August 30th, 2014 by olddog
By Josey Wales
Indiana passes rational legislation concerning ‘public servants’ unlawfully entering another person’s private property.
Its Now LEGAL to SHOOT POLICE in Indiana if you believe The Cop Is Unlawfully Entering Your Home!
It’s becoming a daily occurrence when we see examples of cops breaking into the wrong house and shooting the family dog, or worse, killing a member of the family.
Now Indiana has taken action to “recognize the unique character of a citizen’s home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant.”
Indiana’s special amendment is no revolutionary new thought, only common sense.
Self-defense is a natural/God given right; when laws are in place that protect incompetent police by removing a persons ability to protect one’s self, simply because the aggressor has a badge and a uniform, is a human rights violation. Indiana is leading the way by recognizing this right and creating legislation to protect it.
Of course cops have already begun to fear monger the passage of this bill, “If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’ ” said Joseph Hubbard, 40, president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.” Well now imagine how the victims of police abuse/murder feel. Welcome to the real world, if it is going to take the police to fear the people before they cease and desist to violate their oaths to office, then so be it. Why should the public fear their public servants?
Instead of looking at the beneficial aspect of this law, which creates the incentive for police to act responsibly and just, Hubbard takes the ‘higher than thou’ attitude and is simply worried about himself.
How about questioning the immoral laws that you are enforcing in the first place? Or how about sympathizing with the innocent people whose pets and family members have been slain, due to police negligence?
How do you feel about Indiana’s new law?
AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2, AS AMENDED BY P.L.189-2006, SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen’s home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
(b) As used in this section, “public servant” means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.
Full Legislation Here www.in.gov/legislative/bills
August 29th, 2014 by olddog
By Patrick Wood
The New York Times blasted out the headline yesterday, Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty. In short, Obama will use one or more Executive Orders to entangle the U.S. in a global treaty on climate change, without consulting the U.S. Senate. However, the Constitution requires the Senate to vote on all treaties and the bar is high: It takes a two-third vote to approve.
The Constitution is out. The Rule of law has collapsed. Reflexive law has surpassed it all. The balance of this article will show you how and why.
If you are saying “Huh?”, you had better read every word of this report and figure it out, because this might be the most important shard of evidence ever revealed about the wrenching transformation of American society.
Obama’s principal adviser and “negotiator” on this so-called climate accord is John Podesta, and this whole “treaty-by-executive-order debacle can be laid squarely at his feet. Until just recently, Podesta was a member of the Trilateral Commission. He was Bill Clinton’s chief-of-staff in the 1990s and the original instigator of Executive Branch policy of using Executive Orders to bypass Congress on certain issues. Clinton, also a Trilateral member, created many such EO’s to side-step Congress, and Congress unfortunately let him get away with it. Well, Podesta is back: I have stated publicly on several radio programs since his recent appointment to Senior Policy Adviser To The President that Podesda is the most dangerous man in Washington.
Enough about Podesda. Just remember that he is the prime mover in what I am about to reveal.
The NYT article states,
To sidestep that requirement [of a 2/3 Senate vote], President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.
Several weeks ago, while doing some research for my upcoming book, Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation, a book had caught my eye and so I impulsively bought it. The title was Greening NAFTA by Markell and Knox and published in 2003 by Stanford University Press. According to the book, there was a supplemental agreement to NAFTA (1992) called the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which established the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The CEC was“the first international organization created to address the environmental aspects of economic integration.” (1)
I intended to put the book in my library for some future date, but since I more recently had a five hour plane flight and needed something to do, I hastily threw it into my briefcase on the way out the door. On the first leg of the flight, I skimmed the book, underlining a few things, but otherwise it generally put me to sleep. On the return flight 10 days later, I picked it up again and flipped the pages thinking it would be more of the same, only to fall on a chapter toward the back titled, “Coordinating Land and Water Use in the San Pedro River Basin.”The San Pedro River is in southern Arizona, and it just so happened that I had owned a ranch on that same river when I first got out of college in 1968, and so I knew the area like the back of my hand. Now I was really interested!
The San Pedro River Basin was the first instance of CEC involvement because it was a small and relatively unimportant area, and because the headwaters of the San Pedro River originated in Mexico, just south of the U.S. border. Greening NAFTA explains,
Under Articles 13 and 14, the Secretariat can accept and review citizen submissions alleging that one of the three countries is not enforcing its existing environmental laws. (2)
In fact, the San Pedro submission (i.e., complaint) came not from a citizen at all, but from the radical left-wing environmental group based out of Tucson, theSouthwest Center for Biological Diversity (SCBD). The mere accusation that the area was in violation of their preconceived ideas of normalcy was enough to set off a chain of events that changed the San Pedro River Basin forever. Here is where the plot thickens. The authors explain,
Article 13 can be characterized as an example of postmodern, “soft” or “reflexive” international law because it seeks to influence public and private behavior without the threat of the enforcement of traditional, sanction-based “hard” law. (3)
I had only heard (obviously not understanding) the term “soft law” before, but what is “reflexive law?” The author treats them as synonyms. After a another round of digging, I found the fountainhead of reflexive law in the following article, Towards a Theory of Law and Societal Development, written by a professor of international law in Sweden:
Another sociologist of law who have dealt with legal development in stages is Günther Teubner. He has in an article in Law and Society Review 1983 put forward a theory that the law moves from formal to substantive law and onwards to something he calls reflexive law. Teubner agrees with Nonet-Selznick that we have passed a stage of formal law, which is consistent with the concept of autonomous law, and after that have entered a stadium of material law. Teubner does think the transition from formal to material law should be divided into two types. A “genuine” material law which is used to realize specific, concrete values, what Teubner calls for substantive law and another type of material law which Teubner has labeled reflexive law. This latter legal form is characterized by constitutive and procedural rules that put limits on legal developments without specifying concrete material values to be realized. Teubner summarizes the characteristics of reflexive law by putting it in relief to the formal and substantive law as follows:
Reflexive law affects the quality of outcomes without determining that the agreements will be reached. Unlike formal law, it does not take prior distributions as given. Unlike Substantive law it does not hold that certain contractual outcomes are desirable. (4) [Emphasis added]
So we see that reflexive law is just over 30 years old, and yet it has since become the principal means by which to collapse the Rule of Law, based on actual laws, in the United States and in the Western world. Furthermore, reflexive law starts without first determining exactly what agreement will be reached, but pushes forward anyway to see how far the participants can be pushed.
Hard law, which we are all familiar with, specifies clear outcomes when it is violated. If you speed, you get a ticket. If you commit armed robbery, you go to jail for a specified period. This is the traditional Rule of Law upon which our Republic and Constitution is based. Laws are created by a Legislative Branch, executed by the Executive Branch and adjudicated by the Judicial Branch.
Greening NAFTA now explains exactly what reflexive law entails:
Reflexive law tries to align systematically legal rules with norms that the relevant actors will internalize. It builds on the realization that the reasons why people actually obey law ultimately lie outside formal adjudication and the power of the state to enforce rules. (5)
Again, reflexive law starts out with desired outcomes, created by unelected and unaccountable actors, for which there are no laws. Yes, they could appeal to Congress to create legislation, as would be required by the Constitution. At the end of the reflexive process, described below, the actual outcomes depend on how well the stakeholders “internalize” what is proposed. In other words, there is no actual legal process at all, but rather a jawboning process that cons actors into compliance.
“Information disclosure” is a principal policy instrument of reflexive law. That is, the analysis produced is presented with its “recommended outcomes.” Public meetings are then held to build consensus between individual citizens and other “actors”. In the case of the San Pedro River Basin study, the CEC enlisted the University of Arizona’s Udall Center to hold these public meetings. In sum, there was zero consensus among actual citizens of the area, as the book simply notes, “Public comment was emotionally divided on the reduction of irrigated agriculture.” (6) Really? In fact, the farmers and ranchers in the area were beyond livid, but the real purpose of the public meetings had nothing to do with getting their voluntary consensus. Rather, the meetings were designed to publicly abuse them until they submitted.
The Greening NAFTA authors are very blunt about this:
This experience reveals two powerful incentives at work: shame and thedesire to be virtuous while saving money or increasing profit margins. In a post-Holocaust world, human rights NGOs have effectively used shame to induce compliance with universal human rights norms. Also, voluntary pollution reduction has been achieved when it is internally profitable for an industry to reduce its discharges or an industry anticipates increased regulatory or public pressure to reduce them from the disclosure, such as through public shaming. Shaming works well with pollution, especially toxic pollution, because it draws on deep, perhaps irrational, fears of exposure to the risk of serious illness and an innate abhorrence of bodily injury.(7)
What of the farmers and ranchers who refused to be shamed into consensus during the Udall Center public hearings? After all, they had zero input into the CEC’s study and subsequent “recommendations”, nor were they consulted prior to the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity’s original complaint. Well, they were simply offered other incentives that they were helpless to refuse or refute:
Two concrete incentives that have successfully induced landowner cooperation under the U.S. Endangered Species Act are fear of a worse regulatory outcome and immunity from liability for changed conditions.(8) [Emphasis added]
In the end, the farmers and ranchers succumbed to the reflexive law process when the regulatory bullies showed up with threats of what would happen to them if they did not buckle under to the CEC’s demands. These actors included the Bureau of Land Management, manager of the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA) and the U.S. Department of the Army. Accompanying them were several NGO’s, including the Nature Conservancy and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity. The federal threat was “We will bankrupt you with regulations.” The NGO threat was “We will bankrupt you with lawsuits.”
This is “reflexive law” and it is 100 percent antithetical to the American Republic, the Rule of Law, the U.S. Constitution and the entirety of Western civilization. Because compliance has always been posited as voluntary, nobody has been alarmed enough to look any further at it. However, I will point out that almost every global imposition has been based on the voluntary aspect of reflexive law. Agenda 21 depended upon voluntary compliance, which is often referred to as “soft law” among its critics, who have not perceived the deeper meaning of reflexive law. Common Core education standards were introduced as a voluntary program. Sustainable Development in general is always proposed to be a voluntary program. All of these are based on reflexive law. But, once it gets its tentacles into your personal property and local community, you will be involuntarily squeezed until you “voluntarily” comply. There is no legal process available to defend yourself, your property, or your rights.
Now let’s examine the NYT article mentioned at the start of this article.
To sidestep that requirement [two-third vote of the Senate], President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path. (9) [Emphasis added]
Did your alarm bells ring? Obama is delivering us into an international reflexive law treaty that has no actual legal basis in fact, and that is why they think they are justified in ignoring the Senate. After all, the Senate deals with “hard law” while Podesta and gang deals with “reflexive law.” Furthermore, they will use the principal “name and shame” policy tool of reflexive law to smoke out the resistance for public shaming. Subsequently, from what you now know about how reflexive law is enforced in the end, those holdouts will be offered a “deal that they cannot refuse”, namely, much worse regulatory outcomes, international lawsuits and entanglement, trade sanctions, etc.
The NYT elaborates further:
American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.
Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies — but would voluntarily pledge to specific levels of emissions cuts and to channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change. Countries might then be legally obligated to report their progress toward meeting those pledges at meetings held to identify those nations that did not meet their cuts. (10) [Emphasis added]
There is not a single shred of doubt that anything other than reflexive law is pictured here. It spits in the face of traditional Rule of Law that our country was founded upon and operated under until 1983 when this treasonous legal system was conceived — by a German, no less. For all intents and purposes, reflexive law has caused the utter collapse of Rule of Law as we know it.
Don’t even begin to think this is anything less than blatant, for the article concludes with the frank braggadocio :
“There’s some legal and political magic to this,” said Jake Schmidt, an expert in global climate negotiations with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. “They’re trying to move this as far as possible without having to reach the 67-vote threshold” in the Senate.(11) [Emphasis added]
Magic, indeed: Merriam-Webster defines magic as “the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand.”
To copycat Paul Harvey’s famous radio program sign-off, “Now you know… therest of the story.”
- Markell and Knox, Greening NAFTA (Stanford University Press, 2003) p. 2
- Ibid. p. 217
- Ibid. p. 218
- Håkan Hydén, Samuel Pufendorf Professor in Sociology of Law, Lund University, Sweden, November 2011
- Ibid. p. 231
- Ibid. p. 228
- Ibid. p. 231
- Ibid. p. 232
- Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty, New York Times, August 26, 2014
August 28th, 2014 by olddog
When a government no longer follows the rule of law, imposing instead it’s own law by decree – history teaches that a society becomes ruled by the gun.
Legitimate government bound by the rule of law has the moral authority to uphold the law and impose justice. A government the discards the rule of law, for it’s own rules and laws, no longer has any moral authority. As such, the rule of law is always replaced by the rule of the gun – either to force compliance with a government’s dictates and whims, or in resistance to the government’s dictates and whims. Regardless which is employed (usually both) – rivers of blood follow as history teaches that civil wars and conflicts are usually the most brutal.
Obama and his party (and to a minor degree the GOP leadership oligarchy) – are setting the stage for that exact consequence to be visited upon what used to be the home of the free.
What we are witnessing, is the devolution of the civil society into tyranny prompted by the incitement of anarchy. The stoking of unrest in Ferguson by the White House, it’s attorney general and assorted race pimps like Sharpton, illustrate this fact in the local sense.
In the larger sense, the Ruling Class pass laws upon the people that they absolve and exempt themselves, at the same time they use a corrupted judiciary to strike down the will of the people to impose the will of the Leftist State. This includes the domino fall of nearly every state’s Constitutional ban on Homosexual marriage or those laws limiting marriage to the biblical and natural law.
A despotic Executive who when not playing golf, decides what laws he will ignore and no longer enforce, while decreeing policy as law that contravenes existing law. This was once understood to be the definition of a dictatorship, but today the people are ignorant of facts, history and current events for the latest cultural fad via social networking. For a people fast asleep to what is happening to them, the awakening to the cage they are shackled to will be violent, as history teaches.
Arbitrary laws mean there is no longer any common respect for the law – by either the government, or those it demands to rule. Law is then determined by the end of a gun. By those seeking to impose compliance or by those resisting it. The cost of which is beyond the comprehension of most when one considers not just the violence – but the privation, starvation and brutality that lies in the wake of civil war.
But America is being shoved headfirst off the cliff by the man who holds the White House and those in government.
Rejecting The Rule Of Law Means Inviting The Rule Of Guns
Kurt Schlichter – Townhall.com
What is the alternative to the rule of law? We may be on the verge of re-learning that ancient lesson the hard way. Of course, those of us who is served in places where there was no law, where leftists and other aspiring totalitarians ignored the rules and norms of civil society, already know.
The alternative to the rule of law is the rule of power. And the rule of power is always the rule of men with guns.
The disgraceful indictment of Rick Perry in Texas is just the latest example of this trend, albeit one that carries the seeds of hope. The judicial lynching under way in Ferguson offers less reason for optimism – our disgrace of an Attorney General and that clown masquerading as Missouri’s governor are practically salivating at the idea of sacrificing the police officer on the altar of indignation, facts and law be damned.
Liberals are committed to destroying the rule of law because law, by treating all equally and recognizing their inalienable rights, frustrates their fascist impulses. This isn’t just another annoying manifestation of the left’s utter failure as functioning ideology. It’s a trend that should terrify everyone concerned with the state of our union.
History shows us where this leads. We now have a President, an alleged constitutional law professor, who believes that if the people’s elected representatives in Congress refuse to bend to his will he can just do what he likes anyway. At least when Caesar finally destroyed the Republic, ancient Rome ended up with a dictator who knew how to win wars.
This guy golfs while the world burns.
We have government agencies like the IRS and EPA simply ignoring laws, like the ones that that require them to maintain records so they can be held accountable to the people they purport to serve. Where are the consequences for their conscious failure to do so? The problem is that those sworn to uphold the law are the very ones undermining it. Can’t Eric Holder take a break from telegraphing to his progressive pals that his lackeys won’t be deterred from crucifying the Ferguson officer by obstacles like facts, evidence and law, and do his job?
He never will. Today, there are no consequences for those whose law-breaking aids the establishment.
And when not actively ignoring the law, the liberal establishment seeks to change the foundations of our law to strip the civil rights from those who oppose it. It is mind-boggling: We now have one of our two major political parties that, as a key policy position, believes that the First Amendment allows too much freedom of speech. The Democrats literally wish to amend the Constitution to restrict our right of free expression.
Yeah, that’s America’s problem – too much free speech by people critical of the government. That and gender specific bathrooms. And global warming, which science teaches comes from unicorn flatulence.
This isn’t a surprise. In the name of “campaign finance reform” – that is, the protection of largely Democrat incumbents – the Obama Administration actually sent an attorney representing theUnited States of America into the Supreme Court to argue that the government has the right to ban a book critical of a politician.
The clowns are to your right to read and think what you wish as John Lithgow was to dancing in Footloose. Which makes conservatives Kevin Bacon.
So what happens when the government is not restrained by law? What happens first is that the government does what it wants, as it wants, without accountability. That provides those left unprotected by the law two ugly choices. On one hand, they can submit, and allow themselves to be oppressed, existing at the pleasure, and subject to the whims, of their masters.
The alternative is to fight. Look at the Declaration of Independence. It’s largely a chronicle of English lawlessness, though the members of this administration no doubt consider that document unworthy of study because the Founding Fathers were cisgender, phallocentric racists or something.
Chairman Mao, who is a big favorite of the half-wits in the White House, said it best: “Power comes from the barrel of a gun.” If there is no law, there is no moral reason not to pick up a rifle and take what you want. The moral imperative of the law is that you will obey and respect it even if you disagree with it because it was justly imposed and will be fairly enforced. But if the law is neither justly imposed nor fairly enforced, that moral obligation disappears.
I walked through the burnt-out villages of Kosovo after the moral imperative of the law there had disappeared. The baffling concept that half of America will simply shrug their shoulders and submit to the dictatorship of the other half is as dangerous as it is misguided and foolish. When you toss out the law, bad things happen. This is a major theme of my new book, Conservative Insurgency, a speculative future history of the struggle to restore our country, and the consequences of short-sighted attacks on the rule of law for short-term political gain are not pleasant.
But there is hope. When that drunken Democrat convict of a district attorney indicted Rick Perry for doing his job – and that is exactly what she indicted him for – even some liberals swallowed hard and shook their heads. Perhaps this was the bridge too far that finally made a few liberals re-think their comrades’ chosen path downward into chaos.
The reaction of a few liberals to this charade is a sign of hope, but sadly many other leftists are clapping their soft, pudgy hands like trained seals, eagerly welcoming this latest step towards their liberal fascist Utopia. Somehow they got the impression that the American people will accept whatever they do, whatever injustice they impose, whatever whims they choose to enforce. That is an unbelievably dangerous notion. The sooner we stomp it out and return to the rule of law, the better.
August 27th, 2014 by olddog
By Brandon Smith
This past week, I have been examining a recently leaked document from the Department Of Homeland Security entitled “Domestic Violent Extremists Pose A Threat To Government Officials And Law Enforcement.” (Yes; the title leaves nothing to the imagination.)
Generally, such documents are not classified. But it is internally accepted within establishment agencies that they should not be shared with the public. Similar documents like the Missouri Information Analysis Center report titled “The Modern Militia Movement” and the Virginia Fusion Center’s Terrorism Threat Assessment are not designed to import in-depth knowledge to law enforcement. In fact, if you actually investigate these white papers thoroughly, you will find they read like a mentally challenged middle-school student’s last-minute book report on liberty groups in America.
Rather than convey the complexity of the conflict between federal bureaucracy and constitutionalists, the papers linked above are meant to indoctrinate law enforcement officials against even considering what we have to say or why we take the actions we take.
Often, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a shameless propaganda outlet known for its Saul Alinsky tactics, is tapped as the primary source of “data” for these reports. At no time have I ever seen a government report on “domestic extremism” accusing liberty activists that actually allows a subset of the liberty movement to personally describe our position.
Often, the DHS will claim to LEOs that there is a “disparity in our beliefs that makes us unpredictable” or that they do not have a full understanding of our motivations during a particular event. The confrontation at Cliven Bundy’s ranch was the latest shock, after which federal officials acted as though the standoff attitude of armed liberty activists was incomprehensible.
The reality is that establishment cronies know all too well why Americans are angered to the point of taking up arms.
In any piece of propaganda, including the leaked DHS report, the goal is to paint opposition to state power in the darkest manner possible, so that the useful idiots (oath breaking LEOs and federal agents) can maintain the false sense that they hold the moral high ground. It is the information that such propaganda fails to mention that holds the key to unraveling the government position. For instance, the paper overtly mentions armed patriots at Bundy ranch as a brand of escalation, but does not mention the heavily armed Bureau of Land Management agents and contracted snipers that came first, seeking to terrify the Bundy family into compliance.
Nor does the paper mention the trampling of protester 1st amendment rights with the BLM’s absurdly inadequate, fenced-off “First Amendment Area.” In light of this, I ask: Who triggered the confrontation at Bundy ranch?
Is the federal government really all that surprised that liberty activists from all across the country came armed and ready to fight or even die? Some people believe the establishment is so ignorant or blinded by hubris that they can’t see the typhoon at their door, but I don’t think they are as dumb as they pretend.
Tragedies like Waco and Ruby Ridge do not have a shelf life. They accumulate in the minds of the people over time, and generations can pass without the rage ever fading. At Bundy ranch, the liberty movement resolved that we would not allow another such event to occur again without direct consequences – meaning nonsensical false-flag terrorism like the Oklahoma City bombing will never be our method, though the Feds would like you to assume as much. No, our method is to stand in between the aggressors, whoever they may be, and the victims, whoever they may be, and stop the tragedy before it happens.
At Bundy ranch, the BLM and its military contractors ran away, returning Bundy property as they went. Thus, the liberty movement removed the immediate threat and prevented another possible Waco. This is called “escalation of violent extremism” by the establishment. I call it de-escalation of violent government abuse by liberty activists.
The federal government would have you believe that the rise of “militias” and violent opposition is somehow taking place in a vacuum; that government officials can’t understand why such escalation is occurring now; that it must be a product of “racism” due to a black president; and that it’s all a chaotic, self-mutating mess of extremist insanity. This is ridiculous.
Why are people gearing up for revolution? I’ll break it down simply:
If you try to take our freedom, our chance at prosperity or our lives, we are going to fight you until one side or both sides dies. Period.
I’m not sure how this could be difficult to comprehend, and I do not think the feds haven’t grasped it. I think if they are surprised at all, it is because they have been steamrolling over Americans for so long that they are not used to the idea of regular people stopping them cold. Powder kegs are revealing themselves all across the U.S., from Bundy ranch to Ferguson, Missouri, and all caused by authoritarian overreach by federal and state officials.
In Ferguson, anger over perceived as well as legitimate state abuse has developed into street activism, but also random looting. Michael Brown himself is not necessarily an endearing character, but that is not a rationalization for the outright execution of suspects by the police, which has taken place with increasing frequency across the country in recent years. The strange behavior of Ferguson officials at the onset of the shooting combined with a lack of immediate transparency leads some to believe a cover-up is in progress, while others in government seek to exploit the event to ignite race divisions.
Whether or not Michael Brown actually “charged” at Officer Darren Wilson is not yet confirmed. However, we do know that regardless, Brown was unarmed, and that the officer in question had less-lethal-means at his disposal, including a taser and pepper spray. Whatever new facts come to light, it was still the choice of Darren Wilson to fire his handgun six times into Brown’s head and arm, instead of using other available methods. Darren Wilson’s refusal to make an official statement at the beginning of the event allows him to shift his story according the evidence that becomes available to the public. The entire situation and handling by Ferguson police only feeds already existing distrust of LEOs, who, with their federal funding and supplied military hardware, have become the front line mascots of government abuse.
The Ferguson shooting itself almost becomes irrelevant in comparison to the government response to public protest. State officials cite the explosion of looting and violence as a reason for the insertion of heavily armed and armored SWAT units, as well as the National Guard. However, riot police and militarized units IGNORED looters and rioters, and instead aimed the brunt of their attacks at peaceful protesters. This reveals a government disdain for 1st Amendment activities that goes far beyond the controversy of Michael Brown or even the inevitable “race-war” propaganda.
What is the solution? To stop the rise of anti-government violence, we must remove government intrusion into people’s lives, and the public must take community security into its own hands. Why did police use riot control measures against peaceful protesters in Ferguson, while such tactics were abandoned during the Bundy Ranch incident? Why does Eric Holder express “alarm” over the use of the National Guard in Ferguson, yet, he and the White House discussed plans formilitary intervention at Bundy Ranch? Why have leftists expressed shock over militarized police in Ferguson, when many of them were calling for drone strikes and blood in Bunkerville? Why have some “conservatives” set aside their 1st Amendment concerns when it comes to Ferguson when they were livid over the initial 1st Amendment trampling of Bundy Ranch?
The bottom line is this – outsiders will always have their opinions, and in most cases their opinions don’t count for much, but that does not stop people from trying to force their ignorant views upon you. Whatever the community and whatever the circumstances, the only way to solve the problem of the state & statists vs. the people is for the people to take responsibility for their own surroundings.
If the citizens of Ferguson (and the rest of America) really want to erase this conundrum from their lives permanently, they are going to have to establish neighborhood watches and even community “militias” (there’s the dreaded “M” word again) to bring peace to their town.
By refusing to take responsibility for their own security, Ferguson residents have invited city and state LEOs to do the job for them, and this has resulted in the possibility of unwarranted death-by-cop. Ferguson residents can and should remove LEO presence by establishing their own security. But this means they would have to stop the looting by petty thugs using protests as cover, and it also means they would have to prevent or intervene in criminal activities of less honorable residents.
The Founding Fathers answered the question of “who watches the watchmen” by creating a system by which the people ARE the watchmen. This was the militia system, a system that the federal government now labels “domestic extremism” and violent escalation.
I have been saying it for years, and I’ll keep saying right up until the shooting starts: Americans must take responsibility for their own futures and their own defense. Whether or not the people of Ferguson accept this, I have no idea, but the crisis will never stop until they do. And this problem applies to all other communities across the nation as well. Corruption of a community and the application of tyranny is rather difficult when every able bodied person within that community has the ability to defend themselves. Therefore, it remains up to each individual, and each sovereign neighborhood, town, county, and state, to man-up and become combat capable so that less honest institutions do not fill the void.
Dupes and statists will argue that the only way to change the system is to play by the rules, build a majority, elect the politicians you want and fight unconstitutional laws in the courts. But what should the people do when our political structure is rigged by special interests representing only a handful of elites? What should the people do when independent parties are muscled out of the mainstream and the leaders of the major parties sabotage any internal movements to change the status quo? What do the people do when their protests and redress of grievances are bashed by the media, violently attacked by the authorities or outright denied by government-enforced curfew? What do the people do when the courts stall justice and drown dissent with legal red tape? What do people do when playing by the rules only makes the situation worse for us all?
Americans must realize an important fact: There is no power over us but that which we give away.
The original intent of our republic is that the people ARE the government — not a select few elitists handpicked by corporate bankers. Politicians are supposed to be our employees, not a ruling class that sits above the populace. The current growing conflict between the citizenry and the government is igniting exactly because our government does not represent the common man anymore. The government is not “by the people, for the people.” It is a separate entity, representing corrupt and hostile parties. It cannot be changed from within. The federal government is now foreign to us, a guarded enemy with malicious motives.
Americans can take back the power they have neglected by taking responsibility for themselves and their communities. The government can only do two things in reaction: accept that we are in charge of our own lives and walk away, or try to stop us with force and assert its dominance. If it chooses the latter, then all violence that follows after will be on its hands, not ours. Anti-government activities arise only because of destructive government attitudes. If the establishment really fears a wave of violence against it, then it should do exactly as it did in Bunkerville, Nevada — walk away and leave people in peace.
You can contact Brandon Smith at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better.
To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, or to support the creation of barter networks across the country, visit our donate page here:
Silver and Gold are on their way back to historic highs, and now is the time to buy. LetLibertyCPM.com help you decide how to best protect your savings and insulate you from an ever destabilizing dollar.
Do you have enough Non-GMO seeds in case of economic collapse? Seeds are the OTHER alternative currency, and if you aren’t stocked, then you aren’t prepared. To buy top quality non-GMO seeds at a special 10% discount, visit Humble Seed, and use the code Alt10
August 26th, 2014 by olddog
By Joe David
August 26, 2014
Education is all about head-shrinking. A perfectly normal head or, to be more precise, mind, is taken before it can form important concepts and gather life-saving knowledge, and it is reduced to the size of a pea through concept-shrinking educational activities. Then after twelve, sixteen and even twenty years of such education, these shriveled and minuscule minds are released unfocused to society for the strongest voice and the most powerful hand to lead. – Joe David – The Fire Within
Today, everywhere, we are seeing the results of decades of such education. While extremists invade all areas of our society, deconstructing our culture with hateful slogans and deeds, the majority of Americans ignore them. They don’t understand – or care to understand what is happening. They are too absorbed in their artificial world, created with Silicon Valley’s high-tech gadgetry and Hollywood’s special-effects entertainment, to note what is happening around them. Those few who do understand and dare to identify the enemy are usually discredited.
A huge organization of thinkers (and pundits) do this by overloading the public with volumes of words, often contradicting the truth, blaming everyone but those guilty for what is happening today in America. By inundating the public with confusing information, they are allowing our truly dangerous enemy, bent on burning our Constitution and stealing our freedom and prosperity, to continue their schemes, unnoticed. Disguised by respectability and entrenched in three primary areas of our culture, this enemy with laser-like precision is surgically turning the land of the free and the home of the brave into the land of the mindless and the home of the submissive.
The most respected and perhaps the most destructive enemy of American culture are the educators. While promising to liberate us, they are instead enslaving us with their weapon of mass-mental self-destruction. This weapon is called pragmatism, a philosophy bequeathed to them by the father of modern “education.” What makes this philosophy threatening to healthy minds is its non-ideological approach to problem-solving. Translated, this simply means students are encouraged to seek immediate, not moral solutions to important problems. Such quick-fix solutions to urgent problems rarely address their underlining cause, leaving them free to haunt us periodically until, if ever, they are corrected. (Almost everything the government does these days exemplifies this approach to problem solving.)
This deadly philosophy responsible for this crept into our schools through the teachings of John Dewey. It is his progressive ideas on education that have directly (and even indirectly) influenced the outcome of modern education (i.e., the abandonment of phonics, the creation of anti-intellectual classroom exercises, the new math system, cultural relativism, historical revisionism, political correctness, and the list goes on). After years of such education, the results are seen almost everywhere. It is most obvious among public school graduates who leave school unable to read, write or think independently. Instead of having mastered higher-level reasoning skills, the opposite has occurred. Tossed into the gutter educationally, they have been left to find their way out without any intelligent guidance. The primary conversation of such aborted mental misfits centers around the mating habits of their favorite celebrity, the latest cool “action” movie, or the most popular mind-blowing recreational drug. When young adults do attempt to lift themselves to higher levels of thinking, they usually find themselves sinking in quicksand, because their ideas are often built on faulty premises. Our schools in their eagerness to mass-produce ignorance have successfully created students who can only reverberate memorized clichés, unprocessed cerebrally.
When I began to write for the general markets in the sixties, certain taboos existed among publications. These taboos were clearly communicated to writers. The reason was to make certain everyone understood who his audience was. Within the perimeters of these taboos, though, the writer was able to write freely, restrained only by good taste and reason. Today, unfortunately, such freedom has been lifted. What we are facing, in lieu of a taboos, is wide-spread censorship. The market available to responsible writers has shrunk significantly. If writers want to be published widely, they must maintain an acceptable bias. They are only allowed to tell the truth up to a point, and only then if they give the content the right spin. Success in this new market is determined by the skill with which a writer can make his spin believable.
Because of such growing censorship, we are reaching the end of free speech. Dark clouds are hovering over America. The leaders in communications are shamelessly making certain to this by giving preference to writers with troubled and muddled minds who have no problem building a case against a victim without first a fair trial (the George Zimmerman case, for example). Their reason for this is to take us into a New World where law and order is replaced by mob rule.
Thomas Jefferson once said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” Every day in so many different ways Americans are voting for more government expansion without realizing they are creating more opportunity for tyranny. The scandals in government (which even the powerful media aren’t always able to hush up) are occurring regularly at an unbelievable rate. Those noble programs which have been created to help the unfortunate have become money-laundering enterprises that make a few select people very rich at the public’s expense. Instead of having a government that protects us, we have one that is bankrupting us both financially and morally with lucrative scams.
Thanks to the dumbing down of America by the schools, today the big three are able to get away with this, and, at the same time, divide Americans (whites against blacks, Christians against Muslims, rich against poor, immigrants against natives, and the list goes on, ad infinitum). By creating divisiveness, they are setting up the dynamics for the final stage of their plan, a civil war which will give the government the excuse it needs to crush Americans through military rule. Like Germany during the time of Hitler, we are presently being identified (phone taping and email hijacking by NSA), and silenced (the Tea Party scandal and the censorship of the pulpit by the IRS). These three important segments of our society, which are capable of lifting us to the highest level of achievement by protecting our rights and expanding our minds, are effectively leading us to our enslavement.
Right now our borders are broken and the terrorists are flooding the land. While this is occurring, Americans are overdosing on sex, drugs, and mindless entertainment. Any day, any time, the enemy will rise up and take action, armed for modern warfare, with the complete support of the big three.
The big question: Will America survive?
The answer to that is DEFENITLY NO! In fact, what we have always believed America is, has been subverted until nothing recognizable is left. The land of the free, and the home of the brave is now, with few exceptions, the land of voluntary slaves, and the home of narcissistic cowards. We have been surreptitiously invaded by the very best minds the International Investment Banking Cartel could find to lead us to self destruction.
August 25th, 2014 by olddog
We Learned From Experience Fighting Rothschilds Banking Schemes!
These days, there are very few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating
USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.
Jubilant Russians Toppling Founder Of Homeland Security In USSR Felix Dzerzhinsky.
This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items.
People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional types of attire and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.
- Hungary Orders Rothschild’s IMF To Vacate The Country: Now Issuing
- Debt-Free Money!
- Dodd Frank & Basel III Enacted Treason Against The United States:
- Wealth Funneled Into Rothschild’s [BOE] Bank Of England.
- The Reckoning: Released Tapes On Rothschild Rockefeller: Platform
- Of Video Re-Release Is Ecumenical ~ So If You’re Secular Based ~ You
- May Want To Take A Pass On This One! 4 Tapes From 1987!
Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.
This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds.
It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.
Russia Federation’s President Vladimir Putin
- Gorbachev kicked out of Russia as the Last Red Soviet and then begins
- his campaign to pollute The United States For Rothschild.
- Political Vel Craft Back In Russia: Pravda ~ Son Of Joe Biden Attempts
- To Quash The Sovereign Powers Of The United States Sheriffs!
Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors.
Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed.
The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.
Peter Fonda: Obama is a ‘F – king Traitor’.
Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population.
From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.
To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense.
Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere….but criminals are still armed and still murdering and to often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police.
The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.
While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.
Bill Of Rights Are Unalienable Rights they are NOT Inalienable Rights. Inalienable Rights are a legal ease trapping in the court system. Know Your Rights!!!http://politicalvelcraft.org/2013/04/19/kansas-governor-signs-bill
For those of us fighting to protect traditional rights from the
World Gang Association , the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room.
Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases.
As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack.
What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.
The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?
No it is about power and a total power over the people.
There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed.
Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns.
- I Day Before Boston Bomb & Texas Missile Attack: CIA, Bill Clinton, George
- Bush Jr., & Barack Obama Indicted By U.S. Congressional “Constitutional Task
- Force” For Crimes Against Humanity!
- Obama’s 2014 Iraq Footprint: January 1,840 Dead February 700 Dead ~
- Hellfire Missile Supplied Drones!
- Ukraine’s Navy Refuses To Follow Orders From Kiev E.U. Puppet Regime:
- Navy Defects To Russia – Report.
- Russia Cracks Down On Obama’s NWO Running Wild: Warns The NWO
- Rothschild Controlled U.S. Military & NATO.
Oh, no, they do not.
What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology.
They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question.
They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.
So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.
Mutual NWO Appreciation Society: Ex-General David Petraeus Awards
Impeached Richard Nixon’s War Criminal Henry Kissinger An
Intrepid Freedom Award May 2013.
Russia Tells United States Citizens Not To Give Up Your Guns: We Learned From Experience Fighting Rothschild’s Banking Schemes!
Vatican vs Illuminati
August 21st, 2014 by olddog
By David Horowitz
Let me begin by acknowledging that this inspirational title is lifted from a tweet by screen actor James Woods. And now I will explicate his tweet.
Every sentient human being whose brain isn’t stuffed with ideological fairy dust can see that Obama is behind every major scandal of his administration from Benghazi to the I.R.S. disgrace. How can one know this? Because the culprits haven’t been fired. Moreover, if they are serial liars like Susan Rice, they’ve actually been promoted to posts where their loyalty to the criminal-in-chief can do America and its citizens even more damage, if that is possible.
A president faced with a scandal created by underlings behind his back would be naturally furious at their misbehavior, and want heads to roll. This didn’t happen in any of these scandals because their point of origin was the White House itself. Promoting the culprits is a way of keeping them quiet.
And what exactly is the I.R.S. scandal about — to take just one case? It’s a plan unprecedented in modern American politics to push the political system towards a one-party state by using the taxing authority of the government to cripple and destroy the political opposition. The administration’s campaign to promote voter fraud by opposing measures to stop it (and defaming them as “racist” is guided by the same intentions and desire).
And why shouldn’t Obama want to destroy the two-party system since he is also in utter contempt of the Constitutional framework, making law illegally, and defying an impotent Congress to stop him? Of course every radical, like Obama, hates the Constitutional framework because, as Madison explained in Federalist #10, it is designed to thwart “the wicked projects” of the left to redistribute income and destroy the free market.
The same desire to overwhelm and permanently suppress the opposition drives the war that Obama and the Democrats have conducted against America’s borders and therefore American sovereignty. Their plan is to flood the country with illegals of whatever stripe who will be grateful enough for the favor to win them elections and create a permanent majority in their favor. The immediate result of these efforts is that we have no secure southern border, and therefore no border; and therefore we have effectively invited criminals and terrorists to come across and do Americans harm.
Which brings us to the deepest level of Obama’s hell, which is his anti-American foreign policy. When Obama was re-elected in 2012, the very first thought I had was this: A lot of people are going to be dead because of this election. How disastrously right I was. Since their assault on George Bush and their sabotage of the war in Iraq, Obama and the Democrats have forged a power vacuum in Europe and even more dramatically in the Middle East, which nasty characters have predictably entered with ominous implications for the future security of all Americans.
Take one aspect of this epic default: Obama’s lack of response to the slaughter of Christians in Palestine, Egypt and Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Christians have been slaughtered and driven from their homes in Iraq – over half a million by some counts. This is the oldest Christian community in the world dating back to the time of Christ. What was Obama’s response to this atrocity until a group of Yazvidi along with the Christians were trapped on a mountain side, and politics dictated he had to make some gesture. His response was to do and say nothing. Silence. Even his statement announcing minimal action to save the Yazvidi and the Christians mentioned the Christians once in passing while devoting a paragraph to the obscure Yazvidi.
What this unfeeling and cold response to the slaughter of Christians tells us is that Obama is a pretend Christian just the way he is a pretend American. What he is instead is a world class liar. That is because his real agendas are anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish, and obviously and consistently pro America’s third world adversaries to whom he is always apologizing and whom he is always appeasing. Obama lies about his intentions and policies because he couldn’t survive politically if he told the truth,
The socialist plot against individual freedom called Obamacare was sold as a charitable attempt to cover the uninsured (which it doesn’t), to lower health insurance costs (which it doesn’t) and to allow patients to keep their doctor and their plan (which it doesn’t). What it actually does is to take away a major piece of the freedom that Americans once enjoyed — the freedom to choose their plan and their doctor, and not to have the government control their health care or have easy access to all their financial information.
This devious, deceitful, power hungry administration is just as James Woods described it. But it is also a mounting danger for all Americans. Thanks to his global retreat, the terrorists Obama falsely claims are “on the run” are in fact gathering their strength and their weapons of mass destruction until a day will come when they will cross our porous borders and show us what years of perfidy not only by Obama but by the whole Democratic Party have wrought.
August 20th, 2014 by olddog
SCOTT H. GREENFIELD
Via Reason’s Matt Welch, the Washington Post provides the insight of 17-year LAPD veteran turned “homeland security” professor at Colorado Tech University, Sunil Dutta, as to the mindset of the police officer on the mean streets of Ferguson. Lest there be any doubt as to where this is heading, it’s entitled, I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me.
Don’t start spitting yet. Wait for the deeper insight into how terribly wrong we are to misunderstand everything coming out of Ferguson, from the killing of Michael Brown to the management of the community. There is a very real problem, according to Dutta. We don’t get it.
It is also a terrible calumny; cops are not murderers. No officer goes out in the field wishing to shoot anyone, armed or unarmed. And while they’re unlikely to defend it quite as loudly during a time of national angst like this one, people who work in law enforcement know they are legally vested with the authority to detain suspects — an authority that must sometimes be enforced. Regardless of what happened with Mike Brown, in the overwhelming majority of cases it is not the cops, but the people they stop, who can prevent detentions from turning into tragedies.
In case you’re wondering, the calumny (meaning “character assassination”) has nothing to do with the smear of dead Michael Brown, but the “cops are murderers” strawman Dutta seeks to sneak past us.
Of course “cops are not murderers.” Murderers are murderers. Sometimes, murderers are cops. And indeed, in the “overwhelming majority of cases it is not the cops.” Nobody suggests otherwise. But then, how many cops have to murder to make it a problem for you. Is one percent of a half million interactions sufficient? Why that’s a mere 5000 murders. A drop in your bucket, Dutta?
Of course, there are also the beatings, the tasings, the occasional rapes and/or sexual assaults, but you didn’t claim cops aren’t rapists, and I wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth.
Working the street, I can’t even count how many times I withstood curses, screaming tantrums, aggressive and menacing encroachments on my safety zone, and outright challenges to my authority.
Did someone tell you at the Academy that the public would be showering you with kisses and adoration? Perhaps they suggested you would carry all that cool hardware on your service belt because people would get in your personal space to request your autograph, you rock star, you.
Oh wait. You were a cop. Your job was to deal with people who were often displeased to see you. Are you complaining? Do you want to give back your pension?
Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you.
That’s not, of course, because you, the police officer, are smarter, more concerned, more thoughtful, more sensitive or more knowledgeable. Rather, it’s because you have weapons and will use them. So this is as true for police officers as, say, an armed robber on the street.
Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.
In most human interactions, there is a bit of rational give and take. Granted, you shirk it off because you’ve heard it all before. Oh, to be so world-weary that no one (who doesn’t sign your evals) could possibly have anything to say that might be worth listening to. But you have command presence; right or wrong is well past relevant. It’s now about control, and you will use whatever force is available to exert total domination because, well, that’s what somebody in the Academy told you to do.
Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?
This is where we, sadly, part ways. When you use the word “cooperate,” you do so applying the cop definition. We, non-cops, are to cooperate with you, cop. We, as you’ve already told us, are to do as you say. Your idea of cooperation has nothing whatsoever to do with cooperation. It’s just a much better word than “comply or I will inflict pain, perhaps even death.” If they put “comply” on the side of a cruiser, it would really suck as marketing, so you call it “cooperation,” which sounds all warm and fuzzy, much as “stop resisting” sounds reasonable as you pound your baton into an unconscious person’s skull. That only happens rarely too.
The disconnect seems to be that the public just won’t do whatever a cop says. Sometimes, they won’t do it fast enough. Sometimes, they don’t do it right enough. Sometimes, they won’t do it at all. Your solution is just do it or you’ve brought the wrath of the police down on your own head. You kinda like the power of cop. It lets you blame the victim for doing what you have to do.
Thanks, Dutta, for explaining this. Thanks for teaching everyone why we continue to have these issues with people getting killed by the non-murderer cops, who just want us to do as they command. And especially, thanks for clearing up the nagging issue of whether pinning a shield to one’s shirt creates an inexplicable potential for dangerously violent behavior based on numerous concerns spelled out in the DSM (pick your number).
You see, we don’t have anything particularly against cops. We have a problem with violent crazies with weapons and shields. Some of them happen to be cops. They shouldn’t. So what exactly does a professor of “homeland security” teach? I’m betting it involves cooperation. Or else.
And the reactions roll in: Ken White at Popehat, and Rick Horowitz. Neither appears interested in taking Prof. Dutta’s class.
New Orleans Police Officer Turns Off Body Camera Minutes Before Shooting Suspect In Forehead
In New Orleans, Armand Bennet, 26, was shot in the forehead during a traffic stop by New Orleans police officer Lisa Lewis. However, the police department did not reveal until much later that Lewis turned off her body camera just before shooting Bennett. Bennett survived and has now been charged under prior warrants for his arrest. It also reviewed that Lewis had had a prior run in with Bennet who escaped about a week earlier.
New Orleans Police Superintendent Ronal Serpas called the late disclosures on the shooting simply a “snafu.”
Lewis’ lawyer says that she turned off her camera because she was heading back to the station at the end of her shift and that the shot was fired during a scuffle after the stop. Bennett’s attorney says that there was no scuffle and that Lewis fired a second shot as Bennett ran away.
The two had been in a scuffle a week before and Bennett had gotten away. The NOPD then issued four warrant for Bennet and those warrants were the basis for the stop.
Putting aside the merits of the officers claims, I am still unclear why these body cameras can even be turned off by officers. The point of a body camera should be that it runs from check in to check out. It should not be under the control of the officer to guarantee a record that cannot be challenged by either side. That would avoid the troubling appearance of an officer with a prior run in with a suspect who turns off her camera minutes before shooting the suspect in the head.
Kudos: Michael Blott
August 19th, 2014 by olddog
The new Army manual, known as ATP 3-39.33, provides discussion and techniques about civil disturbances and crowd control operations that occur in the continental United States (CONUS) and outside the continental United States (OCONUS).
This document, just published this past Friday, August 15, 2014, promises to change the way the “authorities” deal with protesters, even peaceful ones. The consequences of ATP 39.33 could prove deadly for protesters. Further, the provisions of this Army manual could prove to be the end of the First Amendment right to assemble peaceably.
In section 1-2., the manual states that “Civil unrest may range from simple, nonviolent protests that address specific issues, to events that turn into full-scale riots.” This section of the manual clearly states that protesting is a right protected by the Constitution. However, the authorities leave themselves an out to “legally” engage in lethal force toward protesters when the manual states that “peaceful protests can turn into full-scale riots” and field commanders have the right to make that determination. Subsequently, all protests, peaceful or not, need to be managed by the potential for violence. In other words, all protests are to be considered to be violent and handled accordingly. This certainly explains the violent manhandling of the media by the DHS controlled and militarized police in Ferguson, MO.
Posse Comitatus Is Violated
On the surface, the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) act should prevent the Army from deploying the troops in the midst of a protest that is not on the scale of something like the 1992 LA Riots. However, the Army claims exemption from Posse Comitatus in the four following areas.
- 10 USC 331. When a state is unable to control domestic violence and they have requested federal assistance, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
- 10 USC 332. When ordinary enforcement means are unworkable due to unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States, use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
- 10 USC 333. When a state cannot or will not protect the constitutional rights of the citizens, due to domestic violence or conspiracy to hinder execution of State or Federal law, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
- House Joint Resolution 1292. This resolution directs all departments of the U.S. government, upon request of the Secret Service, to assist in carrying out its statutory duties to protect government officials and major political candidates from physical harm.
With regard to 10 USC 331, if the local authorities have lost control in the midst of a profound display of domestic violence (e.g. LA Riots), most Americans support the use of National Guard or the military. However, in 10 USC 332, 333 and House Joint Resolution 1292 are ripe with exceptions which open the door to federal authorities abusing the public for exercising their Constitutional right to protest.
In 10 USC 332, the phrase “unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States, use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized,” permits the federal government from being demonstrated against. An act of demonstration, or the most benign demonstrations of civil disobedience gives the government the authority to take “deadly action” against the public because there are no clear distinctions on when the use of lethal and nonlethal force is appropriate (see the two charts displayed below).
In 10 USC 333, any disruption of federal law can be decisively dealt with by the federal government. The phrase “…conspiracy to hinder execution of State or Federal law, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized” is a telling passage of this Army document. If 10 USC 333 is applied to the letter of the written Army policy, the protesters who recently objected to illegal aliens being deposited in Murietta, California, could be subject to deadly force. Further, the protesters in Ferguson could be subject to the use of lethal force as well (Again, see the charts below).
The next time a community decides that it does not want to accept illegal immigrants, or protest the shooting of an unarmed 18-year-old, they could be met by the following:
The fourth exception claimed by the Army, with regard to the Army’s right to violate Posse Comitatus, is presented to the American people under the veil of the need to protect politicians.
House Resolution 1292 claims any protest which makes a public official feel “threatened” would be illegal and subject to intervention by the U.S. Army. Hypothetically, if 100 protesters were to gather outside of Senator John McCain‘s office in Phoenix, would that be enough to trigger a violent response by the Army? If McCain says he feels threatened, regardless if his claims are legitimate or not, it most certainly would justify the strongest response possible from the Army. Therefore, all a politician has to do is to say they feel threatened by any gathering to have the gathering dispersed and the protesters dealt with in any manner seen fit by the field commander. Make no mistake about it, this is the end of the First Amendment’s right peaceably assemble.
Army Depictions On How Best to Kill An American Citizen Who Expresses Disagreement with the Government
Do you remember the uproar when DHS was caught distributing target practicing sheets of pregnant women to be used for DHS agents when they were engaged in target practicing?
August 18th, 2014 by olddog
How The Material Dialectic Overcame Our Pulpits
By David A. McElroy
August 11, 2014
Critics often say “successful” churches tend to resemble country clubs, and their pastors function more like corporate executives than spiritual leaders or evangelists. We see mega-churches touted as the “feel-good”, “seeker friendly” paradigm to emulate. We should ask how this has come about, and look to the Holy Bible and some reputable research.
George Barna has long been recognized as a leading researcher of Christian issues, and recently published some shocking facts at OneNewsNow.com this month. Barna says when it comes to a controversy, he found “…less than 10% of pastors who say they will speak to it.” Who will rebuke evil if our pastors will not?
Why are some 90% of pastors, reported by Barna, avoiding controversy and carefully sidestepping certain biblical issues relevant to today’s circumstances? Barna says, as many have suspected, “Controversy keeps people from being in the seats, controversy keeps people from giving money, from attending programs.” And the measure of a church’s success, as taught in seminary courses on church administration and quarterly business reports, comes down to five metrics Barna cites:
1. Attendance (number of people)
2. Giving (number of dollars)
3. Programs (number of budgeted activities)
4. Staff (number of persons on payroll)
5. Square Footage (number of facilities)
How did these corporate metrics come to overwhelm the church and supplant the drive for biblical teaching and spiritual growth in Christ? I would posit that church boards and pastors, and, yes, the seminaries, have fallen to these metrics because material things can be precisely measured, whereas spiritual matters do not lend themselves to any system of measure. Spiritual growth is a personal matter science is not equipped to measure. And business practices demand the numbers, precise measures, statistical data. Church boards are dominated by businessmen serving as deacons, pastors, or elders, and most prominent givers are also the business people who do the math and demand accountability. But what would Jesus do?
I recall Christ let Judas handle the money in his ministry, and we know how he wound up!
Jesus always said it was his mission to do the will of his Father in Heaven. What did the Lord God Almighty say about doing things by the numbers? Read I Chronicles 21:1-8, where it begins: “And Satan provoked David to number Israel…” God expressly forbade King David from numbering his people to know the strength of Israel. God wanted the king to trust God’s strength rather the number of his troops, but David wanted that statistical information and numbered them anyway. Statistics are the measure of the state, and most statisticians are employed by governments. Do we trust God, or the numbers?
Churches, through the science of mathematics employed in business administration, have followed the state’s corporate model in doing everything by the numbers.
Speaking of the five “successful church” metrics Barna lists, he says “Now all of those things are good measures, except for one tiny fact: Jesus didn’t die for any of them.” And I would note that the fruits of the spirit are not among those five measures. Christ died to save souls that they might have eternal life abundantly in spiritual growth. Christ gave the Great Commission for our souls’ salvation and spiritual growth, not numbers in business ledgers or impressive stacks of brick and mortar with stained glass windows! He did not die so men with Texas-sized egos could prance on TV begging for money!
Why do things by the numbers? Fear of loss, the quest for material gain. What does the epistle of Paul to the Philippians say about this in 3:7-8 ? Paul wrote: “But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.” What are we willing to lose for Christ? Are you willing, as Christ bids, to take up your cross and follow him to the bloody end? Or is a cushy pew in an air-conditioned atmosphere of non-controversial happy talk saturated with coffee and donuts your priority? What is your church board or pastor willing to risk following Christ? What loss will you bear for Jesus? Would you face beheading for the Lord Jesus like our brothers and sisters in Iraq? Why are we in prosperous churches risking nothing to rescue them?
We are called to battle evil as Christian soldiers clad in the full armor of God as we read in Ephesians 6:10-20. Christianity is not a spectator sport or a life of leisure. When Christ sent his disciples out as his emissaries, we read in Mark 6:8 that he “…commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only: no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse.” Today, ministers expect a generous salary, a nice office, a comfy house, and a church vehicle… perhaps even a plush Gulfstream jet!
