US Senator Wyden: Why I had to halt FBI's latest internet spying push
28 Jun 2016 at 23:59,

US Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has placed a hold on the 2017 Intelligence Authorization Bill – because it would allow the FBI to snoop on people's browser histories without a court order, and weakens oversight of the intelligence community.

The bill as it stands would allow the Feds to use National Security Letters (NSLs) – which don't require a court order – to monitor a suspect's internet activity, including which websites they visit and how long they stay on them...

..."When the Intelligence Committee considered this bill last month, I voted against it," he said on the Senate floor.

"While I respect the effort that the distinguished Chair and Vice Chair of the Intelligence Committee have put into drafting this year's bill, it would dramatically and unnecessarily expand government surveillance authorities, and it would undermine independent oversight of America's intelligence agencies. So I have objected to this unanimous consent request."

US Senator Wyden: Why I had to halt FBI's latest internet spying push
28 Jun 2016 at 23:59,

US Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has placed a hold on the 2017 Intelligence Authorization Bill – because it would allow the FBI to snoop on people's browser histories without a court order, and weakens oversight of the intelligence community.

The bill as it stands would allow the Feds to use National Security Letters (NSLs) – which don't require a court order – to monitor a suspect's internet activity, including which websites they visit and how long they stay on them...

..."When the Intelligence Committee considered this bill last month, I voted against it," he said on the Senate floor.

"While I respect the effort that the distinguished Chair and Vice Chair of the Intelligence Committee have put into drafting this year's bill, it would dramatically and unnecessarily expand government surveillance authorities, and it would undermine independent oversight of America's intelligence agencies. So I have objected to this unanimous consent request."

Remember that fake gun store in NY that SUPGV opened up and took video of?

In an exclusive, the Shooter’s Log has learned that actors were used to portray customers in a fake gun shop “public service announcement” produced by States United Against Gun Violence earlier this year.

The New York City Mayor’s Office of Media has confirmed these facts in its response to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request submitted in March.

“States United To Prevent Gun Violence opens a ‘gun store’ in NYC as a hidden camera social experiment to debunk safety myths,” the CeaseFire USA project claimed in its description of the video. The “social experiment,” like the “gun shop” itself, was pre-arranged, permits approved by the city indicate.

“Actors are interviewed on camera in a fake gun store,” the permits’ scene descriptions reveal.


It had previously been known that the “gun store proprietor” behind the counter was an actor—and one who has previously made a living glorifying fake “gun violence”—but up until now, speculation about if the “customers” were also plants has been just that.

http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/group-actors-nyc-gun-store-facade/

NEW YORK, March 17, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- According to a recent survey, six out of ten Americans believe owning a firearm makes homes safer. But studies show the opposite to be true: owning a gun can actually increase risk of injury and death for you and those around you.

To debunk this perception, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, a national non-profit organization dedicated to making our families and communities safer, did the unthinkable: they opened a "gun store" on Manhattan's Lower East Side and invited first-time gun buyers to check it out as part of a hidden camera social experiment.

Upon entering the doors of the storefront, potential customers were shocked...

...with some unsettling history behind each gun model, including their use in some of the most emotionally charged mass shootings, unintentional shootings, homicides and suicides. States United to Prevent Gun Violence captured the shoppers' stunned reactions...

...via hidden cameras.

Today they launch the powerful #GunsWithHistory PSA which aims to inform people who are interested in purchasing guns for safety of the potential risks and unpredictable outcomes.

Kent v. Dulles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case on the right to travel and passport restrictions as they relate to First Amendment free speech rights. It was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court made a distinction between the constitutionally protected substantive due process freedom of movement and the right to travel abroad (subsequently characterized as "right to international travel".[edit]

Rockwell Kent wanted to travel to England to attend a meeting of the World Council of Peace in Helsinki, Finland. He was denied a passport because he was allegedly a Communist and was alleged to have "a consistent and prolonged adherence to the Communist Party line." Kent sued in U.S. District Court for declaratory relief. The District Court granted summary judgment against him.

On appeal, Kent's case was heard with that of Dr. Walter Briehl, a psychiatrist. When Briehl applied for a passport, the Director of the Passport Office asked him to supply an affidavit with respect to his membership in the Communist Party. Briehl, like Kent, refused. His application for a passport was tentatively disapproved. Briehl filed his complaint in the District Court, which held that his case was indistinguishable from Kent's and dismissed it...

