Feds Jail New Mexico Family, Seize Everything They Own for Being Honest Legal Firearms Dealers
by: da Tagliare
This has got to be one of the grossest miscarriages of law enforcement that I’ve read about lately.
Rick and Terri Reese, along with their two sons Ryin and Remington ran a federally licensed gun shop in Deming, New Mexico. They kept meticulous records of all the firearms and ammunition they purchased and which were purchased by customers. They
performed the required FBI background checks when necessary. Basically, they ran their gun shop by the letter of the law for 17 years.
Even much of their hired help was legal as the Reeses often hired law enforcement officers who were either retired or off duty, to work in the gun shop. This brought in a substantial amount of business with the law enforcement community and agencies.
In 2011, Terri noticed a customer that had made an unusually large number of purchases. The customer, Penny Torres, told Terri that they were having a family reunion at a ranch in the area and that they all liked to shoot. Terri was suspicious of Torres story and being the law abiding gun dealer she is, she reported her suspicions to one of her friends that worked with the Luna County Sheriff’s Department. Terri told him that she suspected Torres might be a ‘straw buyer’ (someone who purchased guns for illegal purposes such as going over the Mexican border to the drug cartels, kind of like what the US government did with Operation Fast and Furious).
The Luna County Sheriff’s Department officer Terri reported to was someone she trusted and who she always turned to if they had any need for law enforcement. He told her that he would promptly report it to ATF and would let her know what happened with the case.
Torres was subsequently arrested, but ended up making a deal with the feds for leniency by implicating the Reese family as knowingly selling guns that were to illegally cross the border into Mexico. This launched an investigation by a recently formed federal agency known as Homeland Security Investigators (HSI), who set up a sting operation to entrap the Reeses.
HSI hired a confidential informant called Roman, who was seeking a reduced sentence for human trafficking and drugs smuggling. Roman agreed to go to the Reese’ gun shop, purchase weapons and drop hints that they would be heading across the border into Mexico but to do so in such a way as not to alarm them and cause them to refuse the sale. Roman was fitted with a wire to record everything that was said. HSI figured that if the Reeses sold the guns to Roman, that they could then arrest them on gun walking charges.
Shortly after Roman made his gun purchases, the feds swooped in to arrest all four members of the family. HSI and local law enforcement raided the gun store and the Reese home. They came in helicopters, armored vehicles and too many heavily protected and armed law enforcement officers to count. Not only were the four members of the Reese family arrested, but the feds confiscated every gun, all ammunition from both their store and their home, then they confiscated the home, cars, bank accounts, coin collections and virtually everything the family owned.
Each member of the family was eventually taken to a different jail or prison facility to be held without bail until their trials. The prosecution argued that they were flight risks or might even stage a Ruby Ridge type stand off because their home had a well and solar panels and they had found guns on the premises. Can you imagine that? They actually found guns and ammunition in the house and place of business of federally licensed gun dealers. It was also noted by the prosecution that Rick and Terry Reese were part of the local Tea Party, which must have made them look violent in the eyes of the prosecutor.
Six months after being arrested, Terri Reese was allowed to post bail, but the courts continued to withhold bail for the father and two sons.
Recently, the first preliminary hearing was held for the four members of the Reese family. According to a WND report, the prosecution revealed a number of revelations during the preliminary hearing. For one thing, Roman spoke little broken English and that most of the hinting of guns going to Mexico was said in Spanish, which none of the Reese family knew or understood. However, the transcripts that the court had to read had all been translated into English, so that it appeared that the conversation had taken place in English.
Additionally, the prosecution admitted that all of the Reese’ gun sales had been properly logged and all transactions appeared to have been legal. They also admitted that the Reeses has paid all of their taxes and that there was no evidence of any under the table transactions and that all banking and financial evidence indicated that all members of the family never received any money other than their normal paychecks.
When the defense pointed out to the prosecution that they used so many law enforcement personnel in their store, the prosecution replied that it didn’t matter because ‘a lot of them [cops and former cops] are dirty.’
Now the Reese family is awaiting the main trial which is scheduled for some time in July. Since all of their worldly possessions, even personal items accumulated over 25 years of marriage, have been confiscated, they have no money with which to use to pay for their defense. And if by some miracle they are acquitted of all charges, they have no home and no business to return to.
