Sarge's videos


Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Arrest Warrants issued for treason and tyranny Government

The Government on Verizon

This is how your conversation will look like.

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty will kill our Second Amendment

To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. 
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration
, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. , and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.
Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
 These Senators voted to let the UN take our guns. They need to lose the election. We have been betrayed. 
46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Drones Patroling America

Missile-carrying robot drones have been used for years by the U.S Army - but they’re deployed against large targets and need a runway to take off from.
Now a new YouTube video shows that in the future, drones could also carry out the close-combat duties of foot soldiers.
Air we go: FPSRussia demonstrates a hover drone outfitted with a machine gunIn the video a real-life weapon demonstrations have earned him a cult following, shows off a quadrotor – a mini helicopter with four rotors - outfitted with a machine guns. The U.S. Military have and are currently using them to fly the borders of Mexico and the U.S. as a practice run to see how effective they are and if local law enforcement can use them on un armed and armed Americans. This was a decision by President Obama after he used 3 of these drones to kill American citizens on foreign soil.

Exposed: Location of sites where licences have been granted for the use of drones within the U.S.
The FFA has disclosed maps of 19 universities that are designing and building them.

Unusual: The University of Connecticut - one of 19 educational institutions to own spy planes - is the drone site closest to New York CityThe FAA has also Disclosed a map of where they are housed

Concentration: The Beltway around Washington DC has the highest concentration of urban and suburban drone sites
The Beltway around Washington DC has the highest concentration of urban and suburban drone sites, including the U.S. Marine Corp base as Quantico Station, Virginia
The authority revealed the information after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Its website hosts an interactive map that allows the user to zoom in to the area around where they live to see if any sites are nearby.
However, the FAA is yet to reveal what kinds of drones might be based at any of these locations.
The agency says it will release this data later.
Most of the drones are likely to be small craft, such as the Draganflyer X8, which can carry a payload of only 2.2lb.
Police, border patrols and environmental agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), could use for them effectively.
While few would object to vast open areas being monitored for wildfires, there are fears of privacy violations if drones are used to spy over cities

Florida: Mostly police and Sheriff departments are registered to use drones in the state

Snowden leaves Hong Kong, may head for Venezuela

HONG KONG/MOSCOW (Reuters) - An aircraft believed to be carrying Edward Snowden landed in Moscow on Sunday after Hong Kong let the former U.S. security contractor leave the territory, despite Washington's efforts to extradite him to face espionage charges.

The anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks said Snowden was heading for a "democratic nation" which it did not name, although a source at the Russian airline Aeroflot said he would fly on within 24 hours to Cuba and then planned to go to Venezuela.
Moscow airport officials said the flight from Hong Kong had landed but could not immediately confirm Snowden was on board. However, a source at Aeroflot said he had booked a seat on the service.

Snowden, who worked for the National Security Agency, had been hiding in Hong Kong since leaking details about U.S. surveillance activities to news media.

A spokesman for the government of Hong Kong, a former British colony which returned to China in 1997, said it had let Snowden depart because a U.S. request to have him arrested did not comply with the law.

The United States wanted him to be extradited to face trial and is likely to be furious about his departure. In Washington, a Justice Department official said it would seek cooperation with countries Snowden may try to goto.

"It's a shocker," said Simon Young, a law professor with Hong Kong University. "I thought he was going to stay and fight it out. The U.S. government will be irate."

A source at Aeroflot said Snowden would fly from Moscow to Cuba on Monday and then planned to go on to Venezuela. The South China Morning Post earlier said his final destination might be Ecuador or Iceland.

              The WikiLeaks anti-secrecy website said it helped Snowden find "political asylum in a democratic country".

It added in an update on Twitter that he was accompanied by diplomats and legal advisers and was travelling via a safe route for the purposes of seeking asylum.

"The WikiLeaks legal team and I are interested in preserving Mr Snowden's rights and protecting him as a person," former Spanish judge disclosures in the public interest - is an assault against the people."

Assange has taken sanctuary in the Ecuadorean embassy in London and said last week he would not leave even if Sweden stopped pursuing sexual assault claims against him because he feared arrest on the orders of the United States.

U.S. authorities have charged Snowden with theft of U.S. government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and wilful communication of classified communications intelligence to an unauthorized person, with the latter two charges falling under the U.S. Espionage Act.

The United States had asked Hong Kong, a special administrative region (SAR) of China, to send Snowden home.

              "The U.S. government earlier on made a request to the HKSAR government for the issue of a provisional warrant of arrest against Mr Snowden," the Hong Kong government said in a statement.

"Since the documents provided by the U.S. government did not fully comply with the legal requirements under Hong Kong law, the HKSAR government has requested the U.S. government to provide additional information ... As the HKSAR government has yet to have sufficient information to process the request for provisional warrant of arrest, there is no legal basis to restrict Mr Snowden from leaving Hong Kong."

