Rutherford Institute Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Rein in Aggressive, Coercive, Potentially Violent Knock-and-Talk Practices by Militarized Police

by Rutherford Institute


WASHINGTON, D.C. — Warning of the danger to the public from the increasing use of “knock and talk” tactics by police, The Rutherford Institute has asked the United States Supreme Court to rein in aggressive “knock and talk” practices, which have become thinly veiled, warrantless attempts by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.

In asking the Court to review the case of Young v. Borders, Rutherford Institute attorneys denounced a lower court ruling that failed to hold police accountable for banging on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failing to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shooting and killing the innocent homeowner who answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. Although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or lifted his firearm against police, he was gunned down by police who were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.

n an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court, Institute attorneys argue that the police violated the Fourth Amendment in conducting the “knock and talk” because the late-night raid at Scott’s home was an abuse of society’s norms and a trespass on Scott’s property. The Institute has also issued constitutional guidelines to educate the public about what they can do to preserve their constitutional rights against the coercive use of “knock and talks” by police as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against warrantless, unreasonable searches.

The Rutherford Institute’s amicus curiae brief in Young v. Borders is available at www.rutherford.org.

“Government officials insist that there is nothing unlawful, unreasonable or threatening about the prospect of armed police dressed in SWAT gear knocking on doors in the middle of night and ‘asking’ homeowners to engage in warrantless ‘knock-and-talk’ sessions,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “However, as Andrew Scott learned, there’s always a price to pay for saying no to such heavy-handed requests by police. If the courts continue to sanction such aggressive, excessive, coercive tactics, it will give police further incentive to terrorize and kill American citizens without fear of repercussion.”

On July 15, 2012, Deputy Richard Sylvester pursued a speeding motorcyclist, which he later had cause to believe might be armed and had been spotted at a nearby apartment complex. Around 1:30 a.m., Sylvester and three other deputies began knocking on doors in the apartment complex in the vicinity of the parked motorcycle, starting with Apt. 114, which was occupied by Andrew Scott and Amy Young, who were playing video games and had no connection to the motorcycle or any illegal activity. The deputies assumed tactical positions, guns drawn and ready to shoot. Sylvester, without announcing he was a police officer, then banged loudly and repeatedly on the door. Unnerved by the banging at such a late hour, Andrew Scott retrieved his handgun before opening the door. When Scott saw a shadowy figure holding a gun outside his door, he retreated into his apartment only to have Sylvester immediately open fire. Sylvester fired six shots, three of which hit and killed Scott. A trial court subsequently ruled in favor of the police, ruling that Scott was to blame for choosing to retrieve a handgun before opening the door. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Sylvester was protected by “qualified immunity,” reasoning that the use of excessive force did not violate “clearly established law.”



Don’t Buy The Carbon Dioxide Tax Myth – It Just Means More Government Control

By H. Sterling Burnett


The carbon dioxide tax is like the Hydra of myth. Every time some hero cut one of the Hydra’s heads off, two more sprang up in its place. The same is true for the carbon dioxide tax. Every time a version of the carbon dioxide tax is proposed, economists and other analysts deftly cut its head off, showing its promises of climate salvation and economic prosperity to be false, myths like the Hydra itself, yet two more versions of the tax arise.

Progressives and socialists embrace the carbon dioxide tax myth to promote more government control, their control, over the economy and peoples’ lives.

Sadly, a number of old mossback, Rockefeller Republicans have also embraced the myth of the carbon dioxide tax. The main attraction for them seems to be their belief they can create a revenue-neutral carbon dioxide tax. For them, it’s just a matter of political engineering. The problem is, the idea a carbon dioxide tax can be revenue neutral is just as much of a myth as that it will save the earth from climate doom (as if the earth needed saving, which the best science shows it doesn’t), or that it will increase jobs and boost the economy.

