Categories » ‘Constitution’
September 9th, 2014 by olddog
By Richard Ebeling
Proud to be an American: What Should It Mean?
September 09, 2014
Editorial By Richard Ebeling
America! For more than two hundred years the word has represented hope, opportunity, a second chance and freedom. In America the accident of a man’s birth did not serve as an inescapable weight that dictated a person’s fate or that of his family. The individual owned his own life and was free to shape it as his own mind guided him.
Once a newcomer stepped on American soil he left the political tyrannies and economic barriers of the “old world” behind. A willingness to work hard and to bear the risks of one’s own decisions, the possession of a spirit of enterprise and a little bit of luck were the keys to the doors of success in their “new world” home.
American Spirit of Independence, Innovation and Benevolence
Visitors from Europe traveling to America in the 19th century, Frenchmen like Alexis de Tocqueville and Michel Chevalier, marveled at the energy and adaptability of the ordinary American. An American paid his own way, took responsibility for his actions and showed versatility in the face of change, often switching his occupation, profession, or trade several times during his life and frequently moving about from one part of the country to another.
What’s more, individual Americans demonstrated a generous spirit of benevolence and voluntary effort to assist those who had fallen upon hard times, as well as to deal with a wide variety of common community services in their cities, towns and villages.
Those foreign observers of American life noted that no man bowed to another because of the hereditary accident of birth. Each man viewed himself as good as any other, to be judged on the basis of his talents and abilities as well as his character and conduct as an individual human being.
Even the scar of slavery that blemished the American landscape through more than half of the 19th century stood out as something inherently inconsistent and untrue to the vision and conception of a society of free men laid down by the Founding Fathers. The logic of liberty meant that slavery would eventually have to end, in one way or another, if the claim of freedom for all was not to remain confronted with a cruel hypocrisy to the ideal.
A Land of Free, Self-Made Citizens
What a glorious country this America was. Here was a land of free men who were able to pursue their dreams and fulfill their peaceful desires. They were free men who could put their own labor to work, acquire property, accumulate wealth and fashion their own lives. They associated on the basis of freedom of exchange, and benefited each other by trading their talents through a network of division of labor that was kept in order through the competitive processes of market-guided supply and demand.
In this competitive marketplace, the creative entrepreneurial spirit was set free. Every American was at liberty to try his hand, if he chose, to start his own business and devise innovative ways to offer new and better products to others in the market, through which he hoped to earn his living. No man was bond to the soil upon which he was born or tied to an occupation or profession inherited from his ancestors. Every individual had an opportunity to be the master of his own fate, with the freedom to move where inclination led him and choose the work that seemed most profitable and attractive.
The Turn Toward Collectivism
Then something began to happen in America. The socialist and collectivist ideas that were growing in influence in Europe during the last decades of the 19th century began to spread over to the United States. Two generations of young American scholars went off to study in Europe, particularly in Imperial Germany, in the 1880s, 1890s and early 1900s. They became imbued with socialist and state paternalistic conceptions, especially the interventionist and welfare statist ideas that were being taught at the universities in Bismarck’s Germany.
These scholars came back to the United States enthusiastic about their newly learned ideas, convinced that the “negative” idea of freedom dominant in America – an idea of freedom that argued that government’s role was only to secure each person in his individual right to life, liberty and property – needed to be replaced by a more “positive” notion of freedom.
Government should not merely protect citizens from violence and fraud. It should guarantee their health care and retirement pensions; it should regulate their industry and trade, including their wages and conditions of work. The government needed to secure the members of society from all the uncertainties of life, “from cradle to grave” – a phrase that was first popularized during this time.
These European-trained students and academics soon filled the teaching positions in the colleges and universities around the country; they occupied a growing number of jobs in the federal and state bureaucracies; they became the fashionable and “progressive” forward- looking authors of books and magazine articles; they came to dominate the culture of ideas in America.
The Rationale of Relativist Change
How did they sway an increasing number of Americans? They asked people to look around them and observe the radical changes in technologies and styles of life. They pointed to the rapid shift from the countryside to growing urban areas. And they asked, how could such a transformed and transforming society remain wedded to the ideas of men who had lived so long ago, in the 18th century? How could a great and growing country be tied down to a Constitution written for a bygone era?
The Constitution, these “progressives” argued, had to reflect the changing times – it had to be a “living” and “evolving” document. Progress, for these proselytizers of Prussian paternalism, required a new political elite who would guide and lead the nation into a more collectivist future.
The Fruits of Collectivism in America
The fruits of their work are, now, after well over a century, all around us. At the beginning of the 20th century all levels of government in the United States took in taxes around 8 percent of the people’s wealth and income. Now all levels of government extract in many cases over fifty percent of our earnings, in one way or another.
One hundred years ago, government hardly regulated and controlled any of the personal and commercial affairs of the American citizenry. Now, government’s hand intrudes into every corner of our private, business and social affairs. Indeed, it is hard to find one area of our daily lives that does not pass through the interventionist sieve of state management, oversight, restriction and command.
Perhaps worst of all, too many of our fellow Americans have become accustomed to and, indeed, demanding of government protection or subsidy of their personal and economic affairs. We are increasingly no longer free, self-supporting individuals who solely make our own ways through the peaceful transactions and exchanges of the marketplace.
We have become collective “interest groups” who lobby and pressure those in political office for favors and privileges at the expense of our neighbors. And the political officeholders are only too happy to grant these political gifts to those who supply campaign contributions and votes as the avenue to their own desires for power and control over those whom they claim to serve.
It is sometimes said: “But we are still the freest country in the world. Our wealth and standard of living are the envy of tens of millions all around the globe. We should be proud of what and who we are.”
The Standard for Judging America
Our present greatness in terms of these things, however, is only relative to how much farther other countries have gone down the path of government paternalism and regulation during these past one hundred years.
The benchmark of comparison should not be America in relation to other countries in the contemporary world. The standard by which we should judge our freedom should be how much freer the American people were from the stranglehold of government more than one hundred years ago, before those proselytizers of paternalism began to change the political and cultural character of the United States.
By this standard, today’s American people are extremely unfree in many aspects of their life. Of course, there have been important, valuable and even essential economic, social and cultural improvements for many individuals and groups in American society, who one hundred years ago still suffered from various degrees of racial, social or ethic bigotry and politically enforced discrimination. Many of these wrongs are now gone, or at least far less than in that earlier time.
But the fact remains that over many areas of our personal, social and especially economic activities we have all become increasingly wards of the state. And like the convict who has spent so many years in prison that he is afraid of being released and no longer having his jail keepers to tell him what to do and how to live, we are fearful of even the thought of a life without government caring for us, protecting us, subsidizing us, guiding us and educating us.
Loss of Understanding Liberty
Too many in the older generation in America have lost their understanding of what freedom means and why constitutionally limited government is both necessary and desirable. And the vast majority of the young have never been taught in our government-run schools the ideas, ideals and political institutional foundations upon which this country of ours was created. They have been taught to think that there are no absolute truths or any important insights from long human experience concerning why individual freedom is a valuable and precious thing.
What those earlier German-trained political and cultural relativists set out to do in America at the beginning of the 20th century has been to a great extent accomplished. We are threatened with becoming a people who have no sense of an invariant nature of man and who possess no idea of those values and attitudes in the human character so necessary for preserving freedom and prosperity.
Most especially, there has been lost among too many any understanding or appreciation of the concept of individual rights, without which a free society is not sustainable in the long run. The collectivist mindsets of our time have weakened the most fundamental concept underlying the idea of individual rights:
That the individual has a right to live for himself, guided by his own reasoning and judgment, and that he should not be considered and treated as a physical or financial beast of burden expected to sacrifice his life and its potentials for a tribe, whether it is called “the nation,” the “social class,” the “race,” the “democratic majority,” or “mankind.”
Individual Rights are Changeless in a Changing World
The Founding Fathers were not unaware that “times change.” But in the whirlwind of life they saw that reason and experience could and had demonstrated that there were unchanging qualities to the human condition, grounded in the fundamental political idea of individual rights.
They understood the various mantles that tyranny could take on – including the cloak of false benevolence in the form of compulsory redistribution of wealth. They established a constitutional order that was meant to guard us from the plunder of violent and greedy men, while leaving each of us that wide latitude of personal and economic freedom in which we could find our own meanings for life, and adapt to new circumstances consistent with our conscience and concerns.
This is what made America great. This is what made a country in which individuals could say without embarrassment or conceit that they were “proud to be Americans.”
The task for those of us who have not yet lost that true sense of the meaning of freedom is to dedicate ourselves to restoring and refining that noble American ideal of individual rights and liberty. Let us work together to be the stewards of liberty so that freedom may, once again, rekindle its consistent and bright torch in the America of the 21st century.
Back when men were real men
By Chuck Yeager
Shifty volunteered for the airborne in WWII and served with Easy
Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, part of the 101st
Airborne Infantry. If you’ve seen Band of Brothers on HBO or the
History Channel, you know Shifty. His character appears in all 10
episodes, and Shifty himself is interviewed in several of them.
I met Shifty in the Philadelphia airport several years ago. I didn’t
know who he was at the time. I just saw an elderly gentleman having
trouble reading his ticket. I offered to help, assured him that he was
at the right gate, and noticed the “Screaming Eagle,” the symbol of
the 101st Airborne, on his hat.
Making conversation, I asked him if he’d been in the 101st Airborne
or if his son was serving. He said quietly that he had been in the
101st. I thanked him for his service, then asked him when he served,
and how many jumps he made.
Quietly and humbly, he said “Well, I guess I signed up in 1941 or so,
and was in until sometime in 1945 . . .” at which point my heart
At that point, again, very humbly, he said “I made the 5 training
jumps at Toccoa, and then jumped into Normandy . . . do you know
where Normandy is?” At this point my heart stopped.
I told him “yes, I know exactly where Normandy is, and I know what
D-Day was.” At that point he said “I also made a second jump into
Holland, into Arnhem.” I was standing with a genuine war hero …
and then I realized that it was June, just after the anniversary of
I asked Shifty if he was on his way back from France, and he said
“Yes…And it’s real sad because, these days, so few of the guys are
left, and those that are, lots of them can’t make the trip.” My heart
was in my throat and I didn’t know what to say.
I helped Shifty get onto the plane and then realized he was back in
coach while I was in First Class. I sent the flight attendant back to
get him and said that I wanted to switch seats. When Shifty came
forward, I got up out of the seat and told him I wanted him to have
it, that I’d take his in coach.
He said “No, son, you enjoy that seat. Just knowing that there are
still some who remember what we did and who still care is enough to
make an old man very happy.” His eyes were filling up as he said it.
And mine are brimming up now as I write this.
Shifty died on January l7, 2012, after fighting cancer.
There was no parade.
No big event in Staples Center.
No wall-to-wall, back-to-back 24/7 news coverage.
No weeping fans on television.
And that’s not right!
Let’s give Shifty his own memorial service, on line, in our own quiet way.
Please forward this email to everyone you know. Especially to the veterans.
Rest in peace, Shifty.
Chuck Yeager, Maj. General [ret.]
P.S. I think that it is amazing how the “media” chooses our “heroes” these days…
Elvis, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston & the like.
“SHIFTY” – an incredible American hero.
Please do me a favor and pass this on so that untold thousands can read it.
We owe no less to our REAL heroes.
September 8th, 2014 by olddog
By Chuck Baldwin
Published: Thursday, September 4, 2014
When I was a youngster, my dad told me, “Son, a policeman is your friend.” Through his jail and prison ministry, Dad became a personal friend of our county sheriff (two of them, as a matter of fact)–as well as scores of deputies and city police officers. For all of my life, I have taken Dad’s maxim to heart. In fact, for all of my teen years, law enforcement was my chosen profession. I wanted to go into law enforcement real bad. It took a divine call to Gospel ministry to change my plans.