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Illinois crys broke

If we are so broke but yet cta came up with funds for a jump bus and paid for the street on Jeffrey to be torn up and new signs and sidewalks.  Now they are working on the red line for 5 months. In South Chicago they are replacing fire plugs and pipes.  But yet Illinois spends more money then they take in we need to stop the politics as usual activity

Friday, June 7, 2013

Support Arpaio against the courts

Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed 'America's Toughest Sheriff,' who led the way for local law enforcement across the country to take up immigration enforcement, is now pulling back on his crackdown.
Other law enforcement officials who have followed Arpaio's lead are also expected to eventually back away from doubling as immigration agents, traditionally considered a federal responsibility.
Arpaio, the controversial sheriff of Maricopa County, which includes metropolitan Phoenix, has temporarily suspended all his immigration efforts after a federal judge concluded two weeks ago that the sheriff's office had racially profiled Latinos in its patrols, Arpaio spokesman Brandon Jones said.
Arpaio has for years created national headlines for his notorious criticism over Washington's handling of illegal immigration.
His critics, including the federal government, are gaining ground in their fight to get the sheriff out of immigration enforcement. Even before the ruling, Washington had stripped Arpaio's office of its approved federal immigration arrest powers and started to phase out the program across the country amid complaints that it led to abuses by local officers.
The recent ruling against Arpaio is expected to impact state immigration laws in Arizona, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, where local officers question people's immigration status in certain instances.

Read more:

Court Gives NSA GreenLight

In the storm that blew up Thursday over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing a subpoena of telecom data from Verizon, the resulting alliances made for some strange bedfellows with ideologies clashing, at times, with party labels.
Libertarian favorite Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., stood with liberal Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Jon Tester of Montana in criticizing the court-approved gathering of the telecom data. “Can the FBI or the NSA really claim that they need data scooped up on tens of millions of Americans?” Merkley asked.
Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina stood with Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California in defending the collection of telecom data.“This program has strong restrictions on it,” Feinstein -- who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- assured NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “The data are just phone numbers and trunk lines; there's no content. It is put behind a wall. The only way it can be used is if there is strict scrutiny -- reasonable, articulable knowledge that this can connect to a terrorist attack, either under way or under planning or some conspiracy.”
But Paul portrayed the collection of telephone data as “an astounding assault on the Constitution. After revelations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted political dissidents and the Justice Department seized reporters' phone records, it would appear that this Administration has now sunk to a new low.”
Paul -- a potential contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 -- noted that he’d offered an amendment last year that would have attached Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But it was defeated -- and in fact got only 12 votes.
That vote revealed the way terrorism can alter the political lineup; only two other GOP senators supported Paul on his amendment: Mike Lee of Utah and Dean Heller of Nevada. The majority of the support came from Democrats -- nine lawmakers, including Merkley and Tester -- voted for Paul’s amendment.
NBC's Pete Williams reports on the secret collection of phone records and why this practice was renewed. Williams also explains why the White House hasn't officially confirmed or denied this report.
On terrorism policies, Paul appears to be a minority within his own party.
On issues like abortion, gun control or “Obamacare,” Democrats Merkley and Feinstein have voted the same -- and on the opposite side from Paul. But on the collection of telephone data the Democrats clash.
Terrorism policies have a way of the jarring the usual left-versus-right categories: instead, it’s libertarian mistrust of executive power (Merkley and Paul) versus a willingness to allow extraordinary steps to defeat and deter terrorists (Graham and Feinstein).
This extends to the issue of using drones overseas against terrorist suspects. Referring to conservative Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Democrat Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota noted in April that “You know we’re in strange territory when Sen. Cruz and 

NSA and Eric Holder under Obama's orders to track Verizon phones

New controversy facing the Obama administration: London Guardian reports that NSA has collected Verizon phone records… Questions we have about the story… Is the support for immigration waning or not? New NBC/WSJ poll numbers show a slight majority (52%) favoring a pathway to citizenship… Also from NBC/WSJ poll: Health care law’s unpopularity hits new highs… And Obama heads to North Carolina, to deliver remarks on the economy and education at 2:55 pm ET. 
*** A new controversy facing the Obama administration: The big political story that’s driving the day in Washington comes courtesy of the London Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald. “The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April. The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an ‘ongoing, daily basis’ to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.” While not specifically confirming any aspects of the Guardian story, a senior Obama administration defended the practice. This official maintains the following: 1) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court orders (what this appears to be) are classified; 2) the government isn’t listening in on calls -- rather, it’s acquiring data like telephone numbers and lengths of calls; and 3) there’s a “robust legal regime" governing these activities, which includes Congress and the courts. Make no mistake: This will only further the political debate between civil libertarians and the national-security community.
Sen. Lindsey Graham addresses Attorney General Eric Holder Thursday over a recent report that the NSA is collecting people's Verizon phone numbers.

