There are many of us that are put at serious odds with the system because of the biometric and full on singularity of the tracking and control paradigm via Real ID and the associated Morpho Trust international collusion. These following cites from a myriad of cases may be helpful to us in protecting the rights that are supposed to be secured by a just government. This is long…And hopefully helpful! Many thanks to Eric Vimont for sending this to me!

Supreme-Court-Justices-2

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”

-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”

The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”

Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”

(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,

Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.

Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”

Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.

Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.

Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;

Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’

U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235″ 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”

United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –

EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –

TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –

GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –

SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.

 

OG article

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-supreme-court-says-license-necessary-drive-public-letennier

A few questions come to mind before reading or viewing any of these positively horrific videos that have recently come out on Planned Parenthood and the sale of baby parts. At least we should have some questions. First off, how many times have “pro-life” Republicans been in charge of both houses of congress and the presidency and done nothing about abortion? How many times have “pro-life” representatives voted to continue funding Planned Parenthood in budget legislation? Why can’t anyone in Congress actually review Planned Parenthood annual financial reports and see with basic math that the federal funding “prohibited” from specifically funding abortion has obviously been used to fund Planned Parenthood abortions?

So….The following atrocity is brought to you by your own tax dollars. People need to know. People need to act. While this has been going on for decades, most have been appeased by the federal “provisions” that supposedly prevent Planned Parenthood from using fed funding for abortions.

Please spread this article around and especially the letter from the Planned Parenthood representative that urges media to not cover this issue.

Planned Parenthood Demands Media Not Air Damning Footage

“The material should not be aired,” the organization said in a message to news outlets
Planned Parenthood Demands Media Not Air Damning Footage

by Adan Salazar | Infowars.com | July 28, 2015

 

Planned Parenthood branches in several states are demanding local media refrain from airing damning footage obtained through recent undercover stings, in a frantic attempt to suppress negative criticism generated over their reported sale of aborted fetal tissue.

On Monday evening, Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota issued statements to “Health and Political Reporters and Producers” recommending the footage, which they say was garnered “under false pretenses,” “not be aired.”

“[The Center for Medical Progress] gained access to Planned Parenthood facilities under false pretenses and filmed without securing approval from the Planned Parenthood staff being filmed or the patients whose privacy is compromised by this secret videotaping,” a letter sent by Communications Director Jennifer Aulwes to media said.

“The material should not be aired.”

The organization’s effort to silence the press follows the release of a third documentary style video from the pro-life Center for Medical Progress Tuesday, which depicts in graphic detail the dissection of fetal organs.

The threatening message to the press comes as Planned Parenthood hires “progressive” Washington DC public relations firm SKDKnickerbocker to assist with damage control, according to Politico, even as corporations like Ford and Coca Cola have vowed to stop donating to the organization.

The PR firm claims to “craft… effective messages” “to protect a women’s right to choose, for marriage equality or to stop the scourge of guns on our streets,” and boasts major political clients such as President Obama, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

“Planned Parenthood is a longtime client, and we are proud to help them push back against these extremist attacks from people who want to end reproductive health care for women in this country,” a spokesperson for the firm said in a statement.

Meanwhile the governors of Indiana, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri and Kansas have all called for investigations into the horrific revelations, with presidential candidate Rand Paul and others leading the charge to defund the organization.

“My legislation won’t be about whether it’s legal or not … I think everybody in America is horrified by this, and they don’t want their tax dollars going to this group,” the republican presidential candidate said of his proposed bill on CBS’ Face the Nation.

Planned Parenthood warned a congressional committee last week that more sting videos would be forthcoming, and that some could be racially charged.

The Center for Medical Progress says it will release additional videos in weeks to come, promising one per week.

Below is Planned Parenthood’s message to the media in full, via valleynewslive.com:

To: North Dakota Health and Political Reporters and Producers
From: Jen Aulwes, Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota
Date: July 27, 2015
Re: Center for Medical Progress Expected to Violate Patient Privacy

The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) is an extreme activist organization whose sole mission is to prevent women from accessing health care and to destroy Planned Parenthood. The board members of this group believe that abortion is “genocide,” and employ people who went to jail for attempting to bomb a women’s health clinic. They are also connected with the man who murdered abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.

CMP has used footage obtained through deceit and unlawful behavior, including possible violations of state recording laws, federal tax laws and falsified state identification. Then, they concoct wildly false stories through selective editing. We expect this video will be no different in that regard; however, footage yet to come is expected to represent an extreme violation of patient privacy by including footage of post-abortion fetal tissue neither patients nor health care professionals authorized be filmed.

When your network decides whether to consider this story newsworthy, or whether to use any of this footage at all, we urge you to keep this in mind: The extremists who entered Planned Parenthood labs under false pretenses violated research protocol, and, worse, violated the privacy of patients involved. Those patients’ privacy should not be further violated by having this footage shared by the media.

The storage and examination processes that CMP used to get this footage are medically necessary. It is necessary medical professionals ensure an abortion is complete so that patients do not get an infection. When tissue is donated for medical research, these steps are also necessary for the donations to be completed. It is also medically necessary that researchers evaluate the laboratory procedures of a medical provider for safety standards and best practices.

Some of the conversations and protocols that occur in medical settings and among professional peers can sound jarring when taken out of context. While this can be difficult to hear or watch, it should not be used as an excuse to defund Planned Parenthood.

CMP gained access to Planned Parenthood facilities under false pretenses and filmed without securing approval from the Planned Parenthood staff being filmed or the patients whose privacy is compromised by this secret videotaping. The material should not be aired.

Please contact me at 651-755-9557 or jaulwes@ppmns.org if you have any questions or need any more information.

Facebook’s Use of Facial-Recognition Tool Draws Privacy Ire
by Rachel Adams-Heard
July 28, 2015 — 4:00 AM CDT
Updated on July 28, 2015 — 1:14 PM CDT

When you are identified in a picture on Facebook, biometric software remembers your face so it can be “tagged” in other photographs.

Facebook Inc. says this enhances the user experience. But privacy advocates say the company’s technology — which was shut off in Europe and Canada after concerns were raised — should only be used with explicit permission.

As commercial use of facial recognition technology grows to replace password log-ins, find people in photos and someday even customize displays for shoppers as they browse in stores, it’s raised privacy questions. That’s one reason the U.S. government is participating in a working group to develop rules for companies using facial recognition — even if those are voluntary.

“Face recognition data can be collected without a person’s knowledge,” said Jennifer Lynch, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based privacy rights group. “It’s very rare for a fingerprint to be collected without your knowledge.”

Privacy groups such as Lynch’s last month cited the business community’s opposition to requiring prior consent as the reason they walked out on the government meetings. The Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which sponsored the talks, plans to continue the process Tuesday without most of the privacy advocates.

“The process is the strongest when all interested parties participate and are willing to engage on all issues,” said Juliana Gruenwald, an agency spokeswoman.
Prior Knowledge

Facebook defends its use of facial-recognition technology, a form of biometrics. It works by assigning numbers to physical characteristics such as distance between eyes, nose and ears in order to come up with a unique faceprint that can be used to identify someone when they’ve already been identified through tagging.

The technology powers a photo feature called “tag suggestions” that is automatically turned on when users sign up for a Facebook account. The suggestions are only made to a user’s friends.

“Tag suggestions make it easy for friends to tag each other in photos,” Facebook said in an e-mailed statement. “And when someone is alerted they’ve been tagged in a photo, it’s easier to take action, whether it’s commenting, contacting the person who shared it, or reporting it to Facebook.”

Users can opt-out at any time, Facebook said. But that requires that they change their settings.
Flawed Policy

“Facebook isn’t getting permission,” said Alvaro Bedoya, executive director of Georgetown University’s Center on Privacy & Technology, who walked out on the U.S. meetings. “Facial recognition is one of those categories of data where a very prominent and a very clear consent is necessary.”

The U.S. government’s approach to regulating use of face data by companies is inadequate, privacy activists said. They point to Europe, where strict privacy laws forced Facebook in 2012 to delete data collected for its tag-suggestion feature following a probe by Irish authorities. Tag suggestions have also been turned off in Canada.

“Of significant privacy concern is the fact that Facebook has the ability to combine facial biometric data with extensive information about users, including biographic data, location data, and associations with ‘friends,’” Canada’s Office of the Privacy Commissioner said in a 2013 report on facial recognition technology.
Google, Microsoft

Bedoya, who formerly advised Democratic Senator Al Franken of Minnesota on privacy policy, said other Web companies get consent. He mentioned Google Inc., which gives users of its Google application the option to use face identification by turning on the “find my face” feature.

Companies such as Microsoft Corp., which is building facial recognition into Windows 10, and MasterCard, with its plan for selfie verification for online payments, require the download of an app or the purchase of hardware. Those acts can verify consent, privacy advocates say.

“It’s a complicated question,” said Carl Szabo, policy counsel for NetChoice, an association of Web companies such as Facebook, Google and Yahoo! Inc. “My concern is that if we go down this road, we’re not going to give this technology the opportunity to flourish and provide some of the really cool innovations that I can’t even think of today.”
‘Vote With Feet’

Szabo said he’s in favor of a code of conduct that would require companies using facial recognition to be transparent about their use of the technology with a notice or sign. That would allow consumers to “vote with their feet” if they feel uncomfortable, he said.

Facebook first started using facial recognition by licensing technology from another company, Face.com, which it acquired in 2012. Last month, Facebook introduced a new standalone app using the same technology as in tag suggestions called Moments, which groups photos in a user’s smartphone based on the faces identified. Photos can be shared with specific friends, as opposed to uploading them to Facebook.

The Menlo Park, California company’s current policy on facial recognition has made it the subject of a pending lawsuit in Illinois, which along with Texas has some of the nation’s strictest biometric privacy laws.
Facebook Lawsuit

The lawsuit argues that Facebook didn’t notify users when updating its terms of service to disclose that the company collects facial data on users tagged in photos.

Photo publishing site Shutterfly Inc. is the subject of another pending lawsuit in Illinois that takes issue with the company’s photo tagging feature.

The fear that facial data can be used to track people may be overblown. It reveals “less information about your habits than most customers would reveal by carrying around a mobile phone that also tracks and shares location data,” Daniel Castro, vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a non-partisan think tank, said in an e-mail.

Coming up with rules for the technology is not “black and white,” said Nick Ahrens, vice president of privacy and cybersecurity at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which has members including Nike Inc., J. Crew Group Inc., Dillard’s Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

“I think transparency is the name of the game,” said Ahrens. But, “I don’t know if a sign on the door is the answer.”

(An earlier version corrected the headquarters of Facebook.)

Commonsense Property Rights Coalition to Meet to Discuss Common Core, Homeschooling, High Taxes
The Common Sense Property Rights Coalition will meet Monday August 3  at 6 pm at Fred’s Fish House   in Mammoth Springs according to board member Kevin Jotz. The main speaker of the evening will be Brandsville resident Karl Reid, author of a series of popular novels known as the Joseph books. Reid has studied Common Core and the modern educational system and home schooling and will be speaking on how to improve the education system.
The meeting will also include an update on the Oregon County property tax assessment, the state laws regulating the State Tax Commission, and how to file an appeal. Many citizens are concerned because their property tax assessments have gone up by 50% to 100%. State law mandates that any increase of more than 15% must be accompanied by a physical appraisal of the property. The PRC sponsored a peaceful protest demonstration at the Oregon County Courthouse last month.
“This is an organization concerned with protection of private property rights. The group believes that without protections of private property rights nothing else is secure. The right to own and reasonably use private property is a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution, differentiating our country from others around the world. As John Adams, one of our nation’s Founding Fathers and our second president, said: ‘The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” For more information at 417-264-2435 or 417-270-1724.”

Every day there is a new atrocity….or 10,000. Here’s another one:

ATF Works With FBI And VA To Get Veterans’ Guns Taken Away

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is involved in a government effort to disarm America’s veterans and seniors who may lack the capacity to manage their finances.

And it’s not just veterans facing this scrutiny: now it’s anybody who gets Social Security.

New documents obtained by The Latest News Updates reveal that ATF, a division of the Department of Justice, is working with the FBI and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to enter veterans who get VA benefits into the government’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

TheDC first reported on a government program in which the VA sends veterans’ medical information to the FBI to disarm them. VA uses sneaky criteria to get veterans on the list for “persons prohibited under federal law from receiving or possessing firearms.” (RELATED: Latest News Updates Reveals Secret VA-FBI Coordination).

If a veteran is deemed incapable of managing his or her own finances, the VA sends his or her information to the FBI to be automatically added to the criminal background check system. For some injured veterans, their incompetence was determined merely because they signed up for auto-pay on their debit cards, because their wife gives them financial advice, or because they asked for an in-house assistant to help with chores. The VA sends this list to the FBI every month. At last count, there were more than 120,000 veterans in the government’s background check system.

Now we know that the enforcement agency ATF is working with the VA and FBI to suppress information about the program.

Michael Connelly, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation, sent Freedom of Information Act requests about the program to four federal government agencies. But when it came to get a response, he got one from a fifth agency that he didn’t even request information from: ATF.

Connelly, whose research blew the lid off the program in our previous Latest News Updates expose, learned that FBI sent his request to ATF, which stifled it.

The FBI sent ATF seven pages of documents pursuant to Connelly’s information request to check with them first. ATF denied Connelly’s request for information, telling him that the agency is “withholding deliberative materials” in a letter dated July 12.

Why?

ATF claims it can withhold “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.”

So, if different agencies swap memos around to each other, then you need to sue them to get the documents under public disclosure law?

And the story is getting bigger. The Los Angeles Times reported this weekend that the Obama administration is trying to get the Social Security Administration to provide information to the FBI on Social Security beneficiaries who can be prohibited from owning a firearm for some form of incompetence. The Times cited the VA’s strategy of using veterans’ financial records against them.

“As I predicted the assault on veterans’ 2nd Amendment rights was just the beginning,” Connelly said. “Social Security recipients would be next. The LA Times has confirmed it. Sometimes I hate it when I am right.”

Excellent article on how Agenda 21 is taking over. Completely.

Suburban Governments Were Just Nationalized by the Federal Government

For years, the cities have been robbing the suburbs but they now have a scheme that will quickly end in a takeover of the suburbs by a leftist federal government.

HUD announced enforcement of its new 377-page rule called the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule which will allow them to move people from poor crime-ridden areas into “wealthy” suburbs. It was announced by leftist Julian Castro Monday. The rule has force behind it. Federal monies will be withheld and lawsuits accusing residents of racism will be filed. Any town that takes federal funds will be transformed.

It is not only forcing unnecessary racial integration, its forcing class integration and the destruction of the local governments who will officially become satellites of the urban areas. Neighborhoods will be diversified according to income levels. The plan is to make us into a classless society of the type Karl Marx promoted.

With this rule, HUD will have control of zoning, transportation, and education and, in the end, the politics. Just as the leftists took over the cities one-by-one, they will be able to consume the suburbs only at a far more rapid pace. This can be done on a massive, almost immediate scale.

There about 44 million Americans living in the cities and almost 122 million Americans in the suburbs. Suburbia tends to vote against the leftists and has long been a thorn in their side.

Using racism and ecology as excuses, Obama is orchestrating, through HUD and the EPA, the end of local government rule.

They want more “density” in population, the elimination of urban and federal boundaries, and they plan to make every neighborhood “diverse” by spreading the criminals around.

The New York Times had an interesting take, saying this rule will put an end to financial ghettos. What they don’t say is they are doing it by redistributing all resources of suburbia, even residents’ living arrangements by forcing people from the ghettos into “wealthy” suburbia.

We should soon be seeing the environmental laws currently present in liberal areas become a matter of fact for every town in the country. In leftist bastions, even cul-de-sacs are banned by planners.

This has gone under the radar. The media is ignoring it.

Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino has been fighting it in Westchester, which is a test case. Liberal Westchester voted Conservative Astorino into office to stop it. In Westchester, HUD said a quarter-acre lot is discriminatory. They want all limits removed. Your home could end up next to a factory under their plan. Right now zoning rules protect inhabitants but the federal government will take away those protections.

Listen to an explanation by Mr. Astorino:

Baltimore County and the entire state of Maryland is currently a test case with the racism argument used as a weapon.

“Smart growth” advocates are forcing dense development in suburban and rural areas to curb suburban growth. They claim the suburbs are stealing jobs and wealth from the urban areas.

The cities have been siphoning tax revenues from the suburbs for years, but this rule takes redistribution much further, it allows the federal government to simply take over.

Stanley Kurtz of National Review Online penned an article back in August, 2012 titled Burn Down the Suburbs? In it, he wrote about Obama and his community organizer mentors who hold the view that the cities suffer because of taxpayer “flight” to the suburbs.

Obama lived that belief as a community organizer. He channeled large sums of money from left-wing Chicago foundations where he served on the Board of Directors to anti-suburban activism.

He allied with one of his original trainers, Mike Kruglik, who has an organization called Building One America. It’s the anti-suburban crusade on steroids. They work with the Obama administration.

Kruglik and his colleagues in the movement have met with Obama in the White House. They literally plan to burn down the suburbs.

The suburbs could easily become the neo-slum complete with crime and poverty. It does undermine the minorities currently living in suburbs who fled the liberal cities that have been crushed under the weight of decades of corruption and bad policies. For example, only 16% of Detroit’s blacks live within the city limits.

Politically, Democrats have become less competitive in the suburbs so they’ve taken the next step. The federal takeover of suburbia will be accompanied by the loss of the American Dream of home ownership, raising oneself up the social and economic ladder, and even the right to own and drive a car. The extreme environmentalists want you out of your car.

LaRaza and other far-left groups strongly backed the rule which will likely end up forcing towns and cities to accept illegal immigrants among other “protected” classes of people.

LaRaza said that “Hispanic families often do not know their housing rights and have cited fear of deportation as reason for not reporting rights violations.” The majority of people who fear deportation are illegal, unskilled, poor, welfare recipients and they are coming into this country in the hundreds of thousands each month.

We see “refugees” from foreign lands being poured into towns and cities throughout the country. When towns resist, they are labeled “pockets of resistance” and the Soros “Welcoming America” groups come in to pressure the local politicians. More information can be found at Refugee Resettlement Watch.

Illegal immigrants and refugees are being used to re-populate areas throughout the country to establish their one-party majority. Many are sent into suburban and rural areas. Their goal is a country within a country of foreigners who will be indoctrinated and eventually be ready to takeover the remaining traditional citizens.

The days when Democrats supported suburbia are long gone and they have launched a full-out war against them without people even knowing it’s happening.

This rule passed two years ago in 2013 but it is only being enforced now because Obama wants to slip it in under the radar.

This is totalitarianism.

MORE INFORMATION HERE

Anyone who is pro-life must be aware that your federal tax dollars have been helping to fund abortion since at least 1985. Despite all the statements of the US Congress on constraining the funding, if you look at annual reports from Planned Parenthood, they typically receive a larger amount of funding from the federal government than they spend on non abortive procedures.

Obviously, this past week has been instrumental in bringing the atrocities committed by Planned Parenthood into a much broader light. I will post a few important articles below. One must wonder when people will have had enough.

Here are the articles:

Planned Parenthood defector says loophole lets clinics profit from fetal organ sales

– The Washington Times – Sunday, July 19, 2015

Abby Johnson wasn’t horrified by last week’s undercover video showing a Planned Parenthood doctor describing over lunch and wine how to “crush” a fetus during an abortion to preserve the organs because she’s been there.

In her previous role as clinic director for a Planned Parenthood facility in East Texas, Ms. Johnson said part of her job was to sift through the aborted fetal tissue and organs, pack them in a container with dry ice, check the consent form and “ship them off.”

Like Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood senior director of medical services, Ms. Johnson said she and her colleagues would talk about their work, even indulge in “gallows humor” as they wound down after hours over margaritas and chips.

“I lived that life,” said Ms. Johnson in an interview. “I worked at Planned Parenthood for eight years at an abortion facility, and I ran the facility, and that was very common for us after a long day of work — after a long day of performing abortions, the staff going out to eat, having drinks, talking about the day.”

That’s no longer her life. Ms. Johnson, 35, resigned in 2009 after witnessing an ultrasound-guided abortion. Three years ago, she founded And Then There Were None, dedicated to helping abortion clinic employees leave the business by providing counseling, recruiting services, legal fees, even a month’s worth of replacement salary.

The video prompted her to write an open letter last week to Dr. Nucatola offering assistance and saying, “I get how something grotesque to others can seem ordinary.”

The video, released Tuesday by the pro-life Center for Medical Progress, shows Dr. Nucatola discussing how much fetal organs are worth, raising alarm over whether the organization is profiting from the sale of donated fetal tissue in violation of federal law.

House and Senate Republicans have called for a congressional investigation, while governors or attorneys general in at least three states — Georgia, Indiana and Ohio — launched probes into state abortion clinics to determine if fetal organs and tissue are being sold for profit.