...The cases were heard on writ of certiorari. 355 U.S. 881. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals. Kent v Dulles was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. It did not decide the extent to which this liberty right can be curtailed. The Court was first concerned with the extent, if any, to which Congress had authorized its curtailment by the U.S. Secretary of State. The Court found that the Secretary of State exceeded his authority by refusing to issue passports to Communists.

Kent v. Dulles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case on the right to travel and passport restrictions as they relate to First Amendment free speech rights. It was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court made a distinction between the constitutionally protected substantive due process freedom of movement and the right to travel abroad (subsequently characterized as "right to international travel".[edit]

Rockwell Kent wanted to travel to England to attend a meeting of the World Council of Peace in Helsinki, Finland. He was denied a passport because he was allegedly a Communist and was alleged to have "a consistent and prolonged adherence to the Communist Party line." Kent sued in U.S. District Court for declaratory relief. The District Court granted summary judgment against him.

On appeal, Kent's case was heard with that of Dr. Walter Briehl, a psychiatrist. When Briehl applied for a passport, the Director of the Passport Office asked him to supply an affidavit with respect to his membership in the Communist Party. Briehl, like Kent, refused. His application for a passport was tentatively disapproved. Briehl filed his complaint in the District Court, which held that his case was indistinguishable from Kent's and dismissed it...

...The cases were heard on writ of certiorari. 355 U.S. 881. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals. Kent v Dulles was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. It did not decide the extent to which this liberty right can be curtailed. The Court was first concerned with the extent, if any, to which Congress had authorized its curtailment by the U.S. Secretary of State. The Court found that the Secretary of State exceeded his authority by refusing to issue passports to Communists.

"Think of the children" (also "What about the children?&quot is a phrase which evolved into a rhetorical tactic.[1][2][3] Literally it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor).[4][5][6] In debate, however, as a plea for pity, used as an appeal to emotion, it is a logical fallacy.[1][2][3]

Art, Argument, and Advocacy (2002) argued that the appeal substitutes emotion for reason in debate.[1] Ethicist Jack Marshall wrote in 2005 that the phrase's popularity stems from its capacity to stunt rationality, particularly discourse on morals.[2] "Think of the children" has been invoked by censorship proponents to shield children from perceived danger.[7][8] Community, Space and Online Censorship (2009) noted that classifying children in an infantile manner, as innocents in need of protection, is a form of obsession over the concept of purity.[7] A 2011 article in the Journal for Cultural Research observed that the phrase grew out of a moral panic.[9]

It was an exhortation in the 1964 Walt Disney Pictures film Mary Poppins, when the character of Mrs. Banks pleaded with her departing nanny not to quit and to "think of the children!".[10] The phrase was popularized as a satiric reference on the animated television program The Simpsons in 1996,[11][12] when character Helen Lovejoy pleaded "Won't somebody please think of the children!"[13][14][15] during a contentious debate by citizens of the fictional town of Springfield.[13][16][17]

In the 2012 Georgia State University Law Review, Charles J. Ten Brink called Lovejoy's use of "Think of the children" a successful parody.[13] The appeal's subsequent use in society was often the subject of mockery.[8] After its popularization on The Simpsons, the phrase has been called "Lovejoy's Law",[15] the "Helen Lovejoy defence", the "Helen Lovejoy Syndrome",[18] and "think-of-the-children-ism".[19]

The uncomfortable truth about gun rights supporters – sometimes they are right
Lois Beckett

...Let the record show: calm, reasonable, friendly Americans also believe in gun rights...

...As incomplete and imprecise as much gun data is, the bigger picture is clear: most guns are not being used in crimes. Most gun owners are not committing crimes.

Even David Hemenway, a leading public health researcher who is skeptical of how many good things are done with guns, concedes this point.

“The large majority of gun owners aren’t going to do anything good or bad for public health with their guns this year,” he said.

The uncomfortable truth about gun rights supporters – sometimes they are right
Lois Beckett

...Let the record show: calm, reasonable, friendly Americans also believe in gun rights...

...As incomplete and imprecise as much gun data is, the bigger picture is clear: most guns are not being used in crimes. Most gun owners are not committing crimes.

Even David Hemenway, a leading public health researcher who is skeptical of how many good things are done with guns, concedes this point.

“The large majority of gun owners aren’t going to do anything good or bad for public health with their guns this year,” he said.