Categories » ‘POLICE BRUTALITY’
September 4th, 2014 by olddog
By Paul Joseph Watson
The U.S. Army is preparing to fight political dissidents who challenge the power of the state as “megacities” become the battleground of the future, according to a new report in the Army Times.
The article details how the Army’s Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) worked with US Army Special Operations Command, the chief of staff’s Strategic Studies Group and the UK’s Ministry of Defence earlier this year to wargame the future of armed combat, which will revolve around the neutralization of groups “who can influence the lives of the population while undermining the authority of the state,” a chillingly vague description which could easily be applied to political dissidents.
The plan foresees an unprecedented realignment of U.S. military strategy focused around putting “boots on the ground” in megacities to deal with “politically dispossessed” populations while relying on “more lethal and more autonomous” methods.
“It is inevitable that at some point the United States Army will be asked to operate in a megacity and currently the Army is ill-prepared to do so,” asserted a report by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno’s Strategic Studies Group, while Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster warned that the Army will increasingly have to expand its presence to battle an enemy which operates in “other contested spaces like organized crime and politics.”
The report also notes how the Army will utilize directed energy weapons which “would allow U.S. to have direct-fire capabilities with significant logistics reduction, and to counter enemy long-range missile capability.”
The article also cites a recent report by the Australian Army which identifies the fact that “these cities represent the battlefields of the future.”
Confirmation that the U.S. Army is preparing to fight disaffected groups and individuals who attempt to ‘undermine the authority of the state’, which could apply to a whole host of perfectly legal political activities, is particularly concerning given the recent militarized police response to unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.
A 2012 study by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland which was funded by the Department of Homeland Security lists Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty” and “suspicious of centralized federal authority” alongside violent terrorist groups.
Will citizens who ‘undermine the authority of the state’ by espousing these beliefs also be a future target for the U.S. Army under this new doctrine?
Earlier this year we also highlighted how the U.S. Army built a 300 acre ‘fake city’ in Virginia complete with a sports stadium, bank, school, and an underground subway in order to train for unspecified future combat scenarios. The city included a Christian chapel and subway signs in English, suggesting it was intended to double as a domestic town in addition to an overseas location.
The Army Times report is also disconcerting in light of a recently uncovered U.S. Army training document which detailed preparations for “full scale riots” within the United States during which troops may be forced to engage in a “lethal response” to deal with crowds of demonstrators.
As with previous examples, the manual made it clear that such operations were being planned not just for foreign occupations but for inside the “continental United States (CONUS)” in the event of “unruly and violent crowds” where it is “necessary to quell riots and restore public order.”
The document also describes the deployment of a “lethal response” directed against “unarmed civilians,” including “sniper response” and “small arms direct fire,” while making reference to domestic political upheavals such as the 1999 demonstrations against the WTO in Seattle.
While the U.S. border remains wide open amidst reports of ISIS insurgents planning attacks, the fact that the security apparatus of the United States is more concerned with taking on political dissidents inside megacities is likely to prompt fresh outrage.
Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.
September 2nd, 2014 by olddog
From Paul Walter, Editor,
I immigrated to the United States with my family when I was 15 years-old. I was in awe to find a country where you could be anything you wanted to be as long as you were honest, moral and hard-working. This wasn’t possible in the communist country from which my parents and I had escaped. There, government control was from the cradle to the grave. They kept the people poor, and controlled, while the aristocrats and politicians (gov’t.) were living high on the hog with big benefits and salaries. They policed our every move and restricted our God-given freedoms.
America was the light of the world and it gave hope to the oppressed. Now, there are forces at work destroying our nation, and our individualism for the sake of the world’s collectivism.
The Founding Fathers made freedom of speech and prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely paramount by making it the first of the ten Bill of Rights. For decades, electronic and print media have shamed their profession by exchanging political ideology for truth.
NWVs has worked hard over the past 15 years to bring you the best commentary on the Internet. Our writers are known for their research and digging out the facts. We have a very diverse roster of writers – something not all news and commentary sites offer. NWVs brings you the latest top news stories 24/7. But, it all comes with a price. The cost of running two sets of servers every month and other overhead is very expensive.
We thank all of those who continue to make a donation each month. Every penny goes for operations; there are no salaries or other compensation. If you haven’t made a donation, please do so today so that we can continue to bring you the truth and articles that help you make informed decisions and get involved in restoring America to greatness again.
Paul Walter, Editor
To make a donation,
The cost of one night at the movies every quarter would be better spent here and your mind would be less polluted to boot. This is one of the very best education sites on the net. These are the people who woke me up, and have been feeding my mind every since.
September 1st, 2014 by olddog
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
According to a release by Judicial Watch, ISIS is operating in Ciudad Juarez, located in Mexico along the US border just across from El Paso, Texas:
Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued. Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.
Specifically, Judicial Watch sources reveal that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is confirmed to now be operating in Juarez, a famously crime-infested narcotics hotbed situated across from El Paso, Texas. Violent crimes are so rampant in Juarez that the U.S. State Department has issued a number of travel warnings for anyone planning to go there. The last one was issued just a few days ago.
Intelligence officials have picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to “carry out an attack on the border,” according to one JW source. “It’s coming very soon,” according to this high-level source, who clearly identified the groups planning the plots as “ISIS and Al Qaeda.” An attack is so imminent that the commanding general at Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, is being briefed, another source confirms. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to multiple inquiries from Judicial Watch, both telephonic and in writing, about this information.
ISIS is here… They are a clear and present danger now on our porous Southern border thanks to the feeble leadership of our Marxist President. Judicial Watch issued an urgent warning from what Tom Fitton described as ‘golden sources,’ who claimed there was an imminent threat of car bomb attacks from Juarez across our border. Our government immediately denied there was any threat – nothing to see here. To which Fitton roundly stated, they’re lying to you and being oh, so dishonest. Shocker there. Other reports cited social media warnings from ISIS militants and an online video showing James O’Keefe in a bin Laden mask sneaking into the US from Mexico. That’s hokey – you can’t lay that at O’Keefe’s feet when the entire world has known our border has been wide open forever, just begging for a terrorist attack. O’Keefe merely highlighted the threat.
What’s more… DHS surely knew Judicial Watch was about to release the warning:
The Department of Homeland Security quickly denied claims on Friday from a watchdog group that the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) has militants stationed in Juarez, Mexico who plan an ‘imminent’ attack against the United States.
A DHS spokesman was bewildered, telling MailOnline that ‘we are aware of absolutely nothing credible to substantiate this claim’ made by Judicial Watch, a center-right group.
‘In Mexico?’ the official said on the phone. ‘I haven’t seen that at all.’
An hour before Judicial Watch’s report surfaced, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said publicly that his agency and the FBI ‘are unaware of any specific, credible threat to the U.S. homeland’ from the terror network.
And during a late-morning media briefing, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said flatly that ‘the most detailed intelligence assessment that I can offer from here is that there is no evidence or indication right now that [ISIS] is actively plotting to attack the United States homeland. That’s true right now.’
Earnest better check to see if his pants are on fire, because he knows that is a crock of you-know-what. ISIS is here already — and I mean here in the US with sleeper cells. Don’t fall for the ‘incompetence’ line here – these asshats know good and well what is going on and are looking for political cover before it hits the fan. As Fitton pointed out, ‘it’s a non-denial denial.’ And here is the quote of the month and I love this from Tom Fitton:
Citing Johnson’s use of words like ‘credible’ and ‘specific,’ Fitton said, ‘You could drive a truck bomb through that loophole. DHS has not denied our story.’
Judicial Watch is not disclosing their sources out of fear for their safety and rightly so. A warning bulletin of an imminent terrorist attack was issued to ‘agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies,’ instructing them ‘to aggressively work all possible leads and sources’ to head it off. Good luck with that since we don’t search trucks crossing the border. The commander of Fort Bliss has also been allegedly briefed on this. What do you say we shut down the freaking border before a nuke goes off in Texas or Arizona? Hell… I don’t even want one going off in California, although it is tempting.
