You’ve heard of raw milk raids. Why not ice cream, too?

The Lowell Sun (MA) reports,

Looking to hit the spot with a savory ice cream at Great Brook Farm State Park this week?

You may be out of luck.

The park’s popular ice-cream stand was unexpectedly shut down by state officials over the weekend, after the stand’s operator made building improvements at the site without getting permission first.

Mark Duffy, who has operated the dairy farm at the state-owned park for 26 years and has a lease with the state to run the stand, said armed Environmental Police officers showed up at stand on Friday evening and stood guard throughout the weekend, turning away customers craving delectable sundaes and frappes.

To make matters worse, said Duffy, the shutdown happened right before the sunny Mother’s Day weekend.

Edward Lambert, commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, said the stand was closed after it was discovered construction had been done without local or state permits. The work, which expanded the stand, included construction on a barn built in 1910 that is adjacent to the stand, he said.

Lambert said he is trying to protect the public’s health and safety while tests are conducted at the site.

The Washington Times reports,

President Obama’s budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.

Coupled with the House’s rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama’s budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.

Republicans forced the vote by offering the president’s plan on the Senate floor.

Democrats disputed that it was actually the president’s plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn’t actually match Mr. Obama’s budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president’s numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up.

But Republican budget plans can’t get serious, either: the main alternative proposed will still add $3.1 trillion in deficits over the next ten years.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reports on what looks like a classic “first they came . . .” scenario,

Documents just released by US Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) in response to one of EFF’s Freedom of Information Act requests show that DHS is considering collecting DNA from kids ages 14 and up—and is exploring expanding its regulations to allow collection from kids younger than that.

The proposal appears to be working its way through DHS in the wake of regulations from the Department of Justice that require all federal agencies—including DHS and its components such as ICE—to collect DNA from individuals arrested for federal crimes as well as “from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States,” whether or not they have been involved in criminal activity.  While the law specifically exempts a few classes of “aliens,” the documents we received show DHS may start DNA collection from anyone it fingerprints.  Currently, that’s any child over 14 who’s detained, but we also found records that show ICE could lower that age even more.

DHS estimates that as many as 1 million people who are subject to administrative detention or arrest annually could now be subject to DNA collection.  But it’s important to note that many of these people are not involved in criminal activity.  Collecting DNA from anyone detained by the government for any number of non-criminal reasons—especially juveniles—seems to be yet another step on the slippery slope to collecting DNA from everyone in the United States, no matter their status. . . .

DHS also appears to recognize the political costs of collecting DNA from people outside the criminal justice system. In a March 22, 2010 letter from DHS Secretary Napolitano to Attorney General Holder, Napolitano sought an exemption to DNA collection from juveniles under 18. Hidden text within one of the documents1 recognizes that collecting DNA from juveniles could increase “ICE’s exposure to criticism” and notes:

[t]here is a high likelihood that ICE would face litigation and other opposition from community and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) if ICE were to sample all juvenile detainees.

Further, it appears DHS is trying to avoid publicizing the roll out. Hidden text on another page of the documents notes that “OCR and OPA [ICE's Office of Congressional Relations and Office of Public Affairs] intend to respond to inquiries, rather than making announcements of the DNA sampling pilot program.”

MSNBC reports,

Mitt Romney continued to drive a debt-oriented message here on Wednesday morning, extending his “prairie fire” of debt metaphor with the assistance of a prop.

In a nod to the independent voters who pushed the Sunshine State into the Democratic column in 2008, Romney noted that both parties were responsible for pushing the debt to the “incomprehensible” levels – which were represented on a giant prop debt clock behind him.

“There was another area during [President Obama's] campaign, he said he would focus on. You see, he was very critical of his predecessor for the debts his predecessor put in place. And sure it’s true you can’t blame one party or the other for all the debts this country has, because both parties in my opinion have spent too much and borrowed too much when they were in power,” Romney said in this key swing state. . . .

The presumptive Republican nominee did not mention his plan to reform entitlements here in senior-heavy Florida, but [did] repeat his plans to increase military spending — a portion of Romney’s fiscal vision not easily squared with his plans to cut spending broadly.

“I’d like to take shipbuilding from 9 to 15 a year, by the way that will help put people to work. And I want to buy more aircraft and I want to have more active duty personnel and I want to make sure we give our veterans the care they richly deserve,” Romney said.

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Romney’s own budget policies will most likely add $250 billion in deficits over the next 10 years.

Check the national debt clock real time yourself here.

AntiWar.com reports,

US District Judge Katherine Forrest has issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the portions of the National Defense Authorization Act 2012 (NDAA)that relate to open-ended military detention of “suspects,” rejecting the Obama Administration’s arguments that the eight plaintiffs in the case, including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, did not have standing to contest such detention practices.

Judge Forrest ruled that Chomsky, Ellsberg and the others had “reasonable” reason to believe that the NDAA could be used to have them captured and transferred into military custody by virtue of their antiwar stances and opposition to the administration’s policies. She also ruled that the NDAA’s standards were too vague and overly broad compared to the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force, which restricted such detentions purely to those directly involved in planning or carrying out 9/11.

CourthouseNews.com explains,

In a 68-page ruling blocking this statute, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed that the statute failed to “pass constitutional muster” because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent.

“There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Forrest wrote. “There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention.” . . .

In a signing statement, Obama contended that the language in Section 1021 “breaks no new ground” and merely restates the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF).

Government lawyers whistled the same tune to swat away the lawsuit, but they failed to convince the judge that no changes had been made.

“Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little – it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass constitutional muster,” Forrest wrote.

Actor Will Smith plays the good citizen during an interview on French TV, encouraging citizens to pay their taxes. But when informed that new Prime Minister Hollande’s top rate will 75%, Smith brakes and retorts, “God bless America!”

Kurt Hoffman writes for Examiner.com,

Readers of this column will notice that the term “gun control” is rarely used here, except in the ironic sense, within quotes.  This is because controlling guns is only the means to an end for what is more accurately referred to as the forcible citizen disarmament lobby.  The desired end is a meek, docile citizenry, not only unable to conceive of resistance against an out of control government, but utterly dependent on government for protection against any threat.

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) most starkly exemplifies this way of thinking, with their insistence on a “government monopoly on force,” which executive director Josh Horwitz claims is “the fundamental organizing principle of any political entity, including the United States.”  In support of that assertion, Horwitz cites Max Weber, whose Article 48 was absolutely indispensable in Hitler’s rise to power.  Interesting choice of influences, CSGV.

Blogger Miguel, of Gun Free Zone, recently caught CSGV taking their twisted philosophy to its logical extreme, and tracked this Twitter exchange, in which gun rights advocate LC Scotty asked CSGV if rounding up a minority group for the concentration camps would not justify armed resistance:

So govt rounding up citizens based on relig/ethnic id would not warrant armd resistance if courts bless as constitutional

CSGV’s astounding response:

Correct. As long as the Const. is functioning as our system of gov’t, there are peaceful methods for redress.

Keep in mind, by the way, that CSGV would have us take the government’s word on whether or not it was complying with the Constitution.  In other words, according to CSGV, there can never be any justification for armed resistance, as long as the government makes a token effort to toss a flimsy veneer of Constitutional legitimacy over its excesses.

An American Holocaust would have to be allowed to proceedunopposed (except by “peaceful methods”), unless the government admitted that it had tossed the Constitution into the White House fireplace.  That is abject degeneracy.

ADF Media reports,

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against the city of Buffalo after police threatened to arrest a Christian man for peacefully sharing his faith on public streets and sidewalks during an Italian festival last year.

Police ordered the man to leave the festival, which was free and open to the public, if he intended to continue handing out Christian literature. As one officer told the man, “If you hand out one more tract, you’re going to jail.”

“People of faith shouldn’t be threatened with arrest for peacefully expressing their beliefs,” said Nate Kellum, one of more than 2,100 attorneys in the ADF alliance. “The Constitution and court precedent in these types of cases is clear: officials cannot toss someone out of a public event simply because they don’t like the views he’s expressing. This is a classic example of free speech that the First Amendment protects.”

Gregory Owen, together with a friend and members of his family, walked up and down Hertel Avenue during the 2011 Greater Buffalo Italian Heritage Festival to peacefully hand out Christian literature and discuss his faith with willing passers-by. Although the road is a public street in a section of town known as “Little Italy,” police approached Owen and told him to leave under threat of arrest, claiming that his speech violated an agreement with festival organizers.

In truth, the city issued a non-exclusive use permit to festival organizers that does not prohibit members of the public from exercising their free speech rights protected by the First Amendment. The event was free and open to the public, and the street remained at all times a public thoroughfare.

