Ok, when are you going to QUIT that (city?) police job?

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 12:10 | 1283309 SoNH80
SoNH80's picture

Indiana is the asshole of the Midwest.  Awful, anal-retentive people, arrogant wankers.  I feel bad for the good Ohioans and Illini that have to live next to that cracker dump.  The only other states that could have come up with this cropper are Mississippi, Florida, or Michigan.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:10 | 1281893 ToNYC
ToNYC's picture


All hail, our esteemed corporate masters!

Thu, 08/11/2011 - 03:53 | 1549997 mediahuset
mediahuset's picture

I wondered why I never looked at it before. porntube

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:58 | 1281286 Alcoholic Nativ...
Alcoholic Native American's picture

It was destroyed on 9/11.  Fuck this fluff and fake outrage.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:03 | 1281311 kridkrid
kridkrid's picture

It was kind of our Pearl Harbor moment, huh?

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:11 | 1281329 Alcoholic Nativ...
Alcoholic Native American's picture

Yea, something like that, remember 9/11 was the 2nd time the world trade centers got hit.

Anyone remember the 1st time?



Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:23 | 1281381 kridkrid
kridkrid's picture

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:27 | 1281945 Shock and Aweful
Shock and Aweful's picture

.....Ahhh...I see we are quoting Herr Goebbels....and the Nazi's Standard Operating Procedure for "propagandistic operations"?


I think it is startling to read some of the speeches and quotes from interviews / books written by Goebbels, Himmler, Hitler, Goerring, and other meglomaniacs like Stalin....and then look at how our modern systems of governance (both in the U.S. and in Europe) have taken their "advice"  on how to subdue and intimidate the general public into going along with a "brave new world" status quo.


Do not for one second think that the techiniques and polices that were so effective at brainwashing and controlling millions of Germans and Russians (and used to GREAT effect on the U.S. during the war as well) to follow their government into the abyss have not been studied, practiced, improved upon and implemented in more modern times.  

The German population of the late 1920's and early 1930's was a highly educated and highly political populace...much more so that the mind-numbingly servile and unquestioning "patriots" we have living in the U.S and most western European nations  (maybe this has something to do with an ever growing level of apathy that has been created by what I call the "laziest generation"....the ones who have never known what it means to do without and who's only real goal in life is to one day be able to say... "AHHHH At long last...I can finally relax...Everything is done for me"

If you want to be scared (or pissed off, or worried, or motivated) up on some of the political ideologies and propaganda techniques (and what those who implented them had to say about their effectivness) that were being used in the 1930s and 40s...and then watch the the paper...or listen to the government marienettes that come out and give you the days "newspeak"....It is quite humorouse sometimes...and would really be funny if it were not so goddam sad and insulting.


Or...maybe it's nothing...and everything really is getting BETTER...and we are WINNING in the endless WARS we fight.....that the water and food we eat is SAFE....that the police are here to PROTECT us....that we fight WARS because they really do HATE us for our FREEDOM...'s probably nothing but typical alarmism....time to go back to sleep.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:41 | 1281841 samsara
samsara's picture

I believe the FBI gave them the explosives in '93 also. 

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:42 | 1281975 Debt is Slavery
Debt is Slavery's picture

Two cassette tape recordings, obtained by SHADOW reporter Paul DeRienzo of telephone conversations between FBI informant Emad Salem and his Bureau contacts reveal secret U.S. Government complicity in the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in which six people were killed and more than a thousand were injured.

After careful deliberation, the SHADOW believes the question regarding the bombing boils down to the following: Did the FBI do the bombing, utilizing informant Salem as an "agent provocateur" or did it fail to prevent an independent Salem and his associates from doing it? The taped conversations obtained by the SHADOW seem to indicate the former:

FBI Informant Edam Salem: "...we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the DA and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case!" [Listen]

Who is Emad Salem? FBI bomber, Arab double-agent or just greedy? Possibly a combination of all three. Salem is a former Egyptian Army officer who is currently the U.S. government's star witness against Egyptian cleric Dr. Omar Abdel Rahman, whom the FBI says was the ringleader in several bombing plots, including the World Trade Center. Shortly after the bombing at the Twin Towers (World Trade Center) the U.S. government moved to take Salem into the Witness Protection program.

According to the FBI, Salem was aware of the plot ostensibly because he had infiltrated Sheik Rahman and his associates. He was recruited as a government informant shortly after the 1991 assassination of of right- wing militant Rabbi Meir Kahane. As an associate of Rahman, Salem traveled in the cleric's inner circle, surreptitiously recording conversations, and selling his information to the Bureau. But unknown to his FBI handlers, Salem was also secretly recording his conversations with them, most likely to protect himself.

According to attorney Ron Kuby, after Salem was taken into the Witness Protection program on June 24, 1993, he told the feds about the more than 1,000 conversations he had recorded sometime between December, 1991 and June, 1993. Kuby says that while some of these tapes are not significant, others contain substantive dealings with Salem and his FBI handlers. Salem was actually bugging the FBI.