As my colleague James Taylor has persuasively written, no carbon dioxide tax is revenue neutral for the households being taxed. A carbon dioxide tax raises the price of coal, natural gas, and gasoline in an attempt to force consumers to purchase more expensive wind power, solar power, and electric vehicles. Although consumers will spend substantially more money on energy and energy-related bills, the wind and solar industries will pay no carbon dioxide taxes.

As Taylor points out, the tax revenue generated by a “successful” carbon dioxide tax — one that significantly reduces carbon dioxide emissions — will decline sharply over time, leaving little money to return to the people. Thus, although the government would not receive much revenue to return to consumers from the tax, people, now paying substantially more for their energy bills, will face a dramatic decline in their discretionary household incomes.

Nor will the tax be revenue neutral for households with workers in the fossil fuel industry or related fields. The idea that all the oil field workers, coal miners, coal and natural gas power plant operators, and those working in chemical and plastics manufacturing will be able to smoothly transition to other jobs without a hitch is a myth as well: their household incomes will fall sharply in the short-term if not permanently. And even if they could simply snap their fingers and magically switch jobs, the jobs they would be taking installing and servicing solar panels and wind turbines simply don’t pay as well as the jobs they will be forced out of by the carbon dioxide tax.

Nor, in truth, could any carbon dioxide tax be truly neutral in terms of government revenue.

Even if Congress and the president keep their hands out of the till, not finding creative ways to spend whatever new revenue a carbon dioxide tax generates, and returns it through some scheme to the people being taxed, it’s simply a fact a good portion of the revenue generated by the tax will be diverted to the bureaucracies involved in collecting it and disbursing the tax checks. No government program is cost-free.

Just as with every other government program, there will be huge transaction costs for collecting, tracking, auditing and archiving taxes paid and revenues paid out. New employees will have to be hired, or existing federal government workers will have to divert their time from other responsibilities, to account for the carbon dioxide taxes to be paid, assure that they are paid, to police the program, and to send out the revenue checks and handle complaints when disputes arise.

These and other costs will eat up billions of dollars each year. Unless these costs are paid directly out of the carbon dioxide tax revenues — in which case all the revenues will not be returned to taxpayers as promised — then the government will have to impose other taxes or take on additional debt to pay for the program. So much for revenue neutrality.

Anyone who tells you paying a new tax will be good for you, especially a tax on fossil fuels that serve to power the economic prosperity we currently enjoy, is lying. In the meantime, hang onto your wallets and when the time comes, vote any and all policymakers who support carbon taxes out of office.


The Wrap Up Smear

                            

 

                                                                                

The Wrap Up Smear

This is the Democratic party at it’s best. Lie,smear,slander and then publish it.                 

       Brought to you by the leaders in communist propaganda and fake news

                        Meet the face of the Democratic party.

 
 
                                                                                
                                                              

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMJdDwQlcc8

                       
                                                                              
                                                                                  
 
                                                                             

Movie of the year?

    This is going to be the pillow fight of the year. A pro-life movie that’s partially financed by MyPillow CEO Michael Lindell. For many this will be what is known as a “significant social event.”
 
                   

                                      “Unplanned”

 
                                                            

A woman's right

Abortion doctor explains a woman’s right to choose what she does ‘with her own body’.

 
 

       And this ladies and gentlemen reveals the character of today's liberals,

   it's not murder, it's just a woman's right to rip her unborn child into pieces

   small enough that it won't clog the toilet when she flushes.

      This is the platform that the democratic politicians promote to get elected. We are supposed to vote for them....

                                       

“Because they care about the ‘little’ people’’.

 
 


Acid Rain - Monitoring SO2 in a Flue Gas Desulfurization Unit

by Applied Analytics


From the 1970s through the 1990s, acid rain was the main environmental concern. Lakes1, vegetation2 and animals3 were affected.

The New York Times reported in 1979:“The rapid rate at which rainfall is growing more acidic in more areas has led many scientists and governmental officials to conclude that acid rain is developing into one of the most serious worldwide environmental problems of the coming decades.”4

What is acid rain?
 