This is not a game… it is deadly serious. If we don’t stop this, a lot of people are going to die and it will happen over and over. And guess what? Obama and Holder will just let it — I’m sure they have a ton of excuses all lined up as the blood and body parts flow. They want the death, destruction and mayhem this will bring. And Obama’s Jayvee has now joined with al-Qaeda and are actively planning a party on or around 9-11. Bring out the party favors and the Burqas boys… it’s Jihad time on the Southern border.
There are now multiple sources (Fox News, Breitbart, Judicial Watch) out there with multiple bulletins that are screaming something very wicked this way comes and fast. In response to a dire and elevated risk, what does our esteemed leader do? Nothing, except maybe golf a little more.
Here’s a map of the threatened area:
I have friends and family near there. If something that could have been prevented goes down, there will be literal hell to pay.
I trust the word of Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch. Remember, these are the guys that have uncovered the liars at the IRS and DOJ. If they say this is imminent and urgent, then I would tighten my belt and get ready for a probable impact. They didn’t release this lightly.
More from Fitton:
‘I can’t say who in Washington knows about this,’ Fitton said. ‘But to be sure, this is exactly the type of information that this administration would have an interest in minimizing, downplaying and withholding, to distract from the disaster on the border and the national security threat there.’
But Earnest, President Barack Obama’s chief spokesman and lead sycophant, told reporters on Friday that America’s border crisis is over ‘for now.’ Right… Nothing to see here. Ignore the violence, the bodies and the bombs. I mean the FBI’s terrorist assessment doesn’t even mention Islamic terrorism, so surely it can’t touch us here (again) at home. Must be those damned white Tea Party people, right? Well, our government may not (cough) believe they exist, but radical Islamists certainly believe in their existence and are coming for us.
Oh, and they are clever little buggers. In Syria, a laptop was found that came from ISIS and on that computer were instructions on how to weaponize bubonic plague in bombs. Hmmmm. Choose your poison guys — biological warfare, nukes or just exploding death. ISIS has got you covered.
Allen West states it bluntly once again and hits the nail on the head (if only he were our President — sigh):
Here’s what the laptop of doom suggests: “Use small grenades with the virus, and throw them in closed areas like metros, soccer stadiums, or entertainment centers. Best to do it next to the air-conditioning. It also can be used during suicide operations.”
The longer ISIS is allowed to exist — and 110 pinprick airstrikes is not degrading their capability — the more time they will have to develop their schemes and plans. Time is not on our side, but it seems that Obama believes he can just dither all the day long. Or perhaps, Obama doesn’t really want to deter ISIS — and certainly not attack them. You have to ask, if Obama has been receiving his daily national security briefs, why would he allow this threat to develop and metastasize into what it is today? Or maybe he does not take any security briefs at all? How could any American president allow such a direct threat to exist and publicly admit he has no plan?
Well, Mr. President Barack Hussein Obama, ISIS has a plan and their plan is not based upon what they will not do, or aren’t willing to do. Obama is conveying the message that he wants to avoid engaging and fighting ISIS. ISIS is conveying the message that they will kill anything and anyone who stands in their way — the way of restoring Islamic dominance.
So, whose side is Obama on?
This is directly Obama’s doing and fault and can be laid squarely at his feet. He brought on the border crisis intentionally to do away with our borders and sovereignty. Along with the Democrats and many of the Republicans, he has refused to secure our border and enforce the law in the name of voting demographics and cheap labor. Jerry Brown has all but given California back to Mexico. The Border Patrol is handcuffed and can’t do their job… orders have been issued to release illegal immigrants, including violent felons, from jail… 10′s of thousands of illegal immigrant children are being bussed to every corner of the US, with special emphasis on Conservative areas to change the voting block there… violence, drug trafficking and human slavery have skyrocketed on the border and Americans are told that our borders have never been safer or more secure. That we should do this for the children and trust our glorious leaders. Lenin and Stalin would have been impressed.
Saudi Arabia is now warning that there will be attacks here in the West within a month or two, if we do not confront the enemy and put them down:
Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) (AFP) – King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has warned that the West will be the next target of the jihadists sweeping through Syria and Iraq, unless there is “rapid” action.
“If we ignore them, I am sure they will reach Europe in a month and America in another month,” he said in remarks quoted on Saturday by Asharq al-Awsat daily and Saudi-backed Al-Arabiya television station.
“Terrorism knows no border and its danger could affect several countries outside the Middle East,” said the king who was speaking at a welcoming ceremony on Friday for new ambassadors, including a new envoy from Saudi ally the United States.
The Texas Department of Public Safety is warning that ISIS is actively promoting and encouraging supporters to take advantage of the porous Texas-Mexico border to carry out terrorist attacks against US citizens – they also released this in a document yesterday. Texas knows what is at their doorstep and what is coming and they are getting ready for a fight. We all should be getting ready, because the time has finally arrived that fighting Islamic terrorists will be the greatest battle of our lives. It will be a fight to the death – Islam against everyone else and it will be brutal. Radical Islamists have no pity, only the will to conquer, rape and pillage.
Britain has raised their terror level to severe — one step below critical. Even the Brits realize that things are about to get very, very real. ISIS is also threatening the Pope and Italy is on alert. Let’s not forget the million or so Christians, Muslims and others who have been slaughtered in all of this as the Caliphate sweeps the planet. It’s only getting started folks. You want a plague? Well, look no further.
The terrorist chatter on communication channels and social media is off the charts. It far eclipses the traffic pre-9-11. Obama won’t raise our threat level because frankly, he doesn’t give a crap. Americans might want to move to do something before a nuke goes off on the White House lawn and the black flag of ISIS is raised there for realsies.
The ISIS barbarians are at our gates and Obama is holding those gates wide open… maybe it’s time for the American people to bypass the Executive Branch, just as Obama bypasses Congress, to protect our borders and our people from Islamic terrorists and Jihadist hordes. I say bomb the asshats back to the Stone Age wherever we find them. Level the playing field and leave nothing but rubble and dust.
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 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: email@example.com
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 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
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 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 7th, 2014 by olddog
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
“The lamps are going out all over Europe,” Sir Edward Grey famously said on the eve of World War I. “We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.”
It was 100 years ago last week that Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, setting in motion the unspeakable calamity that contemporaries dubbed the Great War. Well in excess of ten million people perished, and by some estimates, many more.
Numbers, even staggering ones like this, can scarcely convey the depth and breadth of the destruction. The war was an ongoing slaughter of devastating proportions. Tens of thousands perished in campaigns that moved the front just a matter of yards. It was World War I that gave us the term “basket case,” by which was meant a quadruple amputee. Other now-familiar tools of warfare came into common use: the machine gun, the tank, even poison gas. Rarely has the State’s machinery of senseless destruction been on more macabre display.
The scholarly pendulum has swung back in the direction of German atrocities having indeed been committed in Belgium, though perhaps not quite as gruesome as the tales of babies being passed from bayonet to bayonet that were disseminated to Americans early in the war. In turn, a vastly larger number of Germans, with estimates as high as 750,000, died as a result of the British hunger blockade that violated longstanding norms of international conduct, even during wartime.
The machinery of State propaganda reached heights never before seen. Whole peoples were systematically demonized in the service of the warmakers. Sound money was abandoned, to return only briefly and in a hobbled form during the interwar period.
To be sure, some socialists opposed the war, since it pitted the working classes of the world against each other. Others, intoxicated by the spirit of nationalism, abandoned socialism (at least in its internationalist aspects) and plunged into the war with gusto. Among these: Benito Mussolini.
And yet there is scarcely an atrocity that States cause that another State, in the name of peace, cannot make indescribably worse.
The intervention by Woodrow Wilson, against the wishes of most Americans — were that not so, neither the draft nor the ceaseless propaganda would have been necessary — was one of the most catastrophic decisions ever made, by anyone. It set in motion a sequence of events whose consequences would reverberate throughout the twentieth century.
One can make a case, not merely plausible but indeed quite compelling, that in the absence of Wilson’s intervention, the entire litany of twentieth-century horrors could have been avoided. Without a punitive peace, which only Wilson’s intervention made possible, the Nazis would have had no natural constituency, and no path to power. The Bolshevik Revolution, which succeeded only because of the unpopularity of the war, might not have occurred if the promise of coming American support had not kept that war going.
