MarkMcCoy.com

Preparing for civil unrest

2009-07-08T21:14:00.000-05:00

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

2009-07-08T21:11:00.001-05:00

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

2009-06-01T08:59:00.004-05:00

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

2009-06-01T08:26:00.002-05:00

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

2009-05-30T20:34:00.003-05:00

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

2009-05-09T11:32:00.008-05:00

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

2009-04-18T23:57:00.001-05:00

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)

2009-04-18T06:20:00.001-05:00

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

2009-04-16T13:39:00.001-05:00

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

2009-04-15T06:23:00.001-05:00

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

2009-04-10T19:44:00.001-05:00

"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

2009-04-10T07:50:00.001-05:00

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

2009-04-09T19:18:00.001-05:00

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).

The Origins of Birth Registration – It’s not what you think.

2009-04-09T12:44:00.001-05:00

The Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act was "for the promotion, the welfare and hygiene of maternity and infancy and for other purposes," It was passed with a vote of 63 to 7, and by the house with a vote of 279 to 39, and was finally signed by the president and became law on Nov. 23, 1921. The act provided for the current fiscal year (1922) $10,000 for each state accepting the provisions of the act, and additional sum of $1,000,000.

The bill was a direct outgrowth of a nine year study made by the "Federal Children's Bureau." Note the Bureau was not the federal bureau for children but the bureau of the federal children. This act and the acceptance of its benefits by the states created the "United States birth registration area."⁴⁴

"(2) Birth Registration Document. The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a State... to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.⁴⁵

Did the federal government have the right to impose such legislation on the States? In 1923, it was argued by Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, "The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act." The complaint went on to state that, "The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power." "The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act."⁴⁶

In the final analysis the Act was an offer from one corporate entity to another for the purpose of providing an avenue for the individual citizen of America to register as a subject of the State and therefore a citizen of the Federal corporate State, the true and actual sovereign agent, called the United States. The federal government would assume the position of Father of the subject citizen according to the law of Parens Patriae.⁴⁷

http://presys.com/~ekklesia/cvc.htm

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

2009-04-02T08:21:00.003-05:00

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

These are not my words. These are the words uttered by the courts within the United States and other States. I am not advocating violence or promoting the unjust taking of life. As a matter of fact, I am morally opposed to any taking of life. However, in the realm of our humanity and circumstances we cannot control, any individual has to allow for some possibility of death to others, whether intentional or unintentional, when defending themselves from what they perceive to be imminent harm or death to themselves.

That said, government, being the incarnation of force, has recognized at the judicial level the right of people to defend themselves when that force is exercised unjustly. How can any of this be avoided? In my opinion, by abolishing government and creating better ways for society to function. That option notwithstanding, by government mitigating the potential harm it causes by limiting its actions to those involving violent actions of others as opposed to regulatory edicts imposed upon an otherwise peaceful populace.

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show
that no offense had been committed."

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v.
State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would
be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, 'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.' That was the 'ultimate right of
all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme
Court.

As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

See also
The Law of Arrest in Civil and Criminal Actions

An analysis of the so-called law (625 ILCS 5/12-212)(c) which is claimed to prohibit under-body neon lights in Illinois

2009-04-01T21:46:00.003-05:00

An analysis of the so-called law (625 ILCS 5/12-212)(c) which is claimed to prohibit under-body neon lights in Illinois

This is an example of what many cops target as a motor vehicle violation. Of course, I can only speak to Illinois law since that is the only State I've researched, but I'm fairly confident that other States with similar laws on their books rely upon equally misapplied reasoning as the State of Illinois.

What is this all about, you may ask, and who really cares? I'm taking no side, specifically, as to the preference or defense of this automotive accessory inasmuch as I am illustrating the often misapplication of the law by police and the complicit fleecing if ignorant and unwitting "Defendants" who are prosecuted for such a contrived offense. This analysis looks at the letter of the law, the authority for its promulgation, the debates relating to its passing, and the intent behind its construction.

If you, or anyone you know, has been fined or threatened with prosecution for displaying similar lighting on their cars then you may want to provide them with this information so they may make an informed rebuttal the next time a revenue collector for the State or corporate municipality confronts them with ignorance and violence for violating nothing other than the regurgitated ramblings of an automaton.

Essentially, the law works like this; the Legislature proposes a Bill, there are debates and a vote, the Bill, if passed, is signed by the Governor and become law. The police then issue tickets based on what they are told the law means. People who receive citations go to court and the judge or prosecutor informs them of the alleged charge and they are asked to enter a plea. If they adopt the more-often-than-not fraudulent portrayal of the law's application then they have just harmed themselves and plead to a non-existent or insufficient charge. The Statutes are NOT the law. They are prima facia evidence of the law, but they are not the letter of the law. Below is an image of a ticket charging this lighting offense and you'll notice that they rely upon Section 12-212(c). Subsection (c) merely states that any lighting not authorized by this Statute is prohibited. Is that what the Legislature intended when the law was crafted? You will see, per the House Debate below, that the lights have to be "flashing". Also, the charge on the ticket does not state an offense, since the language "Improper Use of a Lighting System" is nowhere to be found in that part of the statute.

Again, the entire system is a fraud and intentional misapplication of the law. They rely upon your ignorance and willingness to take the path of least resistance, viz., pay the ticket. I wanted to get this posted for now, and will be following up with more context on what constitutes a charge and how to successfully challenge and defeat this lie.

This is an image of an "information" wherein the "offense" of improper lighting was alleged....improperly. This "information" (ticket) fails to state an "offense".

Sources of Authority
1. Illinois Compiled Statutes 625 ILCS 5/12-212

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh.+12+Art.+II&ActID=1815&ChapAct=625%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=49&ChapterName=VEHICLES&SectionID=59744&SeqStart=123100000&SeqEnd=124900000&ActName=Illinois+Vehicle+Code.

Illinois House of Representatives Transcripts

List of House Transcripts available which are responsive to a search for "2651", the number of the House Bill for Public Act 86-664

http://www.ilga.gov/search/LISGSApage.asp?target=2651&submit1=Go&scope=hsetran86

When viewing any of the documents in pdf format you can perform a search for the text "2651" and go to those sections of the transcripts.

STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 22nd Legislative Day April 7, 1989 for the first reading of House Bill
2651

http://www.ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans86/HT040789.pdf

STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 35th Legislative Day May 4, 1989 where House Bill 2651 is passed on Short Debate

http://www.ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans86/HT050489.pdf

STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 39th Legislative Day May 11, 1989 for the second reading of House Bill 2651

http://www.ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans86/HT051189.pdf

2. STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 43rd Legislative Day May l8, 1989 (Page 232 - 238) Page 239, where more debate takes place, is missing from the transcript.

http://www.ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans86/HT051889.pdf

Illinois Senate Transcripts

List of Senate Transcripts available which are responsive to a search for "2651", the number of the House Bill for Public Act 86-664

http://www.ilga.gov/search/LISGSApage.asp?target=2651&submit1=Go&scope=sentran86

When viewing any of the documents in pdf format you can perform a search for the text "2651" and go to those sections of the transcripts.

STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 38th Legislative Day June 13 , 1989 where it is reported that House Bill 2651 is "passed".

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST061389.pdf

STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 38th Legislative Day May 22 , 1989 where the where the House asks for concurrence on the passage of House Bill 2651 by the Senate.

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST052289.pdf

STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 38th Legislative Day May 30 , 1989 where the Title of House Bill 2651 is read in the Senate.

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST053089.pdf

STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 38th Legislative Day June 1 , 1989 identifying House Bill 2651 as a Transportation Bill.

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST060189.pdf

STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 47th Legislative Day June l5, 1989 for the third reading of House Bill 2651, at Page 53 by Senator Topinka. How can the third reading take place on June 15, 1989, and the second reading (next link below) take place a day later on June 16, 1989?

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST061589.pdf

STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 48th Legislative Day June l6, 1989 for the second reading of House Bill 2651, even though at Page 55 Senator Lechowicz says it is the third reading.

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST061689.pdf

STATE OF ILLINOIS 86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGULAR SESSION SENATE TRANSCRIPT 52nd Legislative Day June 22, 1989 where House Bill 2651 is declared "passed".

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans86/ST062289.pdf

Criminal Procedure

(725 ILCS 5/Art. 111) et. seq.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072500050HArt.+111&ActID=1966&ChapAct=725%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=54&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+PROCEDURE&SectionID=30079&SeqStart=19800000&SeqEnd=20700000&ActName=Code+of+Criminal+Procedure+of+1963.

3. (725 ILCS 5/11-3)(a)(b)

Taking into account the information found in the statutes, as well as the debates which speak to the "intent" of the legislature, one would be pressed to find where any light is prohibited unless permitted by the legislature. Saying this another way, it is expressed by the police and courts that unless a light is spelled out in the statutes as being permitted, they are otherwise excluded. Saying it yet another way, it is as if the legislature has some Constitutional power to regulate the lighting of vehicles. Can anyone find any such power in the Illinois Constitution? Of course not.

