Tagged: home Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • ancavge 7:07 pm on September 29, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , antiwar activists, , , , , home, , , , , RTAmerica,   

    Alex Jones: Stay in your house 

    Recent FBI raids against homes of antiwar activists in several states and stories about Feds trying to make internet spying easier should raise the question, where are our civil liberties? Feds raided activists in Minneapolis, Chicago, Michigan North Carolina looking for evidence relating to activities concerning the material support of terrorism. Alex Jones says that every citizen in America is at risk to be monitored by Homeland Security for being an antiwar activist or material support of terrorism.


     
  • ancavge 9:35 pm on September 2, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , home, Marin County, , , Peter McFarland, , , senior citizen, ,   

    California Cops Taser Senior Citizen in His Own Home 

    Kurt Nimmo
    Infowars.com
    September 2, 2010

    In America, now officially a police state, you will be tasered in your own home if you lip off to the police.

    Senior citizen Peter McFarland of Marin County, California, discovered this after he fell down the stairs outside his home last year. On June 29, 2009, McFarland tumbled down the stairs and after his wife called paramedics the cops showed up. They entered McFarland’s home and tasered him because they claimed he was suicidal.

    Full Story:

    http://www.infowars.com/california-cops-taser-senior-citizen-in-his-own-home/

     
  • ancavge 9:20 pm on August 25, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , Gadsden Flag, home, ,   

    Arizona Man Fights to Keep Gadsden Flag Flying Outside His Home 

    Story Link:

    Arizona Man Fights to Keep Gadsden Flag Flying Outside His Home.

     
  • ancavge 12:05 pm on August 19, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , home, , , , , , message, , , , , , the7thlevl, ,   

    A Message For President Obama 

     
  • ancavge 6:25 pm on April 5, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , home, home country, , Michelle Barack, ,   

    Michelle says Barack’s Home country is Kenya 

    Michelle says Barack’s Home country is Kenya – full statement.
    Talking during the LGBT Delegate (The World as it Should Be), Michelle is talking about HIV testing.
    Her statement is that she and Barack Hussein Obama tested for HIV, when they took their trip to Kenya and visited his ‘HOME’ country.
    How is it possible to be born in Hawaii and have Kenya as his ‘HOME’ country?
    English Dictionary

    Home Country
    HI
    noun

    Definition

    1. the country in which a person was born and usually raised, regardless of the present country of residence and citizenship

    Translations:

    German: Heimatland

    Etymology: home + country

    Unlike Patrilineality (a.k.a. agnatic kinship) is a system in which one belongs to one’s father’s lineage; it generally involves the inheritance of property, names or titles through the male line as well. As in ancestral home is the place of origin of one’s extended family. It may or may not be the place where one is born. A person’s ancestral home is a rather vague concept, which can be defined by the birth place of any of his or her patriline ancestors.

     
    • gee 1:37 pm on April 6, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      My lineage is from Wales. I was born in the United States. I would call Wales my home country. Nit pick some more.

  • ancavge 9:23 pm on February 21, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , home, , , , , Robbins vs. Lower Merion School District, , , , , webcams   

    School Accused of Secretly Spying on Students Through Laptop Webcams 

    File under: “Extremely Creepy” — BoingBoing reports that a recent case filing in Robbins vs. Lower Merion School District, a Pennsylvania school, is a class action suit on behalf of students with school-issued laptops whose webcams have been used to watch the students and their families at home.

    It was discovered that the laptops issued by the high school contained software allowing administrators to covertly activate the on-board webcam. The plaintiff, Blake J. Robbins, was disciplined by the school for “improper behavior in his home.” The evidence of said impropriety was brought forth by the school vice principal, who displayed a photo of Robbins taken by the laptop’s webcam.

    TechDirt indicatesrecent episode of PBS Frontline that contains video footage of an official at another school using a remote desktop application to spy on students in a similar way. He says almost proudly, “They don’t even realize we’re watching.” In other words, school-sponsored surveillance might not even be uncommon.

    You can read the full text of the case filing in the PA case: Robbins vs. Lower Merion School District (PDF). What do you think about schools spying on their students? As in other realms where this issue is becoming more prevalent, is the benefit of giving kids access to laptops worth the price of their privacy?