“Exercising your constitutionally protected free speech rights is not a crime,” said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “Threatening to arrest Christians simply because they choose to exercise those rights in a public place is a clear violation of the First Amendment.”

ADF attorneys filed the suit, Owen v. City of Buffalo, with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

This move by San Antonio is a behemoth example of how tyranny rules in every local government across the country. Unless this is stopped, all attempts at political reform are futile. This is the heart of the beast.

The worst part is, this is supposed to be great conservative, lone star Texas. And yet, “voters approve.” Across the state, the number is actually $1.8 billion.

Bloomberg reports,

San Antonio won authority to borrow a record $596 million from the municipal-bond market in Texas elections that put $1.8 billion in debt issues before voters.

The state’s second-largest city topped all others in the amount requested from voters in municipalities and school districts across Texas in the May 12 polling, according to Strategic Partnerships, an Austin consulting firm.

In five separate items, San Antonio voters passed debt issues for bridges and streets; drainage and flood control; parks and public buildings. The largest amount, $337.4 million, will cover roadwork. Approval margins ranged from 62 to 73 percent, according to a municipal website. With 1.3 million residents, San Antonio trails only Houston, with 2.1 million, among Texas communities, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

“The election is a clear mandate on the city leadership, the mayor and the city manager,” Christian Archer, a consultant to Mayor Julian Castro, a 37-year-old Democrat, said today by telephone. He said municipal voters passed a $550 million bond authorization in 2007.

Americans have upheld traditional marriage in all 32 cases so far—a perfect 32-0 record. So why is it still all over the media? Because liberals hope they can outlast conservative citizens and States, and ultimately get homosexuality a Roe v. Wade moment.

Christian talk radio host and author of We Won’t Get Fooled Again Steve Deace writes,

As popular culture becomes increasingly aggressive in its promotion of homosexuality, and Americans appear to be more de-sensitized to it, both sides of the morality debate have taken that as a sign to mean the American people are poised to affirm it. The Left, as well as the increasingly pro-homosexual leadership of the Republican Party, confidently believe the future is on their side. Those of us who believe neither the Bible nor the Constitution are living, breathing documents believe that history is on ours.

Enter North Carolina.

Last week’s overwhelming vote to affirm marriage in a state President Obama won four years ago, and polls showed he was capable of winning again, has thrown both sides of the debate for a loop. After all, poll after poll also shows the American people are clearly more willing to put up with so-called homosexual marriage than they were a few years ago, so how do you explain the issue of marriage is now 32-0 in every state that has held a statewide referendum on the issue?

In fact, marriage has remained undefeated even when liberal states like Oregon and Maine consider the issue. Exit polling found around 40% of Democrats voted for marriage in North Carolina. On the same day in 2008 when Obama was getting nearly 60% of the popular vote in California and winning Florida, marriage was affirmed by a majority of the very same voters in both states. Despite all the money Obama raised after “coming out” anti-marriage, his poll numbers plummeted. In one 72-hour time span last week, Obama lost 9 points in the daily Rasmussen tracking poll, and the dominant issue during that news cycle was marriage.

How do we reconcile all of this seemingly contradictory data?

We do so by recognizing that what we’re seeing from the American people isn’t a contradiction, but a distinction.

The homosexual movement has done a masterful job of de-stigmatizing those who practice homosexuality as victims of urges they cannot control, but they clearly haven’t been as successful at getting the majority of the American people to affirm those same urges as normal and preferable for society.

The American people have on one hand determined they should not stigmatize those practicing homosexuality more or different than they would those immersed in adultery or pornography with consenting adults—thanks mainly to the case the homosexual movement has made that this is hypocrisy (and I agree it is). And about the worst thing to be in today’s “tolerant” culture is a hypocrite.

On the other hand, the American people clearly are not ready to normalize homosexual relationships to the point of affirmation or on equal footing with marriage itself, which explains the 32 election results on the record we have on the issue. . . .

[W]e are playing offense nationally on this issue for the first time in several years. The Left has realized they will not win this issue anywhere except at the U.S. Supreme Court, and their ultimate gameplan is to create the homosexual equivalent to Roe v. Wade.

Unless we start supporting candidates at the state and federal level who believe in the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” understand what our Founding Fathers meant by terms like “interposition,” and have the courage to stand up to unelected judges who arrogantly think they and not the will of the people ultimately rule in our constitutional republic, the Left may get exactly what it wants—effectively nullifying all 32 elections we’ve won.