Let's take the approach I'm sure some courts may take and say that the legislature has expressed an intent to limit "distracting lights", and not just "flashing lights". The question would be, is this a reasonable interpretation of the statute? If we focus only on (625 ILCS 5/12-212)(c), it would appear that way. However, (c) cannot be interpreted on its own without considering (a) and (b) as well. As I stated earlier, the statutes are not the law, they are a reflection of the law, but reflections can be distorted. You notice Public Act (P.A. 86-664) as the source for the statute. Public Act 86-664 is the offspring of House Bill 2651. This can be seen here in the Translation Table that ties a Public Act to its originating Bill.

http://www.ilga.gov/reports/static/PA86.pdf

Public Act 86-664 can be seen on page 3 in the far upper right corner and 4 lines down the list. This indicates that Public Act 86-664 is tied to all the legislation pertaining to House Bill 2651. That is the Bill we follow for the analysis of this Act.

If one were to take (625 ILCS 5/12-212)(c) literally, as a stand-alone statement, it could be interpreted to mean that if you put any light on your car, that is not already authorized by "this Code", even if you are not driving it, it would constitute an offense since such a light was placed on a vehicle. This is why the Code must be read in its entirety and "in context". (625 ILCS 5/12-212)(a) begins with, and is binding upon all subsequent subsections of the act...."No person shall drive or move any vehicle or equipment upon any highway......" (c) makes no statement regarding driving or moving upon any highway. It merely states that any lighting not already authorized is prohibited. Therefore, it is necessary to consider (a) and (b) into the meaning of (c) as well.

The first requirement for a violation to exist is the question of the vehicle being driven or moved upon a highway. If this is on a parking lot or other private property there is no highway. You could put a red spotlight on your car and drive around your yard or a parking lot (with permission) and there would be no violation of this Act.

Second, (a) specified a "red light". It specifies the color, so we cannot include others that are not red. It also states the light must be "visible from directly in front of the vehicle or equipment". This is because the legislature has already provided for red lights displayed on vehicles when viewed directly from the front and without this qualification of "as otherwise provided by this Act" the law would contradict itself. This statement reserves the use of red lights when viewed from directly in front of the vehicle for a particular purpose. If it mentions red lights viewable from directly in front, it does not include red lights when viewed from underneath. The specifying or inclusion of a qualification excludes all others.

Subsection (b) provides for "flashing" lights, which are also spelled out in the Code. Since the purpose of flashing lights is to indicate caution or signal for a turn, the use of other flashing lights is prohibited if not communicating caution or signaling for a turn.

Subsection (c), when read in the context of (a) and (b), summarizes the intent and essentially states that "any red lights viewable from directly in front of the vehicle, or flashing lights not used to indicate caution or signal for a turn, not already authorized by this Code, shall be prohibited." It does not claim domain over ALL lighting on ALL vehicles that is not already authorized in the Code.

So, if we look then to the Debates, we can also phrase the statement this way, "Unless previously authorized, this Code prohibits the use of multi-colored flashing lights on vehicles other than those allowed under the current law, including red lights viewable from directly in front of the vehicle or equipment." (Emphasis courtesy the statement by Representative Parcells)

This appears, to me, to be a reasonable reading of the law, taking into account the legislative intent as found within the House Debates. There is still the issue of improperly alleged charges by the police and prosecution, but that is for another post. I would recommend anyone considering to install these lights and "drive" (you really are not driving) upon a highway to print out the PDF of the House Debates and when confronted by the police, introduce this to them and ask them to read it. Once introduced during a traffic stop it is admissible as evidence in trial where it can be presented to a jury or judge. Even though the judge claims to be able to "instruct the jury as to what the law is", he cannot assign intent not found within the letter of the law or the legislative debates. If you choose to go to court on the first appearance date, confront the prosecuting attorney with this information and see where it goes from there. I would recommend moving for a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or insufficiency to state a charge.

1. (625 ILCS 5/12-212) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 12-212)

Sec. 12-212. Special restrictions on lamps. (a) No person shall drive or move any vehicle or equipment upon any highway with any lamp or device on the vehicle or equipment displaying a red light visible from directly in front of the vehicle or equipment except as otherwise provided in this Act.
(b) Subject to the restrictions of this Act, flashing lights are prohibited on motor vehicles except as a means for indicating a right or left turn as provided in Section 12-208 or the presence of a vehicular traffic hazard requiring unusual care as expressly provided in Sections 11-804 or 12-215.
(c) Unless otherwise expressly authorized by this Code, all other lighting or combination of lighting on any vehicle shall be prohibited.
(Source: P.A. 86-664.)

2. This text has been slightly modified from the online version through some spelling and grammar correction, as well as some formatting. Nothing has been intentionally altered or deleted so as to portray anything different from the original version. Added emphasis is of my doing.

STATE OF ILLINOIS
86th GENERAL ASSEMBLY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE
13rd Legislative Day May 18, 1989

House Bill 2651,
Representative Parcells. Mr. Clerk, read
the Bill.

Clerk O'Brien: House Bill 2651, A Bill for an Act to amend the Illinois Vehicle Code. Third Reading of the Bill

Speaker Cullerton: Representative Parcells on House Bill 2651

STATE OF ILLINOIS
86th GENERAL ASSEMBL Y
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE

43rd Legislative Day May18 1989

Parcells: 'Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. This is an Administration Bill of the State Police, and it has two or three different things..it's literally a
cleanup Bill. It has to do with litter control, prohibits driving vehicles on the shoulder of highways, prohibits unauthorized use of flashing lights, unless they are flashing lights that are in the law already, and it has some provisions for the prevention of...and treatment of those who have squealing tires. There was an Amendment presented because there was some problem with how much mud and rocks and dirt would be dropped from farm vehicles. We amended that to suit the farm community, and as of now
know of no opposition to this Bill.'

Speaker Cullerton: 'Lady's moved for the passage of House Bill 2651. Is there any discussion? On that question, the Lady from Lasalle, Representative Breslin.

Breslin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Parcells, one question. Does this Bill still provide that construction debris must be swept off of state highways by construction
companies?

Parcells: No. The mud, dirt, and rocks were removed.

Breslin: And that applies to everyone, that's not just an agricultural Amendment?

Parcells: No. It applies to everything.

Breslin: 'Thank you.

Speaker Cullerton: Further discussion? The Gentleman from Dekalb, Representative Countryman.

Countryman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, will the Lady yield?

Speaker Cullerton: For a question?

Countryman: Does this Bill still provide for squealing tires?

Parcells: Yes it does, but there was a provision made that the squealing tires could be done on race courses and places that squealing tires are an automatic result of what's going on, but not for squealing tires of young teenagers.

Countryman: 'Is that what it says?

Parcells: No, it doesn't say young teenagers, it just says that they...you see there's always been something in the law that the police can handle this, but they had to take the people down to the County Building, they weren't able to just give them a ticket. This way they will be able to give them a ticket when they're out there showing off and perhaps endangering their lives and other lives.

Countryman: Well, would this apply to like when I ride with you in your Camaro down in front of the Capitol Building and you squeal your tires, would you be guilty of an offense?

Parcells: I possibly could be, yes.

Countryman: And if one of my constituents or Representative Hartke had a load of hogs going to market and they squealed would they be guilty of an offense?

Parcells: That could be, yes.

Countryman: I don't know, this is kind of a squeaker I think. You know?

Speaker Cullerton: Further discussion? Gentleman from Logan, Representative Robert Olson.

Olson,R: Will you yield? Will the Speaker Yield?

Parcells: Yes.

Speaker Cullerton: She...for a question?

Olson R: Yes.

Speaker Cullerton: Yes, indicates she'll yield for a question.

Olson, R: A short question. There's a part in here about flashing lights. Does that cover...what color of flashing lights are we speaking of?

Parcells: What has happened in the past was that people could use any color light. This designates that only certain colored lights...it prohibits the use of multi-colored flashing
lights on vehicles other than those allowed under current law. They...the police have discovered that it's very dangerous when people decide to put pink, purple, lavender lights on their car and their flashing them. Therefore those that are by law, already in the law are fine, but they don't want you using other colors because it is a danger.

Olson,R: The yellow flashing lights on construction equipment and farm equipment...

Parcells: I beg your pardon?

Olson, R: The yellow flashing lights that is on construction equipment, farm equipment...would still be legal?

Parcells: Yes, they would.

Olson, R: Okay

Speaker Cullerton: Representative Williams, on the purple lights question.?

Williams: Yes. What is the penalty for violation of the squeaking, squealing and...making of other noises of your vehicle?'

Parcells: It would be at the discretion of the officer, it would probably $50.00 like a regular...

Williams: At the discretion of the officer?

Parcells: I mean he is giving you a ticket instead of taking you downtown and having to tow your car. He will give you regular ticket that would then be at the discretion of the court. Right now it's a Class A misdemeanor.

Williams: Right now squeaking and squealing your tires is Glass A misdemeanor? You mean if...

Parcells: ...You see it's under the E.P.A. regulations right now, Title 35, sub-title H, Chapter 1, section 902.0125. The only way they can handle this is that way. That's why
we're bringing it into this code and they would...otherwise they'd have to file a long form complaint and take you down to the County Building and maybe drag your car down. So
this way the officer could stop you and give you a ticket and it would be...
(It is an interesting aside to view the above I.E.P.A. regulation involving tire noise. It should cause you to wonder why the I.E.P.A. would be the source for such violations. Mark McCoy)

Williams: What about...?

Parcells: It's a petty offense.

Williams: Does it apply to a1l motor vehicles or is it...I mean is it...what about airplanes or any other things of that nature. Is it just for cars or is it apply to other, what about bicycles?