Acid rain simply refers to rain or other precipitants that have uncommonly high acidity. This is a result of SO2 in the air that dissolves in water creating sulfuric acid. The source of this SO2 is largely power plants that burn fossil fuels.
 
EPA
 
The EPA, under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, created the Acid Rain Program (ARP). The aim was to reduce the amount of NO2 and SO2 emissions, while allowing for the industry to employ cost-effective technology to achieve this goal. As the following graph shows, the program was a remarkable success.

Figure 1. SO2 Emissions from CSAPR and ARP Sources, 1980–2016 (ARP- The Acid Rain Program; CSAPR -Cross-State Air Pollution Rule)5

The EPA reports concluded that experience with the Clean Air Act since 1970 has shown that protecting public health and building the economy can go hand in hand.6 Furthermore, “The emissions reductions have led to dramatic improvements in the quality of the air that we breathe. Between 1990 and 2017, national concentrations of air pollutants improved... 88 percent for sulfur dioxide”7


Figure 2. Note. Data for SO2 concentration from SO2 Air Quality, 1980-2017 (Annual 99th percentile of Daily Max 1-hour Average) National Trend based on 42 sites. 90% decrease in national average8

The Technology
 
Flue gas desulfurization units are used to remove SO2 from flue gas; the process is also called scrubbing. The most common type is limestone scrubbing, in which the flue gas is stripped by dissolution into water. The stripped gas reacts with the limestone (CaCO3) resulting in solid residue, in this case calcium sulfite (CaSO3). The scrubbing efficiency is usually higher than 90%. To achieve this level of efficiency, the concentration of SO2 must be monitored both before and after the process.
 
The Analysis
 
The OMA-300 measures a full, high-resolution spectrum. This allows for both applications to be monitored continuously by the same analyzer, from 4000 ppm to 10 ppm full scale. Hence, it provides an indication of the process’ effectiveness by measuring the SO2 before and after the flue gas desulfurization unit.


Figure 3: Absorbance spectra of SO2 40 ppm and 4000 ppm, demonstrating that one analyzer can be used for both applications simultaneously. The absorbances at different wavelengths are correlated to the SO2 concentration.

The Future
 
While controlling industrial SO2 emission in North America and Western Europe has been largely successful, acid rain is still a problem in rapidly growing economies such as China and India. Even the famous Taj Mahal in Agra is facing corrosion of its marble9. Hopefully, in the very near future, these burgeoning regions will implement the same technology and regulations that worked so well in more established countries.
 
References
 
1. WILLIAM K. STEVENSJAN , ‘Study of Acid Rain Uncovers a Threat To Far Wider Area’, New York times, 16, 1990.
2. WILLIAM K. STEVENSAPRIL, ‘The Forest That Stopped Growing: Trail Is Traced to Acid Rain’ New York Times, 16, 1996 .
3. LES LINEMARCH ‘Acid Rain Leading to Moose Deaths’ , New York Times, 12, 1996.
4. (BAYARD WEBSTERNOV. “Acid Rain: An Increasing Threat” New York Times 6,11, 1979).
9. Henry Fountain and John Schwartz ‘Have We Passed the Acid Test?’ New York Times May 2, 2018


Get Ready-- they're coming for your money

I really wish this article wasn’t so dead on but I’m afraid it is. It seems that the propaganda wing of the ‘educators’ today left out the part about Marxism. It always ends up with a 100% Tax and “"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" ”
 

 
 

Throughout history, whenever the wealth gap gets large enough, it gets corrected.

If you are having trouble viewing this email, or you'd like to share this article, please click here.

Please enable images for the best reading experience


January 22, 2019
Dorado, Puerto Rico

Every so often throughout history, the peasants grab their pitchforks and come for the elite. It happens when the wealth gap grows too extreme… when people feel like they are getting left behind, with no opportunity to advance.

Central banks around the world have printed trillions of dollars over last decade, and pushed interest rates to zero, and sometimes below. And all of that stimulus went directly into the pockets of the wealthy.

Since 2009, the world’s billionaires more than DOUBLED their combined wealth. All the billionaires in the world had $3.4 trillion in 2009. By 2017, they amassed $8.9 trillion.

Mark Zuckerberg multiplied his wealth almost 20 times over, from $3 billion in 2009, to over $58 billion in 2019.

$8.9 trillion is a massive, almost incomprehensible amount of wealth.

But it really shouldn’t be that surprising if you think about it… these people are wealthy for a reason. Typically, they are pretty good at making money. And with the snowball effect, if you give them more time, they will probably make even more.

For the last ten years, we’ve seen a huge asset price inflation in everything from the stock market, to bonds and real estate, and even fine art and wine.

But if you’re a wage earner without assets, you’ve been left out. Wages and median household wealth have stagnated.

And this is a global issue…

The combined wealth of the poorest half of the world--3.8 billion people--fell by 11% just last year, according to Oxfam, a group working to alleviate poverty.

The New York Times claims the richest 8 people on the planet have more wealth than the poorest 3.8 billion.

And Forbes says the 3 richest Americans have as much wealth as the poorest half of the country’s population.

People feel trapped, like they have no path to prosperity. They see money thrown around by the government, and the rich. They see stocks and real estate boom… but where is theirs?

It’s this lack of MOBILITY that really gets the masses worked up.

3.4 billion people got poorer last year. How many more stayed exactly where they were, or barely budged? The vast majority of the global population is the same or worse off than they were 12 months ago.

Meanwhile a tiny group got embarrassingly rich.

I’m not trying to sound like some radical, left-wing, social justice warrior. I just know that throughout history, whenever the wealth gap gets large enough, it corrects.

Sometimes that happens through legislation and sometimes it happens through violence. People demand that their politicians forcefully redistribute the wealth. And the politicians, always hungry for more power, are happy to step up to the plate.

We’re starting to see this in America today.

Last week we talked about New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s speech in which he said: “Brothers and sisters, there’s plenty of money in the world. There’s plenty of money in this city. It’s just in the wrong hands.”

What he meant was that the people who earned the money shouldn’t get to keep it.

Then there’s the new star of Congress, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. She supports hiking income taxes up to 70%, providing free medical care, free college, a chicken in every pot and a unicorn in every garage.

And, of course, she blames capitalism for everything wrong with the United States… and says “it will not always exist in the world.”

Ray Dalio, manager of Bridgewater, the world’s largest hedge fund, is hobnobbing with the global elite at a Swiss ski resort in Davos. He says that among the attendees, the ideas of this 29-year-old freshman Congresswoman are actually taking root.

Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman thinks AOC’s 70% is too low.

Somewhere between 73% and 80% is the optimal tax rate he says. Under his plan, the government will graciously let you keep up to 27% of what you earn.

Unfortunately, the public likes what it hears.

According to Gallup, 51% of 18-29 year olds view socialism favorably.

Only 45% view capitalism positively. That’s down from 68% in the same age group just a few years ago.

And membership in the Democratic Socialists of America has swelled 7x just in the last two years.

Their candidates are certainly crowding the 2020 primary.

There’s Elizabeth “you didn’t build that” Warren. Bernie Sanders and his tens of trillions of dollars worth of promises for free-stuff.

Former Obama cabinet secretary Julian Castro is one Presidential contender who wants “free” two-year college. Like Bernie, he has also endorses Medicare for all, a government run socialized healthcare scheme.

Other likely contenders, Senator Corey Booker and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, want a federal guaranteed jobs program to hand out cushy government job with benefits to anyone who wants one.

And now Kamala Harris is officially in the race.

Harris is a Senator from California who will undoubtedly appeal to the socialist uprising. Already she endorsed AOC’s call for a 70% tax rate, and won’t rule out BANNING private car ownership to address climate change.