Even George Kennan, a pillar of the establishment, admitted in retrospect: “Today if one were offered the chance of having back again the Germany of 1913 — a Germany run by conservative but relatively moderate people, no Nazis and no Communists — a vigorous Germany, full of energy and confidence, able to play a part again in the balancing-off of Russian power in Europe, in many ways it would not sound so bad.”
Meanwhile, the Turkish collapse, writes Philip Jenkins, led some Muslims to seek a different basis on which to unify, and that in turn has encouraged the most illiberal forms of Islam.
Oh, but everyone is against war, right?
Yes, just about everyone makes the perfunctory nod to the tragedy of war, that war is a last resort only, and that everyone sincerely regrets having to go to war.
But war has been at the heart of much modern ideology. For years, Theodore Roosevelt had exulted at the prospect of war. Peace was for the weak and flabby. The strains of war were a school of discipline and manliness, without which nations degenerate. Fascists, in turn, urged their countries to adopt for domestic use the patterns of military life: regimentation, limitations on dissent, the common pursuit of a single goal, proper reverence for The Leader, the subordination of all other allegiances in favor of loyalty to the State, and the priority of the “public interest” over mere private interests.
If the fascist right has been rightly associated with militarism, that isn’t because the revolutionary left has been any less dedicated to organized violence. Robert Nisbet wrote,
Napoleon was the perfect exemplar of revolution as well as of war, not merely in France but throughout almost all of Europe, and even beyond. Marx and Engels were both keen students of war, profoundly appreciative of its properties with respect to large-scale institutional change. From Trotsky and his Red Army down to Mao and Chou En-lai in China today, the uniform of the soldier has been the uniform of the revolutionist.
For their part, those people we associate with progressivism in the United States, with only a handful of exceptions, overwhelmingly favored intervening in the war. They favored it not only out of the bipartisan sense of American righteousness that goes back as far as one cares to look, but also precisely because they knew war meant bigger and more intrusive government. They knew it would make people accustomed to the idea that they can be called upon to carry out the State’s program, whatever it may be.
Murray N. Rothbard drew up the indictment of the Progressives on this count. He added that the standard view of historians that World War I amounted to the end of Progressivism was exactly backward: World War I, with its economic planning, the impetus it gave to government growth, and its disparagement of private property and the mundane concerns of bourgeois life, represented the culmination of everything the Progressive movement represented.
By contrast, war is the very negation of the libertarian creed. It disrupts the international division of labor. It treats human beings as disposable commodities in the service of State ambition. It undermines commerce, sound money, and private property. It results in an increase of State power. It demands the substitution of the great national effort in place of the private interests of free individuals. It urges us to sympathize not with our fellow men around the world, but with the handful of people who happen to administer the State apparatus that rules over us. We are encouraged to wave the flags and sing the songs of our expropriators, as the poor souls on the other side do the same.
In the hands of commerce and the market, the fruits of capitalist civilization improve living standards and lift people out of destitution. But the political class cannot be trusted with these good things. The very success of the market economy has meant more resources to be siphoned off by the warmakers. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in Nation, State, and Economy (1919):
War has become more fearful and destructive than ever before because it is now waged with all the means of the highly developed technique that the free economy has created. Bourgeois civilization has built railroads and electric power plants, has invented explosives and airplanes, in order to create wealth. Imperialism has placed the tools of peace in the service of destruction. With modern means it would be easy to wipe out humanity at one blow. In horrible madness Caligula wished that the entire Roman people had one head so that he could strike it off. The civilization of the twentieth century has made it possible for the raving madness of the modern imperialists to realize similar bloody dreams. By pressing a button one can expose thousands to destruction. It was the fate of civilization that it was unable to keep the external means that it had created out of the hands of those who had remained estranged from its spirit. Modern tyrants have things much easier than their predecessors …
Nothing in the world is easier than opposing a war that ended long ago. It takes no real courage to be against the Vietnam War in 2014. What takes courage is opposing a war while it is being fought — when the propaganda and intimidation of the public are at their height — or even before it breaks out in the first place. With the memory of the moral and material catastrophe of World War I before us 100 years later, let us pledge never again to be fooled and exploited by the State and its violent pastimes.
To my ever lasting shame, I admit to being caught up in the fury of ignorant patriotism while in my youth, but now after flushing my mind with knowledge I am equally infuriated at those who instigated this insanity. My mind simply cannot grasp how evil these bastards really are, or how to quite the hatred I have for them. To me, the total destruction of the entire Banking Cartel is the only sane answer to restore peace and societal harmony. There is no justification for men who worship the State. They are the epitome of stupidity. Not until justice has been satiated will humanity prosper and mature.
July 31st, 2014 by olddog
By Prof. John McMurtry and Kourosh Ziabari
Global Research, July 29, 2014
A world-renowned Canadian philosopher argues that the United States holds the world record of illegal killings of unarmed civilians and extrajudicial detention and torturing of prisoners who are detained without trial.
Prof. John McMurtry says that the U.S. government is a gigantic mass-murdering machine which earns profit through waging wars, and is never held accountable over its unspeakable war crimes and crimes against humanity. He also believes that the U.S. has become a police state, which treats its citizens in the most derogatory manner.
“I have travelled alone with only backpack possession through the world, and have found no state in which police forces are more habituated to violent bullying, more likely to draw a gun, more discriminatory against the dispossessed, and more arbitrarily vicious in normal behavior, said McMurtry. “The US now leads the globe in an underlying civil war of the rich against the poor.”
“The US can … detain, kidnap and imprison without trial or indictment any US citizen or other citizen anywhere by designating them enemies to the US, Prof. John McMurtry noted in an exclusive interview with Fars News Agency.
According to the Canadian intellectual, the United States statesmen have long supported dictatorial and tyrannical regimes and even funded and armed the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler in the period between 1939 and 1945.
John McMurtry is a Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Guelph, Canada. In 2001, Prof. McMurtry was named a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada for his outstanding contributions to the study of humanities and social sciences. His latest major works are his 15-year study, The Cancer Stage of Capitalism: From Crisis to Cure and three monumental volumes commissioned by UNESCO for its Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems entitled Philosophy and World Problems. McMurtry’s articles and writings regularly appear on different newspapers and online magazines across the world.
Prof. McMurtry took part in an in-depth interview with FNA and responded to some questions regarding the U.S. project of the War on Terror, its military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and the September 11, 2001 attacks. The following is the text of the interview.
Q: Prof. McMurtry: it was following the 9/11 attacks that the United States launched its project of War on Terror. The venture has so far cost the lives of thousands of innocent, unarmed civilians across the world, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya; however, the civilian cost of the Global War on Terror has been mostly ignored by the mainstream media and the politicians in the West. Why do you think they’ve overlooked the enormous rate of civilian casualties resulting from an endeavor which was purportedly aimed at exporting democracy and liberal values to the world?
A: In the United States so-called War on Terror, by far the greatest and most systematic terrorization of civilians is in fact perpetrated by the US state itself. Unarmed citizens are murdered across the world as collateral damage, illegal enemy combatants’or other license of impunity. The US state conceives itself as above international law along with ally Israel, but this reality is taboo to report and so too all the killing and terrorization of civilians. One can truly say that the historical record demonstrates the US is provably guilty of continual lawless mass murder of civilians across the world, but the truth is unthinkable within the ruling ideological regime. Consider for example, the US-led deadly civil wars and coup d’états in Venezuela and Ukraine as well as Libya and Syria. They mass terrorize and destroy societies into defenseless dependency so that their resources, lands and markets are free for transnational corporate exploitation. Yet the meaning is un-decoded. Ignorance is built into the syntax of acceptable thought.
Q: Many immigrants who seek refuge in United States from the four corners of the globe in search of a better and more prosperous life think of America as an absolutely free, democratic and open society with abundant opportunities for economic and social progress. However, you’ve argued, as many scholars did, that the United States is a police state. Would you please elaborate more on that? Do you believe that these immigrants and asylum-seekers are not told the whole truth about the United States or are somehow deceived?
