Warning From OathKeepers About War On Guns (VIDEO)

Click image to visit:

Teacher Faces Dispicpline On 5th Amendment Warning

A Batavia High School teacher's fans are rallying to support him as he faces possible discipline for advising students of their Constitutional rights before taking a school survey on their behavior.

They've been collecting signatures on an online petition, passing the word on Facebook, sending letters to the school board, and planning to speak at Tuesday's school board meeting.

Students and parents have praised his ability to interest reluctant students in history and current affairs.

But John Dryden said he's not the point. He wants people to focus on the issue he raised: Whether school officials considered that students could incriminate themselves with their answers to the survey that included questions about drug and alcohol use.

Dryden, a social studies teacher, told some of his students April 18 that they had a 5th Amendment right to not incriminate themselves by answering questions on the survey, which had each student's name printed on it.

Read more at: Daily Herald

You might also enjoy:

55 Serious Reasons Why You Should Homeschool

Book Burning In the Digital Age... and so it begins

This syndicated article was originally written in protest of internet censorship efforts that were taking place a number of years ago. The essay was widely circulated at the time and hailed as a wonderful synopsis of the efforts to deny internet free speech up to that point. In the years since it was first published, the corporate-government attack on internet free speech has never ceased.  The latest incarnation was CISPA, and it seems that these bills are coming before Congress in rapid-fire succession now. The pressure is on. We thought you might enjoy reading the back-story though, the history of attacks on your right to information. 

This article is used by permission, special thanks to J.Marselus VanWagner. 

(To share this article, please use a snippet, proper attribution, and a link to this source, as per direction of the original author.)



The battle of the copyright is a long and sordid tale on the internet. Most folks are familiar with the old days of Napster, and the record companies suing the pants off of soccer-Moms because their kids had downloaded songs to the family computer. More recently as technology has continued to advance, we have seen movie companies also come into the fold along with the music companies, often suing to shut down websites that host torrent files of copyrighted material, as well as still going after the individual on occasion. At the end of the day though, most folks aren't overly concerned about those issues. Music and movies are creative expressions and public past-times for the most part, not exactly a priority in this day and age. It all sounds like a lot of hair-splitting over profits that no one really wants to be bothered with. Sure artists are entitled to make money from their work. But at the same time, when someone shells out $20 for a CD that has one good song on it, it's clearly a rip-off scheme by the recording industry too. A big ball of frustration and argument that is best left to the folks who have a vested interest in the fight. The whole debate has just soured many people to listening to music or watching movies at all. Easier just to flip on the radio or the TV and be done with it. Music and movies just aren't much fun as a hobby anymore, which is probably a bigger reason for any perceived loss of revenue for these big companies than anything else. Some folks have just decided to grow up faster than we would have liked to, wistfully leaving pop-culture behind to focus on more important issues. Like freedom of speech, perhaps.

Now anyone who has had contact with American society in the past fifteen years or so has heard all about these copyright lawsuits, and has probably heard the argument that it is all “really about freedom of speech.” Most of us never really bought into that though. It wasn't really about freedom of speech so much as buying a cable modem and ripping enough tracks to make a mix disc for the weekend, and to make it worth the money you were shelling out for the broadband connection. But as it turns out, these freedom-loving pirate pioneers might have had more insight than most of us ever gave them credit for. It's not just about ripping a free copy of some crappy pop jam anymore. The debates over sharing content over the internet are no longer the frontier of internet free-speech. The goalposts have been on the move it seems.

In 1993 there were about 50 corporations that controlled just about all of the media in the United States. Newspapers, magazines, radio, television, the works. By 2004, we were down to only five corporations controlling it all. Since the collapse of United Press International, the Associated Press has been the one and only national news service in the United States. This means that just about all the news you see is filtered through this one single company. Even local news from your home town is partially owned by the AP, as part of their agreement with smaller news agencies that make up their network. If there is a big enough story in your hometown, it gets handed up to the AP and sent out across the wires to be picked up by every other news agency across the country, as an AP article, not usually even giving a mention of your local hometown newspaper or reporter that broke the story. But in return, these smaller news agencies get to print other AP news, which accounts for just about anything that is being reported on any given day. This gives the AP a huge amount of leverage over how news gets reported, even if it does not originate with them. No news agency would dare defy the AP, and risk losing their agreement to print just about anything that is being considered news. It would be business suicide. The mainstream media in America is a network dominated by the AP. Not exactly an ideal arrangement for the promise of free speech. There was a time that we as freedom-loving Americans saw a singular state-controlled media as the hallmark of an evil totalitarian Communist regime, but would it really be any better to have a single corporation reporting all of the news rather than the state? Hardly. That would simply make it the hallmark of a Fascist totalitarian state rather then a Communist one. You see, Communism is what you get when the government controls business. Fascism is what you get when business controls government. In a nutshell anyway.

Thanks to technology, we still have a bastion of free speech with the internet. Even while your average American is content to sit back and zone out to regurgitated tabloid news, for many of us, the internet is as enlightening as it can be frustrating and confusing, navigating the back corridors of truth. The news here is not pre-packaged and heated in the microwave. It is raw, and requires critical thinking, cleverness, memory. In short, here you have to stop and think. If the truth is handed to you on a silver platter, it just might not be the truth, just like that might not be beef in that fast food taco. It's a shame that more folks aren't interested to look a little deeper into things, and are content to take the half-truths of the mainstream media as a complete source of important information. But at least the rest of us have the internet, this beacon of liberty and free speech. Well, for the moment anyway. It seems that our days may be numbered, and dwindling fast now.

Back in the summer of 2008, the Associated Press, a monolithic news agency with a litigious history decided it was going to set the precedent for how their material was disseminated across the internet, by issuing Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices to bloggers and news aggregators they claimed were violating their copyright and additionally were accused of “hot news” misappropriation under New York State law. They had already slapped two companies with copyright lawsuits not long before, one in Florida. In essence, this was the beginning of the AP trying to force the entire U.S.-based internet to become another one of their subsidiaries under licensing agreement.

Now to really understand this, we need to have a look at what is called the “fair use” act. What it tells us first is that copyrighted material can be used without permission, for such purposes as “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.” Seems quite reasonable, but too bad it's not quite that simple. You see, there really are no set guidelines. Even from that list there can be any number of exceptions based on the nature of the copyright work, potential profits from someone who is citing the work, and so forth. It is all so completely ambiguous that they might just as well have said, “Use whatever you want at your own risk because it's all up to the judge anyway.” That's really no exaggeration. Rulings in one case will not necessarily be used as a precedent in the next, particularly in civil suits, though copyright violation can be a criminal matter as well. There are no set standards for selected content, length or proportions of quotations, or potential market impact. Nevertheless, it has still been used as a general guideline for everyone from internet bloggers to public school teachers. An example might be the playing of a movie in the auditorium of a public school for students. It may not be considered a violation of copyright because it is being used for educational purposes. But if that same movie were to be played in an auditorium full of families at the ice-cream social gathering where goodies were being sold to raise money for a field trip, that could very well indeed be ruled as a liability through public dissemination of copyrighted material. Many restaurants can no longer sing the “Happy Birthday” song to patrons on their special day because of the threat of copyright lawsuits.

Across the internet though, it has been generally understood by bloggers and members of discussion forums and so forth, that news reports are not treated with the same level of copyright scrutiny as other media such as movies and music. After all, news is a relatively public matter anyway. Granted, reporters work hard often risking life and limb to get their stories, other staff all do their jobs, the news agencies have their expenses and financial obligations to investors, but at the end of the day the events they are reporting on are public events that they are willfully sharing with the greater public. In print they share it with the public for pocket change, but on their own internet sites they even share the news for free, and quite often encourage viewers to share it on networking tools such as Twitter or an RSS feed. The profitability in news reporting is not in the news itself, but in advertising revenues from companies who know that people will see their ad when they come to find out the news of the day, whether it be in print, over the airwaves, or over the internet. So really, it is in the best interest of any news agency to get the news out there as far and wide as possible, so long as they are referenced in some way. Let's not forget the old adage “there's no such thing as bad press.”

Copying and pasting an entire article may be seen as not really acting in good faith on the part of the blogger, but so long as it is properly attributed, it really should not be of serious concern to a news company. It's not really going to cost them anything. No one is going to decide that they would rather see their mainstream search engine news in some backwater blog day after day where the articles may be missing pictures, related links, and be generally mutilated in a hack paste job. Most folks will want to go right to the source, and see a copy/paste job merely as reference for discussion. Adding a link to any pasted article is certain to drive traffic back to the original news site, with folks who might never have even bothered to check the day's news otherwise. When most internet users post these articles, they are not posting it to circumvent the original news services and are not claiming the articles as their own original material, they are posting for the purposes of discussion, not plagiarism. Whether it be to critique the report itself, the news source overall, or as a general discussion related to the news being reported, the news article itself still becomes secondary to our own expression of free-speech. In this way we see that even a fully copied article could be seen as fair use, as a reference in these discussions.

So understanding all of this, one really has to ask, what was really behind the aggression of the AP against bloggers and other websites? Especially when you have a look at some of the specific instances they had issued the DMCA notices for. Many did not even copy the same headline, all of them contained links back to the original AP source, and none of them were even full posts of the article. They were merely snippets of the article, with a link back to the original complete article. You would think that the AP would be thanking them, not trying to sue them. You can see that down in the corner here of the MSMReview we even have a host-provided widget installed that runs an AP headline ticker. Is that something that we can be sued for? Could we be sued if we posted those same headlines without the widget?

By the end of 2008 it appears that the AP decided to back off a bit, and admitted that they might have been being a bit heavy-handed in the protection of their media. But one really has to wonder what set them on in the first place to such an ill-conceived venture. The only potential loss of revenue might have come from the fact that many news outlets in their network will pull an article after a bit of time, and then charge a fee for retrieval from an archive. In this way, a blog or forum could be seen as archiving these stories and undermining a very minor potential source of revenue. How often do folks actually go ahead and pay for an article for which the link is no longer active for, and especially in comparison to the potential for referral traffic generated by articles posted outside of the original site? Moreover, do they charge your local library a fee for making old newspapers available to the public after the articles have been pulled from the website? Granted, the library already paid 50-cents for a copy of the paper, but if that token amount were really the issue, then why do they not charge to read the headlines on their own websites and the large search engine hosts?

It just doesn't make sense, there is something missing from this picture still. Now we come to more recent news. It seems that other news sources are now hiring outside companies to do their dirty work for them, having a go at the bloggers and forums this summer in a similar manner that the AP did back in 2008, but on a much wider scale, and even more aggressively this time. Are they really so desperate for quick profits that they are willing to cut off their noses just to spite their faces? Are they really willing to alienate readers, and in turn their advertising clients, to scrape a few bucks away from bloggers? Was the whole AP fiasco just a “testing of the water” to to gauge reaction to an assault on free speech?

Steve Gibson, CEO of Las Vegas-based Righthaven has been buying up newspaper copyrights for the sole purpose of scouring the web to find and then sue anyone who has posted material without permission. He is able to compel quick settlements based on the fact that even a single violation can be a penalty of $150,000. Righthaven already has hundreds of lawsuits in the works, but estimates that there may be billions of violations. That will not doubt put any nickel and dime blogs and web sites right out of business. Many blogs and forums that could be seen as a profit company because of ad placement through services such as AdSense, really are not actually profitable at all, and are generally operated for reasons other than profit, such as practicing free speech and engaging their fellow human beings in discussion on current events via the internet. But even for larger sites, the threat is potent, seeing how much they stand to lose for even a single violation if they fight it in court then lose. One large internet forum that generates about 5 million hits a month with their user-generated discussion forum on alternative topics has decided to fight the lawsuit on the grounds that the site itself did not actually post the material, but that a forum user did, and therefore rather than file a lawsuit Righthaven should have served the site with a DMCA takedown notice. So in this case, we see that this company operating on behalf of the Las Vegas Review-Journal has actually gone well beyond what the AP did two summers ago. They aren't even bothering with take-down notices, they are going straight for the lawsuit. It is also interesting to note that this representative of the media has gone after one of the largest alternative subject matter forums on the internet, where open-minded free-thinking is highly valued (even if critically scrutinized.)

In another case, one of the above-mentioned forum's primary competitors has also been the subject of an action by a company representing Reuters news service, the AP of the British-influenced world. Again coming under fire is a forum on alternative subject matter where open-minded free-thinking is courted (even if dreadfully manipulated.) That case is part of a campaign launched in March by California-based Attributor with their FairShare Guardian model. In one 30-day scan with this new model, they found 75,000 sites with copies of un-licensed articles. Rather than suing them in court, Attributor offers discussion on syndication, in which they can pretty much demand any price they want for the syndication rights from the alleged violator. If negotiations fail, they will contact ad agencies doing business with the site. In the case of the specific site mentioned here already, the ad agencies did indeed pull their ads, the site's primary revenue stream for covering operating costs. Attributor also notifies search engines and web hosts, who are obligated under the DMCA to take down material they know to be in violation. So in essence, these forums are forced to pay the licensing fee for what might otherwise be considered fair-use, or be shut down entirely.

Now we finally see a pattern emerging. First, the somewhat failed attempt by AP to shutter blogs and websites that they had zeroed in on for whatever reason. Now we see on one hand a venture to force settlements that will likely shut down many thousands of blogs and websites. And on the other hand, we see due-process completely circumvented by a company demanding what can be assumed to be exorbitant licensing fees, and also sure to shut down thousands, even hundreds of thousands of websites. But can all this really be seen as a measure to protect profits? Certainly not when you consider that these blogs and websites are what drive traffic to these news sources in the first place. So then, this really isn't about profits so much as consolidation. One doesn't need a hundred-thousand blogs directing traffic to a few news sites, if a huge chunk of the web is shut right down entirely, and traffic can be directed through a few select mainstream social networking sites. This is about control, not profits. Controlling what you see, how you see it, and even the discussions you have about it. Bloggers are being forced to report the news under the terms dictated by licensing agreements, and whatever fine print that might entail aside from kicking up a fee as if news reporting were some mafia cartel. That is not free speech. This is about controlling our collective memory by editing and pulling articles and by preventing accessibility to archived copies of original stories floating around on the web. And that folks, is the real heart of the matter. Digital book burning. Remove our collective memory, mold the present, and dictate the future.

Whoa now. Maybe that's a bit of a jump there. A few select very powerful media monopolies shutting down the internet piece by piece? Sounds like a bit of a stretch into conspiracy-theory land there, no? Surely the government would have something to say about this, would step in to defend liberty and the Constitution? We have been like Gunny Hartman in the movie Full Metal Jacket here, rummaging through the unlocked footlocker of internet dirty laundry to “just see if anything's missing here.” And suddenly we find the jelly donut. Or better yet, that something is indeed missing. Something big. Something along the lines of 73,000 blogs shut down in a single day, with the flip of a switch. Here we get a good look at the relationship between business and the government.


On July 9 of this year, Toronto-based Blogetry.com, an internet blogging platform and Wordpress host-provider with approximately 73,000 clients, went dark. Less than a week later, Ipbfree.com, a site used to create web message boards, suddenly went offline. The shutdowns came with no notice, no pending legal action, and no explanation at all for some considerable time. Since then, some information has come out about the shut-down of Blogetry.com, so we are going to focus on that, as the information surrounding the Ipbfree.com seems to be far more scattered and less reliable. It should be noted that no direct correlation between the two events has been confirmed at this point, but there were some interesting similarities between the two events. Both said they were shut down by outside influence and not coming back, that the user-generated content violated no copyright laws, and that those who ordered the closures were legally bound to non-disclosure.

Initial speculation was that the shutdowns were part of a sweep by movie or record companies cracking down on illegal downloads and hosting of related files, with the support of the Obama Administration who has vowed to support the entertainment companies. It was not an unreasonable conclusion to reach, as these shutdowns came right on the heels of a number of scattered seizures by the Department of Justice along with Immigration and Customs Enforcement of assets and websites related to alleged illegal file-sharing, as part of an ongoing initiative called “Operation: In Our Sights.” So there we are back to the beginning of this article, with the “menace of digital piracy” that we have all been hearing about for years. One sure-fire method for Federal agents to conduct a “witch-hunt” by going after alleged pirates.

Other speculation was that perhaps there was child pornography involved. Another fantastic boogie man to get the people all riled up while being the perfect cover for officials to go right ahead and do just about anything they please. Now please understand, MSMR in no way is trying to make light of child pornography, or excuse the activities of deranged persons involved in that garbage in any way, but having to articulate that point goes to show just what a raw nerve there is there in society for the powers that be to poke at when they want to distract us. Even when they yell pedophile, we still have the right, nay, the obligation to question authority. But in cases of illegal file-sharing, and even in cases of illegal pornography, due process must still be applied. No agency has the right to arbitraliy march in and shut down a whole chunk of the internet. There is a lot of legal wrangling that can sometimes go on for years to get a specific website shutdown, much less an entire server of 73,000 clients. The DMCA protects internet service providers from liability of user content, as pointed out in the case mentioned earlier with Righthaven. Not to mention the fact that these sorts of takedowns are usually very public affairs, with publicity being exploited as a deterrent as much as possible.

In these cases, the cloak of secrecy is disturbing to say the least. As it turns out, the owner of Blogetry.com was just as confused as his clients, and tried repeatedly to contact his web-host BurstNet, before their first enigmatic reply. In a message to owner Alexander Yusupov they stated, “We are limited as to the details we can provide to you, but note that this was a critical matter and the only available option to us was to immediately deactivate the server.” In another message they went on to say, “Please note that this was not a typical case, in which suspension and notification would be the norm. This was a critical matter brought to our attention by law enforcement officials. We had to immediately remove the server. “ They refused to give him any more information though, and would not even disclose the law-enforcement agency involved. Nor did they disclose the agency to CNET news, when they were granted an interview with BurstNet VP, Benjamin Arcus. The VP did disclose however, that the service was terminated at the direction of a law-enforcement agency that he could not reveal, and that it was not a copyright issue. So this wasn't about digital pirates after all?

The latest news coming out now is that the secret agency was actually the FBI. BurstNet has also reversed themselves and is now stating that it was their own choice to terminate the server, and that the FBI had nothing to do with the decision. So apparently BurstNet was not in fact restricted to this “only available option” as they had stated, but freely and willingly chose to terminate the server of their own accord, and have tried to justify the unprecedented action by leveling an accusation against Blogetry that there was a history of abuses, though the FBI has not accused Alexander Yusupov of any wrong-doing. What is being reported now is that the bureau had merely requested “voluntary emergency disclosure of information" regarding links to bomb-making instructions and an al-Qaeda hit-list of Americans which appeared on as many as one Blogetry hosted blog. Ah-ha! And there we have another boogie man folks. The ubiquitous yet imaginary al-Qaeda. (You will remember in a previous article here at MSMR where we pointed out that al-Qaeda is actually a government generated fabrication.) Mention al-Qaeda, bomb, or terrorist, and the FBI can instantly shut down 73,000 free-speech platforms without any due-process or oversight whatsoever because of what may have been one single alleged offender. In the post 9/11 era there is nothing “voluntary” about what is expected during an “emergency.” BurstNet has stated that they cannot restore any Blogetry data, even with the offending material removed. All of those blogs are just gone, completely wiped out. Of course we are supposed to believe BurstNet's revised position now, that they did not cave in under pressure by the FBI in the face of some alleged terrorist threat, and that they wiped out 73,000 blogs because of two alleged previous violations of their policies by Blogetry.. It doesn't seem that it really makes much difference anyhow at this point. Either BurstNet threw themselves under the bus, doing irreparable damage to their credibility and the future of their business to cover for the FBI, or they were in fact the ones who decided to pull the plug as they are stating now, making themselves the bane of free-speech advocates around the globe.

When all is said and done, it is now abundantly clear that these companies and government agencies working in concert, have begun dismantling large swaths of the internet this summer, with a three-pronged assault on liberty, through lawsuits, through cutting financing, and through direct action by blocking and terminating access to the internet. Make no mistake about it folks, this is the burning of books in the digital age. The only question is if you are going to accept the excuses ever-ready at the hand despots the world over, and then bow down to the march of the jack-boot, while gleefully chanting the rhetoric that it is all for our safety, all for our children, all for our own good as we spiral down into the pit of totalitarianism. This is it, our last chance, the end game. There is nothing else left for them to take, but these last bastions of free expression and liberty, where the news can be pondered and debated without censorship, where we can collect our memories and look back to them to see what our tomorrow has come to. Do not forget what you have read here today. Remember the burning of the books.

“Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people”

~Heinrich Heine

Here's to hoping that no one gets sued over this, but here are links to related material and articles:

http://www.corporations.org/media/
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20010877-261.html?tag=mncol;txt
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=964013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10692501
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/19/blogetery-owners-shut-down-bombs-al-qaeda/
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/22/the-curious-disappearance-of-blogetry/

Constitution Interpretation 'Will Have to Change' NYC Mayor Says

Bloomberg says interpretation of Constitution will 'have to change' after Boston bombing

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country's interpretation of the Constitution will "have to change" to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.

"The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry," Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. "But we live in a complex word where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."

Mr. Bloomberg, who has come under fire for the N.Y.P.D.'s monitoring of Muslim communities and other aggressive tactics, said the rest of the country needs to learn from the attacks.

"Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11," he said. 

Read more: sott.net

Take notice, the people trying to take away our freedom is our own government, not the terrorists. And even if we blame the terrorists, people like Mayor Bloomberg are handing them the win, each and every time they use an act of terror as the reason to take away our freedom.

Anti-Gun Protester Is Convicted Rapist

The following article is from: Buckeye Firearms Association

On Wednesday, we reported on the fact that Dayton anti-gun protestor Jerome McCorry, who had staged a small protest outside Bill Goodman's Gun & Knife Show over the weekend and received generous media attention, is also a convicted rapist.

We also pointed out that, despite this fact, media outlets like the Dayton Daily News and WHIO-TV (CBS Dayton) (and, as it turns out, WKEF (ABC Dayton), not only failed to report the fact that McCorry is a sex offender in their coverage of the protest, but that they have repeatedly failed to do so in past coverage about McCorry.

The article quickly went viral, receiving over 21,000 reads in the first 24 hours, and continues to receive strong traffic. It has also generated follow-up reporting from radio host Dana Loesch and nationally-read bloggers, including PJMedia's Instapundit and Michelle Malkin's Twitchy.com.

Many have begun asking Dayton media outlets why they have given legitimacy to this rapist's calls for potential crime victims to be disarmed, and Dayton blogger "Domestic Debacle" has received a response from WHIO, in which they admit that they were aware of McCorry's status as a sex offender, yet failed to report it.

According to WHIO, they didn't report on McCorry's "controversial" status as a convicted rapist because, these days, his message is one of "community harmony through peace and non-violence." Their desire to "show both sides" apparently now includes showing how a convicted rapist feels about the prospects that potential crime victims might be armed!

As others have observed, the real reason WHIO, Dayton Daily News, and WKEF don't mention McCorry's status as a convicted rapist is because they know his message - one they support - will lack any credibility as soon as their audience learns he is a sex offender. Were McCorry leading a Second Amendment rally, his "controversial" past would no doubt be reported boisterously.

While WHIO has at least responded (lame though their excuses are), neither the Dayton Daily News, or WKEF have answered repeated inquiries as to why they are giving a convicted rapist a "highly visible" platform to argue for the disarmament of potential future crime victims.

Public School Teaches Sedition

Our Constitution is already in peril, and it's little wonder why when you see the Leftist agenda being carried out in our public school systems. Nevertheless, the Constitution is still the law of the land and to call for its subversion, to teach anti-Constitutional values to young students, is nothing short of subversion of government, sedition.

The father of a 4th grade student in a Florida public school was furious to discover a crayon scrawled statement in his son's back pack. It read:

"I am willing to give up some of my Constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure."

The paper is reported to have been written after a lawyer visited the class to discuss the Bill of Rights. The teacher and school administrators claim the student wrote the statement spontaneously, of his own free will. However, the father of the young 4th-grader maintains that such a complex political statement is beyond his son's reasoning and writing skill. He also claims that other students have corroborated his son's account that he was one of several students personally selected by the teacher to write out that specific sentence.

You can read details of this story first reported at: The Blaze

Also see:

Kids Belong to The Collective, Says MSNBC Host

Gun Confiscation Underway In NY Through HIPAA Violations?

Manasquan, NJ --(Ammoland.com)- Remember all those who denied that firearms confiscation as a result of New York’s new gun laws was too “insane” to even consider?

That it was strictly in the realm of paranoid conspiracy theorists and the “it cant happen here crowd”?

Those were and remain some of the standard replies to anyone who even thought about the possibility, let alone gave voice to it, despite the fact that Gov Cuomo and numerous other officials made public comments about such a plan, as I discussed in my article “Feinstein & Cuomo Admit Planning Australian Style Government Gun Buy Back” .

Elected Officials, the media, various Gun Control Groups and their zealous forced disarmament supporters, even some firearms owners themselves all insisted it was to crazy to even consider.

There’s just one huge problem it is happening now in New York State!

Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/new-york-gun-confiscation-underway/#ixzz2Q0A9hSui

Man Charged After Shooting Backyard Bear

Richard Ahlstrand says he was filling a bird feeder in his back yard when he was rushed by a 7-foot tall, 400-pound bear. The 76-year old managed to squeeze off a quick blast from a shotgun, and the bear dropped dead. He says he was carrying the gun after he thought he saw a bear in his yard the day before.

Ahlstrand is now charged with illegally killing a bear, illegally baiting a bear, illegal possession of a firearm and failing to secure a weapon.

The Collectivist Conspiracy (VIDEO)

YouTube description:


In this exclusive 80 minute video interview, legendary conspiracy author G. Edward Griffin explains how his research, which spans no less than 5 decades, has revealed a banking elite obsessed with enforcing a world government under a collectivist model that will crush individualism and eventually institute martial law as a response to the inevitable backlash that will be generated as a result of a fundamental re-shaping of society.

Griffin discusses the similarities between the extreme left and the extreme right in the false political paradigm and how this highlights a recurring theme - collectivism. Collectivism is the opposite of individualism and believes that the interests of the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good of the greater number, explains Griffin, uniting the doctrines of communism and fascism. Both the Republican and Democrat parties in the United States are committed to advancing collectivism and this is why the same policies are followed no matter who is voted in to the White House.

"All collectivist systems eventually deteriorate into a police state because that's the only way you can hold it together," warns Griffin.

Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University Professor and mentor to former president Bill Clinton, explained in his books Tragedy and Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment, how the elite maintained a silent dictatorship while fooling people into thinking they had political freedom, by creating squabbles between the two parties in terms of slogans and leadership, while all the time controlling both from the top down and pursuing the same agenda. Griffin documents how the Tea Party, after its beginnings as a grass roots movement, was later hijacked by the Republicans through the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.

Pointing out how Republicans and Democrats agree on the most important topics, such as US foreign policy, endless wars in the Middle East, and the dominance of the private banking system over the economy, Griffin lays out how the left-right hoax is used to steer the destiny of America.

Griffin also talks at length on a myriad of other important subjects, such as the move towards a Chinese-style censored Internet, the demonization of the John Birch Society as a racist extremist group, the Hegelian dialectic, the power of tax-exempt foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations, the movement towards world government, and the question of whether the elite are really worried about the growing awareness of their agenda amongst Americans.

U.S. Federal Authority Is Martial Law

In this piece I will be providing documentation which shows that the United States of America’s Constitution, as prescribed by the nation’s founders, no longer has direct authority, and that the nation operates under a declared state of martial law. While it is true that the Constitution is referenced, and still alive in spirit to some extent, it is also true that it no longer binds effective governance in legitimacy. Sovereignty has been stripped from the people.

Let us begin with looking at what it means to be a free and self-determined people.


The Concept of Secession in Early America

The Declaration of Independence, by the thirteen colonies which went on to became the first, united, states of America , was more than a notice of secession. It was a rebuke of colonial title and subject status, with the formal dissolution of the recognition of such a relationship. While it could be argued that the colonies had no such right to do so, the founding fathers heralded the values of freedom, liberty, and self-determination as being the basis of such right.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that amongst these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter, or abolish it.” - Declaration of Independence 

Having just freed themselves from tyranny in a hard-won military contest, it is hard to imagine that the founding fathers would have done much to make such action illegal, or to restrict the recognition of sovereignty they had just achieved at so high a cost. Secession from the rule of monarchy was finally complete when King George III formally relinquished all authority over his former colonies by 1783.

“His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.” -Article One, Paris Peace Treaty

The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783

Note that the King did not recognize a single State, or single sovereignty, but each one independently. Of course we know that the founding fathers did intend to bring unity to the thirteen former colonies with a federal form of government, but they were also quite wary of too much power being consolidated in some monolithic central government, too much akin to a monarchy. This is evident in the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, where measures to check the power of the federal government were adopted.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” -Second Amendment

Let us ignore the debate in modern times as to the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and focus on the right of the State. It seems clear enough by the wording here that at the very least, it is the right, if not the duty of a free state , to secure their freedom as a state, with arms. Not as a franchise of the federal system, but as a free state . Sovereignty of the State is clearly expressed here. Who might we reasonably expect would pose a threat to the freedom of one State? Another State perhaps, but it seems far more reasonable that the threat envisioned by the authors of the Second Amendment was that of an oppressive central government. While they may have also envisioned the need for States to maintain a militia to be used in cooperation against a common foreign enemy, such a meaning was neither explicitly stated, nor clearly implied. In fact, New England states refused to send their quota of militia to fight the British in the War of 1812, and even went so far as to threaten secession at the Hartford Convention, even creating a new flag. Also, there was then, the possibility of an outright Federal military, which we now have today, though this was frowned upon at the time, again out of fears of a strong central government.

As stated without ambiguity, the Second Amendment clearly was meant to protect the security and freedom of an individual and sovereign State. It truly does speak for itself, as does the Tenth Amendment.

“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.”

-Tenth Amendment

There are those who may argue that by ratifying the Constitution, the States dissolved their right to secede from the federal union, as a part of their obligation to that union and to the other States. But if that union were to infringe upon the sovereign rights of any State, by availing itself of powers not delegated to it by the Constitution, would not the obligation by the State to the union then be dissolved, as the original agreement had been already violated? Would not the usurpation of power by any one district, or by the Federal government, be considered an act of aggression, and a clear affront to the liberty of the State?

Speaking on the outright banning of the right to secede, James Madison stated on May 31st in 1787:

“A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

Wikipedia-Sovereignty

In an article published as a part of a compilation known as The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton concluded:

“When the sword is once drawn the passions of men observe no bounds of moderation. The suggestions of wounded pride, the instigations of resentment, would be apt to carry the States against which the arms of the Union were exerted, to any extreme to avenge the affront, or to avoid the disgrace of submission. The first war of this kind would probably terminate in a dissolution of the Union.”

Wikipedia-The Federalist



During debate at the New York State Convention in Poughkeespie, Hamilton stated:

“To coerce a State would be one of the maddest projects ever devised. No State would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another.”

Constitution.org


New York State , along with Virginia and Rhode Island , explicitly stated in writing that they maintained a natural right of secession, when they finally submitted ratification of the Constitution. Because this was considered to be a natural right of states, and because it was understood and agreed upon at the Constitutional Convention (being presided over by one George Washington, a delegate of Virginia), this would be a right of all states. By accepting the ratifications of these three states, and thereby validating them, the other states were guaranteed this right as well, as a matter of course, knowing that a right held by one state must be held by all. (There are a very few specific exceptions.) But really, there was little need to explicitly declare this in writing anyway, because it was indeed the right of the sovereign States already.

Speaking before Congress in December of 1860, President James Buchanan stated:

“The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not necessary and proper for carrying into execution any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution.”

Full text at infoplease.com



At this point we have a clear overview of some of wealth of material which is available to support the right and the authority of any one State to secede from the union of the United States of America . It has been said, that before the Civil War one would say “these are the United States.” Since then, it is said, “this is the United States.”


Secession of the Confederate States of America


The clearest mark for the beginning of the Confederacy is with the secession of South Carolina on the 20th of December in 1860.

“AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled 'The Constitution of the United States of America.'

We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.

Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.” -Ordinances of Secession

Constitution.org-Ordinances of Secession



But this was not some sudden decision that was made lightly. In fact, it had been years in the making, as is apparent in the preamble of their “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.”

“The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right.. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America , and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act…” -Declarations of Causes of Seceding States

Teachingamericanhistory.org



Of course, all of these words all came down to the actual withdrawal of their delegates from the Congress for the United States , which was reported as follows:

“Resignation of the South Carolina Delegation

The Speaker laid before the House on the 24th, a letter signed by Messrs. M'Queen, Bonham, Boyce, and Ashmore, of South Carolina , as follows:

SIR,- We avail ourselves of the earliest opportunity since the official communication of the intelligence, of making known to your honorable body that the people of the State of South Carolina, in their sovereign capacity, have resumed the powers heretofore delegated by them to the Federal Government of the United States, and have thereby dissolved our connection with the House of Representatives.. In taking leave of those with whom we have been associated in a common agency, we, as well as the people of our Commonwealth, desire to do so with a feeling of mutual regard and respect for each other- cherishing the hope that, in our future relations, we may better enjoy that peace and harmony essential to the happiness of a free and enlightened people.

JOHN M'QUEEN,

M. L. BONHAM,

W. W. BOYCE,

J. D. ASHMORE.

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives. “-Harper’s Weekly (January 5, 1861) 

Sonofthesouth.net


We know that other states quickly followed suit, with their seemingly rightful reclamation of outright sovereignty, and dissolution of their ties to the federal government of the United States. Mississippi declared their ordinance on the 9th of January 1861, followed then by Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, and finally then by a group of Kentuckians calling themselves “Convention of the People of Kentucky,” by November of 1861. It should be noted here, that the break from the Union was not entirely clear or precise in many areas. The legitimacy of the Confederate ordinance in Kentucky , for example, is greatly disputed, despite the state being represented as the center star of the Confederate Battle Flag. In another example, forty-eight northwestern counties of Virginia decided to secede from that state, and form their own West Virginia in 1863. It should also be noted here, that secession, up this point in American history, had never been declared illegal, nor ruled un-Constitutional by any body of government.


The End of Constitutional Government, and the Declaration of Martial Law 


On the 27th of March in 1861 Congress adjourned “sin die,” or “without day,” no longer having the required quorum under the Constitution. In other words, having lost the delegates of the seceding states, Congress no longer had the minimum number of required persons to lawfully conduct any official business, except to set a date to reconvene, under Article One of the Constitution. They did not set a date to reconvene, and as a result many have argued that the Congress of the United States of America was thereby dissolved. There are also those who argue that only Congress itself would have the authority to dissolve the body permanently. I find the argument to be moot. The fact is, that the Congress of the United States of America has never reconvened “de jure,” or “by law.” Instead, they have operated by Proclamation of the President of the United States , as shown here, in what is often referred to as Executive Order One:

“BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,

Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.

I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12 o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July, next, then and there to consider and determine, such measures, as, in their wisdom, the public safety, and interest may seem to demand.

In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of April in the year of our Lord One thousand, Eight hundred and Sixtyone, and of the Independence the United States the Eightyfifth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.”

The American Presidency Project


As stated in this document, both houses of Congress were ordered to reconvene, by President Lincoln, without the quorum required by the Constitution. The order is dated two days after the surrender of Fort Sumter by Union forces, in South Carolina , and remains in effect to this day.

(The attack on Fort Sumter is often viewed as evidence of aggression on the part of the southerners, but there are a few points to consider here. Union forces had manned the Fort clandestinely, infuriating the Confederates. Nevertheless, they were politely asked now to abandon the Fort which was the key to control of Charleston Harbor . The Union Commander refused. Attempts to re-supply the Union garrison incensed the southerners even further. After all, these Union forces were now viewed as foreign occupiers of sovereign territory, and furthermore, as a threat to trade in the region. They certainly were not welcome there, and eventually, General P.G.T. Beauregard was authorized to forcefully remove the garrison operating under the command of his former artillery instructor, Major Robert Anderson, whom he had also served as an assistant after graduating from West Point . Though it is a little known fact, there were a number of forts that the Union was forced to relinquish to the Confederacy before this notorious battle that is seen as the official start of the Civil War.)

But there is more here, than just the nullification of the Constitution. There is the establishment of a new authority under the Commander-in-Chief, the establishment of martial law, which has replaced the Constitution as the legitimate authority in America.

“GENERAL ORDERS No. 100.

WAR DEPT., ADJT. GENERAL'S OFFICE,

Washington , April 24, 1863.

The following "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field," prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., and revised by a board of officers, of which Maj. Gen. E. A. Hitchcock is president, having been approved by the President of the United States , he commands that they be published for the information of all concerned.

By order of the Secretary of War:

E. D. TOWNSEND,

Assistant Adjutant-General.” 

Here are the first three standing orders under Section I, “Martial law-Military jurisdiction-Military necessity-Retaliation.

“1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the martial law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring martial law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest.

The presence of a hostile army proclaims its martial law.

2. Martial law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander-in-chief, or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same.

3. Martial law in a hostile country consists in the suspension by the occupying military authority of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.

The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority.” -General Orders No. 100 

Law.yale.edu



Here is a link to another source for the document, which is also known as The Lieber Code of 1863:

Civilwarhome.com



So we see here, that martial law does not even have to be declared, to be in effect as the legal authority. Furthermore, we see that only the commander-in-chief has the authority to issue a “special proclamation” which would end the condition of martial law. It is certainly interesting that President Lincoln was assassinated before any such proclamation could be made, or Constitutional authority restored.

We also see that an end to martial law might be brought about by “special mention” in the conclusion of a peace treaty. Here it is also interesting to note that, despite the surrender of General Lee at the Appomattox Courthouse, and the surrender of other top commanders of Confederate forces in the months that followed, no peace treaty was ever signed with the Confederacy. Therefore, though the Confederates were beaten militarily, the war has never ended for the Secessionists. At the same time, the Union never officially recognized that the Confederacy even existed, that the fight had merely been to put down a domestic insurrection, and in a sense, that war with a Confederacy had never really happened at all. Some have argued that with the fall of Richmond , the Confederacy no longer existed and therefore had not the means to surrender, with the leadership dispersed, but the truth is that the Union never recognized the existence of the Confederacy to begin with and therefore could not accept surrender from that which they had never recognized. If they had accepted surrender, then they would have recognized the Confederacy as a legitimate entity to be negotiated with, thereby dooming the legitimacy of Union action against the Confederacy.

The third order, which I have listed here above, would come to be reflected in official acts in the years which followed the Civil War.


Aftermath

With the surrender of General Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia, the Confederacy was effectively defeated militarily on April 9, 1865. It wasn’t a week later that President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. The assassin made certain that Lincoln would have no part of cleaning up the mess that had been made by the war, no part of the period known as “Reconstruction,” and no chance to reverse the dictatorial assaults he had made against the Constitution, sovereignty, and liberty. Given the gravity of the situation, I dare say that there was far more behind the assassination than we are generally led to believe. It is more than likely, that there were those who desired that this consolidation of power remain in place long after the fighting had ceased. Was this assassination some cunning maneuver by a hidden cabal already in position to seize upon such new powers, or had this really been the root cause of the entire Civil War all along? Was the assassination the coup de grâce of the evident coup d’état? It seems quite likely that it had all been deliberately and clandestinely orchestrated, especially given all that has followed.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly:

"Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

"A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.

The Reconstruction Acts that came after the war are a clear example of the continuation of martial law, and not Constitutional law. When Congress convened after a long recess in December 1865, they would not seat the representatives of the Southern states, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of their governments. Eventually, the Acts turned the former Confederate States of Virginia , North Carolina , South Carolina , Georgia , Mississippi , Alabama , Louisiana , Florida , Texas and Arkansas into five military districts to be commanded by Army Generals. Republican governments were eventually forced upon the defeated Confederacy, made up of “carpetbaggers,” “scalawags,” and of course “freedmen” instead of the traditional Democrats. While the eventual goal was indeed to restore States’ legislatures and representation in Congress, the Army was given unprecedented authority over all aspects of administration in the rebel states, including politics. An excellent example is found in Section 2 of a supplementary to "An Act to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States."

“And be it further enacted, That the commander of any district named in said act shall have power, subject to the disapproval of the General of the army of the United States, and to have effect till disapproved, whenever in the opinion of such commander the proper administration of said act shall require it, to suspend or remove from office, or from the performance of official duties and the exercise of official powers, any officer or person holding or exercising, or professing to hold or exercise, any civil or military office or duty in such district under any power, election, appointment or authority derived from, or granted by, or claimed under, any so-called State or the government thereof, or any municipal or other division thereof, and upon such suspension or removal such commander, subject to the disapproval of the General as aforesaid, shall have power to provide from time to time for the performance of the said duties of such officer or person so suspended or removed, by the detail of some competent officer or soldier of the army, or by the appointment of some other person, to perform the same, and to fill vacancies occasioned by death, resignation, or otherwise.” -Reconstruction Acts

Wikipedia-Reconstruction



The rebels would have to submit to much to earn their “entitlement” to be represented in Congress once again. One such concession would be to submit to oaths under certain conditions, with one poignant example being made clear in Section 6 of one supplementary act.

“And be it further enacted, That the true intent and meaning of the oath prescribed in said supplementary act is, (among other things,) that no person who has been a member of the legislature of any State, or who has held any executive or judicial office in any State, whether he has taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United Sates or not, and whether he was holding such office at the commencement of the rebellion, or had held it before, and who has afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, is entitled to be registered or to vote; and the words "executive or judicial office in any State" in said oath mentioned shall be construed to include all civil offices created by law for the administration of any general law of a State, or for the administration of justice.” -Reconstruction Acts

This effectively barred anyone who had any significant affiliation with the Confederacy or the Democrats from participating in government.

The states would have to write new constitutions in accordance with that which was prescribed in the initial Reconstruction Act. That constitution would then have to be submitted for the approval of Congress. But even here the imposition of federal authority does not end. Another clause, in the initial Act, which dictates the path back to representation in Congress, is stated in part in Section 5:

“…and when said State, by a vote of its legislature elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen, and when such article shall have become a part of the Constitution of the United States, said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and senators and representatives shall be admitted there from on their taking the oath prescribed by law…”-Reconstruction Acts

Entitlement, though admittedly of slightly different meaning perhaps, had been expressly forbidden by the original 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which has now been left out of all modern renderings, and all but forgotten being another casualty of this new imposed order. How can one be “entitled” to rights that were once deemed to be “self-evident” by the founders? And what good is a vote, when you are given but one choice?


Conclusion

With what today is known as the 13th and 14th Amendments, and the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, the United States was well on its way to fully establishing itself as a corporation acting under an Executive dictatorship enforced by martial law. The establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, the bankruptcy of the United States in 1933, and the Patriot Act, are all milestones, among others, in the road to absolute dictatorship, and the end of the dream laid out by our forefathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.. The United States today is a corporation, not the sovereign republic that it is imagined to be. According to the US Code Collection, sourced here from the Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute:

“(15) “ United States ” means—

(A) a Federal corporation;

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States ; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States .”

-TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002

Law.cornell.edu



It might be argued that President Lincoln was within his Constitutional rights to do whatever he deemed necessary, as the Executive and Commander-in-Chief during a time of national emergency. No such power is stated in the Constitution however, and again I would refer to the Tenth Amendment. Regardless, it is clear that the Constitution has been effectively suspended and superseded since the Civil War, having never been restored to its natural state since that time. All that has followed could only truthfully be thought of, at best, as a Constitutional Dictatorship, with the Constitution cited merely as a reference and not acting as a binding or effective force of legitimate governance. Martial law, is the law.

Copyright 2010, all rights reserved, used by permission

D.A.'s Office Complicit In Brutality Coverup

I try to be as unbiased as possible when it comes to cases of police brutality. Indeed, I have made several posts here defending the police even when they have acted violently, because I understand that it is a difficult job and at times it does in fact require violence to get the job done. I am not squeamish and I am not prone to knee-jerk reactions. I have seen things from both sides of the line, having been both first-responder and victim of a vicious assault by police.

I must say though, that at the end of the day, I have little sympathy for police and the job they do when I hear stories like this one. This is not just about a few bad apples beating the crap out of innocent civilians. This is about institutionalized corruption and brutality. Let's check out the video, and I will continue below.


So we see there are two separate incidents here to discuss. In the first, we see police beat, tase, and strangle a woman who is handcuffed in the back of the police cruiser. Personally, I can't think of any legitimate reason why police should be beating on anyone in handcuffs. I can understand that suspects in cuffs can still be unruly and do things like start spitting in the backseat and so forth. I can see how that would make a police officer angry, but it really still does not excuse beating up a suspect in a punitive manner. It certainly does not excuse using the taser on someone, and it absolutely does not excuse choking a woman. Here in NY State, choking a woman is a crime in and of itself, aside from standard assault-type charges.

New strangulation statute proving an effective tool for law enforcement

Imagine for a moment that what you saw there was a man beating on his wife in that manner. If the public were to see something of that nature there would be absolute outrage in a community, calling for all sorts of horrible things be done to a man who would dare to do something like that to a woman. But because it is a police officer doing this to a suspect, the public is apathetic, as if in a trance, or even openly defend the actions of police in cases like this. But this wasn't just one officer either, it was two. Two powerful men beating the crap out of a woman in the back seat of a car in the middle of the night. Is there really any excuse for that?

With the new strangulation law on the books, I find it hard to believe that a man would be excused for simply choking a woman even if she came at him with a kitchen knife screaming bloody murder, much less pummeling and tasing a woman. Certainly there would be no excuse whatsoever for a man to do this to a defenseless, unarmed woman restrained in handcuffs, unless he was a cop of course.

Next we see the case of a man who had his rib cage crushed in for the crime of not understanding a police order. Instead of putting his hands behind his back as instructed, he puts his hands in the air. A typical reaction really for anyone who watches television and instinctively thinks "hands up" if they are ever in trouble with the police. It is also quite easy for a police officer to take a suspect into custody from that position. You simply snap the cuff on one wrist, guide the suspects arm down toward the buttocks, do the same with a firm grasp on the other arm, and lock the second wrist into the open cuff. Easy as that, suspect in custody.

Instead, one officer decided to body slam the suspect to the concrete, while the other decides to use a knee to blow out the man's ribcage. And of course, no police beating would be complete without the application of the taser a few times. Even if the man had been a little unruly, a bit uncooperative, not fully understanding what was happening, there was nothing there to show he was being violent, or to warrant that level of force that we saw used against him.

As a general rule, the police are expected to follow the Use of Force Continuum. Not every department uses the same model, and the standards are not universal among the different models, but generally speaking the principle is to only apply that force which is necessary to safely bring a suspect into custody. As safely as possible for the officer and the suspect I might add. I saw nothing in that video which showed the suspect was assaultive in any way. If there was intentional resistance at all, it appears to have been passive. I didn't see any active resistance as in attempts to break free or flee. Even if that were the case, once the suspect was down, that should have been the extent of the force necessary to pull the suspects arms behind his back and get the cuffs on. Tasing him and breaking five ribs is clearly an excessive use of force in this case.

So what we have seen there, yet again, are a few more instances of gratuitous, unwarranted violence by police against a civilian. Almost every day we see a new video of this nature pop up on YouTube, but we are still expected to believe that these are all "isolated" incidents, the work of  "a few bad apples." Never mind that thousands of cases like this never make it to the light of day. More often than not, the victim is not lucky enough to have a video camera rolling when they are pummeled by police. And without a tape, there is little chance of finding a lawyer who will bother to handle your case. Even with a tape, it is clearly an uphill battle to hold the police accountable for their crimes.

In one instance linked here, a reporter was facing 21 years in prison for airing an excessive force complaint. He was subsequently convicted on three felony counts of violating wiretapping laws, for posting the content on YouTube.

In another incident, a man was arrested and had his head split open by police simply because he asked for a complaint form.

Time and time again I have heard people say something along the lines of "well, if a bad cop does something to you, you should report it to their supervisor." The notion that a civilian can find justice when they are the victim of a crime at the hands of police, or that police will be held accountable for such crimes, is false. How could we possibly expect an officer's supervisor to take such a complaint seriously, when we see what happened in those two incidents above in the main video? The police charged the victims of their brutal assault with a crime, resisting arrest. Not just one "bad apple" but three police officers in these two incidents alone, not only covering for one another but actually participating in the violence. Their supervisors, right on up to the chief of police were well aware of what was on those tapes, yet the charges against the victims stood, and the officers were not held accountable in any way. Beyond the police department protecting their own, the county district attorney's office also saw the tapes, and failed in their duty to even investigate, much less to actually prosecute those officers for the brutal assaults.

How many other cases has the DA's office refused to prosecute over the years, simply because the perpetrators were police officers? How complicit is the top brass in any department, in any county, even in any state, in covering up crimes committed by cops? How many thousands, even millions of people have been viciously beaten, wrongfully prosecuted, and even killed by police, without anyone ever being held accountable and without justice ever being served?

Ladies and gentleman, this is not about running down the police for the sake of running down the police. This is the reality of the totalitarian police-state we now live in. The boys in blue today are no better than the "brown shirt" terrorists who put the Nazis in power. It makes no difference if you are a trouble-maker or an innocent person just going about your business. Any one of you reading this could find yourself, or a loved one, being beaten in the back of a police car in the middle of the night, having your rib cage shattered along some lonely road by a few thug cops, or worse, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

EXTRA:

No sooner had I posted this article, another story popped up that just goes to prove that police can literally get away with murder even when they are caught and prosecuted.

Cop Made Chief After Negligent Homicide Conviction

Wounded Marine Humiliated By TSA Inspections

This is certainly not the first time we have heard about the TSA doing inspections that challenge our sensibilities.

TSA To Grandma: Get Naked And Show Us Your Colostomy Bag

TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine

Strip-Searching and Terrorizing Children (VIDEOS)

Today, the latest headline on the subject is about a United States Marine who had his legs blown off in combat, but was made to endure a rigorous inspection by TSA authorities in Phoenix.

TSA agents 'humiliated' wounded Marine with aggressive inspection: report

Reading the story, it's certainly enough to piss off any patriot. The fact that the man is a Marine seems to be the focus of the attention being given the report and the Congressman.

Rep. Duncan Hunter said in his letter Monday that the Marine, who is still on active duty and showed TSA agents his military identification, was still forced to undergo that scrutiny... The congressman asked TSA to detail its procedures to inspecting wounded U.S. troops at airports, and to consider whether agents should show “situational awareness.”

But should it really matter if the man is active duty or not? Should it matter how he was injured or what his disability is? Not to the TSA it shouldn't. Not if we are going to accept that their job really is in the interest of public safety as the government claims.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not unsympathetic at all to this Marine, his sacrifices, and the crappy ordeal they put him through there at the airport. But really, why should it even be considered that he be exempt from this sort of humiliation and pain that the rest of the people in this nation must endure?

After all, a terrorist could pretend to be a wounded veteran, show a fraudulent I.D. that he was an active-duty member of the military, or even actually be an active-duty member of the armed forces while bent on destruction and mayhem. This is all just as possible as, let's say, airline pilots themselves having things like guns on-board aircraft.

TSA rules led to pilot’s gun firing in flight

Police nab airline pilot with loaded gun in luggage

Police take gun from distraught JetBlue pilot

Or for that matter, the TSA agents themselves could be terrorists.

TSA Memo is Bombshell Invalidation of Airport Security

Or sex predators and deviants.

Female Passengers Say They’re Targeted By TSA

TSA harassment sends rape victim to emergency room

TSA officer is alleged child pornographer

Disgraced Pedo-Priest Patting Down Passengers in Philly as TSA Supervisor

Submit to Sexual Degradation At the Hands of Your Overlords

Should we even be considering exemptions at all, for anyone? If for troops, then why not for police, or people who have a lot of money, or white people, or non-Jews?

Maybe it's a good thing that troops are getting a slap-in-the-face wake up call about what is happening here in this country. This is the freedom they are fighting for.