    [img credit: BoingBoing and bionicteaching]

    Link to story:

    http://mashable.com/2010/02/18/school-spies-on-kids-through-webcams/

     
  • ancavge 5:28 am on August 14, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , home, investigator, , ,   

    CPS Investigates Patriot Blogger Grigg 

    William N. Grigg
    Pro Libertate
    August 13, 2009

    Editor’s note: An award-winning investigative journalist, William Norman Grigg was the senior editor and a prolific contributor to The New American, the official magazine of the John Birch Society. His writing reflects views heavily influenced by constitutionalism, libertarianism, and anti-communism. His columns are occasionally posted on Infowars.

    “Grab some clothes and get into the van, now.”

    For an instant, that directive, and the tone in which it was issued, had the opposite of its intended effect: Korrin and our five older children, momentarily paralyzed by shock, looked at me in alarm. There was something in both the tone of my voice, and the expression on my face, that was new and a little frightening. None of them had seen my “game face” before. They were seeing it now.

    Just seconds earlier, Korrin and I had been confronted on our doorstep by two very nice, well-dressed women who informed us that an anonymous “child endangerment” complaint had been filed with the Child Protective Services.

    One of the visitors was a social worker we’ve known for several years, and consider a friend. The other was a stranger who introduced herself as a CPS investigator. She intended to inspect our home and speak with our children.

    After being summoned to the doorstep, I had ushered our children into our house and closed the door behind me. Short of being removed by force, there was no way I was going to permit a CPS investigator to have access to our home as long as our children were vulnerable to government abduction.

    “You seem like a conscientious and well-intentioned person,” I quietly told the investigator, “but this is an adversarial situation, and I can’t allow you to have access to my home in the absence of a warrant, and until I’ve consulted with legal counsel.”

    Although this clearly wasn’t the response she had expected or desired, the investigator retained her professional composure.

    “Well, that is your right,” she replied. “I must advise you that I will consult with law enforcement and return later today.”

    “I understand,” I said, shooting a quick glance at the slender silver digital recorder the investigator wasn’t successfully concealing in her left hand. “I also want the record to reflect the fact that I didn’t consent for our conversation to be recorded.”

    The investigator nodded in assent, her brows pulling together ever-so-slightly as if in puzzlement. She and her associate returned to their car and drove away. As they turned the corner I turned to Korrin and our children and ordered — yes, it was an order, not a request — them to get in the van.

    “Don’t bother packing,” I told them in syllables drawn taut with urgency. “Just grab a couple of things and get in the van.” The kids, suddenly understanding that we were at Def-Con One, quietly and quickly did as they were told.

    Minutes later we were headed out of Payette County, beyond the jurisdiction of the local police and Sheriff, en route to a pre-designated safe house.

    Yes, we had — as Foghorn Leghorn might put it — made plans to deal with just such an emergency.

    Earlier this year, I met with a handful of close and trusted friends to discuss various crisis scenarios — from the systemic breakdown of the commercial food distribution network to the possibility that one of us might find his family targeted by the CPS. Those meetings were the idea of a good friend who is a very well-informed and astute survivalist. Relatively little was accomplished at those meetings, but as recent events testify, what little was done proved to be indispensable.

    One of the participants at those gatherings (we chose a local club whose owner is defying an asinine local smoking ban; we refractory individualists need to support each other) very generously offered his home as a temporary refuge for my children in the event that the CPS came after my family. From there, working through communications cut-outs, we could make arrangements for Korrin and our children to stay in the homes of other reliable people who share our convictions.

    When the balloon went up, we knew what to do. I spirited our family to my friend’s house, casting frequent glances in the rear-view mirror.

    “This reminds me of that movie `Not Without My Daughter,’” commented my genius son William Wallace, our family’s resident cineaste. There was no undertone of eagerness or excitement in his voice; William was scared. So was Isaiah, who quietly explained that in cases of this kind children are often taken from their parents.

    That was a hard thing to say, but it needed to be said. Not surprisingly, this terrified our girls, six-year-old Katrina and four-year-old Sophia. Although he has the reflexive aversion to girls of any kind that typifies an eight-year-old boy, Jefferson wrapped his arms around Katrina and comforted her as she cried.

    Once we crossed the county border, I relaxed a little bit and gave some instructions to Korrin and the kids. I told Korrin that it was important not to call our home, since caller ID would reveal the location of the safe house. I would contact them through an intermediary, and if she needed anything she was to call that person. I told the kids that they would be safe with our friends until I came to get them, but that if people from the government arrived they were to be courteously uncooperative.