A: Deception allies with ignorance. I define a police state as a society in which there is unlimited state power of armed force freely discharged without citizen right to stop it. While the men at the top always proclaim their devotion to the public good, an endless litany of crimes against human life is permitted by legally terrorist offices, central directives, and bureaucratic channels. Thus in “free and democratic America”, more citizens are caged than any country in the world, and over 80% have perpetrated no violence against [any] person. While the US accuses others of inhuman persecution and despotism, it holds the world records for caging non-violent people, for violent killings of civilians, for spy surveillance of everyone, and for mass murders of innocent people across international borders. Even kicking the tire of a VIP vehicle may be prosecuted as an act of “terrorism”. I have travelled alone with only backpack possession through the world, and have found no state in which police forces are more habituated to violent bullying, more likely to draw a gun, more discriminatory against the dispossessed, and more arbitrarily vicious in normal behavior. The US now leads the globe in an underlying civil war of the rich against the poor.
Q: What’s your viewpoint on the recent laws and legislations that have stipulated limitations on the civil liberties of the U.S. citizens, including the PATRIOT Act of 2001, which was widely criticized and protested at? Its seen as a discriminatory measure that violates the privacy of the American citizens and the foreign nationals traveling in the States. Isn’t it so?
A: The repression of civil rights by the US goes far deeper than violation of citizen privacy to which the media confine themselves. The Patriot Act together with other laws like the Military Commissions Act, the Defense Authorization Act, the Homeland Security Act and the Protect America Act, mutating to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, form a systematic curtailment of civil rights and freedoms. Spying on everyone across borders is the accompanying apparatus of the National Security Agency which has been recently exposed in its totalitarian global snooping and dirty tricks. Department analyst Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers summarizes the post-9/11 situation in the US as a coup … a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution for executive government to rule by decree. What makes these new laws and licenses tyrannical is their selective suspension of established constitutional rights to habeas corpus, the right of the accused to see evidence against him/her, the right to ones chosen legal defense, the right to trial without indefinite detention, and other rights of due process of law including to free speech and organization that can be construed as supporting illegal enemies. As to who these illegal enemies are, this is determined by the US president without legal criterion, proving evidence or verification required. The US can thus detain, kidnap and imprison without trial or indictment any US citizen or other citizen anywhere by designating them enemies to the US. This arbitrary power has most infamously instituted US presidential right to kill individuals and those around them at will by robot killer drones all crimes against humanity and war crimes under international law, but again taboo to report in the mass media or question in international security meetings themselves.
Q: The U.S. government has traditionally supported the oppressive regimes that are widely considered as dictatorial and tyrannical. Some examples include the successive U.S. governments’ support for the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and Israel. Isn’t such an approach contrary to the democratic principles which the U.S. Constitution is said to be oriented on?
A: Certainly the US has long supported dictatorial and tyrannical regimes. In fact US corporations and banks led the funding and arming of Hitler and the Nazis even during the 1939-45 War, and official US support of murderous dictatorships afterwards has been normalized since the CIA’s foundation in 1947. In the years since 9/11, US government has covertly directed funding and arming of the most destructive armed forces including jihadists, not only in the nations you mention, but in Syria and before that Libya, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan and many much less known places like Mali. Ukraine has been similarly launched into civil war and escalated oppression by US-led destabilization, covert Special Forces, and local fascists.
Yet the US Constitution itself has no clear resource to prevent such international crimes, the founding US fathers themselves being mainly rich slave owners and leaders of the genocidal Western expansion against first peoples which England had forbidden in 1763. In fact, despite some stirring phrases without binding force, the ultimate concern of the US Constitution is the protection of private property and wealth at the top against the masses and democratic reversal. The ultimately governing value is profitable and unfettered private commerce, the commerce clause being the only way found to enforce the civil rights of Blacks. The opening slogans of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness seem inspiring except that happiness cannot be pursued, life needs do not ever enter into consideration, and liberty without the means to exercise it is nonsense.
Bear in mind that Supreme Court decisions have further granted the constitutional freedom of private money hoards to control politicians, public speech and elections themselves. Transnational corporations which are the global vehicles of the worlds ruling money sequences have at the same time multiplying powers with no obligations, while other societies rights have been effectively erased by international trade treaties which recognize only corporate rights and strip societies of their economic sovereignty and public resources. Corporate rights to dominate public speech and elections have been twisted out of even the Constitutions Fifth Amendment protecting the civil rights of ex-slaves. In short, a near total expropriation of rights by Big Money has shown how anti-democratic the US Constitution has been made. I think that only the rule of life-protective law with the force of international law can regulate this global money-power dictatorship back into coherence with life support requirements now violated at every level, with or without a revolutionary uprising.
Q: Over the course of 20th century, the United States has been involved in several covert foreign regime change actions, and as the Foreign Policy magazine notes, it has toppled seven governments in the last 100 years through masterminding and engineering coups across the world, including the 1953 coup d’état against the popular government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, or the 1973 coup in Chile that brought down the government of President Salvador Allende. Is such sponsorship of coups and regime change actions the characteristic feature of a democratic, peace-loving government?
A: There has been almost no coup or government overthrow since 1945 not led by the US. The examples you give of Mosaddegh and Allende are sea-changes of history in which elected, socially responsible and peaceful governments led by men of the very highest quality have been criminally usurped. This perpetual and increasing destabilization of other states and societies along with other gravely degenerate trends are systematically tracked in my 15-year study The Cancer Stage of Capitalism/ from crisis to cure. In the US itself, the three powers of supreme legislature, executive and court are now all controlled by the same money party selecting for the same full-spectrum predation of life and life support systems everywhere to multiply themselves. Yet still the long record of the US state and its oligarch allies destroying societies across the world is unspeakable in the mass media because they themselves are financed and advertised in by the same transnational corporations that demand the resources and territories of societies everywhere. The carcinogenic global causal mechanism is ever more evident and catastrophic, but not recognized.
Q: More than a decade after the 9/11 attacks, there are still several unanswered questions about the tragic event, including the origins and motives of the perpetrator, the role of foreign intelligence organizations in masterminding the attacks and the behind-the-scenes benefits of the attacks for the U.S. military-industrial complex. As you note in your writings, it was not Osama bin Laden who spearheaded the 9/11 attacks. Who is the real culprit? Did the 9/11 attacks play into the hands of the Bush administration to set in motion its lethal project of War on Terror and start invading different countries?
A: My recent monograph on the Internet, The Moral Decoding of 9-11: Beyond the U.S. Criminal State is a definitive answer to these questions. The turning-point event is laid bare step by step as a mass-murderous construction whose scenario is anticipated and contrived by US geostrategic planners with the official investigation completely concealing the basic fact that fireproofed steel infrastructures collapsed at the speed of gravity into their own footprints against the laws of physics. Moreover the first question of forensic justice cui bono, who benefits? is ruled out from the start, although every subsequent policy, decision and new power served the interests of the Bush Jr. regime, and the US military-oil complex against the welfare of the American public and the world, especially Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.
Unfortunately conspiracy theories miss the inner logic of the strategic event and the system disorder driving it. The official conspiracy theory is absurd, but every disbeliever in it is pilloried as a conspiracy theorist – the reverse projection which is the signature operation of US propaganda. Always blame others for what the US does as the reason for attacking them. One might laugh at the same old propaganda psy-op and fabrications trotted out endlessly, but the terrible reality is the 9/11 construction has had effectively sabotaged international progress in solving the worlds gravest problems. It has dismantled the global peace movement that was reaching an historical peak in 2001 to stop US-led militarism after the Cold War. It has successfully suppressed world-wide uprisings against a US-led global corporate dictatorship despised and opposed by ever more citizens across America, Europe and the world. It has even formed the draconian laws and police practices needed to squash the world-wide environmental movement across the world at same time. 9/11 has, in short, vastly empowered the corporate money system devouring human and planetary life by falsifying opponents as terrorists. But who joins the dots of the Great Repression?
Q: Since its inception 66 years ago, CIA has been involved in numerous covert sabotage, anti-sabotage, assassinations, propaganda, destruction and subversion plans against other countries, and during the course of all these covert actions, it has violated different internationally recognized treaties and regulations as well as the sovereignty and territorial integrity of these nations. Are these actions and gambits legal or illegal? If they are illegal, then why doesn’t any international organization investigate the crimes and hold the U.S. government accountable?
A: Yes this is a turning-point issue of the world. But the US record as a rogue state is unspeakable in the mass media because they are financed and advertised in by the same transnational corporations that demand the resources and territories of the world by threat of trade-investment embargo and the point of the gun of US and NATO forces. This is what the lawless but unnamed US reign of terror achieves – not only by war crimes and crimes against humanity, but by economic ruin for any society resisting transnational trade treaties and demands which recognize only foreign corporate rights to profit. If the underlying causal mechanism is taboo to recognize, unaccountability is the result. Blame is instead diverted to US-designated enemies like Iran or Russia or Venezuela and the society-destroying disorder rampages on.
In fact there are many life-protective international laws to hold the US accountable to, but every one of them is repudiated by the US so as not to apply to itself ; laws and conventions against nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, landmines, small arms, international ballistic missiles, torture, racism, sexism, child abuse, arbitrary seizure and imprisonment, crimes against humanity and war crimes, military weather distortions, biodiversity loss, and international climate destabilization. Yet this record remains taboo to track or publish even as the US demonizes others for defying the laws and norms of the international community”.
The US and ally Israel thus violate the laws against armed aggression, occupation and crimes against humanity at will, but who even knows or cites the laws? For example, when the US was about to perpetrate the supreme crime of invasion against Iraq in 2003 with no lawful grounds, no-one raised the issue at the Security Council, including the Iraqi diplomat there. As one who later debated on Canadian public television a leading US geostrategic analyst three days before the criminal bombing of Baghdad began, my statement that he was advocating war crime and should be arrested for doing so was deleted from the live broadcast. The cornerstone of international law is thus silenced while the media go on calling opponents “unpatriotic or terrorists as in Nazi Germany. If law-abiding states do not stand and join for the rule of international life-protective law, there seems no end.
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
July 14th, 2014 by olddog
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As the July 7 protest in Murrieta regarding immigration, and the potential of more bus loads of diseased people being shipped to the Border Patrol Station for processing on Madison Avenue loomed, so did the potential of the federal government forcing its will upon the City of Murrieta with riot personnel.
The rumor made its way to Breitbart.com, and fears of a blood-bath emerged throughout the community, and throughout the country. I discounted the rumor as merely a remote possibility, and a rumor that may have been leaked by the federal government by design.
Fear is the way this administration prefers to rule.
The White House believes that federal supremacy is supreme, that all actions and laws of the federal government rule over any actions of legislation of the lower governments, from the States, all the way down to the cities. Murrieta, in the opinion of the President, must bend to the will of the federal government, or suffer the consequences of daring to stand in opposition.
Resistance is futile.
As I have stated in my book, 25 Myths of the United States Constitution, only federal laws and actions constitutionally supported are supreme. Laws and actions that are not within the authorities granted by the United States Constitution cannot be supreme over the States since those actions or pieces of legislation are illegal in the first place.
The founders created a system of checks and balances for a reason, and those reasons were specifically to stop the federal government from imposing its agenda on lower governments as we are seeing now here in Murrieta, and elsewhere around the country.
Racial division in order to allow the federal government to force its will on our community, and ultimately, the entire country
The current administration rejects the principles of the United States Constitution. President Obama claims to be a constitutional professor, and constitutional lawyer, but what he did was lecture on the 14th Amendment, and more specifically, how to use it to create racial division. That is what is happening in Murrieta. Racial division in order to allow the federal government to force its will on our community, and ultimately, the entire country. The truth of the strategy has been shielded by the cries of racism.
In history, authoritarian governments use fear to force the issue. However, fear is often considered by tyrants to be best applied not by actual action, but by the threat of the action. What winds up happening, however, is that the populace becomes resistant to the threats, so the authoritarian system then believes it must use force to force the issue. In other words, we may be seeing a progression similar to the American Revolution, where the early protests were peaceful until one resulted in shots fired in Boston, commonly referred to as the Boston Massacre, and then after Baker Street the progression eventually led to Lexington Green when the British came for our guns, and ultimately to an all out war. Am I saying that I expect this to develop into a bloody war between the people and the federal government? I hope not. But the progression currently in place, and the scare tactics being used by the federal government, certainly suggests that such a violent progression perpetrated by the federal government could be a possibility.
Douglas V. Gibbs, Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, is a Radio Host on KCAA 1050 AM on Saturdays and Sundays with his Constitution Speaker program, as well as a longtime Internet radio host, conservative political activist, writer and commentator. Doug is the founder of the award winning Political Pistachio website, and a free lance newspaper columnist for the Murrieta Patch, The Central Idaho Post and The Examiner. Doug is a member of the “American Authors Association”, the “Committee of Concerned Journalists” and “The Military Writers Society of America.” He received the Golden Anchor Award for his patriotic commentary in 2008, and was a candidate for his local city council in 2010. An active member of the Tea Party Movement, Doug mans a Constitution Booth at Tea Party events, is a public speaker on the U.S. Constitution, and teaches classes on the U.S. Constitution once a week in Temecula, California. Doug is a family man, married 27 years to his high school sweetheart. He is the father of two and has four grandchildren. Doug is a proud United States Navy veteran. Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.
If the reader has been reading articles on this site for some time, then you know that the Constitution was born dead, as a surreptitious method of gaining the people’s support because they were told and believed that it would protect America from tyranny arising in the Federal Government at a later time. However, they were not told that the Banking Cartel (The Vatican’s henchmen) had their men in the original group of framers, who were not authorized to construct a New Constitution for America that would eventually be incorporated. If you refuse to believe this, then please tell me how we got in this mess. The constitution forbids it, and that’s how you were fooled. So now we are stuck with a tyrannical for profit Corporation that rules by force, and only an educated and courage’s population willing to die for their freedom, and construct a new, legal, republic, will prevail. What you don’t know can kill you!
LEGAL GOVERNANCE IS DETERMINED BY MEN OF COURAGE WHO WILL NOT SUBMIT TO TYRANNY. ALL OTHER FORMS OF GOVERNANCE ARE DESPOTIC GROUPS OF LIARS, THIEVES, AND MURDERERS, RULING OVER A COUNTRY OF COWARDS BY FORCE ALONE.
MAKE YOU’RE CHOICE NOW, BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE, AND MAKE DAMN SURE YOU INCORPORATE METHODS OF DISIPLINING OFFICE HOLDERS THAT IS IRREFUTABLE, BECAUSE HUMAN NATURE WILL NEVER CHANGE.
July 12th, 2014 by olddog
Thomas Jefferson, the author of America’s July 4, 1776 Declaration of Secession from the British empire, was a lifelong advocate of both the voluntary union of the free, independent, and sovereign states, and of the right of secession. “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form,” he said in his first inaugural address in 1801, “let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”
In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph Priestley, who had asked Jefferson his opinion of the New England secession movement that was gaining momentum, he wrote: “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern . . . and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family…” Jefferson offered the same opinion to John C. Breckinridge on August 12, 1803 when New Englanders were threatening secession after the Louisiana purchase. If there were a “separation,” he wrote, “God bless them both & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”
Everyone understood that the union of the states was voluntary and that, as Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York stated in their constitutional ratification documents, each state had a right to withdraw from the union at some future date if that union became harmful to its interests. So when New Englanders began plotting secession barely twenty years after the end of the American Revolution, their leader, Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering (who was also George Washington’s secretary of war and secretary of state) stated that “the principles of our Revolution point to the remedy – a separation. That this can be accomplished without spilling one drop of blood, I have little doubt” (In Henry Adams, editor, Documents Relating to New-England Federalism, 1800-1815, p. 338). The New England plot to secede from the union culminated in the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814, where they ultimately decided to remain in the union and to try to dominate it politically instead. (They of course succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, beginning in April of 1865 up to the present day.)
John Quincy Adams, the quintessential New England Yankee, echoed these Jeffersonian sentiments in an 1839 speech in which he said that if different states or groups of states came into irrepressible conflict, then that “will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation…” (John Quincy Adams,>The Jubilee of the Constitution, 1939, pp. 66-69).
There is a long history of American newspapers endorsing the Jeffersonian secessionist tradition. The following are just a few examples.
