archives

tyranny

This tag is associated with 128 posts

Bob Dylan Arrested, Police Officer Says “That’s Not Bob Dylan”

(From the ‘News of the Weird’…)

Bob Dylan likes to wear hoodies in public — it helps him stay inconspicuous. But this time, it led to his detainment.

Bob Dylan Arrested, Police Officer Says “That’s Not Bob Dylan”
Caleb J. Murphy June 29, 2017 I Love Rock N Roll No Comments
Bob Dylan likes to wear hoodies in public — it helps him stay inconspicuous. But this time, it led to his detainment.
Bob Dylan
Bob Dylan
On a rainy night back in 2009 in some New Jersey suburbs, police responded to a call about an “eccentric-looking old man” wearing a hoodie wandering in someone’s yard.
Police officer Kristie Buble was the responding officer.
“We got a call for a suspicious person,” Buble told ABC. “It was pouring rain outside, and I was right around the corner so I responded. By that time he was walking down the street. I asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood and he said he was looking at a house for sale.”
When she detained the man, he said his name was Bob Dylan.
“Now, I’ve seen pictures of Bob Dylan from a long time ago and he didn’t look like Bob Dylan to me at all,” Officer Buble said. “He was wearing black sweatpants tucked into black rain boots, and two raincoats with the hood pulled down over his head.”
So she started questioning this man.
“Okay, Bob,” she asked him. “What are you doing in Long Branch [New Jersey]?”
He said he was touring the country with Willie Nelson and John Mellencamp.
“So now I’m really a little fishy about his story,” she explains.

Bob Dylan likes to wear hoodies in public — it helps him stay inconspicuous. But this time, it led to his detainment.
Bob Dylan
Bob Dylan
On a rainy night back in 2009 in some New Jersey suburbs, police responded to a call about an “eccentric-looking old man” wearing a hoodie wandering in someone’s yard.
Police officer Kristie Buble was the responding officer.
“We got a call for a suspicious person,” Buble told ABC. “It was pouring rain outside, and I was right around the corner so I responded. By that time he was walking down the street. I asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood and he said he was looking at a house for sale.”
When she detained the man, he said his name was Bob Dylan.
“Now, I’ve seen pictures of Bob Dylan from a long time ago and he didn’t look like Bob Dylan to me at all,” Officer Buble said. “He was wearing black sweatpants tucked into black rain boots, and two raincoats with the hood pulled down over his head.”
So she started questioning this man.
“Okay, Bob,” she asked him. “What are you doing in Long Branch [New Jersey]?”
He said he was touring the country with Willie Nelson and John Mellencamp.
“So now I’m really a little fishy about his story,” she explains.
Bob Dylan
photo via The Odyssey Online
Then she asked him for his ID, but he didn’t have any on him. She asked where he was staying and he said in a tour bus parked at a hotel by the ocean.
She found this very suspicious.
But she went along with his story as her training taught her. She asked him to take her to this hotel, so she put him in the back of her cruiser and off they went.
“To be honest with you, I didn’t really believe this was Bob Dylan,” she said. “It never crossed my mind that this could really be him.”
Buble made small talk on the way to the hotel, never believing a word he said.
“He was really nice, though, and he said he understood why I had to verify his identity and why I couldn’t let him go,” she said. “He asked me if I could drive him back to the neighborhood when I verified who he was, which made me even more suspicious.”
But she pulled into the hotel parking lot and what do you know — there were huge tour buses parked in the lot. Also, Buble’s Sargent was there waiting for her.
“Sarg,” she said. “This guy says he’s Bob Dylan,’”
The Sargent looked in the window.
“That’s not Bob Dylan,” the Sargent said.
But they went over to the tour buses and knocked on the door. Soon enough, Bob Dylan was able to prove his identity to Buble and her Sargent with his passport.

“Okay,” Buble sheepishly said. “Um, have a nice day.”

h/t Crazy4Rock

There is, of course, a larger message here.  (One’s opinion of Bob Dylan and the misspelling of Sergeant, aside…)

Persons being ‘detained’ because they cannot identify themselves.

Do you have to carry ID with you at all times? – link

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that these kinds of laws can be legal, as long as the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain you in the first place.

And how sad is THAT?

When I took a Criminal Law course (back in the olden days) there was a then famous case wherein a subject was walking along along a beach with no ID.  At 0300.  The police stopped and questioned him, as he appeared ‘suspicious’  Seemed he was carrying a large beach ball, and wearing swim fins!

He wasn’t harming anyone or anything.

(This may have been the case that made it to the Supreme Court)

Turned out, the subject was a local city councilman testing the police’s authority!

My point is, in a free society, we shouldn’t have to ID ourselves, unless the police have at a minimum reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed nearby.  OR, probable cause you might be a viable suspect. (and NO, I am NOT a lawyer…)

“Papiere, bitte.” (translation, “Papers, please”)

From the history of that country who brought us those Nazis everyone is talking about!

I Never Thought I’d Agree With Al Jazeera, Let Alone Post Something From It!

My good friend, veteran (and sometime blogger) Donovan posted this on Facebook, with the following comment:

Well. This is interesting. I agree with this. When even Al Jazeera says you’ve gone too far, I sit up and take notice. This applies to BOTH sides of the political aisle.

In 1943, the US War Department released this video to tell Americans not to fall for fascist rhetoric. Share this video if you’ve heard language like this recently.

AMEN, Brother!

I don’t mind saying, watching this made me a little misty…

Certainly, we should stand up for American Values.  And one of these values is Individual Liberty for All.

(My apologies to Donovan and Tom.  In an earlier post, I confused you two…)

Ghost Voters

(from National Review)

At least 3.5 million more people are on U.S. election rolls than are eligible to vote.

Some 3.5 million more people are registered to vote in the U.S. than are alive among America’s adult citizens. Such staggering inaccuracy is an engraved invitation to voter fraud.

The Election Integrity Project of Judicial Watch — a Washington-based legal-watchdog group — analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011–2015 American Community Survey and last month’s statistics from the federal Election Assistance Commission. The latter included figures provided by 38 states. According to Judicial Watch, eleven states gave the EAC insufficient or questionable information. Pennsylvania’s legitimate numbers place it just below the over-registration threshold.

My tabulation of Judicial Watch’s state-by-state results yielded 462 counties where the registration rate exceeded 100 percent. There were 3,551,760 more people registered to vote than adult U.S. citizens who inhabit these counties.

“That’s enough over-registered voters to populate a ghost-state about the size of Connecticut,” Judicial Watch attorney Robert Popper told me.

These 462 counties (18.5 percent of the 2,500 studied) exhibit this ghost-voter problem. These range from 101 percent registration in Delaware’s New Castle County to New Mexico’s Harding County, where there are 62 percent more registered voters than living, breathing adult citizens — or a 162 percent registration rate.

Washington’s Clark County is worrisome, given its 154 percent registration rate. This includes 166,811 ghost voters. Georgia’s Fulton County seems less nettlesome at 108 percent registration, except for the number of Greater Atlantans, 53,172, who compose that figure.

But California’s San Diego County earns the enchilada grande. Its 138 percent registration translates into 810,966 ghost voters. Los Angeles County’s 112 percent rate equals 707,475 over-registrations. Beyond the official data that it received, Judicial Watch reports that LA County employees “informed us that the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144 percent of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.”

All told, California is a veritable haunted house, teeming with 1,736,556 ghost voters. Judicial Watch last week wrote Democratic secretary of state Alex Padilla and authorities in eleven Golden State counties and documented how their election records are in shambles.

“California’s voting rolls are an absolute mess that undermines the very idea of clean elections,” said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton in a statement. “It is urgent that California take reasonable steps to clean up its rolls. We will sue if state officials fail to act.”

Ronald Reagan’s California has devolved into a reliably far-Left stronghold. While pristine voter rolls should be a given in a constitutional republic with democratic elections, even that improvement might be too little to make America’s most populous state competitive in presidential elections.

The same cannot be said for battleground states, in which Electoral College votes can be decided by incredibly narrow margins. Consider the multitude of ghost voters in: Colorado: 159,373 Florida: 100,782 Iowa: 31,077 Michigan: 225,235 New Hampshire: 8,211 North Carolina: 189,721 Virginia: 89,979 (For a deeper dive into these data, please download my spreadsheet here.)

President Donald J. Trump’s supporters might be intrigued to learn that Hillary Clinton’s margins of victory in Colorado (136,386) and New Hampshire (2,736) were lower than the numbers of ghost voters in those states.

Clinton’s fans should know that Trump won Michigan (10,704) and North Carolina (173,315) by fewer ballots than ghost voters in those states. It’s past time to exorcise ghost voters from the polls. Perhaps these facts will encourage Democrats to join the GOP-dominated effort to remove ineligible felons, ex-residents, non-citizens, and dead people from the voter rolls — for all contests, not just presidential races.

“When you have an extremely large number of stale names on the voter rolls in a county, it makes voter fraud much easier to commit,” Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R., Kan.), co-chairman of President Trump’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, told me. “It’s easier to identify a large number of names of people who have moved away or are deceased. At that point, if there is no photo-ID requirement in the state, those identities can be used to vote fraudulently.”

In fact, CBS’s Windy City affiliate last October compared local vote records with the Social Security Administration’s master death file. “In all,” the channel concluded, “the analysis showed 119 dead people have voted a total of 229 times in Chicago in the last decade.” KCBS–Los Angeles reported in May 2016 that 265 dead voters had cast ballots in southern California “year after year.”

Under federal law, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act and the 2002 Help America Vote Act require states to maintain accurate voter lists. Nonetheless, some state politicians ignore this law. Others go further: Governor Terry McAuliffe (D., Va.) vetoed a measure last February that would have mandated investigations of elections in which ballots cast outnumbered eligible voters.

Even more suspiciously, when GOP governor Rick Scott tried to obey these laws and update Florida’s records, including deleting 51,308 deceased voters, Obama’s Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit to stop him. Federal prosecutors claimed that Governor Scott’s statewide efforts violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act, although it applies to only five of Florida’s 67 counties. Then–attorney general Eric Holder and his team behaved as if Martin Luther King Jr. and the Freedom Riders fought so valiantly in order to keep cadavers politically active. Whether Americans consider vote fraud a Republican hoax, a Democratic tactic, or something in between, everyone should agree that it’s past time to exorcise ghost voters from the polls.

READ MORE:

Why Are Democrats Afraid of the Election Integrity Commission?

The Obama Administration’s Ugly Legacy of Undermining Electoral Integrity

The Left Is Undermining Confidence in Our Elections

— Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a contributing editor with National Review Online

AH! The ‘Stuff’ Of The Internet…

I try to limit the flotsam and jetsam (i.e. Spam) in my primary email inboxes.  Not because I fear viruses (I do!) but because they are a waste of time.

But, spam filters being imperfect, sometimes ‘things’ get through!

Witness below:

(From a free DVD!)

Would You Like To Own A 100% Legal Glock 9mm That The Government Doesn’t Know Exists?…
Using Nothing But A Hacksaw, File, Drill And This Breakthrough FREE DVD You Can Literally Create A Fully Functional Undetectable Glock 9mm In Your Garage In Under An Hour, Just Like This…
P.S. This is currently 100% legal in all 50 states and I’d love to give it to you for free right now…
(Now, if memory serves, BATFE rules state you can ‘make’ your own firearm for personal use.  Whether or not this kind of ‘making’ is allowed under the rules I’m reluctant to test!  And the rules may have been changed w/o them notifying me!)
Not to mention, I’m mechanically challenged.  I can completely disassemble (and reassemble) a standard AR15, a S&W ‘old-school’ revolver and most Browning-designed semiautomatics.  I ‘accurized’ a 1911 by taking a raw barrel bushing and using only my hands, sanded the barrel contact surface until the barrel just made it through.  Took about 4 hours.
BUT, building a ghost gun from parts?!
Yeah, I don’t know…
Plus, what if you are carrying it and questioned by the local police.  Will they know it is technically legal?
And there’s that whole BATFE thing!
Not for me!
To the spam cave!
(If you are interested in such things, I’m certain the Internet will provide the link.  I won’t.)

 

Second Amendment Guarantee Act Would Protect Popular Rifles, Shotguns from Antigun Politicians

(from NRA/ILA)

This week, Congressman Chris Collins (R-NY) introduced legislation that would shield popular rifles and shotguns, including the AR-15, from being banned under state laws. The bill, known as the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), would also protect parts for these firearms, including detachable magazines and ammunition feeding devices.
The bill is a response to antigun laws in a small handful of states – including California, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York – that criminalize the mere possession of highly popular semiautomatic long guns widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although rifles or shotguns of any sort are used less often in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even hands, fists, and feet, gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to public safety.
Ask Your Representative to support the Second Amendment Guarantee Act
Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.
TAKE ACTION TODAY
Anti-gunners’ focus on these so-called “assault weapons” was renewed after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision made clear that handguns – by far the type of firearm most commonly used in crime – were subject to Second Amendment protection and could not be banned. This led gun control advocates to seek out other sorts of guns to demonize, and they’ve since been strenuously promoting the myth that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips or adjustable stocks are “weapons of war” with no legitimate civilian use.
Yet Americans overwhelmingly choose these types of firearms for legitimate purposes, including protection of their homes and properties, “three-gun” and other practical shooting sports, and hunting and pest control. And, indeed, the states’ legislative attempts to ban these guns has spurred a market for innovative products that use the same basic calibers and firing mechanisms, but with stock, grip, and accessory configurations that comply with legislative guidelines.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to review any of these state bans, lower courts have come up with increasingly strained readings of the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedents to try to justify them. The Seventh Circuit, for example, held that even if a ban’s incursion on Second Amendment rights had no beneficial effect on safety whatsoever, it could still be justified on the basis of the false sense of security it might impart to local residents with exaggerated fears of the banned guns. “[I]f it has no other effect,” the majority opinion stated, the challenged “ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety.” That’s hardly an acceptable offset for the infringement of a constitutional right.
Members of the Supreme Court have criticized their colleagues for failing to review these cases and the lower courts for misapplying Supreme Court precedent. As noted in a dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Heller’s author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, “Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles.” Moreover, the “overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.” “Under our precedents,” Thomas concluded, “that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”
With states’ violating Americans’ rights and federal courts allowing them to act with impunity, it is up to Congress to ensure that all Americans, wherever they may live, have access the best, most modern and innovative firearms for their lawful needs, including the protection of themselves and their families.
The SAGA would ensure that state regulations could not effectively prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law or impose any prohibitive taxes, fees, or design limitations on such firearms.
The NRA thanks Rep. Chris Collins for leading this important effort and urges his colleagues to cosponsor and support this staunchly pro-gun legislation.
Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.

IT’S ABOUT TIME!

Where were bills like this when the various ‘assault weapon bans’ were introduced?  Of course, the political climate has changed.

Let’s support bills like this before the pendulum swings back again the other way!

The truly sad part is if State and federal legislators truly followed their oaths, none of this would be necessary.

Does Possession Of A Firearm Justify A Stop And Frisk?

(from Tamara, via FB)

No automatic alt text available.

Guy A. Relford

If you carry a gun, you should know that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has ruled that you have relinquished your rights under the Fourth Amendment (contrary to the holding of the Indiana Supreme Court).

Please share!

http://www.wibc.com/…/indiana-ag-citizens-dont-forfeit-thei…

(AND, the comment posted below which takes the Internets!)

Ed Blade Sooo…exercising one right negates another???

 

Freedom-Of-Speech On One College Campus…

Or not…

“I was told that I couldn’t speak, I couldn’t express my concerns, and I couldn’t ask any questions because I’m White.”

McKenzie Kyger is a white Evergreen State College student who made news when she appeared at a public legislative hearing about the problems at Evergreen related to Prof. Bret Weinstein.

Kyger told the legislators about her experience with pervasive anti-white racism being taught as part of the integral model of social justice learning currently foregrounded in American universities.

We covered her testimony in the post Evergreen Student: ‘I’ve been told I’m not allowed to speak because I’m white’.

(…)

Kyger sat down for an interview with Benjamin Boyce (Patreon page here) and shared her thoughts on “social justice” and the distressing state of Evergreen. (h/t Badger Pundit)

Kyger is the type of student whom colleges embraced only a few years ago.  She’s open-minded, has absorbed and speaks fluently the language of the regressive handbook on “diversity” and “social justice,” she’s not a conservative, and she’s definitely not a racist.  That she is now experiencing what so many white college students across the country are should sound alarms on the left, particularly among white progressives.

Kyger talked about her experience at the college and how it affected her.  For example, she discusses her experiences with the faculty and students who “overgeneralize” and state that “all white people” are the root of all problems, she explains how “social justice” has become a battering ram and weapon that is hurting higher education and students, and she describes her experience being shut out of a student event on campus explicitly because she is white.  After walking down a hallway lined with other white students denied admittance, she agreed to the terms (that she not speak and stand in the back).

h/t truthrevolt.org, Legal Insurrection

I remember being on a college campus in the 70s.  There were folding tables set up on the mall.  Some for the Vietnam War; some against.  Some about saving the planet.

Some about Greek Week!

ALL speech was welcomed!

And sometimes, there were confrontations…

What happened?

A Scarlet Letter For Gun Owners!

(from Gun Talk Media – SAF)

A Scarlet Letter for Gun Owners

Imagine being a grandfather seeking custody of his grandson. The state says that will be okay, but you’ll have to give us the serial numbers of all your guns. A caseworker says, “If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.”

You appeal to a court of law, and the judge says, “We know we are violating numerous constitutional rights here, but if you do not comply, we will remove the boy from your home.”

That’s what happened in Michigan, and it is why the Second Amendment Foundation has filed suit against that state’s Department of Health and Human Services. The state prohibits foster parents and adoptive parents from having guns — a clear violation of constitutional rights — fully acknowledged by the judge. (Hear from attorney David Sigale this Sunday on Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk Radio!)

This kind of branding gun owners as less desirable is part of a larger pattern, where zoning laws treat gun stores as though they were sex shops, and won’t allow them near schools. Responsible gun owners and shooters are treated, by law, in ways that other identifiable groups would never stand for. Get a permit for free speech? Have financial services denied through a government program (Operation Choke Point)? Be required to be photographed, fingerprinted, and have a mandatory background check to exercise what clearly is a fundamental right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

We simply must challenge every single one of these blatant discriminatory laws and practices, and it takes all of us. It takes the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, state groups, and individuals — you and me. It’s why I created the Gun Talk Truth Squad more than a decade ago — so we can challenge each one of these. So we WILL challenge every media slight, smear, and lie. Every. Single. Time.

A lie left unchallenged becomes the truth.

~Tom

 

Tom Gresham
Author, outdoorsman, gun rights activist, and firearms enthusiast for more than five decades, Tom Gresham hosts Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk, the first nationally-syndicated radio show about guns and the shooting sports, and is also the producer and co-host of the Guns & Gear, GunVenture and First Person Defender television series.

This kind of unconstitutional BS really torques my jaw!

We have won many battles, but have not yet won the war.  We must continue to be vigilant.

 

Anti-Libertarian Ideologies On The March: The Existential Threat To Liberty

(From Libertarianism.org)

Tom Palmer lectures on modern threats to liberalism and individualism, exploring the philosophical roots of these threats and explaining the danger they pose. He touches on the theocratic threat of Islamism and the leftist threat of identity politics, but the bulk of the discussion focuses on the recent re-emergence of the type of nationalist, racist collectivism previously exhibited by fascists in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s.

The slides associated with Palmer’s lecture are posted on SlidesLive.

I’m a ‘conservative’ libertarian.  I disagree with the National (Libertarian) Party on a number of points, mostly regarding open borders.

But, I still believe all liberty-loving folks need to band together, regardless of minor sticking points, to battle the evils of Statism.

Lest we lose it all over infighting!

 

You Have A Constitutional Right To Take Photos Of Police, Federal Court Affirms

Photographing and filming police officers in public is a constitutional right protected by the First Amendment. That’s what a federal appeals court unanimously affirmed this week in cases involving Philadelphia officers retaliating against citizens pointing cameras at them.

Slate reports that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was for two cases. In one, a woman named Amanda Geraci was restrained across the neck by a police officer while trying to film the arrest of an anti-fracking protester. In the second, a Temple undergraduate named Richard Fields was handcuffed and prosecuted after trying to film officers breaking up a house party.

A District Court previously had ruled that both Geraci and Fields had engaged in “conduct” only and not “expressive conduct,” and that therefore their filming wasn’t a First Amendment “freedom of speech” issue. But in Friday’s ruling, the Federal Appeals Court disagreed.

“Every Circuit Court of Appeals to address this issue […] has held that there is a First Amendment right to record police activity in public,” the judges write in their opinion. “Today we join this growing consensus. Simply put, the First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public.”

“The First Amendment protects actual photos, videos, and recordings, […] and for this protection to have meaning the Amendment must also protect the act of creating that material.”

“We ask much of our police,” the judges write in the closing statements. “They can be our shelter from the storm. Yet officers are public officials carrying out public functions, and the First Amendment requires them to bear bystanders recording their actions. This is vital to promote the access that fosters free discussion of governmental actions, especially when that discussion benefits not only citizens but the officers themselves.”

So there you have it: police officers don’t have the right to squash free speech by ordering you to stop shooting photos of them in public.


Image credits: Header illustration based on photo by Elvert Barnes and licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

h/t John Gwillam, Facebook

IT’S ABOUT TIME!

Don’t you always hate it when Rights you believed to be self-evident truths have to work their way up the judicial chain just to be affirmed as valid?

Of course, this hasn’t yet reached The Supreme Court(!)

Who knows?

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…