    The plan was for me to return to our house, tidy it up, and deal with the CPS and the police. This might mean I could face obstruction charges if they insisted on seeing Korrin and the children, I explained, so there was a possibility I would be in jail by day’s end. They had to be prepared for that possibility, because I would not give the CPS an opportunity to seize our children.

    Once at the safe house I called a friend who agreed to be my cut-out. Then we gathered for prayer and I went back home by a different route.

    • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
    • efoods

    Please, Dear Lord, I prayed silently as I neared our house, don’t let it be a crime scene already. To my relief, nobody was there.

    About forty minutes later, following a minimal investment of effort, the house was tidied up. We’re messy, but not unclean; no parent would be surprised to see the clutter we deal with, given that we have six small children, and no honest person would consider our unremarkable untidiness to be a threat to our children’s health or well-being. But I’m well aware of CPS enforcement actions that have resulted in charges being filed against parents whose homes aren’t as antiseptic as a NASA white room.

    Roughly a half-hour later, while speaking on the phone to my mother, I saw a city police car drive slowly by our house, turn around, and park in front of our walkway. From it emerged a young man, clean-cut and squared away, who strode up to our front door.

    Well, here we go, I thought. I was wrong — and the day took an even stranger turn.

    “Who owns the vacant lot?” the young police officer politely inquired.

    “Do you mean the lot next to our house?” I asked.

    “No, the one behind it,” he persisted.

    “That’s not a `lot,’ it’s our back yard,” I pointed out, gesturing for him to come with me to look through a nearby gate.

    “Who owns this property?” asked the officer. I explained that we were renters, not owners.

    “Well, there are some weeds in the backyard that apparently need to be taken care of,” the officer began, his tone suggesting that he had expected to see a much bigger problem than the one confronting him. Sure, there is a row of weeds along the rear fence line of our yard (which occupies a significant fraction of an acre), but it wasn’t the Amazonian jungle he had anticipated.

    “I suppose the weeds along the fence line need to be cut down,” the officer observed, “but that’s really the responsibility of the property owner.” I assured him that I intended to attend to the weeds, whether or not that was my legal “responsibility,” simply in the interest of living in a presentable home. The officer took down my publicly available contact information, gave me a polite nod, and departed, leaving me to contemplate an unsettling question:

    Why would a police officer visit me with a complaint about overgrown weeds that are not visible from any of the streets that run by our house? He couldn’t have seen them from the street. Clearly, he was responding to a complaint from someone who had recently been in our backyard.

    That fact may prove to be the critical clue in identifying the person who also hot-lined our family to CPS to report that our children were “endangered” by the untidiness of our living space.

    Less than a half hour after the first police visit ended, an unmarked police car arrived and decanted the CPS investigator and the largest officer on the roster of the Payette City Police force — a genial man-mountain with a tonsured head, Van Dyke beard, and a ready smile. Seeing him, I simply had to chuckle: Yes, of course they’d send him.

    The plainclothes officer identified himself. I replied that I had met him a couple of years earlier when he, along with practically the entire population of Payette, helped us find then-five-year-old Jefferson when he went missing. (Jefferson was found sleeping peacefully in his fortress of solitude, a secret space he created behind the headboard of a hide-a-bed.)

    “I told her” — the officer began, gesturing to the CPS investigator — “that I’ve been in your home, and it seemed perfectly OK to me. But we have to clear up this complaint.”

    Since Korrin and the kids were safe, I had no objection. I invited them in an busied myself paying bills.

    “Are Korrin and the children not here?” asked the CPS investigator. I told her, quite truthfully, that they had been invited to spend the afternoon at a friend’s house.

    About two minutes later the CPS worker and policeman were done. They explained as they left that the matter was closed but that I should contact Health and Welfare in the event that we “need any services.”

    “When we spoke this morning, you were very respectful,” the CPS worker commented. “You did hold out for your rights, which is appropriate, but you treated me well, and I appreciated that.” I smiled and said something to the effect that I try to treat people well.

    This episode turned out much better than it could have.

    What if I hadn’t been working at home, and Korrin — who suffers from a chronic condition that leaves her exhausted and bed-ridden most of the time — hadn’t been able to stave off the CPS before the house had been tidied up?

    What if the CPS investigator had seen something — anything — “aberrant” in the behavior or appearance of our children, and decided that prudence required a more detailed examination?