Her campaign slogan is “For the people.” And the campaign colors are red and yellow… just missing the hammer and sickle.

image

All of these candidates want to take your money and redistribute it to the people who keep them in power. It is SO obvious what is going to happen next.

There will be more government spending that they can’t afford. More bureaucracy, more central planning…

As de Blasio said, he thinks people have a socialistic impulse which makes them want the government “to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be.”

And unfortunately the statistics are supporting this view.

These are the new socialist candidates for the presidency who all promise to take your money and do with it what they see fit.

But here’s the thing, none of this stuff works. Central planning doesn't work. Bureaucracy doesn't work.

It drags everyone down, and lifts up only the politically connected. We’ve seen it a million times before, across the world, throughout history.

Unfortunately, it seems like the trend of American socialism is picking up steam.

These Presidential candidates (along with a large chunk of American voters) are determined to turn America into yet another failed experiment in socialism.

To your freedom,

Signature

Simon Black,
Founder, SovereignMan.com

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

How they do it


Fake News    The Communist News Networks 
 
 

 

 

Examples of the Media Manipulating Events

 

There's no denying that the media often isn't wholly objective and truthful in its coverage of news events. The photos you're going to see below show just how easy it is to manipulate people's perceptions of an event that's being covered for the sake of whatever agenda that the powers-that-be at a given news network might have. Take a look: An angle makes a world of difference.

 

 

 

 

Creating the impression of strength in numbers for Hillary Clinton!

 

 

 

 

This soldier looks like he was threatening the boy in the first image.

It turns out he wasn't.

 

 

 

 

 

Not many people turned out for the launch of UK PM Theresa May's campaign bus...

 

 

 

This photo was staged between photographers and a young Palestinian.

 

 

 

 

The kid in this infamous photo was participating in a pro-immigration demonstration.

He wasn't even a detained illegal immigrant.

 

 

The camera was used to create the illusion of more people.

 

 

 

 

Not quite as many people there as was made out...

 

 

 
 

The 16 Year Plan to Destroy America

by Allen Williams


The globalist chart below pretty well sums up the Obama administration as well as Hillary's presidential plans if she had won the 2016 election.


Glancing at the chart above may appear conspiratorial at first but a great number of these tag items have already been done or are in progress. For example, rogue operators have been operating in government as in FBI agents Strzok and Page.

ISIS funding has been traced to NATO and hence Obama. There's no question that the Iran deal was the epitome of funding America's enemies. And Obama did a number of purges in the US military to weaken the command structure.

Conservatives have been under attack by the media for some time and attacks heightened in social media censorship in recent years.

There's little doubt that Obama's selection of Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor were intended to move the court to the progressive left.  And US immigration experienced an unprecedented flood of illegals including violent criminals under his watch.

Hillary Clinton has already called for the end of the electoral college during her 2016 loss. The Clinton foundation has pocketed millions in their supposed philanthropic endeavors in Haiti.  And Hillary made millions more in the Uranium One sale to the Russians.


Spectrum - a Rip off Internet Service Provider

by Allen Williams


I acquired Time-Warner’s Everyday Low Price internet plan about six years ago as I’m not a gamer and I don’t stream movies from NetFlix. I just enjoy reading the news and making occasional online purchases.  So I didn’t feel the need to pay for Hi speed internet.  Time Warner was a pretty good plan with decent service.

About 5 years ago Time-Warner was bought out by AT &T who sold off the cable service to Charter Communication’s Spectrum.  

Right from the start I began getting calls from their representatives for me to upgrade my service, add phone, TV and what not which I declined.  I have my own broadband phone installation which works fine so I didn’t need another.  At the same time I was receiving saturated mailings from Spectrum informing me of what extra service packages I could order.  The phrase ‘not interested’ has absolutely no meaning to the company.

In December of 2018, I opened my Spectrum bill and found that it had jumped 25 percent, down slightly from the 33 percent increase of 2017.  I promptly called them to discover the reason for the latest increase.