Planned Parenthood insists that it only charges for costs arising from the transfer of lawfully donated tissue to medical research centers, which is legal.

Two Democrats — House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers Jr. and Rep. Steve Cohen — released a statement saying that the video “does not demonstrate that Planned Parenthood is ‘selling’ fetal tissue.”

“In fact, many portions of the full video — edited out of the nine-minute version that House Republicans have circulated — directly contradict the allegation that Planned Parenthood has violated federal law,” the joint statement said.

Based on her experience, Ms. Johnson says she saw nothing in the video to indicate that Planned Parenthood is breaking the law. At the same time, she said the video exposes a loophole that gives clinics and processing companies enormous latitude in setting reimbursement charges for fetal hearts, lungs and other organs.

“The law currently states that there can be moneys exchanged as long as they fit under certain categories like preservation, collection, storage, transport, etc.,” Ms. Johnson said. “And the law says there is not a maximum amount that can be charged or a minimum amount but that costs cannot be prohibitive. And that’s very subjective.”

(Corrected paragraph:) Ms. Johnson does not support the use of fetal-tissue for research.

“They [clinics] could say, ‘Well, it’s more difficult for me to harvest a brain than it is for me to harvest a kidney, so that collection fee is going to be $1,000 for a brain, whereas it’s only going to be $400 for a kidney,'” Ms. Johnson said. “And the problem is that it’s so subjective, the amount of money that can be charged. That’s really where we need reform.”

Arthur Caplan, director of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center’s Department of Population Health, also raised the issue of high transfer costs, telling Reuters that only a few companies collect the fetal tissue and that “they charge a lot for it.”

“I’m not sure people who donate it realize that,” Mr. Caplan added.

During her tenure at the Planned Parenthood clinic, Ms. Johnson said most women would agree to donate fetal tissue and/or organs “because we made it seem like that, by donating, they were helping others.”

The National Institutes of Health spent $76 million last year funding grants for research using fetal tissue aimed at finding cures for diseases such as cancer, diabetes and HIV/AIDS.

In a statement, the NIH said such biomedical research is conducted “under the general legal authorities to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.”

In her experience, Ms. Johnson said the older the gestational age of the fetus, the easier it is to pick out organs.

“At my affiliate, we did abortions at the time up until 16 weeks. You can begin harvesting fetal tissue at approximately eight weeks,” Ms. Johnson said. “Organs are present earlier, but you can’t really decipher them until about 12 weeks. That’s not all of the organs, but some of the larger ones, you can pick those out and say, ‘OK, this is a liver.’ And that’s usually around 12 weeks.”…Rest Here

Second Planned Parenthood Senior Executive Haggles Over Baby Parts Prices, Changes Abortion Methods

 

LOS ANGELES, July 21—A second undercover video shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Medical Directors’ Council President, Dr. Mary Gatter, haggling over payments for intact fetal specimens and offering to use a “less crunchy technique” to get more intact body parts.

It is similar to last week’s viral video showing PPFA Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola admitting to using partial-birth abortions to get intact parts and suggesting a price range of $30 to $100 per specimen.

Gatter is a senior official within Planned Parenthood and is President of the Medical Directors’ Council, the central committee of all Planned Parenthood affiliate medical directors.

Actors posing as buyers ask Gatter, “What would you expect for intact [fetal] tissue?

“Well, why don’t you start by telling me what you’re used to paying!” Gatter replies.

Gatter continues: “You know, in negotiations whoever throws out the figure first is at a loss, right?” She explains, “I just don’t want to lowball,” before suggesting, “$75 a specimen.”

Gatter twice recites Planned Parenthood messaging on fetal tissue collection, “We’re not in it for the money,” and “The money is not the important thing,” but she immediately qualifies each statement with, respectively, “But what were you thinking of?” and, “But it has to be big enough that it’s worthwhile for me.

Gatter also admits that in prior fetal tissue deals, Planned Parenthood received payment in spite of incurring no cost: “It was logistically very easy for us, we didn’t have to do anything. So there was compensation for this.” She accepts a higher price of $100 per specimen understanding that it will be only for high-quality fetal organs: “Now, this is for tissue that you actually take, not just tissue that someone volunteers and you can’t find anything, right?

By the lunch’s end, Gatter suggests $100 per specimen is not enough and concludes, “Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine, if it’s still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.

(Read the rest here)