    What if we had been dealing with the kind of CPS investigator hard-wired to find evidence of abuse or neglect? Granted, we were blessed on this occasion to deal with someone who was sincere, polite, reasonable, and professional. That generally isn’t the case in situations of this kind.

    What if some combination of circumstances had resulted in a judicial order to appear at a “show cause” hearing, a procedure that almost always leads to some kind of catastrophic government intervention?

    Once again, none of those things — or dozens of others, many of them worse — happened. This time. To us. But all of those terrible things have happened to families just like ours, because someone, for reasons only that person will know, filed an anonymous complaint with the child “protection” bureaucracy.

    It’s been said that one can’t be a credible sportswriter unless he’s actually played the games he covers, or a music critic without knowing how to play an instrument or carry a tune.

    After more than two decades of writing about the disruption, or outright destruction, of families by the child welfare bureaucracy, I can finally consider myself qualified, albeit in a limited sense, to pronounce upon that subject. That’s a credential I could have done without.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/cps-investigates-patriot-blogger-grigg/

     
    • Patrick Sperry 10:56 am on August 14, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      This man was very fortunate. The usual MOS is to get the kids while they are at school, and things just go downhill from there.

    • Greg 3:52 pm on August 15, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      Mr. Grigg et alia:

      Had the cop not been familiar and in your favor, even this
      could have become a family nightmare.

      That cop probably wouldn’t go along with the usual
      caseworker lies about your house, and the caseworker
      knew that.

      Most states have NO STANDARDS
      for home inspections by CPS workers.

      My family found that in Iowa they desperately
      DO NOT want to “promulgate” such standards
      or set any legal precident that even vaguely
      resemble such standards.

      A caseworker here actually let that slip at the courthouse.

      I don’t think they were supposed to let us know of
      the state’s aversion on this point.

      They would not even give us written standards
      on an individual case basis for fear of legal precident.

      Technically, You really should not have allowed
      either one of them in.

      When you did that you forfeit your 4th amendment
      right against a search (plain sight) of your home.

      This ties into the reason they DO NOT want
      any written or objective standards for inspection
      of a home.

      If there were some, they might apply to the typical
      unrestricted search where you let them in
      without a warrant.

      Cop or not, you know they had no warrant.

      When you allow them in without one, the search,
      visual though it may be, is based on attitude
      and style judgements, yet would be written up
      as hygiene issues or clutter.

      My family had an ongoing case and refused access
      after finding they were NOT operating in good faith.

      They actually got a Judge to write a court order
      for home inspection.

      We asked the Judge to reconsider, pointing out that
      this “court order for home inspection” was technically
      a search warrant and that it was illegal for lack of
      specifics, noteably the STANDARDS for home
      inspection that we had asked for both in and out
      of court, which court and caseworkers silently refused.
      We pointed out that we could not MEET standards
      that DO NOT EXIST.

      We had asked that the “home inspection” be videotaped
      for use in court.

      The Judge refused to stop the order.
      The Judge did not order CPS to videotape
      the home inspection, granted that WE could videotape the
      home inspection but ordered ME, the cameraman OUT of
      our home during the “home inspection”.

      The Judge neither ordered nor offered any STANDARDS
      for the home inspection.

      A lucky circumstance developed however.

      The place we were renting was basically
      a 2 BR house on a prestressed concrete deck
      placed on top of a smaller cinder block structure.
      It was built as a drive in restaurant.

      The business structure below was for rent and
      somebody put a deposit down on it to make
      it into a used car lot.

      As we told the court, the landlord had not given
      us notice to leave, yet we had begun packing to move.

      The Judge cancelled the “”home inspection””.

      Some time later, by the way, the used car lot people
      actually forfeit their deposit when they found out they
      would have had to spend $10K on landscaping
      and they didn’t want to do that on rental property.

      For some reason, the Judge never tried to
      renew the “”court order for home inspection””
      ever again, and it has been YEARS.

      I can not stress enough that even where there has
      been a high court ruling that would apply to your
      case, the lower court, especially the Juvenile Court
      is used to an extremely wide lattitude.

      They will not admit to being aware of the caselaw
      that prevents their action, that would be the job
      of you and your attorney, and sadly, they will
      commonly ignore even CONTROLLING caselaw.

      Do you think there is any Judge who does
      not know that the “court order for home inspection”
      is a search warrant in disguise?

      Or that a search warrant lacking specifics
      is illegal?

      Certainly in a case where the family had made
      a big point of asking for the STANDARDS for
      home inspection several times over several years
      that would have been an obvious LACK OF SPECIFICS
      for the search warrant in disguise.

      A search warrant NARROWS a search and
      prevents the “”fishing expedition”” type of search
      where they look for just anything they can use.

      By NATURE, one could argue that the routine
      searches caseworkers perform cannot conform
      to the 4th amendment and the caselaw about it.

      Don’t Talk to Cops, Part 1

      Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law
      School and a former defense attorney, tells
      you why you should never agree to be
      interviewed by the police.

      Part 2

      I am not an attorney.
      Greg Hanson
      Cedar Rapids, Iowa
      Greegor47@gmail.com

  • ancavge 4:27 pm on July 27, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Castle Doctrine, home,   

    Castle Doctrine Dies In Texas 

    Kurt Nimmo
    Infowars
    July 27, 2009

    So much for English common law and Sir Edward Coke’s dictum that a man’s home is his refuge and castle. “For a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man's home is his safest refuge],” Coke wrote in 1628.

    featured stories   Castle Doctrine Dies In Texas
    state police
    So much for the Bill of Rights and centuries of English common law — police in Texas can now demand you evacuate your castle at gunpoint.

    William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, said “no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process,” except in the case of criminal causes.

    In the United States, the Castle Doctrine, arising from English common law, designates one’s place of residence as a refuge not only against violent attacks, but unwarranted trespassing by the state.

    In Texas, the authorities have put an end to this idea, which ultimately found its way into Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures. Property rights are integral to the Constitution.

    “Police can arrest people who don’t leave town under mandatory evacuation orders under a new state law that goes into effect in the heart of Texas’ hurricane season,” reports the Associated Press. “As it stands, officials cannot compel people to evacuate, only warn that those who stay behind won’t have any emergency services at their disposal.” The new law gives county judges and mayors the power to authorize use of “reasonable force” to remove people from the area.

    • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
    • efoods

    The state now has the authority to smash down your door and arrest you for failure to follow orders.

    The Supreme Court has ruled “the Fourth Amendment protects other interests in addition to privacy interests, such as possessory interests.” In other words, the court ruled that the state cannot evict without cause.

    Jonathan Jorissen, writing for the Ave Maria Law Review in 2007, noted that “forcible removal of victims of natural disasters [in this instance, Katrina] seemingly constitutes seizures. Applying the requisite standard of reasonableness, it must be asked whether the actions were, in fact, reasonable. Given the nature of the situation, it is evident that they were not. The affected citizens were not guilty of any crime. Additionally, their property was in no way necessary for the government to carry out its duties. Instead, these hurricane victims were further victimized by their government, which removed them from their homes based on the suspicion that they might contract some disease. Without a more compelling interest, the government’s actions were unreasonable.”

    As Supreme Court Justice William Patterson observed, property rights are the foundation of any social compact. “Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society.”

    In Texas, the state has destroyed that compact and the very concept of natural law.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/castle-doctrine-dies-in-texas/

     
  • ancavge 9:18 pm on July 23, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , hair, home, , , urine   

    Canadian Banks now using urine and hair samples to obtain mortgage? 

    Marc Andre
    The Northwest Herald
    July 23, 2009

    It has become a first for Canadians and the implications can be astronomical, a massively large insurance firm; The CUMIS Group Limited Insurance whohave beenpartnered along with thousands of banks across North America for insurance requirements, has now accepted a policy of pre-screening drug tests & hair samples for the right to obtain home loan insurance, a necessity, if you’re going to purchase a home in Canada.

    We first learned of this policy from a source who prefers to remain anonymous. The bank in question is called AFFINITY CREDIT UNION in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada; they are partnered with CUMIS insurance to offer home loan insurance.

    This precedent setting policy from CUMIS & AFFINITY CREDIT UNION in Canada has now mandated that hair samples, urine drug testing, as well as a documented question and answer portion, (which our sources have indicated to be highly sensitive personal inquiries), will now be the norm for those apparently “high-risk” individuals.

    We first learned of this story from a young man in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Our source was instructed to undergo a rigorous pre-screening procedure in order to obtain insurance for his new home.

    Our source stated that; “the bank (Affinity credit union) said that I should use the insurance company they provide to make things smoother, I never thought anything of it.” “I don’t really care if I get tested; it’s just a hassle with my work schedule” said our source. Additional information gathered showed that our sources’ home value was approximately $300,000 when he applied for the loan – slightly above the average cost of a home in Canada, sitting at $287,000.

    • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
    • efoods

    University of Saskatchewan, Professor William Buschert from the Department of Philosophy and Political Studies, says he is “surprised it is happening in Canada,” he also noted “from an ethical standpoint, it’s disturbing”. “The United States Government, got rid of this mandate in 2008, precisely because of the legal, moral, and privacy implications it presents… not to mention the selective way of ‘insuring’ one group of people and not the other. However, from the stance of the insurance companies, this ensures that they don’t get the “wrong” type of people”.

    Professor Buschert also mentioned, playing devil’s advocate at times, that having this practice banned may create an unfair burden on the insurance companies and will ultimately create higher premium rates for the clients they serve.

    When asked about the attitude of the general public regarding this issue of insurance companies gaining biometric samples for home loans, when some would say ‘what’s the harm, I have nothing to hide’, Professor Buschert responded with the following, “regardless of whether someone may have a ‘nothing to hide, so what’s the harm’ attitude, it is obvious that this is an encroachment of individual freedoms, not to mention the privacy issues herein”.

    We also contacted Saskatchewan Government Insurance Canada for comments, (they are a government agency who provides various types of insurance for western & central Canada; it is to be noted that SGI Canada is entirely separate from CUMIS) SGI Canada stated that; “we do not have a policy for drug testing for home insurance purposes.”

    We also reached the bank in question, AFFINITY CREDIT UNION in Saskatoon, sk, Canada. They commented that “High Risk” individuals may include those who purchase a home above 300,000 dollars”.

    When asked if AFFINITY CREDIT UNION were aware of their partner CUMIS, performing drug screening, hair samples, and a multitude of highly personal information for ‘high risk’ individuals seeking home insurance, they responded with the following, “CUMIS does conduct the necessary screening procedure for homes above 300,000 dollars.” And does that include hair samples and urine samples? “yes”.

    When reached for comment a CUMIS representative stated that; “it is our policy to conduct drug screening for homes loans above 300,000 dollars, so we can protect that money somehow” they also stated that even if you answer ‘no’ to any questions on the health questionnaire you will still have to “provide a urine sample”. Interviewer: Are you aware of an executive order from Bush in 2008, disallowed CUMIS INS from gathering hair and urine samples, in the USA? They responded by saying. “well, were not in the states are we”. Indeed we are not, but the question remains, is it still ethically responsible, regardless of the location?

    Upon further investigation, we have concluded that this issue has raised more questions than answers.

    How long has this been going on? Are other insurance companies practicing this policy? Is this being documented? What is done with the biometric samples? Legal issues? Are the samples allowed to be sold to other insurance companies? Why is this not being reported in the mainstream media? Is the government going to do anything about it?

    What makes this case interesting is that this was not an abnormally large mortgage value, and there were no indications that this individual was singled out for any reason. We are led to believe that this will be the norm from now on, until the public makes a fuss, we will all be forced to give up our freedoms for the greed of major corporations like Cumis Group Limited.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/canadian-banks-now-using-urine-and-hair-samples-to-obtain-mortgage/

     
    • WasagaBeach 9:37 am on July 26, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      Canadians will accept this , as long as they have beer.
      That is all that matters to most of them.

  • ancavge 2:40 am on July 17, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: adolescents, , , , home, , Mike Tennant, ,   

    A Shot in the Arm, Whether You Like It or Not 

    Mike Tennant
    LRC Blog
    July 16, 2009
    • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
    • efoods

    Among the countless horrors our Dear Leader wants to visit upon us with his health care “reform” bill is this: ”grants to states to improve immunization coverage of children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based interventions. States may use funds to implement interventions that are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, such as reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits.”

    “The bill lists eight specific ways that states may use federal grant money to carry out immunization-promoting ‘interventions.’ Method ‘E’ calls for ‘home visits’ which can include ‘provision of immunizations.’”

    In other words, whether you want your kids (or yourself) to receive certain vaccines, the state can forcibly administer them in your home.

    Anyone think that Big Pharma won’t back this bill 100 percent?

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/a-shot-in-the-arm-whether-you-like-it-or-not/

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.