What galls me to spit in anger is that this family, even by the prosecution’s own statements in the preliminary trial, have never done anything wrong. Their lives have been raped by the federal government based on promises made to two convicts in lieu of lighter sentences. Roman’s statements should not be admissible since he spoke Spanish and the Reeses don’t. This is a horrible case of entrapment and what’s worse is that they are accusing the family of doing what the feds did in Operation Fast and Furious and NO ONE IS BEING PROSECUTED in that case!
We need to pray that the Reese family is exonerated and that the feds are forced to replace all of their possessions, guns, ammunition, house, cars, bank accounts, coin collection and pay for wrongful imprisonment. If anyone belongs in jail for gun walking, it’s Eric Holder, not the Reese family.
by: da Tagliare
The United States is not the only country with a border problem. Israel also has a problem with their border, but theirs has to do with neighbors who want nothing more than to wipe them off the face of the earth.
Israel’s borders with Egypt, Lebanon and especially the Gaza Strip are the most dangerous. The intruders across these borders are not after Israeli jobs, their welfare, or their way of life like those crossing the US border from Mexico.
Their intruders are terrorists who want toblow them up and kill them all . Instead of Mexican drug cartels, they are dealing with Hamas and Hezbollah.
The terrorists often watch the Israeli border patrol to learn their habits and routines. They use that information to kill the border patrol and infiltrate the tiny nation.
In an effort to help secure their borders while also protecting their border patrol agents, the Israeli Army Engineering Corps (pronouned core, not corpse) are developing robots to use for patrolling the borders. Working with various private companies, they are creating robots that will have the ability to detect anyone crossing the border and if necessary to shoot at them. They will be controlled by someone back at a command station who will be able to monitor the robot.
As I was reading about them, I couldn’t help but wonder if the US could use the same type of robots to patrol our borders. Instead of placing good men like Brian Terry along the US/Mexican border to be slain with weapons our government provided to our enemies, we should use robots instead. If the robots are equipped with motion sensors, infrared heat detection and ways to stun, detain and/or shoot if necessary, they could be more effective than human agents. They could patrol our borders day or night, rain or shine.
If word got out that we had robots patrolling our borders with instructions to detain or shoot intruders, I strongly suspect the number of people trying to enter our country illegally would drastically drop. That would also lead to more jobs for Americans and fewer government dollars being wasted on illegals.
When 12-year-old Kenny Burks broke his curfew his father decided grounding him wouldn’t be an affective punishment, so dad opted for the public humiliation route instead.
Hoping to teach him a lesson about respect, Kevin Burks made his son spend Monday parading up and down the street carrying a sign that read: ‘Homeless, Won’t Listen to Parents.’
While many parents might deem this punishment excessive, Burks argued that “all his son has to do is check in at 8.30.”
However, one night over the weekend Kenny didn’t arrive home till about 9pm. He had been hoping to stay at a friend’s house overnight.
Kenny’s friend called the Burks’ household to inform them that Kenny would be spending the night at his. Burks ordered his son home.
“If you want to be your own adult, you’ll sit outside and be your own adult,” said Burks, recalling his views to local news station.
He also said that a more traditional punishment, such as confiscating video games for a week, would not do “any good.”
The father and son were out on the street from about 9.15am till 5pm, with breaks every two hours including stops for breakfast and lunch.
One neighbor reportedly disagreed with Burks’ punishment and called the police to complain.
Earlier this year one Denver dad forced his 12-year-old son to carry a ‘thief sign’ after the boy was caught stealing $100 from a family member.
When Joseph Gonzales discovered that his son, Jose, had stolen cash from his cousin he made him stand on a street corner for two days holding a bright yellow sign saying: “I am a thief. I took money from a family member.”
Attribution: Daily Mail
A young boy had just gotten his driving permit. He asked his father, who was a minister, if they could discuss the use of the car.
His father took him to his study and said to him, “I’ll make a deal with you. You bring your grades up, study your Bible a little and get your hair cut and we’ll talk about it.”
You have brought your grades up, you’ve studied your Bible diligently, but you didn’t get your hair cut!”