Chuck Baldwin, a prominent non-denominational Baptist pastor, expounded upon Barna’s research in his New Research: Pastors Deliberately Keeping Flock In The Dark , which was published in News With Views online. Baldwin is among the proponents of the unregistered church movement, refusing the 501(c)(3) tax exemption Uncle Sam grants through the Internal Revenue Service. The primary issue is that the federal statute for that monetary consideration requires the church to obey and conform to all federal laws and policies, surrendering the headship of Christ to Uncle Sam. True Christians know Christ is the head of the church and will never surrender his Lordship. The Apostle Paul suffered execution in Rome because he refused to say Caesar was his god.
Jesus Christ said , “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s…” in Mark 12:17. Do you even know the difference? Have you or your church been sucked into Caesar’s game of numbers, the trap of mammon? Who is referenced in the motto on our coins that says “In God We Trust”? Which “God”? Do you know the meaning of that pyramid on the back of your dollar bills? Look it up. Could you perhaps do with less of Caesar’s currency and move to an alternative means of exchange? Will you submit to the “cashless society” and accept the Mark of the Beast ? It is coming!
Military chaplains are forbidden to pray in Jesus’ name or display a cross in the chapels, Gideon Bibles are prohibited in military hotels, and the Ten Commandments are not to be seen on public property. The Bible, Jesus, and prayer are forbidden in public schools. And the pulpits are largely silent on these and other issues. Alcohol, adultery, Freemasonry, pornography, homosexuality, abortion, class war, and other things are overlooked in “not wanting to offend” with talk of sin. Hell is not a pleasant subject! The pews and collection plates must be filled, the church must be, like Disneyland, “the happiest place on Earth”!
Now “President Obama has issued an executive order that requires Christians , Christian groups, and Christian ministries to have no management restriction on transgendered or homosexual lifestyles in their organizations,” reports the election forum.org August 11th.
The order applies to all organizations benefiting from federal funding, like financial aid to Christian college students and religious social service ministries. The forum article said “The president now has ordered that the only way a Christian or Christian group can work with the US government is to deny their Christian beliefs and values.” Indeed!
Soon the five corporate metrics for the “successful church” will bring us to where we find communist China’s state approved churches: large impressive bodies constrained by the metrics of the material dialectic offering a watered-down partial gospel, speaking of God but denying the power thereof as they prostrate themselves before Mammon, Molech, and Lucifer!
Onward Christian soldiers, the battle is joined! Forget about the numbers. Trust God!
Having studied Christian theology for fifteen years, there is a lot I could say about the various Churches being far from God, and even farther from the scriptures, but David, having constrained himself has set a good example, so I will follow his lead and say no more.
August 18th, 2014 by olddog
A law enforcement officer watches Sunday, Aug. 17, 2014, as tear gas is fired to disperse
a crowd protesting the shooting of teenager Michael Brown last Saturday in Ferguson, Mo.
BY DAVID A. LIEB AND JIM SALTER
Associated Press writer Nigel Duara contributed to this report.
FERGUSON, Mo. — The first night of a state-imposed curfew in Ferguson, Missouri, ended with tear gas and seven arrests, after police dressed in riot gear used armored vehicles to disperse defiant protesters who refused to leave a St. Louis suburb where a black, unarmed teen had been shot by a white police officer a week earlier.
Missouri State Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson said protesters weren’t the reason for the escalated police reaction early Sunday morning after the midnight curfew took effect, but a report of people who had broken into a barbecue restaurant and a man who flashed a handgun in the street as armored vehicles approached the crowd of protesters.
Also overnight, a man was shot and critically wounded in the same area, but not by police; authorities were searching for the shooter. Someone also shot at a police car, officials said.
The protests have been going on since 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed Aug. 9 by a white Ferguson officer, Darren Wilson. The death heightened racial tensions between the predominantly black community and mostly white Ferguson Police Department, leading to several run-ins between police and protesters and prompting Missouri’s governor to put the Highway Patrol in charge of security.
The Ferguson Police Department waited six days to publicly reveal the name of the officer and documents alleging Brown robbed a convenience store before he was killed, though Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Wilson did not know Brown was a suspect when he encountered him walking in the street with a friend.
Gov. Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency in Ferguson on Saturday after protests turned violent the night before. In announcing the curfew, Nixon said that though many protesters were making themselves heard peacefully, the state would not allow looters to endanger the community.
“I am committed to making sure the forces of peace and justice prevail,” Nixon said during a news conference that was interrupted repeatedly by people objecting to the curfew and demanding that Wilson be charged with murder. “We must first have and maintain peace. This is a test. The eyes of the world are watching.”
It isn’t clear how many days curfew will be in effect. State statute gives the governor broad powers when he declares a state of emergency, but he hasn’t indicated that he plans to do anything other than imposing the curfew and empowering the state highway patrol to enforce it.
Meanwhile, Nixon said the U.S. Department of Justice is beefing up its civil rights investigation of the shooting.
Johnson, who is in charge of security in Ferguson, said 40 FBI agents were going door-to-door in the neighborhood starting Saturday, talking to people who might have seen or have information about the shooting.
Johnson said earlier Saturday that police would not enforce the curfew with armored trucks and tear gas but would communicate with protesters and give them ample opportunity to leave. Local officers faced strong criticism earlier in the week for their use of tear gas and rubber bullets against protesters.
But as the curfew deadline arrived early Sunday, remaining protesters refused to leave the area as officers spoke through a loudspeaker: “You are in violation of a state-imposed curfew. You must disperse immediately.”
As officers put on gas masks, a chant from the distant crowd emerged: “We have the right to assemble peacefully.”
A moment later, police began firing canisters into the crowd. Highway Patrol Spokesman Lt. John Hotz initially said police only used smoke, but later told The Associated Press they also used tear gas canisters.
“Obviously, we’re trying to give them every opportunity to comply with the curfew,” Hotz said.
On Saturday, some residents said it appeared the violent acts were being committed by people from other suburbs or states.
“Who would burn down their own backyard?” asked Rebecca McCloud, a local who works with the Sonshine Baptist Church in St. Louis. “These people aren’t from here. They came to burn down our city and leave.”
Wilson, the officer who shot Brown, is a six-year police veteran who had no previous complaints against him, Jackson has said. The Ferguson Police Department has refused to say anything about Wilson’s whereabouts, and Associated Press reporters were unable to contact him at any addresses or phone numbers listed under that name in the St. Louis area.
Wilson has been on paid administrative leave since the shooting. St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch said it could be weeks before the investigation wraps up.
Anyone unaware that it is very possible the word went out to find and make an example of someone who would resist lawful orders needs to study the real state of the union instead of watching stupid TV shows or listening to the media news channels. It is very possible that Obuma has received orders to pass down to the grunts in local P.D.s that Martial law is ready and waiting. FEMA is ready and waiting for the dull and ignorant to be their guest, and I doubt not there are plenty grateful for the perceived protection. When will the people understand that we DO NOT have a legal state or National government? We are the property of the Banking Cartel, Crown, POPE, and they want to thin us out and get rid of those who resist! Only the best suck asses will survive. As far as I’m concerned, those who will not fight back to save their lives, deserve what they get. Even a crippled Grandma can take one of them with her.
August 16th, 2014 by olddog
Photo credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images
By Glenn Greenwald
The intensive militarization of America’s police forces is a serious menace about which a small number of people have been loudly warning for years, with little attention or traction. In a 2007 paper on “the blurring distinctions between the police and military institutions and between war and law enforcement,” the criminal justice professor Peter Kraska defined “police militarization” as “the process whereby civilian police increasingly draw from, and pattern themselves around, the tenets of militarism and the military model.”
The harrowing events of the last week in Ferguson, Missouri – the fatal police shooting of an unarmed African-American teenager, Mike Brown, and the blatantly excessive and thuggish response to ensuing community protests from a police force that resembles an occupying army – have shocked the U.S. media class and millions of Americans. But none of this is aberrational.
It is the destructive by-product of several decades of deliberate militarization of American policing, a trend that received a sustained (and ongoing) steroid injection in the form of a still-flowing, post-9/11 federal funding bonanza, all justified in the name of “homeland security.” This has resulted in a domestic police force that looks, thinks, and acts more like an invading and occupying military than a community-based force to protect the public.
As is true for most issues of excessive and abusive policing, police militarization is overwhelmingly and disproportionately directed at minorities and poor communities, ensuring that the problem largely festers in the dark. Americans are now so accustomed to seeing police officers decked in camouflage and Robocop-style costumes, riding in armored vehicles and carrying automatic weapons first introduced during the U.S. occupation of Baghdad, that it has become normalized. But those who bear the brunt of this transformation are those who lack loud megaphones; their complaints of the inevitable and severe abuse that results have largely been met with indifference.
If anything positive can come from the Ferguson travesties, it is that the completely out-of-control orgy of domestic police militarization receives long-overdue attention and reining in.
Last night, two reporters, The Washington Post‘s Wesley Lowery and The Huffington Post‘s Ryan Reilly, were arrested and assaulted while working from a McDonald’s in Ferguson. The arrests were arbitrary and abusive, and received substantial attention — only because of their prominent platforms, not, as they both quickly pointed out upon being released, because there was anything unusual about this police behavior.
Reilly, on Facebook, recounted how he was arrested by “a Saint Louis County police officer in full riot gear, who refused to identify himself despite my repeated requests, purposefully banged my head against the window on the way out and sarcastically apologized.” He wrote: ”I’m fine. But if this is the way these officers treat a white reporter working on a laptop who moved a little too slowly for their liking, I can’t imagine how horribly they treat others.” He added: “And if anyone thinks that the militarization of our police force isn’t a huge issue in this country, I’ve got a story to tell you.”
Lowery, who is African-American, tweeted a summary of an interview he gave on MSNBC: “If I didn’t work for the Washington Post and were just another Black man in Ferguson, I’d still be in a cell now.” He added: “I knew I was going to be fine. But the thing is, so many people here in Ferguson don’t have as many Twitter followers as I have and don’t have Jeff Bezos or whoever to call and bail them out of jail.”
The best and most comprehensive account of the dangers of police militarization is the 2013 book by the libertarianWashington Post journalist Radley Balko, entitled “Rise of the Warrior Cops: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces.” Balko, who has devoted his career to documenting and battling the worst abuses of the U.S. criminal justice system, traces the history and underlying mentality that has given rise to all of this: the “law-and-order” obsessions that grew out of the social instability of the 1960s, the War on Drugs that has made law enforcement agencies view Americans as an enemy population, the Reagan-era “War on Poverty” (which was more aptly described as a war on America’s poor), the aggressive Clinton-era expansions of domestic policing, all topped off by the massively funded, rights-destroying, post-9/11 security state of the Bush and Obama years. All of this, he documents, has infused America’s police forces with “a creeping battlefield mentality.”
I read Balko’s book prior to publication in order to blurb it, and after I was done, immediately wrote what struck me most about it: “There is no vital trend in American society more overlooked than the militarization of our domestic police forces.” The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim, in the outlet’s official statement about Reilly’s arrest, made the same point: “Police militarization has been among the most consequential and unnoticed developments of our time.”
In June, the ACLU published a crucial 96-page report on this problem, entitled “War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing.” Its central point: “the United States today has become excessively militarized, mainly through federal programs that create incentives for state and local police to use unnecessarily aggressive weapons and tactics designed for the battlefield.”
The report documents how the Drug War and (Clinton/Biden) 1990s crime bills laid the groundwork for police militarization, but the virtually unlimited flow of “homeland security” money after 9/11 all but forced police departments to purchase battlefield equipment and other military paraphernalia whether they wanted them or not. Unsurprisingly, like the War on Drugs and police abuse generally, “the use of paramilitary weapons and tactics primarily impacted people of color.”
Some police departments eagerly militarize, but many recognize the dangers. Salt Lake City police chief Chris Burbank is quoted in the ACLU report: “We’re not the military. Nor should we look like an invading force coming in.” A 2011 Los Angeles Times article, noting that “federal and state governments are spending about $75 billion a year on domestic security,” described how local police departments receive so much homeland security money from the U.S. government that they end up forced to buy battlefield equipment they know they do not need: from armored vehicles to Zodiac boats with side-scan sonar.
The trend long pre-dates 9/11, as this 1997 Christian Science Monitor article by Jonathan Landayabout growing police militarization and its resulting abuses (“Police Tap High-Tech Tools of Military to Fight Crime”) makes clear. Landay, in that 17-year-old article, described “an infrared scanner mounted on [a police officer's] car [that] is the same one used by US troops to hunt Iraqi forces in the Gulf war,” and wrote: “it is symbolic of an increasing use by police of some of the advanced technologies that make the US military the world’s mightiest.”
But the security-über-alles fixation of the 9/11 era is now the driving force. A June article in the New York Times by Matt Apuzzo (“War Gear Flows to Police Departments”) reported that “during the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.” He added: “The equipment has been added to the armories of police departments that already look and act like military units.”
All of this has become such big business, and is grounded in such politically entrenched bureaucratic power, that it is difficult to imagine how it can be uprooted. As the LA Timesexplained:
An entire industry has sprung up to sell an array of products, including high-tech motion sensors and fully outfitted emergency operations trailers. The market is expected to grow to $31 billion by 2014.
Like the military-industrial complex that became a permanent and powerful part of the American landscape during the Cold War, the vast network of Homeland Security spyware, concrete barricades and high-tech identity screening is here to stay. The Department of Homeland Security, a collection of agencies ranging from border control to airport security sewn quickly together after Sept. 11, is the third-largest Cabinet department and — with almost no lawmaker willing to render the U.S. less prepared for a terrorist attack — one of those least to fall victim to budget cuts.
The dangers of domestic militarization are both numerous and manifest. To begin with, as the nation is seeing in Ferguson, it degrades the mentality of police forces in virtually every negative way and subjects their targeted communities to rampant brutality and unaccountable abuse. The ACLU report summarized: “excessive militarism in policing, particularly through the use of paramilitary policing teams, escalates the risk of violence, threatens individual liberties, and unfairly impacts people of color.”
Police militarization also poses grave and direct dangers to basic political liberties, including rights of free speech, press and assembly. The first time I wrote about this issue was back in 2008 when I covered the protests outside the GOP national convention in St. Paul for Salon, and was truly amazed by the war-zone atmosphere deliberately created by the police:
St. Paul was the most militarized I have ever seen an American city be, even more so than Manhattan in the week of 9/11 — with troops of federal, state and local law enforcement agents marching around with riot gear, machine guns, and tear gas cannisters, shouting military chants and marching in military formations. Humvees and law enforcement officers with rifles were posted on various buildings and balconies. Numerous protesters and observers were tear gassed and injured.
The same thing happened during the Occupy Wall Street protests of 2011: the police response was so excessive, and so clearly modeled after battlefield tactics, that there was no doubt that deterring domestic dissent is one of the primary aims of police militarization. About that police response, I wrote at the time:
Law enforcement officials and policy-makers in America know full well that serious protests — and more — are inevitable given the economic tumult and suffering the U.S. has seen over the last three years (and will continue to see for the foreseeable future). . . .
The reason the U.S. has para-militarized its police forces is precisely to control this type of domestic unrest, and it’s simply impossible to imagine its not being deployed in full against a growing protest movement aimed at grossly and corruptly unequal resource distribution. As Madeleine Albright said when arguing for U.S. military intervention in the Balkans: “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” That’s obviously how governors, big-city Mayors and Police Chiefs feel about the stockpiles of assault rifles, SWAT gear, hi-tech helicopters, and the coming-soon drone technology lavished on them in the wake of the post/9-11 Security State explosion, to say nothing of the enormous federal law enforcement apparatus that, more than anything else, resembles a standing army which is increasingly directed inward.
Most of this militarization has been justified by invoking Scary Foreign Threats — primarily the Terrorist — but its prime purpose is domestic.
Police militarization is increasingly aimed at stifling journalism as well. Like the arrests of Lowery and Reilly last night, Democracy Now‘s Amy Goodman and two of her colleagues were arrested while covering the 2008 St. Paul protests. As Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation (on whose board I sit) explained yesterday, militarization tactics “don’t just affect protesters, but also affect those who cover the protest. It creates an environment where police think they can disregard the law and tell reporters to stop filming, despite their legal right to do so, or fire tear gas directly at them to prevent them from doing their job. And if the rights of journalists are being trampled on, you can almost guarantee it’s even worse for those who don’t have such a platform to protect themselves.”
Ultimately, police militarization is part of a broader and truly dangerous trend: the importation of War on Terror tactics from foreign war zones onto American soil. American surveillance drones went from Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia into American cities, and it’s impossible to imagine that they won’t be followed by weaponized ones. The inhumane and oppressive conditions that prevailed at Guantanamo are matched, or exceeded, by the super-max hellholes and “Communications Management Units” now in the American prison system. And the “collect-it-all” mentality that drives NSA domestic surveillance was pioneered by Gen. Keith Alexander in Baghdad and by other generals in Afghanistan, aimed at enemy war populations.
Indeed, much of the war-like weaponry now seen in Ferguson comes from American laws, such as the so-called “Program 1033,” specifically designed to re-direct excessive Pentagon property – no longer needed as foreign wars wind down – into American cities. As the Missouri Department of Public Safety proudly explains on its website, “the 1033 Program provides surplus DoD military equipment to state and local civilian law enforcement agencies for use in counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism operations, and to enhance officer safety.”
One government newsletter - from “the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO), a little known federal agency that equips police departments with surplus military gear” – boasted that “Fiscal Year 2011 was a record year in property transfers from the US military’s stockpiles to police departments around the nation.” The ACLU report notes: “the Department of Defense operates the 1033 Program through the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO), whose motto is ‘from warfighter to crimefighter.’” The Justice Department has an entire program devoted to “supporting military veterans and the law enforcement agencies that hire them as our veterans seek to transition into careers as law enforcement officers.”