The World Trade Center bombing, along with subsequent alleged plots to bomb prominent targets in New York City, spawned a number of federal indictments and trials resulting in the conviction of more than a dozen men, all of Arabic descent. Salem's exposure as a government informant who had a year earlier infiltrated the group of men later charged in the bombing conspiracy caused many to wonder why he and the FBI failed to provide any warning of the pending World Trade Center bombing.

The answer now appears self-evident. According to William Kuntsler, attorney for Ibrahim El-Gabrowny, one of those accused in the larger bombing case, the entire conspiracy was the product of Salem, the government informant. Kuntsler's law partner Ronald Kuby told the SHADOW that within hours of the World Trade Center blast, Salem checked into a midtown hospital, complaining of a loud ringing in his ears. There is a growing belief that some of the four men charged and since convicted and jailed for the World Trade Center bombing, Mohammed Aboulihma, Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad and Ahmad Ajaj, may be innocent [victims] of a government frame-up.

Attorneys for those convicted have maintained that the government's case is circumstantial at best, with no evidence or motive linking the accused with the bombing. The FBI and federal prosecutors have not as yet responded to questions over the lack of warning of the attack on the Twin Towers, despite the strategic placement of their informant.

Two possible scenarios emerge. One: Salem is a rogue FBI informant who created the conspiracy to bomb the World Trade Center for the money his information about the plot (minus his role) would bring. An attorney for one of the convicted men told the SHADOW that Salem was an FBI informant from November of 1991 to the summer of 1992. The attorney says that the FBI became aware of the World Trade Center bombing plot through informant Salem during this period, but they refused to believe his information or pay Salem's exhorbitant fees. In fact, the feds claimed that they dropped Salem as an informant during the summer of 1992 after he refused or failed a lie detector test. This left Salem with a bombing plot but no one to sell it to.

According to the attorney, Salem let the plot that he hatched go forward and the World Trade Center was bombed so that he could get money and publicity. The attorney says that within 48 hours of the bombing, the FBI requested Salem to help them solve the case. Salem quickly pointed the fingers at the defendants, all followers of Sheik Rahman.

So, who did it? From the above point of view, Salem constructed the bomb plot with those whom he subsequently set up. The U.S. government and its FBI were innocent bystanders who failed to prevent the carnage due to their unwillingness to take Salem's claims seriously, despite his close collaboration with Bureau agents for the better part of a year.

The other scenario looks like this: Informant Salem organized the bomb plot with the "supervision" of the FBI and the District Attorney as part of a classic entrapment setup. He befriended certain individuals, possibly some of the defendants, convinced them that his intentions to bomb the World Trade Center were sincere, and convinced them to get involved. The bomb goes off. Greedy Salem, with his ears still ringing, sells out his accomplices while attempting to sell more information to the Bureau. In order to protect him and their relationship, the FBI sequesters Salem and utilizes him against the real target of the FBI, Sheik Rahman.

In one of the taped conversations between Salem and "Special Agent" John Anticev, Salem refers to him and the Bureau's involvement in making the bomb that blew up the World Trade Center. As Salem is pressing for money while emphasizing his value as a Bureau asset, the conversation moves in and out of references to the bombing and the FBI's knowledge of the bomb making:

FBI: But ah basically nothing has changed. I'm just telling you for my own sake that nothing, that this isn't a salary but you got paid regularly for good information. I mean the expenses were a little bit out of the ordinary and it was really questioned. Don't tell Nancy I told you this. (Nancy Floyd is another FBI agent who worked with Salem in his informant capacity. The second tape obtained by the SHADOW is of a telephone conversation between Salem and Floyd -Ed.)

SALEM: Well, I have to tell her of course.

FBI: Well then, if you have to, you have to.

SALEM: Yeah, I mean because the lady was being honest and I was being honest and everything was submitted with receipts and now it's questionable.

FBI: It's not questionable, it's like a little out of the' ordinary.

SALEM: Okay. I don't think it was. If that what you think guys, fine, but I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the DA and we was all informed about it and we know what the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case! And then he put his head in the sand I said "Oh, no, no, that's not true, he is son of a bitch." (Deep breath) Okay. It's built with a different way in another place and that's it.

FBI: No, don't make any rash decisions. I'm just trying to be as honest with you as I can.

SALEM: Of course, I appreciate that.

contact Paul DeRienzo

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:48 | 1281468 Miss anthrope
Miss anthrope's picture

what was told to me was that the Constitution was no longer functioning after 9/11 because the "war on terror" was declared and continuity of Government (C.O.G.) took over.  Supposedly not even the senate homeland security committee is granted access to this C.O.G. plan...... if it sounds like, walks like, swims like, looks like a duck, it is PROBABLY a duck..... that's all I can say.  I do believe our country no longer lives under the constitution.  I just wish they would bring it out in the open already and stop pledging to defend and uphold and all of that BULLSHIT.  Really, is ANYONE ELSE ready for a little truth?