*** Questions we have: It’s important to note that we don’t have the full story here, but we have plenty of questions. Was Verizon the only carrier issued this order? (Highly unlikely.) Was the motivation behind collecting these telephone records a current national-security threat? Or was it something like building a database -- to be able to pursue future threats? NBC counter-terrorism expert Michael Leiter, on “TODAY”, seemed to hint that this could be more about maintaining a database than anything else. But the fact is, the Obama administration has been silent on this issue for years, which brings up this question: Is this consistent with what Candidate Obama promised in 2007 and 2008? One caveat worth pointing out, however: The 2005-2006 NSA controversy surrounding the Bush administration involved wiretapping, not phone records.  
Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images
President Barack Obama walks down the West Wing Colonnade to announce that current UN Ambassador Susan Rice will replace outgoing National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, in the Rose Garden of the White House, June 5, 2013.
*** Is support for immigration waning or not? Our new NBC/WSJ poll shows a slight majority -- 52% -- saying they favor a proposed pathway to allow undocumented immigrants to become U.S. citizens. This is a drop from our April poll, when 64% said they supported this pathway. But a note of caution: The wording on our question changed. In April, we asked: “There is a proposal to create a pathway to citizenship that would allow foreigners who have jobs but are staying illegally in the United States the opportunity to eventually become legal American citizens.” In our new poll, we excluded the words “who have jobs.” Our pollsters believe it’s significant that a majority still backs the pathway even after the language change. More importantly, when told in the current poll that the proposed pathway to citizenship includes requirements to pay fines, back taxes and pass a background security check, the percentage favoring it jumps up to 65%, including 58% of Republicans.  
*** Upset or happy if Congress doesn’t pass a bill? But if you’re a supporter of the immigration reform legislation, you might be a little troubled by this finding: Respondents are divided if they want Congress to pass a bill this year. Per the poll, 47% say they would be upset if Congress doesn't pass a bill, and that includes a majority of Democrats (54%). But an equal 47% say they wouldn't be upset if Congress doesn’t pass immigration legislation, and that includes a majority of Republicans (53%). (Strikingly, the partisan divisions have flipped since this question was last asked in 2006, when former President George W. Bush was supporting comprehensive immigration reform. Back then, more than six-in-10 Republicans said they would be upset if immigration reform didn't pass, and an almost equal percentage of Democrats -- who were out of power in the White House -- said they wouldn't be upset. Yet note that there’s not a whole lot of intensity to these current immigration numbers: 21% said they would be VERY UPSET if Congress doesn’t pass legislation, and 26% said they would be NOT AT ALL UPSET if that happens. But compare that to a gun question we also asked: 34% said they would be VERY UPSET if Congress doesn’t pass a background-check law, versus 31% who said NOT AT ALL UPSET. Bottom line: The immigration debate isn’t as highly charged as the gun debate.
*** Health care law’s unpopularity reaches new highs: Meanwhile, just months before President Barack Obama's signature health-care law fully goes into effect next year, it remains unpopular with the American public, according to the new NBC/WSJ poll, with 49 percent saying they believe the law is a bad idea. That’s the highest number recorded on this question since the poll began measuring it in 2009. Just 37% say the plan is a good idea. The poll also finds that 38 percent say they and their family will be worse off under the health-care law, which also is the highest percentage on this question that dates back to 2010. By comparison, 19% say they'll be better off, and 39% say the law won't make much of a difference. The poll, however, shows deep divisions by political party and health insurance status. By a 35%-to-11% margin, Democrats say they'll be better off under the health-care law. But Republicans say they'll be worse off, 67% to 4%. What's more, those who currently don't have health insurance have a more positive view of the health-care law than those who have insurance -- either through individual purchase or through their employer. Bottom line here: The Obama White House has a massive PR problem with health care. The biggest reason: Opponents of this law have been very vocal, while supporters have done very little to drum up support. The president doesn’t sell it that often, and many arms of the Democratic Party essentially avoid it. Politics abhors a vacuum, and opponents -- not supporters -- have filled the health-care vacuum.
*** Carolina in mind: Lastly, President Obama heads to Mooresville, NC, where he’ll deliver remarks on the economy and education at 2:55 pm ET. Per the White House, Obama “will travel to Mooresville Middle School in Mooresville, North Carolina, to deliver remarks and see first hand the school's cutting edge curriculum that maximizes the benefits of technology and digital learning.”  
IMPORTANT PROMOTIONAL MESSAGE (!!!): Love politics? Have a cell phone camera? Want to be on national TV? Then you should send in a good morning greeting to your friends at The Daily Rundown. It couldn’t be easier and everything you need to know is right here: