Sport Wrider mum about paralyzing crash

Did Trev really need a Photoshopped lean angle?

While testing street tires on the street, Andrew Trevitt -- a British editor of British Sport Rider magazine, the only "American" sportbike rag -- t-boned a car that was making an illegal u-turn in Los Angeles. A devastating silence could be heard around the world, regarding what actually happened, and its aftermath.

As usual, Sport Rider mag censored all the good stuff. No review of Trevitt's crashed rider gear that "failed" upon impact (can't piss off the advertisers). Did he wear a back protector, and did it cover the entire spine? No gory crash scene nor hospital photos. No witness statements. No police reports. No arrest reports. No names of perps (illegal aliens?). No legal briefs. No NEWS.

Basically, nothing that's of actual use to riders in the Real World. You'd think he was president of the United States, hiding all his birth certificates.

But lots and lots and lots of tales of woe in rehab. While it's great to see that side of the story -- since magazines always censor the scary stuff -- The Blog would be so much better if it detailed the other 95% of his recovery. How about some video blogs? Ever hear of youtube? Andrew golfing with the Kardashians don't count.



Was Trev criminally charged? If so what exactly was the defense and outcome, with links to all legal docs? Was the cage driver criminally charged? Did Trev sue the cager? Did the cager countersue Trev? Did Trev sue the highway department for a defective road? Did Trev sue the doctors for medical malpractice? Did Trev sue his employers for Workers Comp, and did a lawsuit settlement result in him keeping his job -- or is Trevitt an owner who can't be fired? Did Trev sue his own insurance for non-payment? How much were his total medical bills? How much is rehab costing, and who's paying? This data alone would probably save 100s of lives, just by the Fear Factor.

Reality TV shows cover many of these topics, celebrities in court and sex life in rehab. If print rags want to survive mortal combat against the interwebs, they need to kick it up a few dozen notches.

Yes, it's true that in all legal situations, lawyers and cops agree it's SOP to STFU, especially when there's risk of prison buttrape. California is a Comparative Fault state, which gives individuals a fair chance in court against big bad insurance corporations, but a plaintiff gets nothing who caused 51% of the crash -- including "speed".

However, a nation of legal idiots is a recipe for overthrow of the United States...which of course has been the public policy of the British Empire for over 500 years, and Sport Rider mag.

Compare with Deals Gap Scar Story, by The Dragonater:

---

Comparative Fault

by the Dolan Law Firm

Everyone has a responsibility to care for themselves. California law analyzes the relative fault of each party involved in an event that produces injury. The Dolan Law Firm works hard to demonstrate that you are not the one responsible for your injury. If your case does not settle before trial, a jury decides what percentage of fault is assigned to each party. (They do it after determining the amount of damages suffered.) If the person injured (the plaintiff) causes his or her own injury, and is 100% at fault and have no right to recover against anyone else involved in the event. If the other party, (the defendant) is 100% at fault, then they bear 100% of the responsibility and, 100% of the costs and damages . If there is shared fault California Law requires that the amount of recovery which the injured party is entitled to is reduced by their percentage of fault. Defendants in a lawsuit are always looking to place blame on the injured party to reduce the amount of compensation that they would have to pay. A great deal of time in any legal proceeding is spent establishing who bears what percentage of fault. California is a pure comparative fault state. This means that an injured party can recover for their damages even if they are greater than 50% at fault (51%-99%). Some states do not allow injured parties to recover if they are more than 50% at fault. The reality, however, is that fault is not a science and juries, when they the plaintiff as being mostly responsible, often give them nothing. Likewise, they often place some blame on the plaintiff just to appease some members of the jury so as to reach a consensus.

THINGS THAT MAKE AN INJURED PARTY AT FAULT

speed- most common
no seat belt
failure to signal
going through yellow light
inattention- cell phone distraction- not looking where you are going
improper safety gear (motorcycles and bicycles)
lack of visibility
running into street (pedestrians)
crossing at a location outside crosswalk (pedestrians)
entering a crosswalk on red hand

---

Contributory Negligence vs. Comparative Negligence

by the Personal Injury Lawyer Directory

When a claim for damages caused by an accident is filed with a court, the fact-finder (judge or jury, depending on the proceeding) must determine who caused the accident. The person whose negligence caused the accident typically pays for the resulting damage. If more than one person caused the damage, then negligence is distributed between the parties based on state apportionment laws. The fact-finder may determine that actions of the defendant, the plaintiff, or both, caused the accident. Based on the evidence submitted, the judge or jury will then allocate the amount or percentage that each party was negligent. Depending on the jurisdiction, this allocation will directly impact the damages awarded.

Throughout the United States, there are four systems used in establishing damage awards: pure contributory negligence, pure comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence – 50% bar rule, and modified comparative negligence – 51% bar rule.

Contributory Negligence

Historically, contributory negligence was a common law defense available in tort actions. In the past, if two people were in an accident, the injured person could only recover for his/her injuries and damages if they did not contribute to the accident in any way. This approach was based on a policy originally established in England that stated a person who negligently causes harm to another cannot be held liable if that injured individual contributed to his own suffering and injury, even if it was only a very slight factor. For example, if Dave and Debbie were in an accident where Jane was injured, and Jane was only 5% at fault, she would recover nothing. This method of calculating damages is still followed in states with a pure contributory negligence system. In light of the potentially harsh result, most states have moved from the strict nature of a pure contributory negligence system to some form of a comparative negligence system. Currently, only five (5) states, including the District of Columbia, follow the pure contributory negligence rule.

Comparative Negligence

In a comparative negligence system, the injured party may still recover some of his or her damages even if he or she was partially to blame for causing the accident. Plaintiff’s financial recovery may be reduced, or even prohibited, depending how plaintiff’s actions caused or contributed to the accident. In states using a comparative negligence system, a jury or judge determines the proportion of fault to be assigned to each responsible party. Jurisdictions following a comparative negligence system will typically apportion the damages using one of three variations of comparative negligence: pure comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence – 51% rule, or modified comparative negligence – 50% rule.

