Log in



Categories » ‘MARTIAL LAW’

New Army Manual Calls for the Use of Lethal Force Against Peaceful Protesters

August 19th, 2014 by

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/08/new-army-manual-

calls-use-lethal-force-peaceful-protesters/

8-19-2014 8-55-45 AMDave Hodges 

 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? 

10 13 11 flagbar

Missouri police deploy tear gas to impose Ferguson curfew

August 18th, 2014 by

http://www.northjersey.com/news/missouri-police-deploy-tear-

gas-to-impose-ferguson-curfew-1.1068621?page=all

8-18-2014 12-52-18 PM

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.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

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.

10 13 11 flagbar

The Militarization of U. S. Police, Finally Dragged Into the Light by the Horrors of Ferguson

August 16th, 2014 by

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/14/militarization

-u-s-police-dragged-light-horrors-ferguson/

8-16-2014 8-30-48 AM

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.

8-16-2014 8-32-11 AM

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.”

8-16-2014 8-33-26 AM

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.”

8-16-2014 8-34-42 AM

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. 

8-16-2014 8-36-33 AM

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.

10 13 11 flagbar

 

Police Brutality Continues Unchecked Across The Nation

August 13th, 2014 by

http://www.activistpost.com/2014/08/police-brutality-continues-unchecked.html#!bCEjaH

8-13-2014 9-05-04 AM

By Joe Wright
Activist Post

The escalation of police brutality continues unchecked across the United States. Literally unchecked, according to the video report and sources posted below.

Citing the Bureau of Justice Statistics data collection of “Arrest-Related Deaths”, it is clear that reports involving potential police misconduct – even including deaths – are submitted on a completely voluntary basis, which has resulted in glaring holes and a long delay in those submissions that are offered.

The exclusions and submission process are telling:

Program Exclusions

The deaths of innocent bystanders, hostages, and law enforcement personnel were excluded from the scope of the ARD program. In addition, all deaths occurring in a jail or other long-term holding facility, state prison, or juvenile correctional facility were excluded from the ARD data collection.  Deaths occurring in the custody of federal law enforcement agencies (i.e., FBI, DEA, or Marshals Service) were only reportable to the ARD program if the death, or incident causing the death, occurred in the presence of state or local law enforcement personnel.

Role of State Reporting Coordinators

Participation in the Arrest-Related Deaths program is voluntary, meaning neither law enforcement agencies nor states are required to submit ARD data to BJS.  As such, BJS relies on the assistance of State Reporting Coordinators (SRCs) to gather records on all arrest-related deaths statewide…. (emphasis added)

 

Program Coverage

When the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 was enacted, only two states conducted a statewide count of all arrest-related deaths (California and Texas, each pursuant to State law).  In the remaining 48 states and the District of Columbia, the ARD program was the first attempt to perform a comprehensive count of all deaths occurring during the process of arrest. The attorneys general of California and Texas agreed to complete statewide reports of arrest-related deaths for submission to BJS.  In all other jurisdictions, BJS worked with state officials to determine which agency would collect arrest-related death reports.

During reporting year 2006, a state criminal justice commission, commonly administered by the governor’s office was the most common data reporting contact (22 states), followed by the state attorney general and state police department (8 states each) (see table 1).  In five states, the department of corrections took a lead role in compiling records.  In over 30 states, the reporting office also served as a state criminal justice Statistical Analysis Center (SAC). (Source and full report)

As we see the current explosion taking place in Missouri – which includes a new report that police will not release the officer’s name who killed Michael Brown – and the continued fallout from the much-maligned Albuquerque Police Department (with a minimal but still revealing DoJ investigation that followed), it is clear that there is very little in place to hold law enforcement accountable.

As these departments continue to be enhanced with weapons of war and given carte blanche for no-knock death squad SWAT raids, we are likely to see a continued escalation of those with absolute power becoming corrupted absolutely.

By Jamal Andress –  Newsy

​For many, the killing of unarmed Missouri teen Michael Brown brings to mind other instances where officers used deadly force.

“I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe”

​Law enforcement is the only non-military career in the country that offers that power, the use of deadly force, yet its practice remains un-monitored on a national scale and in most states around the country.

While the FBI keeps information annually on hate crimes, aggravated assault and officers killed in the line of duty there is no complete database tracking the police’s use of force.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics has an ‘Arrest-Related Death Report’ but law offices around the country aren’t required to fill it out and a lot of them don’t. As the report notes, Georgia, Maryland and Montana didn’t submit one report for six years.

Now, in the off chance your city or state does compile the information, history says you won’t like the results.

“What we found was a pattern or practice of systemic deficiencies that have pervaded the Albuquerque Police Department for many years.”

Back in April the DOJ investigated the Albuquerque Police Department’s use of force after the APD shot and killed an armed homeless man. They found the officers “too frequently use deadly force.”

“Hey! Hey! Hey! Put the knife down!” Put the knife down! Put the knife down!

A similar investigation was conducted in Seattle, where the Department of Justice ruled that when theSeattle Police Department used force, it was done in an unconstitutional and excessive manner, nearly 20 percent of the time.

And in St. Louis, where Michael Brown was killed, a similar report from 2012. (Video via MSNBC)
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch“On a straight per capita basis, St. Louis officers fired up to eight times more often than others. … From January 2007 through Sept. 30, 2011, the department cleared more than 96 percent of the shootings by officers.”

After a long night of unrest in St. Louis county, it seems the FBI will open a parallel investigation of the shooting but unlike most violence in and around the country this investigation will not be placed in a broader context or a broader conversation because the information simply isn’t there. (Video via CNN)

The video contains images from Getty Images. 


 

 To Provoke and Suppress: The Military Occupation of Ferguson Missouri

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/to-provoke-and-suppress

-the-military-occupation-of-ferguson-missouri/

8-13-2014 8-06-55 AMBy William Norman Grigg

“Bring it, you f*****g animals! Bring it!” taunted a tonsured thug in the employ of the Ferguson, Missouri Police Department during protests over the police killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown. According to Dorian Johnson, who witnessed the killing from just a few feet away, the incident began when a still-unidentified officer hurled a similar taunt at the two of them from a patrol car.

“Get the f**k on the sidewalk!” the officer reportedly snarled at the young men from his patrol vehicle. Johnson told the officer that they had nearly arrived at his home, which was their destination. The officer then slammed on his brakes, threw his vehicle into reverse — nearly hitting the pedestrians, and growled, “What’d you say?”

According to Johnson’s account, the cop began to exit his vehicle, but his door slammed into Brown. At roughly the same time, the uniformed assailant grabbed the terrified 18-year-old by his neck. As Brown tried to escape, Johnson testifies, the officer repeatedly sneered, “I’m gonna shoot you.”

The first of several gunshots rang out a few seconds later. Brown and Johnson turned and fled. The officer fired a second shot at the fleeing victims, hitting Brown, who fell to the ground with his hands in the air, pleading: “I don’t have a gun — stop shooting!” The assailant fired several more shots, killing the unarmed teenager outside an apartment complex. His body was left about 35 feet from the vehicle, surrounded by empty casings from the officer’s gun. Brown was unarmed.

Police officials are peddling the claim that Brown supposedly “assaulted” his killer and attempted to grab the officer’s gun. Eyewitnesses, particularly Johnson, dispute that claim. Even if this were true, however, Johnson’s account would indicate that Brown acted in self-defense, seeking to disarm someone who had threatened to shoot him without cause. There is no dispute that Brown was unarmed and attempting to surrender when he was fatally shot.

A crowd that gathered at the scene of the killing grew into a protest that extended through Saturday evening, and a protest march the following day. More than 100 officers from 15 police agencies converged on the neighborhood to confront the protesters. One officer described the scene as a “war zone.” A group of violent people group hived off from the protests and attacked local businesses, including a QuickTrip convenience store. Predictably, the riot police who had assembled to “restore order” by suppressing the protests did nothing to protect private property. That role was carried out by local businessmen bearing arms in their own defense.

Many black residents of Ferguson regard themselves as living under a military occupation, subject to the whims of violent, uniformed strangers who can detain, abduct, or kill them on a whim. The reported behavior of the officer who killed Michael Brown — and the documented behavior of the officer who was caught on film taunting the protesters — would tend to validate that perception.

10:42 am on August 12, 2014Email William Norman Grigg

The Best of William Norman Grigg

10 13 11 flagbar

 

THE BASTARDY OF MARTIAL LAW

August 9th, 2014 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin264.htm

PART 1 and 2

3-7-2013 1-48-29 PM

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
August 9, 2014

NewsWithViews.com

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.

PART 2

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.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

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

10 13 11 flagbar

 


SEO Powered By SEOPressor