Skip to Content

Constitution

72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered “Potential Terrorists” In Official Government Documents

Read the entire list with references at :

At one time, the term “terrorist” was used very narrowly.  The government applied that label to people like Osama bin Laden and other Islamic jihadists.  But now the Obama administration is from terror training materials, and instead the term “terrorist” is being applied to large groups of American citizens.

And if you are a “terrorist”, that means that you have no rights and the government can treat you just like it treats the terrorists that are being held at Guantanamo Bay.  So if you belong to a group of people that is now being referred to as “potential terrorists”, please don’t take it as a joke.  The first step to persecuting any group of people is to demonize them.  And right now large groups of peaceful, law-abiding citizens are being ruthlessly demonized.

Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents.  To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link.  As you can see, this list covers most of the country…

California Forces Churches to Fund Abortions

It's been a while since I reposted a Chuck Norris article, so here ya go.  Read the whole thing at :

First, the mayor of Houston flagrantly violated clergy’s First Amendment rights, when she subpoenaed sermons, and she still refuses to rescind her mandate. And now California government officials are forcing churches and other faith-based organizations to fund abortions. What’s next?

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), the California Department of Managed Health Care has required that all insurance plans in the Golden State cover abortions immediately. The kicker is that California churches are no longer exempt from providing such coverage for their employees — despite the fact that earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare cannot force its abortion-prompting contraceptives down the throats of faith-based nonprofits.

Casey Mattox, an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom, explained the bizarre nature of this new California law to The Blaze. Churches “don’t have to provide contraception, but they have to provide abortion.” He explained in The Federalist that the origin for the decree was the American Civil Liberties Union’s pushing California officials to reclassify elective abortion as “basic health services.”

Bill Whittle on the Second Amendment

Idaho court: No constitutional right to share your city water with non-paying neighbor

I can't agree with this decision.  If I wanted to water my neighbor's lawn, fill their pool, or put out a grass fire with water that I get billed and pay for, I should be able to do that.  It is a separate issue that, in this case, the neighbor in question was not paying an outstanding debt to the water company.

Would the sharer have also been fined if his neighbor had come over to his house to get a drink or do their laundry?  What if they had gone to the YMCA to shower and the coin-op laundromat? Would they also be liable?  At :

A Spirit Lake man has lost a court appeal challenging a city fine he received for connecting his neighbor to his city water service via a hose, after the neighbor had been cut off for non-payment. Michael Freitas charged that the city couldn't constitutionally bar him from making a charitable gift of the water to his neighbor by running a hose across the alley. But the Idaho Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, upheld an earlier Kootenai County jury verdict that left Freitas with a $500 fine.

Attkisson: Border Patrol Says They’re Told 'Let as Many People Go as Possible'

At :

“Whether spoken or unspoken, there is a policy coming from the top, that they’re basically to be very lenient and try to let as many people go as possible, that’s what they think, that’s the message they think they’re receiving,” she stated on Thursday’s broadcast of “The Laura Ingraham Show.” She added that agents she has talked to believe “they’re being told not to do the job.”

Attkisson also reported that some of the court dates being given to illegal immigrants in the United States are for dates in 10 years, reporting, “I spoke to a member of Congress, if I understood him correctly, who said some of the court dates being given are 10 years out.”

The U.S. Supreme Court Is Marching in Lockstep with the Police State

Worth reading it all. Summary is below. :

A review of the Supreme Court’s rulings over the past 10 years, including some critical ones this term, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. 

Police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips.

Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they’re done in the name of security.

Citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it.

Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside.

Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime.

Police can stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike.

Police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the “offense.”

Ground Zero Cross: Court presses atheist group to explain why artifact is 'offensive'

Apparently, being offended is not grounds for legal action. :

A federal appeals court said this week that an atheist group trying to keep the so-called Ground Zero Cross out of the National September 11 Memorial Museum must better explain how displaying the artifact is “offensive” and violates members’ constitutional rights.

The 17-foot-tall, steel beam “cross” was found in the rubble of the World Trade Center twin towers in New York that fell during the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The cross became a sort of shrine or place of comfort for first responders who often prayed there and left messages or flowers. It was moved away from the debris a few weeks later and became a tourist attraction through several years of reconstruction.

American Atheists filed the suit in 2011, which was thrown out last year by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York.

The appeals court ruling Thursday cites an amicus brief filed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit law firm that specializes in church-state law and protecting the free expression of all religious traditions.

Syndicate content


by Dr. Radut