Presently, thirteen (13) states follow a pure comparative negligence system: Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington. In a pure comparative negligence system, a judge or jury assigns a percentage of fault to each responsible party and then apportions the damage award accordingly. Using this system, an injured person may recover his or her damages even if the injured person was 99% at fault in causing the injury, with those damages reduced by his or her portion of the fault. For example, in a car accident between Dave and Debbie where Debbie was found to be 99% responsible, and the jury found that Debbie suffered $10,000 in damages, that award would be reduced by Debbie’s 99% fault in causing the injury. In the end, Dave would only have to pay 1% of Debbie’s damages, or $100 in this case.

Thirty-three (33) states follow a modified comparative fault system. Similar to a pure comparative negligence system, a judge or jury assigns a percentage of fault to each responsible party and then apportions the damage award accordingly. From that point, depending on how the system is applied, if a plaintiff’s apportioned fault reaches a particular level, he or she may be completely prohibited from recovering a damage award.

Of the thirty-three states following a modified comparative fault system, twelve (12) states follow a 50% rule. In states following a modified comparative fault – 50% rule, an injured party can only recover if it is determined that his or her fault in causing the injury is 49% or less. If the injured party’s fault level reaches 50%, he or she cannot recover any damages resulting from the accident. Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia follow the 50% rule.

Of the thirty-three states following a modified comparative fault system, the remaining twenty-one (21) states follow a 51% rule. In states following a modified comparative fault – 51% rule, an injured party can only recover if it is determined that his or her fault does not reach 51%. If the injured party was 50% or less at fault, he or she may still recover damages. In other words, a plaintiff may have caused half of the accident and still recover damages from the court, but if it is found that the plaintiff’s fault was responsible for more than half of the accident, that plaintiff is barred from receiving any damages determined by the court. Here, as in a pure comparative negligence state, a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the degree of his or her fault. Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming follow the 51% rule.

Remember that many exceptions to the standard negligence systems are present in several states. Additionally, some states limit the types of cases to which these negligence systems may apply. The information present in this article and following table should only be used as a guide. Specific questions should be directed to a qualified attorney licensed in your state. Nothing in this summary should be construed as legal advice.

Click here to see a Comparative Fault by State chart that briefly outlines contributory vs. comparative negligence for each state.

For more information on Contributory Negligence vs. Comparative Negligence for a specific state, click on the state below.

---

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)

1207. Strict Liability - Comparative Fault - Contributory Negligence

[Name of defendant] claims that [name of plaintiff]'s harm was caused, in whole or in part, by [name of plaintiff]'s [and/or] [name of third person]'s negligence. To succeed on this claim, [name of defendant] must prove both of the following:

1. [insert one or both of the following:]
[That [name of plaintiff] [and/or] [name of third person] negligently [used/misused/modified] the [product];] [or]
[That [name of plaintiff] [and/or] [name of third person] [was/were] [otherwise] negligent;] nd

2. That this negligence was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]'s harm.

[If the product was misused or modified in a way that was reasonably foreseeable to [name of defendant], [he/she/it] may still succeed on this claim if you find that the misuse or modification was negligent and was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]'s harm.]

If [name of defendant] proves the above, [name of plaintiff]'s damages are reduced by your determination of the percentage of [name of plaintiff]'s [and/or] [name of third person]'s responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.

Directions for Use

See also CACI No. 405, Plaintiff's Contributory Negligence, CACI No. 406, Apportionment of Responsibility, and CACI No. 407, Decedent's Contributory Negligence.

Give this instruction only where the defendant has raised the issue of comparative fault.

Sources and Authority

In Daly v. General Motors Corp. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 725, 737 [144 Cal.Rptr. 380, 575 P.2d 1162], the California Supreme Court held that comparative fault applies to strict products liability actions. The court explained: "[W]e do not permit plaintiff's own conduct relative to the product to escape unexamined, and as to that share of plaintiff's damages which flows from his own fault we discern no reason of policy why it should, following Li, be borne by others."

"[A] petitioner's recovery may accordingly be reduced, but not barred, where his lack of reasonable care is shown to have contributed to his injury." (Bradfield v. Trans World Airlines (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 681, 686 [152 Cal.Rptr. 172].)

Secondary Sources

California Products Liability Actions, Ch. 8, Defenses, �� 8.03, 8.04 (Matthew Bender)
40 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 460, Products Liability, �� 460.53, 460.182 (Matthew Bender)
19 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 190, Products Liability (Matthew Bender)
(New September 2003)

---

405. Plaintiff's Contributory Negligence

[Name of defendant] claims that [name of plaintiff]'s harm was caused in whole or in part by [name of plaintiff]'s own negligence. To succeed on this claim, [name of defendant] must prove both of the following: 1. That [name of plaintiff] was negligent; and 2. That [name of plaintiff]'s negligence was a substantial factor in causing [his/her] harm.

If [name of defendant] proves the above, [name of plaintiff]'s damages are reduced by your determination of the percentage of [name of plaintiff]'s responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.

Directions for Use

This instruction should not be given absent substantial evidence that plaintiff was negligent. (Drust v. Drust (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 [169 Cal.Rptr. 750].)

This instruction should be used only where the defendant claims that plaintiff was negligent, there is only one defendant, and the defendant does not claim that any other factor caused the harm.

Sources and Authority

In Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, 810 [119 Cal.Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226], the Court concluded that the "all-or-nothing" rule of contributory negligence should be abandoned in favor of a rule that assesses liability in proportion to fault.
Restatement Second of Torts, section 463, defines "contributory negligence" as "conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls below the standard to which he should conform for his own protection, and which is a legally contributing cause cooperating with the negligence of the defendant in bringing about the plaintiff's harm."

It is settled that the issue of contributory negligence must be presented to the jury whenever it is asserted as a defense and there is "some evidence of a substantial character" to support it. (Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 530, 548 [138 Cal.Rptr. 705, 564 P.2d 857]; Scott v. Alpha Beta Co. (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 305, 310 [163 Cal.Rptr. 544].)

Courts have found that it is not error to use the phrase "contributory negligence" in a jury instruction on comparative negligence: "The use by the trial court of the phrase 'contributory negligence' in instructing on the concept of comparative negligence is innocuous. Li v. Yellow Cab Co. [citation] abolished the legal doctrine, but not the phrase or the concept of 'contributory negligence.' A claimant's negligence contributing causally to his own injury may be considered now not as a bar to his recovery, but merely as a factor to be considered in measuring the amount thereof." (Bradfield v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 681, 686 [152 Cal.Rptr. 172].)

The defendant has the burden of proving contributory negligence. (Drust, supra, 113 Cal.App.3d at p. 6.)

Secondary Sources

6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, �� 1049-1058, pp. 446-457
1 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 4, Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the Risk, and Related Defenses, � 4.04 (Matthew Bender)
California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 1996) �� 1.38-1.39
4 California Trial Guide, Unit 90, Closing Argument, � 90.91 (Matthew Bender)
33 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 380, Negligence (Matthew Bender)
16 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 165, Negligence, � 165.380 (Matthew Bender)
(New September 2003)

---

407. Decedent's Contributory Negligence

[Name of defendant] claims that [name of decedent]'s death was caused in whole or in part by [name of decedent]'s own negligence. To succeed on this claim, [name of defendant] must prove both of the following: 1. That [name of decedent] was negligent; and 2. That [name of decedent]'s negligence was a substantial factor in causing [his/her] death.

If [name of defendant] proves the above, [name of plaintiff]'s damages are reduced by your determination of the percentage of [name of decedent]'s responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.

Directions for Use

This instruction should not be given absent evidence that the decedent was negligent. (Drust v. Drust (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 [169 Cal.Rptr. 750].)

Sources and Authority

"[P]rinciples of comparative fault and equitable indemnification support an apportionment of liability among those responsible for the loss, including the decedent, whether it be for personal injury or wrongful death." (Horwich v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 272, 285 [87 Cal.Rptr.2d 222, 980 P.2d 927].)

"[I]n wrongful death actions, the fault of the decedent is attributable to the surviving heirs whose recovery must be offset by the same percentage. [Citation.]" (Atkins v. Strayhorn (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1380, 1395 [273 Cal.Rptr. 231].)

Secondary Sources

6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, � 1214, p. 650
1 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 4, Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the Risk, and Related Defenses, � 4.07 (Matthew Bender)
4 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 55, Death and Survival Actions, � 55.05 (Matthew Bender)
15 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 181, Death and Survival Actions (Matthew Bender)
6 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 66, Death and Survival Actions (Matthew Bender)

(New September 2003)


American History X: German Nazi Queen of the 53-nation British Commonwealth Empire has annexed USA via the North Amerikan Soviet Union

TN prosecutor demands sex for traffic tickets

A civil lawsuit by 8 women is apparently in the works.

Note to DA Dickus: Not every woman is Barbie Cummings.






West TN attorney fired after alleged sexual misconduct

BOLIVAR, TN (WMC-TV) - A prominent Mid-South prosecutor was fired after allegations of sexual misconduct.

A TBI spokesperson said she was told Assistant District Attorney for Tennessee's 25th District Terry Dycus has been fired from his job. Dycus was let go shortly after TBI agents began investigating what went on inside the Hardeman County Courthouse.

Two weeks ago, two female defendants with cases in court wound up reporting Dycus to the Bolivar police chief. According to their attorney, both women claim Dycus was trying to coerce them into having sex in exchange for getting their cases thrown out of court.

The women also claimed Dycus touched them inappropriately while court was in recess.

Bolivar's police chief confirmed he took statements from the two women, but he could not provide the allegations of sexual misconduct because he had to turn the information over to the TBI.

Kristin Helm with the TBI said the agents in her office are investigating Dycus for allegations of official misconduct. They will turn over their findings to Paul Hagerman, special prosecutor from the Shelby County District Attorney's office, who has been assigned to the case.

One of Dycus' female accusers is a registered sex offender. The other, according to her attorney, was in court on a violation for illegally hunting on someone else's property.

Dycus' boss, District Attorney Mike Dunavant, could not comment on the case. He did say Dycus was no longer with his office.

The women who made the claims against Dycus were unavailable for comment.

---

Attorney accused of sexual misconduct has long history with state

BOLIVAR, TN (WMC-TV) - Earlier this week, Action News 5 broke the story about a West Tennessee district attorney who's now accused of sexual misconduct. But what's Terry Dycus' history with the state?

Dycus began his career of public service in 1991 as an employee of the Tennessee Department of Human Services. He then moved into the courtroom.

"His greatest time was with the Public Defenders from June 1991 'till April 2001," said Guy Jones with the Tennessee District Attorney's General Conference.

From April 2001 to February 2002, Dycus served as an Assistant District Attorney in the 13th Judicial District in middle Tennessee.

Until recently, Dycus served as an assistant to Mike Dunavant in the 25th Judicial District in West Tennessee.

"The DA apparently has taken action there. Mr. Dycus is no longer employed and there may be allegations that may need to be looked at by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation," Jones said.

Two weeks ago, two female defendants with cases in court in Hardeman County wound up reporting Dycus to the Bolivar Police Chief.

According to their attorney, both women claim Dycus was trying to coerce them into having sex in exchange for getting their cases thrown out of court.

They also claim Dycus touched them inappropriately while court was in recess.

The TBI is looking into these allegations. They will then turn Dycus' case over to special prosecutor Paul Hagerman of Shelby County.

"It's essentially no different, the way its done, is no different that if it were a conflict case for instance if someone in the office had a family member accused of a crime," Jones said.

Action News 5 contacted the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, which announces disciplinary actions taken by the Tennessee Supreme Court against attorneys.

They said there had never been any disciplinary action taken against Terry Dycus.

---

Another fine example of govt employees getting fired, while the rest of us get arrested, prosecuted, tried and sentenced to jail.

Extorting sex bribes is the felony of extortion under TN Code.

Meet Lockheed Martin...your Cylon Overlord

Is Lockheed Martin Shadowing You?

"I find it very revealing that Lockheed Martin, one of the biggest manufacturers of red light cameras in the U.S., has included clauses in their contracts that prohibit city engineers from applying engineering practices that improve compliance and reduce accidents, apparently to maintain the flow of ticket camera revenue. Lockheed Martin specifically prohibits cities, such as San Diego, California, from changing the timing of yellow lights in intersections that host their cameras, even though increasing the yellow light time has proven to dramatically decrease red light violations. And, ticket cameras have definitely shown a profit. California recently raised their red light violation fines to $271 per ticket (Lockheed Martin receives $70 of that). Washington DC has started using photo enforcement and has stated it expects to receive $160 million in traffic fines by 2004."
-National Motorists Association, Revenue Drives Red Light Cameras, Not Safety

"When KPRC-TV in Houston, which is owned by The Washington Post Co., discovered a secret drone air show for dozens of officers at a remote location 70 miles from Houston, police officials were forced to call a hasty news conference to explain their interest in the technology. A senior officer in Houston then mentioned to reporters that drones might ultimately be used for recording traffic violations."
-Washington’s Blog, Drones Becoming Pervasive INSIDE America, May 18, 2011

Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Have you noticed that Lockheed Martin, the giant weapons corporation, is shadowing you? No? Then you haven't been paying much attention. Let me put it this way: If you have a life, Lockheed Martin is likely a part of it.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

True, Lockheed Martin doesn't actually run the US government, but sometimes it seems as if it might as well. After all, it received $36 billion in government contracts in 2008 alone, more than any company in history. It now does work for more than two dozen government agencies from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency. It's involved in surveillance and information processing for the CIA, the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the National Security Agency (NSA), the Pentagon, the Census Bureau, and the Postal Service.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Oh, and Lockheed Martin has even helped train those friendly Transportation Security Administration agents who pat you down at the airport. Naturally, the company produces cluster bombs, designs nuclear weapons, and makes the F-35 Lightning (an overpriced, behind-schedule, underperforming combat aircraft that is slated to be bought by customers in more than a dozen countries)—and when it comes to weaponry, that's just the start of a long list. In recent times, though, it's moved beyond anything usually associated with a weapons corporation and has been virtually running its own foreign policy, doing everything from hiring interrogators for US overseas prisons (including at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq) to managing a private intelligence network in Pakistan and helping write the Afghan constitution.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

A For-Profit Government-in-the-Making

If you want to feel a tad more intimidated, consider Lockheed Martin's sheer size for a moment. After all, the company receives one of every 14 dollars doled out by the Pentagon. In fact, its government contracts, thought about another way, amount to a "Lockheed Martin tax" of $260 per taxpaying household in the United States, and no weapons contractor has more power or money to wield to defend its turf. It spent $12 million on congressional lobbying and campaign contributions in 2009 alone. Not surprisingly, it's the top contributor to the incoming House Armed Services Committee chairman, Republican Howard P. "Buck" McKeon of California, giving more than $50,000 in the most recent election cycle. It also tops the list of donors to Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), the powerful chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the self-described "#1 earmarks guy in the US Congress."


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Add to all that its 140,000 employees and its claim to have facilities in 46 states, and the scale of its clout starts to become clearer. While the bulk of its influence-peddling activities may be perfectly legal, the company also has quite a track record when it comes to law-breaking: it ranks number one on the "contractor misconduct" database maintained by the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-DC-based watchdog group.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

How in the world did Lockheed Martin become more than just a military contractor? Its first significant foray outside the world of weaponry came in the early 1990s when plain old Lockheed (not yet merged with Martin Marietta) bought Datacom Inc., a company specializing in providing services for state and city governments, and turned it into the foundation for a new business unit called Lockheed Information Management Services (IMS). In turn, IMS managed to win contracts in 44 states and several foreign countries for tasks ranging from collecting parking fines and tolls to tracking down "deadbeat dads" and running "welfare to work" job-training programs. The result was a number of high profile failures, but hey, you can't do everything right, can you?


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Under pressure from Wall Street to concentrate on its core business—implements of destruction—Lockheed Martin sold IMS in 2001. By then, however, it had developed a taste for non-weapons work, especially when it came to data collection and processing. So it turned to the federal government where it promptly racked up deals with the IRS, the Census Bureau, and the US Postal Service, among other agencies.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

As a result, Lockheed Martin is now involved in nearly every interaction you have with the government. Paying your taxes? Lockheed Martin is all over it. The company is even creating a system that provides comprehensive data on every contact taxpayers have with the IRS from phone calls to face-to-face meetings.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Want to stand up and be counted by the US Census? Lockheed Martin will take care of it. The company runs three centers—in Baltimore, Phoenix, and Jeffersonville, Indiana—that processed up to 18 tractor-trailers full of mail per day at the height of the 2010 Census count. For $500 million it is developing the Decennial Response Information Service (DRIS), which will collect and analyze information gathered from any source, from phone calls or the Internet to personal visits. According to Preston Waite, associate director of the Census, the DRIS will be a "big catch net, catching all the data that comes in no matter where it comes from."


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Need to get a package across the country? Lockheed Martin cameras will scan bar codes and recognize addresses, so your package can be sorted "without human intervention," as the company's web site puts it.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Plan on committing a crime? Think twice. Lockheed Martin is in charge of the FBI's Integrated Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), a database of 55 million sets of fingerprints. The company also produces biometric identification devices that will know who you are by scanning your iris, recognizing your face, or coming up with novel ways of collecting your fingerprints or DNA. As the company likes to say, it's in the business of making everyone's lives (and so personal data) an "open book," which is, of course, of great benefit to us all. "Thanks to biometric technology," the company proclaims, "people don't have to worry about forgetting a password or bringing multiple forms of identification. Things just got a little easier."


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Are you a New York City resident concerned about a "suspicious package" finding its way onto the subway platform? Lockheed Martin tried to do something about that, too, thanks to a contract from the city's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to install 3,000 security cameras and motion sensors that would spot such packages, as well as the people carrying them, and notify the authorities. Only problem: the cameras didn't work as advertised and the MTA axed Lockheed Martin and cancelled the $212 million contract.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Collecting Intelligence on You

If it seems a little creepy to you that the same company making ballistic missiles is also processing your taxes, accessing your fingerprints, scanning your packages, ensuring that it's easier than ever to collect your DNA, and counting you for the census, rest assured: Lockheed Martin's interest in getting inside your private life via intelligence collection and surveillance has remained remarkably undiminished in the twenty-first century.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Tim Shorrock, author of the seminal book Spies for Hire, has described Lockheed Martin as "the largest defense contractor and private intelligence force in the world." As far back as 2002, the company plunged into the "Total Information Awareness" (TIA) program that was former National Security Advisor Admiral John Poindexter's pet project. A giant database to collect telephone numbers, credit cards, and reams of other personal data from US citizens in the name of fighting terrorism, the program was de-funded by Congress the following year, but concerns remain that the National Security Agency is now running a similar secret program.


Lockheed Martin wants to nuke and gaterape you, your wife, your momma and your kids

In the meantime, since at least 2004, Lockheed Martin has been involved in the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), which collected personal data on American citizens for storage in a database known as "Threat and Local Observation Notice" (and far more dramatically by the acronym TALON). While Congress shut down the domestic spying aspect of the program in 2007 (assuming, that is, that the Pentagon followed orders), CIFA itself continues to operate.


Lockheed Martin wants to nuke and gaterape you, your wife, your momma and your kids

In 2005, Washington Post military and intelligence expert William Arkin revealed that, while the database was theoretically being used to track anyone suspected of terrorism, drug trafficking, or espionage, "some military gumshoe or overzealous commander just has to decide someone is a ‘threat to the military'" for it to be brought into play. Among the "threatening" citizens actually tracked by CIFA were members of antiwar groups. As part of its role in CIFA, Lockheed Martin was not only monitoring intelligence, but also "estimating future threats." (Not exactly inconvenient for a giant weapons outfit that might see antiwar activism as a threat!)


Lockheed Martin wants to nuke and gaterape you, your wife, your momma and your kids

Lockheed Martin is also intimately bound up in the workings of the National Security Agency, America's largest spy outfit. In addition to producing spy satellites for the NSA, the company is in charge of "Project Groundbreaker," a $5 billion, 10-year effort to upgrade the agency's internal telephone and computer networks.


Lockheed Martin wants to nuke and gaterape you, your wife, your momma and your kids

While Lockheed Martin may well be watching you at home—it's my personal nominee for twenty-first-century "Big Brother"—it has also been involved in questionable activities abroad that go well beyond supplying weapons to regions in conflict. There were, of course, those interrogators it recruited for America's offshore prison system from Guantanamo Bay to Afghanistan (and the charges of abuses that so naturally went with them), but the real scandal the company has been embroiled in involves overseeing an assassination program in Pakistan. Initially, it was billed as an information gathering operation using private companies to generate data the CIA and other US intelligence agencies allegedly could not get on their own. Instead, the companies turned out to be supplying targeting information used by US Army Special Forces troops to locate and kill suspected Taliban leaders.


Lockheed Martin wants to nuke and gaterape you, your wife, your momma and your kids

The private firms involved were managed by Lockheed Martin under a $22 million contract from the US Army. As Mark Mazetti of the New York Times has reported, there were just two small problems with the effort: "The American military is largely prohibited from operating in Pakistan. And under Pentagon rules, the army is not allowed to hire contractors for spying." Much as in the Iran/Contra scandal of the 1980s, when Oliver North set up a network of shell companies to evade the laws against arming right-wing paramilitaries in Nicaragua, the Army used Lockheed Martin to do an end run around rules limiting US military and intelligence activities in Pakistan. It should not, then, be too surprising that one of the people involved in the Lockheed-Martin-managed network was Duane "Dewey" Claridge, an ex-CIA man who had once been knee deep in the Iran/Contra affair.


Lockheed Martin wants to nuke and gaterape you, your wife, your momma and your kids

A Twenty-First Century Big Brother

There has also been a softer side to Lockheed Martin's foreign policy efforts. It has involved contracts for services that range from recruiting election monitors for Bosnia and the Ukraine and attempting to reform Liberia's justice system to providing personnel involved in drafting the Afghan constitution. Most of these projects have been carried out by the company's PAE unit, the successor to a formerly independent firm, Pacific Architects and Engineers, that made its fortune building and maintaining military bases during the Vietnam War.


Lockheed Martin wants to nuke and gaterape you, your wife, your momma and your kids

However, the "soft power" side of Lockheed Martin's operations (as described on its web site) may soon diminish substantially as the company has put PAE up for sale. Still, the revenues garnered from these activities will undoubtedly be more than offset by a new $5 billion, multi-year contract awarded by the US Army to provide logistics support for US Special Forces in dozens of countries.


Lockheed Martin wants to nuke and gaterape you, your wife, your momma and your kids

Consider all this but a Lockheed Martin précis. A full accounting of its "shadow government" would fill volumes. After all, it's the number-one contractor not only for the Pentagon, but also for the Department of Energy. It ranks number two for the Department of State, number three for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and number four for the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development. Even listing the government and quasi-governmental agencies the company has contracts with is a daunting task, but here's just a partial run-down: the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Land Management, the Census Bureau, the Coast Guard, the Department of Defense (including the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Missile Defense Agency), the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Technology Department, the Food and Drug Administration, the General Services Administration, the Geological Survey, the Department of Homeland Security, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Internal Revenue Service, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of State, the Social Security Administration, the US Customs Service, the US Postal Service, the Department of Transportation, the Transportation Security Agency, and the Department of Veterans Affairs.



When President Eisenhower warned 50 years ago this month of the dangers of "unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex," he could never have dreamed that one for-profit weapons outfit would so fully insinuate itself into so many aspects of American life. Lockheed Martin has helped turn Eisenhower's dismal mid-twentieth-century vision into a for-profit military-industrial-surveillance complex fit for the twenty-first century, one in which no governmental activity is now beyond its reach.

I feel safer already.

William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation and the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex (Nation Books, January 2011). To listen to Timothy MacBain's latest TomCast audio interview in which Hartung discusses the unsettling reach of Lockheed Martin, click here or, to download it to your iPod, here.

Lockheed Martin's Shadow Government

Trackback comments

---

Drones Becoming Pervasive INSIDE America

Washington's Blog, May 18, 2011

AP noted last year:

Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the pressure’s on to allow them in the skies over the United States.

The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act.

The Washington Post reported in January:

The operation outside Austin presaged what could prove to be one of the most far-reaching and potentially controversial uses of drones: as a new and relatively cheap surveillance tool in domestic law enforcement.

For now, the use of drones for high-risk operations is exceedingly rare. The Federal Aviation Administration – which controls the national airspace – requires the few police departments with drones to seek emergency authorization if they want to deploy one in an actual operation. Because of concerns about safety, it only occasionally grants permission.

But by 2013, the FAA expects to have formulated new rules that would allow police across the country to routinely fly lightweight, unarmed drones up to 400 feet above the ground – high enough for them to be largely invisible eyes in the sky.

***

But when drones come to perch in numbers over American communities, they will drive fresh debates about the boundaries of privacy. The sheer power of some of the cameras that can be mounted on them is likely to bring fresh search-and-seizure cases before the courts, and concern about the technology’s potential misuse could unsettle the public.

***

When KPRC-TV in Houston, which is owned by The Washington Post Co., discovered a secret drone air show for dozens of officers at a remote location 70 miles from Houston, police officials were forced to call a hasty news conference to explain their interest in the technology.

A senior officer in Houston then mentioned to reporters that drones might ultimately be used for recording traffic violations.

Campers may soon be able to regularly see something bigger and badder when climbing the High Peaks: Reaper drones flown by the New York Air National Guard’s 174th Fighter Wing based in Syracuse, New York.

And drones aren’t just buzzing over the Adirondacks. The proposal to begin training missions there is part of a bigger push to build a drone infrastructure for flying missions throughout the United States. So new drone bases are being built. The FAA is setting aside airspace for drone flights.

***

The latest example is the amendment proposed by Senators Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) to the “FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Act” (S.223) that would increase the number of “National Airspace System” test sites from four to ten. At least one of these sites would have to include a “significant portion” of public land.

***

Although it is hard to predict where the drone infrastructure will grow, if other defense contracting projects are a reliable guide, the drone-ification of America will probably continue until there is a drone aerodrome in every state …

Given that the national security apparatus has been hijacked to serve the needs of big business and to crush dissent, it’s not far-fetched to think that information gained from drones will be used for purposes that are not necessarily in the best interests of the American people.

And as I noted earlier today, the U.S. is allowing military operations within the United States.

Remember also that Obama has authorized “targeted assassinations” against U.S. citizens.

And when John Yoo was asked last year whether drones could kill people within the United States, he replied yes – if we were in a time of war:

Of course, since the U.S. has declared a perpetual war (and see this), drones will always be in fashion.

And remember that Department of Defense training manuals consider protest to be “low-level terrorism”. And see this, this and this. And an FBI memo also labels peace protesters as “terrorists”.

---

Think it can't happen here in Tennessee...?

---

Or Rise Up...

Racing, sex, drugs and 33 stewardesses in 14 days

MotorsportsRetro.com - Hunt and Sheene: When Playboys Ruled the World



Sir James Hunt Manho of the British Empire

Turbo charged by lust

How Formula One womaniser James Hunt slept with 33 BA stewardesses before race that made him world champ. He had spent the two weeks leading up to the race on a round-the-clock alcohol, ­cannabis and cocaine binge with his friend Barry Sheene, who was world motorcycle champion that year.

While Jackie Stewart famously abstained from sex a week before a motor race, Hunt would often have sex minutes before climbing into the cockpit.

Nothing could have prepared Patrick Head, now co-owner of the Williams F1 team but then a young car designer, for the morning when he inadvertently walked into the wrong pit garage.

He found Hunt inside, with his racing overalls around his ankles, cavorting with a Japanese girl. Hunt laughed when he saw the interloper, who left, not quite believing what he had seen.

A few minutes later, Hunt left the garage and went around the side to carry out his pre-race ritual of vomiting — the result of extreme nerves combined with overindulgence.

Finally ready for action, Hunt went out to drive the race of his life... and won the 1976 world championship, beating his nearest rival by one point."

At the circuit, he had been behaving bizarrely — at one point dropping his overalls and urinating in full view of the crowds in the grandstand.

The ­spectators, many of whom had ­powerful binoculars trained on him, applauded once he had finished.

He famously wore a tee shirt under his racing overalls that read Sex - Breakfast of Champions.

But that's not all, he ended up selling his wife too, to Richard Burton...for $1,000,000!

Thereafter he carved out a career as a TV commentator only to die prematurely from a heart attack at the age of 45.





How James Hunt really won the World Championship, "thanks to Niki Lauda's face":

Lifestar extortion racket on Deals Gap Dragon

When my cousin was killed last year on the Tellico Dragon, Lifestar billed his fiance $18,000 for her taxi ride. His insurance company refused to pay on his $15,000 passenger liability policy. Are they in cahoots with Lifestar? It only costs Lifestar $3,500 expenses per flight...

Warning: Lifestar can only carry one passenger at a time...no fatties allowed.

---

Life-Star Membership Program

If you ride in the mountains around here and happen to crash so that you need to go to the hospital, the chances are that you will be taken out in a helicopter since the road ambulance would take too long.

I found out a bit too late that the local Lifestar service is part of a network that has an enrollment program. Basically, what ever a members insurance doesn't cover is considered paid in full when you get picked up by the med-evac. In my case, my insurance covered $250, which didn't cover the cost of the ground ambulance to the landing zone. My air bill is over $16,000! Yearly cost for the program is about $50/yr for one person, $55/yr for two people and $60/yr for 3 or more member households!

Had I been able to find this info when I was looking a couple of months before my accident, my medical bills would be $16000 less.

BTW, I am a member.........now.

The following is the contact info:

Air Evac Lifeteam (Rural areas and original member based program)
1 (800) 793-0010
www.lifeteam.net

Med-Trans (Includes UT Lifestar)
1 (866) 751-4515
www.med-trans.net

Eagle Med
1 (800) 764-3343
www.flyeaglemed.com (Kansas and Oklahoma)

Membership through any one of these is honored by the other companies

The coverage area is most of the southern and mid-eastern states from TX to TN and GA to IL. Check them out before you need to.....I wish I had been able to find this info earlier, when I was looking for it, originally.

---

I wonder if Lifestar pockets any of the $500,000 per body for free organ harvesting from live bodies?

"Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken. Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done. Outlined in the 2008 book 'Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,' Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation."
-CNS News, Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent, Sept 5, 2009

"Ethicists and emergency medicine experts are raising concerns over New York City's plan to dispatch the first ambulance service in the country equipped to preserve the organs of the newly deceased. They question whether the organ-preserving ambulances will create tension among EMTs who may be charged both to save lives and to preserve organs for reuse. The aim of the Rapid Organ Recovery Ambulance service, city officials say, is to buy precious time for families to decide whether they want their loved ones' organs to be donated to needy patients. New York City plans to start the service rolling within a month. And the plan, which has already received federal funding, is being eyed as a possibility by other emergency medical departments. The services provided by such ambulances -- namely, efforts to save the organs of the newly dead without direct consent -- have some concerns among some experts. 'Will raising organ donation follow pronouncement of death, or will people come to know that the organ donation ambulance has been sent, making them wonder if their relative got a full press of rescue care?' said Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. 'This is called violating the dead donor rule -- no organ donation [discussion] raised prior to pronouncement of death.' Far more troubling is the idea that emergency medical personnel staffing the ambulances could be faced with a dilemma of either doing everything possible to save a patient, or acting with the chief interest of saving organs. 'If it is an ambulance for the living or the dead, you run into an ethical dilemma,' O'Brien said. 'The ambulance has an obligation to the people of their service area to go back into service after a call, as soon as possible. This sounds like they may be tied up transporting and working on literally a deceased person, and not be available for others.' Mehlman adds that some may worry whether the responders on such an ambulance would be under any pressure to stop trying to revive a patient in order to begin saving his or her organs."
—Dan Childs, ABC News Medical Unit, Ethicists Debate Ambulance for Organs - Some Worry New York City Plan Could Give Living Patients the Short Shrift, May 9, 2008

"The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US. (By contrast, the number of deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 was 699,697, while the number of deaths attributable to cancer was 553,251.5) Using Leape's 1997 medical and drug error rate of 3 million multiplied by the 14% fatality rate he used in 1994 produces an annual death rate of 420,000 for drug errors and medical errors combined. Using this number instead of Lazorou's 106,000 drug errors and the Institute of Medicine 's (IOM) estimated 98,000 annual medical errors would add another 216,000 deaths, for a total of 999,936 deaths annually. Our estimated 10-year total of 7.8 million iatrogenic* deaths is more than all the casualties from all the wars fought by the US throughout its entire history. Our considerably higher figure is equivalent to six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each day."
—Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; Dorothy Smith, PhD, Life Extension Magazine, Death by Medicine, March 2004 (plus 6-Million annual aborticides in USA - Get your abortion gift certificate for Christmas!)

"Harry Hurt, one of the world's foremost authorities on motorcycle crashes and their causes, has died. He was 81. Hurt suffered a heart attack Sunday at Pomona Valley Hospital. It was a complication of back surgery that he had a week earlier, said his eldest son, Harry Hurt III. Hurt was the principal investigator of the Hurt Report, an in-depth, on-scene investigation of 900 motorcycle accidents in Los Angeles from 1976 to 1977. Published in 1981, his groundbreaking research continues to form the basis of many of the country's motorcycle safety programs and is credited with saving countless lives. 'Harry was the acknowledged giant in motorcycle accident research,' said Jim Ouellet, one of the accident investigators for the Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures study, better known as the Hurt Report. Hurt was a lifelong motorcyclist and never had a crash, said his wife, Joan. Hurt joined the Navy toward the end of World War II, learned to fly and became a commissioned officer, but the war was over, so he never flew in combat. Hurt's expertise in vehicular safety began with aviation. He wrote 'Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators,' a flight-training textbook that continues to be standard reading for aviators and is still in print, 44 years after its initial publication."
—Susan Carpenter, Los Angleles Times Obituary, Motorcycle Safety Guru Murdered by Medical Doctors, Newspaper Censors Countersteering, December 2, 2009

---

Deals Gap 4-hour rescue, Part 1:

Cop interrogation costs taxslaves $1.8-million

This is why The Dragonater always records all conversations (interrogations) with police.

Watch police video of 13-year-old autistic boy's interrogation by scumbag copsters

This article was first posted on Freep.com on March 16, 2008. We're rerunning it with updates to reflect today's developments.

On Dec. 4, 2007, without notice to a legal guardian appointed to represent the boy, West Bloomfield Police Detective Joseph Brousseau interrogated a 13-year-old witness about allegations of sexual abuse against his father.

Prosecutors later dropped criminal charges against the parents and agreed to reunite them with their son and daughter, who had been living in separate foster homes for more than three months.

Today, the Free Press reported that the family will get $1.8 million to settle a lawsuit against the police which arose after the Free Press' 2008 articles.