Parcells: This applies only to operation on the highway...of motor vehicles. I suppose if you had your airplane on the highway you could be in trouble.

Williams: Do you deal with other things besides squeaking and squealing? Do you deal with lights and decorations or other things in here? I'm just curious...I've been informed that lights and other things around the tail may be illegal under this, under this Act..it says auto lighting.'

Parcells: It prohibits the use of multi-colored flashing lights on vehicles other than those allowed under the current law. And as I said this is a safety thing because it's very distracting to motorists when you are putting...purple, pink, yellow, orange cruise lights on your car and flashing them.

Williams: If the cab driver like they often do in Chicago were to do that, who would be responsible, the cab company or the driver?

Parcells: The driver.

Williams: ...Well to the Amendment...or the Bill...or...what are we vote...the Bill. I understand what we're trying to do...we're...I've often been awakened by squealing, screeching light flashing, automobiles riding at extreme speeds emanating all types of nasty noises and things. But, the thought of allowing someone to take and to have a ticket and to be placed in...I don't know...the police will maybe take them under custody and lock some guy up for this stuff and half the cabs in Chicago and who knows, low riders and other people may be a real dangerous species here, which may be a violation of certain people...cultural things. So I would think at this time, that this Bill is not quite in the perfect form. I think that even though it is not, is an annoying habit, don't know if it should be a punishable habit and I think that this may not be the right Bill at the right time.

Speaker Cullerton: Gentleman from Vermilion, Representative Black.

Black: 'Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, will the Sponsor yield?'

Speaker Cullerton: For a question?

Black: Yes, thank you.

Speaker Cullerton: She indicates she will.

Black: I...Representative just have one question to ask you. Is this Bill on Short Debate? Oh, thank you very much; that's all I wanted to know.

Speaker Cullerton: 'Representative Homer.

Homer: Question for the Sponsor, please.

Speaker Cullerton: She indicates she'll yield for a question.

Homer: Representative Parcells, your Bill would prohibit squealing and screeching noises from vehicles tires. think I've heard and understand what those are, but it also says, 'or such other noise from the vehicles tires.' Could you either specify and/or emulate what other noise you're talking about?

Parcells: don't know how to describe what other noise they might make, but I would like to answer, that answer to previous question, this is already punishable under the E.P.A. Act but there it is a Class A misdemeanor and we're bringing it into this Act to make it a petty offense, so that a policeman can just write a ticket. But it is already punishable...I mean it is already an offense but a
much more serious one than we would have it in this Act.

Homer: Well, is this a moving violation for which you could lose your license?

Parcells: ...if you'll wait just a moment we'll look that up.

Homer: While you're looking notice that you've got it follows in sequence of these offenses, you've got:...DUI, illegal transportation of alcohol, reckless driving, draq racing and then screeking would be the next one. Are those in order of severity, or what was your thought?

Parcells: is called a reportable violation.

Homer: 'It's a what?

Parcells: Reportable violation.

Homer: 'Reportable violation?

Parcells: Under 6201, and it's the Secretary of State's discretion....whether or not to assess points...

Homer: I see. So, if somebody...if somebody accelerated and squealed, screeched or made some other indescribable noise from the vehicle's tires then that person could be fined up
to five hundred dollars and would receive points against the possible suspension of a drivers license by the Secretary of State.

Parcells: It is a traffic offense, but remember it always could have been punished as a Class A misdemeanor. So, this is a lessor...punishment, if you will, or a lessor offense to make a petty offense in the Class A misdemeanor.

Homer: Well, what's the thrust? I mean are you...do you feel that...the current penalties are too strong and your trying to make for lighter penalties for squealers?

Parcells: That's part of it and the other part is, if the police

(This is the end of Page 238. Page 239.which is supposed to follow, was not included in the online PDF version)

3. (725 ILCS 5/111-3)
Form of charge.
(a) A charge shall be in writing and allege the commission of an offense by:
(1) Stating the name of the offense;
(2) Citing the statutory provision alleged to have been violated;(3) Setting forth the nature and elements of the offense charged; (4) Stating the date and county of the offense as definitely as can be done; and (5) Stating the name of the accused, if known, and if not known, designate the accused by any name or description by which he can be identified with reasonable certainty. (b) An indictment shall be signed by the foreman of the Grand Jury and an information shall be signed by the State's Attorney and sworn to by him or another.

A complaint shall be sworn to and signed by the complainant; Provided, however, that when a citation is issued on a Uniform Traffic Ticket or Uniform Conservation Ticket (in a form prescribed by the Conference of Chief Circuit Judges and filed with the Supreme Court), the copy of such Uniform Ticket which is filed with the circuit court constitutes a complaint to which the defendant may plead, unless he specifically requests that a verified complaint be filed. 4. (625 ILCS 5/4-103.2)

(7) a person:
(A) who is the driver or operator of a vehicle and is not entitled to the possession of that vehicle and who knows the vehicle is stolen or converted, or
(B) who is the driver or operator of a vehicle being used to transport or haul a vehicle or essential part of a vehicle and is not entitled to the possession of that vehicle or essential part being transported or hauled and who knows the transported or hauled vehicle or essential part is stolen or converted, who has been given a signal by a peace officer directing
him to bring the vehicle to a stop, to willfully fail or refuse to obey such direction, increase his speed, extinguish his lights or otherwise flee or attempt to elude the officer. The signal given by the peace officer may be by hand, voice, siren, or red or blue light. The officer giving the signal, if driving a vehicle, shall display the vehicle's illuminated, oscillating, rotating or flashing red or blue lights, which when used in conjunction with an audible horn or siren would indicate that the vehicle is an official police vehicle. Such requirement shall not preclude the use of amber or white oscillating, rotating or flashing lights in conjunction with red or blue oscillating, rotating or flashing lights as required in Section 12-215 of this Code; or

(625 ILCS 5/11-1301) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1301)

Sec. 11-1301. Stopping, standing or parking outside of business or residence district.

(d) Any second division vehicle used exclusively for the collection of garbage, refuse, or recyclable material may stop or stand on the road in a business, rural, or residential district for the sole purpose of collecting garbage, refuse, or recyclable material. The vehicle, in addition to having its hazard lights lighted at all times that it is engaged in stopping or standing, shall also use its amber oscillating, rotating, or flashing light or lights as authorized under paragraph 12 of subsection (b) of Section 12-215, if so equipped.
(Source: P.A. 91-869, eff. 1-1-01.)

(625 ILCS 5/11-1421) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1421)

Sec. 11-1421. Conditions for operating ambulances and rescue vehicles.

2. The ambulance or rescue vehicle shall be equipped with a siren producing an audible signal of an intensity of 100 decibels at a distance of 50 feet from the siren, and with a lamp or lamps emitting an oscillating, rotating or flashing red beam directed in part toward the front of the vehicle, and these lamps shall have sufficient intensity to be visible at 500 feet in normal sunlight, and in addition to other lighting requirements, excluding those vehicles operated in counties with a population in excess of 2,000,000, may also operate with a lamp or lamps emitting an oscillating, rotating, or flashing green light;

(625 ILCS 5/12-215) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 12-215)

Sec. 12-215. Oscillating, rotating or flashing lights on motor vehicles. Except as otherwise provided in this Code:

(a) The use of red or white oscillating, rotating or flashing lights, whether lighted or unlighted, is prohibited except on:
1. Law enforcement vehicles of State, Federal or local authorities;
2. A vehicle operated by a police officer or county coroner and designated or authorized by local authorities, in writing, as a law enforcement vehicle; however, such designation or authorization must be carried in the vehicle;
2.1. A vehicle operated by a fire chief who has completed an emergency vehicle operation training course approved by the Office of the State Fire Marshal and designated or authorized by local authorities, in writing, as a fire department, fire protection district, or township fire department vehicle; however, the designation or authorization must be carried in the vehicle, and the lights may be visible or activated only when responding to a bona fide emergency;
3. Vehicles of local fire departments and State or federal firefighting vehicles;
4. Vehicles which are designed and used exclusively as ambulances or rescue vehicles; furthermore, such lights shall not be lighted except when responding to an emergency call for and while actually conveying the sick or injured;
5. Tow trucks licensed in a state that requires such lights; furthermore, such lights shall not be lighted on any such tow truck while the tow truck is operating in the State of Illinois;
6. Vehicles of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, vehicles of the Illinois Department of Public Health, and vehicles of the Department of Nuclear Safety;
7. Vehicles operated by a local or county emergency management services agency as defined in the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act;
8. School buses operating alternately flashing head lamps as permitted under Section 12-805 of this Code; and
9. Vehicles that are equipped and used exclusively as organ transplant vehicles when used in combination with blue oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights; furthermore, these lights shall be lighted only when the transportation is declared an emergency by a member of the transplant team or a representative of the organ procurement organization.
(b) The use of amber oscillating, rotating or flashing lights, whether lighted or unlighted, is prohibited except on:

1. Second division vehicles designed and used for towing or hoisting vehicles; furthermore, such lights shall not be lighted except as required in this paragraph 1; such lights shall be lighted when such vehicles are actually being used at the scene of an accident or disablement; if the towing vehicle is equipped with a flat bed that supports all wheels of the vehicle being transported, the lights shall not be lighted while the vehicle is engaged in towing on a highway; if the towing vehicle is not equipped with a flat bed that supports all wheels of a vehicle being transported, the lights shall be lighted while the towing vehicle is engaged in towing on a highway during all times when the use of headlights is required under Section 12-201 of this Code;
2. Motor vehicles or equipment of the State of Illinois, local authorities and contractors; furthermore, such lights shall not be lighted except while such vehicles are engaged in maintenance or construction operations within the limits of construction projects;
3. Vehicles or equipment used by engineering or survey crews; furthermore, such lights shall not be lighted except while such vehicles are actually engaged in work on a highway;
4. Vehicles of public utilities, municipalities, or other construction, maintenance or automotive service vehicles except that such lights shall be lighted only as a means for indicating the presence of a vehicular traffic hazard requiring unusual care in approaching, overtaking or passing while such vehicles are engaged in maintenance, service or construction on a highway;
5. Oversized vehicle or load; however, such lights shall only be lighted when moving under permit issued by the Department under Section 15-301 of this Code;
6. The front and rear of motorized equipment owned and operated by the State of Illinois or any political subdivision thereof, which is designed and used for removal of snow and ice from highways;
(6.1) The front and rear of motorized equipment or vehicles that (i) are not owned by the State of Illinois or any political subdivision of the State, (ii) are designed and used for removal of snow and ice from highways and parking lots, and (iii) are equipped with a snow plow that is 12 feet in width; these lights may not be lighted except when the motorized equipment or vehicle is actually being used for those purposes on behalf of a unit of government;
7. Fleet safety vehicles registered in another state, furthermore, such lights shall not be lighted except as provided for in Section 12-212 of this Code;
8. Such other vehicles as may be authorized by local authorities;
9. Law enforcement vehicles of State or local authorities when used in combination with red oscillating, rotating or flashing lights;
9.5. Propane delivery trucks;
10. Vehicles used for collecting or delivering mail for the United States Postal Service provided that such lights shall not be lighted except when such vehicles are actually being used for such purposes;
11. Any vehicle displaying a slow-moving vehicle emblem as provided in Section 12-205.1;
12. All trucks equipped with self-compactors or roll-off hoists and roll-on containers for garbage or refuse hauling. Such lights shall not be lighted except when such vehicles are actually being used for such purposes;
13. Vehicles used by a security company, alarm responder, or control agency;
14. Security vehicles of the Department of Human Services; however, the lights shall not be lighted except when being used for security related purposes under the direction of the superintendent of the facility where the vehicle is located; and
15. Vehicles of union representatives, except that the lights shall be lighted only while the vehicle is within the limits of a construction project.
(c) The use of blue oscillating, rotating or flashing lights, whether lighted or unlighted, is prohibited except on:
1. Rescue squad vehicles not owned by a fire department and vehicles owned or operated by a:voluntary firefighter; paid firefighter; part-paid firefighter; call firefighter; member of the board of trustees of a fire protection district; paid or unpaid member of a rescue squad; paid or unpaid member of a voluntary ambulance unit; or paid or unpaid members of a local or county
emergency management services agency as defined in the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, designated or authorized by local authorities, in writing, and carrying that designation or authorization in the vehicle. However, such lights are not to be lighted except when responding to a bona fide emergency.

Any person using these lights in accordance with this subdivision (c)1 must carry on his or her person an identification card or letter identifying the bona fide member of a fire department, fire protection district, rescue squad, ambulance unit, or emergency management services agency that owns or operates that vehicle. The card or letter must include:
(A) the name of the fire department, fire protection district, rescue squad, ambulance unit, or emergency management services agency;
(B) the member's position within the fire department, fire protection district, rescue squad, ambulance unit, or emergency management services agency;
(C) the member's term of service; and
(D) the name of a person within the fire department, fire protection district, rescue squad, ambulance unit, or emergency management services agency to contact to verify the information provided.
2. Police department vehicles in cities having a population of 500,000 or more inhabitants.
3. Law enforcement vehicles of State or local authorities when used in combination with red oscillating, rotating or flashing lights.
4. Vehicles of local fire departments and State or federal firefighting vehicles when used in combination with red oscillating, rotating or flashing lights.
5. Vehicles which are designed and used exclusively as ambulances or rescue vehicles when used in combination with red oscillating, rotating or flashing lights; furthermore, such lights shall not be lighted except when responding to an emergency call.
6. Vehicles that are equipped and used exclusively as organ transport vehicles when used in combination with red oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights; furthermore, these lights shall only be lighted when the transportation is declared an emergency by a member of the transplant team or a representative of the organ procurement organization.
7. Vehicles of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, vehicles of the Illinois Department of Public Health, and vehicles of the Department of Nuclear Safety, when used in combination with red oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights.
8. Vehicles operated by a local or county emergency management services agency as defined in the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, when used in combination with red oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights.
(c-1) In addition to the blue oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights permitted under subsection (c), and notwithstanding subsection (a), a vehicle operated by a voluntary firefighter, a voluntary member of a rescue squad, or a member of a voluntary ambulance unit may be equipped with flashing white headlights and blue grill lights, which may be used only in responding to an emergency call.
(c-2) In addition to the blue oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights permitted under subsection (c), and notwithstanding subsection (a), a vehicle operated by a paid or unpaid member of a local or county emergency management services agency as defined in the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, may be equipped with white oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights to be used in combination with blue oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights, if authorization by local authorities is in writing and carried in the vehicle.
(d) The use of a combination of amber and white oscillating, rotating or flashing lights, whether lighted or unlighted, is prohibited except motor vehicles or equipment of the State of Illinois, local authorities, contractors, and union representatives may be so equipped; furthermore, such lights shall not be lighted on vehicles of the State of Illinois, local authorities, and contractors except while such vehicles are engaged in highway maintenance or construction operations within the limits of highway construction projects, and shall not be lighted on the vehicles of union representatives except when those vehicles are within the limits of a construction project.
(e) All oscillating, rotating or flashing lights referred to in this Section shall be of sufficient intensity, when illuminated, to be visible at 500 feet in normal sunlight.
(f) Nothing in this Section shall prohibit a manufacturer of oscillating, rotating or flashing lights or his representative from temporarily mounting such lights on a vehicle for demonstration purposes only.
(g) Any person violating the provisions of subsections (a), (b), (c) or (d) of this Section who without lawful authority stops or detains or attempts to stop or detain another person shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony.
(h) Except as provided in subsection (g) above, any person violating the provisions of subsections (a) or (c) of this Section shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(Source: P.A. 93-181, eff. 1-1-04; 93-725, eff. 1-1-05; 93-794, eff. 7-22-04; 93-829, eff. 7-28-04; 94-143, eff. 1-1-06; 94-270, eff. 1-1-06; 94-331, eff. 1-1-06; 94-730, eff. 4-17-06.)

(625 ILCS 5/12-216) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 12-216)
Sec. 12-216. Operation of oscillating, rotating or flashing lights. Oscillating, rotating or flashing lights located on or within police vehicles in this State shall be lighted whenever a police officer is in pursuit of a violator of a traffic law or regulation.
(Source: P.A. 85-830.)

The Abolishment of Local Government

2009-04-01T21:44:00.000-05:00

FEDERAL REGIONALISM
The Abolishment of Local Government

Credit for this information is given to http://www.barefootsworld.net/regional.html

Centralization of power must be stopped because centralized power in the federal government, and the resulting loss of States' rights, is the one thing necessary for the success of a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, PARAGRAPH 1:

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of two or more States.; or parts of States without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as the Congress."

President Nixon, on March 27, 1969, through the Government Reorganization Act divided the United States into 10 Regions. To further implement this Regional Governance over the U.S.A., President Nixon signed Executive Order 11647 and entered it in the Federal Register February 12, 1972. (Vol .37, No.30) Through the authority vested in him as President of the United States, President Nixon established a Federal Regional Council for each of the 10 standard regions. It stated that, the President shall designate one member of each Council as Chairman of the Council and such Chairman shall serve at the pleasure of the President. The fact that State borders have been destroyed to create 10 REGIONS instead of 50 Union States is something your government doesn't want you to know.

There is no constitutional jurisdiction for the federal government to legislate for a municipal government in a Union State. The usurpation of state jurisdiction can only be achieved by conspiracy and fraud on the part of our duly elected public servants. It stands to reason that if there is no constitutional jurisdiction for the federal government to legislate for a municipal government in a Union state, there is also no jurisdiction for a federal bureaucracy to legislate for a municipal government in a Union state. As example: the EPA, the DEA, the IRS and the FBI, etc., have no Constitutional authority to legislate in a Union State. These are agencies of the Federal government, having jurisdiction only on federal territory. This is something your government doesn't want you to know.

Demeaning the authority of elected officials and replacement of these officials by appointed Federal "administrators" is a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to representative government posed by Federal Regional Government. Outlawed by the Supreme Court decision of January 13, 1982 (Case #80-1350, "Community Communications Co, Inc v City of Boulder, CO) the ten regional capitols were dismantled by President Reagan's Executive Order #12407 on February 22, 1983.

However, grant making agencies of the ten Federal Regions remain in place assuring continuity of control over all Americans and their elected representatives by the central government.

Federal grants to state government are the fuel which make the Regional engines "go." The individual Union States are blackmailed, through the withholding of federal funds, if federal legislation is not enacted into State law, thereby opening the door to a power base for the silent revolution of Federal Regionalism.