Throughout my adult life, I have enjoyed the friendship of many peace officers. The county sheriff where I lived in Florida made me an honorary deputy sheriff. I still have the credentials to prove it. I count scores (and maybe hundreds) of law enforcement officers around the country as friends. In fact, there are scores of peace officers across the country that financially support my work. I have had kinfolk serve in various positions of law enforcement. Anyone who knows anything about me knows I have been a law and order guy all of my life.
I am as much of a red-blooded American patriot as one will find in this country. I believe in God, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. I believe in liberty, justice, and independence. I am a Christian and a pastor. Through my radio talk show and syndicated column, I have helped to elect many liberty-minded candidates to municipal, county, State, and federal offices. And, like Mike Huckabee who is a former pastor, I, too, ran for the office of President of the United States.
With the above said, it is extremely important that this letter be written, because so many honorable American traditions and customs are being radically and rapidly changed–including the philosophies, standard operating procedures, and rules of engagement of law enforcement. And the change is not for the better.
Let me just be blunt: ever since Ronald Reagan left office, both Republican and Democrat presidential administrations–along with both Republican and Democrat congresses–in Washington, D.C., are turning the United States of America into a giant Police State. And that means that our local and State police agencies are being transformed before our very eyes into the enforcement arm of this burgeoning Police State. And one of the biggest reasons for this growing threat to our liberties is that it seems that you–our local and State police officers and sheriff’s deputies–do not understand that you are the ones that are being used to create this nefarious Police State.
I am talking about otherwise honest and honorable men and women. I am talking about the friendly policeman, sheriff’s deputy, or State highway patrolman who lives across the street from us. I’m talking about the fellow Christian police officer we go to church with. It seems that the vast majority of you men and women in blue do not comprehend the way you are being used to create a Police State in our country. And until you awaken to this reality, nothing is going to be done to stop it.
The totalitarian regimes of history could not have succeeded in implementing their enslavements over the people without the submission and cooperation of the citizen-policemen within their countries. Nor can a Police State be constructed in America without your submission and cooperation. My concern is, the Police State is already being constructed in this country and most of you don’t seem to even realize it–or don’t want to realize it. In fact, some of you become angry with people like me when we try to warn the American people about it. This shows that you have already become acclimated and accepting of it.
Here is the problem: in today’s America, virtually every police agency and sheriff’s office is being dictated to, intimidated by, and bribed by the federal government. Much of the policies you operate under–and training you receive–comes straight out of the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Justice Department. If you are a police officer in a State or city that does not recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms, you are already the enforcement arm of draconian, dictatorial government. You routinely put people in jail or prison for merely exercising the fundamental, God-given right to keep and BEAR arms. How can you live with yourself?
The concern that you, our friends and neighbors in law enforcement, are being turned into agents of oppression is very justified. The warning signs are ubiquitous.
I was told by a Marine Corps officer, who was there, that last year Marines at Twentynine Palms, California, were asked in a survey if they were ordered to turn their weapons on the American citizenry for the purpose of gun confiscation, would they comply with the order. Sixty-six percent of them said yes, they would. Two-thirds! When this same question was asked of Marines at Twentynine Palms back in the 90s, 26% of the Marines said yes. This is a very disturbing trend.
How many of you men and women of law enforcement would respond similarly? Again, in states such as California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut–and in cities such as New York and Chicago–this is already standard operating procedure. People are routinely arrested for merely possessing a firearm, with no harm being inflicted or even threatened. Plus, all it takes is for some kind of riot or “national emergency,” and the rest of the Bill of Rights immediately go out the window.
Look at Boston after the marathon bombing. The city was turned instantly into a Nazi-style Police State. People’s homes were invaded without warrant; people were manhandled; police dogs were turned loose on people without cause; guns by the hundreds were pointed at the people of Boston by police. No occupying military force in the world was any more efficient at locking down a large city as were the police agencies of the city of Boston and the State of Massachusetts.
Look what happened in Ferguson, Missouri. Regardless of whether the shooting of the young man was justified or not (along with everyone else, I am waiting for a proper and thorough investigation to provide an honest answer), the way police reacted to, what was at first, lawful protests, was unconscionable. Policemen training their firearms on innocent American citizens, including journalists, and threatening to blow their brains out is NOT acceptable behavior in a free society. Police agencies using military vehicles and military attack aircraft against American citizens is NOT acceptable behavior in a free society. Police-state tactics only served to exacerbate and inflame the situation in Ferguson, not alleviate it.
I lived on the Gulf Coast when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. Police officers went door-to-door confiscating the firearms of law-abiding, innocent citizens in the aftermath of that storm. This was done while lawless gangs were allowed to freely roam the streets of the city inflicting merciless atrocities on vulnerable residents. And the State of Louisiana is one of our more gun-friendly states.
Look at what happens more and more frequently at routine traffic stops. My mother-in-law (who is in her eighties) was recently pulled over for a routine traffic stop here in Montana. (She must have been pulled over for driving too SLOW.) Two officers came out of the police car, and one of them was actually pointing his pistol at her head. Her vehicle was not suspected of having been part of a felony. They ran her plates. They knew who she was. To point a gun at a harmless, innocent senior citizen–who is suspected of no violent crime–is the mark of a burgeoning Police State.
Policemen training their weapons on the public have become almost routine nowadays. Even many minor incidents will often result in SWAT teams being deployed. In fact, Eastern Kentucky University professor Peter Kraska documents research showing, “There has been more than a 1,400% increase in the total number of police paramilitary deployments, or callouts, between 1980 and 2000. Today, an estimated 45,000 SWAT-team deployments are conducted yearly among those departments surveyed; in the early 1980s there was an average of about 3,000.”
Militarization And Policing–It’s Relevance To 21st Century
Has violent crime increased 1,400 percent during that time? Not at all. In fact, for the last several years, violent crime has been decreasing to the point that currently it is at record lows. So, how can the need for SWAT teams increase by 1,400 percent? It is the result of Washington, D.C., deliberately militarizing our police agencies. Give them military equipment, weapons, training, etc., and they will start acting like soldiers not policemen.
It all begins with philosophy. The philosophy being drilled into police officers today is that of an “us versus them” mentality. In the eyes of a Police State, we are not citizens to be protected; we are enemy targets who are guilty until proven innocent. Plus, the phrase that we hear constantly repeated today by law enforcement personnel and spokesmen is “the safety of the officer.”
Wait a minute! The sworn duty of a police officer is to obey the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights), which is designed to protect the rights, liberties, and safely of the American people. The role of the police officer is to protect the safety of the public. Any man or woman who volunteers to put on a badge should be consciously willing to put his or her life on the line to protect the public. That’s what their job is all about. And no one forces them to take this risk; they take it of their own volition. Of course you men and women of law enforcement want to go home at the end of your shift. But so do the people of your community.
Policemen are not the only ones who face hostility and threats of violence. I have had my life threatened too many times to count. I have been shot at. (I’ve talked with several retired police officers who have told me that they never had to pull their gun during their entire career, nor were they ever fired at.) I have had my family threatened. And none of us wear Kevlar vests and helmets and can call backup with the push of a button (calling 911 is not the same as a policeman calling for back up–not even close).
If the safety of the officer is the primary duty of policemen, they should just shoot suspects on sight and eliminate the threat before it exists. And that is pretty much what they do in totalitarian countries. But this is America where the rule of law and the rights of the individual reign supreme. In a free country, people are judged to be innocent until proven guilty. Plus, the only lawful reason a police officer has to fire his weapon at someone is for the same reason that the rest of us can do so: for self-defense against an imminent threat to their (our) lives.
Over 5,000 American citizens have been shot and killed by police since 09/11/01. Based on official statistical data, we are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than we are by a terrorist. Currently, somewhere between 500-1,000 Americans are killed each year by policemen. By comparison, during 2012, 120 officers were killed in the line of duty.
“Despite far fewer officers dying in the line of duty compared with American citizens, police departments are not only increasing their use of protective and highly volatile gear, but are increasingly setting aside a portion of their budget to invest in new technology such as drones, night vision goggles, remote robots, surveillance cameras, license plate readers and armored vehicles that amount to unarmed tanks.”
U.S. Police Have Killed Over 5,000 Civilians Since 9/11
Sadly, police agencies and county attorney’s offices have a dismal record of thoroughly investigating police shootings (or even police brutality charges). Mostly, the word of the officer is accepted almost without question. Plus, it is common knowledge that many officers carry “throw down” weapons to alleviate incrimination. Furthermore, police officers are seldom willing to testify against a fellow officer–even when they know the officer has committed a crime.
It is past time that independent, citizen review boards with full investigative capability and with authority to begin disciplinary measures are required for all police shootings. I further recommend that every citizen install surveillance cameras inside their vehicles. Any government that thinks it needs to closely monitor our every move should be closely monitored by us.
A recent example of excessive use of force and the police-state mentality was prominently displayed in Boynton Beach, Florida. After questioning why the officers were ordering them around and starting to video-record the officers during a traffic stop, the policemen became enraged, began physically assaulting the young men, and one officer pointed his pistol at them threatening to immediately shoot them. Granted, the young men acted rudely and disrespectfully. But since when in America is cockiness and rudeness a potential death sentence?
But the worst part of the story came afterward when the chief of police issued a statement defending the conduct of the officers. Chief Jeffrey Katz viewed the video tape (recorded by a passenger in the car) and said the following: “When I watch this video, I don’t see a car full of young men who are behaving in a manner consistent with FEAR OF THE POLICE.” (Emphasis added)
‘I’ll Put A Round In Your A** So Quick’: Florida Police Chief Defends Cop Who Threatened To Shoot Young Black Man Because He Filmed His Partner Throwing Him On The Ground
Ladies and gentlemen, that is not the statement of an American peace officer; that is the statement of a Nazi Brown Shirt. This is what happens when Washington, D.C., turns our local and State law enforcement officers into quasi-military units from a national police force. The police chief and his officers were angry that the young men didn’t FEAR the police enough.
So, that’s it. We are supposed to FEAR the police? Really? Then, pray tell, who are the police supposed to fear? My father didn’t teach me to fear the police. He taught me to respect the police. And he taught me that the police were my friends. He did not teach me that I had to fear for my rights and my very life every time I’m pulled over for a traffic stop. And that’s not the way that Sheriff Cliff Arnold’s deputies behaved while I was growing up.
The Department of Homeland Security and Defense Department are all but forcing local and State police agencies to accept military equipment, tanks, attack helicopters, machine guns, and more. Last year alone, the Pentagon gave half a billion dollars of military gear to local police agencies. They are supplying suggested training procedures, complete with lists of the people whom they (Washington, D.C.) considers “dangerous.”
Most of the intelligence that police agencies receive comes from the DHS-Fusion centers. Reading these memos is like reading the propaganda being spewed out by the radical, ultra-left wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). And in truth, much of the information that the Fusion centers distribute are carbon copies of SPLC propaganda.
For example, when I first moved to Montana four years ago, a local police lieutenant sent a memo to the city’s police officers warning them about me. The memo accused me of things like being part of potentially dangerous militia groups, etc. He took words from off of my website and said they showed that I was an “extremist.” What words, you ask? Words like: Liberty Fellowship, Black Regiment Pastors, Patriot Businesses, etc. Where did the lieutenant get that idea? He didn’t know me from Job’s turkey. He got it through a DHS Fusion center memo.
I later had a lunch meeting with the police lieutenant in the presence of a retired police officer and tried to assure him as to my character and integrity. I even showed him my honorary sheriff’s deputy credentials. He admitted that he had not even read the content of my website and was merely going by the titles, which leads me to believe he may not have even logged onto the website at all but was merely taking the Fusion center report as “gospel.” And, no, as far as I know, he did not send out a retraction to his officers. Thankfully, I have had several policemen and sheriff’s deputies tell me personally how disgusted they were at the lieutenant’s unfounded character assassination against me and that they appreciate the work I am doing.
In fact, I have had countless police officers and sheriff’s deputies around the country write and tell me about similar memos they have received from DHS. I have even had deputies drive up to me and show me the memos they had received on the computers in their squad cars with the same kind of propaganda.
My friends in law enforcement, can you not see what is happening? Can you not see that you are being brainwashed into a police-state mentality where constitutional rights are seldom considered, especially in emergencies? All the feds must do is create some sort of national or local emergency and, presto, you become instruments of a Police State. Do you not see the trend?
By an overwhelming majority, your fellow citizens are NOT your enemies. We are your neighbors, fellow church members, etc. Are you going to let the machinations of would-be tyrants in Washington, D.C., and even in your own State and community, turn the honorable profession of peace officer into an “us versus them” Gestapo-like Police State?
True story: here in Montana, a small town police officer, who is assigned to the traffic division, was asked to speak to a church group. Mostly, he gives out traffic citations for minor violations. As he began his remarks, he said, “I am a cop; I work every day among the dregs of society.” Really? People who get parking tickets and speeding tickets are the “dregs” of society? That, my friends, is the mark of an unfolding police-state mentality. And, remember, this is from the heart and lips of a professing Christian.
As honest and honorable as most of you men and women of law enforcement are, it is time that you come to grips with the fact that the current system emanating from Washington, D.C., controlling the attitudes, training, and tactics of police agencies is practically a carbon copy of history’s most notorious totalitarian regimes. And if the Nuremberg trials proved anything, they proved that “I was just following orders” is never justification for ignoring the greater moral laws of God and Nature.
My dad told me that the policeman is my friend. I would still like to believe that; but it behooves my friends in law enforcement to prove it to me by personally making up your minds to vehemently resist the current trend of militarizing your profession and of turning our once-free republic into a Police State. After all, you want us to be your friends, too, right?
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 3rd, 2014 by olddog
By Paul Craig Roberts
Herbert E. Meyer, a nutcase who was a special assistant to the CIA director for a period during the Reagan administration, has penned an article calling for Russian President Putin’s assassination. If we have “ to get him out of the Kremlin feet-first with a bullet hole in the back of his head, that would be okay with us.” http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/how_to_solve_the_putin_problem.html
As the crazed Meyer illustrates, the insanity that Washington has released upon the world knows no restraint. Jose Manual Barroso, installed as Washington’s puppet as European Commission President, misrepresented his recent confidential telephone conversation with Russia’s President Putin by telling the media that Putin issued a threat: “If I want to, I can take Kiev in two weeks.”
Clearly, Putin did not issue a threat. A threat would be inconsistent with Putin’s entire un-provocative approach to the strategic threat that Washington and its NATO puppets have brought to Russia in Ukraine. Russia’s permanent representative to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, said that if Barroso’s lie stands, Russia will make public the full recording of the conversation
Anyone familiar with the disparity between the Ukrainian and Russian militaries knows full well that it would take the Russian military 14 hours, not 14 days, to take all of Ukraine. Just remember what happened to the American and Israeli trained and equipped Georgian Army when Washington set its stupid Georgian puppets on South Ossetia. The American and Israeli trained and equipped Georgian army collapsed under Russian counterattack in 5 hours.
The lie that Washington’s puppet Barroso told was not worthy of a serious person. But where in Europe is there a serious person in power? Nowhere. The few serious people are all out of power. Consider the NATO Secretary General, Anders Rasmussen. He was a prime minister of Denmark who saw he could rise beyond Denmark by serving as Washington’s puppet. As prime minister he strongly supported Washington’s illegal invasion of Iraq, declaring that “we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.” Of course, the fool didn’t know any such thing, and why would it matter if Iraq did have such weapons. Many countries have weapons of mass destruction.
According to the rule that anyone who serves Washington is elevated, the cipher Rasmussen was elevated.
The problem with elevating unprincipled fools is that they risk the world for their career. Rasmussen has now put the entirety of Eastern and Western Europe at risk of annihilation. Rasmussen has announced the creation of a blitzkrieg spearhead force capable of blitzkrieg attack on Russia. What Washington’s puppet calls “the Readiness Action Plan” is justified as a response to “Russia’s aggressive behavior in Ukraine.”
Rasmussen’s “lightening spearhead force” would be instantly wiped out along with every European capital. What kind of idiot provokes a nuclear superpower in this way?
Rasmussen asserts “Russia’s aggressive behavior” but has no evidence of it. Russia has stood on the sidelines while Washington’s puppet government in Kiev has shelled and bombed civilian housing, hospitals, schools and issued a constant stream of lies against Russia. Russia denied the requests of the now independent eastern and southern provinces of Ukraine, former Russian territories, to be reunited with Russia. As readers know, I regard Putin’s decision as a mistake, but events might prove me wrong and that is OK with me. For now, the fact is that every act of aggressive behavior is the result of the US and EU support of the Kiev nazis. It is the Ukrainian nazi militias that are attacking civilians in the former Russian territories of eastern and southern Ukraine. A number of regular Ukrainian military units have defected to the independent republics.
Yes, nazis. Western Ukraine is the home of the Ukrainian SS division that fought for Hitler. Today the militias organized by the Right Sector and other right-wing political organizations wear the nazi insignia of the Ukrainian SS divisions. These are the people that Washington and the EU support. If the Ukrainian nazis could win against Russia, which they cannot, they would turn on the stupid West, just as has the Washington-funded ISIS that the dumbshits in Washington unleashed on Libya and Syria. Now ISIS is remaking the Middle East, and Washington appears helpless.
William Binney, a former high level official in the US National Security Agency, along with colleagues from the CIA and military intelligence services, have written to German chancellor Merkel advising her to beware of Obama’s lies at the upcoming NATO summit in Wales. The US intelligence officials advise Merkel to remember Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” and don’t again be deceived, this time into conflict with Russia. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-01/ex-nsa-director-us-intelligence-veterans-write-open-letter-merkel-avoid-all-out-ukra
The question is: who does Merkel represent? Washington or Germany? So far Merkel has represented Washington, not German business interests, not the German people, and not Germany’s interests as a country. Here is a protest in Dresden where a crowd prevents Merkel’s speech with shouts of “kriegstreiber” (warmonger), “liar, liar,” and “no war with Russia.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wSMhGE_Mpk
My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always do what Washington wants replied: “Money, we give them money.” “Foreign aid?” I asked. “No, we give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale, We bought them. They report to us.” Perhaps this explains Tony Blair’s $50 million fortune one year out of office.
The Western media, the largest whorehouse on earth, is desperate for war. The editorial board of the Washington Post, now a trophy newspaper in the hands of Amazon.com’s billionaire owner, ran an editorial on August 31 that projected all of Washington’s (and the Post’s) lies upon Putin.
Amazon.com’s owner might know how to market products on the Internet, but he is hopeless when it comes to running a newspaper. His editors at the Washington Post have made his trophy a worldwide laughing stock.
Here are the mindless accusations against Putin from the idiots that the billionaire put in charge of his trophy newspaper:
Putin, bitterly resentful at the loss of power from the Soviet collapse, has “resurrected the tyranny of the Big Lie” in order to reconstitute the Russian Empire.
“Russian sponsored militias in Ukraine” are responsible for the “shoot-down of the Malaysian airliner in July.” The “Russian state-controlled media” lied and misrepresented to the Russian people the party responsible for downing the airliner.
“In the absence of independent and free reporting, few Russians realize that Russian soldiers and armaments are in action in eastern Ukraine, albeit (as in Crimea) in uniforms and vehicles stripped of their identifying insignia and license plates. With no free media, Russians are left to fend for themselves against a firestorm of falsehoods.”
“Mr. Putin’s Big Lie shows why it is important to support a free press where it still exists and outlets like Radio Free Europe that bring the truth to people who need it.”
As a former Wall Street Journal editor, I can say with complete confidence that such extraordinary propaganda posing as an editorial would have resulted in the immediate firing of all concerned. In my days on the Congressional staff, the Washington Post was regarded as a CIA asset. Today the Post has sunk far below this status.
I have seen much media propaganda in my day, but this Washington Post editorial takes the cake. The editorial shows that either the editorial writers are completely ignorant or they are completely corrupt and also assume that their readers are completely ignorant. If Russian military units were in action in eastern Ukraine, the situation would be precisely as Alexander Zakharchenkohttp://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/08/30/west-greatest-cause-war-human-history-stands-stripped-legitimacy-paul-craig-roberts/ and Dmitry Orlov describe.http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/01/can-tell-whether-russia-invaded-ukraine/ Ukraine would no longer exist. Ukraine would again be part of Russia where it was for centuries prior to Washington taking advantage of the Soviet collapse to tear Ukraine away from Russia.
The question before us is: how long will Russia’s patience last with the West’s enormous lies and provocations? No matter how restrained Russia is, Russia is accused of the worst. Therefore, Russia might as well inflict the worst.
At what point will the Russian government decide that Washington’s mendacity, and that of its European puppets and corrupt Western media, render hopeless Russia’s efforts to resolve the situation with diplomacy and un-provocative behavior? As Russia is constantly accused falsely of invading Ukraine, when will the Russian government decide that as Western propaganda has established that Russia has invaded Ukraine and has imposed sanctions and new military bases on Russia’s borders because of the alleged invasion, Russia might as well go ahead and rid themselves of the problem Washington has brought to Russia and invade Ukraine?
There is nothing that NATO could do about it if Russia decides that Ukraine in Washington’s hands is too much of a strategic threat to Russia and reincorporates Ukraine again into Russia where it has resided for centuries. Any NATO force sent would be instantly wiped out. The German population, remembering the consequences of war with Russia, would overthrow Washington’s puppet government. NATO and the EU would collapse as Germany departed the absurd construct that serves Washington’s interest at the expense of Europe.
Once this happens, the world will have peace. But not until.
For those who care to understand how the land of lies works, Washington’s puppet government in Kiev attributes the defeat of its military forces by the Donetsk Republic to the presence in the Donetsk army of Russian military units. This is the propaganda that has gone out to western Ukraine and to the presstitute western media, a collection of whores that echo the propaganda without any investigation whatsoever. However, Kiev has a different story for the IMF. Kiev cannot receive IMF money with which to pay off its Western creditors if Ukraine is at war. Therefore, Ukraine tells the IMF the opposite story: Russia has not attacked Ukraine. http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukie-doubleplusgooddoublethink.html
The Western media remains uninterested in any facts. Just the lies. Only the lies.
The Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, Fox “news,” Die Welt, the French press, the British press all plead: “please Washington give us more sensational lies that we can trumpet. Our circulation needs it. Who cares about war and the human race if only we can regain financial stability?”
It shames America that so many of our citizens are biting at the bit to have another war, when anyone with more than an inch between their ears knows this is a set-up to destroy the International Monetary System any allow the Banking Cartel to force a Global currency on the world. What else can be done when the Industrial Nations grind to a halt after their infrastructure is destroyed, and every nation is bankrupt? It seems that America has already accepted defeat, and wants a dictator to lead them. They could care less about all of the human misery a global war will cause. Obuma would suck the hair off of a rotting carcass if the Bankers told him to.
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 29th, 2014 by olddog
By Patrick Wood
The New York Times blasted out the headline yesterday, Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty. In short, Obama will use one or more Executive Orders to entangle the U.S. in a global treaty on climate change, without consulting the U.S. Senate. However, the Constitution requires the Senate to vote on all treaties and the bar is high: It takes a two-third vote to approve.
The Constitution is out. The Rule of law has collapsed. Reflexive law has surpassed it all. The balance of this article will show you how and why.
If you are saying “Huh?”, you had better read every word of this report and figure it out, because this might be the most important shard of evidence ever revealed about the wrenching transformation of American society.
Obama’s principal adviser and “negotiator” on this so-called climate accord is John Podesta, and this whole “treaty-by-executive-order debacle can be laid squarely at his feet. Until just recently, Podesta was a member of the Trilateral Commission. He was Bill Clinton’s chief-of-staff in the 1990s and the original instigator of Executive Branch policy of using Executive Orders to bypass Congress on certain issues. Clinton, also a Trilateral member, created many such EO’s to side-step Congress, and Congress unfortunately let him get away with it. Well, Podesta is back: I have stated publicly on several radio programs since his recent appointment to Senior Policy Adviser To The President that Podesda is the most dangerous man in Washington.
Enough about Podesda. Just remember that he is the prime mover in what I am about to reveal.
The NYT article states,
To sidestep that requirement [of a 2/3 Senate vote], President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.
Several weeks ago, while doing some research for my upcoming book, Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation, a book had caught my eye and so I impulsively bought it. The title was Greening NAFTA by Markell and Knox and published in 2003 by Stanford University Press. According to the book, there was a supplemental agreement to NAFTA (1992) called the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which established the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The CEC was“the first international organization created to address the environmental aspects of economic integration.” (1)
I intended to put the book in my library for some future date, but since I more recently had a five hour plane flight and needed something to do, I hastily threw it into my briefcase on the way out the door. On the first leg of the flight, I skimmed the book, underlining a few things, but otherwise it generally put me to sleep. On the return flight 10 days later, I picked it up again and flipped the pages thinking it would be more of the same, only to fall on a chapter toward the back titled, “Coordinating Land and Water Use in the San Pedro River Basin.”The San Pedro River is in southern Arizona, and it just so happened that I had owned a ranch on that same river when I first got out of college in 1968, and so I knew the area like the back of my hand. Now I was really interested!
The San Pedro River Basin was the first instance of CEC involvement because it was a small and relatively unimportant area, and because the headwaters of the San Pedro River originated in Mexico, just south of the U.S. border. Greening NAFTA explains,
Under Articles 13 and 14, the Secretariat can accept and review citizen submissions alleging that one of the three countries is not enforcing its existing environmental laws. (2)
In fact, the San Pedro submission (i.e., complaint) came not from a citizen at all, but from the radical left-wing environmental group based out of Tucson, theSouthwest Center for Biological Diversity (SCBD). The mere accusation that the area was in violation of their preconceived ideas of normalcy was enough to set off a chain of events that changed the San Pedro River Basin forever. Here is where the plot thickens. The authors explain,
Article 13 can be characterized as an example of postmodern, “soft” or “reflexive” international law because it seeks to influence public and private behavior without the threat of the enforcement of traditional, sanction-based “hard” law. (3)
I had only heard (obviously not understanding) the term “soft law” before, but what is “reflexive law?” The author treats them as synonyms. After a another round of digging, I found the fountainhead of reflexive law in the following article, Towards a Theory of Law and Societal Development, written by a professor of international law in Sweden:
Another sociologist of law who have dealt with legal development in stages is Günther Teubner. He has in an article in Law and Society Review 1983 put forward a theory that the law moves from formal to substantive law and onwards to something he calls reflexive law. Teubner agrees with Nonet-Selznick that we have passed a stage of formal law, which is consistent with the concept of autonomous law, and after that have entered a stadium of material law. Teubner does think the transition from formal to material law should be divided into two types. A “genuine” material law which is used to realize specific, concrete values, what Teubner calls for substantive law and another type of material law which Teubner has labeled reflexive law. This latter legal form is characterized by constitutive and procedural rules that put limits on legal developments without specifying concrete material values to be realized. Teubner summarizes the characteristics of reflexive law by putting it in relief to the formal and substantive law as follows:
Reflexive law affects the quality of outcomes without determining that the agreements will be reached. Unlike formal law, it does not take prior distributions as given. Unlike Substantive law it does not hold that certain contractual outcomes are desirable. (4) [Emphasis added]
So we see that reflexive law is just over 30 years old, and yet it has since become the principal means by which to collapse the Rule of Law, based on actual laws, in the United States and in the Western world. Furthermore, reflexive law starts without first determining exactly what agreement will be reached, but pushes forward anyway to see how far the participants can be pushed.
Hard law, which we are all familiar with, specifies clear outcomes when it is violated. If you speed, you get a ticket. If you commit armed robbery, you go to jail for a specified period. This is the traditional Rule of Law upon which our Republic and Constitution is based. Laws are created by a Legislative Branch, executed by the Executive Branch and adjudicated by the Judicial Branch.
Greening NAFTA now explains exactly what reflexive law entails:
Reflexive law tries to align systematically legal rules with norms that the relevant actors will internalize. It builds on the realization that the reasons why people actually obey law ultimately lie outside formal adjudication and the power of the state to enforce rules. (5)
Again, reflexive law starts out with desired outcomes, created by unelected and unaccountable actors, for which there are no laws. Yes, they could appeal to Congress to create legislation, as would be required by the Constitution. At the end of the reflexive process, described below, the actual outcomes depend on how well the stakeholders “internalize” what is proposed. In other words, there is no actual legal process at all, but rather a jawboning process that cons actors into compliance.
“Information disclosure” is a principal policy instrument of reflexive law. That is, the analysis produced is presented with its “recommended outcomes.” Public meetings are then held to build consensus between individual citizens and other “actors”. In the case of the San Pedro River Basin study, the CEC enlisted the University of Arizona’s Udall Center to hold these public meetings. In sum, there was zero consensus among actual citizens of the area, as the book simply notes, “Public comment was emotionally divided on the reduction of irrigated agriculture.” (6) Really? In fact, the farmers and ranchers in the area were beyond livid, but the real purpose of the public meetings had nothing to do with getting their voluntary consensus. Rather, the meetings were designed to publicly abuse them until they submitted.
The Greening NAFTA authors are very blunt about this:
This experience reveals two powerful incentives at work: shame and thedesire to be virtuous while saving money or increasing profit margins. In a post-Holocaust world, human rights NGOs have effectively used shame to induce compliance with universal human rights norms. Also, voluntary pollution reduction has been achieved when it is internally profitable for an industry to reduce its discharges or an industry anticipates increased regulatory or public pressure to reduce them from the disclosure, such as through public shaming. Shaming works well with pollution, especially toxic pollution, because it draws on deep, perhaps irrational, fears of exposure to the risk of serious illness and an innate abhorrence of bodily injury.(7)
What of the farmers and ranchers who refused to be shamed into consensus during the Udall Center public hearings? After all, they had zero input into the CEC’s study and subsequent “recommendations”, nor were they consulted prior to the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity’s original complaint. Well, they were simply offered other incentives that they were helpless to refuse or refute:
Two concrete incentives that have successfully induced landowner cooperation under the U.S. Endangered Species Act are fear of a worse regulatory outcome and immunity from liability for changed conditions.(8) [Emphasis added]
In the end, the farmers and ranchers succumbed to the reflexive law process when the regulatory bullies showed up with threats of what would happen to them if they did not buckle under to the CEC’s demands. These actors included the Bureau of Land Management, manager of the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA) and the U.S. Department of the Army. Accompanying them were several NGO’s, including the Nature Conservancy and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity. The federal threat was “We will bankrupt you with regulations.” The NGO threat was “We will bankrupt you with lawsuits.”
This is “reflexive law” and it is 100 percent antithetical to the American Republic, the Rule of Law, the U.S. Constitution and the entirety of Western civilization. Because compliance has always been posited as voluntary, nobody has been alarmed enough to look any further at it. However, I will point out that almost every global imposition has been based on the voluntary aspect of reflexive law. Agenda 21 depended upon voluntary compliance, which is often referred to as “soft law” among its critics, who have not perceived the deeper meaning of reflexive law. Common Core education standards were introduced as a voluntary program. Sustainable Development in general is always proposed to be a voluntary program. All of these are based on reflexive law. But, once it gets its tentacles into your personal property and local community, you will be involuntarily squeezed until you “voluntarily” comply. There is no legal process available to defend yourself, your property, or your rights.
Now let’s examine the NYT article mentioned at the start of this article.
To sidestep that requirement [two-third vote of the Senate], President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path. (9) [Emphasis added]
Did your alarm bells ring? Obama is delivering us into an international reflexive law treaty that has no actual legal basis in fact, and that is why they think they are justified in ignoring the Senate. After all, the Senate deals with “hard law” while Podesta and gang deals with “reflexive law.” Furthermore, they will use the principal “name and shame” policy tool of reflexive law to smoke out the resistance for public shaming. Subsequently, from what you now know about how reflexive law is enforced in the end, those holdouts will be offered a “deal that they cannot refuse”, namely, much worse regulatory outcomes, international lawsuits and entanglement, trade sanctions, etc.
The NYT elaborates further:
American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.
Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies — but would voluntarily pledge to specific levels of emissions cuts and to channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change. Countries might then be legally obligated to report their progress toward meeting those pledges at meetings held to identify those nations that did not meet their cuts. (10) [Emphasis added]
There is not a single shred of doubt that anything other than reflexive law is pictured here. It spits in the face of traditional Rule of Law that our country was founded upon and operated under until 1983 when this treasonous legal system was conceived — by a German, no less. For all intents and purposes, reflexive law has caused the utter collapse of Rule of Law as we know it.
Don’t even begin to think this is anything less than blatant, for the article concludes with the frank braggadocio :
“There’s some legal and political magic to this,” said Jake Schmidt, an expert in global climate negotiations with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. “They’re trying to move this as far as possible without having to reach the 67-vote threshold” in the Senate.(11) [Emphasis added]
Magic, indeed: Merriam-Webster defines magic as “the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand.”
To copycat Paul Harvey’s famous radio program sign-off, “Now you know… therest of the story.”
- Markell and Knox, Greening NAFTA (Stanford University Press, 2003) p. 2
- Ibid. p. 217
- Ibid. p. 218
- Håkan Hydén, Samuel Pufendorf Professor in Sociology of Law, Lund University, Sweden, November 2011
- Ibid. p. 231
- Ibid. p. 228
- Ibid. p. 231
- Ibid. p. 232
- Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty, New York Times, August 26, 2014
August 28th, 2014 by olddog
When a government no longer follows the rule of law, imposing instead it’s own law by decree – history teaches that a society becomes ruled by the gun.
Legitimate government bound by the rule of law has the moral authority to uphold the law and impose justice. A government the discards the rule of law, for it’s own rules and laws, no longer has any moral authority. As such, the rule of law is always replaced by the rule of the gun – either to force compliance with a government’s dictates and whims, or in resistance to the government’s dictates and whims. Regardless which is employed (usually both) – rivers of blood follow as history teaches that civil wars and conflicts are usually the most brutal.
Obama and his party (and to a minor degree the GOP leadership oligarchy) – are setting the stage for that exact consequence to be visited upon what used to be the home of the free.
What we are witnessing, is the devolution of the civil society into tyranny prompted by the incitement of anarchy. The stoking of unrest in Ferguson by the White House, it’s attorney general and assorted race pimps like Sharpton, illustrate this fact in the local sense.
In the larger sense, the Ruling Class pass laws upon the people that they absolve and exempt themselves, at the same time they use a corrupted judiciary to strike down the will of the people to impose the will of the Leftist State. This includes the domino fall of nearly every state’s Constitutional ban on Homosexual marriage or those laws limiting marriage to the biblical and natural law.
A despotic Executive who when not playing golf, decides what laws he will ignore and no longer enforce, while decreeing policy as law that contravenes existing law. This was once understood to be the definition of a dictatorship, but today the people are ignorant of facts, history and current events for the latest cultural fad via social networking. For a people fast asleep to what is happening to them, the awakening to the cage they are shackled to will be violent, as history teaches.
Arbitrary laws mean there is no longer any common respect for the law – by either the government, or those it demands to rule. Law is then determined by the end of a gun. By those seeking to impose compliance or by those resisting it. The cost of which is beyond the comprehension of most when one considers not just the violence – but the privation, starvation and brutality that lies in the wake of civil war.
But America is being shoved headfirst off the cliff by the man who holds the White House and those in government.
Rejecting The Rule Of Law Means Inviting The Rule Of Guns
Kurt Schlichter – Townhall.com
What is the alternative to the rule of law? We may be on the verge of re-learning that ancient lesson the hard way. Of course, those of us who is served in places where there was no law, where leftists and other aspiring totalitarians ignored the rules and norms of civil society, already know.
The alternative to the rule of law is the rule of power. And the rule of power is always the rule of men with guns.
The disgraceful indictment of Rick Perry in Texas is just the latest example of this trend, albeit one that carries the seeds of hope. The judicial lynching under way in Ferguson offers less reason for optimism – our disgrace of an Attorney General and that clown masquerading as Missouri’s governor are practically salivating at the idea of sacrificing the police officer on the altar of indignation, facts and law be damned.
Liberals are committed to destroying the rule of law because law, by treating all equally and recognizing their inalienable rights, frustrates their fascist impulses. This isn’t just another annoying manifestation of the left’s utter failure as functioning ideology. It’s a trend that should terrify everyone concerned with the state of our union.
History shows us where this leads. We now have a President, an alleged constitutional law professor, who believes that if the people’s elected representatives in Congress refuse to bend to his will he can just do what he likes anyway. At least when Caesar finally destroyed the Republic, ancient Rome ended up with a dictator who knew how to win wars.
This guy golfs while the world burns.
We have government agencies like the IRS and EPA simply ignoring laws, like the ones that that require them to maintain records so they can be held accountable to the people they purport to serve. Where are the consequences for their conscious failure to do so? The problem is that those sworn to uphold the law are the very ones undermining it. Can’t Eric Holder take a break from telegraphing to his progressive pals that his lackeys won’t be deterred from crucifying the Ferguson officer by obstacles like facts, evidence and law, and do his job?
He never will. Today, there are no consequences for those whose law-breaking aids the establishment.
And when not actively ignoring the law, the liberal establishment seeks to change the foundations of our law to strip the civil rights from those who oppose it. It is mind-boggling: We now have one of our two major political parties that, as a key policy position, believes that the First Amendment allows too much freedom of speech. The Democrats literally wish to amend the Constitution to restrict our right of free expression.
Yeah, that’s America’s problem – too much free speech by people critical of the government. That and gender specific bathrooms. And global warming, which science teaches comes from unicorn flatulence.
This isn’t a surprise. In the name of “campaign finance reform” – that is, the protection of largely Democrat incumbents – the Obama Administration actually sent an attorney representing theUnited States of America into the Supreme Court to argue that the government has the right to ban a book critical of a politician.
The clowns are to your right to read and think what you wish as John Lithgow was to dancing in Footloose. Which makes conservatives Kevin Bacon.
So what happens when the government is not restrained by law? What happens first is that the government does what it wants, as it wants, without accountability. That provides those left unprotected by the law two ugly choices. On one hand, they can submit, and allow themselves to be oppressed, existing at the pleasure, and subject to the whims, of their masters.
The alternative is to fight. Look at the Declaration of Independence. It’s largely a chronicle of English lawlessness, though the members of this administration no doubt consider that document unworthy of study because the Founding Fathers were cisgender, phallocentric racists or something.
Chairman Mao, who is a big favorite of the half-wits in the White House, said it best: “Power comes from the barrel of a gun.” If there is no law, there is no moral reason not to pick up a rifle and take what you want. The moral imperative of the law is that you will obey and respect it even if you disagree with it because it was justly imposed and will be fairly enforced. But if the law is neither justly imposed nor fairly enforced, that moral obligation disappears.
I walked through the burnt-out villages of Kosovo after the moral imperative of the law there had disappeared. The baffling concept that half of America will simply shrug their shoulders and submit to the dictatorship of the other half is as dangerous as it is misguided and foolish. When you toss out the law, bad things happen. This is a major theme of my new book, Conservative Insurgency, a speculative future history of the struggle to restore our country, and the consequences of short-sighted attacks on the rule of law for short-term political gain are not pleasant.
But there is hope. When that drunken Democrat convict of a district attorney indicted Rick Perry for doing his job – and that is exactly what she indicted him for – even some liberals swallowed hard and shook their heads. Perhaps this was the bridge too far that finally made a few liberals re-think their comrades’ chosen path downward into chaos.
The reaction of a few liberals to this charade is a sign of hope, but sadly many other leftists are clapping their soft, pudgy hands like trained seals, eagerly welcoming this latest step towards their liberal fascist Utopia. Somehow they got the impression that the American people will accept whatever they do, whatever injustice they impose, whatever whims they choose to enforce. That is an unbelievably dangerous notion. The sooner we stomp it out and return to the rule of law, the better.
August 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 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 25th, 2014 by olddog
By Joachim Hagopian
Journalist Mai Bei, (Yahoo News) is reminding America of its recent dark past vis-à-vis that longtime rogue agency the CIA’s global torture operations during that rogue regime of the Bush administration.
The plot thickens with the Senate Intelligence Committee strongly in favor of declassifying its five years in the making, 6,700 page report bringing to light in graphic criminal detail the plethora of Geneva Convention and international law violations committed by overzealous CIA henchmen in their quest to torture information out of thousands of detainees the world over “fighting” America’s so called war on terror. Today’s article attempts to create high drama Washington-style by hyping up anticipation of an executive-legislative showdown between how much of the CIA’s dastardly deeds should be disclosed to the waiting American public.
Pressure is mounting on our current beleaguered president known for his disastrous foreign policy on the heels of the exact same disastrous foreign policy launched by the war criminal neocons before him. As a recent backdrop leading to this latest theatrical release of government-gone-bad is the back and forth sniping charges between the Senate Intelligence Committee and the CIA, both accusing the other of illegal spying.
Committee Chair Diane Feinstein (D-CA) had long been cozy with protecting CIA secrecy and criminality right until she learned that Director John Brennan’s CIA was busily violating her committee’s privacy. She had no problem with the American public’s privacy constantly violated in act after unconstitutional act or for that matter any world citizen’s right to life being destroyed in the name of national security. But her ire was hypocritically provoked when the CIA no doubt got up too close and personal on her naked body politic and she did not like it one bit.
Then lest we forget, we had President Obama campaigning on the promise once Bush was gone to be the most open, honest and transparent presidency in US history. What does he do? He proceeds to become the most secretive president in US history, racking up more cover-up scandals, more charges of espionage, more press harassment and more denials of Freedom of Information Act requests than all previous presidents combined! A Time Magazine article earlier this year noted:
“The administration cited national security concerns a record 8,496 times as an excuse for withholding information from the public, a 57% increase from the year before.”
Barrack Obama has given a whole new meaning to the expression “double-speak,” raising it to rarefied heights even his court jesting predecessor filled with his bumbling rendition of boldface lies and deception could never outdo. The man that raised not just America’s hopes but the entire world has the record of a proven imposter and fraudulent traitor to the American people.
But then his oligarch puppet masters are not just pulling his strings but all three treasonous branches of government as well. The joke of a corrupt and oligarch owned two party system lining its greedy pockets with the three ring circus of shadowy, shady lobbyists, Congress and think tank provocateurs, slithering amorally in and out of public life all to ensure that their puppet masters are fully obeyed and loyalty to them at all cost is maintained. The ideological dogma-quagmire of Republicans versus Democrats’ buffoonery is mere slight of hand, carefully orchestrated design. Meanwhile, the cherry picked judicial branch from the Supreme Court on down ensures every key decision pays homage to their masters as well.
So with everything so stacked against the lowly public citizens whose Constitution they lied under oath to protect, every branch of US government holds Americans in bold, in-our-face contempt. Why is there even a question being raised by a mainstream press insider about disclosure of criminal CIA behavior when even a half awake public already knows the score – secrecy in the name of national security rules the world. Theft in the name of national security rules the world. And death and destruction all around the world in the name of American Empire security.
The pretense of intergovernmental conflict over throwing a bone of reality to a truth-starved public is an affront to Americans’ intelligence. And even more insulting is the implicit reasoning that would have us citizens concluding that just because illicit torture never even worked as far as providing any relevant or useful information that helped the US “win” its war on terror, the biggest lie is asserting that torture because it was so against the law no longer is even happening just because our President says so.
Then this so called issue of invoking Senate Resolution 400 passed in 1976 creating the Senate Intel Committee has only been feebly threatened in the past to finagle grandstanding leverage against former presidents to nudge them a little closer toward honesty with the public. But not once has this little known provision been formally used and implemented to out a president on any real full and honest disclosure. It afforded the Senate the power to declassify information without the president’s approval. Though the stage is being set to send mainstream media into fulltime speculation spin, with such statements from today’s article as:
“If the president didn’t object in writing within five days, the full Senate would then weigh the report in closed session and vote on whether to unilaterally declassify it.”
But of course full declassification is precisely what is always avoided at all cost. Beyond the veneer of superficial appearance, the executive and legislative branches have always covertly worked their shady backroom deals out privately amongst themselves, far removed from the public eye of awareness, much less accountability, and that’s of course how it will stay.
Again Bai’s article makes reference that Obama will most likely reveal his heavily censored version of a generalized, ultra-brief summary that the CIA during the neocon regime engaged in some distasteful behaviors, slipping it by Americans busily “tanning themselves at the beach this summer.” What is most certain is Obama’s loyal deference to more secrecy in the name of national security ad nauseum.
And as such, those 6700 pages of colorful twisted accounts of such criminal barbarism as water boarding victims to death by drowning, ripping out their fingernails, electrocuting their gonads, those kind of unsavory details will in good taste be conveniently omitted. One more sure thing predicted to come out of all this when our psychopathic president does finally go through the motions of public disclosure. He will promise (which in double-speak means lie) that no US agency now resorts to such inhumane internationally outlawed practices of torture under his clean-cut watch.
Please Mr. President, spare us, for we know better. You are enshrouded in deceit up to your ears, and so is your entire government enshrouded in deceit as the American public is on to you like never before.
So as the apartheid US Empire allows its apartheid Israeli ally to genocide Palestinians in Gaza while trumping up another false flag with Putin and his east Ukrainian cronies downing that Malaysian flight, we are all reminded of the false flag evoked nearly a year ago when you Mr. President and your three blind henchman Kerry, Hagel and Dempsey fell on your faces trying to convince the world that Syria’s Assad launched that gas attack in the Damascus suburb.
We saw through your lies then and will see through them again. You have no credibility left with the American public, much less the world. Your ploy to obediently ignite World War III per oligarch order to get to Iran through Syria on your way past Russia and China is the only thing transparent about your presidency.
Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a masters degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing.
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
July 23rd, 2014 by olddog
By Kelleigh Nelson
July 16, 2014
“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” -James Madison, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788
American Legislative Exchange Council
Paul Weyrich also founded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and was Director/President from 1975-1978. ALEC first came into being in 1973 in Chicago as the “Conservative Caucus of State Legislators.” In 1975, with the support of the American Conservative Union, ALEC registered as a federal non-profit agency. Through the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, global corporations and state politicians vote behind closed doors to try to rewrite state laws that govern your rights. These so-called “model bills” reach into almost every area of American life and, more often than not, directly benefit huge corporations. In ALEC’s own words, corporations have “a VOICE and a VOTE” on specific changes to the law that are then proposed in your state, and sometimes in the federal legislature.
The Madison Group, the predecessor to the State Policy Network (SPN – mini Heritage Foundation’s in each state), was “launched by ALEC,” and housed in the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, so says a 1991 report by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Heartland is funded by the Koch brothers, David and Charles, the former being a member of the globalist Aspen Institute. Remember Aspen Institute’s Director was none other than Maurice Strong, author and promoter of UN Agenda 21. NCRP also reported that the Madison Group’s annual meeting was, at that time, “sponsored by Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation,” which was led by Paul Weyrich.
The NCRP report also notes that ALEC was then “housed in the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Heritage Foundation, a seven-story brick building on Capitol Hill, appointed with thick rugs, chandeliers and enormous floral arrangements. On the second floor, near the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America and Amway headquarters, ALEC had a suite of offices.” Today, they are housed in Arlington, VA.
Former Amway President, and CNP charter member, Dick DeVos, and his wife Betsy DeVos, (former chair of the Michigan Republican Party and brother of Erik D. Prince, founder of Blackwater/Xe/Academi) are long-time supporters of the Heritage Foundation and SPN affiliates such as Michigan’s influential Mackinac Center for Public Policy. ALEC has a huge list of corporate donors. Here is a list of their many corporate members, and here is a partial list of politicians that are known to be involved in, or previously involved in ALEC. Not all dues-paying members of ALEC are included because ALEC does not post its full list, but the list includes politicians who have been in a leadership role in ALEC, as a member of a task force, or other publicly known role. It also includes politicians who have been featured speakers or who have accepted awards at ALEC meetings.
ALEC’s membership is 95% corporate along with 2500 of the 7500 legislators from every state. This is where state legislation originates. For you Tennesseans, remember that state Senator Mark Norris, the bagman for our neo-conservative Trotskyite governor, is a long time member of ALEC. I would bet every state has members of ALEC.
Public-Private Partnerships (P-3)
NCRP reported, “Privatization is the altar at which the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Madison Group worship. The state think tanks’ agenda includes privatization of most public services, from mass transit to health clinics to environmental protection, and even libraries; vouchers and tax credits; deregulation of business; opposition to labor-backed policies like the minimum wage and family leave; and rollback of taxes.”
In Bill Jasper’s New American Magazine article, The Not-So-Smart ALEC, of April 21, 2014, he states, “ALEC’s model legislation for states promotes a “Public-Private Partnership (P3) Authority Act,” the summary of which states:
“This Act establishes a state Partnership Committee and an Office of Public-Private Partnerships to identify and establish public-private partnerships and approve qualified bidders, requests for proposals, and template contracts. The Act is designed to improve public operational efficiency and environmental performance, promote public safety, attract private investment in the state, and minimize governmental liabilities.”
“In this area, the supposedly “conservative” ALEC is perfectly in step with the “progressive” Obama administration, which has made public-private partnerships (P3) a centrepiece of its statist program. Many of ALEC’s member corporations are also partners in Obama’s Fedgov/Big Business “Manufacturing Innovation” consortiums and other P3 endeavours. They include such well-known names as Boeing, General Electric, Microsoft, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, ALCOA, and ExxonMobil. Hillary Clinton, while Obama’s secretary of state, launched the administration’s P3 Global Partnership Initiative, spreading hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare to the well-connected.”
ALEC is in the forefront of spreading the P3 gospel at the state level, along with its progressive partner, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC), which, like ALEC, talks a good game of “free markets” while actually promoting corporate subsidies and economic fascism. Please read Erica Carle’s short three part article on the Chamber of Commerce and the New World Order
ALEC’s corporate P3 members are well represented by:
• Big Pharma (Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Genetech, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer);
• Big Farm (Altria Group, Archer Daniels Midland, Kraft Food, J.R. Simplot, -Monsanto);
• Big Oil (Shell, BP, Peabody, Marathon, Texaco, Tenneco, Chevron, ExxonMobil);
• Big Banking (Bank of America, Coldwell Banker, Wells Fargo, First Chicago NBD);
• Big Gambling (Hollywood Casino Corp., Argosy Gaming Co., Boyd Gaming Corp., GTECH Corp.);
• Big Media (Cox Communications, Comcast, the Wall Street Journal, News Corp., Thompson Reuters, Time Warner Cable);
• Big Insurance (Blue Cross Blue Shield, Farmers Group, GEICO, Liberty Mutual, State Farm, Travelers);
• Big Tech (Yahoo, Face book, Google, AT&T, eBay, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Sony);
• Big Soda (Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group);
• Big Liquor (Seagram & Sons, Hiram Walker, Miller-Coors);
• Big Box Stores (Best Buy, Home Depot, JC Penney, Lowe’s);
• Big Auto (Ford, GM, Toyota, Chrysler).
ALEC’s critics on the Left erroneously cite these cosy corporate ties as evidence of the corruption inherent in “free market” capitalism. But the ALEC/Obama P3 “partnerships” are the antithesis of genuine free markets, in which entrepreneurs risk their own capital not that of the captive taxpayers to build businesses that provide goods and services consumers freely choose to purchase, not those determined for them by politicians and government planners. This information all came from Bill Jasper’s amazing article, check it out here.
ALEC and the Article V Convention
ALEC has long promoted an Article V Constitutional Convention using the excuse that we need a Balanced Budget Amendment. If you’ve read Publius Huldah’s articles on same, here and here, then you understand what a terrible danger the BBA actually is to our Constitution. ALEC even produced a “Resolution for Limitations on Authority of Delegates to a ‘Convention for Proposing Amendments’ (Article V, United States of America Constitution).” ALEC claims this resolution will curtail and eliminate the possibility of a “runaway convention.” The resolution restricts delegates to work only on those amendments authorized in their legislative instructions and calls for the immediate recall of any delegate that works on an unauthorized amendment.” This is total balderdash! Once a Convention is opened, all is fair game!
The very reason most often cited by scholars for their opposition to an Article V Convention is because the 1787 Convention set the precedent. There is absolutely no way that a new Constitutional Convention can possibly be controlled, no matter the circumstances or restrictions set down prior to the Convention.
The precedent was set in the 1787 Convention when the states convened simply to revise the Articles of Confederation, and ended up throwing out the Articles, and writing a new Constitution. The intention from the outset of many of its proponents, chief among them James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, was to create a new government rather than fixing the existing one. This is also what exists today. George Soros and his leftist groups, along with the neo-conservative Trotskyites on the right, Michael Farris, Mike Levin, Goldwater Institute, I Am America, David Barton, Glenn Beck, etc. etc. ad nauseam, are all fomenting change to our Constitution through an Article V convention. What is waiting in the wings is the New States Constitution written over a period of 10 years, at a cost of $25 million, by the Ford Foundation, which eliminates everything after “We The People,” and that includes our God given, unalienable rights.
Countless authorities have stated that there is no Constitutional Convention that can be controlled. Once a Con-Con is opened, the entire document can be taken down and changed. There are no statesmen today like our founders, and the risk of opening a Convention for any reason, would result in the destruction of the last threads binding us to a representative Republic.
Here is ALEC’s handbook on the Constitutional Convention, and of note, the Church of Scientology is also an ALEC member.[ Link]
ALEC and Common Core
In the Washington Post article of June 7, 2014, it states what we already knew, “The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn’t just bankroll the development of what became known as the Common Core State Standards. With more than $200 million, the foundation also built political support across the country, persuading state governments to make systemic and costly changes.”
Gates money flowed to policy groups on the left and the right, which funded research by scholars of varying political persuasions who promoted the idea of common standards. None of this is new, of course. Back in the 60s, we had Mastery Learning and then Outcome Based Education, then Goals 2000, etc. ad nauseam, all of which were the same exact thing with a different name. Those fighting Communist Core have failed to realize that liberals at the Center for American Progress and so-called conservatives affiliated with the American Legislative Exchange Council, both accepted money from Gates to promote Communist Core. Normally these groups disagree on every issue that comes down the pike, but they found common ground on Common Core, the diversion from the danger of charters, vouchers and choice, the real Trojan Horse!
ALEC and Trade Agreements
Again, in The Not-So-Smart ALEC, Bill Jasper tells about ALEC members adopting a “Resolution Supporting the Successful Negotiation of a Comprehensive and Commercially Meaningful Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).” ALEC also adopted a “Resolution Urging Congress to Pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).”
Jasper goes on to say:
“One of the most important facts, if not the most important, to know about both the TTIP and TPP is that they would, if adopted, steadily strip away our national sovereignty, allowing the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations, as well as regional tribunals and regulatory bodies created by these agreements, to override our local, state, and federal laws. This feature alone makes them very subversive, revolutionary proposals that should be opposed by every elected or appointed official who has taken an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This is no longer a matter of theoretical speculation; as The New American has reported previously, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the WTO agreement have amply proved this. As a result of adopting both of those agreements, NAFTA and WTO rules and rulings increasingly trump our laws.”
This is what Paul Weyrich, the Grand Poobah of the phony right, has given us with ALEC.
Weyrich was also a Member of The Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship (ICES), which amounts to a “green” Evangelicals and Catholics Together document, with many involved already having signed the ECTI or ECT II or other ecumenical ventures. Their Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship, a dominionist group and effort, signed by Evangelicals, Catholics and Jews, many from the CNP, is an environmental statement of faith uniting these same groups in yet another venue.
In Part 8, we’ll discuss Weyrich’s and Morton Blackwell’s membership in The Society for the Protection of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP). Again, the name is the antithesis of TFP’s real strategy and purpose, just like many of the laws our Congress passes where the names sound so good, but the law is so unconstitutional.
Click here for part —–> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
© 2014 Kelleigh Nelson – All Rights Reserved
Kelleigh Nelson has been researching the Christian right and their connections to the left, the new age, and cults since 1975. Formerly an executive producer for three different national radio talk show hosts, she was adept at finding and scheduling a variety of wonderful guests for her radio hosts. She and her husband live in Knoxville, TN, and she has owned her own wholesale commercial bakery since 1990. Prior to moving to Tennessee, Kelleigh was marketing communications and advertising manager for a fortune 100 company in Ohio. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, she was a Goldwater girl with high school classmate, Hillary Rodham, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Kelleigh is well acquainted with Chicago politics and was working in downtown Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention riots. Kelleigh is presently the secretary for Rocky Top Freedom Campaign, a strong freedom advocate group.
July 22nd, 2014 by olddog
General Civil Orders
June 10, 2014
Issued to All Members of the Domestic Police Forces, US Marshals Service, the Provost Marshal, Members of the American Bar Association and the American Armed Services
At the federal level the American government has always been a separate foreign international maritime jurisdiction operated under contract to provide two services: (1) protect the national trust assets, and (2) perform governmental services for the Several States— which in terms of international law are all recognized sovereign nations.
The equity contract known as “The Constitution for the united States of America” makes it clear that the Several States contracted to form a single governmental services agency known as “The United States”. The contract stipulates the assets to be held in trust by the federal government in the Preamble and Bill of Rights comprising the trust indenture portion of the contract and also stipulates the nineteen enumerated services to be performed—and exactly what “powers” the States agreed to delegate to The United States and how they would pay for these services.
What isn’t so widely known or appreciated is that the governmental services company known as The United States was a privately owned and operated commercial company set up by Benjamin Franklin in 1754. George Washington was actually the 11th “President” of this company, and only the 1st President to take office after the receipt of the “Constitution” contract.
According to the 1824 Webster’s Dictionary, the word “federal” was a synonym for “contract” at the time the original Constitution was written. All “constitutions” are affirmations of debt —in this case, the debt the States assumed when they created the federal government and jointly agreed to pay for the services that it would provide. The office of “President” is and always has been a uniquely commercial office, not a “Head of State”.
Because the federal governmental services company is privately owned and operated, only shareholders known as “electors” have a real say in its elections and administration, only “trustees” known as “members of Congress” have the right to determine how the national trust assets are protected though they are obligated as trustees to do a reasonable job of it, and only the States have the right to complain if the stipulated services aren’t up to par.
The American people at large, known simply as “inhabitants of the domestic states” or “State Citizens” have always been a separate and distinct population apart from “US Citizens” or “Federal Citizens”— and to these two groups a third kind of “citizen” was added in 1871, that of “US citizen”.
Following the Civil War, the governmental services company providing the services agreed to by the States reorganized as a corporation dba the “United States of America, Incorporated” and published its Articles as the “Constitution of the United States of America”. Unlike “The Constitution for the united States of America”, the “Constitution of the United States of America” is a document peculiar to the new “Municipal” – that is, “City State” government formed to administer the affairs of the District of Columbia and federal territories and possessions.
This corporate “constitution” provided for the creation of a new kind of “Federal Citizen”—-a “US citizen”—and from that point onward, from the perspective of the new federal municipal government formed by the Act of 1871— American State Citizens (the inhabitants of the domestic fifty states) were regarded as “non-resident aliens”. This same corporation dba the “United States of America, Incorporated” (chartered in Delaware) began operating two separate “governments” at once— the “municipal government of the District of Columbia” and the “federal government” owed to the States of the Union—-both under the auspices of the “United States Congress”.
These semantic deceits have given rise to endless confusions, usurpations, and criminality. These General Civil Orders address some of those issues which are most important at this time.
The Congress ceased operating as it was required by contract to operate in 1860. After December of 1865, it never again operated as an unincorporated Body Politic representing the States of the Union. The “federal government” has functioned exclusively as an incorporated commercial entity, with an elected Board of Directors merely calling itself the “US Congress” ever since. As such, the “federal government” is a commercial corporation like any other commercial corporation. It has no special status, no immunity from prosecution, and hasn’t functioned as a governing body of a sovereign nation for 150 years.
To overcome this obvious difficulty the “US Congress” formed another “union” of “American” “states” from the “federal territories and possessions”. The Seven Insular States including the “State of New Columbia” (District of Columbia), Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, et alia, and formed a new nation simply calling themselves “the United States of America” and claimed separate national sovereignty.
Thus we have The United States of America (Major) comprised of the now-fifty organic States created by Statehood Compacts and the United States of America (Minor) representing the seven Insular States, both being administered under the direction of the corporate Board of Directors known as the “US Congress”— which has continued to act solely as the sovereign government of “the United States of America” (Minor).
These blatant semantic deceits by officers of the federal corporation and officials of “the United States of America (Minor)” amount to purposeful constructive fraud against their employers, the American organic states. To try to overcome this obstacle, members of the “US Congress” contrived a “complex regulatory scheme” by which they established their own “State” governments and have tried to claim that they have been at “war” with the American people while relying upon the organic states for their own sustenance and have falsely claimed that they established “exclusive legislative jurisdiction” over the original states of the Union by these acts of self-interested fraud carried out against their employers and benefactors.
Fraud has no statute of limitations.
The governmental services corporations have always been under commercial contract to provide services to the American people and have acted against their employers as employees.
It is essential that members of the Bar Associations, members of the “State” governments which have been surreptitiously “redefined” to their detriment, members of the domestic police forces, and members of the various armed forces gain a clear understanding of the fact that for purposes of administration of government services on American State soil, the “federal government” is a corporation with no more civil authority on the land than JC PENNY or HARLEY DAVIDSON.
The “federal government” is under contract to the organic States and as our Forefathers vested the ENTIRE civil government on the land in the people inhabiting the land, each American is a sovereign “organic state” of the union. Each one of us has more civil power and authority on the land than the entire “federal government” has ever had or ever can have.
For that reason and as a result of the deliberations which have already taken place among the other nations of the world, the “federal government” dba the UNITED STATES, INC. , a French commercial corporation, is hereby called to task for non-performance on its contractual obligations. The semantic deceits involved in claiming that American State Citizens are “US citizens” and all the other fraudulent claims advanced against the American states and people are to be fully recognized for what they are—fraudulent claims having no merit and owed no enforcement.
Other corporate entities, notably the FEDERAL RESERVE and INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, which are responsible for creating and promoting this fraud are to be recognized and dealt with appropriately as international dealers in fraud and usury.
American Negroes have in the past been considered “US citizens” because that is the only “citizenship” they were ever granted after the Civil War, a grave error of justice that resulted in them only having “civil rights” which are privileges granted by the “US Congress” instead of the “Natural and Unalienable Rights” they are naturally heir to. They were also claimed as chattel backing the debts of the United States of America, Incorporated, despite both national and international prohibitions abolishing slavery and peonage. A prompt correction is available from the organic states and by proclamation of these organic states, they are granted full and immediately recognizable status as “American Nationals” owed all the “Natural and Unalienable Rights” of any other organic State Citizen, no matter which geographically defined state they may inhabit on the land. The only exceptions are those unfortunates born within the borders of the Insular States—District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.—who must self-declare under Article 15 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It has been the policy of the United States of America (Minor) to consider all federal employees and members of the active duty military who are birthright inhabitants of The United States of America (Major) temporary “dual citizens” subject to the United States of America (Minor). However, The United States of America (Major) recognizes no dual citizenship whatsoever, and the process required for any birthright inhabitant of the land to adopt “US Citizenship” is both lengthy and purposeful, as stated in US Statute at Large 2, Revised Statute 2561. As the employers of the United States of America (Minor) we exercise our proprietary interest and direct all American State Citizens to defend the interests and integrity of the American organic states regardless of any contrary “orders” issued by any corporate officer of the UNITED STATES or foreign official acting under the auspices of the United States of America (Minor).
All birthright State Citizens of The United States of America (Major) are specifically enjoined from engaging in any activity contrary to the health, welfare, safety, and benefit of their fellow State Citizens and will otherwise be recognized as criminals regardless of what uniforms they wear or what authorities they pretend to have. If corporate “President” Obama should order any member of the “US military” or any armed “agency personnel” —BATF, IRS, NSA, FEMA, etc.—-to open fire upon American State Citizens, it will be a war crime against non-combatant civilians and it will be immediately recognized as such throughout the world.
For all military and civilian-based defense and law enforcement agencies the rule to be observed is: if you can’t do it as a private individual, you can’t do it as a public officer.
Any State Citizen who is forced to open fire on federally or federal “State” or “STATE” funded personnel in defense of life or property will be recognized as a non-combatant civilian without exception, held harmless, and supported by all members of the American Armed Forces of the United States of America (Major) and all American State Militias. Any State Citizen so imposed upon by those in his or her employment or hired by those in his or her employment in any capacity whatsoever including “elected” officials, will be entitled to full reparations in the amount of $5,000,000.00 USD or the equivalent at the time of the damage incurred for every death, $2,500,000.00 USD or the equivalent at the time of the damage for every permanent disability. They shall also be owed full reparations for all property damage incurred and up to eighty (80) times compensatory damages at the discretion of a jury of their peers.
The individual States of the Union formed by Statehood Compact retain the full and unencumbered claim upon their birthright inhabitants. These “states” are defined geographically. They are not incorporated entities, and they are not “represented” by any incorporated “State of________” or “STATE OF_________” organization at this time. They are presented solely by the unincorporated Body Politic and their individual inhabitants, who retain all organic and civil prerogatives on the land.
Those organizations currently calling themselves the “State of Alaska” or the “STATE OF ALASKA”, etc., are representatives of two different governmental services corporations operated by the FEDERAL RESERVE (“State of Alaska”) and the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (“STATE OF ALASKA”), doing business as franchises of the United States of America, Inc. and the UNITED STATES, INC. respectively. They have no representational capacity whatsoever and are operating under commercial contract only.
Because these “State” and “Federal” entities have all functioned under conditions of non-disclosure and semantic deceit serving to promulgate fraud upon the organic states and the American people, they are all to be considered criminal syndicates to the extent that they have been aware of their status and have failed to correct their operations and representations. All contracts held by these organizations or assumed to be held by these organizations are null and void for fraud. These contracts include but are not limited to contracts for sale, for labor, for trade, “citizenship” contracts, powers of attorney, licenses, mortgages, registrations, and application agreements of all kinds. All signatures of American State Citizens acting under the influence of semantic deceit and non-disclosure are rescinded.
All those individuals engaged in employment as “federal” and “state” and “municipal” employees and “elected officials” are hereby given Notice that they are employees of private, for-profit corporations that are merely under contract to provide stipulated public services, having no special status, having no immunity, and having no authority as sovereign nations or states. Any actions that they take infringing on the rights and prerogatives of American State Citizens are criminal acts without exception and are to be treated as criminal acts. These individuals have exactly the same standing as employees of any other commercial company, and the rules, regulations, codes, and other “statutes” they enforce are obligations unique to those organizations only.
Posse Comitatus is to be observed and enforced on the land of the domestic organic states regardless of any Executive Order issued by Barack H. Obama acting as “President” of the United States of America (Minor) or as the President of any incorporated entity whatsoever. Any such imposition of “martial law” by Mr. Obama has exactly the same legal standing as “martial law” imposed by the President of BURGER KING, INTERNATIONAL or the King of Sweden on the land of the organic states. He can order his paid employees to commit hari kari if he wishes to do so, and they may follow his instructions if they care to, but they may not under any circumstance murder anyone, assault anyone, seize any private property, or cause any trouble for American State Citizens, or they shall be immediately recognized as criminals and treated as such.
Likewise, the government of the United States of America (Minor) may do what it wills with those who are legitimately born under its hegemony, but it cannot say one word claiming authority over any birthright State Citizen of The United States of America (Major).
Please note that Barack H. Obama is “Commander in Chief” of the “US Armed Forces” which legitimately includes the Puerto Rican Navy and whatever security forces are endemic to Guam, American Samoa and the other Insular States.
The Grand Army of the Republic and its successors are obligated to perform under General Order 100.
The American Armed Forces also known as the Armed Forces of The United States of America (Major) are paid for by and obligated to serve the organic states, which we present and for which we require your service. In the absence of a properly formed and operational government of the Republic, all rights revert to the organic states, including the civil authority to issue these General Orders. “President” Barack H. Obama is operating as an official of the United States of America (Minor) and as a corporate officer in the employ of the UNITED STATES, a French commercial corporation chartered by the International Monetary Fund, an agency of the UNITED NATIONS. He is not now nor has he ever been elected to any public office of The United States of America (Major).
Likewise the members of the “US Congress” have never taken the Oath of any Public Office of The United States of America (Major) and are merely operating as private corporate officers of the same commercial corporation dba the “UNITED STATES”.
All offices deriving and paid and/or receiving credit entirely or in part as a result of the original equity contract known as The Constitution for the united States of America are offices of the Armed Forces of The United States of America (Major) by definition and those who serve in these offices are employees of the inhabitants of the domestic now-fifty States defined by Statehood Compacts. As such, you are now receiving direct orders under the civil authority of these organic states.
All the foregoing circumstance is indeed the “mischief” predicted by Chief Justice Harlan in his dissenting opinion given in Downes v. Bidwell — mischief resulting from allowing Congress to operate two governments at once, one a constitutional Republic, and the other an oligarchy under the plenary control of Congress. The members of the “US Congress” have been corrupted by power lust or through ignorance subverted and used to serve the aims of criminals. That does not give anyone else a license to sin. It merely requires the recognition of the sins of the members of the Congress and appropriate enlightened action depriving them of any power or excuse to continue these deceits and usurpations.
There are 515 people responsible. It is incumbent upon them to straighten it out, and for the rest of us to insist that they do so. It is also the responsibility of all members of the domestic police
July 20th, 2014 by olddog
From: Michael Gaddy [mailto:email@example.com]
“The whole conspiracy idea is cockeyed. We had orders to obey the head of state. We weren’t a band of criminals meeting in the woods in the dead of night to plan mass murders…” ~Hermann Goering, 1 May 1946 (Committed suicide to avoid hanging)
“I was given this assignment which I could not refuse–and besides, I did everything possible to treat [the foreign slave laborers] well.” ~Fritz Saukel , 23 February 1946 (Hanged for crimes against humanity)
“I don’t see how they can fail to recognize a soldier’s obligation to obey orders. That’s the code I’ve live by all my life.” ~Alfred Jodl, 1 November 1945 (Hanged for crimes committed)
I fully understand why people get very defensive whenever any acts by supposedly good Americans are compared to Hitler and Nazi Germany, but when considering the rapid descent into abject Socialism in this country during the past 12-14 years, could it be time to take the gloves off and realize we seem to be following in the footprints of history?
Oh, we are nothing like the Nazi’s—I hear the chorus now. BUT—the president can order the death or imprisonment of an American Citizen without a trial. (National Defense Authorization Act-2012) We have socialized medicine. (Obamacare and Dubya Bush’s Part D Medicare Plan) Our Bill of Rights has been eviscerated. (Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security) Please name one of the above that in any way conflicts with the principles of Nazi Germany.
Is it just coincidence that Adolf Hitler used the term “protect the Homeland” in the speech when he created the Gestapo and George W. Bush used the exact same phrase in his news conference after 9/11? Good arguments could be made on both sides I am sure.
The crucial issue here is the failed concept prevailing among many in our country that whatever the government says, whether they say it through enacted legislation or regulation by some government bureaucracy, it is to be treated as gospel and obeyed without discussion. Whether we are like Nazi Germany or rapidly getting there, the basic premise that government is the almighty is the vehicle which leads to destruction of Liberty and Individual Sovereignty and the advent of heinous crimes by the government.
We have a local representative here in Colorado who has stated publicly that “no law is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is.” We also have a candidate for Sheriff who says that all laws that emanate from the government will be enforced should he become Sheriff. Both happen to be Republicans, but, for the sake of brevity, we shall skip over a broad discussion of that point in this offering.
To believe that the people who created our government through our states were to become its slaves and subject to its every whim would have been a real surprise to our ancestors who voted in the various State Ratification Conventions to approve this form of government, for they were told if they voted to ratify our Constitution, the exact opposite would be true.
The real question is: do those who advocate the government must be obeyed regardless of the law passed, or regulation written, do so from a true philosophical belief or from sheer ignorance of the Constitutional principles they have sworn to “uphold and defend from all enemies, foreign and domestic?” How does one in good conscience take a sacred oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights and then claim they will uphold, defend and enforce any law passed by government? Another question is: do they have a working knowledge of the Constitution that would enable them to know the difference?
I will offer below, as a classic example of a person holding a very important position in government, publicly claiming they are not qualified for the job they were elected to, while all the while being too ignorant to know they are making such a confession publicly. First, though, let’s take a look at the office of Sheriff here in Colorado.
The Office of Sheriff in Colorado is created by our Constitution. Colo. Const., art. XIV, sect. 8. The Constitution does not enumerate particular duties of Sheriffs. Colorado statutes do specify various duties for Sheriffs, most of which are restatements of the Sheriffs’ traditional common law powers and duties. For example: “to keep and preserve the peace in their respective counties, and to quiet and suppress all affrays, riots, and unlawful assemblies and insurrections”; to “act as fire warden of his or her respective county”; to “appoint some proper person undersheriff”; and so on. Colorado Revised Statutes sect. 30-10-501 et seq. Nothing in the list of statutory duties requires Sheriffs to enforce every state statute or any federal law for that matter.
In Colorado, our Sheriff’s take a very simple oath of office:
“I, …….., do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Colorado, the Ordinances of …….. County and that I will faithfully perform the duties of the Office of County Sheriff, of the County of …….., State of Colorado, upon which I enter.”
This oath is in the form required by the Colorado Constitution, Article XII, sect. 8. which reads as follows:
“Every civil officer, except members of the general assembly and such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of the office upon which he shall be about to enter.”
There is absolutely not to be found in the Oath of Office or the Articles of the Colorado Constitution anything that states the Sheriff must uphold and defend the laws of the state of Colorado or the United States. Could it be that since the Sheriff swears to uphold and defend the Constitutions of Colorado and the US, that that covers any and all laws that are created “in pursuance” of the constitutions, and the occupant of the office of Sheriff is presumed to have a working knowledge of both in order to determine if those laws are indeed constitutional? Is not each person who takes that solemn oath not equally responsible for assuring to those whom they serve a strict adherence to the principles of those documents and to “uphold and defend” them against any unconstitutional edicts submitted by either government? Is it possible to be faithful to one’s oath while at the same time enforcing clearly unconstitutional laws?
Here are excerpts of a letter written by a sitting Sheriff of Colorado (not from our county) in January of 2013, relative to the issues of the Second Amendment; written on official county letterhead, displaying his ignorance of his sacred oath and a proud (to him) display of sufficient evidence to illustrate his incompetence for the office of public trust he holds. (My comments in italics)
“Although I have great respect and admiration for each of my colleague sheriffs and police chiefs across the country, I take exception with the handful of public servants who have suggested that they would reject enforcement of any “unconstitutional mandates,” specifically related to the Second Amendment.” (How can one have a valid, enforceable law that contradicts the Constitution?)
“If an issue were to be arbitrarily deemed “unconstitutional,” the decision to curtail further enforcement responsibilities would be in direct conflict with the concept of the balance of powers, as defined by our founders.” (Ouch! Perhaps the good sheriff has never heard of one Thomas Jefferson, who stated: “My construction of the Constitution is… that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action…” Perhaps that is why they all take an oath to uphold and defend.”)
“Public safety professionals serving in the executive branch, do not have the constitutional authority, responsibility, and in most cases, the credentials to determine the constitutionality of any issue.” (Well, Sheriff, if you do not possess the authority, responsibility or the credentials to determine the “constitutionality” of any issue, you should immediately resign, for in your statement you admit to having little to no knowledge of the documents you swore to “uphold and defend.” Such knowledge would prepare you to possess the authority, responsibility and certainly the credentials which you wear on your uniform shirt, to determine the constitutionality of any act.” Your statement is a bold admission you do not have the knowledge necessary to protect the rights of those who pay your salary.)
“The authority and responsibility to determine the legality and/or the constitutionality of a matter is to be accomplished by the judicial branch, as clearly defined in the Constitution.” (Gosh, Sheriff, sure do wish you would have cited chapter and verse on this bold but incorrect assertion. It would appear your lack of knowledge is quite extensive. Again from Mr. Jefferson: “Nothing in the Constitution has given [the judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them.” And “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy…The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
And finally the Sheriff’s coup de grace: – “WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS.” (Factually, our founders never intended for this to be a nation, for our decisions are made through representatives and not in the aggregate, which is the very definition of a “Nation.” So, Sheriff, you are wrong on that count, and also we are not an anything “of laws.” We are a country with a Constitution and a Bill of Rights which defines what is and what is not constitutional. Laws do not decide for themselves if they are valid.”
If you are looking for a Sheriff like the one who wrote the above, there is one available on the ballot in November; one with an (R) beside his name. If you are looking for a Sheriff who understands his obligations to protect the rights of the people and also understands the gravity of the Oath of Office, you will be forced to make another choice.
I would remind you that Nazi Germany was a nation of laws; everything that Hitler did was within the laws of Germany at the time, and offer this quote from Jeremy Locke’s “The End of All Evil.”
“Law is a weapon. It is used by evil to attack its prey. Whether in the name of duty to king, loyalty to state, or rule of law, law is the weapon used to extort and control. Culture upholds the nobility of law. Culture teaches that law is proper and good. It never questions who wrote the law; tyrant and brother are the same. Culture never questions whether or not the law is right. You are to obey no matter what it says. In this fashion, law is a powerful weapon to be used against you. All principalities create volumes of laws that take lifetimes to understand and armies of lawyers to manipulate. All of these things are weapons in the hands of the powerful, which they will use at your expense.
Law holds value only to those who create it, and only because your culture demands that you obey it. The purest invitation to tyranny is your commitment to obey law regardless of what it says. Against you, the law becomes the perfect weapon. Whomever controls the law, controls you. Your worth is measured by the extent of your obedience.” (Emphasis added)
When anyone tells you that the “Law” must be obeyed, and will be enforced, please remember that there IS a choice: Liberty, or Tyranny and blind obedience; you decide. Should you decide to support the party favorite and the candidate endorsed by the local, socialist, bird cage liner, I take this opportunity to remind you of the words of Samuel Adams: “May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget ye were our countrymen.”
“Most human beings only think they want freedom. In truth they yearn for the bondage of social order, rigid laws, materialism. The only freedom man really wants, is the freedom to become comfortable.”
“Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day . . . . I believe it [human condition] susceptible of much improvement, and most of all, in matters of government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by which it is effected.” Thomas Jefferson, April 24, 1816 (to Dupont de Nemours)
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 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.
June 27th, 2014 by olddog
By Julian Websdale
Guest Writer for Wake Up World
World politics today is governed by the Vatican, but also by the Crown Empire. The modern world of so-called Western Civilization began at the end of the 17th century with the blossoming of the British Empire. That empire actually began several hundred years earlier with the establishment of the City of London, which is now an 800-year corporation that controls finance from an entity called ‘The Crown’. This entity is the creator and controller of the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve, the World Bank (IMF – International Monetary Fund), The European Union, and various cartels and corporations across the earth.
The Crown Identity is kept most secret, and The Crown Bank of England took and assumed control of the United States during the Roosevelt Administration (1901-1909) when its agents, who were really Crown agents (J. P. Morgan), took over 25% of American business.
The Crown has never been the King or Queen of England since the establishment of the corporate body, but the British Monarchy is a figurehead for The Crown, rules parliament in Great Britain and has authority over the Prime Ministers through a Vatican knighthood called the Order of the Garter. The Crown, however, is not the King or Queen of England – they are an established monarchy of the corporate body.
The Crown is the directorate of the corporation, and Great Britain is ruled by The Crown, the City of London which controls the Bank of England – a private corporation. There is a private state existing in Britain within the centre of London. This City, located in the heart of Greater London, became a sovereign-state in 1694 when King William III of Orange privatized the Bank of England, and turned it over to the Vatican banksters who today rule the financial world.
The City/The Crown Corporation is not subject to British Law; it has its own courts, its own laws, its own flag, its own police force – exactly like the Vatican city state and Washington DC Columbia. The Crown Corporation is also separate from the Metropolitan city; its police drive red police cars and their uniforms are different from the Metropolitan Police.
Also, The Crown in London houses the privatized Bank of England and Lloyd’s of London, the London Stock Exchange, and all British Banks. It also houses the branch offices of 385 foreign banks, 70 US banks, as well as Fleet Street newspapers and publishing monopolies. It controls the world media and world intelligence. It is out of The Crown City of London, the headquarters of British Freemasonry overseen by the British Monarchy and the Duke of Kent, that World Freemasonry is governed. This includes the Grand Orient Masonic Order and the Washington DC Scottish Rite.
In 1945 the Bank of England was nationalized by the Labor Government, and is allegedly no longer a private bank, although it governs the US Federal Reserve. It is ruled over by the Rothschild’s, who are bankers for the Pope – guardians of the Vatican Treasury.
The City of London also has its own Lord Mayor, different from the current Mayor, who has the power in The Crown Corporation. When the Queen wishes to conduct business in the City, she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar. Temple Bar and their associate franchises come from what is called the Four Inns of the Temples of Court – the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple. The logo of the Inner Temple is a white horse on the sunburst seal of the Jesuit Order. The white horse is a symbol of the British Empire / Order of the Garter / Crown Corporation, and is the same white horse which is the symbol of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). The white horse is a Jesuit symbol – Pegasus. It is the Jesuit Order that governs the Honorable Society of the Inner Temple. The Inner Temple is the core group that governs the City of London Corporation.
The whole Earth is governed by The Crown, through Crown Colonies which belong to The City – The Crown Empire. It governs Africa and still governs China and India. The colonies of the Earth are really just Crown Colonies – The United States of America are states of The Crown.
This being said, however, it is vitally important to remember the following. The Crown Empire uses commercial law (aka international maritime law, or law of contracts) as its means of control. This law does not apply to sovereign, free men and women.
Your name, when spelt out in all capital letters – as in JULIAN WEBSDALE – is a corporation, a trust set up by the government through the treasury department at your birth. Every time a child is born, a corporation/trust is created using his or her name in all capital letters. They do this because governments are corporations and they operate under commercial law, the law of contracts. The laws passed by governments only apply to corporations and not to living, breathing, flesh and blood sovereign-free men and women spelt in upper-lower or all lower case, as with Julian Websdale, or julian websdale. The living, breathing sovereign man and woman is subject to common law, not the commercial law introduced by governments through legislation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IB15IE1JC0 [October 2013]
Previous articles by Julian:
About the author:
Julian Websdale is an independent researcher in the fields of esoterica, metaphysics, and mysticism. His interest in these subjects began in 1988, at the age of seven. Julian was born in England and received his education as an engineer from the University of Bolton. Julian served in a Vaishnava monastery, and has traveled to over 14 countries since 2012. His work creates enthusiastic responses from inquiring minds across the world.
Follow Julian on Facebook and Twitter, or visit his blog.