As part of America’s posture of Endless War, Americans have been trained to believe that everything is justified on the “battlefield” (now defined to mean “the whole world”): imprisonment without charges, kidnapping, torture, even assassination of U.S. citizens without trials. It is not hard to predict the results of importing this battlefield mentality onto American soil, aimed at American citizens: “From Warfighter to Crimefighter.” The results have been clear for those who have looked – or those who have been subject to this – for years. The events in Ferguson are, finally, forcing all Americans to watch the outcome of this process.
August 15th, 2014 by olddog
By: Louis Cammarosano
Bank Bail-ins are coming to the United States
In a speech yesterday, in Stockholn Sweden, Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve and former governor of the Bank of Israel and former chief economist at the World Bank, Stanley Fisher noted:
“As part of this approach, the United States is preparing a proposal to require systemically important banks to issue bail-inable long-term debt that will enable insolvent banks to recapitalize themselves in resolution without calling on government funding–this cushion is known as a “gone concern” buffer.”
Mr. Fisher gave no details as to whom in the United States was preparing the bail-in proposal and what “bailinable long term debt” is.
It Happened in Cyprus, But Can It Happen Here?
In spring of 2013 the failing European Bank of Cyprus performed a bail-in that required depositors to help save the bank by foregoing a large portion of the money they had deposited in the bank. In return for their forebearance, depositors were given equity shares in the failing bank.
Customers who deposit money in banks are lending that money to the bank. Depositors are in effect, unsecured creditors. If the bank fails, depositors get in line with other unsecured creditors to see how many cents on the dollar, if any, they can retrieve.
In the United States to offset this result, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) since 1933 insures bank deposits up to $250,000*. THe FDIC, however, is woefully underfunded to handle payouts in the event of a large bank failure. The new proposal is designed to allow failing banks to get back on their feet “without calling on government funding.”
Under the proposed bail-in scenario, the faiure of a “sytematically important bank” (a.k.a. “too big to fail”) will receive no government funding to stay afloat. In order to keep their casino doors open, a too big to fail bank will just call on their loyal depositors to help out by taking whatever percentage of the depositors’ money they need to stabilize the bank.
After $4 trillion of quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve over the past five years, and record profits at the largest U.S. banks, it would seem that the U.S. banks should be sound and talk of bailing them in, unnecessary. Apparently, not as Mr. Fischer’s comments make clear.
With banks already paying close to zero interest on deposits and the real possibility that a depositor could actually lose money by keeping it in a too big to fail bank, what incentive do depositors have in keeping their cash in such banks?
*At the time of the Cypriot bail-in, EU depositor insurance was in place.
Smaulgld Gold Buying Guide
Smaulgld Silver Buying Guide
Janet Yellen and Negative Interest Rates
Are Banks Safe Places to Keep Your Money
Text of Stanley Fisher’s Bail -In Speech November 11, 2014
Please visit the Smaulgld Store for a larger selection of recommended Kindles, books, music, movies and other items.
Or you can support Smaulgld.com by making purchases from our affiliates or by making all your Amazon purchases through the search widget below:
*DISCLOSURE: Smaulgld provides the content on this site free of charge. If you purchase items though the links on this site, Smaulgld LLC. will be paid a commission. The prices charged are the same as they would be if you were to visit the sites directly. Please do your own research regarding the suitability of making purchases from the merchants featured on this site.
The content provided here is for informational purposes only. Making investment decisions based on information published by Smaulgld (SG), or any Internet site, is not a good idea. Accordingly, users agree to hold SG, its owner and affiliates, harmless for all information presented on the site. SG presents no warranties. SG is not responsible for any loss of data, financial loss, interruption in services, claims of libel, damages or loss from the use or inability to access SG, any linked content, or the reliance on any information on the site.
The information contained herein does not constitute legal, tax or investment advice and may be subject to correction, completion and amendment without notice. SG assumes no duty to make any such corrections or updates. As with all investments, there are associated risks and you could lose money investing. Prior to making any investment, a prospective investor should consult with its own investment, accounting, legal and tax advisers to evaluate independently the risks, consequences and suitability of that investment. SG disclaims any and all liability relating to any investor reliance on the accuracy of the information contained herein or relating to any omissions or errors and as such disclaims any and all losses that may result.
Posted in: Economics, Gold, Silver ⋅ Tagged: bail ins, depositors to lose money in banks, fed vice chairman on bank bail ins, Federal Reserve plan to bail in the banks
August 14th, 2014 by olddog
To understand the complex web of deceit aimed at luring the American people and the rest of the world into accepting a military solution which threatens the future of humanity, get your copy of the international bestseller:
“The livelihood of millions of people throughout the World is at stake. It is my sincere hope that the truth will prevail and that the understanding provided in this detailed study will serve the cause of World peace. This objective, however, can only be reached by revealing the falsehoods behind Americas “War on Terrorism” and questioning the legitimacy of the main political and military actors responsible for extensive war crimes.”
–Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
SYNOPSIS: America’s “War on Terrorism”
In this expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 bestseller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”. Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.
The this special edition, which includes twelve additional chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarization of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.
According to Chossudovsky, the “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalization is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.
September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.
“Chossudovsky starts by dispelling the fiction that the US and Al Qaeda have been long-term adversaries. [He] also probes US oil policy, which is obviously of particular concern to George W. Bush. Chossudovsky argues that the US has a much different relationship between Russia and China than is ever indicated in the mainstream (or progressive) press. Simply put, the US is moving into the countries which neighbor Russia and China in order to plunder natural resources and expand the reach of the US Empire. Pakistans Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has been playing a key role in destabilizing the region as well as offering support in other intelligence matters… War and Globalization is full of surprises, even for those of us who consider ourselves well-informed. Chossudovsky is examining the true nature of US foreign policy and arguing that the terrible events of 9/11/01 have changed little of it… Material this provocative and well-researched is ignored by the left at great peril.”
- Scott Loughrey, The Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel
“Canadian professor of economics Michel Chossudovsky contains that rare gift of a writer who can compile massive documentary evidence, then propound it in a succinct, lucid manner. In this illuminating work the host of the critically acclaimed Global Research website takes widely acclaimed and often repeated media assumptions and sharply refutes them, providing a chronology and road map behind 9-11 and related events… A large part of the book involves a necessary topic area that has been nervously glossed over by conventional American media sources for good reason; it hits too close to home and indicts the largest international energy conglomerates. The author spends much time examining the link between big oil and public policy. In terms of providing vital information, this compact volume provides more valuable information in one chapter than so many contemporary volumes do with many pages on 9-11 and related events… Chossudovsky demonstrates that the frequently repeated and fallacious Bushie shibboleths of getting Saddam before he gets us are rhetorical sallies designed to inflame public opinion by skirting around the important truths that only a few courageous authors such as himself dare reveal… Its bullseye clarity cuts through the morass of Bush verbage, daring readers to examine the pure, unvarnished truth of a nation using its military and intelligence capabilities to control the global oil market on the pretext of making the world a safer place.”
- William Hare, Florida United States
Get your copy today!
Global Research Price: US$17.00
(List price: US $24.95, Canada C$29.95)
CLICK TO BUY
August 13th, 2014 by olddog
By Joe Wright
The escalation of police brutality continues unchecked across the United States. Literally unchecked, according to the video report and sources posted below.
Citing the Bureau of Justice Statistics data collection of “Arrest-Related Deaths”, it is clear that reports involving potential police misconduct – even including deaths – are submitted on a completely voluntary basis, which has resulted in glaring holes and a long delay in those submissions that are offered.
The exclusions and submission process are telling:
The deaths of innocent bystanders, hostages, and law enforcement personnel were excluded from the scope of the ARD program. In addition, all deaths occurring in a jail or other long-term holding facility, state prison, or juvenile correctional facility were excluded from the ARD data collection. Deaths occurring in the custody of federal law enforcement agencies (i.e., FBI, DEA, or Marshals Service) were only reportable to the ARD program if the death, or incident causing the death, occurred in the presence of state or local law enforcement personnel.
Role of State Reporting Coordinators
Participation in the Arrest-Related Deaths program is voluntary, meaning neither law enforcement agencies nor states are required to submit ARD data to BJS. As such, BJS relies on the assistance of State Reporting Coordinators (SRCs) to gather records on all arrest-related deaths statewide…. (emphasis added)
When the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 was enacted, only two states conducted a statewide count of all arrest-related deaths (California and Texas, each pursuant to State law). In the remaining 48 states and the District of Columbia, the ARD program was the first attempt to perform a comprehensive count of all deaths occurring during the process of arrest. The attorneys general of California and Texas agreed to complete statewide reports of arrest-related deaths for submission to BJS. In all other jurisdictions, BJS worked with state officials to determine which agency would collect arrest-related death reports.
During reporting year 2006, a state criminal justice commission, commonly administered by the governor’s office was the most common data reporting contact (22 states), followed by the state attorney general and state police department (8 states each) (see table 1). In five states, the department of corrections took a lead role in compiling records. In over 30 states, the reporting office also served as a state criminal justice Statistical Analysis Center (SAC). (Source and full report)
As we see the current explosion taking place in Missouri – which includes a new report that police will not release the officer’s name who killed Michael Brown – and the continued fallout from the much-maligned Albuquerque Police Department (with a minimal but still revealing DoJ investigation that followed), it is clear that there is very little in place to hold law enforcement accountable.
As these departments continue to be enhanced with weapons of war and given carte blanche for no-knock death squad SWAT raids, we are likely to see a continued escalation of those with absolute power becoming corrupted absolutely.
By Jamal Andress - Newsy
For many, the killing of unarmed Missouri teen Michael Brown brings to mind other instances where officers used deadly force.
“I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe”
Law enforcement is the only non-military career in the country that offers that power, the use of deadly force, yet its practice remains un-monitored on a national scale and in most states around the country.
While the FBI keeps information annually on hate crimes, aggravated assault and officers killed in the line of duty there is no complete database tracking the police’s use of force.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics has an ‘Arrest-Related Death Report’ but law offices around the country aren’t required to fill it out and a lot of them don’t. As the report notes, Georgia, Maryland and Montana didn’t submit one report for six years.
Now, in the off chance your city or state does compile the information, history says you won’t like the results.
“What we found was a pattern or practice of systemic deficiencies that have pervaded the Albuquerque Police Department for many years.”
Back in April the DOJ investigated the Albuquerque Police Department’s use of force after the APD shot and killed an armed homeless man. They found the officers “too frequently use deadly force.”
“Hey! Hey! Hey! Put the knife down!” Put the knife down! Put the knife down!
A similar investigation was conducted in Seattle, where the Department of Justice ruled that when theSeattle Police Department used force, it was done in an unconstitutional and excessive manner, nearly 20 percent of the time.
And in St. Louis, where Michael Brown was killed, a similar report from 2012. (Video via MSNBC)
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “On a straight per capita basis, St. Louis officers fired up to eight times more often than others. … From January 2007 through Sept. 30, 2011, the department cleared more than 96 percent of the shootings by officers.”
After a long night of unrest in St. Louis county, it seems the FBI will open a parallel investigation of the shooting but unlike most violence in and around the country this investigation will not be placed in a broader context or a broader conversation because the information simply isn’t there. (Video via CNN)
The video contains images from Getty Images.
To Provoke and Suppress: The Military Occupation of Ferguson Missouri
By William Norman Grigg
“Bring it, you f*****g animals! Bring it!” taunted a tonsured thug in the employ of the Ferguson, Missouri Police Department during protests over the police killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown. According to Dorian Johnson, who witnessed the killing from just a few feet away, the incident began when a still-unidentified officer hurled a similar taunt at the two of them from a patrol car.
“Get the f**k on the sidewalk!” the officer reportedly snarled at the young men from his patrol vehicle. Johnson told the officer that they had nearly arrived at his home, which was their destination. The officer then slammed on his brakes, threw his vehicle into reverse — nearly hitting the pedestrians, and growled, “What’d you say?”
According to Johnson’s account, the cop began to exit his vehicle, but his door slammed into Brown. At roughly the same time, the uniformed assailant grabbed the terrified 18-year-old by his neck. As Brown tried to escape, Johnson testifies, the officer repeatedly sneered, “I’m gonna shoot you.”
The first of several gunshots rang out a few seconds later. Brown and Johnson turned and fled. The officer fired a second shot at the fleeing victims, hitting Brown, who fell to the ground with his hands in the air, pleading: “I don’t have a gun — stop shooting!” The assailant fired several more shots, killing the unarmed teenager outside an apartment complex. His body was left about 35 feet from the vehicle, surrounded by empty casings from the officer’s gun. Brown was unarmed.
Police officials are peddling the claim that Brown supposedly “assaulted” his killer and attempted to grab the officer’s gun. Eyewitnesses, particularly Johnson, dispute that claim. Even if this were true, however, Johnson’s account would indicate that Brown acted in self-defense, seeking to disarm someone who had threatened to shoot him without cause. There is no dispute that Brown was unarmed and attempting to surrender when he was fatally shot.
A crowd that gathered at the scene of the killing grew into a protest that extended through Saturday evening, and a protest march the following day. More than 100 officers from 15 police agencies converged on the neighborhood to confront the protesters. One officer described the scene as a “war zone.” A group of violent people group hived off from the protests and attacked local businesses, including a QuickTrip convenience store. Predictably, the riot police who had assembled to “restore order” by suppressing the protests did nothing to protect private property. That role was carried out by local businessmen bearing arms in their own defense.
Many black residents of Ferguson regard themselves as living under a military occupation, subject to the whims of violent, uniformed strangers who can detain, abduct, or kill them on a whim. The reported behavior of the officer who killed Michael Brown — and the documented behavior of the officer who was caught on film taunting the protesters — would tend to validate that perception.
10:42 am on August 12, 2014Email William Norman Grigg
The Best of William Norman Grigg
August 12th, 2014 by olddog
CAFR1 NATIONAL POST
Reply by WJB to an article from Global Research -
By Walter Burien – Prior Tenant WTC1 – 1978 to 1990
I truly wish all writers would bring up the following “glaring in your face” points in every 911 article. I bring the points up as a prior tenant of WTC1 from 1978 – 80, and the following three points are the 1,2,3 knock out punch per exposure towards the true motive behind the event:
1. The WTC Towers were constructed with hundreds of tons of asbestos foam sprayed on the internal infrastructure as a fire retardant. Then asbestos for use in construction was then banned, whoops. In 1979 the WTC spent about 135 million dollars to build a special micro-particle air filtration system to capture asbestos particles as they broke down to keep exposure of the particles from the tenants. They also commissioned in 1979 a report per the cost for demolition of the towers due to the asbestos. It came back with a cost of 8 billion dollars and the report noted that is was not accounting for the billions in law suits that would arise from people saying they were exposed to the asbestos as the towers were demolished. That problem they were sitting on was resolved on 911.
2. From almost completion of the towers it was a “no-fly” zone. Only commercial aircraft at a high altitude were allowed to fly over on a pr-designated flight path. Any private plane that came to close, an intercept was launched from one of the three surrounding military bases. If the plane did not back off as instructed by the intercept, it could be taken down by the intercepts. Any commercial airplane that flew off course, did not respond, could be shot down with an order to do so from any one of the base commanders. Thousands of military sorties were run per threats, potential threats, or practice drills from the opening of the towers. Port Authority, the owners of the WTC complex bragged in their monthly tenant news letter that the response time from threat alert to military intercept in the air was less than four minutes. The only day in an exemplary history of protecting the towers for over 25-years from in the air threats, that an intercept was not launched from not just one reported threat in the air but four known threats in the air? That day was 911. On that day was the only day a firm stand-down order was given. When I saw that on 911, as a prior tenant, I knew with great certainty they were allowing this to happen.
3. The Port Authority starting in 1978, now knowing about the asbestos situation and in a separate matter that due to the massive flat surfaces of the towers, if a level 4 or 5 hurricane hit with sustained winds of 195 to 210 MPH hitting those flat surfaces, the towers could not withstand the massive millions of metric tons of directional wind force, and would go down. The tower’s ratings were designed to handle “gusts” up to 165 MPH. Port Authority in 1978 started diligently pushing to sell the WTC complex. No matter how hard they tried with any and all potential world buyers, no takers. Then in 1999 / 2000, in steps Larry Silverstein, a joint US and Israeli citizen, who negotiates a 99-year lease on the WTC complex with the total lease having a cost of 3.5 billion dollars and requiring “monthly” payments of somewhere around 100 million dollars monthly. The contract was signed for the lease and Silverstein effectively was now the new owner by lease of the WTC complex. The complex had no insurance for terrorism events, so one of the first things Silverstein did was put out a bid to the insurance companies for a policy coverage that included a “double indemnity” clause on the 3.5 billion dollar lease, so total coverage would be 7 billion dollars. It took several months for a group of insurance companies to come together to write the policy. When the final large insurance company that entered finalized the policy, in so many words, the ink was not even dry yet on the policy and down go the towers, and in goes Silverstein’s claim for payment under the policy of 7 billion dollars noting the double indemnity clause that there were “two” acts of terrorism. Poof, there goes the problem of the asbestos, flat surfaces of the towers in the event of a level 4+ hurricane, the excuse initiated and promoted for the largest military action in recent history, and by the way the dates and targets for that military action were planed in advance two-years prior to 911. The Afghanistan and then Iraqi “Shock and Awl” hit took place almost to the day as planned well in advance before 911.
SUB NOTE: I think we all remember the TV News video shot they played over and over again in the first three days after 911 of a bunch of mid-eastern types noted as Arabs that were celebrating and popping bottles of champagne on a rooftop from Fort Lee, NJ overlooking the burning towers shortly after being hit. Clear exuberance was being shown due to the event by one and all on that rooftop as they toasted their champagne glasses. Well, the press immediately pulled that segment when it was learned that all on that rooftop celebrating were Israeli Nationals, celebrating due to the fact that they knew based on the event, the US Military would now start the planned event of decimating Israel’s presumed neighboring enemies in the middle east. I bet most Americans never knew what the reality was behind that video clip broadcasted and then pulled. Additionally, the towers were designed where the center “steel core” would act as a guide for collapsing floors in the event of catastrophic failure. By design, the floors would pancake down around the center steel core protecting surrounding buildings but in no event would the center steel core fail. When I saw the center steel core “coming down” with the collapsing floors, there was no question in my mind that pr-placed demolitions on the center steel core was the only plausibility for that to happen. Even “if” as they said in the promoted story line heat from fires on the impacted floors caused the center steel core to fail, then the upper intact steel core would have toppled over, and the lower unaffected would have been left standing. NO QUESTION WHAT-SO-EVER demolition.. The 3000 911-archetcts for accountability concur.