There is a clear pattern of uniformity in all laws passed. On the state level, all fifty legislatures appear to become simultaneously concerned about solving a particular problem in an identical fashion. On the local level, the same thing happens in thousands of City Halls and County Seats. This strange coincidence is never publicized by the press, thereby it is rarely questioned by the public. Unknown to most of the public, all our laws are written by the Uniform Commission on State Law, also known as the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (ACIR)

FATAL STEPS

PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS 2039 and 2040 March 6, 1933, March 9, 1933
Declaration of National Emergency and Declaration of War against the American People by the Government of the United States.

WAR POWERS ACT . . . March 9, 1933

TITLE 12 USC. Section 95(a) and 95(b)
This Act states that "During time of war or during any period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise investigate, regulate, prohibit, under such rules and regulationas as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as drfined by the President and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currancy, by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

FEDERAL REGISTER ACT . . . July 26, 1935
The Federal Register Act enabled the president to create unlimited bureaucracies and empower them with the force of law. All that was needed to implement bureaucratic regulations into law was to enter or publish those regulations in the Federal Register, by-passing all constitutional oversight.

THE BUCK ACT . . . October 9, 1940
Congress in 1940 passed the "Buck Act" 4 U.S.C.S. 104-113. By clever legal maneuvers from 1935 to 1940, the feds entirely circumvented the U.S. Constitution. In Section 110(e), this Act allowed any department of the federal government to create a "Federal Area" for imposition of the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, the imposition of this tax is at 4 U.S.C.S. section 111, and the rest of the taxing law is in Title 26, The Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created an overlay of a "Federal Area."

As a result, the Federal Government created Federal "States" which are exactly like the Sovereign States, occupy the same territory and boundaries, but whose names are capitalized versions of the Sovereign States. (Remember that Proper Names and Proper Nouns in the English language have only the first letter Capitalized.) For example, the Federal "State" of ILLINOIS is overlaid upon the Sovereign State of Illinois. Further, it is designated by the Federal abbreviation of "IL", instead of the Sovereign State abbreviation of "Ill." So too is Arizona designated "AZ" instead of the lawful abbreviation of "Ariz.", "CA" instead of "Calif.", etc. If you use a two-letter CAPITALIZED abbreviation, you are declaring that the location is under the jurisdiction of the "federal" government instead of the powers of the "Sovereign" state.

As a result of creating these "shadow" States, the Federal government assumes that every area is a "Federal Area," and that the Citizens therein are "Federal" citizens.

PUBLIC LAW 79-404 entitled "Administrative Procedures Act of 1946."
This act set up the procedure yielding lawmaking authority to agencies in the executive sector of government (federal bureaucracies), and provided that administrative rules and regulations be printed in the Federal Register giving these regulations the force of law.

TITLE 3 USC Section 301, October 31, 1951: General authorization to delegate functions; publication of delegations.
This law authorized the President of the United States to designate and empower the head of any department or agency in the executive branch, or any official thereof who is required to be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform without approval, ratification, or other action by the President (1) any function which is vested in the President by law, or (2) any function which such officer is required or authorized by law to perform only with or subject to the approval, ratification, or other action of the President:
Provided, That nothing contained in the act relieved the President of his responsibility in office for the acts of any such head or other official designated by him to perform such functions. Such designation and authorization would be in writing, and published in the Federal Register.

PUBLIC LAW 86-380 and its amendment 89-733, 1959 under the Eisenhower Administration, created the Advisory Council On Intergovernmental Relations. (ACIR) This commission consists of 26 individuals, of which 14 are appointees representing groups such as the Council of State Governments, The League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the Governors Conference . . . all proponents and strong lobbyists for Federal grant programs that are subordinating local governments to Regional governing bodies.

PUBLIC LAW 89-136 entitled "Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965".
This act is the basis for the manner in which the 10 Federal regions are to be governed by a "Multi-State Regional Commission". It also states that the Secretary of Commerce has the power to "acquire in any lawful manner, any property (real or personal) whenever deemed necessary."

PUBLIC LAW 89-754. The Model Cities Act of 1966.
Section 204 of this act requires that a broad spectra of public facilities type projects which seek federal assistance must be brought under the aegis of area wide Regional comprehensive planning agencies, the clearing house system.

PUBLIC LAW 90-577 1968, 90th Congress, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ACT

"To achieve the fullest cooperation and coordination of activities among the levels of government . . . to establish coordinated intergovernmental policy and administration . . . to provide for the acquisition, use, and disposition of land within urban areas by Federal agencies."

PUBLIC LAW 90-577 destroyed the separation of powers which is the principle of the U.S. Constitution. By its Title IV the U.S. Congress purported to yield legislative power to the president. He, in turn, allegedly transferred that law making power to his appointed directors in the grant making agencies of the Federal Regions per section 403 of the Bill. Out of that arrangement has grown the A-95 regional clearing house review system, designed by the Office of Management and Budget. The resulting Federal Region-Sub State control system straps regional governance (control by regulation) as a way of life over all America.

The separation of powers principle of the U.S. Constitution is destroyed by Title IV of this Regional Law in which Congress yields Legislative Power to the U.S. President. Through this act, the President was empowered to yield that lawmaking power to his appointees. (Section 403) From that arrangement has grown the controversial A-95 REGIONAL CLEARING HOUSE review system designed by the executive OMB (Office of Budget and Management). This system binds Regionalism over all of America by non-laws (administrative rules and regulations) which are not backed by LAW.

Congress thus legislated a system of government that is not permitted by our U.S. Constitution.

March 27, 1969, President Richard M. Nixon announced that he had divided the United States into eight (subsequently ten) Federal Regions. The President, by his act, set in motion a series of events which, unless reversed will dissolve sovereign state governments, disenfranchise the electorate, and merge the American pioneer spirit in an amorphous "world citizenship". The American people have been moved into the orbit of a financial/industrial cabal who control their corporate world state through the United Nations, the U.S. Congress, and other front organizations.

The fatal steps which transformed the Republic into a dictatorship of the financial elite are set out in the following Congressional statutes, executive orders, and proclamations which trace a seditious conspiracy of interlocking subversion in government departments during the period October 16, 1968 to 20 October, 1972.

27 March, 1969
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON RESTRUCTURING OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE SYSTEMS, The White House

Quoting the Reorganization Act, signed the same day, as his authority, President Nixon divided the United States into eight (later ten) Federal Regions or provinces, each with a new provincial capitol. Coordination and control of the ten Federal Regions would be administered from Washington. Formation of such "super states" is, of course, a violation of paragraph 1, section 3, Article IV, United States Constitution.

Objective: To transfer political power from the respective sovereign State government to appointed Federal agencies, whose controllers are the directors of the corporate world state.

30 October, 1969
EXECUTIVE ORDER #11490, "Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to Federal Departments and Agencies,". . . The Federal Register

E.O. 11490 consolidated executive orders of previous administrations into one omnibus directive, and provided for implementation of its powers "by an order or directive issued by the President in any national emergency type of situation."

E.O. 11490 authorizes the Office of Emergency Planning to put all controls into effect "in times of economic or financial crisis."

Takeover by government agencies includes: communications media; all electrical power, gas, petroleum fuels, and minerals; food resources and farms; all modes of transportation and control of highways, seaports, etc.; health, education, and welfare functions; airports and aircraft.

Provision is also made for the mobilization of civilians into work brigades under government supervision. The order directs the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons; permits the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, and grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in E.O. 11490, and to operate penal and correctional institutions.

29 December, 1970
PUBLIC LAW 91-596 -- OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970

PUBLIC LAW 91-596 known as the "Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970" was passed. This Act was necessary in order to gain control of private property "usage". The Act specifically limited itself to private businesses and excluded State, County, Municipal, School District, and Conservation District governing bodies.

It set forth that its enabling legislation must provide that the above State government and its political subdivisions must also abide by the standards set forth in the Federal Act.

15 August, 1971 EXECUTIVE ORDER 311615, "Providing for Stabilization of Prices, Rents, Wages, and Salaries," The Federal Register

E.O. 11615 designated the Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System as the director of a Cost of Living Council, with authority to request the Department of Justice to bring actions for injunctions "whenever it appears to the Council that any person has engaged, is engaged, or is about to engage in any acts or practices constituting a violation of any regulation or order issued pursuant to this Order." (See EO 11490).

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board thus became czar over prices, rents, wages, and salaries, in addition to his control over money, interest rates, and the stock market, granted under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

15 August, 1971
PROCLAMATION #4074, "Imposition of Supplemental Duty for Balance of Payments Purposes," The President.

The principal objective of Proclamation 4074 was to "declare a national emergency" and so establish stand-by authority to implement any or all of the of the provisions of Executive Order #11490 at such time as the American people had been conditioned to accept dictatorship. The people are now being brainwashed to accept, in fact demand, full government control over their lives and property.

12 February, 1972
EXECUTIVE ORDER #11647, "Federal Regional Councils", The Federal Register

E.O.#11647 established a Federal Regional Council for each of the ten standard Federal Regions" which Nixon effected by proclamation on March 27, 1969. The Office of Management and Budget was designed to be the control agency.

By this order the ten provincial capitols were staffed by the directors of grant-making agencies: Department of Labor, Health, Education and Welfare, and Housing and Urban Development, the Secretarial Representatives of the Department of Transportation, and the directors of the regional offices of the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

The President of the United States subsequently appointed a commissar for each Federal Region.