The young man waited a moment and replied, “You know Dad, I’ve been thinking about that. Samson had long hair, Moses had long hair, Noah had long hair, and even Jesus had long hair….”
To which his father replied, “Yes, and they walked everywhere they went!”
By Toby Harnden
A new biography of Barack Obama has established that his grandfather was not, as is related in the President’s own memoir, detained by the British in Kenya and found that claims that he was tortured were a fabrication.
‘Barack Obama: The Story’ by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book ‘Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance’. The 641-page book punctures the carefully-crafted narrative of Obama’s life.
One of the enduring myths of Obama’s ancestry is that his paternal grandfather Hussein Onyango Obama, who served as a cook in the British Army, was imprisoned in 1949 by the British for helping the anti-colonial Mau Mau rebels and held for several months.
Obama’s step-grandmother Sarah, Onyango wife, who is still living, is quoted in the future President’s memoir, as saying: ‘One day, the white man’s askaris came to take Onyango away, and he was placed in a detention camp.
‘But he had been in the camp for over six months, and when he returned to Alego he was very thin and dirty. He had difficulty walking, and his head was full of lice. He was so ashamed, he refused to enter his house or tell us what happened.’
In a 2008 interview, Sarah Obama claimed that he was ‘whipped every morning and evening’ by the British. ‘They would sometimes squeeze his testicles with metal rods. They also pierced his nails and buttocks with a sharp pin, with his hands and legs tied together. He was lucky to survive. Some of his fellow inmates were mutilated with castration pliers and beaten to death with clubs.’
But Maraniss, who researched Obama’s life in Kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii and the mainland United States, found that there were ‘no remaining records of any detention, imprisonment, or trial of Hussein Onyango Obama’. He interviewed five people who knew Obama’s grandfather, who died in 1979, who ‘doubted the story or were certain it did not happen’.
This undermines the received wisdom that Obama’s grandfather was a victim of oppression, an assumption that has in turn fuelled theories that Obama harbours an animus towards Britain based on a deeply-rooted rage about the way Onyango was treated.
John Ndalo Aguk, who worked with Onyango before the alleged imprisonment and was in touch with him weekly afterwards said he ‘knew nothing’ about any detention and would have noticed if he had gone missing for several months.
Zablon Okatch, who worked with Onyango as a servant to American diplomats after the supposed incarceration, said: ‘Hussein was never jailed. I know that for a fact. It would have been difficult for him to get a job with a white family, let alone a diplomat, if he once served in jail.’
Charles Oluoch, whose father was adopted by Onyango, said that ‘he did not have any trouble with the government in any way’.
Dick Opar, a relative by marriage to Onyango and a senior Kenyan police official, gave what Maraniss judged to be the most authoritative word. ‘People make up stories,’ he said. ‘If you get arrested, you say it was the fight for independence, but they are arrested for another thing.
‘I would have known. I would have known. If he was in Kamiti Prison for only a day, even if for a day, I would have known.’
Maraniss also casts a sceptical eye on Obama’s grandmother’s tales of racism in Kansas, doubting whether she was ever chastised for addressing a black janitor as ‘Mister’ or ridiculed for playing with a black girl.
Obama himself, Maraniss finds, deliberately distorted elements of his own life to fit into a racial narrative. The author writes that Obama presents himself in his memoir as ‘blacker and more disaffected’ than he really was.
The memoir ‘accentuates characters drawn from black acquaintances who played lesser roles his real life but could be used to advance a line of thought, while leaving out or distorting the actions of friends who happened to be white’.
In the forward to his memoir, Obama wrote that ‘for the sake of compression, some of the characters that appear are composites of people I’ve known, and some events appear out of precise chronology’.
But Maraniss writes that Obama’s book is ‘literature and memoir, not history and autobiography’ and concludes: ‘The character creations and rearrangements of the book are not merely a matter of style, devices of compression, but are also substantive.’
Maraniss found, however, that Regina was based on Caroline Boss, a white student leader at Occidental College. Regina was the name of Boss’s Swiss grandmother.
The book also notes that Obama removed two white roommates in Los Angeles and New York from his story. Obama himself told Maraniss in a 90-minute interview that a racial incident involving a New York girlfriend had in fact happened in Chicago.
A tale of the father of Obama’s Indonesian stepfather Soewarno Martodihardjo being killed by Dutch soldiers as he fought for Indonesian independence turns out to be ‘a concocted myth in almost all respects’, Maraniss finds.
According to the book, both Obama’s father and his paternal grandfather were abusive towards women and Maraniss finds that Obama’s story that he was abandoned by his father when he was two was false – in fact, Obama’s mother fled to Washington state a year earlier, possibly because she was being beaten.
A character in Obama’s memoir called Ray, portrayed as a symbol of young blackness, is in fact based on a fellow pupil who was half Japanese, part native American and part black and was not a close friend.
‘In the memoir Barry and Ray, could be heard complaining about how rich white haole [upper class white Hawaiian] girls would never date them. In fact, neither had much trouble in that regard.’
Obama notes of his own grandfather that he was apt to create ‘history to conform with the image he wished for himself’.
Maraniss, who also wrote an acclaimed biography of Bill Clinton, suggests that throughout his life Obama himself, following on from his forbears on both sides, has done the same thing.
Generation Opportunity, one of America’s largest organizations connecting with young adults through a strategy of social media outreach coupled with on-the-ground grassroots organizing, is today releasing the non-seasonally adjusted (NSA) 18-29 unemployment rate data for May:
· The youth unemployment rate for 18-29 year olds specifically (NSA) for May 2012 is 12.1 percent.
· The declining labor participation rate has created an additional 1.7 million young adults that are not counted as “unemployed” by BLS because they are not in the labor force, meaning that those young people have given up looking for work due to the lack of jobs.
· If the labor force participation rate were factored into the overall 18-29 youth unemployment calculation, the actual 18-29-unemployment rate would rise to 16.9 percent (NSA).
Generation Opportunity President Paul T. Conway, former Chief of Staff of the United States Department of Labor, where the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is housed, and the former Chief of Staff of the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) responds to the May 2012 jobs numbers:
“The young adult unemployment rate, now at 12.1 percent for those 18-29 years old, represents yet another chapter in the indefensible saga of how a great generation is being denied economic opportunity, jobs, critical skills, and the ability to pursue their dreams.”
“As summer begins, the ranks of all those frustrated by the lack of opportunities are joined by recent high school and college graduates. Their enthusiasm to join the work force has been slammed by the same harsh economic status quo their brothers and sisters have been experiencing for the past few years – one marked by record high unemployment, a patchwork of part-time jobs, or jobs outside their chosen profession.
“Through no fault of their own, an increasing number of young Americans have begun to lose hope and have dropped out of the workforce entirely, disillusioned by the lack of jobs and dismayed at a White House that attacks America’s job creators and employers, while simultaneously putting Americans and their futures into deeper debt.”
“Today, we are calling on young Americans across the nation – all those who are unemployed, those who are working multiple part-time jobs, and those concerned about friends and family members who are themselves in this situation – to call the White House in the coming days and tell President Obama the time is now for real change. America can do better.”
Generation Opportunity is encouraging its Facebook fans, as well as its thousands of grassroots supporters across the nation, to call the White House at (202) 456-1414 and demand that the policies of the last three and a half years, which have stifled job creation, be reversed in favor of policies that free up Americans to create jobs, to hire, and to restore the American tradition of access to opportunity for all. To see our Facebook call to action, go to:
Of course, we know Obama doesn’t really care if these illegals actually find work. It’s for votes, not work.
Attribution: New York Post
from: The Blaze
If NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s dream to limit the size of sodas and other sweetened drinks has made people in New York angry, how will citizens of one Massachusetts city react if their elected official block all of these drinks, large and small in the city’s restaurants? The City of Cambridge, Massachusetts (the home of Harvard & MIT) has proposed such a thing.
Tuesday, the Mayor’s office sent a policy order stating:
“That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to refer the matter of a ban on soda and sugar-sweetened beverages in restaurants to the Cambridge Public Health Department for a recommendation.”
Apparently the Mayor believes that the citizens of Cambridge, Massachusetts are incapable of limiting their intake of soft drinks or “sugar-sweetened” beverages. Therefore, the only way to stop what he sees as an “increased risk of obesity and diabetes” is to ban (what they believe to be) the culprits.
Here is the official proposal, as seen on the Cambridge home page: