Tuesday, December 01, 2009

All charges stemming from my arrest on 2/17/09 have been dropped.

Many of you may know that I have been very involved in battling the State of Illinois since February 17, 2009. On that day I was on my way home from work when I was pulled over for no reason by Joshua Alemond, a man acting as a Fairview Heights Police Officer. I was ordered out of my truck at gunpoint and subsequently beaten and Tasered by Alemond and with the assistance of Aaron Nyman, another acting Fairview Heights Police Officer.

The charges stemming from this event include:

A bench warrant for failure to appear for a previously dismissed driving without a license charge in 2006. The charge had already been dismissed by Collinsville in 2006 and then improperly filed in St. Clair County outside of the permissible time for filing charges of which I was never lawfully notified.

Improper Lane Usage which allegedly gave rise to reasonable suspicion that I was "intoxicated".

Fleeing/Eluding a Peace Officer which stems from my slowing down, activating my hazard lights and high beams, and driving safely for about a mile to a lighted side street out of concern for my safety for choosing to not stop on the narrow shoulder of a dark highway at 2am.

Resisting a Peace Officer which stems from my refusing to place my hands behind my back when ordered to do so by Joshua Alemond when the command was being given to me while I was being beaten and Tasered with two men, Alemond and Nyman, on top of me both of whom are probably over 200 lbs each, and after suffered a blow to the head and face with an electric shock to the back of my neck.

No Drivers License which stems from Alemond and Nyman performing an illegal and unconstitutional search of my personal belongings that were inside my truck while I was handcuffed, injured and bleeding in the back of the police cruiser. I was never demanded to produce a drivers license, but instead, because they could not find one they decided to charge me with not having one.

Do Insurance which stems from the same circumstances as the drivers license charge.

This store is lengthy and has been chronicled piece-meal in various posts so I won't go into detail here, but I will compose a comprehensive chronology of what took place from beginning to end. Most of the information is here http://markmccoy.com/excessiveforce.html

In essence, I never entered a plea to any charges. I challenged jurisdiction every step of the way. I presented the court with my Declaration of Sovereignty and asked Judge Randall Kelley to take judicial notice of the Declaration; which he did. Upon challenging jurisdiction as well as the alleged reasonable suspicion for arresting me the court then had to allow for a hearing where I challenged probable cause; which in the police report mentions "believing the driver to be intoxicated".

I had also been using Freedom of Information Act Requests to try and procure dashboard video and other records which speak to the police report being filled with lies, distortions, and fabrications; as well as containing evidence which would exculpate me of all charges. Fairview Heights Police used a number of tactics to deny the requests and by pressing my rights under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Bailey) the police were required to produce any and all evidence, of which I was permitted a copy. Last month I was provided with certified copies of the dashboard video from both police cars. My 8 month struggle to procure the video had come to an end, and it speaks volumes.

Yesterday, 11/30/09, was to be THE day where the probable cause hearing would take place after a number of continuances. I finally had the video, the police report, my supporting case law, and my questions ready to go. However, this time the Alemond and Nyman did not appear.

Judge Randall Kelley called myself and the State's Attorney, another Kelley (no relation) to the bench. I was asked if I was prepared to proceed to which I replied yes. Then Mr. Kelley was asked if he was prepared to which he replied no. He then asked Judge Kelley for a continuance because the police, his witnesses, were not present. He said he spoke to them on Friday prior to remind them of the appearance and they told him they would not be able to attend.

Judge Kelley then asked me how I felt about the continuance and I explained that I had been more than accommodating in agreeing to necessary continuances in the interest of fairness, all of which did benefit myself and the prosecution, and the last appearance date where we discussed this date took into account the schedules of the Alemond and Nyman. I explained that I had been present and prepared at every appearance and the prosecution had not. Therefore, I felt another continuance would prove unduly burdensome to myself and contrary to due process. I voiced my objection to granting the continuance.

Judge Kelley then asked Mr. Kelley if he had done everything in his power to ensure the appearance of Alemond and Nyman, to which he said yes. Judge Kelley then said that he agreed with me; that I had been present at every appearance and prepared to argue my motion. He said that another continuance for the State would prove unduly burdensome to me and he therefore DISMISSED ALL CHARGES.

So, what does this mean? Well, the police would have to been sworn in prior to their testimony for the hearing. The report and video contradict each other. The video, being the authoritative record of the events, would speak to perjury and fabrication of evidence as well as exculpate me of the charges while showing Alemond and Nyman engaged in a number of misdemeanors and felonies. Alemond and Nyman could NOT appear without jeopardizing themselves by way of the evidence on the record. Therefore, no witness, no case. I also do not believe the State could have prevailed with two obviously compromised witnesses.

What next? With the video in-hand I am looking for an attorney who will pursue civil action against the Alemond, Nyman, and the City of Fairview Heights. I have a number of criminal (misdemeanor and felony) charges that I will be working to have filed against Alemond and Nyman. There is still a lot of work to do, but I am unencumbered with any criminal charges which may tend to cast doubt over my claims against the police.

This whole situation speaks to a systemic problem with what is known as "law enforcement". Police believe they are above the law, they are the law. We are a nuisance and should we transgress upon their particular sensibilities they may exact whatever justice they may see fit to summon and be indemnified from prosecution because of "departmental policy". They believe themselves to be a superior class of person and we, the people, the rabble. This debate needs to take place in the public domain and illuminate the self-aggrandizing, megalomaniacal threat that is modern "law enforcement".

I digress. More to come.....................

Sunday, September 20, 2009

I get a warm welcome Home….land Security.

I get a warm welcome Home….land Security.

I just returned from a week in Mexico on Sept. 18, 2009. My flight landed in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas and I headed to Customs/Immigration. My wife was first through the check-in. Her passport was scanned without incident; then it was my turn.

I handed my passport to the officer. She scanned it and right way it appeared that there was something not quite right. I remembered when I came through the airport at the beginning of my trip that the officer had problems scanning my passport and had to enter the numbers in manually. I thought it was because the passport is fairly worn, but the agent acted like it was odd that it would not scan. So, I thought the difficulty on the way back was no different. However, this agent exhibited an expression that was more telling then I would know. She picked up a telephone and briefly spoke with someone while I stood there. It was then that she said that I would have to go with her. She did not elaborate any further.

We were escorted a short-distance to a waiting room where behind glass a number of officers were visible. There were monitors and other equipment in their area. In the waiting room was a man who appeared of middle-eastern descent. He told me his name, but I can’t recall what it was. He said it is common for him to be detained, since he was from Jordan. It happens all the time, he said. While inside the waiting room the officer who escorted had disappeared into the inner office area. There was another officer sitting outside the door. We waited for some time, realizing that there was less than an hour before our next flight left for St. Louis. My wife went to the window to see what the hold-up was. She is told that there is a “problem with my name”, and they had to get things straightened out. My wife told them that we had a flight to catch and they told her that it “was not about you” (my wife), and that it was to do with me.

We watched the officers congregating behind the glass. The officer who escorted us back was discussing something with them and they were looking at some information on a computer monitor. Watching the expressions on their faces, it appeared to me that this was not something out of the ordinary. Some of the agents looked puzzled and curious. The man from Jordan left at some point and other officers came from the back office and left through the door. My wife and I waited, somewhat impatiently.

Eventually, an agent came out to meet me who identified himself as agent Brock. He explained that there may have been some mix-up with my name, or another individual named Mark McCoy, and they needed to find out if I was that Mark McCoy, whoever that Mark McCoy was. He said they would try to get us to our flight, but they had to speak with me to find out information that may be associated with the possible mix-up of Mark McCoys. We were escorted down to the baggage claim where we picked up our bags and then to another area where they could be examined.

On the way down the escalator we discussed some things. Agent Brock said he did not know exactly why they needed to interview me. He believed it may be due to some mix up. He asked if we had brought any contraband into the country. I admitted that the only thing I brought back were two apples, but those were apples that we had purchased at home and took to Mexico for eating on the flight and that we brought them back for the same reason. They were not apples from Mexico. Agent Brock said that should not be a problem. On the way down the escalator I made a remark about the detainment being a result of something I had written or said. Agent Brock asked why I would think that and I replied that I am politically outspoken and may have made someone mad.

We picked up our bags at the baggage claim and then proceeded to an area for them to be examined. At that point, agent Brock and another agent named Murdock assisted in examining all or our bags. The apples were discovered and confiscated, as agent Murdock explained they were not permitted back into the country after being in Mexico even though they were purchased in America. In all, my backpack, camera bag, and suitcase were examined and my wife’s two bags were examined. The net result was two apples.

Appearing satisfied with the search, agents Brock and Murdock left for some time, leaving my wife and I at the examination station. Upon returning, agent Brock asked me to accompany him to another room for further discussion.

I was led into a smaller, more private room, that appeared to be specifically for interviews. I did not notice any microphones or cameras. In the room were agent Brock and another agent whom I don’t recall getting a name from, but who was younger and was not there for the whole time. Eventually, it would be agent Brock and Murdock who were present for the bulk of the interview.

The interview consisted of agent Brock making notes on a blank sheet of 8.5x11 paper. He had my immigration form in front of him. He began by going down the form, verifying the information I had submitted, such as my name, address, etc. He made a comment or question about my being a United States citizen. I said I prefer the word, “American”, and he too said that he was an American. Other questions were such as where I worked, if I had ever been arrested, if I had my own business….etc. Agent Brock asked me about my comment coming down the escalator where I may be detained for something I had said and he wanted me to elaborate. I explained that I had ran for Governor of Illinois and mayor of Collinsville, and in doing so I took the opportunity to rail against the system and those in power; making possible enemies in the process. That comment led to more questions, such as how much money did I raise in my bid for governor, what party I ran under, as well as for mayor of Collinsville.

I want to add that the interview exhibited no discernible structure or objective. It was more conversational than anything. My arrest record and current issues with Fairview Heights were discussed. He commented that the only times I had ever been arrested were while in Fairview Heights and asked if I had a problem with Fairview Heights. I replied that I can’t have a problem with Fairview Heights, since it is a political entity, but it was with two men acting as officers with whom I have the problem. I told him that one of the charges consisted of my not having a driver’s license. He asked if I did have a driver’s license; to which I replied no. I said I had no identification, per se, other than my passport needed to enter the country.

There were other questions which were curious. I was asked if I heard of or listened to Alex Jones, if I liked Alan Keyes, and if I heard of Democracy Now (www.democracynow.org), and had I read a book by Amy Goodman. I replied that I don’t listen to Alex Jones, liked Alan Keyes, and used to listen to Democracy Now. I took the opportunity to bring up my philosophical and political beliefs. I can’t remember if agent Murdock compared me with Alex Jones, but I would differ on that perception. He did mention Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi, both of whom I hold in high esteem. I also mentioned Henry David Thoreau as being the progenitor of civil disobedience, and that such an approach is my philosophy. Agent Murdock did mention that Dr. King paid the ultimate price for his beliefs. I commented that I don’t believe myself to be so important or significant that I would be killed for my beliefs because the majority of people do not identify with such beliefs and therefore my threat to the status quo is negligible, although, I would not fear facing such a consequence for my beliefs since they are non-violent, and well-reasoned.

I was also asked about my feelings on the Federal Reserve, an un-Constitutional, unaccountable private banking cartel; as well as on taxation. I informed them that I marched on Washington over taxation and that the government exceeds its constitutional taxation powers and wastes the taxpayers money on foreign aid and other wasteful endeavors.

Finally, the interview ended and I was led back out to where my wife was sitting and the agents went to check on the status of my delay. They were waiting for a phone call from someone in Washington, D.C. to clear me through. We chatted with agent Murdock for a while until agent Brock came back to meet us with his supervisor, I believe, who was later identified as supervisor Jack Cannon.

We were escorted to the American Airlines counter where we were given new tickets for a flight, which resulted in about a three hour delay in total, including having to wait for the next flight.

So, what happened, why did it happen, and what does it mean?

I was detained. I was detained against my will. I would have preferred not, but I understand the reason for it happening. Immigration is actually one of the few constitutionally authorized functions of government. However, I depart from that concept on this point; an individual born on this land has an unfettered right to exit and re-enter his home land without interference. I told the agents that I was a believer in no borders. Political borders hinder the progress of mankind. They are a means for control and hindering the freedom of people who would evolve societally if left to their own devices. But, the world being what it is at this time, if we desire an agency to keep undesirables out and limit immigration, there has to be a procedure in place for differentiating between the two. As a result, we have to submit to a level of inconvenience in being surveyed in order to determine who belongs and who do not.

I was interviewed. I was not interrogated. I was not fingerprinted. I was not personally searched. I was not cuffed or shackled. I was not touched in any way against my will. I was not photographed, unless if possibly by surreptitious means. The experience was not contentious, adversarial, antagonistic, or unpleasant. Most of the questions involve information readily available through public information. I was not asked for an SSN or other number. It seemed more like there being some hold or other flag on my name or passport that made someone somewhere uneasy or curious; possibly after having read some of my writings posted on the internet or elsewhere, and my being an unknown quantity, they wanted to possibly assess just what the “man” was like and what threat, if any, I may pose. To be honest, after all my challenging to government to engage me; and all of the silence and avoidance resulting therefrom, I finally had the attention of agents of that government with whom to engage in civil discourse and discussion. Even the agents said that they were not sure as to the purpose for my detention, and that they were merely following standard interview procedures. I believe they were just killing time, having me within reach just in case, and discerning any possible threat or illegal purpose. Whoever was pulling the strings was not in Dallas-Fort Worth, but in Washington and the agents was somewhat in the dark regarding the purpose for my detention.

Why did this happen? I don’t know. I can speculate, but I was hoping for the agents to broach the subject. I was never directly approached about anything in particular. The speculation from the agents encompassed everything from an identity mix-up to “I don’t know”. I believe that something attributed to me caught the attention in Washington and they needed to put a “person” to the words. They wanted to know if I was possibly violent, treasonous, dangerous, belligerent, uncooperative….etc. Depending on the circumstances, I could be uncooperative and belligerent, if that be how I am approached. These men were respectful and reasonable. Even I do not accept the “I am just doing my job” excuse for injustices being perpetrated; men can exercise reason and discretion in achieving a peaceful and lawful objective without infringing on the life and property of others. I saw no reason to be anything other than what I always aspire to be, viz, a peaceable and reasonable man who longs for the evolution of mankind in transcending war, divisiveness, mistrust, violence, and suffering.

What does this mean? Someone is listening, or has listened. I may be dismissed as inconsequential. I hope to be dismissed as being non-violent, and not-consenting to the authority of government over my person. I can do without it just fine. Will I be detained again? I can’t say. Agent Brock said he will write a report that will hopefully resolve any uncertainty and avoid this from happening again. I can say that had it not been for my wife being with me I may have taken a different tact. I did not want to elaborate too much on some things so as to continue the interview to the point of delaying her from getting home. I actually told her that if I were to be detained for a time that she should continue home and make appropriate contacts. Is that to say I would have been less than civil? No. I would have taken the opportunity to go further into depth on my history with challenging government, removing my consent from same, tendering my Declaration and many other things. I would have taken the opportunity to talk them to deaf. I finally had a “captive” audience who dared ask, “Who are you?”

At the conclusion, we shook each other’s hands. I commented on their professionalism and civility. I harbor no malevolence or discontent as a result of the experience. Have my opinions about government changed? No. I did not deal with government. I dealt with men. Even though I believe the office they occupy to be subordinate to that of a man, I was not assaulted with the persona of the official, but engaged by men acting in that capacity. Maybe they were very well trained and shrewd in furthering an ulterior agenda by appearing respectful and civil. My responses were genuine, honest, non-violent, and lawful. I kept telling my wife she had nothing to fear for I had committed no crime. If my experience was a sum of government agents seeking to know the truth about me then I have no issue with their tactics. We will see what happens next time, but for the time-being, I have to give credit to these men for treating me the way they did.

I do plan on following up with a comment card and filing a DHS TRIP inquiry. I will update this mailing list with the ensuing results, if any. There were other things said that essentially reiterate much of what I usually espouse and many of you would rather not hear again, so I will dispense with the redundancy. Hopefully, I will be left alone or they will want to know more. Either way, I win.

Upon checking my Google Analytics after returning home I find that Homeland Security visited my website on Sept. 18 and 19.

Sunday, September 06, 2009

Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent

(CNS News)

Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken.

Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.

Outlined in the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation.

Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased’s family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one’s organs.

“The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler.

This problem could be remedied if governments changed the laws for organ donation, they said. Currently, unless a patient has explicitly chosen to be an organ donor, either on his driver’s license or with a donor card, the doctors assume that the person did not want to donate and therefore do not harvest his organs. Thaler and Sunstein called this “explicit consent.”

They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.”

“Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate,” they explained.

The difference between explicit and presumed consent is that under presumed consent, many more people “choose” to be organ donors. Sunstein and Thaler noted that in a 2003 study only 42 percent of people actively chose to be organ donors, while only 18 percent actively opted out when their consent was presumed.

In cases where the deceased’s wishes are unclear, Sunstein and Thaler argued that a “presumed consent” system would make it easier for doctors to convince families to donate their loved one’s organs.

Citing a 2006 study, Thaler and Sunstein wrote: “The next of kin can be approached quite differently when the decedent’s silence is presumed to indicate a decision to donate rather than when it is presumed to indicate a decision not to donate. This shift may make it easier for the family to accept organ donation.”

The problem of the deceased’s family is only one issue, Sunstein and Thaler said, admitting that turning the idea of choice on its head will invariably run into major political problems, but these are problems they say the government can solve through a system of “mandated choice.”

“Another [problem] is that it is a hard sell politically,” wrote Sunstein and Thaler. “More than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter. For these reasons we think that the best choice architecture for organ donations is mandated choice.”

Mandated choice is a process where government forces you to make a decision – in this case, whether to opt out of being an organ donor to get something you need, such as a driver’s license.

“With mandated choice, renewal of your driver’s license would be accompanied by a requirement that you check a box stating your organ donation preferences,” the authors stated. “Your application would not be accepted unless you had checked one of the boxes.”

To ensure that people’s decisions align with the government policy of more organ donors, Sunstein and Thaler counseled that governments should follow the state of Illinois’ example and try to influence people by making organ donation seem popular.

“First, the state stresses the importance of the overall problem (97,000 people [in Illinois] on the waiting list and then brings the problem home, literally (4,700 in Illinois),” they wrote.

“Second, social norms are directly brought into play in a way that build on the power of social influences [peer pressure]: ‘87 percent of adults in Illinois feel that registering as an organ donor is the right thing to do’ and ’60 percent of adults in Illinois are registered,’” they added.

Sunstein and Thaler reminded policymakers that people will generally do what they think others are doing and what they believe others think is right. These presumptions, which almost everyone has, act as powerful factors as policymakers seek to design choices.

“Recall that people like to do what most people think is right to do; recall too that people like to do what most people actually do,” they wrote. “The state is enlisting existing norms in the direction of lifestyle choices.”

Thaler and Sunstein believed that this and other policies are necessary because people don’t really make the best decisions.

“The false assumption is that almost all people, almost all of the time, make choices that are in their best interest or at the very least are better than the choices that would be made [for them] by someone else,” they said.

This means that government “incentives and nudges” should replace “requirements and bans,” they argued.

Neither Sunstein nor Thaler currently are commenting on their book, a spokesman for the publisher, Penguin Group, told CNSNews.com.

In a question-and-answer section on the Amazon.com Web site, Thaler and Sunstein answered a few questions about their book.

When asked what the title “Nudge” means and why people need to be nudged, the authors stated: “By a nudge we mean anything that influences our choices. A school cafeteria might try to nudge kids toward good diets by putting the healthiest foods at front.

“We think that it’s time for institutions, including government, to become much more user-friendly by enlisting the science of choice to make life easier for people and by gently nudging them in directions that will make their lives better,” they wrote.

“…The human brain is amazing, but it evolved for specific purposes, such as avoiding predators and finding food,” said Thaler and Sunstein. “Those purposes do not include choosing good credit card plans, reducing harmful pollution, avoiding fatty foods, and planning for a decade or so from now. Fortunately, a few nudges can help a lot. …”

Pittsburgh G20 Summit: De Facto Martial Law

by Joe Pogany

In a disturbing trend that has been emerging in the United States over the last few years, active-duty military will be on a mission in the streets of another modern American city. WPXI News is reporting that 2,000 combat-ready troops from the 2nd Brigade Combat team of the Army National Guard will be deployed in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania during the G20 Summit. The troops will be tasked with providing assistance with crowd control, traffic, defensive terrorist tactics, and equipment to sense biological and chemical weapons.

In an August 3rd broadcast on KDKA News, it was reported that Gov. Ed Rendell had promised 1,500 Pennsylvania National Guard troops who would be on-call “If necessary.” In this and other news reports, it was reported that the roughly 900-member Pittsburgh Police Force was not enough to handle the amount of protestors that are being expected, which was cited as a reason to bring in the National Guard. Pittsburgh Police Department Chief Nate Harper put out a call to other departments and major cities seeking and eventually getting roughly 3,100 out-of-town police officers for the event. So, even though the police were able to secure the needed forces, we now have a confirmed commitment of active-duty military of not 1,500 troops— but 2,000! As of now we can expect 6,000 or more “authorities” for this elitists’ confab.

There is still no word as to whether or not these National Guard troops will be armed, and if so, whether they will be armed with lethal or non-lethal weapons. From earlier reports it is known that the police force will have “Standard-issue riot gear” but it is not known if the military will be equipped in this way too. Another point that is not known at this time is what the chain of command will be. (I.e. whether the police will be directing the military or vice-versa)

Following the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s designation of the summit as a “National Security Special Event,” the U.S. Secret Service has taken charge of the event. This means that the Federal Government is directing all of the activities of the police, military, local officials, and by fiat— all of the local citizens. Amtrak has announced that they will not be making stops in Pittsburgh during the summit as well as Greyhound, who is considering temporarily moving their terminal to McKeesport. The Port Authority of Allegheny County announced that the light-rail service into the city will stop as it enters the city and admit that they still don’t know about how bus service will be affected.

KDKA News is also reporting that residents of the Downtown Pittsburgh area will need to show ID to enter their homes. The assorted apartment firms in the area are notifying their tenants that their information will be given to the city, which in-turn will put their names into a database. When the tenants who live in the “security zone” want to get home, they will need to go through a security checkpoint and show proper identification. No word on who will man these checkpoints or whether the residents will have to take their belts and shoes off.

Many groups have applied for permits with the city for protests. Many permits have been denied, and many more have not yet been answered. Of the permits that have been granted, none have actually been issued yet. The ACLU plans on suing the City of Pittsburgh if the permits are not issued by the close of the business day, Friday. All of the groups who plan on protesting can look forward to doing so in one of the two proposed “Free-speech zones.”

With active-duty military personnel being on the streets, free-speech zones, little or no public transportation and making local residents show ID to get to their homes, we will be under a de facto martial law declaration here in Pittsburgh. This summit underlines all of the things that are totally un-American and wholly totalitarian in this country today.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

A Sunday Morning Rant

Good morning newsletter subscribers. Feel free to delete this willy-nilly as my mood is at present acerbic and this communiqué' will convey such. The impetus for this diatribe stems from my watching news spewed by the corporate-controlled media. There are people carrying signs, complaining, whining, pleading; as well as businesses whoring themselves by seducing the rabble to engage government stimulus programs. A panoramic observation of the masses speaks to a condition rife with ignorance, fear, apathy, and greed.

Am I painting with a broad brush? I will say that I am painting with a spray gun. I mean no attack on anyone personally; I am making a general observation. If the abasement fits, wear it.

Swine flu. The hyperbole and propaganda oozing from the media and government trumpets the coming of the viral boogeyman. A vaccine is being hastily developed for which the pharmaceutical industry will be legally indemnified for any harm to you resulting from accepting the poison into your veins. Do you think the powers-that-be value your life? Do you believe that your wellness or happiness is any of their concern? You are guinea pigs, chattel, drones, fools. Whatever result follows your irrational actions is your fault. They will say you should have known better, but you were governed by fear. Maybe you would be better off dead. Take the vaccine. I will take my chances and rely upon my body's defenses and nature's remedies. If it is my fate to succumb to the plague, then so be it. I will not voluntarily introduce poison into my body which may afford no protection, and which may also hasten a painful demise. I will even posit that this flu originated in a laboratory, and planned for the thinning of the herd.

Government bailouts. I could take the disingenuous approach that the government is wasting your tax dollars on rescuing private enterprise, but to be honest, the tax dollars are not yours. There is not now, nor has there been for some time, any money. You toil for debt. You are in debt. You will die in debt. Your children will be born into debt. Federal reserve notes, the "currency" of the United States, are worthless script. They have no value other than what others are willing to assign to them; what they are willing to work for. The bailouts are nothing but a way to legislate the confiscation of business through the expansion of the debt. The market is not free. The game has been rigged and controlled for some time by regulation and monopolization. You did not bail out anybody. The debt which tarnishes us all has been expanded for the purpose of bringing under the penumbra of the "exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress" the means of production and industry, ala socialism. Welcome, Comrade. Feed at the trough and satiate your greed.

Religion, Christianity, God. I don't know what to say without alienating or angering some of you, but I will say this; the God I see marketed by many churches and religions appears to be a God of fools, ignoramus', tyrants, and hypocrites. If such a God exists I would rather be an Atheist. I refuse to believe in such a God. So many people hide behind their religion as an excuse for being "imperfect". It gives them license to fail and falter, for they will be forgiven; even though their spiritual and moral infirmities are self-imposed. A greater reward awaits when this life ends. A reward for what? What do people reap for having succumbed to the oppression of other men, regardless of how palatable or beneficial that oppression may be? How can anyone support war, yet assail abortion? How can anyone claim to be a child of God, yet serve the State? How can anyone believe in salvation, yet tremble in fear of evil men? Your churches are government controlled. Your preachers spew lies and vitriol. They deceive and dissemble. Their tongues are tied by preclusions from their churches being legal entities born from IRS regulations at 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. You worship the government because you pray in the house of Uncle Sam. Your preachers will not speak ill of government evil, war, revolt, disobedience; all of those things your Savior presumably advocated and died for. Jesus died for nothing. And so will you.

Culture. What a cesspool. Not by inherent attributes, but by choice. People are enamored with aspirations of being dregs and buffoons. They are violent, greedy, materialistic, and slothful. They are the products of their lack of responsibility to their own lives. I am not my brother's keeper. I refuse to put upon my back any capable being. I cannot supplant their lack of will with my own. My labor is not meant to sustain their lethargy. I will grasp the outstretched hand of the man who loses his footing while trudging up the same hill as I. I will take into my arms the individual whose legs have been worn to inaction by years of toil and suffering. I will not place myself between a despot and his conscript; but I will stand side-by-side with the man who battles the tyrant. The end is looming for many who have accepted a life governed by vicariousness, voyeurism, and disengagement. When required to summon your wits for survival will you consult reality television, or will you invoke life experiences which afford more than how to be a compliant drone to the State or your materialistic hedonism?

Myself. I do not know what the future holds. I do believe the future is a restatement of the past with the opportunity to change according to the dictates of the present. We are doomed to the fate of previous generations. If this is my first life, which I doubt, then I have but one chance to make my ending one which I can rest easy about. If this life is but another cycle in my evolution then I have a duty to learn from the past and to not err the same.

The world is perfect. Man is perfect. Perfect in the sense that everything dutifully conforms to the laws of nature. Man, however, possessing free-will, chooses to understand his existence or ignore it. The knowledge acquired through examination may prove disconcerting and uncomfortable. Ignorance and distraction afford more comfort. I have come to understand that man creates his reality. I know of man's capacity for evil; as well as his capacity for good. I have made my choice. My task is to maintain my principles despite the pressure from others to succumb to their artifices; and their attempts to seduce me to abandon my principles for temporary pleasures crafted by man. Look around you. If man possesses the answers to the questions of the world, and we are living under those answers, why do we suffer so? Why have the afflictions of life been enhanced by those manufactured through industry and government? We poison our bodies and divorce our reason, and create the reality of suffering and fear we cling so tenaciously to. Let it all go. You will arrive at the ultimate destination sooner or later.

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Preparing for civil unrest

By Claire Wolfe
The most remarkable thing about civil unrest is that there hasn’t been more of it.
Politicians are making a hash of this country—and much of the rest of the civilized world. We know it. They know it. They know we know it. But we don’t feel we can do anything much to stop them.
That right there is the pre-condition for civil unrest—when people are frustrated and politicians are nervous.
Worse, that was how things stood before last fall’s crash. Before pols on both left and right launched the biggest mass transfer of wealth in history—transferring our wealth (what we had left of it!) to their friends on Wall Street and in the banking industry. In other words, that’s how things were before things got bad!
Now everybody’s talking about the ongoing catastrophe (even if we are in a momentarily sunny mood). But almost nobody is talking about the logical—maybe even inevitable—consequences of cynical or desperate politicians abusing an already fed-up populace: civil unrest.
I mean people taking to the streets. Or mass resistance. Or crackdowns because the government fears we might do something to upset its apple cart. It’s going to happen. Somewhere. At some time. It’s going to.
One of the few VIPs to mention the matter openly was Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor and the ultimate insider’s insider. He commented on the millions of unemployed or soon-to-be-unemployed and the “…public awareness of this extraordinary wealth that was transferred to a few individuals at levels without historical precedent in America.” He told “Morning Joe” Scarborough, “Hell, there could be even riots.” I’d say that’s an understatement.
Although few in power are talking about it, rumors abound that governments at many levels are planning for civil unrest. One rumor is about a document supposedly being circulated right now among top federal officials. It’s called the “C&R Document”—with C&R standing for “conflict & revolution.” The much-storied paper is said to be a plan for controlling the American people when we get out of hand. True? Who knows. But the very rumor tells us a lot about these times.
Other things are not mere rumor. When the federal government established a North American Army command in 2002, its purpose wasn’t to repel foreign invaders. It was domestic operations—something long and rightly forbidden by the Posse Comitatus Act. In February of 2009, when military commanders in Canada and the U.S. signed a pact allowing their armies to operate inside each other’s country they didn’t even bother to get authorization from Congress—an illegal and unprecedented move. And once again, the purpose was handling “domestic civil emergencies.”
For several years, the Centers for Disease Control tried to get states to adopt something called the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA). This act would allow state governments to become police-state dictatorships in event of any ill-defined health emergency—vaccinating people by force, destroying or seizing property without compensation, and rationing medical supplies, food, and fuel. To their credit, most state governments rejected the act. A few adopted portions of it before a fervent opposition campaign caused the CDC to back off. However, the concept of a health dictatorship hasn’t gone away. Not hardly. Within days of the news that a new strain of swine flu had arisen in Mexico in April 2009, states were again considering legislation to give themselves martial-law powers in event of an epidemic.
And what of the dozens and dozens of federal agencies that now have SWAT teams? Seriously, what justifies the Bureau of Land Management or the Department of Housing and Urban Development having paramilitary units?
Now maybe you like the idea of an Army that watches over its own citizens. Maybe it makes sense to have a government seize total dictatorial power in event of a health emergency. Maybe you believe SWAT teams will never be used except against bad guys. But do you really trust these people?
After all, these are the same folks, and this is the same mentality, that not only spent $325,000 to produce a souvenir photo of a presidential 747 zooming low over the Statue of Liberty, but ordered the New York Police Department, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the New York mayor’s office not to tell the public. Never mind that they realized full well that passenger jets and military planes plunging low over Manhattan would evoke panic.
Still, peace reigns. Mostly. At least here in North America. But not everywhere. Not long ago, France was brought to its knees by night after night of rioting. In that country it’s become almost common for workers to hold their bosses hostage in hopes of winning economic concessions. Greece, too, saw its normal life and business shut down by days of rioting. So did Iceland—a country that’s normally the picture of civility.
Can the U.S. be forever immune?
It might not take much—and it could be something out of the blue, something impossible to anticipate—to set us against each other and against the “Trust us; we’ll fix it” political crowd.
In a way, this national silence on a matter so many people are afraid of is similar to the silence about general preparedness issues before 9-11 or Hurricane Katrina. Only Mormons and us wingnuts spoke of preparedness way back when. Since then, of course, advice on preparedness is mainstream and common.
In another sense, this silence is different. Because when unrest finally erupts, it’s not going to be us merely taking care of ourselves. It’s going to be “us against them.” It might be workers against bosses. Or the poor against bankers. Or blacks against Hispanics. Or little folk against Big Men in public office. Or farmers against the USDA. Or xenophobes against xenophiles. But however it happens, the implications aren’t as Boy-Scoutish as just taking care of ourselves in an emergency.
Defining civil unrest
Look up “preparations for civil unrest” on Google and…What’s that echo I hear?—you’ll find nothing that’s going to help you. In fact, you won’t even easily turn up a good definition of what civil unrest is.
Like “indecency,” the definition seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
I wouldn’t consider a peaceful anti-war march to be civil unrest, for instance, but a police chief might. Similarly, I wouldn’t consider acts of localized non-violent lawbreaking (like environmental activists chaining themselves to a tree) to be civil unrest; but a timber company official probably believes otherwise.
Civil unrest occurs when anger, frustration, or fear turn disruptive on a mass scale. Or when government officials crack down because they anticipate such disruptions. Crackdowns can lead to further frustration, leading to further crackdowns and so on—especially when the crackdowns look unwarranted and tyrannical.
In other words, civil unrest can arise from the anger of people or the folly of government or both together.
Anger over an unpopular policy, a new war, a collapse of the currency, panic over a pandemic, a food shortage, a bank run—anything like that could cause civil unrest, especially in a population that’s already on edge and no longer trusts its authority figures.
Another thing you won’t find via Google is how various types or levels of unrest are likely to affect us and how we should respond, if we’re affected. Again, although the men and women at the top are quite concerned for their own sakes, they (and their media mouthpieces) would rather not talk about what we should do in event of civil panic.
But that’s not good enough for we independent-minded people, is it?
Here are my definitions of levels of civil unrest and a little bit about how they might affect us:
LEVEL ONE: The lowest level of civil unrest is when people turn on their own neighborhoods—as happened during the race riots of the 1960s and the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. Level One civil unrest can be deadly and destructive, but primarily to people who live, work, or must travel in the immediate area. Level One unrest is spontaneous, Dionysian, is confined to a narrow geographical zone where the protestors live. Police response may be harsh, but it’s localized. Unless you’re in the middle of it, you’re unaffected.
LEVEL TWO: Level Two civil unrest may also be focused on a single area. But in this case, rioters or protesters have deliberately targeted a business district, a facility, a transportation system, or an organization to impose maximum disruption. One example: the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle in 1999; young people with violence in mind and rage in their hearts attacked an entire downtown, affecting hundreds of businesses and tens of thousands of workers who hardly knew what hit them. Another example: This spring, protesters in Thailand shut down the Bangkok airport, affecting who knows how many individuals and businesses. Level Two unrest is usually planned or semi-planned. The target is chosen deliberately. Although still focused in one area, Level Two can disrupt normal life and business in a whole region or country.
LEVEL THREE: Level Three comes when mass unrest or authoritarian crackdown causes disruption at state or regional level. Then, no matter what the original cause or location of the trouble, everyone in the region is affected. Effects might include travel restrictions, random ID checks, mass arrests, food and fuel rationing, controls on money and banking, roadblocks, and other harsh “emergency” restrictions.
LEVEL FOUR: Level Four is Level Three—but on a national or even international scale. It’s martial law. If things ever get this bad, it’s likely that the government itself will be a far bigger threat to everyone’s well being than whatever the original cause of the clampdown was.
And of course, any level of civil unrest can lead to laws, regulations, and harsher police policies that end up affecting everybody in the long run.
Yes, it can involve us
We make a mistake if we think civil unrest is strictly an urban phenomena. It can happen anywhere.
When 400 government agents and soldiers descended on one isolated family in the Idaho mountains, the roadblocks, helicopters, Humvees, media presence, and furious protestors surrounded the Randy Weaver family and brought the normal life of Boundary County, Idaho, to a halt. The siege against the Branch Davidian church in Waco, Texas, wasn’t conducted in the inner-city, either. Yet both of these were large scale catastrophes with all the hallmarks of civil unrest—individuals or groups resisting, government insisting.
I can easily envision strictly rural-based unrest that urban dwellers will never even hear about (except perhaps in highly distorted reports). What happens, for instance, if farmers, 4H families, owners of saddle horses, and holders of small chicken flocks decide to resist en masse the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)? It’s easy to imagine, in these crazy days, USDA SWAT teams descending on the countryside to make arrests, forcibly register or destroy non-compliant animals, and burn down non-registered facilities.
The future could see rural resistance to invasive census-taking, forced vaccination programs, land takings, water-rights policies, or the destruction of herds for real or bogus health reasons. As country people increasingly see governments as foreign organizations driven by the interests of city dwellers, pharmaceutical companies, and mega-agri-business, it wouldn’t surprise me.
If we ever have serious food shortages, expect rural areas to be besieged.
Even when civil unrest confines itself to the cities, airports, or highways it can affect us in crazy ways. Here’s a funny example of unpredictable (in this case mild) consequences. A friend was due to have her first book published in Canada. She was very excited—then disappointed when weeks dragged by and the book didn’t appear. Turns out that a band of Indians was blocking a highway bridge the printer’s truck had to cross. The union truckers, in solidarity, refused to route around the protest. Just one small consequence. But you can see the unpredictability.
The simple truth is that we don’t know what kinds of unrest to anticipate. We don’t know when, or if, we’ll see civil unrest. But thinking about the problem and preparing ourselves mentally and physically to deal with it should be just another aspect of our personal preparedness.
What we can do
1. Keep standard emergency preps up to date. First thing to do is make sure all our typical household preparedness supplies and plans are current. As BHM readers know, backup food, water, and other supplies are our mainstay for everything from bad storms to long-term unemployment, from power outages to social breakdowns. During civil unrest, especially at Level Three or Four, we might not be able to get out to buy things we need—or we might consider it more prudent to stay at home. On the other hand, if we ourselves are part of the unrest, we may need those supplies to sit out a siege.
2. Don’t fall into foolish complacency. We who live in the country tend to have an “it can’t happen here” attitude toward political violence or social upheaval. We see those things as urban pheonomena. And mostly, they are. But there’s no ironclad rule that says they have to be. If anything disrupts the supply chain, for instance, rural areas could be the first to be cut off from food, medicines, fuel, or other necessities. If government breaks down to the point where it can’t deliver food stamps, housing vouchers, social security, or bureaucrats’ pay, the rural poor and unemployed could become just as restive as their urban counterparts.
3. Watch your health. As I write this, the airwaves are shrilling about swine flu. This outbreak may fizzle; after all, perfectly normal flu kills many every year without causing panic, martial law, or incessant media coverage. On the other hand, it’s certain that one day some illness will rampage across the globe. Few things inspire public panic more quickly than contagious disease, and once again rural areas are not immune. Take all the standard recommended precautions like frequent handwashing. Make sure your preparedness kit includes surgical masks and disposable gloves as well as a selection of frequently updated medications. And be ready to lay low at home for a long time in the event a serious plague gets loose.
4. Make common cause with your neighbors. I’ve said it before, but establishing a strong bond with people in your community—right now—is vital to every sort of emergency preparedness. In event of a Level One or Two emergency, these are the folks who could come to your house to make sure you’re okay. They might give you a ride out or a place to sleep if you accidentally end up in a “hot zone” of riot or protest. In a deeper or more long-term emergency, they could pool resources with you to make supply runs. They can advise you if they’ve spotted a roadblock. They might let you cross their land to avoid a route that has become dangerous.
5. If you grow crops or raise food animals and the unrest is due to a food shortage (or something has driven city people out into the countryside), prepare to protect your resources day and night. Here again neighbors can do each other valuable services, like taking shifts guarding fields, barns, private roads, and gardens. Yes, this is an apocalyptic scenario. Not a likely one. But if it happens, it’s a Level Three or Level Four emergency—delivered to your own front yard.
6. Get advance word on local conditions when traveling. We’re used to hopping into our vehicles or onto airplanes and going wherever we want to go. But as the worldwide economy deteriorates, it’s wise to keep an eye on our destination. Right now, this warning pertains more to overseas travel than jaunts within the U.S. If you plan to go abroad, visit online sites like Travelfish.org. They’ll have bulletins about adverse conditions in areas you plan to visit; you may even be able to receive alerts via email that will warn you about anything from political protests to disease outbreaks in places you plan to go.
7. Watch for signs of trouble when in an unfamiliar area. Sometimes the only advance notice you get is the notice your own senses give you. When walking, driving, biking, or otherwise traveling in unfamiliar places, stay in what gunfolk call “condition yellow.” This is different than the meaningless colored threat levels the Department of Homeland Security puts out. It just means “be alert!” Never simply allow yourself to slouch along obliviously. Always be aware of who’s nearby and what’s going on around you. If you spot trouble developing, turn. Avoid it if at all possible.
8. If you stumble into a “hot zone” of unrest, be prepared to think on your feet. Not many people are qualified to give you advice about how to behave if you unavoidably find yourself in the midst of trouble—a riot, a mass protest that suddenly engulfs your familiar downtown, a spot where police are bashing heads or hurling tear gas seemingly at random. That’s because not many people have ever been there and every catastrophe is different. If street-level chaos surrounds you, do your best to keep a cool head, move away from the worst of it if you get the chance, and get inside if possible.
9. If you’re swept up in mass arrests during a riot or demonstration, the officers probably aren’t going to be listening to your protestations of being an innocent bystander. You’ll only tick them off and possibly get a charge of resisting arrest. The best advice I’ve received from my friends who’ve been busted during out-of-hand protests: Go along as best you can. Usually, all charges in such cases are either dropped or reduced once calm is restored. Only if we’ve reached the extreme point where police are rounding people up and throwing them into detention camps or “disappearing” them is fighting cops on the street likely to be worth it; then…fight like a demon.
10. Have a good lawyer and carry his or her card with you. Once again, in the heat of chaos it may not do you much good. But that card will come in handy later. Besides, if you and a police officer have an encounter in calmer circumstances, a lawyer’s card, along with your calm assertion of your legal rights, will help you to be taken seriously. Police officers are like anybody else; they’re more likely to go after easy targets than ones who are obviously knowledgeable and prepared. My lawyer has a helpful little list on the back of his card of the things you should do—nor not do when accosted by a police officer. I’d trust that more than my own nerves in a tight situation.
11. Be careful of roadblocks. This is a hard one. If we reach Level Three or Four of unrest, we may not only see the obnoxious police “checkpoints” we’re burdened with today. We might also see two other things. One would be expanded police roadblocks, with warrantless searches, harsh questioning, and possibly mass arrests. Another could be “freelance” roadblocks—roadblocks set up by anybody from political protesters to highwaymen. (Just as gangs of home invaders now masquerade as SWAT teams, highwaymen might masquerade as government officials to rob the unwary.) If it’s humanly possible, avoid roadblocks. It’s not illegal to turn away from them, as long as you don’t disobey any traffic laws. Police do consider it suspicious behavior and may come after you, even if you’ve done nothing wrong; but in a time of civil unrest, avoiding a roadblock could save your skin. Of course, both police and freelancers will set up their blockades to make them as hard as possible to avoid—all the more reason to be alert, know where roadblocks are likely to be, and have a mental map of alternate routes. If, in a time and place of unrest, you’re in a line approaching a roadblock, watch what happens to the people ahead of you. If you see any sign that the motorists ahead are being abused, get out of there.
So far, we’ve talked mostly as if civil unrest is something apart from us—something we might have to be wary of, something we might stumble accidentally into. But the fact is that as our country becomes less free, we might of course be the civil unrest.
We might resist having our premises tagged for NAIS or having our herds slaughtered for real or bogus health reasons. We might end up fighting evictions (as farmers and many rural dwellers have for centuries during hard times). We might be the ones who say, “Hell no, we won’t go!” when the mobile vaccination van comes to town, or the ones who try to keep our neighbors from being rounded up and sent to camps. Times are uncertain. We simply don’t know.
But in every case, preparedness, foreknowledge, and a cool head will come in handy.
Some of us already have lines in the sand that would inspire us to resist abuses of authority. And that, right there, is something our would-be masters fear—our disobedience. What will happen? And when? Nobody has a crystal ball. But the combination of public frustration and governmental apprehension is an explosive one. Someday, somebody will light the match.

A commentary on the delusion of independence

I had promised myself that I would not send a message to this list on Independence Day due to the fact that I find myself in low spirits when reflecting on the state of our nation, but I did not promise that I would not send a message AFTER Independence Day, which I prefer to call co-dependence day. I presume many of you were somewhat upbeat and happy for having a three-day weekend. Some of you probably “ooh” and “ah” to fireworks displays, gorge yourselves on barbeque, and numb your wits with copious libations. The braver amongst you risked repetitive stress injury by flagellating Old Glory on-a-stick with such vigor that the aggregated breeze generated can actually affect the jet stream.
 I, however, found that day to be a painful reminder of how we have digressed since the independence of the American inhabitants was won by way of treason and murder. Men, imperfect though they were, came to adopt universal principles pertaining to the recognition of natural rights promulgated by an author whose authority is beyond the reach of the manipulating hand of man. Through philosophical affirmation of unalienable rights these men posited a system of governance where a hierarchy of justice founded upon the rights of the individual would be secured. As a result, people would be permitted to pursue happiness unfettered, with the state being a silent guardian of the common liberty.
In the early years of this country, the common man, however ignorant or uneducated he may have appeared, recognized, understood, and cherished the freedom he possessed. He understood the purpose and limits of the new government. He lived his life with no prior restraint on his actions. His labor, fireside, travels, and family were sacrosanct. The audacity of government to inspect the private actions of a free man had not yet manifested in legislation or administrative acts. Agreed, the common man was not a paragon of virtue; without fault or vices. He was free to live and make all the mistakes properly befitting imperfect men. He was not yet placed under the yoke fashioned by other imperfect men in satisfying their own avarice and greed.
Today, there is virtually no aspect of our lives beyond the domain of governmental interference. The attitudes of the majority reflect an inherent distrust in human nature. Reason and conscience have been replaced with myriad statutes, ordinances, policies, and regulations. The State has assumed, under the doctrine of parens patriae, to deem us all incompetent, thereby justifying its intrusions into our lives. I find it curious that we celebrate the independence won by the colonies from England, but we seldom, if ever, contemplate our personal independence.
I, personally, find little value in our present form of government. As an Anarchist, I fail to recognize the legitimacy of government as it may pertain to those who do not consent to such a system. There is little doubt that any argument which claims our current government reflects the will of the people who first formed it would quickly fail. And if the argument is then that it reflects the will of the people today, then it is even more disturbing to see reflected in our political consciousness a belief that freedom should be mediated by a central authority; and the needs and necessities of life are best left to central planners and administrators.
We, as a nation, are at a crossroads. We will either capitulate to being governed into regulatory compliance, or come to revere the natural rights of individuals. A revolution is both long overdue and necessary. Whether it will be a revolution borne of blood or mind has yet to be determined. Almost assuredly, the taking of live is unavoidable. Government systematically engages in the capricious taking of innocent life. Thousands of people are maimed and killed by police action. Review of such atrocities is measured by “departmental policy” as opposed to standards of conduct applied equally to all, and based upon well-founded and established legal standards developed over thousands of years. To harm another, in whatever way and absent an imminent and demonstrable threat to the liberty or life another or one’s self while acting under the authority of the people purported to be protected is a treason perpetrated upon mankind itself.
The only celebration I partook of that day was that of my own claim of independence and sovereignty. I came to realize that I could no longer participate in the charade of liberty we are indoctrinated with by incessant incantations of so-called patriots. I am likewise nauseated by those I loosely refer to as my “countrymen” who excuse and dissemble; hiding behind their religion and God in justification for prostrating themselves before other men. Such people either worship a God who is a coward and despot; or they honestly have no faith in anything other than a fear of death and truth. I refuse to acknowledge a God, who would prefer those creatures which he created with a capacity for reason and hope for freedom, to serve as political sodomites for their earthly rulers.
I have made my intentions clear by way of my Declaration. I have sworn to live, die, and if need-be defend to the death those principles. Freedom cannot be purchased on bended knee and outstretched palm. It is purchased through struggle, pain, and blood. The rewards are far grander than the cost. I will willingly lay down my life for what I have come to accept as truth. I will be damned before I allow another man to frighten me into compliance. Let us see how the government responds to someone who exercises their natural right and sovereign prerogative to refuse to consent.
People speak as if the object of life is to live as easily and comfortably as possible with little outside interference. Tell me, how do you reconcile with your conscience when it confronts you with the disparity between your beliefs and your actions? How will you reflect back on your life, lying on your death bed and hoping for whatever eternal existence awaits, when you have submitted yourself to subjugation and arbitrary rule in violation of your conscience?
The purpose of life is not to amass as many trips around the sun as possible; it is to spend those trips living a life we have come to understand through inquiry and discovery. How in God's name can anyone act in a way that is in violation of their conscience? I understand there is a aspect of fear for doing so, but that fear is often self-imposed, based on the pretenses projected to us through media, society, and ignorance. 
At the end of this essay I find my spirits now elevated. Despite what the world may confront me with, or what men may seek to impose upon me, I possess free will and the courage to exercise it as I see fit. The enumerated, licensed, regulated, deceived, and fearful can do what they will with this world. Celebrate your delusion of freedom and wear your chains dutifully. Even though I hope to enjoy my time in this life, I have not so endeared myself with its trappings that I will deny my nature for it. I am free. That is my celebration; Independence of self and spirit. You should try it.

Monday, June 01, 2009

Police State Jobs Available for Psychopaths

Police State Jobs Available for Psychopaths

The sociopathic police personality: Is it a product of the “Rotten Apple” or the “Rotten Barrel?”

The “Rotten Apple” theory states that deviant police officers are those who psychological testing fails to screen out. This concept is favored by police administrators because it offers a quick and easy solution to police deviant behavior. However, there is a growing body of literature that suggests that it is the stressful occupation that is policing that is the fertile soil from which police deviant behavior springs otherwise known as the “Rotten Barrel” theory. This article shall explore police deviant behavior from the perspective that it is the “Rotten Barrel” that leads to police deviant behavior.

What we are now seeing appears to indicate that psychological testing is being used to locate and hire sociopathic deviants rather than to screen them out. Are the people, who ought to be in prisons or mental institutions, now being given guns and badges? Are the prisons or mental institutions now for religious, or freedom loving people? Sociopathic deviants are the first line of enforcement in every dictatorship.

Career lawyers overruled on voting case Black Panthers had wielded weapons, blocked polls

Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.

The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.

The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20.

A Justice Department spokesman on Thursday confirmed that the agency had dropped the case, dismissing two of the men from the lawsuit with no penalty and winning an order against the third man that simply prohibits him from bringing a weapon to a polling place in future elections.

The department was "successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again," spokesman Alejandro Miyar said. "Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law."

Mr. Miyar declined to elaborate about any internal dispute between career and political officials, saying only that the department is "committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."

Saturday, May 30, 2009


By Stanislav Mishin, from Russia's Pravda www.Pravda.ru

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism
is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in D.C. that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonald's burger or a Burger King burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blinds the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Weimar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look like little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison.

Yes, the Americans have beaten our own thieves in the shear volumes. These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters. Should we congratulate them?

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too.

Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, and so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper -- but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world how free he really is. The world will only snicker. --Stanislav Mishin

The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appeared on his blog, Mat Rodina in Russia's Pravda newspaper.