18 October, 1972
PUBLIC LAW 92-500 -- FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972

PUBLIC LAW 92-500, which is known as the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972" was passed which set forth that States may assume pollution control enforcement on all businesses, land owners, and their equipment and land. This Act provides an effective "informer system" for citizens to squeal on their neighbors and/or employers. It also creates a body corporate to be known as the Environmental Financing Authority to have the power to acquire private property (real or personal) by whatever means and to also sell or lease said property. It also set forth that if the States desired to assume the enforcement duties of the federal government that it--the State--must enact enabling legislation which must be approved by the federal government.

20 October, 1972
PUBLIC LAW 95-512, 92nd Congress, H.R. 14370 -- FEDERAL---STATE REVENUE SHARING

"To . . . authorize Federal collection of State individual income taxes, and for other purposes." The primary function of P.L. 92-512 is to provide that, "after January 1, 1974, if two or more States request it of the U.S. government, and at the option of the individual States, all State taxes may be collected and administered by the federal government." (The decision is irreversible.) It further provides a "ceiling and floor" for State Income Taxes, and states that no State may thereafter alter its tax structure without first obtaining permission of the federal government. It further provides for the manner in which State and local "boundary changes, and government reorganization" could be handled.

Under this Act, state and county governments will, in time, wither for lack of tax funds, representative government will die (although the trappings of a republican form of government may be retained to fool the people), and dictatorial control over people and property will be imposed upon once free Americans.

My Confession to being a Homegrown Terrorist

2009-04-01T21:42:00.000-05:00

My Confession to being a Homegrown Terrorist

To the United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and the President of the United States:

Pursuant to the Enrolled Bill H.R. 1955, (Short Title being "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Protection Act of 2007", passed by the United States House of Representatives, I hereby wish to spare the unwitting, docile, brainwashed sycophants who support the despotic police state known as the United States the time and trouble of investigating, charging, trying, convicting, and punishing me under the looming thought crime legislation cited above as H.R. 1955, and hereby confess my crimes to the world and the now-extinct free and independent American Citizens, as being guilty of fostering, promoting, and engaging in homegrown terrorism, to wit:

H.R.1955
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.

(a) In General- Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new subtitle:

`Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism

`SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.

`For purposes of this subtitle:

`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

(Make no mistake. This can be construed to include self-defense or opposition to unlawful authority)

AS TO VIOLATING SEC. 899A DEFINITIONS (2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION - GUILTY AS CHARGED:

I plead guilty to adopting and promoting the extremist beliefs of other Homegrown Terrorist, such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, and the Founding Fathers et al. I believe in the extremist sentiments promoted in the words of the Declaration of Independence that say "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it....". I believe that the government is subordinate to the People, is supposed to be responsive to the protection of life, liberty, and property; and is deserving of revolt or other forceful measures should it fail to perform under the enumerated and limited duties imposed by the consenting governed or other free inhabitants subjected to its authority. My actions, thoughts, words, and beliefs constitute "adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change", as defined in Definition (2), as I hope to advance righteous violence against an unresponsive and tyrannical government that attempts to suppress the right to rebel and throw off unresponsive despotism. I hope to advance political and social change by rallying People to defend themselves should such government forcibly compel them to act in manners inconsistent with the free exercise and enjoyment of liberty by whatever means necessary, be it through fostering Homegrown Terrorism in such a manner as I hereby admit to, or resorting to arms or other means for self-preservation.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

(You don't have to use both, just either/or. If you plan or threaten; use force or violence, then you are engaging in terrorism. What exactly is "force" if it is not violence?)

AS TO VIOLATING SEC. 899A DEFINITION (3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM - NOT GUILTY PENDING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS IN LAW:

I do not claim to be, nor can be proven to be, an "individual" who is born, raised, or operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States, or intimidating or coercing the United States government or the civilian population of the United States. I am a man who was born and raised in, and operating primarily within, one of the several state Republics, party to the Constitution of the united States of America. The United States is a foreign, corporate entity predisposed to imperialism, militarism, oppression, violence, tyranny, robbery, and murder. If that foreign malignancy attempts to engage me then I will retaliate in-kind. Overt acts of war notwithstanding, whatever ideas, writings, speech, thoughts, or other perceived "Homegrown Terrorist" acts I may engage in will speak to the atrocities, intentions, actions, and dangers of that federal malignancy and hopefully put free People on notice that the encroaching metastases will be identified, addressed, and barred from harming-further the freedoms of sovereign People. I fully support the use of "force" or "violence" in defending against aggression or assault by a despotic or tyrannical government.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

AS TO VIOLATING SEC. 899A DEFINITION (4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE - GUILTY AS CHARGED

I admit to using "force" to promote the political, religious, and social beliefs of myself, and other freedom-loving People who have contributed to the ideas of liberty, popular sovereignty, and limited government. I admit to using my words, my speech, and my body in promoting such radical beliefs. I arm, educate, and prepare myself in all ways necessary to ensure my liberty and life are secure and enjoyed. I support the use of whatever means necessary in promoting the radical political and social beliefs that strive to keep all People free and government small.

`SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.

`The Congress finds the following:

`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.

(Congress realized their game is coming to an end, and in order to prepare for their fallback position in defending their bastion of despotism, it is first prudent and expedient to act against the words of the promoters of all which is antithetical to their usurped and abused positions of power.)

`(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.

(I believe King George believed the same before our Founding Terrorists revolted against their "Homeland" and fostered a land of outlaws, terrorists, murderers, and other disparaging words of honor.)

`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

(I assume the Internet, as the printing press, has proved a formidable foe to ignorance and deceit; and therefore must be regulated and quashed at every turn before the minds of revolutionaries-in-waiting are awakened to the call to arms.)

`(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.

(While the United States is suffering the backlash of its imperialistic, militaristic hegemony abroad it realizes it cannot fight a war on two fronts and finds it expedient to quell the rebellion at home in effort to stifle dissent abroad.)

`(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.

(Congress realizes that ideas promoting freedom, liberty, and responsive government are anathema to its perpetuation so they must move quickly and decisively to snuff ideologically inspired dissent and promote acquiescence, complacence, and apathy under duress.)

`(6) Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.

(Congress realizes the tools at its disposal are not effective enough at stemming the growing tide of dissent, so this overt and bold move towards a fully ensconced police state is necessary at a federal level.)

`(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.

(Congress will not discriminate in who they will target. Everyone is now their declared enemy if they dare to dissent or foster dissent.)

`(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

(The best thing to do is not be a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident, but instead expatriate and resort to either your state for protection, under its original organic constitution, or resort to a state of nature and defend all you hold dear at whatever costs. Constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties are watered-down platitudes finding their source or origination in words on paper. Those who cherish and protect Creator-derived unalienable rights hold the moral high-ground and are the true authority.)

`(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.

(Brace yourselves for the one-world-government and New World Order, brought to you by the union of co-opted, oppressive, collectivist and corporate-whoredom nations.)

`SEC. 899C. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE.

`(a) Establishment- There is established within the legislative branch of the Government the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.

`(b) Purpose- The purposes of the Commission are the following:

`(1) Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or `lone wolf' violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important.

`(2) Build upon and bring together the work of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of--

`(A) the Center of Excellence established or designated under section 899D, and other academic work, as appropriate;

`(B) Federal, State, local, or tribal studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence; and

`(C) foreign government studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence.

`(c) Composition of Commission- The Commission shall be composed of 10 members appointed for the life of the Commission, of whom--

`(1) one member shall be appointed by the President from among officers or employees of the executive branch and private citizens of the United States;

`(2) one member shall be appointed by the Secretary;

`(3) one member shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate;

`(4) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate;

`(5) one member shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

`(6) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives;

`(7) one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives;

`(8) one member shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives;

`(9) one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and

`(10) one member shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.

`(d) Chair and Vice Chair- The Commission shall elect a Chair and a Vice Chair from among its members.

`(e) Qualifications- Individuals shall be selected for appointment to the Commission solely on the basis of their professional qualifications, achievements, public stature, experience, and expertise in relevant fields, including, but not limited to, behavioral science, constitutional law, corrections, counterterrorism, cultural anthropology, education, information technology, intelligence, juvenile justice, local law enforcement, organized crime, Islam and other world religions, sociology, or terrorism.

`(f) Deadline for Appointment- All members of the Commission shall be appointed no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this subtitle.

`(g) Quorum and Meetings- The Commission shall meet and begin the operations of the Commission not later than 30 days after the date on which all members have been appointed or, if such meeting cannot be mutually agreed upon, on a date designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Each subsequent meeting shall occur upon the call of the Chair or a majority of its members. A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold meetings.

`(h) Authority of Individuals to Act for Commission- Any member of the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any action that the Commission is authorized to take under this Act.

`(i) Powers of Commission- The powers of the Commission shall be as follows:

`(1) IN GENERAL-

`(A) HEARINGS AND EVIDENCE- The Commission or, on the authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this section, hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable to carry out its duties.

`(B) CONTRACTING- The Commission may, to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its duties under this section.

`(2) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The Commission may request directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the Government, information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purposes of this section. The head of each such department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the extent practicable and authorized by law, furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon request made by the Chair of the Commission, by the chair of any subcommittee created by a majority of the Commission, or by any member designated by a majority of the Commission.

`(B) RECEIPT, HANDLING, STORAGE, AND DISSEMINATION- The Committee and its staff shall receive, handle, store, and disseminate information in a manner consistent with the operative statutes, regulations, and Executive orders that govern the handling, storage, and dissemination of such information at the department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality that responds to the request.

`(j) Assistance From Federal Agencies-

`(1) GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION- The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis administrative support and other services for the performance of the Commission's functions.

`(2) OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES- In addition to the assistance required under paragraph (1), departments and agencies of the United States may provide to the Commission such services, funds, facilities, and staff as they may determine advisable and as may be authorized by law.

`(k) Postal Services- The Commission may use the United States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as departments and agencies of the United States.

`(l) Nonapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act- The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Commission.

`(m) Public Meetings-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall hold public hearings and meetings to the extent appropriate.

`(2) PROTECTION OF INFORMATION- Any public hearings of the Commission shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the protection of information provided to or developed for or by the Commission as required by any applicable statute, regulation, or Executive order including subsection (i)(2)(B).

`(n) Staff of Commission-

`(1) APPOINTMENT AND COMPENSATION- The Chair of the Commission, in consultation with the Vice Chair and in accordance with rules adopted by the Commission, may appoint and fix the compensation of a staff director and such other personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its functions, without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no rate of pay fixed under this subsection may exceed the maximum rate of pay for GS-15 under the General Schedule.

`(2) STAFF EXPERTISE- Individuals shall be selected for appointment as staff of the Commission on the basis of their expertise in one or more of the fields referred to in subsection (e).

`(3) PERSONNEL AS FEDERAL EMPLOYEES-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The executive director and any employees of the Commission shall be employees under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.

`(B) MEMBERS OF COMMISSION- Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to apply to members of the Commission.

`(4) DETAILEES- Any Federal Government employee may be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement from the Commission, and during such detail shall retain the rights, status, and privileges of his or her regular employment without interruption.

`(5) CONSULTANT SERVICES- The Commission may procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.

`(6) EMPHASIS ON SECURITY CLEARANCES- The Commission shall make it a priority to hire as employees and retain as contractors and detailees individuals otherwise authorized by this section who have active security clearances.

`(o) Commission Personnel Matters-

`(1) COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS- Each member of the Commission who is not an employee of the government shall be compensated at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day during which that member is engaged in the actual performance of the duties of the Commission.

`(2) TRAVEL EXPENSES- While away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission.

`(3) TRAVEL ON ARMED FORCES CONVEYANCES- Members and personnel of the Commission may travel on aircraft, vehicles, or other conveyances of the Armed Forces of the United States when such travel is necessary in the performance of a duty of the Commission, unless the cost of commercial transportation is less expensive.

`(4) TREATMENT OF SERVICE FOR PURPOSES OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS- A member of the Commission who is an annuitant otherwise covered by section 8344 or 8468 of title 5, United States Code, by reason of membership on the Commission shall not be subject to the provisions of such section with respect to membership on the Commission.

`(5) VACANCIES- A vacancy on the Commission shall not affect its powers and shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made. The appointment of the replacement member shall be made not later than 60 days after the date on which the vacancy occurs.

`(p) Security Clearances- The heads of appropriate departments and agencies of the executive branch shall cooperate with the Commission to expeditiously provide Commission members and staff with appropriate security clearances to the extent possible under applicable procedures and requirements.

`(q) Reports-

`(1) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 18 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, the Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a final report of its findings and conclusions, legislative recommendations for immediate and long-term countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and measures that can be taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence from developing and spreading within the United States, and any final recommendations for any additional grant programs to support these purposes. The report may also be accompanied by a classified annex.

`(2) INTERIM REPORTS- The Commission shall submit to the President and Congress--

`(A) by not later than 6 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, a first interim report on--

`(i) its findings and conclusions and legislative recommendations for the purposes described in paragraph (1); and

`(ii) its recommendations on the feasibility of a grant program established and administered by the Secretary for the purpose of preventing, disrupting, and mitigating the effects of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and, if such a program is feasible, recommendations on how grant funds should be used and administered; and

`(B) by not later than 6 months after the date on which the Commission submits the interim report under subparagraph (A), a second interim report on such matters.

`(3) INDIVIDUAL OR DISSENTING VIEWS- Each member of the Commission may include in each report under this subsection the individual additional or dissenting views of the member.

`(4) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY- The Commission shall release a public version of each report required under this subsection.

`(r) Availability of Funding- Amounts made available to the Commission to carry out this section shall remain available until the earlier of the expenditure of the amounts or the termination of the Commission.

`(s) Termination of Commission- The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the date on which the Commission submits its final report.

`SEC. 899D. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR THE STUDY OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES.

`(a) Establishment- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States (hereinafter referred to as `Center') following the merit-review processes and procedures and other limitations that have been previously established for selecting and supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence. The Center shall assist Federal, State, local and tribal homeland security officials through training, education, and research in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States.

Therefore I, Mark McCoy, profess my guilt in agreeing with the ideologies, professing the means, and promoting the furtherance of all actions, and using whatever weapons, in the struggle for liberty, as originated by the progenitors and predecessors of past, present, and future "Homegrown Terrorists" who have stood defiant in the face of tyranny and despotism in proclaiming their sovereignty and defending their liberties; and in doing so thus throw down the gauntlet and eagerly await prosecution under the Short Title, as defined by myself, of H.R. 1955 to be "The Government Must Be Really Scared And Desperate In Order To Go To This Extreme, So Why Don't They All Just Give Up Now Before We Show Them The TRUE Meaning Of Terror in 2008"

Understanding the difference between Peace Officer and Law Enforcement Officer

2009-04-01T21:38:00.001-05:00

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________

Los Angeles, California February 16, 2007
______________________________________________________

Understanding “Peace Officer”
vs. “Law Enforcement Officer”

Not long ago all law enforcement officers were referred to as “Peace Officers,” but a transition has slowly set in, in which now all peace officers have become known as “Law Enforcement Officers.” Is this just semantics in title, or is there really a difference? That is the subject of this addition to my “Understanding” series “by Ron Branson” on various items of public service.

To start out, we note that one title contains the word “Peace,” and the other “Enforcement.” Do these two titles denote the same thing, or is there a difference? Most any grade school graduate can understand them to be two different things. But to the naked eye, one might argue that both wear a uniform, have a badge, and carry a gun, and therefore are one and the same.

The distinction is not one of appearance, but rather one of objective. In all of society life is competition, and everything works from three basic positions: “A” versus “B” mediated by “C,” the latter of which is a neutral position that may be called a mediator, an arbitrator, a referee, an umpire, or a judge. Everyone in the competitive society of life is either a player, or a neutral participant. While the competition of “A” and “B” could also include the competition of “D,” “E,” and “F,” there can be only one “C” who absolutely must have no interest in the outcome between A, B, D, E, and F. Once “C” manifests an interest in the competition between A, B, D, E, and F, he automatically forfeits his position as a neutral participant, and becomes a player in the competition.

Every game of sport provides an excellent illustration of the game of life. No judge in an Olympian race can enter himself into the race as a candidate. The moment he does, he forfeits his neutral position as judge because he now has an interest in the outcome.
This illustrates why there can exist no such thing as a “government interest” because the moment government obtains an interest in the outcome, it ceases to be government and becomes a contestant in the competitive world in which someone else must necessarily step up to assume the role of “government.” “Government” must absolutely be neutral, or it ceases to be government!

That is a profound statement I have just made because the courts in America have recognized “an overriding governmental interest,” U.S. v. Lee, 102 S. Ct. 1051 (1982), and Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986), both dealing with the mandatory numbering of all Americans to support the Social Security Administration. However, any true-thinking person can quickly see that by the very principles of nature itself, there cannot exist a “governmental interest” at all, much less an “overriding” one. Once the existence of such a principle is introduced, there can be no end, for it works like the camel’s nose under your tent; you will soon be sleeping with the camel, or worse yet, be crowded out totally from under the tent, for everything will eventually be done to accomplish “an overriding governmental interest!”

With this as a background, let me explain the distinction between a “Peace Officer,” and a “Law Enforcement Officer.” The objective of a peace officer is peace, nothing more. He has no interest in the cause of A over B, but seeks only peace, which benefits A, B, D, E, and F. In fact, the whole purpose for all government in society is justice which results in peace. Peace is not possible where there is no justice. Said another way, where there is no justice, there can be no peace; and where there is no peace, you can count on the fact that it is because there is no justice. When a peace officer arrives on the scene, his objective is to separate the disputing factors and quell the tension --whether it be a fight between a husband and wife, or feuding neighbors. He has no inherent interest in arresting anyone upon arrival at the scene. Such pursuit of peace is a rewarding objective. The Bible tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Matt. 5:9.

So now let us discuss a “Law Enforcement Officer.” His interest, as his title indicates, is enforcing the law. Now we have already stated that the objective of all government must be the establishment of peace through justice. So the question now turns to whether law enforcement’s only interest is seeking peace. I state emphatically, “NO!” Let me again illustrate with a sports game – baseball.

Baseball, as with all sports, has rules. The purpose of those rules, which we might here call “laws,” are made to assure that everyone plays on a level playing field and thus keeps the peace. One batter cannot be granted five strikes while another is limited to two. All rules must contribute to the objective of obtaining peace between the competing sides. Obviously, if one side or the other cannot agree as to what the rules are, or to abide by them for the benefit of both sides, there can be no peace, i.e., no game can possibly be played. This natural principle of law is true even where the opponents are fighting in a ring. The objective of all rules/laws must be peace!