In the video excerpts, which can be viewed below in chronological order, the Free Press has blurred the boy's face to help obscure his identity and that of his sister.

The Wendrows' attorney, Deborah Gordon, said today the Wendrows want the taped interrogation available to Free Press readers.

“They want people to see what exactly went on here,” Gordon said.

Their son is now 16, doing well in school and hopes to someday go to college, Gordon said, but still struggles with the memories.

The Free Press is withholding his name.

Legal experts find violation of rules in taped interrogation

The 13-year-old's interrogation was an attempt to corroborate allegations of abuse his autistic sister had typed with the physical assistance of a paraprofessional facilitator. The accuracy and authorship of the allegations have both been questioned by experts in facilitated communication, who say the accusations may reflect only the facilitator's unconscious suspicions.

Legal experts say the video record of the boy's interrogation reveals numerous violations of rules that are supposed to protect minors who may have witnessed sexual abuse and to minimize false allegations of abuse.

One called Brousseau's tactics, which included deception, threats and repeated insinuations that the boy was lying, "reprehensible." A therapist who treated the boy for Asperger's Syndrome, a mild form of autism, said the detective may have misinterpreted symptoms of the boy's condition as evidence of evasion or guilt.

A spokesman for the West Bloomfield police said at the time: "The bottom line here is that the detective wanted to get the truth. I don't know whether he went over the line or not."

During the two-hour interview, Brousseau repeatedly tells the boy that police have uncovered new evidence supporting his autistic sister's allegations against their father. As the interrogation progresses, the detective stuns the boy by suggesting that videotapes recovered from the boy's home depict him in sexually compromising situations.

After steadfastly denying any knowledge of sexual abuse, the boy ultimately concedes that the unseen evidence may prove his involvement, although he can't recall any sexual contact with his father or sister. Weeping, he tells Brousseau that the detective's revelations have shattered his confidence in his father.

In fact, prosecutors now concede, evidence to which Brousseau makes repeated references during the interrogation does not exist.

A closer look at the videos

Early in the two-hour interrogation, Detective Brousseau tells the13-year-old that police have uncovered other evidence supporting his autistic sister's allegations of sexual abuse. The detective never explains what evidence he is referring to.

Brousseau tells the 13-year-old that the boy's body language suggests he knows more than he's saying about his sister's allegations. Experts who have reviewed the video say the detective may have misinterpretied symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome, a condition for which the boy was treated for 10 years, as evidence of guilt or evasion.

The 13-year-old witness says that what Brousseau has told him makes him question his father's innocence.

As the boy continues to insist he has never had sexual contact with his father, Brousseau says that police have discovered evidence of sexual contact between the boy and his sister. Prosecutors now concede that there is no such evidence.

Brousseau returns to the interrogation room after a 10-minute absence to report that crime lab technicians have uncovered new, unspecified evidence that points to the boy's own involvement in sexual abuse. Prosecutors now concede no such evidence exists.

Pressed to remember situations when his father and sister have been together, the boy tells Brousseau he has seen his father help his disabled sister shower while his father was naked. A psychologist who treated the girl for many years said she was aware of the father's actions and not alarmed by them, because the autistic girl frequently became "frozen" and required her parents' assistance to bathe.

As the boy continues to deny any knowledge of sexual abuse in his home, Brousseau expresses doubts about his honesty.

The boy asks to take a lie detector test; Brousseau tells him the father has refused to submit to a polygraph himself. The father's lawyer says he vetoed the polygraph when he learned his father had volunteered to take the test.

Brousseau insists the boy has firsthand knowledge of sexual abuse in his parents' home.

Brousseau hints that videotapes recovered in a search of the parents' house depict the boy in sexual situations with family members, and warns that "it's going to come out." In fact, no such videos were found. You will hear a tone where the Free Press has removed a name from this clip.

The boy tells Brousseau he no longer sees his father as trustworthy. The detective insists that the father forfeited his son's trust "a long time ago."

---

Here's how copsters do interrogations in Tennessee -- Gitmo Style...

AZ cops massacre biker babe Gabby Giffords

All the gory details They don't want you to know about - Liberal Smear Machine Backfires After Alleged Gunman Found To Be Satanic Atheistic Abortion-Loving Open-Border Illegal-Alien Loving Pot-Smoking Long-Haired Liberal Commie Left-Wing Democrat Homosexual Transvestite Walmart Jew.

Congresswoman Gabby Giffords says ride your bike to work today:



Turns out a traffic stop by AZ Parks & Recreation cops was the final straw for Jared Loughner. Even if all he got was a warning ticket, since his momma works for Parks & Recreation Dept. All traffic stops are arrests...cops will kill you if you refuse to stop.

Turns out the Pima County sheriff refused to provide security to a member of Congress 60 miles from the Mexican border Wars, then refused to allow ambulance crews to help the dying victims, says ER doc who was an eyewitness to the massacre. Funny how a Police State only increases the body count...

Dial 911 and Die: Gun owner opens fire on mass murderer and makes citizen's arrest, while govt cops are nowhere to be found.

This is your head after judicial diversion sends you to the loonybin for mind control:


Hippy gets a free haircut billed $10-million to the taxslaves.

Now he looks just like the Congresscritter's creepy massmurdering husband.


How many kids have you killed today Commander Mark Kelly?

9-year-old victim's daddy begs Big Brother to stop its pedophile gaterape, wonders why Democrat jew sheriff refused to allow ambulances for his daughter and comatose wife:








But the Mexican and Canadian borders remain undefended

"The federal government does nothing to secure our border."
-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ -- "former" Republican)

"Not a single issue voter, but if I was, gay rights would be it. I just want Democrats to be tough. And I wish Obama were tougher. That’s all. I’m a proud gay. I had favorite books: The Communist Manifesto."
-Jared Lee Loughner

“Good luck to you, Mr. Loughner."
-U.S. Magistrate Lawrence Anderson

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
-Dictator Hussein Obama Soetoro