The top individuals controlling a large and corrupted government view the general populace as “useful idiots”. Their well planned “in advance” story line towards one of the most corrupt acts in history, 911, is designed specifically for the uninformed by the perpetrators intent, useful idiots to parrot. Including the selected date and logo used: 911, a well know call for emergency action.
Will there ever be serious and consequential accountability levied on the inside players that pulled off 911 and the subsequent devastation that took place in its aftermath? I sure as hell hope so! The clock is ticking and so far those responsible have been laughing their asses off all the way down to the bank over the last decade without any or true consequence for their acts..
PS: The “Poster Boy’s” name, Bin Laden was mentioned by CNN and other Media networks as the claimed perpetrator starting “22 minutes” into the event. Must be some very clairvoyant news reporters out there, but then in reality they mostly are just following a pr-drafted script given to the
Please share my comments with one and all. If you have a website or news letter please publish.
Walter Burien – CAFR1.com – Prior Tenant WTC1 – 1978/1980
P. O. Box 2112
Saint Johns, AZ 85936
Tel. (928) 458-5854
August 11th, 2014 by olddog
By Daniel Taylor
Crises will be used to create a “global consciousness” and create pretext for more government control.
Unprecedented numbers of illegal immigrants are crossing into the United States. European countries,
especially France, are experiencing a surge of illegal immigration due to violence in Syria, Iraq, and other parts of the middle east.
The bigger picture in all of this is the fact that people are fleeing countries that are in a state of chaos due to the nefarious influence of international bankers and the military industrial complex. The people fleeing are victims. They are being used in a greater agenda that goes beyond national politics and rivalries.
A recently leaked report from Customs and Border Protection shows that people from at least 75 different countries are attempting to enter the United States illegally. Many of them are attempting to flee corruption and violence taking place in Syria, Ukraine, and Iraq among other countries. The CBP report states that many people coming from the middle east are making a temporary stop in the European Union before coming to the United States. As reported by the Telegraph, France is currently experiencing an influx of illegal immigration similar to the United States. Afghans, Syrians and others are making an attempt to gain access to Britain, and eventually the United States.
While tensions in these hot spots have been boiling for years, the influence of western powers has recently sparked intense conflict across the globe, triggering an intensified surge of desperate individuals who want nothing more than to live in peace.
Mexico and Latin America
The porous southern border of the United States is the site of deadly standoffs between Mexican drug gangs and Mexican military helicopters shooting at Border Patrol agents. President Obama, during arecent visit to Mexico, pointed the finger at American’s use of illegal drugs and guns for Mexico’s plague of violence.
As reported by Bloomberg in 2010, mega banks including Wells Fargo (Bailed out with $36 billion in taxpayer money in 2008) and Bank of America (Which begangiving credit cards to illegal aliens with no social security numbers in 2007) were caught laundering money to Mexican drug cartels. In total over $300 billion was laundered in operations that were blatantly ignored by Wachovia, now part of Wells Fargo. Among other illegal activities, the money bought planes used to deliver narcotics.
Iraq and the Middle East
The mass slaughter of Christians in Iraq at the hands of the Islamic State is forcing tens of thousands to seek refuge. The terror group
has its hands on at least 52American made howitzer artillery guns and almost 2,000 Humvees. As Kurt Nimmo reports, a former Al-Qaeda commander recently said that the Islamic State works for the CIA. Nimmo reports, “Na’eem said ISIS, now IS or the Islamic State, is part of the neocon and Israeli “Clean Break” plan to balkanize the Arab and Muslim Middle East.”
Meanwhile in Ukraine, over 100,000 people are fleeing violence that is threatening to spark a hot war between NATO and Russia. As part of a continuing plan to encircle Russia, Billionare George Soros admits that he played a major role in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government.
Predictions of the Ministry of Defense – Ultimate goal of global government
A 2010 report from the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense stated that by 2040 a “global society” will emerge, plagued with tensions brought about by globalization. The report says that “sustained international migration” will “drive the development of a global culture…” Because of the increased migration, tensions will inevitably emerge. “Intrusive global culture” will threaten traditional customs and beliefs and “possibly radicalize” certain groups.
On June 11, 2002 a conference on North American integration was held by the
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The center, which influences policy making in Washington, is funded by the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The
Gates Foundation and George Soros. During the 2002 meeting, shocking revelations were made regarding the elite’s plans to create a North American Union between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. In order to accomplish this, representatives from various think tanks agreed that a campaign of social engineering needed to re-shape beliefs about national sovereignty and identity.
Bruce Stokes, Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow, National Journal columnist and Chatham House member told the conference that a true “North American Community” would only be “born out of the heat of conflict.”
The Pope recently called on the world to embrace illegal immigrants and rejected the “globalization of indifference” in a globalized world. As we can see in the evidence presented in this article, the people suffering across the world do need compassion, but our human drive to help our fellow man is being manipulated.
In a 1997 paper written by Maj. Bart R. Kessler, presented to the Research Department of the Air Command and Staff College, light is shown upon yet another plan on part of globalist think tanks to propagandize the world into accepting their vision for the future. In
“Bush’s New World Order: The Meaning Behind The Words,” Kessler shows that in the 1970′s, the World Order Models Project, financed by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Rockefeller foundation, proposed “strategies of transition” into a new global era. Saul H. Mendlovitz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, directed the project. Richard A. Falk, also a member of the CFR, contributed academic work.
The goals of the WOMP were to, “…go beyond the nation-state system…to use a much broader range of potential actors, including world institutions, transnational actors, international organization, functional activities, regional arrangements…”
The project sought to use world leaders like the Pope to promote the globalists agenda. Richard Falk wrote,
“Symbolic world leaders such as the Secretary General of the United Nations or the Pope might espouse [the WOMP agenda]… as a program for the future… These kinds of external developments… would initiate a world order dialectic within American politics that would begin to break down decades of adherence to [the Westphalian system] and its infrastructure of values, perceptions and institutions.”
GLOBALIST THINK TANK NORTH AMERICAN COMMUNITY WILL BE FORGED IN THE HEAT OF CONFLICT
Old-Thinker News | July 14, 2014
By Daniel Taylor
The current influx of illegal immigrants into the United States has caught many by surprise, but globalist think tanks have eagerly awaited an event like this for many years.
On June 11, 2002 a conference on North American integration was held by the
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The center, which influences policy making in Washington, is funded by the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund, TheGates Foundation and George Soros. During the 2002 meeting, shocking revelations were made regarding the elite’s plans to create a North American Union between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. In order to accomplish this, representatives from various think tanks agreed that a campaign of social engineering needed to re-shape beliefs about national sovereignty and identity.
The “Toward a North American Community” conference focused on the social and ideological aspects of the creation of a North American Community. Presentations were given by representatives from Mexico, Canada, and the United States respectively. The task of each was to present the political and social atmosphere of each country in relation to “North American integration.
” Stephanie R. Golob of Baruch College and member of the Council on Foreign Relations represented the United States.
Golob indicated that the United States was “the greatest obstacle to this process” of integration into a globalized system. She stated that due to this resistance, integration will have to come “from the top-down” through directives from the United States President and his “inner circle.”
Bruce Stokes, Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow, National Journal columnist and Chatham House member told the conference that a true “North American Community” would only be born out of the heat of conflict.
Stokes said, “For those of you, who like me, believe that one of the biggest challenges we face as a society is coming to terms with globalization… then we must embrace the rough spots” like illegal immigration. Stokes stated that we need to “…use these as teaching experiences… to create a public dialogue about the meaning of becoming a true North American Community.”
Stokes continued, “This is how we will create a North American consciousness and a true North American Community. It will be forged in the heat of conflict, not through a rational discussion, as painful as that may be. It really cannot happen any other way.”
The spectacle of tens of thousands of “unaccompanied minors” is a “teaching experience” that globalist run media is using to manipulate public opinion. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi recently stated in response to the current crisis that the United States and Mexico is “a community with a border going through it.” Pelosi then said that the establishment must view the crisis as an “opportunity.”
In addition to social engineering society to accept globalization, University of California Professor Darrell Y. Hamamoto
told infowars.com that illegal immigration is about creating a subservient underclass in America. Hamamoto said that the plan is “…to exclude the American middle class from a UC education and create a new demographic of largely immigrant or foreign national undergraduate population that can be re-educated from the ground up and controlled much more readily.”
August 10th, 2014 by olddog
Congressman Timothy Walberg and Sen. Rand Paul introduce bills to reform federal asset civil forfeiture laws
Under civil asset forfeiture laws in the United States, police can seize your property if they can connect it, even remotely to criminal activity, with drug crime being the most common. Even if you were completely unaware of the crime, your property may be taken.
Radley Balko, a blogger and reporter for the Washington Post, has brought to the public’s attention many people whom he regards as innocent victims of civil forfeiture abuse.
On July 28th, U.S. Congressman Timothy Walberg (R-Mich.) introduced a bill aimed at reforming federal asset civil forfeiture laws. Also, last month on the Senate side, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced S. 2644, the FAIR (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration) Act, which similarly seeks to reform the way the government seizes property suspected of being involved in criminal activity.
“When you tell [people], in America, the government can take you home, your car, your boat, without convicting or even charging you with a crime, most people cannot even believe it,” said Scott Bullock, senior attorney, who directs the Institute for Justice’s campaign against civil forfeiture. He spoke July 29, at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., on the topic, “Arresting Your Cash: How Civil Forfeiture Turns Police Into Profiteers.”
For people to get their property back once it’s been confiscated, they usually must go to court and show they legitimately earned the property. “So if it’s your cash that’s been seized, you have to find the paycheck or paystub,” Balko explained.
Sometimes the property itself is alleged to have been used in the commission of a crime, like an automobile seized for its use in a drug deal. You would have to prove that you didn’t drive the car—the so-called “innocent owner defense”—but even that may not be enough to get your property back, according Balko.
Punishing the Property
A woman’s car was subject to forfeiture and seized by police because her husband used it in the services of a prostitute, without her knowledge or consent. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Bennis v. Michigan (1996) that in civil forfeiture cases, the state of Michigan was not required to provide an innocent owner’s defense, and she lost her car and was not entitled to compensation, although no one said she did anything wrong.
However, most federal and state forfeiture laws provide for an innocent owner defense, according to attorney Steven Kessler, who has written about and defended many cases regarding civil and criminal forfeiture. Nevertheless, Kessler thought the Bennis case set a bad precedent by the high court that regarded “Forfeiture had nothing to do with the owner’s culpability. The property was the offending party and, consequently, the property, not its owner, was being punished.”
The proponents of reform argue that current standards for seizing property make it too easy and tempting for government prosecutors and police to abuse their powers and cite many examples of unfair application of the law. The Fifth Amendment asserts that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The 14th Amendment has nearly identical wording.Those who want the laws reformed say that police and prosecutors are abusing their civil property forfeiture powers with impunity. The legal environment for forfeiture cases is decidedly on the side of law enforcement and prosecutors, they say. In only six states does the government have the burden to establish that the person is guilty in order to confiscate all types of property, according to the Institute for Justice. In 38 states, the burden for all forfeitures, including one’s home, is on the owner.
In 2005, Matt Lee was driving from Michigan to the West Coast to begin a new life. His father had given him $2,500 in cash on the day he left to help him get started, as he recounted in the Silver Pinyon Journal. He kept $100 on him to add to his money for trip expenses, and put the remaining $2,400 in the trunk so he wouldn’t be tempted to use it on the way. Lee was driving on I-80 through Humboldt County, Nev., when he was pulled over by a deputy sheriff. The sheriff asked him how much money he was carrying, which was really none of his business, but Lee, who had nothing to hide told him how much and where it was. The sheriff took the money out from the trunk, and said he suspected Lee was intending to use the money to buy narcotics in California. He said he was keeping the money but Lee could continue on. Lee was not arrested. In the middle of a desert, Lee had no alternative but to drive on to California.
Three years later, Lee finally got his money returned because of a lawsuit filed against the county by another person who had also been fleeced. The latter’s attorney wouldn’t settle unless Lee also got his money back.
“In 2012, an astounding $657 million was paid out to state and local law enforcement for handling forfeiture cases,” said Andrew Kloster of the Heritage Foundation, who played host at the forum.
Congressman Walberg gave several instances of the questionable use of moneys collected from civil asset forfeiture:
“In Fulton County, Ga., football tickets for the district attorney’s office; in Webb County, Texas, $20,000 for TV commercials for the district attorney’s re-election campaign; in Kimble County, Texas, $14,000 for a training seminar in Hawaii for the staff of the district attorney’s office; in Albany, N.Y., over $16,000 for food, gifts, and entertainment for the police department.”
The proponents of reform say that the problem with asset forfeiture is the incentives it sets up for the police and/or prosecutors.
At the forum, Balko gave an example of narcotics task forces monitoring the East-West Interstate highway through Nashville, Tenn., which serves as a kind of drug corridor. Investigative reporters from the local television station discovered that police were pulling over suspected drug couriers at a 3 to 1 ratio as they were leaving Nashville compared to coming into Nashville. The reason is, said Balko: “A car full of drugs coming into a city is of no use to the task force in terms of generating revenue for them; a car leaving a city is much more likely to be full of cash than drugs. They were setting up their traps … on the west side of the city not on the east side where the drugs would be coming in.”
“Even if you support the drug war, forfeiture sets up some really perverse incentives for police officers to wait until the drugs are sold before they make their bust,” Balko said.
[color=blue]Balko said the instances of perverse incentives from the forfeiture law are well illustrated in Kansas and Indiana, as these states allow district attorneys to contract out to private law firms to handle civil and criminal property forfeiture cases. In Indiana, there were firms making millions of dollars off of these cases, and it’s still going on, Balko said.
In Kansas, Balko discussed one case that he felt illustrated an egregious conflict of interest. In a sparsely rural county, the position of district attorney (DA) is part-time. The DA also had a private law practice, and he contracted out forfeiture cases to his own practice. He got a cut whenever a case went to court. “He then proceeded to prosecute on the criminal side and civil side of these cases.”
Balko said he wasn’t accusing the individual of wrongdoing, but only pointing out the existence of a strong incentive for the DA to cut a deal on the criminal side in exchange for the accused giving up large percentages of their properties to his law firm.
Many states have recognized these problems and have passed legislation to address them, such as requiring forfeiture income go to a state school fund. The forum speakers were concerned about a way used increasingly that circumvents state reform forfeiture laws.
Federal forfeiture law allows what is called “equitable sharing,” whereby a state law enforcement agency may enter into such an agreement with a federal agency and then the forfeiture process is governed by federal law. The feds take 10 to 20 percent and give the rest back to a state law enforcement agency, even when the agency would receive none of the proceeds from state forfeitures.
Walberg said his bill, H.R. 5212, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2014, would “raise the level of proof necessary for government to seize property.” He said it would place the burden of proof on the government to show the property owner had knowledge of the criminal activity. His bill seeks to restrict the use of equitable sharing agreements between the Department of Justice and local or state law enforcement.
August 9th, 2014 by olddog
PART 1 and 2
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
August 9, 2014
My latest book—By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of “Martial Law”—is now available through Amazon. Its title encapsulates its theme: namely, that “martial law” (as most Americans conceive of it) is a wholly illegitimate concept which appeals to some supposed, but false, “necessity” in order to establish a very real tyranny.
Some might say that, in light of the present parlous condition of the Republic, and especially the pathetic indifference of average Americans to this sorry state of affairs, writing such a book will prove to be a fool’s errand on my part—or perhaps a hopeless task quixotically undertaken for the benefit of fools. Obviously, I disagree. I consider the subject-matter of this book to be vital to this country’s survival.
To be sure, By Tyranny Out of Necessity is not the most important book which I have written on the general subject of the place of the Militia in America’s constitutional edifice. The others—Constitutional “Homeland Security”, Volume One, The Nation in Arms; Constitutional “Homeland Security”, Volume Two, The Sword and Sovereignty; Thirteen Words; andThree Rights—were more significant in principle, because if patriots in sufficient numbers had paid attention to the message those works conveyed, and had taken action upon it, the danger of “martial law” would already be well on the way to being obviated. As of now, however, By Tyranny Out of Necessity is the most important of my books in practice, precisely because most Americans have not been paying attention—not so much to my works, but to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution upon which those works are based. Now, people are becoming increasingly worried about the imposition of “martial law” in the course of some jury-rigged “national emergency”.They are being told by “the Powers That Be” that “martial law” is legitimate, and that sufficient steps are being taken to prepare for it—especially in the para-militarization of State and Local “law-enforcement” and “emergency-management” agencies. Through the media, they have witnessed an example of the implementation of “martial law”, on a small yet highly organized scale, in Watertown, Massachusetts, hard upon the bombing of the 2013 Boston Marathon. Many of them have had personal experiences with the bestiality of “martial law” in the myriad episodes of unpunished “police brutality” which take place almost every day throughout this country. Yet, overall, most Americans have no idea whether “martial law” is even lawful or not—but apparently are resigned to the belief that nothing can be done to stop it from being imposed upon them.
One would presume that, in light of the seriousness of the matter, Americans would ask: “What is ‘martial law’?” and “How is ‘martial law’ legal?” Certainly, proof of the illegality of “martial law”—in any of its particulars, let alone as a whole—would provide a firm foundation for opposing it, and for deposing from public office those individuals who propose it. So I anticipate (or at least hope) that By Tyranny Out of Necessity, which demonstrates in exhaustive detail why the common misconception of “martial law” is industrial-strength bunkum, will be a smashing success in terms of its usefulness among patriots who intend to keep their heads out of the sand, their feet on the ground, and their eyes on the ultimate goal of living in what the Second Amendment calls “a free State”.
Yes, one would presume, perhaps even expect, that such would be the case. Yet hoping does not make it so. There remains the possibility that this country has already plunged so far off the deep end of Spengler’sDer Untergang des Abendlandes that nothing can be done to salvage the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any semblance of “a free State”. What might constitute evidence for that lugubrious conclusion?
A. The evidence. That I have had to write By Tyranny Out of Necessity (or, for that matter, any of my books touching on the Militia) is prime evidence of the decay into which this country has fallen. For, as By Tyranny Out of Necessity explains, the Militia are, as they always have been, the definitive preventive of and answer to “martial law”, or any other manifestation of usurpation or tyranny. No threat of “martial law” would exist if Americans were properly organized in “the Militia of the several States”, because any constitutionally valid form of “law” that needed enforcement by “martial” institutions against civilians would be the civil laws of the Union and of the several States executed by the Militia—that is, by WE THE PEOPLE themselves.
Even the half-witted rogues in the Disgrace of Columbia would think long and hard about the inadvisability of attempting to invoke “martial law” if WE THE PEOPLE awakened to their own constitutional authority in the Militia; refused to recognize the legitimacy of any form of “law” that needed “martial” enforcement against civilians, but was not executed by or under the control of the Militia; organized themselves for the purpose of revitalizing the Militia by means of State legislation under the States’ reserved constitutional authority in that respect; and through that effort prepared themselves to oppose “martial law” even if that legislation could not be enacted in time in every State. Emphasis on the last point is vital: Even if patriots could not succeed in having proper Militia statutes enacted throughout this country before a major economic, political, and social breakdown occurred, they could at least motivate, educate, organize, equip, and train tens of thousands of Americans who would be capable of acting collectively in their and their country’s interests. This critical mass does not exist at present; and it will never come into being unless and until adequate steps are taken to revitalize the Militia. Perhaps only a small part of it can be amalgamated before a calamity strikes. But something for some is better than nothing for all—a self-evident truth to which every passenger who found a seat in one of the few lifeboats on the Titanic would have attested.
B. Some of the responsible parties. The plain fact is, however, that neither “the Militia of the several States” nor any significant movements in favor of revitalizing the Militia exist in any State. Who is to blame for this? Of course, “the Powers That Be” and their partisans, clients, stooges, and hangers-on are the primary culprits—because the very last thing they want is for WE THE PEOPLE to organize themselves in the institutions which the Constitution describes as “necessary to the security of a free State”. “The Powers That Be”, after all, recoil from “a free State” as vampires recoil from garlic. Yet they are not the only responsible parties. Many other Americans are at fault, too. For example—
• The catastrophards. These doomsayers contend that it is useless to promote the revitalization of the Militia (or any other constitutional reform, for that matter), because all is already irretrievably lost. A national catastrophe, in one horrendous manifestation or another, is inevitable, imminent, unavoidable, and immitigable. Perhaps surprisingly, in the front ranks of these people march certain lay preachers who declaim in the style of prophets out of the Old Testament how this country is “under judgment” and will soon be destroyed by the hand of God. Well, if that is so, then good riddance to it. But is that prophecy true? Apparently their voices have not reminded them that God still helps those who help themselves. Neither have their voices recommended to them the alternative explanation of contemporary events, that Americans have not yet failed Heaven’s test, but are being tested right now—that all of the cultural bolshevism, pessimism, decadence, perversion, depravity, criminality, corruption, usurpation, and even tyranny from which America suffers is being allowed to afflict her so that WE THE PEOPLE can finally screw their courage to the sticking place and reassert the principles of “a free State” under “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”—and that “judgment” will befall them only if they fail, neglect, or refuse to pass this test.
• The appeasers. Amazing (at least to me) is how many self-styled “patriots” are actually rather abject appeasers of and collaborators with “the Powers That Be”. This manifests itself most strikingly and sickeningly in the childish fear of “the M word” endemic in these people. How many times have I heard it said, and all too accurately so, that “even most of those Americans who support the Second Amendment do not want to be associated with anything concerning ‘militia’”? How, though, is this possible? Precisely how can someone claim to support the Second Amendment while at the same time repudiating the constitutional institutions which the Amendment itself declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”? What good is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” if it does not conduce to “the security of a free State”? And how can it do so if “the people” do not employ it in the Militia which the Amendment itself declares to be “necessary to” that purpose?
One can understand why various subversive organizations and individuals, in public office as well as private station, stridently demonize the word “militia”. They are intent, after all, not simply on tarring a word, but on psychologically terrorizing all Americans so that they can prevent the reinstatement of the very establishments which the Constitution itself declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”—and thereby insure the destruction of “a free State” everywhere within this country. Beyond understanding, though, is what those self-styled “patriots” who appease these subversives by distancing themselves from, if not demonizing, the word “militia” expect to gain from such craven and stupid behavior. Collaboration of that ilk can only hasten the day when no “free State” exists anywhere in America.
If these appeasers are ashamed of and unwilling to support their own Constitution with respect to what it declares in no uncertain terms to be “necessary”, they should emigrate to North Korea, where even lip-service is not paid to the principles and practices of “a free State”. They would do truly patriotic Americans a favor, because the departure of each defeatist collaborator from this country would give those patriots who remained that much of a better chance to prevail—at least to the extent of not having constantly to worry about being stabbed in the back.
• The intellectual élite. A not insignificant part of the self-styled “patriotic” leadership in this country contends that next to nothing can be done to dam the political, economic, social, and cultural sewage pouring out of the Disgrace of Columbia because, although the intellectually acute leaders themselves fully understand what needs doing, average Americans are little more than bovine morons whom the leaders simply cannot educate or motivate to do the right thing. So it is supposedly hopeless to expect “the sheeple” ever to understand the need to revitalize the Militia. This, however, is pathetic special pleading on two counts.
First, those in glass houses should not cast stones. If the sheeple are stupid, are the shepherds any smarter? How many among the self-obsessed intellectual élite of the “patriotic” leadership really understand the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and especially the relationship between the two? How many realize what the Second Amendment calls “a free State” actually is? How many are willing to do what is required to guarantee the survival of “a free State”? And, most to the point, how many pay any attention to the only institutions the Constitution itself declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”? Apparently not very many. For how many among the leadership support, or even mention, revitalization of the Militia?
Second, only a poor workman blames his tools. By hypothesis, average people need “leaders” because they are incapable of “leading” themselves. True “leaders” qualify as such because they are extraordinary individuals who demonstrate the capacity to show average people the right way to go. Therefore, the primary responsibility of “leaders” among the intellectual élite is always to devise a means to educate the people, not to complain about how uneducable they are. Just as a cabinetmaker must hone his chisels to fine edges in order to perform satisfactory work, if the people’s wits are dull the first task of the leadership must be to sharpen them. So, if America’s “patriotic” leadership does comprehend what is “necessary to the security of a free State”, its failure to pass on to average citizens the gist of this knowledge is more likely its own fault, rather than the fault of its pupils. The leadership cannot justly blame the people for its own sloth and incompetence.
• The “patriotic” gurus of the ether. The guruswho haunt the “patriotic” alternative media of websites, blogs, videos, talk radio, and so on make their livings by expatiating endlessly on the terrifying dangers that are impinging upon this country. In style, they are strikingly akin to the gnats of summer. They flit wildly from one topic to another (or provide a plethora of links that encourages their audiences to do so). They buzz with the artificial excitement of the moment. Sometimes they bite with trenchant comments. But, when all is said and done, their effect remains ephemeral. No one remembers tomorrow what they said yesterday. This is because, although they are often good at identifying obvious problems in the short term, they always seem unable to propose really workable long-term solutions. They sometimes can tell Americans what is going wrong, but almost never delve into how to set it right. Perhaps this is because they are unable to grasp that, although the day-to-day problems may change, the underlying causes of—and the ultimate solutions to—them never do. Or perhaps it is because they do grasp that the ever-intensifying difficulties assaulting Americans are (as the Chinese say) their very own rice bowls, without which they would have to find other sources of employment and income. Whatever the reason, they tend to be more public nuisances than public benefactors, because their viewers, readers, and listeners imagine that they have done something useful by tuning in, or that they need not do anything else, or that nothing more can be done.
In contrast, the Constitution sets out certain fixed principles of permanent value for WE THE PEOPLE’S control of the institutions called “government” at every level of the federal system. The most important of these is that “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”, because the overarching purpose of the Constitution is to secure “a free State” for all Americans. One would hope that THE PEOPLE would not need any “patriotic” gurus (or anyone else) to remind them of that. Yet, inasmuch as THE PEOPLE seem to have temporarily forgotten this principle—as evidenced by the absence of “well regulated Militia” in all of the fifty States—to be worth their salt the gurus should be emphasizing it at every opportunity. That they are not is revealing.
• The members of “private militias”. It is worse than simplistic to dismiss the members of various “private militias” scattered across this country as mere rustic buffoons who stupidly imagine themselves capable of employing Eighteenth-Century tactics to save America from Twenty-first-Century tyranny. For they at least understand that it is more intelligent to put some extra lifeboats on the Titanic before she sails, than to attempt to cobble a few together from deck chairs as she is sinking. They at least comprehend that it is more prudent to organize their families, friends, and neighbors into what they mistakenly call “militia” beforea nationwide crisis breaks out and “the Powers That Be” invoke “martial law”, rather than afterwards. For obviously it is better to bring together as many people as possible in cooperative endeavors on the basis of common plans before any such crisis supervenes—rather than when society is in utter disarray; when in the midst of chaos patriots are compelled to act as individuals or in small groups who or which do not even know of each other’s existences; and when, realizing their own isolation and lack of support from anyone else, patriots cannot depend upon or even minimally trust their own neighbors.
Nonetheless, the members of these “private militias” have grasped only the less important half of the right idea. In the final analysis, the organization of such groups is useless for restoring constitutional government, for the undeniable reason that, even if they are perfectly legal in all other respects, “private militia” by definition possess no governmental character. True constitutional “Militia” are governmental establishments of the several States, “well regulated” by statutes according to certain definite constitutional principles. In contrast, being the products of purely private action, no “private militias” can claim any governmental, let alone specifically constitutional, authority. And without such authority no “private militias” can assert the constitutional right, power, and duty to execute the laws of the Union and of the several States in a “martial” fashion against usurpers and tyrants who attempt to inflict “martial law” upon Americans anywhere within this country.
Indeed, if the misplaced enthusiasm for “private militias” did not derive originally from the machinations of agents provocateurs and agents of influence dispatched by the CIA, the FBI, or the BATF, it ought to have. For nothing could be more useful to “the Powers That Be” than: (i) to goad patriots into expending their energies on purely private and uncoordinated activities, rather than on efforts to revitalize the constitutional establishments which embody and empower popular sovereignty; (ii) to deceive patriots into becoming suspicious of and antagonistic to “government” in general, so that they will disdain seeking the specifically governmental authority which the Constitution offers them (indeed, requires them to exercise) through the Militia; and (iii) to mislead patriots into disarming themselves of such a status, so that, in a crisis, when they are asked “What is your constitutional authority?” the honest answer must be “We have none.”
• Proponents of the so-called “individual right to keep and bear arms”. Those in the rather large crowd touting “the individual right to keep and bear arms” are worse off than the members of any “private militia”, because they comprehend far less than half of the problem. They fixate on the private possession of firearms alone, disregarding entirely that the organization of “well regulated Militia” imbued with governmental authority—not simply the adventitious possession of firearms by average Americans as their private right—is “necessary to the security of a free State”.
If the misplaced enthusiasm for “the individual right to keep and bear arms” did not derive originally from “black” political-psychological operations set in motion by the CIA, the FBI, or the BATF, it too ought to have. For Americans who myopically focus on an “individual right” to the exclusion of the Militia imagine that they are promoting the ultimate purpose of Second Amendment simply by “clinging to their guns”—which, as one of their favorite expressions has it, will have to be pried “from their cold, dead hands”. But this bravado, even if backed up by action, can defend only a part of the Second Amendment—a part which, although necessary, is not sufficient. While each American who might have helped to revitalize the Militia dotes exclusively on his “individual right”, the Militia remain unorganized, and “the security of a free State” remains undefended by the institutions which the Second Amendment declares to be “necessary” for that purpose. None of these folks seems to recognize that: (i) Americans’ collective right (and duty) to possess firearms suitable for service in the Militia also secures each American’s “individual right”—for the self-evident reason that every member of the Militia, armed for that purpose, is also an individual who must maintain personal possession of one or more firearms at all times, thereby exercising an “individual right” to those firearms within the Militia far more secure than any “individual right” to any firearm which he might enjoy outside of the Militia (until the Judiciary declares that some so-called “compelling state interest” allows for that “individual right” to be abridged). And (ii) the purely “individual right to keep and bear arms” does nothing to secure each American’s collective as well as individual right (and duty) to participate in “[a] well regulated Militia”, and therefore next to nothing to promote “the security of a free State” for which such a Militia is “necessary”.
Consider the danger from tyranny. Can any individual, exercising solely his “individual right to keep and bear arms” in the confines of his own cellar, be expected to deter, let alone to stand up against, a tyranny which disposes of a large, well organized, and fully equipped police-state apparatus? Can even thousands and tens of thousands of individuals, individually exercising their “individual rights” in their individual cellars in mutual isolation, be expected to stop such a tyranny in its tracks? No—the “individual right to keep and bear arms”, individually exercised, simply assures the defeat of all individuals in detail. Only by organizing the great mass of her patriotic citizens for collective action can America defend herself from any tyranny worthy of that name. (And from an host of other highly undesirable situations less serious, but probably more likely, than full-blown tyranny.)
Consider also the contemporary problem of the constant political agitation in favor of “gun control”. Even having been approved by bare majorities of the Justices of the Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald decisions, “the individual right to keep and bear arms” remains woefully insufficient to stifle this subversive ferment. Notwithstanding Heller and McDonald, which way is the line moving on the graph of tyranny versus liberty? On the one hand, “gun control” is still advancing by giant strides in such “people’s democratic republics” as New York, Connecticut, California, Maryland, and New Jersey. On the other hand, in the course of lobbying and litigation over “gun control” sometimes patriots do win, and sometimes they lose—but the struggle goes on interminably, because they have not finally secured the practical application of the constitutionally most significant principle that every eligible American has a right (and a duty) to serve in “[a] well regulated Militia”, and therefore to be appropriately armed at all times for that purpose (unless, as to the actual possession and use of firearms, he happens to be a conscientious objector). Is not this never-ending fight over “gun control”, arising out of incessant political aggression against the American people by rogue public officials and the subversive private special-interest groups allied with them, wholly incompatible with the Second Amendment’s command that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”? What other constitutional right is the subject of such relentless attacks that its character as a true “right” is constantly open to challenge and even denial in America’s legislatures and courts?
Thus, “the individual right to keep and bear arms” proves to be a snare and a delusion—even arguably the greatest disservice to the defense of the Republic in modern times:
First, it cannot defeat, and probably cannot even deter, the kind of tyranny against which average Americans would need to exercise large-scale armed resistance.
Second, it diverts Americans from the real issue—which is the supreme constitutional authority of WE THE PEOPLE organized in “the Militia of the several States”.
Third, it administers a political soporific—that the big “gun-rights” organizations have everything well in hand, as long as common Americans continue to send them and their attorneys more and more money to pour down the rat-holes of endless lobbying and litigation.
Fourth, even when lobbying and litigation fail to secure “the individual right” to anything like its full extent, it nonetheless provides a political narcotic which attenuates the psychic pain of defeat with the consolation that at least some Americans can retain possession of some of their firearms under some circumstances for some limited purposes for some little while longer. Of course, who can foresee how long that will last? And as the narcotic effect wears off with the steady advance of “gun control”, who can predict how painful the withdrawal symptoms induced by a final exposure to hard reality will be? Finally, and of the most dire consequence,
Fifth, while the struggle over “gun control” continues on the “gun controllers’” own terms, Americans are doing nothing to revitalize the Militia on the Constitution’s terms.
• Purveyors of fairy-tale panaceas for America’s problems. If the proponents of “private militias” and of “the individual right of the people to keep and bear Arms” at least grasp small—albeit woefully insufficient—parts of what needs to be done, what can be said about the Pied Pipers of Humbug who promote such airy schemes as “Impeachment” of Barack Obama?
Leave aside the obvious objection that, if Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for “the Office of President” because he is not “a natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution, then he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment” under Article II, Section 4, because as a matter of constitutional law he never entered into that “Office” in the first place. Indicted he might be—for impersonation of a public official (as well as for numerous other offenses stemming from and facilitated by that imposture)—if he is actually constitutionally ineligible for “the Office of President”; but “removed from Office on Impeachment” he cannot be. To be eligible for “Impeachment” from some office, one must first be eligible to the office to which “Impeachment” relates. The illogicality of the drive for “Impeachment” is not the worst of its demerits, though. The most glaring are the impracticality of “Impeachment” in the short term and its utter irrelevance in the long run.
First, in light of the present composition of Congress, can anyone not regularly ingesting LSD or some other hallucinogenic drug possibly imagine that “Impeachment” of Mr. Obama might possibly follow a strictly constitutional path to a strictly constitutional end? For example, with respect to the notorious issue of Mr. Obama’s alleged ineligibility to “the Office of President”, and all of the consequences thereof, is not every Member of Congress knowingly, willfully, and intentionally complicitous in whatever wrongdoing has taken and continues to take place, or at least proceeding with willful blindness towards or in reckless disregard of the facts? No present Member of Congress who was in office in 2008 or 2012 challenged a single electoral vote supposedly cast for Mr. Obama in the presidential elections of those years—although every Member of Congress had a statutory right and even duty to do so. And apparently not a single Member of Congress at the present time openly refuses to acknowledge, accept, or acquiesce in Mr. Obama’s posturing as “the President”. Why this is the case doubtlessly requires different explanations for different Members of Congress—none of these excuses, one presumes, exculpatory. But that such is the case no one can deny. How, then, can anyone expect such hopelessly compromised individuals to carry through the process of “Impeachment” in the “no stone left unturned” manner in which it ought to be prosecuted? That, in such an environment of thoroughgoing institutional cowardice and corruption, “Impeachment” would provide nothing but farcical political entertainment can be predicted with moral certainty simply by studying the history of the last two episodes of real “Impeachment” or near-“Impeachment” of the real Presidents Clinton and Nixon, as documented in such “kiss and tell” books as David P. Schippers, Sell Out: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment and Jerry Zeifman, “Without Honor”: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot.
Second, what of real substance could be expected to change for the better if, for recondite political reasons, the necessary majorities of Members of Congress would agree in the cloak rooms that Mr. Obama should be “removed from Office on Impeachment”? Mr. Obama, after all, is merely a symptom, not the underlying cause, of America’s malaise. Removing a single, even very prominent, puppet from the stage will not change the identities of the puppet masters, let alone their ability to bring forth as many new puppets as may be necessary to serve their interests. As long as “Manchuria” exists, it will continue to supply a plenitude of suitable “candidates”. Certainly the departure of Mr. Obama from the scene will not, by itself, return control of their own political destiny to WE THE PEOPLE. The “two” major political parties, and (of more consequence) the factions and other special-interest groups that pull their strings, will remain in commanding positions in the electoral process, in the big “mainstream media”, in the world of banking and high finance, and so on.
Moreover, by itself “Impeachment” of Mr. Obama will not solve any of the problems that now confront this country with the threat of “martial law”—in particular, the impending dethronement of the Federal Reserve Note as the “world reserve currency”, with the consequent collapse of America’s domestic economy in hyperinflation, depression or (most likely) the one followed by the other. Whoever “the Powers That Be” contrive to foist upon this country as President in Mr. Obama’s stead—whether that be “Joe Biden” or some other equally appalling figurehead—must follow the path heretofore laid out for Mr. Obama, because Obama’s successor can do nothing else without impairing the position of “the Powers That Be”. So, even if “Impeachment” were successful to the extent of removing Mr. Obama himself from the office which perhaps he never held in the first place, Americans would still need to revitalize the Militia—which, of course, can (and should) be done without wasting any time and effort on “Impeachment”.
C. At the end of the rope. What can these and other Americans who have neglected revitalization of the Militia, or worse yet actively opposed it by joining the dissident chorus of those who demonize the very word “militia”, belatedly offer in their own defense? That now, as the threat of “martial law” looms large over this country, they are sorry for having misled themselves and countless others too? What good will such a tardy admission be? As of this writing, patriots of all sorts have squandered more than forty-five years since the Gun Control Act of 1968 plastered the agenda of the “gun-control” fanatics across the pages of the United States Statutes at Large for everyone to see, and almost twelve years since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security began the erection and deployment in earnest of a national para-military police-state apparatus. America, moreover, does not have the luxury of another forty-five years, or another twelve years—more than likely not even another four or five years—during which her citizens in sufficient numbers can finally catch on to what is going on, and to what lies at the end of the road down which they are being led.
If Americans want to live in “a free State”, they must bend their every effort—immediately, if not sooner—to restore, protect, and preserve the Constitution. No alternative to an unremitting defense of the Constitution exists, because the Constitution, rightly understood and enforced according to that understanding, provides the only basis for acceptable “government” now available. Nothing else is ready, or even in contemplation, to replace it. Moreover, the great advantage of the Constitution is that true patriots know perfectly well what it really means and how to put that meaning into practice.
According to the Constitution, the Militia are the sole institutions “necessary” for achievement of the Constitution’s ultimate aim, “the security of a free State”. Therefore it is childishly ridiculous to imagine that anyone can defend the Constitution—even as it might be amended by those supposedly well-meaning but naive individuals recklessly calling for a “constitutional convention” of some sort—without demanding revitalization of the Militia. Certainly no proposed amendment which I have ever seen substitutes, or even suggests, something other than “[a] well regulated Militia” as a new institution “necessary to the security of a free State”. The reason is obvious: Who but WE THE PEOPLE themselves, exercising sovereignty through the ultimate Power of the Sword in their own hands, could possibly perform the task of guaranteeing such “security”?
Yes, time is rapidly running out. But perhaps that is not so bad, after all. Although America’s neck is in a noose, perhaps the threat of “martial law” will finally stimulate enough of her remaining “good People” (as the Declaration of Independence styled true patriots) to think about—and then to take action aimed at—revitalization of the Militia before the trap door on History’s scaffold springs open and the threat of “martial law” becomes a fatal actuality. After all, as Samuel Johnson once reputedly quipped, nothing focuses a man’s mind more than his impending hanging.
© 2014 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us
He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com
His latest book is: “How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” … and Constitutional “Homeland Security,” Volume One, The Nation in Arms…
He can be reached at his new address:
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.
It is devastating to witness the best legal mind in America teetering on the edge of despair, as he admits there is little hope for an ignorant Nation. Every one of us is directly responsible for the real State of the Union, and our acceptance of tyranny. We have used our ignorance as our excuse. I don’t know if I am sad or happy that the end is near. Read today’s post on http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com There is no hope without intelligent leaders
August 8th, 2014 by olddog
By Jean-Claude Paye and Tülay Umay
Global Research, July 25, 2014
Since the attacks of September 11, we are witnessing a transformation of the way the media report the news. They lock us in the unreal. They base truth not on the coherence of a presentation, but on its shocking character. Thus, the observer remains petrified and cannot establish a relation to reality.
The media are lying to us, but at the same time, they show us that they are lying. It is no longer a matter of changing our perception of facts in order to get our support, but to lock us in the spectacle of the omnipotence of power. Showing the annihilation of reason is based on images that serve to replace facts. Information no longer focuses on the ability to perceive and represent a thing, but the need to experience it, or rather to experience oneself through it.
From Bin Laden to Merah, through the “tyrant” Bashar al-Assad, media discourse has become the permanent production of fetishes, ordering surrender to what is “given to see.” The injunction does not aim, as propaganda, to convince. It simply directs the subject to give flesh to the image of the “war of civilizations”. The discursive device of “War of Good against Evil,” updating the Orwellian doublethink process must become a new reality that de-structures our entire existence, of everyday life in global political relations.
Such an approch has become ubiquitous, especially regarding the war in Syria. It consists of cancelling a statement at the same time as it is pronounced, while maintaining what has been previously given to see and hear. The individual must have the ability to accept opposing elements, without raising the existing contradiction. Language is thus reduced to communication and cannot fulfill its function of representation. The deconstruction of the faculty to symbolize prevents any protection vis-à-vis the real to which we are in submission.
Enunciating a Statement And its Opposite at the Same Time
In the reports on the conflict in Syria, the double think procedure is omnipresent. Stating at the same time a thing and its opposite produces a decay of consciousness. It is no longer possible to perceive and analyze reality. Unable to put emotion at a distance, we cannot but feel the real and thus be submitted to it.
Opponents of the regime of Bashar al-Assad are dubbed “freedom fighters” and Islamic fundamentalist enemies of democracy at the same time. It is the same with regard to the use of chemical weapons by belligerents. The media, in the absence of evidence, express certainty as to the Syrian regime’s responsibility, although they mention the use of such weapons by the “rebels”. In particular, they relayed the statements of magistrate Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN independent commission of inquiry into violence in Syria, who said, on May 5, 2013 on Swiss television, “According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas.” This magistrate, who is also the former prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia can hardly be called indulgent toward the “regime of Bashar Assad.” “Our investigations should be further developed, verified and confirmed through new evidence, but according to what we have established so far, it is the opponents who used sarin,” she added. 
The White House, for its part, did not want to consider this evidence and has always expressed an opposite position. Thus, as regards the August 21 Ghouta massacre, it released a statement explaining that there is “little doubt” of the use by Syria of chemical weapons against its opposition. The statement added that the Syrian agreement to allow the UN inspectors in the area is “too late to be credible.”
Reduction of qualitative to quantitative.
Following the use, August 21, 2013, of chemical weapons in the suburbs of Damascus, Kerry reiterated the “strong certainty” of the United States concerning the liability of the Syrian regime. A U.S. intelligence report, released by the White House and said to rely on “multiple” sources, also said that the Syrian government used nerve gas in the attack, the use of which by the rebels is “highly unlikely”. 
The individual is placed outside the differentiating power of language. That which is qualitative, that which is certain, is reduced to that which is quantitative, to the “different degrees of certainty” expressed previously by Obama or the “high certainty” pronounced by J. Kerry. The “very little doubt”, as to the liability of the Syrian regime, also mirrors the “highly unlikely” responsibility attributed to opponents. Quality is thereby restricted to a quantitative difference. Quality, that which is, becomes at the same time, that which is not or at least that which may not be, because it no longer expresses a certainty, but a certain amount or degree of certainty or doubt. The opposites, “certainty” and “doubt” become equivalent. The qualitative difference is reduced to a quantitative gap. There is no longer any quality other than that of measurement.
This reduction of qualitative to quantitative has otherwise already invaded our daily lives. We no longer refer to the poor but to the “less fortunate”. Similarly, we no longer encounter invalids, but “less able persons”. The least skilled jobs are now given names that deny de-qualification. Thus, a cleaning woman becomes a ” housekeeper”, the cashier disappears in favour of the “sales assistant” and garbage Collector are now called « sanitation worker ».
The separating power of language is annihilated. Words are turned into verbal phrases that build a homogenized world. We are in a world in which everyone is advantaged. No more are there qualitative differences between human beings, but only quantitative differences. The vision of a world of perfect homogeneity where only equals exist, no longer differing other than quantitatively, was already foreseen by George Orwell in Animal Farm: « All are equal, but some would be more so than others » « .
Absolute Certainty in the Absence of Evidence.
The word, which describes and differentiates things, is replaced by an image, by that which is everything at the same time as being nothing. Instead of a word referring to an object, degrees of certainty concern only the feelings of the speaker. These verbal phrases are not intended to designate objective things, but to place the person who receives the message in the perspective of the speaker, to lock them in the warped meaning created by the latter.
Expressed certainty can detach itself from facts and present itself as purely subjective. It does not refer to an observation, but refers to a condition posing as objective through a quantization operation.
The certainty of U.S. and French authorities also distinguishes itself in that it is built on equivocal data, on the invocation of evidence of liability of the Syrian regime, although they recall the impossibility of knowing who struck and how chemical weapons were used. It is no longer possible to construct an objective certainty, because the observation of facts is defused and leaves room for the stupefaction of the observer. Expressed certainty no longer separates true from false, since the ability to judge is suspended.
Precisely, subjective and objective certainty is undifferentiated. It is not a matter of believing what is stated, but of believing the authority who speaks, no matter what he says. Statements of Presidents Obama and Holland are immediately given as absolute certainty, ie: they occupy the place that Descartes gives to God “as a principle guaranteeing the objective truth of subjective experience…” . The matter of going through the steps of objective verification, through the judgment of existence, does not arise to the extent that certainty is set free from all spatial and temporal constraints. It is posited in the absence of limits, in the absence of what psychoanalysis calls the “Third Person”, the place of the Other. 
Removal of the “Third Person”
Absolute certainty, posing as the be all and end all, installs a denial of reality, that which escapes us. It does not recognize loss. Constituting “we” is no longer possible because it can only be formed from that which is missing. The monad, for its part, lacks nothing because it is fused with state power. Fetishes fabricated by “the news” fill the void of reality, occupy the place of that which is missing and operate a denial of the third party.
Absolute certainty is opposed to the establishment of a symbolic order integrating the “third person” , the domain of language. The proper function of language is to signify that which is real, knowing that the word is not reality itself, but that by which it is represented. Jacques Lacan expresses this necessity with his aphorism “the thing must be lost in order to be represented”. 
On the contrary, absolute certainty attaches words to things and does not take into account their relationships. In the absence of a ’third person’, it prevents any real articulation with the symbolic. This absence of linkage is the formation of a social psychosis wherein that which is stated by power becomes reality. The deficiency also allows the emergence of a perverse structure that reverses the speech act and prevents identifying the reality of the psychosis.
Enrolling us in psychosis, the discourse of French and American authorities originates in perverse denial. It constitutes a coup against language “coup because disavowal is situated at the logical basis of language” . Denial of reality is realized by a commodification of words and a procedure of cleavage. The cynical coup is this: “pervert that by which law is articulated, make language the reasonable discourse of unreason”  as with “humanitarian war” or “counter-terrorism”.
Counter-terrorism legislation is presented as rational actions to dismantle the law in favour of the fabrication of images. U.S. law is particularly rich in these pictorial constructions, such as the “lone wolf”, a lone terrorist related to an international movement, the “enemy combatant” or “unlawful belligerent” that exist, because they are designated as such by the U.S. President. The enemy combatant, as illegal belligerent, may be a U.S. citizen who has never been on a battlefield and whose “military action” amounts to an act of protest against a military engagement. Deviation from that which is stated by the powers that be is no longer possible. Similarly, any protection against its real threat is removed. The reality manifests itself without dissimilation and can henceforth petrify us.
The suppression of the Third Person reducing the individual to a monad, no longer having an Other outside of state power, allows authority, especially as regards discourse on the war in Syria, to produce a new reality. Evidence of the guilt of the Syrian regime exists, because authority says so.
A “disturbing strangeness”.
The absence of a “third person” settles us in transparency, in a never-never land beyond language. It removes the relationship between interior and exterior. The expression of the omnipotence of the U.S. President, his will to break free from the constraints of language and of any judicial order, reveals our condition, its reduction to “naked life.” There then occurs “a special kind of scary” Freud calls Unheimliche , a term which has no equivalent in French and which can as well be translated as “disturbing strangeness” and as “disturbing familiarity.”
It would be, as defined by Schelling, something that should have remained hidden and which has reappeared. Unveiled, worldly things appear in their raw presence as Real. Where the individual believed himself at home, he suddenly feels driven from his home and becomes strangely foreign to himself. The inside of our condition, our annihilation is thrown out and appears to us as a plaything of the U.S. executive branch. The staging of our division, “disturbing strangeness”, becoming that which is most familiar to us, suppresses intimateness by replacing it.
Freud suggests a dissociation of the ego. The latter is then pulverised and can no longer display the Real, the threat that petrifies it. Freud speaks of the formation of a stranger “I” that can turn itself into moral conscience and treat the other part as an object .
This mechanism reappears as the return of the repressed archaic, that which is intended to hide the distress of the nursing child. The “disturbing strangeness”, produced by Obama’s speech is of the same order. It instrumentalises what happened in Iraq in order to prevent us from forgetting our impotence. Thus, it reinforces “the permanent return of the same” constitutive of a sense of “disturbing strangeness” or disturbing familiarity. The process of repetition presents itself as an inexorable process, like a power that we cannot confront.
Jacques Lacan confirms this reading. Echoing the work of Freud on the “disturbing strangeness”, he shows that anxiety arises when the subject is facing the “lack of lack” that is to say, an all-powerful otherness that invades the self to the point of destroying every faculty of desire. 
In fact, the two translations, the first highlighting the strangeness, the second its familiar character, make each highlight one aspect of this particular anxiety that one can also deal with thanks to the notion of transparency. Interior and exterior confusing themselves, the individual is at once struck by the strangeness of seeing his impotence, by his interior deprivation exhibited outside himself and by the colonization of his intimacy by the spectacle, become familiar, of the enjoyment of the other.
Denial and Splitting of the Ego.
Dissociation is an archaic defense attempt when faced with a power with which one cannot cope. This disintegration of the Ego allows the return of a “déjà vu”. The Superego calls one to see oneself as an infant, as one who does not speak, thus causing a feeling of “disturbing strangeness”.
Faced with the imperative need to believe in the responsibility of Bashar Assad, the individual must suspend contrary information and treat it as if it did not exist. He proceeds to a denial of all that is different, then couched in the regressive position, that of the umbilical union with the mother, a stage preceding language, before the appearance of the function of the father. 
The denial of the contradiction between a thing and its opposite, the responsibility of the Syrian government and the use of chemical weapons by the rebels, is the act of denying the reality of perception seen as dangerous because the individual would then have to face the omniscience displayed by the powers that be. To contain the anxiety produced by the “disturbing strangeness”, the subject is forced to juxtapose two opposing and parallel ways of reasoning. The individual then has two incompatible unlinked visions. The denial of the opposition between these two elements removes any confliction; because there coexists within oneself two opposing statements that are juxtaposed without influencing each other. This denial rests on what psychoanalysis calls the “splitting of the ego.”
The cleavage gives one the opportunity to live on two different levels, placing side by side, on the one hand, “knowledge”, the use of sarin gas by the rebels, and on the other hand a dodging of confrontation with a suspension of information. This is to prevent any struggle, any symbolism in order to enjoy the full omnipotence of the powers that be. In the absence of a perceived lack in what one is told, one finds oneself beneath the conflict in an annulment of any judgment.
Orwell has also highlighted this procedure in his definition of “doublethink.” It consists in the following: “to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancel each other out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them,” while being able to forget, « whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed ». Then one must forget, ie: “consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you have just performed. ” 
Cleavage is recurrent in the speech surrounding the war in Syria. Things here are regularly affirmed, at the same time as that which contradicts them without a relationship being established between the different enunciations. Contrary to statements by Carla Del Ponte, Washington would first have arrived, “with varying degrees of certainty,” at the conclusion that the Syrian government forces had used sarin gas against their own people. However, Barack Obama, at the same time, said the United States didn’t know ” how [these weapons] were used, when they were used or who used them” . The operation places the subject in fragmentation, unable to react to the nonsense of what is said and shown. One cannot cope with a certainty that is claimed in the absence of evidence.
The logical reversal of language building becomes a manifestation of the power of the U.S. executive. It exhibits a capacity to overcome any language organisation and thus all symbolic order. The absurdity reclaimed by the statement is as a coup against the logical basis of language. It henceforth has a petrification effect on people and captivates them in psychosis.
This article was first published on our French language website www.mondialisation.ca
Copyright © 2014 Global Research