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.

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?”

http://www.springerlink.com/content/744g275720njq429/

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."

AMERICAN MARXISM BEWILDERS RUSSIANS

AMERICAN CAPITALISM GONE WITH A WHIMPER
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.

Judicial Tyranny Run Amok in St. Clair County

On May 8, 2009, I appeared in courtroom 108 for the 20th Judicial Circuit Court in response to a Notice to Show Cause arising from a traffic ticket issued in 2006 by Collinsville, Illinois. The presiding judge was Zina Renea Cruse (pictured here). It appears that this courtroom is for first appearances relating to traffic/misdemeanor. Judge Cruse called my name and I approached the bench.

The judge then began to question me about the 2006 ticket, asking me how I wished to plead. I was taken aback, since the charge had been dismissed in 2006 by Collinsville, but the judge persisted in questioning me regarding the alleged ticket. I tried to explain how I was not there to answer any questions regarding any ticket, but there only to show cause why I should not be held in contempt by not appearing for a court date, of which I was never apprised of, relating to a charge of which I never received. I asked the Judge if she could produce for me a verified complaint alleging a charge, to which she showed me a printout of something which represented a copy of a ticket, but which was not an actual charge.

Judge Cruse attempted to enter a plea of not guilty on my behalf, upon which I objected to her attempting to act as my legal representative. I reiterated that I objected to her questioning me about the charge, and I would only entertain the issues regarding the show cause notice. She also attempted to schedule a bench trial for the 3 year old charge, which was previously dismissed, which I refused to accept or participate with.

In an example of further incompetence and lunacy, when I questioned why I was being questioned about a dismissed charge, Judge Cruse attempted to tell me that, since Collinsville is in both Madison and St. Clair Counties, the Madison County part of Collinsville was dismissed, but not the St. Clair County side. I asked her if there were two charges arising from one incident which were filed in two counties by one municipality; to which she replied, "yes". What that implies is that one traffic ticket issued by Collinsville subjected me to the jurisdiction of both Madison County and St. Clair County. That is either a bold-faced lie or an expression of incompetence. Furthermore, how would Judge Cruse have any information regarding the Madison County charge when she is sitting in St. Clair County? The charge from Collinsville was a municipal charge and the setting was municipal court in Collinsville. When I appeared for that charge the judge, Mallotte, attempted to engage in the same kind of chicanery as Cruse and attempted to entice me to entering a plea to a improper charge. Mallotte also attempted to enter a plea for me, upon which I objected. After I refused to participate with that insanity I received notice the charge had been dismissed.

At this time, Judge Cruse, ordered me in contempt and had me placed under custody. I was then cuffed and placed in a holding room and later transferred to a cell in cuffs and ankle chains. Judge Cruse acted with hostility, contempt, unprofessionalism, and ignorance in attempting to goad me into stepping into a trap laid by fraud and deceit by entering a plea and accepting without having seen or been informed of, an unsubstantiated charge. She acted as a despot in depriving me of 3 hours of my liberty without due process of law, for my merely questioning the proceedings and standing upon my rights. Judge Cruse acted outside her judicial capacity and in violation of her office. Judge Cruse expressed the fundamental defects of the legal system as it exists today, by refusing to listen to defendants or providing a discussion of the merits of the charges by arresting those who take exception to her demands, or fail to submit to her ignorance and oppression.

Judge Cruse, it would serve you well to understand the limits of your megalomaniacal judicial powers. Your powers to not extend beyond your little fiefdom, and do not attach to people who retain their Creator-derived rights and fail to submit to your, and your ilk's, despotism. You act as a brigand, thug, and tyrant. You possess no authority over me. I will not step foot into your courtroom again. I perceive you to be my enemy, untrustworthy, abusive, and illogical. I am in fear for my liberty should I meet you on your terms again, and I will not be a willing party to what amounts to my own undoing. It would serve you well to leave me be. Save your time, energy, and abuse for those intimidated by your delusional exercise of tyranny.

FOOTNOTE: It appears that Zina Cruse may also be an Associate Minister of the Christian Fellowship M.B. Church in St. Louis. If Ms. Cruse's courtroom demeanor is any reflection of her "Christian" beliefs then she is either a consummate hypocrite, or poor example of a Christian. Ms. Cruse can be emailed here z_cruse@sbcglobal.net Her Illinois Bar Association page is here.

My Cup of Tea

My Cup of Tea

Unless you have been in a coma, it is hard to escape all the talk about the Tea Party phenomena. People are getting tired of government waste and abuse. Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long. The Declaration of Independence states that, "...and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." The evils to which we are accustomed are no longer sufferable. It does not take government to decide when its evils are insufferable; or even to decide what the People consider evils, but each individual suffering under the systemic denial of their natural, unalienable rights to reach a point where they say, "Enough!"

Even though the Tea Party phenomena is a good starting point, it relies upon people gathering together to express their discontent. The adage, "there is strength in numbers" may hold true, but there must first be strength within. What happens when the Tea Party participants have disbanded and go back to their daily routine? The strength of their collective body is dispersed to the respective individuals; often to be remanded back into the despotism from which they crawled for a moment of outrage. They resign to pay obligatory homage to the State, mind their business, pledge their allegiance, and comply with every regulatory edict that may inject itself into their private affairs. The State is none the worse for the momentary display of petulance from its conscripts.

If one is to take a honest assessment of their conscience, beliefs, and morals they would be hard-pressed to accede that what government does is in harmony with why it was first created. Many, I posit, are so preoccupied and distracted by the day-to-day demands upon their senses for maintaining their burdensome debt that they give little thought, if any, to just how little autonomy they actually possess. There are movements afoot where some States are proposing bills which purport to assert the State's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment; which unfortunately has been all but eviscerated thanks to the States having become federal municipalities through the disbursement of federal monies to supplant the reserved powers of the States. Yes, you have even been compromised by your State legislatures who exercised control over you by pandering to Uncle Sam for the spoils which had previously been extracted from you through fraud and coercion. How these States will substantiate their sovereignty with tainted hands dyed green from the Federal Reserve's worthless script, or red from the United States' imperial aggression worldwide, is yet to be seen. It is never too late for change.

Regardless, none of this is worthwhile without a fundamental change within our own minds. There is needed, a paradigm shift in the way we reason. Government is not something that exists in perpetuity. It requires people; people to lend their consent; people to submit to that authority; people to occupy the offices; people to oppress other people. It is all a game. An often violent and oppressive game,but a game nonetheless. If you want to identify the cause for all your suffering you need only to gaze upon yourself.

I held my own Tea Party some time ago. The only participant was myself. There was discord between my conscience and the innumerable demands placed upon me by external restraint and compulsion. I stepped outside myself and took a critical assessment. I was not pleased. Much of what I had done in the past was done through information handed down by others no more invested in their lives than I had been. It was hearsay, presumption, and ignorance. When I asked about the "why" I was to comply with edicts, there was never reasoning founded upon morality or justice, but upon what would happen to me if I did not obey. The truth is, we live under the threat of force, fear, and oppression. We are not truly free, we are free as long as we obey.

Each one of us has to come to terms with how we either submit or rule in our own lives. Over a year ago I took the steps to remove my consent, express or implied, from being a subject under this festering despotism I see before me. I have authored a Declaration which makes unequivocal statements to the world as to who I say I am and where my authority over my life derives. I have divested myself of the subjugation imposed upon me by way of my past ignorance. I can walk proudly and honestly, without fear, and confront so-called authority that believes it has acquired some lawful right to compel my allegiance. After sending a copy to the City of Collinsville, the then-Mayor, Stan Schaeffer, issued a memo identifying me as a possible "threat" because of my promise to exercise my natural right to self-defense. This mentality is prevalent in government institutions. Government actors do not like individuals who have lost their fear and confront their lies. They do not fear me as much as the message I offer taking hold in the minds of other free-thinking individuals. That was my cup of tea.

I still wait for supposed rulers to compel me to obey. I have made my Declaration and stand by it, to the end, if need be. If this causes government actors some discomfort then it is within their minds such discomfort originates. I am a peaceable man, but will defend myself against aggression. I am not to be ruled by any man, or group of men, without my explicit consent. This is where we all find ourselves today. Tea Parties are a good start, but until you possess the temerity, resolve, belligerence, and tenacity to stand upon your natural, Creator-derived rights, you are nothing but a subject. There is no strength in numbers, when the individuals amongst such ranks are living in fear and ignorance. You can read about my journey, and my Declaration, at http://www.markmccoy.com. You can start by freeing yourself, which is only a thought away.

Cops: Public Servants or Fascist Pigs? (Part 1)

It was not many years ago when I considered myself a supporter of
"law enforcement." (I made donations, had the F.O.P. and Sheriff's
department stickers and everything.) Cops were, I believed, the
good guys, protecting the innocent and imposing justice upon
evildoers. Oh sure, I knew there was corruption here and there, and
scattered examples of police abuse--a few "bad apples" in the ranks-
- -but all in all, I thought the cops were the good guys.

Now I'm really darn embarrassed that I ever thought that.

This will be the first in a series of messages where we examine the
question, are the American "law enforcers" of today noble public
servants, or despicable fascist pigs?

First, we must define our terms. For example, someone having a
short temper, or exercising bad judgment, even repeatedly, is not
necessarily a fascist pig. No, a cop's level of "fascismo," if you
will, must be measured by something other than just being stupid or
even malicious. To truly be a fascist, a cop must demonstrate that
he has the fascist mindset. So let's define what that is.

A NON-fascist cop, when he looks out at the world, would see lots
of good people, whom he would want to protect, and would never want
to harm, intimidate, or even inconvenience unnecessarily. His goal
would be to find the nasty people in the world, and see to it that
they are prevented from harming any of the decent people.

A FASCIST cop, on the other hand, would view everyone as his
inferior, to be controlled, interrogated, or even abused at will.
He sees himself, a representative of "authority," as having the
right to forcibly impose his will on anyone he wants, whenever he
wants, for any reason (or no reason) and the right to use outright
violence against any who do not obey his every whim.

So, in this message and the ones to follow, we will examine
examples of police conduct in this country, and rate the level of
"fascismo" demonstrated by American "law enforcement." What we
won't bother looking at are things like a car chase which ends with
a cop with too much adrenaline in his blood, or a cop shooting
someone with somewhat questionable justification. No, we are
looking for ATTITUDE. The goal is to determine if American cops
today think like defenders of justice, or like fascist pigs.

- ---<>---

As you may know, the feds now do internal "checkpoints," anywhere
they want within a hundred miles of the border. If you haven't yet
heard of this Orwellian absurdity, here are the basics:

http://www.aclu.org/priva...

(Yes, I know the ACLU is very selective about which rights it cares
about. It fights hard to defend the First Amendment, while fighting
hard to VIOLATE the Second Amendment. But their site gives a good
summary of the "Constitution free zones.")

With the "checkpoint" information in mind, here is the specific
incident we're considering this time, with our "fascistometers" at
the ready:

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

Once you've watched the entire video (it's less than nine minutes),
consider a few things:

1) First of all, would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig take part in
these warrantless, suspicionless searches at all? Well, no. To
think you have the right to stop and interrogate anyone who happens
to drive down a road, and the right to search through his stuff, is
a classic symptom of being a fascist pig.

2) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig view someone's reliance on
his Fourth Amendment rights (to not be subjected to an unreasonable
and unjustified search) as a REASON to search his car? Put another
way, would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig think that someone must
be a criminal if he doesn't want to volunteer to let some jackboot
rummage through his stuff? No. Again, this is a classic symptom of
someone with a fascist pig world view. (Note that in the clip, the
guy describes how the fascist pigs at one point admitted that
everything the guy went through was because he wouldn't answer a
question.)

3) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig FAKE "probable cause" in
order to get around that pesky Fourth Amendment? No. They had no
reason to suspect anything--to stop him at all, or to search him
after the stop--and then they LIED about it to make up an excuse to
do a search. Classic fascist pig behavior.

4) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig smash someone's car
windows, taser him, and forcibly extract him from his car, without
ANY "probable cause" to think the person had committed a crime?
Again, no. (If you're finding these questions difficult to answer,
please move to Cuba.)

5) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig grind someone's face into
broken glass, throw him to the ground, stomp on his head, and
otherwise assault him, when the person is unarmed and not
resisting, and when there is still no evidence that the guy had
committed any crime? No. (The clip doesn't say whether the cops
ever knew that the guy is a pastor.)

6) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig openly delight in someone
else's misery and suffering, while the person is handcuffed and
bleeding profusely, mocking and insulting the guy, when there was
still NO EVIDENCE that the guy had committed any crime? No. (I
could make another item about not letting the guy go to the
bathroom, but I'm trying to keep this relatively short.)

7) Here's an important one: Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig
QUIETLY STAND BY while his fellow "officers" did what is described
above? NO. If this was a case of one or two "bad apples" in law
enforcement, wouldn't some other cop there have tried to stop it,
or at least complained about it afterwards? So how often have you
ever seen that? Where are the "good cops" speaking out about this
stuff?

8) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig want to proceed to
prosecute the VICTIM of all the abuse I described above, despite
the fact that there is STILL no evidence that he committed a crime?
No.

Okay, so what's the verdict for this example? Well, if the story
above is an accurate reflection of what "law enforcement" in this
country is like today, then American cops are indeed fascist pigs,
who deserve our utmost contempt and condemnation. (And if it is NOT
an accurate reflection of the attitudes and behavior of the police
in this country, where are the GOOD cops speaking out against this?)

In closing, I'd like to say the following to Mr. C. Diaz, Mr. B.
Griffiths, and Mr. E. Gomez, and any other Nazi swine who
participated in the incident described above. If some day you pick
the wrong target for your Gestapo crap, and the guy blows your damn
fascist pig heads off, the world will be a better place.

Oh, and have a nice day.

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

You Are Being Lied to About Pirates

Who imagined that in 2009, the world's governments would
be declaring a new War on Pirates? As you read this,
the British Royal Navy - backed by the ships of more
than two dozen nations, from the US to China - is sailing
into Somalian waters to take on men we still picture as
parrot-on-the-shoulder pantomime villains. They will soon be
fighting Somalian ships and even chasing the pirates onto
land, into one of the most broken countries on earth. But
behind the arrr-me-hearties oddness of this tale, there
is an untold scandal. The people our governments are
labeling as "one of the great menace of our times" have
an extraordinary story to tell -- and some justice on
their side.

Pirates have never been quite who we think they are. In
the "golden age of piracy" - from 1650 to 1730 - the
idea of the pirate as the senseless, savage thief that
lingers today was created by the British government in a
great propaganda-heave. Many ordinary people believed it
was false: pirates were often rescued from the gallows
by supportive crowds. Why? What did they see that we
can't? In his book Villains of All nations, the historian
Marcus Rediker pores through the evidence to find out.
If you became a merchant or navy sailor then - plucked
from the docks of London's East End, young and hungry -
you ended up in a floating wooden Hell. You worked all
hours on a cramped, half-starved ship, and if you slacked
off for a second, the all-powerful captain would whip you
with the Cat O' Nine Tails. If you slacked consistently,
you could be thrown overboard. And at the end of months
or years of this, you were often cheated of your wages.

Pirates were the first people to rebel against this
world. They mutinied against their tyrannical captains -
and created a different way of working on the seas. Once
they had a ship, the pirates elected their captains,
and made all their decisions collectively. They shared
their bounty out in what Rediker calls "one of the most
egalitarian plans for the disposition of resources to be
found anywhere in the eighteenth century." They even took
in escaped African slaves and lived with them as equals. The
pirates showed "quite clearly - and subversively - that
ships did not have to be run in the brutal and oppressive
ways of the merchant service and the Royal navy." This is
why they were popular, despite being unproductive thieves.

The words of one pirate from that lost age - a young
British man called William Scott - should echo into this
new age of piracy. Just before he was hanged in Charleston,
South Carolina, he said: "What I did was to keep me from
perishing. I was forced to go a-pirating to live."

In 1991, the government of Somalia - in the Horn of Africa
-collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on
starvation ever since - and many of the ugliest forces in
the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to
steal the country's food supply anddump our nuclear waste in
their seas. Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government
was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing
off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the
ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first
they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies.
Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and
leaking barrels washed up on shore.

People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than
300 died. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia,
tells me: "Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There
is also lead, and heavy metalssuch as cadmium and mercury
- you name it." Much of it can be traced back to European
hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to
the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply. When I asked
Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it,
he said with a sigh: "Nothing. There has been no clean-up,
no compensation, and no prevention."

At the same time, other European ships have been looting
Somalia's seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have
destroyed our own fish-stocks by over-exploitation - and now
we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m worth of tuna,
shrimp, lobster and other sea-life is being stolen every
year by vast trawlers illegally sailing into Somalia's
unprotected seas. The local fishermen have suddenly lost
their livelihoods, and they are starving. Mohammed Hussein,
a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu,
told Reuters: "If nothing is done, there soon won't be
much fish left in our coastal waters."

This is the context in which the men we are calling
"pirates" have emerged. Everyone agrees they were ordinary
Somalian fishermen who at first took speedboats to try to
dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least wage a 'tax'
on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coastguard
of Somalia - and it's not hard to see why. In a surreal
telephone interview, one of the pirate leaders, Sugule
Ali, said their motive was "to stop illegal fishing and
dumping in our waters... We don't consider ourselves
sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who
illegally fish and dump in our seas and dump waste in our
seas and carry weapons in our seas." William Scott would
understand those words.

No, this doesn't make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes,
some are clearly just gangsters - especially those who have
held up World Food Programme supplies. But the "pirates"
have the overwhelming support of the local population for
a reason. The independent Somalian news-site WardherNews
conducted the best research we have into what ordinary
Somalis are thinking - and it found 70 percent "strongly
supported the piracy as a form of national defence of the
country's territorial waters." During the revolutionary
war in America, George Washington and America's founding
fathers paid pirates to protect America's territorial
waters, because they had no navy or coastguard of their
own. Most Americans supported them. Is this so different?

Did we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their
beaches, paddling in our nuclear waste, and watch us snatch
their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and
Rome? We didn't act on those crimes - but when some of the
fishermen responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for
20 percent of the world's oil supply, we begin to shriek
about "evil." If we really want to deal with piracy, we
need to stop its root cause - our crimes - before we send
in the gun-boats to root out Somalia's criminals.

The story of the 2009 war on piracy was best summarised by
another pirate, who lived and died in the fourth century BC.
He was captured and brought to Alexander the Great, who
demanded to know "what he meant by keeping possession of
the sea." The pirate smiled, and responded: "What you
mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with
a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you, who do it
with a great fleet, are called emperor." Once again, our
great imperial fleets sail in today - but who is the robber?

Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper. To
read more of his articles, click here. or here.

POSTSCRIPT: Some commenters seem bemused by the fact
that both toxic dumping and the theft of fish are
happening in the same place - wouldn't this make the
fish contaminated? In fact, Somalia's coastline is
vast, stretching to 3300km. Imagine how easy it would
be - without any coastguard or army - to steal fish from
Florida and dump nuclear waste on California, and you get
the idea. These events are happening in different places -
but with the same horrible effect: death for the locals,
and stirred-up piracy. There's no contradiction.

Limited Time Offer to Government

I wish to make a point. I know you are watching. You are looking for a reason. I bet it will be tied to some of the draconian legislation dealing with domestic terrorism. The free expression of ideas is no longer sacrosanct. Should an individual's words go against the grain of what government believes is in its best interests in preserving its powers then they are an enemy of the State.

I've been told by people who are concerned for me that I should lay low. I have "painted a target on my chest". It is foolish to express my opinions in provocative and controversial ways. If my words cause government anxiety then that is a shortcoming of government.

I will do this. I will make this overture. To-date, every effort I have made to engage government in extracting honest answers regarding its authority has brought nothing but silence. Considering the increasingly violent actions of government through aggression, police state tactics, disregard for individual liberties, I feel it prudent to avail myself to being humbled by the almighty State should it wish to contact me personally and with proof-shown, enlighten me to the error of my ways. Take me under the wing and reason with me. Correct my misperceptions and elucidate me with the higher, moral-law which I mistake as despotism, fraud, and tyranny. Bring me back into the fold, if you can.

Please, contact me. I will meet with you, personally. I will not engage you on your territory, but will meet at a neutral location. You may email or phone me as well. Know this, I will record the conversation. I will make it public. I am no stranger to being questioned by the "feds". I am aware of the games and pretenses. Do not insult my intelligence. I expect that if there was any evidence which gave rise to a criminal act I would already be in custody. I expect you to make my point and show the people how you assail a peaceable man.

Use my contact us form and provide when and where you wish to meet. I will be unarmed, and I would expect the same.

I will say that I do not expect any takers on this offer. I will instead expect violence, hyperbole, and contrived accusations. I hope you prove me wrong. What is there to fear? Why not take the opportunity to possibly convert me?

I await any contact, but not for long.

Citizenship created for slaves ala the 14th Amendment

"GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS
FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED!"
Guess who are consenting to be Governed ? Answer: Voters, 14th
Amendment citizens of the United States. If you don't claim to be
one of them, don't pretend you are one them, guess what ? You are
not one of the governed (voters) and will get no administrative
relief. Treason by Design, By L.B. Bork
pacinlaw.org
HERE IS THE UNCONSCIONABLE KICKER! You may refer to it as the SET-UP!
It is a fact that is well documented that you have to be a citizen of
the United States to vote in any elections. You may verify this by
checking your [S]tate statutes regarding the state voting
regulations. Although it is difficult to see as the language is
intentionally written to confuse people if you decipher Section 2 of
the Fourteenth Amendment you will see that the de facto states or
governments only represent people who are voting. Someone who is
versed in syntax may be of assistance in the deciphering process.
Accordingly, earlier above in this article it was stated that it is a
crime to vote in elections! Illustrated forthwith is the pertinent
text taken from Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment which
exemplifies that it is a crime to vote. This is so evil it is beyond
belief:
". . . the right to vote at any election. . . is denied. . . except
for participation in rebellion, or other crime. . . "
You must understand that you cannot just create "citizens of the
United States " without violating inherent Constitutional premises
under the Law of Nations; accordingly, the constitutional government
[s] of the several states of America need to be usurped. This is done
by making voters unwittingly throw off their allegiance to their
lawful governments. The clause illustrated in Section 2 of the
Fourteenth Amendment does this.

California Appellate Court Confirms Fragility of Red Light Camera Cases – You Have to Fight to Win

California Appellate Court Slams Sacramento Red Light Camera Program
Appellate court rules Sacramento County, California red light camera
program does not produce sufficient evidence to convict drivers.
A decision issued last month by the Appellate Division of the
Superior Court in Sacramento County, California would invalidate
at least eighty percent of red light camera tickets in Sacramento
if drivers were to bring their case to court and contest their
citations. A three judge panel found the photo system did not
generate evidence sufficient to convict local motorist David Graham,
38, of running a red light.
"Sometimes you can fight city hall," said Graham. "Now those bozos
will have to give me back every penny of the $371 they bilked me
for the ticket."
On March 2, 2008, Graham's 1995 Oldsmobile was photographed by a
red light camera at the intersection of Power Inn Road and Folsom
Boulevard. However, unlike most newer programs in California, the
angle of the red light camera photographs in Sacramento County do not
actually show the signal light in the photograph itself. Instead,
a data box superimposed on the citation photo shows the letter "R"
which indicates that the signal was red, according to Affiliated
Computer Services (ACS), the for-profit company that operates the
program. That was not sufficient evidence for the appellate court.
"Without photographs showing appellant committing the violation,
the system must be proven reliable beyond a reasonable doubt in
order for the people to meet their burden of proof," Presiding
Judge Maryanne G. Gilliard wrote.
The police employee who testified in Graham's case, Officer Holt,
said that he had examined logs that showed an ACS technician
had maintained the camera properly and that there were no
malfunctions. Graham used the California Rules of Evidence to
challenge this claim as hearsay.
"We have no way of knowing what the technician did to reach these
conclusions, because that technician is not in court, and Officer
Holt admits to having no direct, personal knowledge of what the
technician did," Graham wrote in his brief to the court.
The court noted that the first photograph on Graham's citation
showed his Oldsmobile behind the limit line with cross traffic
facing a red -- not a green -- light.
"Given the evidence adduced at appellant's trial, this panel finds
that a rational trier of fact could not reasonably find, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the light controlling appellant's entry into
the intersection was red when he first crossed the limit line,"
Judge concluded "Therefore, we find that substantial evidence does
not support appellant's conviction. The conviction is reversed with
directions to dismiss the complaint."
Graham is now asking the court to publish his case so that it will
have precedential value. California courts have protected red light
camera programs in the past by holding similar decisions unpublished
to prevent mass refunds from programs operating in ways that violate
California law.
A copy of the decision is available in a 150k PDF file at the source
link below.
Source: California v. Graham (California Superior Court, Appellate
Division, 2/20/2009)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2715.asp

ABOUT THE COMMON LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

Q. WAS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BASED ON THE COMMON LAW?

A. Yes. The Constitution of the united States of America originated as a Common Law document. That was the underlying law the founding fathers based the entire structure of our nation upon. It was the law of the land until the 1938 Supreme Court ruling (Erie Railroad) which statutorized the Common Law.

    "It is never to be forgotten that in the construction of the
     language of the Constitution,  we are to place ourselves as
     nearly as possible  in the condition of  the men who framed
     that instrument." Ex Parte Bain. 12 U.S. 1 7 S. Ct. 781.

    "We are bound to interpret the  Constitution in the light of
     the law as it existed  at the time it was adopted."  Mattos
     v. U.S. 156 U.S. 237 at 243.

    "It must  be  interpreted  in the light  of Common Law,  the
     principles and  history  of which were  familiarly known to
     the  framers  of  the  Constitution.  The  language  of the
     Constitution  could not be understood  without reference to
     the Common Law."  U.S. v. Wong Kim. Ark. 169 U.S. 649.18 S.
     Ct. 456.

    "In this, as in other respects, (a Constitutional provision)
     must be  interpreted  in the light of the  Common Law,  the
     principles and  history of which  were familiarly  known to
     the framers of the Constitution..." Minor v. Happersett. 21
     Wall. 162.

    "The  language  of the Constitution,  as has been well said,
     could  not be  understood without  reference to the Common
     Law."  1 Kent. Comm. 336,  Kepner v. U.S.  195 U.S. 100 at
     125.

Q. IS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES THE SUPREME LAW?

A. Yes. The Constitution of the united States of America is the Supreme Law of the Land. Even after the Common Law was statutorized, and courts became Merchant Law courts imposing the Uniform Commercial Code, it must be noted that the U.C.C itself declares that it cannot be in conflict with the Common Law -- and in situations where it is, it bows to the tenants of the original Common Law.

    "Law of the Land" means the "Common Law." State v. Simon 2
     Spears 761.767 (1884) Justice O'Neal.

    "Law of the Land" means "The Common Law." Taylor v. Porter
     4  Hill  140.  146  (1843)  Justice Bronson.    Webster's
     definition of "Law of the Land" at Dartmouth 4 Wheat 518.
     581.

Q. MUST THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND STATE LAWS CONFORM AND COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES?

A. Yes. State Constitutions and State laws must be in compliance with, and in conformity to, the Constitution of the united States of America for that State to be acceptable as one of the sovereign states of the union of the united States of America.
"Provided,  the Constitution  to be formed in  virtue of the
     authority herein given, shall be republican, and consistent
     with the  Constitution of the united States;  that it shall
     contain the  fundamental principles  of civil and religious
     Liberty;  conformable to the provisions of the Constitution
     of the United States."  Enabling Act of Congress.  Feb. 20,
     1811. C.21. 2 U.S. Statute 641.

Q. IS ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION SUBJECT TO COMMON LAW REMEDY?

A.  "Even Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, when brought inland,
     is subject to the  Common Law remedy  the same as  Equity; and
     cannot  supersede the  sovereign  Citizens'  God endowed/given
     unalienable/inalienable  rights,  and  these  same  rights  as
     secured in and under the  Constitution of the united States of
     America."  Title  5 USC.  Sec. 559 Sentence #2,  Title 28 USC.
     Sec. 2072, Miranda v. Ariz. 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).

    "(a) Saving to suitors, in all cases, the right to a Common Law
     remedy,  where the  Common Law  is competent  to give it;  and
     shall also have  exclusive original cognizance of all seizures
     on land,  or other waters than  as aforesaid made,  and of all
     suits for  penalties  and forfeiture  res incurred,  under the
     laws of the United States." 1 Statute 177. Sec. 9(a).

    "Third.  Of all causes of Admiralty  and Maritime jurisdiction:
     saving  to suitors,  in all cases,  the right of a  Common Law
     remedy,  where  the  Common Law  is competent  to give it." 36
     Statute 1161. Section 3rd.

    "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction exclusive
     of the Courts of the States, of:
     (1)     Any civil case of Admiralty  or Maritime jurisdiction,
             saving to Suitors  in all cases all other  remedies to
             which  they are  otherwise  entitled."  Title 28 US.C.
             Section 1333.

[Note that the term "Common Law" no longer appears in 28 U.S.C. 1333.]

Q. MUST THE DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND AGENTS OF THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT CONFINE THEIR ACTIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

A. The three branches of government and their bureaucratic departments, agencies, and agents, must confine themselves to acting in and under the Constitution of and for the united States of America and its boundaries, restraints, limitations, and prohibitions it imposes upon them.
    "That the people have an original right to establish, for future
     government,  such principles as,  in their opinion,  shall most
     conduce  to their  own happiness,  is the basis,  on  which the
     whole  American fabric  has been erected.  The exercise of this
     original right is a very great exertion,  nor can it, nor ought
     it to be  frequently repeated.  The principles,  therefore,  so
     established,  are deemed fundamental and as the authority, from
     which  they proceed,  is supreme,  and can seldom  act they are
     designed to be permanent."

    "This original  and supreme  will organize  the government,  and
     assigns, to different departments, their respective powers.  It
     may either  stop here,  or establish  certain limits  not to be
     transcended by those departments."

    "Between  these  alternatives  there is no  middle  ground.  The
     Constitution is either a superior,  paramount law, unchangeable
     by  ordinary  means,   or  it  is  on  a  level  with  ordinary
     legislative acts,  and like other acts,  is alterable  when the
     legislature  shall please  to alter it."  Marbury v. Madison. 2
     Cranch (5 U.S.) 137.176. 177 (1803).

    "..because, the United States have no constitutional capacity to
     exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain,
     within the limits of a  State or elsewhere, except in the cases
     in which it is expressly granted..." -Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan.
     44 U.S. 212 at 233; Article 1 Sec 8 Clause 17 U.S. Constitution.

    "That the Legislative,  Executive  and Judicial  departments are
     each formed in a separate and independent manner;  and that the
     ultimate basis  of  each is  the Constitution  only  within the
     limits  of which  each department can alone  justify any act of
     authority/jurisdiction." Hayburn's Case. 2 Dall. (2 U.S.) 409.

    "Neither the Legislative, Executive and the Judicial departments
     of the Federal Government  can lawfully exercise  any authority
     beyond the limits marked out  by the Constitution."  Dred Scott
     v. Sanford. 19 How. 393.

    "The  United  States  is  entirely  a creature  of  the  Federal
     Constitution,  its power and authority  has no other source and
     it can only act in accordance with  all the limitations imposed
     by the Constitution."  Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1(1957). IL. Ed.
     2nd. 1148.

    "The  Federal  Constitution  has  supremacy  over a  treaty  and
     executive agreement" Reid v. Covert. 354 U.S. 1.

    "The rights and liberties  of the Citizens of  the united States
     are not  protected by  custom and  tradition  alone,   they are
     preserved from the  encroachments of the government by express/
     enumerated  provisions of the  Federal  Constitution."  Reid v.
     Covert. 354 U.S. 1.

    "The prohibitions  of the Federal Constitution  are designed to
     apply to all branches of the national government and cannot be
     nullified by the executive  or by the executive and the senate
     combined." Reid v. Covort. 354 U.S.1.1 L. Ed. 2nd; 1148 (1957).

Q. IS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPERIOR TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS?

A. Yes. The Constitution of the united States of America is not only the Supreme Law of the Land, and the actual government of the united States, but it is superior to all administrative laws, rules and regulations, and their administrative law, rules and regulations must be in compliance with and in conformity to, the Constitution of and for the united States of America.
    "Where rights are secured by Constitution are involved, there can
     be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them"
     Miranda v. Ariz. 384 U.S. 436 at 491(1966).

    "..A regulation which is inconsistent with law is invalid." Title
     5 U.S.C. Sect. 301.

    "... because  a statute  may  not  operate in  derogation  of the
     Constitution." Title 5 U.S.C. Section 559. Sentence 2.

    "Congress may not,  by any definition it may adopt,  conclude the
     matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution."
     Eisner v. McComber. 252 U.S. 189 at 207.

    "Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify  any substantive
     right and shall preserve the right of trial by jury as at Common
     Law and as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution."
     Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2072 at Clause #2.

Q. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ARTICLE I AND AN ARTICLE 3 COURT?

A. Administrative tribunals and administrative judges must restrict themselves to acting in and under the Constitution of the united States of America at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 9, and under the Administrative Procedures Act at Title 5 U. S. C. Sections 701 through 706, Olmstead vs. U.S. 277 U.S. 438 at 485, and are prohibited from hearing any issue At Law which has been enumerated to Constitutional Article 3 courts only. Since the Constitution of the united States of America has no provisions for Article I administrative tribunal courts to hear issues of law enumerated to them, they are prohibited for doing so in and under the further declaratory and restrictive clauses of the Preamble, too, and the Bill of Rights, Amendments 9 and 10; and Article 3 of the Constitution itself.
    "To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." Article
     1. Sec 8. Clause 9. U.S. Constitution.

    "The judicial power of the United States  shall be vested in one
     supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may,
     from time to time, ordain and establish..." Article 3 Section 1
     U.S. Constitution.

    "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
     arising under this Constitution."  Article 3. Section 2. Clause
     1. U.S. Constitution.

    "The enumeration  in the Constitution  of certain rights  not be
     construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
     Amendment 9, the U.S. Constitution.

    "The  powers   not  delegated  to  the  United  States   by  the
     Constitution,  nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
     to the States  respectively,  or to the people."  Amendment 10,
     the U.S. Constitution.

Q. DOES THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE SUPERINTENDENCY OVER BOTH ARTICLE 1 AND ARTICLE 3 COURTS?

A. The supreme Court of the united States of America has the superintendency of all inferior administrative Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 9 tribunals/courts and all Article 3 inferior At Law/Common Law courts created/ordained and established by the Congress of the united States of America.
    "This is the supreme Court,  and by reason of  its supremacy must
     have the superintendence of the inferior tribunals and officers,
     whether judicial or ministerial."   Marbury v. Madison, I Cranch
     143 at Pg. 63 (1803).

Q. WHAT ARE THE DUTIES OF COURT JUDGES?

A. It is the prime duty of court judges to protect the God endowed unalienable rights of the individual sovereign Citizen from governmental encroachments.
    "The judicial branch has only one duty, to lay the Article of the
     Constitution  which is  involved  beside  the  statute  (rule or
     practice)  which is challenged  and to decide whether the latter
     squares with the former." U.S. v. Butler. 279 U.S. 116th Am. Jur
     2nd. Sec. 177.178.210 and 547.

    "It  is  the   duty  of  the  courts   to  be  watchful  for  the
     Constitutional   rights   of  the   citizen   against   stealthy
     encroachments thereon." Boyd v. U.S. 116.635.

    "This Constitution  is the supreme Law of the Land.  All judicial
     officers of the united States  are bound by oath or affirmation,
     to support this Constitution." Hayburn's Case. 2 Dali.(2 U.S.S.)
     409; Article #6. Clauses 2 and 3, U.S. Constitution.

    "Disobedience  or evasion of a  constitutional mandate may not be
     tolerated,  even though  such disobedience  may promote  in some
     respects  the best interests  of the public."  Slote v. Board of
     Transfer. 274 N.Y. 367.

    "...And  officers  (of government)  that  carry  on a  government
     independent  of  a  Constitution,  constitute  but  a  de  facto
     government of assumed and unlimited powers." Hepburn v. Griswald
     8 Wall. 611.

    "Law repugnant to the Constitution is void..." Marbury v. Madison
     1 Cranch 137 (1803).

    "The law provides  that once State  and federal  jurisdiction has
     been challenged,  it must be proven."  Main v. Thiboutot. 100 5.
     Ct. 2502 (1980).

    "Where  there   is  absence   of  proof   of  jurisdiction,   all
     administrative  and  judicial  proceedings  are a  nullity,  and
     confer   no   right,   offer  no  protection,   and   afford  no
     justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attach."
     Thompson v. Tolmie. 2 Pet. 157.7 L.Ed. 381. Griffith Vs. Frazier
     8 Cr. 9.3 L.Ed. 471.

    "Once jurisdiction is challenged,  it must be proven."  Hagens v.
     Lavine. 415 U.S. 533 Note3.

    "No  sanctions  can be  imposed  absent  proof of  jurisdiction."
     Standard v. Lavine. 415 U.S. 533 Note 3.

    "The proponent  of the Rule  has the burden  of proof..." Title 5
     U.S.C.. Sec. 556(d).

    "Jurisdiction  can  be  challenged  at any  time,  even on  final
     determination." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2nd 906 at
     910.

Q. CAN THE STATE GOVERNMENTS GRANT OR TAKE AWAY AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS?

A. No. Individuals have God endowed unalienable Rights (Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2) and these same rights are secured in the Preamble and the Constitution of the united States of America, and in the Preamble and the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments) of the Constitution of the united States of America. These Rights existed long before the organization of the State and can be taken from an individual only by Constitutional due process of law that is in conformity with the Constitution of the united States of America.
    "The individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a
     citizen.  He is entitled to carry on his private business in
     his own way.  His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no
     duty  to  the  State  or to  his  neighbors  to  divulge his
     business,  or to open his doors  to an investigation, so far
     as it may  tend to incriminate him.  He owes  no duty to the
     State,  since  he receives  nothing  therefrom,  beyond  the
     protection of his life and property."

    "His rights  are such as existed by the  Law of the Land long
     antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be
     taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with
     the Constitution."

    "Among his rights are  a refusal to  incriminate himself, and
     the immunity  of himself  and his  property  from arrest  or
     seizure except under warrant of the law."

    "He  owes  nothing  to  the  public  so  long  as he does not
     trespass upon their rights."

    "Upon the other hand,  the corporation  is a creature  of the
     State.  It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of
     the  public.  It receives  certain  special  privileges  and
     franchises, and holds them  subject to the laws of the State
     and the limitations of its charter."

    "Its powers  are limited by law.  It can make no contract not
     authorized   by  its  charter.   Its  rights  to  act  as  a
     corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the
     laws  of  its  charter."  Hale v. Henkel.  201 U.S. 43 at 89
     (1906); Pinkerton v. Verberg 78 Mich. 573.584.

Q. DO INDIVIDUALS HAVE RIGHTS TO LABOR?

A. Yes. Individuals have a God given unalienable right to labor, and to the fruits of that labor. That right is a natural right and a constitutional right, from unlawful interference from government encroachment.
    "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right
     secured by the Federal Constitution."  Murdock v. Penns. 319
     U.S. 105.

    "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there
     can be no rule  making or  legislation which  would abrogate
     them." Miranda v. Ariz. 384 U.S. 436 at 491(1966).