I can't believe very many people find this funny. I do not.

Ron Paul and peter Schiff have stated many times that the best but painful solution is to allow the deflation to occur now. Any propping up of the bad loans by supplying liquidity will only defer the necessary revaluation, and will also entail inflation if the money is printed, and/or large interest payments from lenders that provide loans for the propping.

Woof

Love the sound effects!

Are they going to get to see the search warrant? Or can it be kept secret?

fake

MarineGunrock - I mentioned the two cases to show what has and has not been found constitutional, and to show why you are probably correct that this might have been a legal checkpoint... FYI.

The woman was searched when asked for her driver's license, and was seized when stopped and prevented from going about her business. Although Fourth Amendment law is riddled with inconsistencies, you can bet that the terms "search" and "seized" have been gone over many times in excruciating detail. The Supreme Court case Brendlin v. California (2007) is relevant here in that it summarizes and defines those terms for Fourth Amendment law: someone is "seized" when the police display a "show of authority", or the person would not feel free to go.

One has to remember that the Fourth Amendment was written at a time when the only way to gather information was to physically seize papers; inventions such as the telephone, automobile, through-wall radar, etc were not foreseen. The Supreme Court has to interpret the Fourth Amendment in light of modern developments. For example, in Katz v. US (1968) the Supreme Court decided that the Fourth Amendment protects people and privacy, not only papers and places, and that telephone conversations were subject to protection, even though nothing was physically "searched" or "seized". To find otherwise would effectively nullify the Fourth Amendment in this modern world.

Hence, one must interpret the Fourth Amendment in terms of the case law and Supreme Court rulings, which are the law of the land, in addition to the actual original text of the Fourth Amendment to fully comprehend its meaning.

Another good example is the exclusionary rule, where evidence obtained illegally is not allowed to be used in court. This rule was adopted because of a logical argument; if police are allowed to break in and gather evidence illegally and then use it in court to convict someone, the Fourth Amendment is rendered null and void. So, the bottom line is that one has to look at more than the explicit words of the amendment to the intent and implications as well, when considering Fourth Amendment protections.

MarineGunrock is wrong about everything he said except possibly that this might be a technically legal checkpoint. Clearly, the people were seized and searched without a warrant issued with probably cause. And the 4th Amendment has EVERYTHING to do with being able to go where you want without fear of being stopped by the police; the Supreme Court decided in Katz v. US that the 4th Amendment protects people, not places, whenever there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

But the supreme court has also carved out an exception for drunk driving and road safety checkpoints in Michigan State Police v. Sitz, where the checkpoint relates to issues pertaining to safe use of the roads on which the stopped motorist was driving. This is to be distinguished from City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, where the Supreme Court ruled checkpoints unrelated to road safety are NOT constitutional; that is, where the checkpoint is just a fishing expedition to attempt to gather evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, such as pirated music videos, unlicensed software, drugs, etc.

So this may fall into the category of a legal checkpoint from a federal 4th amendment point of view, but only if the specific State (or D of C) has not augmented protections over those decided by the Supreme Court.
Certainly the point that the Police State is coming via the gradual encroachment on and erosion of civil liberties is well taken, and is the main thrust of this video. I sincerely feel that people that don't like the American Constitution and don't value the inalienable rights that it protects and that so many have fought for in so many wars in the last 200 years (even if a majority want to deny them) should move to a country where it is legal to just stop people on the street without suspicion or cause.

Definitely fake. Check out rolls 5, 6, 9, and 10. Especially 6 and 10 - someone poked over a standing pin with a black stick or something. Makes sense too, because they must have had the cooperation of the bowling alley to use 12 lanes like that - so probably they had the technician in back following along ensuring all pins went down, one way or another.

Special glasses.

No way ten cranks gives 30 minutes of light.

Actually, the technical gap between RFID and "Mind Control"
is not that great, given that the term "Mind Control" is
pretty generic, and includes things like shock collars. It
would not be difficult to use the energy picked up by passive RFID
chips to cause a electrical shock, rather than to transmit RF
back to the reader. In fact, the military have already
developed this type of device, based on biological principles.
In fact, it is easier to just use the energy to give a shock,
since no transmitting circuitry is necessary. The trick is to
position it properly to cause the most damage and pain in
the target...

Sorry - don't know how to get the links in there, huh...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o_EYPSPMLE
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0qr6v9icmQ

I'm not disputing that it might be useful to turn water into
hydrogen and oxygen for ease of transport and use, but one
main corollary of thermodynamics is that "there ain't no free
lunch". Even if this was electrolysis via RF (which I doubt;
look at the miniscule bubbles - they can't support that size
flame) and was 100 percent efficient, all you've done is converted
the electrical energy into chemical energy. This is measured
in one way by Gibbs free energy for 2H2O -> 2H2 + O2, what
one could call "the integrity of the water molecule", which
is really the difference in free energy of the bonds in
water and the gases 2H2 and O2. What it looks like to me
is similar to what happens when you put a candle in a microwave
oven. Check out these videos:

and

The first shows the plasma can be initiated on the smoke alone,
while the second shows the plasma dissociated from the flame once
it gets started. I think that what is happening in this saltwater
situation is a little salty water is ejected from the tube which
then starts a plasma going, which is constrained to appear as a flame
because the RF is restricted to the area above the tube, rather
than the whole cavity of a microwave, where the plasma can rise to the
top of the inverted glass.