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:37 | 1281824 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

I was born, raised and grew up in a place that I was told was a free country.  They taught me that in their own schools, even showed me the piece of paper that guarantees it all and taught me all about how it was made and the sacrifice and valor that went into it.

The fuck if I'm going to give up my God given rights because someone tells me that's the way it's going to be.  No, FUCK YOU.  If you want to take my rights away you better be ready to die for it, mother fucker, because I am.

This kind of bullshit only affects you if you believe it does.  If you truly believe that you don't have the right to resist any attempt by anyone to enter your home without your consent then may your chains rest lightly on your shoulders.  But if you don't believe that anyone has the right to impose arbitrary rules and laws on a whim and you reserve your rights then you are not subject to them.  You simply refuse to consent.  If you remain silent then you acquiesce.

If indeed this is true--and I must say despite this being entirely believable I just can't see it being for real, and Mr. Black provides no sources--then the people of Indiana had better get together pronto and inform the "honorable" people who occupy the bench of their supreme court that their services are no longer required and that they may step down immediately.  And they had better mean it.

Of course, "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

I am Chumbawamba.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:09 | 1281887 traderjoe
Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:50 | 1281990 Oracle of Kypseli
Oracle of Kypseli's picture

The mind poisoning of the law students has been planned for years by the ivy league institutions which produce most of the judges, as well as the economists who end up with the government.

Liberals and socialists being the minority, know that only by stealth and little by little can change our freedoms and way of life. Kiss America goodby, or time to revolt.


Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:43 | 1281982 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

We are all Chumbawamba.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:51 | 1281993 Debt is Slavery
Debt is Slavery's picture

I am with you sir

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:24 | 1281932 Ben Dover
Ben Dover's picture

Two questions - 

  1. are there any readers age 50+ in this group?
  2. for those that are, does the government's "security" and rights invasions over the last 10 years remind you of all the old crap that our elders used to say happened in the USSR?

Am I the only one that gets that flashback?

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 05:20 | 1282233 Occams Aftershave
Occams Aftershave's picture

yes, 'Merika has become more and more like Communist Russia since communism disappeared there.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 08:49 | 1282433 TheTmfreak
TheTmfreak's picture

I really like to listen to the "elder" opinions on today's matter and current affairs. There is no way I'll accept that today is "just another day" from the days of yore.


Tue, 05/17/2011 - 09:05 | 1282495 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

America has far outdone the Communists in oppression, propaganda, world domination and every other aspect of totalitarianism.

You're number one!

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 09:19 | 1282551 TheTmfreak
TheTmfreak's picture

Really? I might agree with brainwashing but sure as hell not oppression. See the millions of murders in the Soviet Union and China of their own citizens.

We haven't gotten there quite yet. What about the bombings of chechnya?

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 09:22 | 1282562 TheTmfreak
TheTmfreak's picture


Wed, 05/18/2011 - 03:15 | 1286271 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

America is more like the old Soviet Russia than the current Russia is.

The federal govt, created as a mediator of  interstate matters, interfacing only with state goverments, having no relationship nor contact with individual American citizens, has grown into a national fascist government casting state governments aside for all practical purposes, casting the constitution aside for all practical purposes, doing whatever it wants for all practical purposes.

It's not America anymore.   It's Russia.  It's  China. 

From a governmental standpoint, America HAS ALREADY ENDED.  The original form of government in America is GONE.

The federal government today is EVERY BIT as TYRANNICAL as the old Soviet Russia.   I can't think of ONE AREA where the federal  government is less tyrannical than the old Soviet Russian government.

It's AmeriKa now, for all practical purposes.

People under the current Russian government actually have MORE FREEDOM than we do in America today.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 19:45 | 1285242 mkkby
mkkby's picture

Actually Lincoln declared martial law, and I believe it was never revoked.  We've been living under COG for generations.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:26 | 1281628 Alcoholic Nativ...
Alcoholic Native American's picture

wtf did I get junked for?  Truth hurts I guess.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:31 | 1281643 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

I will stand with ya Bro! I say you were right on the money! fuckem!

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:45 | 1281684 Votewithabullet
Votewithabullet's picture

Do you really give a fuck about being junked? On an anonymous web site. What up cracker? cracker ass cracker.



Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:16 | 1281907 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

+2. Pair of fuckwits. Next these two ass wipes will be saying something deep, like; If you didn't have anything to hide, it shouldn't bother you. 

Bend over when it's your turn you pair of fucking idiots. I guess you will be the guys wearing the Jackboots when all hell cuts loose. 

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 07:58 | 1282182 gangland
gangland's picture

Would you want to get stopped by assholes who desperately long to re-live their combat experience? you know, no rules. you know, guys who 'found' themselves in combat, who felt their oats in wanton death and killing. breaking into homes without any reservations or anything holding them back, killing ,raping, collecting fingertips and ears as trophies. skin and bones jewelry.


lots of ptsded volunteer mercenary troopers coming back home to work in security positions, including positions with lots of public contact.


support the troops, protecting your 'liberties' since Shays' Rebellion.


and....yeah I hate amerikkka because I know my rights. Because I would never give up my natural rights against 'contemporary interpretation of policy and modern juriseprudence',  I'm an amerikkka hater.

I'm an amerikkka hater because standing up for my rights 'unnecessarily escalates the level of violence' and is 'incompatible with the 4th',  and besides, who needs probable cause, reasonable suspicion, a factual predicate or even human rights when you can take your case to 'civil' court before a State magistrate under admiralty law?


An 87.7% white state gets fractally fascistic (the state of being fascistic at every conceivable scale of resolution) and all of a sudden all the talk is about "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".  what a joke.

they shot your 7yr old daughter (your daughter amerikkka) in the face and took her life, then found out they raided the wrong house? just take em to civil court. (I generally tick the caucasian box).


get some! born to kill!

"how can you kill women and children?"

"easy! you just don't lead 'em so much. hahahahahahahha!"

all certified too ; )


"that's a scary job. Heard mortality rates on door gunners were pretty high...I can see why he'd go completely bonkers like that."

so it's ok then. especially since 'volunteering' to kill can make you totally crack up.

and...yeah, scotus is going to make it all better.

Now, instead of the reactionary bit, maybe some of you can understand my stupid avatar and handle and where I'm coming from.


Next time 'animal mother' pulls you over or tries to enter your home under the new, modern  interpretation of your rights and public policy, you may want to make him more comfortable by throwing a couple of grenades his way. 

You know, so he can show you what a great human being he is.

or you can be a mindful citizen, not cause 'undue violence' and take your case to civil court afterwards.


INDIANAPOLIS | Indiana State Capitol Police are investigating harassing phone calls and email messages directed to the Indiana Supreme Court following a controversial ruling issued last Thursday.


Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.

Wed, 05/18/2011 - 05:14 | 1286329 gangland
Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:00 | 1281304 GovernmentMule
GovernmentMule's picture


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:01 | 1281305 docmac324
docmac324's picture

Well, let them eat lead.  Go Hoosiers!

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:32 | 1281645 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:32 | 1281647 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

or steel at 1600 fps!

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:33 | 1281650 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

or tungstun if you can get them in a bottle neck!

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:04 | 1281307 docmac324
docmac324's picture

Well, let them eat lead.  Go Hoosiers!

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:18 | 1281358 outamyeffinway
outamyeffinway's picture

Right, Americans are going to fire on police at the door. That'll be the day. They'll roll over like a sack of potatoes (of the couch genus). Americans will regain their ingenuity from the squalor of peasantry.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:06 | 1281310 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

But it's not only Indiana destroying the bill of rights, it's also SCOTUS.

Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:09 | 1281541 Psquared
Psquared's picture


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:09 | 1281547 Psquared
Psquared's picture


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:10 | 1281559 Psquared
Psquared's picture

Exactly. By an 8-1 vote no less. Think you smell pot, knock on the door; think you hear a toilet flush (Your honor, I could have sworn that smell was pot burning and that noise was a toilet flushing - honest.) break down the door. All for what is a misdemeanor in most states.

The dumbing down of America is complete. Even the members of the US Supreme Court have forgotten that the 4th Amendment was passed because the British broke into the homes of rebels and raped their wives and daughters and took whatever they wanted. All of 4th Amendment jurisprudence was built around police abuse of power. We have come full circle and have learned nothing.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:49 | 1281689 Manthong
Manthong's picture

You know how quantum groups analogs of elliptic Cherednik algebras (elliptic double affine Hecke algebras) are related via Schur-Weyl duality?


If you do then you will understand why it is possible to side with Ginsberg against Scalia, Thomas and Alito on anything in the multiverse.


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:39 | 1281671 FreeNewEnergy
FreeNewEnergy's picture

HOLY CRAP. That was today. Guess I'll have to check for nearby cops when flushing my toilet, lest the gendarmes think I am flushing evidence.

This just gets more and more ridiculous every day. I want OUT!

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 20:33 | 1285355 Psquared
Psquared's picture

Thats just it. You cannot get out. You will be hounded for the rest of your natural life and your children after you. If they can figure out how to do it they will follow you into the after-life and hound you there eternally.

This is what is commonly referred to as hell or so much of it as the devil wants us to believe anyway. Of course, in the final analysis all the devil can do is make a bunch of noise and smoke. Evil (and it is running rampant right now) will lose, but it will scare a lot of people in the meantime.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:05 | 1281319 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Which part of Shall Not do you not understand, Justice David?

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:12 | 1281335 Turd Ferguson
Turd Ferguson's picture


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:39 | 1281382 wirtschaftswunder
wirtschaftswunder's picture

and the Nina and the Pinta and the Santa Maria

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:18 | 1281361 machineh
machineh's picture

The Bill of Rights was suspended by the USA Patriot Act. It is de facto martial law.

Welcome to the Conviction Machine. The Prison-Industrial complex wants you.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:38 | 1281438 Libertarian777
Libertarian777's picture

see this is the misinterpretation right there.

The Bill of Rights do not 'give' you ANY rights.

It merely 'enumerates' them.

Your rights exist with you, whether enumerated (listed/written) or not. They were enumerated in the constitution as restrictions on what the government may not abrogate. The Bill of Rights are NOT the only rights that you have. And consequently they CANNOT be 'suspended. It's only a practical matter of whether Law Enforcement chooses to obey an unconstitutional law (Patriot Act) or the law of the land (Constitution). Since their oaths are to UPHOLD the CONSTITUTION (NOT the 'Patroit Act' and NOT 'an Act of Congress') it is interesting how LEO are quick to forget who they serve (the people, NOT the government).


One of the founding fathers (I forget who) did not even want to have the bill of rights, as he stated that these are rights inherent to man, they need not be written.

e.g. the 2nd amendment is not there to give you a 'right' to own a gun. You have a right to self defense. There is no restriction on how you may defend yourself, although the government would have you believe so.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:40 | 1281459 machineh
machineh's picture

No misinterpretation, son -- I didn't say the Bill of Rights 'gives' any rights. I said it was suspended by the USA Patriot Act.

Didactical twerps like you give libertarianism a bad name.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:51 | 1281497 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

The Bill of Rights describes certain "inherent" rights that the government cannot pass laws against.  It's part of the Constitution.

The Constitution in the USA hasn't been respected for quite some time.  Perhaps just a decade, perhaps longer, depending on your emphasis.

Therefore: the Bill of Rights is a joke and should no longer be expected to mean much of anything.

My advice: keep your head down, submit when the JBT show up, and ideally, be white.

It's the best approach.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:01 | 1281544 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Enumerated rights or not. Codified and written down, or not.

Individuals only have those rights which they can secure for themselves. Our current situation is absolute proof that individuals unwilling to secure their rights, will see them evaporate, one by one.


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:21 | 1281603 seek
seek's picture

You have to respect the guy that took the case clear to the state supreme court -- he obviously was willing to secure his rights.

The court, however, is not.

It will be some more time, but this does not end well, either way it goes.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:47 | 1281664 Votewithabullet
Votewithabullet's picture

No shit it wont end well, we're on a rock in outer space, Hey blunderfuct, I was going 130 on my bike down the interstate in late 08 after a few beers with a dugout pipe packed full and the JBT were hiding in the weeds, long story short I decided to pull over AND I SWEAR TO ALLAH THE PIG NEVER GOT OUT OF HIS CAR, I kept turning over my arm admiring the color of my skin thinking if I was a brother they would have shot my ass. I gave a family friend $500 and he got the speeding dropped, illegal lane changes dropped I plead to 1 more reckless charge. 4 fucking points and not a drop of time.  Stay white niggers its your best defense.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:31 | 1281814 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

That's a great story. 

A guy with your kind of mind: next time I recommend you yell something like "Fuck you, pigs!" and reach inside your jacket for your cigarettes.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 09:44 | 1282647 trav7777
trav7777's picture

lol...poor blacks.

The speeding and red light cameras iz rayciss too.

Maybe if they didn't have a pathological disenfranchisement and victim complex, they wouldn't feel the need to mouth off to the po po after doing 130.

DWB is a myth.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:05 | 1281561 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture


Tue, 05/17/2011 - 03:02 | 1282168 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The Bill of Rights describes certain "inherent" rights that the government cannot pass laws against.  It's part of the Constitution.


Made me laugh. Who do you think you are going to fool with that story?

The US has not changed one bit since inception.

What has changed is that people who were on the right side of the fence are now falling on the other side of the fence, making them suddenly changing their mind on the US.

The US started as a slaver nation and robbed the Indians from their land. Your famous inherent rights were tossed from the very first second in the US history.

The US citizen nature is eternal.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 06:42 | 1282257 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"The US started as a slaver nation and robbed the Indians from their land. Your famous inherent rights were tossed from the very first second in the US history."

So, you're saying, because we were British subjects first we are inherently evil?

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 09:53 | 1282676 trav7777
trav7777's picture

it wasn't "their" land.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:16 | 1281363 Abitdodgie
Abitdodgie's picture

If you are a Federal citizen you have no choice. These adds are really annoying .If I have to watch adds I don't have to donate simple decision .

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:20 | 1281372 Blorf
Blorf's picture


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:39 | 1281668 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture
by Rodent Freikorps
on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:05

********************************************** Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:18 | 1281919 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

It all depends on what the meaning of the word "NOT" is. 

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 19:48 | 1285261 mkkby
mkkby's picture

It's badly written giving abusers a loop hole.  What part of "unreasonable" to you not understand.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:06 | 1281321 SgtSchultz
SgtSchultz's picture

I am afraid to ask......what next?

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:09 | 1281331 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Guns and bullets being taken away. By either seizing them, taxing them out of existance or, like in California, forcing a ``gun print on each bullet`` forced into all guns, which will make the price of guns skyrocket and will create a database of guns since people will have to comply with the law or be a felon.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:13 | 1281346 Clay Hill
Clay Hill's picture

For a freeman to voice the correct response is in itself now also a crime.

As for me, I know what comes next.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:22 | 1281923 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

Anything they fucking please.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:11 | 1281327 hognutz
hognutz's picture

Another nail in Liberty's coffin.....sad that we put up with this shit.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:09 | 1281336 lsbumblebee
lsbumblebee's picture

That's why I refuse to invest in Chile. Now I'll refuse to be caught dead in Indiana.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:12 | 1281343 outamyeffinway
outamyeffinway's picture

I think you misunderstood him. Chile is NOT like the US or Indiana int that regard.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:36 | 1281431 lsbumblebee
lsbumblebee's picture

I guess you could say anything is better compared to Pinochet.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:23 | 1281930 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

Roll over like cheap whore.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:10 | 1281339 outamyeffinway
outamyeffinway's picture

Passing laws from the bench again, fuckers.

They can keep this POS, I'm fucking out of here. Assholes. We've got the house up for sale and are starting to make arrangements. I can't stand it anymore.

What's that Marley song, "Exodus"........ More and more Americans will migrate but for most when they figure out the trap has long been sprung, it will be too late. They'll be so broke they won't be able to move across town.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:18 | 1281362 SgtSchultz
SgtSchultz's picture

May be a good idea to get that passport while you can.

State Dept. wants to make it harder to get a passport

The U.S. Department of State is proposing a new Biographical Questionnaire for some passport applicants: The proposed new  Form DS-5513 asks for all addresses since birth; lifetime employment history including employers’ and supervisors names, addresses, and telephone numbers; personal details of all siblings; mother’s address one year prior to your birth; any “religious ceremony” around the time of birth; and a variety of other information.  According to the proposed form, “failure to provide the information requested may result in … the denial of your U.S. passport application.”


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:38 | 1281450 Dejean Splicer
Dejean Splicer's picture

That's ridiculous. Do the israelis really need all of this information about us?

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:15 | 1281772 Widowmaker
Widowmaker's picture

Bingo.  Thank the Jews like Mr. cram patriot up your ass himself, Joe Lieberman. 

Hey Joe, how's that record bonus pool coming selling government data on citizens to Goldman Sachs?

national security.   Total ambiguity and bullshit.  Utter bullshit.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:32 | 1281422 I Got Worms
I Got Worms's picture

I want so badly to take my wife and baby son out of this country. The sad thing is, although we have the means and education to start over elsewhere, my wife (whom I love dearly, and breaks my heart to say) is bonefied sheeple and won't hear any of this "conspiracy talk." Ugh. Any other ZHers have to go through this shit at home?

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:39 | 1281453 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

My wife thinks I'm weak because I just want to hang traitors, while she thinks they should be impaled.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:42 | 1281835 Pegasus Muse
Pegasus Muse's picture

Yep.  Shish kabob gangster banksters.  Skewered and roasting.  Right out of Vlad the Impaler's "how to" book.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:33 | 1281944 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

@ I Got Worms;

There will come a day when you will just have to convince her. The alternative is waitng for her sheeple brain to overcome the conditioning. Good luck pal, hope you don't leave it too late. 

Remember, families were divided over these issues in the war of independence and were in the same set of circumstances in the war between the states. If push comes to shove, you need to be on the same page. Don't let that happen to you. Nothing out of the ordinary in interesting times.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:00 | 1281529 Broomer
Broomer's picture

Move to near the border, so that if you want to escape someday, it will be easier to do so.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:33 | 1281625 Renfield
Renfield's picture

Got Worms I'm with ya.

My husband - a wonderful man whom I love very much, and who loves me at least as much maybe more - will only let me go *so* far and no further. And that is after much, MUCH wearing down, on a near-daily basis sometimes, since 2006.

When we first bought gold (2007), he did it only because I literally was having a panic attack, seeing clearly for the first time what was happening to the fiat system and realising that we in effect had NO real money.

He did it then, purely for me, and we've been buying in increments ever since. As the (paper) gold value went up, he relaxed a little more and gradually became more comfy in PMs.

But he refuses to believe that government is NOT our friend, that corporates are the government, that we live in a fascist country, currency collapse, Greatest Depression, etc etc - after all these years he still thinks I'm kind of nuts and won't listen to much. He gets angry if I talk too long and blames 'those crackpot blogs' for 'messing with my head'.

It's intensely worrying, and I have to have a great deal of patience and faith, accepting that our progress can only be step by step as he comes to see what's happening.

He 'hates' financial news, finds it 'scary' and 'boring'. He's the only one in my family (parents, brothers, sisters, in-laws), who listens to me even this much.

So...all this to say, you aren't alone in that frustration and fear. I hate the thought that we could still be sitting ducks for our enemy government.

PS: We are not American. We just moved last year from Australia - which believe it or not is in way worse shape than the U.S., despite the resources - to Canada (dual citizenship). I hope some of you Yanks who are thinking of moving, flee up here. The government is pretty socialist but this country is used to it, and tends to ignore the government and its myriad rules more than you guys do. Which I think is a better thing on the whole than believing/in them or taking them seriously...but we could certainly use a lot more of Yankee outrage about the invasion of our rights and liberties. Up here, they've been trampled for so long that people are just used to it and a lot of us have learned to love the cage.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:41 | 1281979 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

Tell that dullard husband of yours to skim read the history of the United States' efforts to throw off the yoke of tyranny from ruling despots. Hasn't he heard of Nixon? What about Roosevelt? How about Wilson? How about Bush

x2, What about that stalwart for fiscal rectitude, Bernanke. Sorry to bash a loved one but fuck me purple if this crap has not gone too far. People need to wake the fuck up or be woken up.

Out of love, sit him down and gently rap him on the side of the head with a sock full of hard soap. Might knock him conscious.

Wed, 05/18/2011 - 03:46 | 1286286 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

Divorce that sheeple bastard, he's dangerous to your well being.

I suspect as govt gets more tyrannical more marriages of an alert knowledgeable person and a dumbass head-in-the-sand sheep are going to fall apart. 

That dumbass head-in-the-sand sheep is increasingly dangerous to your well being.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:15 | 1281761 SgtSchultz
SgtSchultz's picture

If you have not done so already, check out the resources and articles available from the web site of the author of the above piece "Simon Black" at He makes a strong case for "planting flags" in various areas around the world.  Perhaps you can sell her on the idea of geographic diversification as being simply prudent.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:46 | 1281983 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

If she doesn't wise up, just sell her.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:48 | 1281681 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture
by outamyeffinway
on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:10


What's that Marley song, "Exodus"........


try his son on for size..

or the man!


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:16 | 1281345 SuperRay
SuperRay's picture

What can we expect when that 'constitutional scholar' - the Capon-in-Chief - just looks serious and reads his teleprompter, while every important part of the constitution is ignored, stepped on, spat upon, and laughed at?

2+2=5. that's what the justice said. all you have to do is believe it with all your heart, and everything will be fine..

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:25 | 1281385 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

He said "policy" outweighs a fully spelled out constitutional right. Much what was used against the Arizona immigration law.


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:17 | 1281354 navy62802
navy62802's picture

This is a stupid decision by the Indiana Supreme Court. Because if you carry this argument out ad absurdem, you have no right to resist any common criminal who unlawfully breaks into your home. Another logical conclusion drawn from this opinion could be that no one ever has the right (in Indiana at least) to stop a police officer from committing an unlawful act, whatever that act may be.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:26 | 1281390 trav7777
trav7777's picture

certainly that will be argued by the police in the next case before that court.  Well, we heard a toilet flush or water running and assumed drug evidence or terrorist were being flushed.

Then, it's not so far from there to the police have uninhibited right to arrest illegally and all the rest of that.  This would overturn over a century of decisions affirming the right to resist illegal arrest with up to and including deadly force.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:15 | 1281355 NOTW777
NOTW777's picture

sad, but not surprising. judges no longer apply or interpret law, they make it.  this decision boldly admits that

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:18 | 1281356 fuu
fuu's picture

Don't Tread On Me bitches!

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:15 | 1281359 navy62802
navy62802's picture

This is a stupid decision by the Indiana Supreme Court. Because if you carry this argument out ad absurdem, you have no right to resist any common criminal who unlawfully breaks into your home. Another logical conclusion drawn from this opinion could be that no one ever has the right (in Indiana at least) to stop a police officer from committing an unlawful act, whatever that act may be.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 03:17 | 1282173 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

you have no right to resist any common criminal who unlawfully breaks into your home.


Another logical conclusion drawn from this opinion could be that no one ever has the right (in Indiana at least) to stop a police officer from committing an unlawful act, whatever that act may be.


What is stupid is to consider that the decision is not true to the US philosophy.

Equating a common criminal with a cop can not happen in the US logical framework.

The US, since its beginning, has edicted for the shop front windows, universal principles while showing their sense of justice is based on the quality of the person involved.

It is like claiming that negroes should have been freed because they were human beings and as such entitled to freedom. The US showed they prefered to consider the quality of a person rather than equality.

So you're just leaping in logics. In the US framework, a cop can not be equate with a common criminal because of them acting the same. The common criminal will keep being a common criminal while the cop will keep being a  police officer, no matter what they do.

Not their actions to be assessed but their very quality and as such, the same act can not call for the same treatment.

As to the rest, that no one has the right to stop a police officer from committing an unlawful act, it is another wrong deduction as the US, basing on the quality of the person, can  grant the right to stop a police officer from committing an unlawful act to a specific segment of the US population.

Same US logics here. It is like telling that as negroes were human beings and deprived from liberty, by US standards and unalienable rights,  everyone should be exposed to the risks of deprivation of liberty.

Something that did not happen of course as US citizens were protected from slavery by governmental institutions.


Your two conclusions are illogic in the US contextual framework and they deny the US history. 

The US citizen nature is eternal.


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:21 | 1281365 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

This is why I live in America. I know my rights are always protected and my government cares very much for me. So much in fact that they are willing to walk into my house and fuck my wife just for my own benefit....maybe even shit in my toilet and grab a Diet Coke out of my fridge, just for my benefit.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 01:01 | 1282007 Debt is Slavery
Debt is Slavery's picture

+one less aspartame delivery device in your fridge

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 02:12 | 1282125 LudwigVon
LudwigVon's picture

STFU for once.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:19 | 1281369 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Um...this decision would seem to be in CLEAR defiance of existing SCOTUS jurisprudence and will be reversed.

Either way, though; it is only a matter of time.  The Court, especially the rightside judges like Scalia, can seem to find NO limit to the police power of the State.  EVERYthing is reasonable because the State says so, and we must always conduct a "balance" test of the "legitimate State interest" against rights and the right always lose.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:25 | 1281396 Clay Hill
Clay Hill's picture

Don't rely on that old Right / Left paradigm, it no longer applies, if it ever did.

However, you are correct about it merely being a matter of time for certian issues to find resolution.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:34 | 1281950 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

the Righties on many of amerika's higher courts are fascist stooges...put in place for the purpose of cementing Corporate/State power. On the SC they are Catholics (& 1 crazed Unka Tom) with a fetish for hierarchical systems (natch)

OBSERVE the Lefties on that same court fighting a rearguard action against Corporatists and their enforcement divisions....

Left/Right IS a bullshit paradigm in our national politics...but it's the real deal in the SC...

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 01:38 | 1282070 Clay Hill
Clay Hill's picture


The leftists on the SC are not friends to be trusted either. They may be content to stay out of your bedroom, but are perfectly happy to raid your wallet. When given a choice between Rightist Fascism or Leftist Socialism, I reject both.

Niether side seems capable of just reading the Constitution as written.


The main point of my earlier post was that the trend of whipsawing between the two pre-approved memes has now reached the point of no return. Eventually, the camel's back will be broken.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 10:05 | 1282710 trav7777
trav7777's picture

huh?  Don't lecture me on left/right, ok?

I'm pointing out what certain Justices on the court typically rule.

The justices on the right like Scalia can find no limit to the police power of the State.  The 4th Amendment is an inconvenience and anachronism to them.  Stop and frisk, stop and sniff, stop and scan- they think it's ALL ok.

The justices on the left have their own amendments that they chisel at. 

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 11:13 | 1282834 Clay Hill
Clay Hill's picture

Maybe you missed the second sentence in my first post, or the entirety of my response to Banana. On the whole, I'd say we are in agreement.

To me, the more important thing to take away from this is that the further the courts lean toward unbridled power for the State, the closer they come to being completely invalidated.

Once that becomes offensive enough to the masses, ... well we've seen that scenario play itself out before, haven't we?

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:31 | 1281636 BlackholeDivestment
BlackholeDivestment's picture

 ...uh SkyNet says, the host of the law is ''guilty''. The host of the law is in contempt.  Warrant, cause, or foundation against the ''new order lawlessness/accused/host of the law'' is contempt of the law.  

There is no security but death?

Sounds satanic don't it? 

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:48 | 1281693 Forgiven
Forgiven's picture

They are scared shitless.  The people are waking up in droves.  When the feces flops on the hillbilly air-conditioner, the French Revolution will seem like a sunday school class compared to Revolution 2.0.


Legitimate state interests....that's pretty funny.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:28 | 1281807 samsara
samsara's picture

You mean   AmRev 2.0

If/When the collapse happens,  I agree with Kunstler,

"The authorities will be lucky just to answer the phones"

Most of the cops will be at home protecting their family.


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:41 | 1281832 Mister Meaner
Mister Meaner's picture
Supreme Court gives police a new entryway into homes The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times

May 16, 2011, 10:47 a.m.

That's SCOTUS's viewpoint on a similar matter. Law of the land my fellow serfs.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!