Divemedic

The government has a record of all communications. They know who leaks information. The government has stated that they can kill anyone that they deem to be a threat to national security, and have already done so. This has slowed leaks to reporters down to nearly zero. Informants and reporters are disappearing or dying under accidental circumstances.

The man who saw Breitbart collapse is missing. A technician in the Los Angeles County coroners office, where Breitbart’s body was taken, died of arsenic poisoning.

The list of people damaging to the government that are waking up dead is getting longer.
Andrew Breitbart dies March 2012. A technician in the coroner’s office that handled the body dies of arsenic poisoning on the day the autopsy results are released.

December 2012:
Job Price, the Navy SEAL that killed Osama Bin Laden dies of apparent suicide.

January 2013:
John Noveske of Noveske Rifle Works died in a car crash.
Aaron Swartz, a computer activist that was known for placing government documents in the public domain, was found hanging in his apartment.
Keith Ratliff committing suicide by duct taping himself to a chair and shooting himself in the back of the head.

February 2013:
Chris Kyle murdered at a gun range in Texas.

May 2013
Andy P. Hart, a public defender for Guantanamo detainees, committed suicide May 2, 2013.
Two members of the FBI’s HRT, involved in the capture of the arrest of the Boston bomber, die in a training accident.
The FBI shoots and kills a person of interest in the Boston bombing in Orlando. (This happened less than a mile from the apartment where I was living at the time.)

June 2013
Michael Hastings dies in a car accident.

There is also Tracy Lawrence, the woman who exposed the foreclosure fraud mess, found dead in 2011.

There were times when I would have passed this off as coincidence and waved the speculation off as a conspiracy theory, but after the Fast and Furious scandal, the NSA scandal, and the announcement that the US can and does execute American citizens without trial is making me wonder. These deaths may all be coincidence. Who can tell? All I know is that if a person were writing a novel, and this were the plot, the editors wold tell them that it was too unrealistic.

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is Enemy Action.”
— Auric Goldfinger

It seems like it is police SOP to shoot every dog you see. A police officer serving a warrant for a traffic offense got the wrong house. He shot a three year old German Shepherd that was a therapy dog.

Of course, police say the officer felt threatened when he opened fire, and say that dog was running towards the officer. The homeowner says the dog was shot through the neck as his 6-year-old grandson played nearby, and he opened the door when he heard the shots to find his crying child covered in blood. The boy wasn’t physically hurt, the blood belonged to the dog.

The big, brave officer remains on active duty, of course.

This link requires pay to read the full article, but there is a free video.

It seems to me that if the cop had the wrong house, he should face some sort of negligence charge. There are those that say the cop’s side of the story hasn’t been heard. The problem is that it never will be. The cop will, as they always do, be excused and nothing will happen. In my mind, a cop serving a warrant on the wrong house should be held personally accountable for anything that happens as a result of him being at the wrong house.

When I was in the Navy, there was a scandal that happened at the Tailhook convention. There was a lot of drunken debauchery, including a contest where females allowed men to shave their bikini lines, and allowed men to judge the efforts by running their tongues across the area.
In 1992, one of the participants in the shaving contest, a young Navy lieutenant named Paula Coughlin, said she had been sexually assaulted at the 35th Annual Tailhook Symposium in Las Vegas. It turns out that she lied for much of her testimony. She picked officers out of a photo lineup, claiming that they sexually assaulted her, but they were able to prove that they were not even AT the convention. The Navy ran with the accusations, and ruined the careers of 300 officers. Coughlin did all right for herself, cleaning up $5.4 million from the Tailhook Assn. and Hilton Hotels Corporation.
As a result of this scandal, the entire Navy was required to undergo a standown that included sexual sensitivity and harassment training. The thing is, officers were not required to attend, at least not in my command. For those of you who are not military, let me tell you why that is significant: ALL Navy pilots are officers, meaning that the people who were alleged to have done these acts were the very people who were not required to attend the training.
The Navy has always been more about protecting its image than in true justice. That is why I am not surprised by this announcement.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.

More specifically, the self incrimination clause, the part that reads “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself,” is the part that I want to talk about today. This particular clause has been variously interpreted by the court. On the one hand, we have decisions like Haynes v. US, where the Supreme Court held that a criminal cannot be forced to register his guns, because the act of registering an item that he cannot legally own is tantamount to an admission of guilt, and violates the self incrimination clause.
In the other extreme, that same Supreme Court held in 1927, in US v Sullivan that a person must fill out a tax form, even if in so doing he admits to illegal activity. In contradiction to this, the Supreme court also held in Garner v United States (1976) that a person who answers the tax form does so voluntarily, and therefore was not compelled to be a witness against himself when the information is used against him.

That is why it comes as no surprise to me that the Supreme Court just held that a person who refuses to answer when asked if he broke the law can have the fact that he refused to answer used against him as evidence that he broke the law. According to the Supreme Court, your constitutional rights do not count until the police read you your Miranda warning. Whether or not, and when, you have constitutional rights depends entirely on whether or not and when the police SAY you have those rights, which makes them not rights at all.

In other words, if a cop asks you a question, there are only three possible answers:
1 Admit guilt, in which case you will be thrown in jail.
2 Claim innocence: which of course can be used against you as “obstruction”
3 Refuse to answer: which will be used as an admission of guilt.

The police state gets more restrictive every day.

This review is full of spoilers. I would suggest not reading it until you have seen the movie, if you want to be surprised at how it goes. This movie was bad. Awful. read on to see why.

So the basic facts of the movie are that violence and unemployment was destroying society, so the powers that be came up with an idea: allow people one night per year where few laws were enforced for a 12 hour period. This would give people an opportunity to get their natural desire to be criminals out of their system. Under this rule, the only laws enforced were: no weapon above “class 4” (whatever that means) were allowed, and no government officials above “grade 10” could be harmed. This night would be called “the purge.” Then the picture went on to explain how crime, violence, and unemployment are virtually nonexistent because of the purge.

There were quite a few problems with the film. It was your typical class warfare tripe, where the rich were demonized for having more than the poor. The film focuses on a family, whose patriarch is a salesman for security systems. He has sold systems to virtually every home in the neighborhood, and become rich as a result. The neighbors hate him for “getting rich off of their fears and misfortune.” The entire movie centers around this have versus have not editorial.

From a tactical standpoint, the man was foolish. The security system that he has in his home consists of metal shutters that close over the doors and windows after being activated from an upstairs control room by entering a PIN code. A code that his young son knows, which turns out to be a problem.  The system begins to break down when the boyfriend of the man’s daughter hides inside the home before it is activated, and then waits until the beginning of the purge to approach and shoot at the man.

The second disaster is when the man’s son sees a homeless man fleeing people attempting to kill him, and uses the PIN to disable the system and allow the homeless man in. The people who were hunting the homeless man then go on the warpath because they were denied. The rest of the movie consists of the people in the house trying to stay secure, and the ones outside trying to get in.

I noted during the movie that for a man who made a fortune selling security systems, he didn’t know jack about security. He had no way of engaging anyone outside. Some firing ports, a moat with crocodiles, boiling oil on the roof, or even land mines would have made the place safer. Simply locking yourself in a house with sealed windows and doors isn’t going to work. To compound this, he secured a standard home by putting shutters over the doors and windows. Anyone with an axe would have found it easier to enter through the roof. He also had no fallback position in the event that his barricaded windows failed. Why not turn the basement into a saferoom, and hole up down there?

As for the bad guys: They got in by pulling the steel door and window
covers off the house using a pickup truck. What did they hook the chains
to? Also, how did they simultaneously pull off every window and door
using one truck?

How hard is it to defend your home one night a year, when you know the time and the date that it will occur? If this were happening today, this would be my favorite holiday of the year. One year, I would defend my home with land mines. The next year, it may be boiling oil. Each year, the challenge would be to use something different. It wouldn’t be about simply defending the house, it would be about defending it with creativity and style.

This movie was painful to watch.