The Bangor, Maine Daily Union once editorialized that the union of Maine with the other states “rests and depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each. When that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone, and no power exterior to the withdrawing [state] can ever restore it.” Moreover, a state can never be a true equal member of the American union if forced into it by military aggression, the Maine editors wrote.
“A war … is a thousand times worse evil than the loss of a State, or a dozen States” the Indianapolis Daily Journal once wrote. “The very freedom claimed by every individual citizen, precludes the idea of compulsory association, as individuals, as communities, or as States,” wrote the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat. “The very germ of liberty is the right of forming our own governments, enacting our own laws, and choosing or own political associates … The right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state.”
Using violence to force any state to remain in the union, once said the New York Journal of Commerce, would “change our government from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism” where one part of the people are “slaves.” The Washington (D.C.) Constitution concurred, calling a coerced union held together at gunpoint (like the Soviet Union, for instance) “the extreme of wickedness and the acme of folly.”
“The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” the New York Daily Tribune once wrote, “is sound and just,” so that if any state wanted to secede peacefully from the union, it has “a clear moral right to do so.”
A union maintained by military force, Soviet style, would be “mad and Quixotic” as well as “tyrannical and unjust” and “worse than a mockery,” editorialized the Trenton (N.J.) True American. Echoing Jefferson’s letter to John C. Breckinridge, the Cincinnati Daily Commercial once editorialized that “there is room for several flourishing nations on this continent; and the sun will shine brightly and the rivers run as clear” if one or more states were to peacefully secede.
All of these Northern state editorials were published in the first three months of 1861 and are published in Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession (Gloucester, Mass.: 1964). They illustrate how the truths penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence — that the states were considered to be free, independent, and sovereign in the same sense that England and France were; that the union was voluntary; that using invasion, bloodshed, and mass murder to force a state into the union would be an abomination and a universal moral outrage; and that a free society is required to revere freedom of association — were still alive and well until April of 1865 when the Lincoln regime invented and adopted the novel new theory that: 1) the states were never sovereign; 2) the union was not voluntary; and 3) the federal government had the “right” to prove that propositions 1 and 2 are right by means murdering hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens by waging total war on the entire civilian population of the Southern states, bombing and burning its cities and towns into a smoldering ruin, and calling it all “the glory of the coming of the Lord.”
[LewRockwell.com, July 4, 2014]
For those who have read this essay, does your heart not expand with the lust for freedom? Does the adrenalin of freedom not make you light headed? Can any one deny that this is what we need to enforce on the corporate scumbags that rule our country? Yes I agree there would be many problems to solve if America was not a slave state to the Banksters, but how little confidence would one have to not pursue it? Who care’s if the Vatican has title from the Dead King of England. We did not have a problem when we thought we were taking it by force. SO WHAT’S WRONG WITH DOING IT RIGHT THIS TIME? For those who have not been educated yet, here is the real history of America.
The King of England had seeded America, along with All the Kings holdings and power to the Pope to recover his soul for the sin of Divorce. The Banksters were hired by the Pope to control the Governments, and now we are sucking hind tit as slaves to the corporations that have managed to control the Government. America is run as a profit producing business as witnessed by all the laws they use to fine us. It’s all one huge extortion racket that has expanded globally. Pretty soon we will have to get a permit to take a crap. Hint, Never go through an air-port without some change in your pocket, just in case Nature Calls.
July 11th, 2014 by olddog
John W. Whitehead
“The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself…Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable.”—H.L. Mencken, American journalist.
It’s vogue, trendy and appropriate to look to dystopian literature as a harbinger of what we’re experiencing at the hands of the government. Certainly, George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm have much to say about government tyranny, corruption, and control, as does Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and Philip K. Dick’s Minority Report. Yet there are also older, simpler, more timeless stories—folk tales and fairy tales—that speak just as powerfully to the follies and foibles in our nature as citizens and rulers alike that give rise to tyrants and dictatorships.
One such tale, Hans Christian Andersen’s fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes, is a perfect paradigm of life today in the fiefdom that is the American police state, only instead of an imperial president spending money wantonly on lavish vacations, entertainment, and questionable government programs aimed at amassing greater power, Andersen presents us with a vain and thoughtless emperor, concerned only with satisfying his own needs at the expense of his people, even when it means taxing them unmercifully, bankrupting his kingdom, and harshly punishing his people for daring to challenge his edicts.
For those unfamiliar with the tale, the Emperor, a vain peacock of a man, is conned into buying a prohibitively expensive suit of clothes that is supposedly visible only to those who are smart, competent and well-suited to their positions. Surrounded by yes men, professional flatterers and career politicians who fawn, simper and genuflect, the Emperor—arrogant, pompous and oblivious to his nudity—prances through the town in his new suit of clothes until a child dares to voice what everyone else has been thinking but too afraid to say lest they be thought stupid or incompetent: “He isn’t wearing anything at all!”
Much like the people of the Emperor’s kingdom, we, too, have been conned into believing that if we say what we fear, if we dare to suggest that something is indeed “rotten in the state of Denmark,” we will be branded idiots and fools by the bureaucrats, corporate heads, governmental elites and media hotshots who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo—or who at least are determined to maintain the façade that is the status quo. Yet the truth is staring us in the face just as surely as the fact that the Emperor was wearing no clothes.
Truth #1: The U.S. is on the brink of bankruptcy, as many economists have been warning for some time now, with more than $16 trillion in debts owned by foreign nationals and corporations. As one financial news site reports: “Internationally, the world is fed up with The Fed and the U.S. government’s unabashed debt growth. China, Russia, Iran, India and a host of other countries are establishing trade relationships that are bypassing the U.S. dollar altogether, a move that will soon see the world’s reserve currency lose purchasing power and status. In anticipation of this imminent collapse gold is being hoarded by private and public entities from Berlin to Beijing in an effort to preserve wealth before the Tsunami hits.”
Truth #2: We no longer have a government that is “of the people, for the people and by the people.” What we have now is a feudal monarchy, run by wealthy overlords and financed with the blood, sweat and labor of the underclasses who are kept in check by the increasingly militarized police. This sorry state of affairs is reinforced by a study which found that average citizens have “little or no independent influence” on the policy-making process. A similar study published by thePolitical Research Quarterly revealed that members of the U.S. Senate represent their wealthiest constituents while ignoring those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder.
Truth #3: Far from being a benevolent entity concerned with the well-being of its citizens, whether in matters of health, safety or security, the government is concerned with three things only: power, control and money. As an often quoted adage says, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Unfortunately, the master-servant relationship that once had the government answering to “we the people” has been reversed. Government agents now act as if they are the masters and we are the servants. Nowhere is this more evident than in the transformation of police officers from benevolent keepers of the peace to inflexible extensions of the military hyped up on the power of their badge.
Truth #4: Our primary use to the government is as consumers, worker bees and bits of data to be collected, catalogued, controlled, mined for information, and sold to the highest bidder. Working in cahoots with corporations, the government has given itself carte blanche access to our phone calls, emails, bank transactions, physical movements, even our travels on foot or in our cars. Cybersecurity expert Richard Clarke envisions a future where data about every aspect of our lives will be collected and analyzed. Thus, no matter what the U.S. Supreme Court might have said to the contrary, the government no longer needs a warrant to spy on your cell phone activity or anything else for that matter. As theWashington Post recently revealed, 9 out of 10 people caught up in the NSA’s surveillance net had done nothing wrong to justify such intrusions on their privacy. Clearly, the government now operates relatively autonomously, answering only to itself and unbridled by the courts, Congress, the will of the people or the Constitution.
Truth #5: Whatever problems we are grappling with in regards to illegal immigrants flooding over the borders has little to do with the fact that the borders are porous and everything to do with the government’s own questionable agenda. How is it that a government capable of locking down roads, open seas, and air routes is unable to prevent tens of thousands of women and children from crossing into the U.S. illegally? Conveniently, the Obama administration is asking Congress for $3.8 billion in emergency funding to send more immigration judges to the southern border, build additional detention facilities and add border patrol agents. The funds would be managed by the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, State and Health and Human Services, the very same agencies responsible for bringing about a rapid shift into a police state.
Truth #6: The U.S. government is preparing for massive domestic unrest, arising most likely from an economic meltdown. The government has repeatedly made clear its intentions, through its U.S. Army War College report alerting the military to prepare for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,” through its ongoing military drills in cities across the country, through its profiling of potential homegrown “dissidents” or extremists, and through the proliferation of detention centers being built across the country.
Truth #7: As Gerald Ford warned, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” Too often, Americans have fallen prey to the temptation to let the government take care of whatever ails them, whether it be financial concerns, health needs, childcare. As a result, we now find ourselves caught in a Catch-22 situation wherein the government’s so-called solutions to our problems have led to even graver problems. In this way, zero tolerance policies intended to outlaw drugs and weapons in schools result in young children being arrested and kicked out of school for childish behavior such as drawing pictures of soldiers and crying too much; truancy laws intended to keep students in school have resulted in parents being arrested and fined excessively; and zoning laws intended to protect homeowners have been used to prosecute residents who attempt to live off the grid.
Truth #8: The U.S. is following the Nazi blueprint to a “t,” whether through its storm trooper-like police in the form of heavily armed government agents, to its erection of an electronic concentration camp that not only threatens to engulf America but the rest of the world as well via NSA surveillance programs such as Five Eyes. Most damning of all is the Department of Homeland Security’s self-appointed role as a national police force, a.k.a. standing army, the fundamental and final building block for every totalitarian regime that has ever wreaked havoc on humanity. Indeed, just about every nefarious deed, tactic or thuggish policy advanced by the government today can be traced back to the DHS, its police state mindset, and the billions of dollars it distributes to police agencies in the form of grants.
Truth #9: Not only does the U.S. government perpetrate organized, systematic violence on its own citizens, especially those who challenge its authority nonviolently, in the form of SWAT team raids, militarized police, and roaming VIPR checkpoints, but it gets away with these clear violations of the Fourth Amendment because the courts grant them immunity from wrongdoing. Expanding its reach, the U.S. also exports its violence wholesale to other countries through armaments sales and the use of its military as a global police force. Yet no matter how well trained, well equipped and well financed, America cannot police the world. As history shows, military empires, once over extended, inevitably collapse into chaos.
Truth #10: As I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, the United States of America has become the new battlefield. In fact, the only real war being fought by the U.S. government today is the war on the American people, and it is being waged with deadly weapons, militarized police, surveillance technology, laws that criminalize otherwise lawful behavior, private prisons that operate on quota systems, and government officials who are no longer accountable to the rule of law.
So there you have it: facts rather than fiction, so naked that a child could call it for what it is, and yet so politically inconvenient, incorrect and uncomfortable that few dare to speak of them.
Even so, despite the fact that no one wants to be labeled dimwitted, or conspiratorial, or a right wing nut job, most Americans, if they were truly paying attention to what’s been going on in this country over the past few decades and willing to be truthful, at least to themselves, would have to admit that the outlook is decidedly grim. Indeed, unless something changes drastically for the good in the near future, it looks like this fairytale will not have a happy ending.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute where this article first appeared. He is the author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State and The Change Manifesto.
The thing most distressing about this is the lack of media attention on Police Brutality, and because most of it is occurring in major cities, communities like mine are almost completely unaware of it, and because they have no personal experience with it, they have little sympathy, and less curiosity. When it finally arrives in rural America they will be shocked beyond imagination. Personally, I will have little sympathy for them because there is no excuse for their ignorance. I now live with the attitude that each time I leave home, I may never come back, as my temper is such that I will be killed rather than submit to their tyranny. The total lack of respect for all ages of civilians is unacceptable to me. The younger large framed officers are just itching for a chance to beat someone to death. It has become a badge of honor among them.
July 9th, 2014 by olddog
By Dave Hodges
Events are coming to light faster than most can report them. To many, the events discussed in this column over the last two to three weeks appear to be a series of unrelated events. To others, we recognize these events for what they are: The gates of hell are open and there will soon be hell on earth.
The next two articles in this series represents both a qualitative and quantitative meta analysis of several events which demonstrates a distinct, unmistakable and disturbing pattern which will culminate in a health crisis of an unparalleled magnitude and the loss of civil liberties as well as national sovereignty. Many people will lose their lives in the upcoming events.
In the last two parts of parts of this series, I will connect the dots from previous reports, as well as introduce new evidence which serves to support previous documented evidence as well as new evidence of the following:
1. The United States is being overrun by illegal immigrants from Central and South America as well as West Africa and the Caribbean.
2. These immigrants are not being health screened for Ebola, Dengue Fever, drug resistant TB et al.
3. These immigrants are being transported, at taxpayers’ expense to nearly every metropolitan and mid-sized community in the United States. This constitutes an invasion with a lot of risk factors and unknown variables.
4. The Border Patrol and detention facility medical personnel are being threatened with prison if they reveal just how bad the unfolding crisis is.
5. The United Nations is in the process of prepositioning military assets on American soil and there is no hiding the evidence.
6. An inevitable health crisis will ensue and the UN “Peacekeepers” will be rolled out to “save the day.” In actuality, they will become an occupation force as has been the case in the past crises.
I would have preferred to write the summation in one part, but the material is too voluminous. In tomorrow’s report, the following shocking events and evidence will be revealed:
1. The US military and many of its disaffected senior leadership have actively and passively resisted Obama’s handing off of the country to UN interests. In tomorrow’s article, for the first time, a link between the events in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Benghazi will be established between these crises and what is happening on the domestic front in America.
2. Through the newest contributor to The Common Sense Show, Alana Cook, a former World Net Daily writer and high level defense contractor, has discovered a memo which clearly speaks to the fact that the government knows a pandemic is coming and they have already prepared and budgeted for their reaction. Please note the word “reaction” and not “prevention”.
3. I have come across an 1100 page Senate Subcommittee report, never reported on in the mainstream media, which connects most of the dots listed in this chain.
4 Annie DeRiso, the News Director of The Common Sense Show, previously uncovered evidence which demonstrated that the federal government’s planning for mass casualties has been in the works for at least 5 years.
5. The link between FEMA camps and related personnel will also be exposed.
In this article, and listed below, are a series of previously reported dots, along side of new information, when connected, form an unmistakable pattern which spells an attack and subsequent subjugation of this country.
The Presence of UN Vehicles On American Soil
Since late May, the country has been besieged with reports, pictures and videos of UN vehicles in our country. FOX 5, San Diego, ran a report on Sunday morning, July 6th, in the early morning hours, which detailed sightings of UN vehicles being transported north of San Diego on Interstate 15 headed towards Riverside. The story said that the vehicles were manufactured in the United States and were being transported for shipment overseas. Really? Does this explain why these vehicles are being transported in SEVERAL southern states? Does the manufacturer have a automotive plant in Georgia, California, Texas, etc? Why don’t we see these reports in Detroit?
The FOX 5 website contains neither a video or a written report of the story. I suspect the story was a trial balloon used to gauge the believability and response to the story without leaving behind much in the way of evidence.
In every case, the vehicles are being transported and not being individually driven. This clearly suggests the prepositioning of military assets for future use.
The references for this first part of this invasion can be found here and here.
The Exponentially Increased Risk of a Pandemic Let Loose On America
Another San Diego Fox 5 story which ran on July 7th, did leave a traceable trail and clearly showed a steady stream of immigrants being landed at Lindbergh Field. The video can be seen here. In the interview, the local head of the San Diego Area Border Patrol, Gabe Pacheco, is interviewed and he stated that his group is highly concerned that immigrants are not being properly processed, exposing the Border Patrol to health risks such as scabies. Pacheco clearly stated that “many of these people are sick”. Please note in the report how the reporters are kept far away from the scene.
In an earlier report, it has also been determined that there has been a case of a Border Patrol Agent contracting drug resistant TB. Other diseases are entering the country as well and transmission can be accelerated through the spread of scabies and horizontal transfer through mosquitoes. Prominent Arizona physician, Dr. Jane Orient, has officially warned the Arizona Department of Health that West Africans, from the seven country region where an Ebola outbreak is taking place, are entering through our southern border. It was also reported that these West African illegal immigrants have been taught to speak Spanish so they can blend in with other immigrants. Could this possibly speak to a CIA operation and a deliberate attempt to spread the deadly Ebola virus?
Click here to see the evidence that this administration is complicit in the planning of this invasion. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is greatly exacerbating the risk to the immigrants themselves. Nobody on either side of the border is safe. There is only one objective, flood the United States, in as many communities as possible, with as many immigrants as possible. When the health crisis has been fermented, the UN, under the leadership of Peter Sutherland, will assume control of health and policing activities in this country, as he has been the past practice in so many other countries.
Meanwhile, back to the FOX 5 report, it was reported that the average illegal alien is questioned and processed and that this is completed within two to three hours. No blood is analyzed and this is the only reliable manner in which to diagnose TB, Ebola and Dengue Fever et al. All hell is about ready to break loose in America. Remember, when it comes to the more virulent of these diseases and viruses, it only takes one carrier.
FEMA Camp Question
During the Jessie Ventura Conspiracy Theory series, Jesse covered the FEMA camp issue ,which was later banned. In the episode, Jesse and Alex Jones visited a FEMA camp in Texas and videotaped CHILDREN playing behind restraining fences. Why? This unanswered question never settled properly with me.
Yesterday, while walking on the beach, it occurred to me that this nagging question may have been answered 5 years ago during the H1N1 scare by former Kansas State Patrol officer, the highly decorated Greg Evensen.
While appearing on The Common Sense Show, Greg stated that mandatory H1N1 vaccinations were coming and various law enforcement agencies had already practiced for the roadblocks with FEMA busses for the unwilling and waiting injections for those that could be intimidated. I confirmed this fact with two high ranking Colorado State Patrol officials that I know personally. However, the public backlash against the planned mandatory vaccinations was so heavily resisted the federal government backed off. Yet, there was something that Greg revealed that may come into play in the near future. Greg said that key enforcement personnel would be told that their families were being taken for safekeeping against any possible backlash and civil unrest and they would be housed together. In actuality, Greg stated that the family members of these key people would be held hostage in order to force compliance. Is this what we saw on Jesse Ventura’s show with the children playing inside of a prison complex? Did you just get chills up and down your spine? I did!
The next part in this series will put an exclamation point on this entire series in a way not being reported in either the MSM or the alternative media.
Don’t worry about ridicule; just be ready to defend your family. What have you lost if some people scoff at your foreknowledge, and preparation? On the other hand, also be ready for the scumbags that are too afraid to protect them selves, and turn you in because they are afraid of you. Your neighbors may be the enemy’s information source, and your enemy. America is not what you may have thought it was, as the majority doesn’t have the guts to be free. HERE’S THE DRILL: Create a health pandemic, a financial panic, toast the dollar, in the national confusion claim there are wide spread killing’s, and announce Martial Law, start picking up people to transport them to some place safe, where they can be starved to death or die of some contacted disease.
July 2nd, 2014 by olddog
By John W. Whitehead
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”—Patrick Henry
Imagine living in a country where armed soldiers crash through doors to arrest and imprison citizens merely for criticizing government officials. Imagine that in this very same country, you’re watched all the time, and if you look even a little bit suspicious, the police stop and frisk you or pull you over to search you on the off chance you’re doing something illegal. Keep in mind that if you have a firearm of any kind while in this country, it may get you arrested and, in some circumstances, shot by police.
If you’re thinking this sounds like America today, you wouldn’t be far wrong. However, the scenario described above took place more than 200 years ago, when American colonists suffered under Great Britain’s version of an early police state. It was only when the colonists finally got fed up with being silenced, censored, searched, frisked, threatened, and arrested that they finally revolted against the tyrant’s fetters.
No document better states their grievances than the Declaration of Independence. A document seething with outrage over a government which had betrayed its citizens, the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, by 56 men who laid everything on the line, pledged it all—“our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”—because they believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free.
Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives. Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up when silence could not be tolerated. Even after they had won their independence from Great Britain, these new Americans worked to ensure that the rights they had risked their lives to secure would remain secure for future generations. The result: our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
Imagine the shock and outrage these 56 men would feel were they to discover that 238 years later, the government they had risked their lives to create has been transformed into a militaristic police state in which exercising one’s freedoms is often viewed as a flagrant act of defiance. Indeed, had the Declaration of Independence been written today, it would have rendered its signers terrorists, resulting in them being placed on a government watch list, targeted for surveillance of their activities and correspondence, and potentially arrested, held indefinitely, stripped of their rights and labeled enemy combatants.
Indeed, as I document in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, a cursory review of the true state of our freedoms as outlined in the Bill of Rights shows exactly how dismal things have become:
The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind and protest in peace without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans cannot be silenced by the government. Yet despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Whether it’s a Marine detained for criticizing the government on Facebook, a reporter persecuted for refusing to reveal his sources, or a protester arrested for standing silently in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, these are dangerous times for those who choose to exercise their rights.
The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Yet while gun ownership has been recognized as an individual citizen right, Americans continue to face an uphill battle in the courts when it comes to defending themselves against militarized, weaponized government agents armed to the hilt. In fact, court rulings in recent years have affirmed that citizens don’t have the right to resist police officers who enter their homes illegally, mistakenly or otherwise.
The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” Unfortunately, the wall of separation between civilian and military policing has been torn down in recent years, as militarized SWAT teams are now allowed to burst into homes unannounced in order to investigate minor crimes such as marijuana possession and credit card fraud. With domestic police increasingly posing as military forces—complete with weapons, uniforms, assault vehicles, etc.—a good case could be made for the fact that SWAT team raids constitute the forced quartering of soldiers within the private home, which the Third Amendment was written to prevent.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from touching you or placing you under surveillance or entering your property without probable cause and even then, only with a court-sanctioned warrant. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has been all but eviscerated in recent years by court rulings and government programs that sanction all manner of intrusions, including giving police carte blanche authority to break into homes or apartments without a warrant, conduct roadside strip searches, and generally manhandle any person in manner they see fit. Moreover, in the so-called name of national security, intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency now have the ability to conduct mass unwarranted electronic intrusions into the personal and private transactions of all Americans, including phone, mail, computer and medical records. All of this data is available to other government agencies, including local police.
The Fifth Amendment is supposed to ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without following strict legal guidelines. Unfortunately, those protections have been largely extinguished in recent years, especially in the wake of Congress’ passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the president and the military to arrest and detain Americans indefinitely without due process.
The Sixth Amendment was intended to not only ensure a “speedy and public trial,” but it was supposed to prevent the government from keeping someone in jail for unspecified offenses. That too has been a casualty of the so-called war on terror. Between the NDAA’s indefinite detention clause and the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) legislation, which has been used as justification for using drones to kill American citizens in the absence of a court trial, the Sixth Amendment’s guarantees become meaningless.
The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. However, when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears.
The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether. America’s continued reliance on the death penalty, which has been shown to be flawed in its application and execution, is a perfect example of this.
The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so. Thus, once the government began violating the non-enumerated rights granted in the Ninth Amendment, it was only a matter of time before it began to trample the enumerated rights of the people, as explicitly spelled out in the rest of the Bill of Rights.
As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC power elite—the president, Congress and the courts. Indeed, the federal governmental bureaucracy has grown so large that it has made local and state legislatures relatively irrelevant. Through its many agencies, the federal government has stripped states of the right to regulate countless issues that were originally governed at the local level.
Thus, even on those rare occasions when the courts provide us with a slight glimmer of hope that all may not be lost, those brief reprieves of judicial sensibility are quickly overwhelmed by a bureaucratic machine that continues to march relentlessly in lockstep with the police state.
This brings me back to those 56 men who risked everything—their fortunes and their lives—to speak truth to power in that sweltering Philadelphia heat 238 summers ago. Of those 56 signers, 9 died during the Revolution, 5 were captured by British soldiers, 18 had their homes looted and burned by the Red Coats, 2 were wounded in battle and 2 lost their sons during the war. Remarkably, these men—who were community leaders, business owners, judges, lawyers and inventors—sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor so that you and I could live freely in a nation where we have the right to stand up and speak out against tyrannical government. In the face of torture and even death, they did not waver.
The choice before us is clear. In the words of Patrick Henry, will we choose dangerous freedom or peaceful slavery?
This commentary is also
available at www.rutherford.org.