The Representative I talked with either wasn’t very knowledgeable of Spectrum plans or was deliberately misleading me on the various options.  It’s likely a corollary of the axiom “Tell customer anything to get the job or keep the service.

The Time-Warner Everyday Low Price (ELP) Internet plan is no longer offered on the Spectrum Website and the company will not let customers sign up for that plan even though my monthly bill continues to show the ELP selection.  http://concerningconsumers.bangordailynews.com/2017/03/16/home/spectrum-discontinues-time-warners-14-99-everyday-low-price-internet/ After informing me several times that Time-Warner no longer exists and that essentially I didn’t have a right to the ELP service at Spectrum, she continued to evade my questions on the reason for the price increases.  After much persistence on my part she finally told me that Spectrum initiated a company wide price increase.  

However, despite the representative’s assertions, the pricing increases appear to be some sort of punitive measure to force the consumer on to a plan of the company’s choosing rather than honoring the user’s preference. There’s also nothing like subsidizing Spectrum’s acquisition costs for Time Warner.

Today’s business strategies concentrate on forcing customer’s to buy services they don’t need or want at outrageous prices in a captive market created by government regulations and other federal enablers.  Remember Net Neutrality..a half baked government plan to equalize broadband speeds, no blocking access or throttling traffic, etc?

Broadband competition is intentionally muted to force prices upward and holdovers from less expensive plans are targeted for forced upgrades:  https://eu.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2017/06/08/spectrum-customers-not-happy-in-time-warner-cable-changeover/376695001/

I’m not alone in experiencing Spectrum’s abusive rate hikes; Charter Communications has lost roughly 100,000 subscribers during the switch from Time -Warner Cable to Spectrum.  Here are more customer’s thoughts:

“After being a customer for 18 years they are trying to increase prices well above their ongoing advertised prices of TV Service, Internet Service.” 

“When Spectrum purchased Time Warner I kept getting a letters in the mail from Spectrum stating save $10 to switch to Spectrum, reading the fine details, year two would increase by $10, year 3 would be what ever going rate is.  I just hit year 2 and price went up $20.  I called and spoke to 5 people. All said I am getting the correct rate.  If anyone has a copy of the letter to prove me right or wrong would be appreciated”   Read more Spectrum complaints at: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/spectrum/internet/spectrum-spectrum-internet-service-took-over-time-warner-cable-industry-california-1338932

Spectrum offerings differ from locale to locale usually pushing phone, Internet and TV services at three to four times the cost of internet alone. The cheapest Internet offering I saw was a promotional at $44 per month soon to become $65 a month.   And Spectrum only offers two speed tiers – 60 Mbps and 100 Mbps, “with no data caps, usage-based pricing or additional modem fees,” according to a recent company press release.  

  • 60 Mbps = $64.99 ($53.99 for customers who also have Spectrum TV)*
  • 100 Mbps = $104.99 ($93.99 for customers who also have Spectrum TV)*

I asked the Rep if there were any changes to my broadband speed.  Spectrum responded that I’m getting 3.5 MB service but clocking the Internet speed with Speedtest shows 2.3Mbps.  http://www.speedtest.net/#, Download at 3.02 Mbps; Upload 0.25 Mbps

Spectrum’s own speed test is pretty comparable with a slightly higher Upload speed at 0.5 Mbps but these will vary from day to day based on traffic load, etc.  https://www.spectrum.com/internet/speed-test.html 

Both tests confirm that I’m getting less than 3.5 Mbps service so either the Rep doesn’t know what speed is supposed to come with Time-Warner’s old ELP service or one gets whatever the company feels like providing.

I would rate Spectrum at zero if the Sitejabber system would allow me for Spectrum’s deceptive business practices, disingenuous advertising, credit billing irregularities, minimal plan choices and unwillingness to allow people to keep their current plan and an endless solicitation harassment to upgrade services.

Spectrum is a dud. Best to avoid it.