Applying this law of nature to all rules and all laws governing society, let us consider the incidents where the rule or the law’s objective is not peace. We accept that the umpire is the decision-maker in baseball; and both sides agree to honor his judgment, whether or not they agree with any particular play. Conceptually, both sides agree that the umpire is trying to keep the peace by being honest and just in calling each and every play, and is not motivated by a personal interest in the outcome, such as a bet on the game.

Now suppose the umpire, pursuant to the authority and permission of the Baseball Commission, imposes a fine against every player in the game for each strike in the amount of $10, (an “infraction,”) and $100 (a “misdemeanor”) for each out, and finally $1000 (a “felony”) for each accumulation of 10 strikes. The “laws/rules” provide that the Baseball Commission receives 90% of the proceeds, and the umpire 10%. It is declared “perfectly legal,” and such practice “is endorsed by the courts” –see, here it is, pointing to the published opinion of “United Baseball Players v. Baseball Commission, 666 U.S. 911, (2069).” Now the enforcement of this rule/law is “enforceable;” and the Commission is within its right to pursue the players for failure to pay this fee/fine, and it is authorized to send forth law enforcement officers with badges and guns to collect this fee or throw the players in jail.

What has happened is, while this enforcement is “perfectly legal,” it has violated the fundamental laws of nature: that all laws must be for the purpose of bringing about peace through justice. Imposing a fine upon the players in a baseball game is neither a pursuit of justice nor peace, but rather the pursuit of the Commission’s own interest --that of collecting fines. And since collecting fines is the Commission’s interest, it then follows that their next step is maximizing those fines, i.e, increasing the numbers and amounts of the fines. Therefore, the “neutral” umpire, who has “no interest” in the outcome, starts “interpreting” more questionable calls in favor of strikes, the Baseball Commissioners, and his own 10% commission. Again I say, show me an umpire that has a “little bit” of interest in the outcome of a game, and I will show you a man that under any natural standard is disqualified as an umpire.

A “Law Enforcement Officer” is contending for the interest of those who hire him to “enforce” their “laws/rules” having nothing to do with peace or justice, only with profits for those who have sent him. The objective is greed-oriented.

The term “law enforcement officer” connotates the mentality of a fascist police state that has no interest in peace—just sheer obedience to the interests of the authority that pays him, i.e., he gets a cut of the profits of tyranny. There is no difference in this scenario than a driver of a get-away car receiving part of the “profits” of a bank robbery when splitting up the booty; except the former is a “legal” heist, while the latter an illegal one. The former is accomplished with an official uniform and badge, while the latter with a mask and bag.

By the very laws of nature, there cannot exist a “Law Enforcement Officer,” for if such were true, then we could all make ourselves “law enforcement officers,” for life itself must be a level playing field for all competitive interests. Life is not supposed to be “government.” It is supposed to be about society getting along peaceably with each other as much as is possible; and society needs only so much government as is necessary to bring about that objective, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

-- Thomas Paine
So now we know why the foreign power, under color of “government,” has purposely designed the extermination of every reference to “peace officers” to metamorphose them into “law enforcement officers.” The objective is designed to subjugate the American People to obedience to an all-powerful, ever-expanding law enforcement police state. According to the foreign power, there can never be enough “law enforcement officers” —the more, the better! And if there aren’t enough “laws” for these “law enforcement officers” to enforce, do not worry because the foreign power will surely pass more.
Only by judicial accountability to the People through J.A.I.L. will their plans be thwarted!

Ron Branson is the author of a series of “Understanding” articles.

(It is highly recommended that this article be reformatted into a brochure and distributed to all “law enforcement officers” in America. And all “L.E.O’s” are encouraged to write for Officer Jack McLamb’s newsletter, “Aid & Abet,” at Jack@cybrquest.com.)
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) www.jail4judges.org

To be automatically added to future mailings, place the word Subscribe in the subject line and email to VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

"Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane

2008-06-14T21:41:00.004-05:00

Good stuff from a law professor, as well as a follow-up confirmation from a police officer. Basically, keep your mouth shut. The truth is irrelevant. The facts are subjective. Your liberty is up for grabs. Bottom-line, you cannot trust the police so why waste your breath?

Follow-up by George Bruch - from the horses mouth.

Illinois Gun Laws Pamphlet. Marxist Malapropisms, or How to Beat a Concealed Carry Rap.

2008-05-20T22:34:00.002-05:00

Control! The govt. oozes lies and misleading propaganda to make you believe they control you. I saw a link to the Illinois Gun Laws pamphlet, and decided to take a look at the usual pap disseminated by "Common questions and answers" publications. Let's take a look at this:

First. we are directed to CRIMINAL OFFENSES
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961.
We must look to the definitions section to understand what, and whom, we are seeking to regulate or punish:

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 2 heading)
ARTICLE 2. GENERAL DEFINITIONS

(720 ILCS 5/2‑0.5) (was 720 ILCS 5/2‑.5)
Sec. 2‑0.5. For the purposes of this Code, the words and phrases described in this Article have the meanings designated in this Article, except when a particular context clearly requires a different meaning.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/2‑7.1)
Sec. 2‑7.1. "Firearm" and "firearm ammunition". "Firearm" and "firearm ammunition" have the meanings ascribed to them in Section 1.1 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act.
(Source: P.A. 91‑544, eff. 1‑1‑00.)

The Firearm Owners Identification Act is limited in scope, and falls within the authority of the "Police Power" of the State. I discuss police power in one of my previous posts, but keep in mind that it is NOT constitutionally derived power, but rather assumed power for the state to regulate for the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the citizens as such may pertain to "commercial activities". For instance, looking at the FOID act, we see that all of the objects of the regulation pertain to the commercial acts of selling or buying firearms. Look at the wording carefully. I'll emphasize with CAPS:

(430 ILCS 65/1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑1)
Sec. 1. It is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination that in order to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, it is necessary and in the public interest to provide a system of identifying persons who are not qualified to acquire or possess firearms, firearm ammunition, stun guns, and tasers within the State of Illinois by the establishment of a system of Firearm Owner's Identification Cards, thereby establishing a practical and workable system by which law enforcement authorities will be afforded an opportunity to identify those persons who are prohibited by Section 24‑3.1 of the "Criminal Code of 1961", as amended, from acquiring or possessing firearms and firearm ammunition and who are prohibited by this Act from acquiring stun guns and tasers.
(Source: P.A. 94‑6, eff. 1‑1‑06.) --- ALL THIS DOES IS PROVIDE FOR A SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING, BUT DOES MAKE IMPOSE ANY REQUIREMENT FOR LICENSING OR REGISTERING.
So, who are they addressing?
"Federally licensed firearm dealer" means a person who is licensed as a federal firearms dealer under Section 923 of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. 923). COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY

"Gun show" includes the entire premises provided for an

event or function, including parking areas for the event or function, that is sponsored to facilitate the purchase, sale, transfer, or exchange of firearms as described in this Section. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY

"Gun show vendor" means a person who exhibits, sells,

offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges any firearms at a gun show, regardless of whether the person arranges with a gun show promoter for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange any firearm. AGAIN, COMMECIAL ACTIVITY

The FOID Act does not identify or define OFFENSES commited pursuant to the act, aside from a petty offense.

So, it is clear that the FOID card is a Commercial Firearms License for use within the State of Illinois, and does not apply to private Citizens who possess their own firearms for personal use and protection. Moving on to the criminal statute.

(720 ILCS 5/1‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 1‑2)
Sec. 1‑2. General purposes. The provisions of this Code shall be construed in accordance with the general purposes hereof, to:
(a) Forbid and prevent the commission of offenses; THE FOID ACT DOES NOT LIST ANY OFFENSES OTHER THAN A PETTY OFFENSE, WHICH IS NOT CRIMINAL IN NATURE AND INAPPLICABALE TO THIS STATUTE.
(b) Define adequately the act and mental state which constitute each offense, and limit the condemnation of conduct as criminal when it is without fault;
(c) Prescribe penalties which are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses and which permit recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities among individual offenders;
(d) Prevent arbitrary or oppressive treatment of persons accused or convicted of offenses.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/1‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 1‑3)
Sec. 1‑3. Applicability of common law. No conduct constitutes an offense unless it is described as an offense in this Code or in another statute of this State. However, this provision does not affect the power of a court to punish for contempt or to employ any sanction authorized by law for the enforcement of an order or civil judgment.
(Source: P.A. 79‑1360.) AGAIN, THE FOID ACT DOES NOT DEFINE ANY OFFENSES, AND THE COMMON LAW DOES NOT APPLY DUE TO THE LACK THEREOF.

Looking further to the definitions of (720 ILCS 5/Art. 2 heading)
ARTICLE 2. GENERAL DEFINITIONS

(720 ILCS 5/2‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑4)
Sec. 2‑4. "Conduct".
"Conduct" means an act or a series of acts, and the accompanying mental state.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.) SO YOU HAD A CONCEALED WEAPON. WHAT WAS YOUR MENTAL STATE AT THE TIME? TO COMMIT A CRIME, OR EXERCISE A CONSTITUTIONAL, GOD-GIVEN RIGHT? EXERCISING A RIGHT IS NOT A STATE OF MIND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME.

(720 ILCS 5/2‑15) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑15)
Sec. 2‑15. "Person".
"Person" means an individual, public or private corporation, government, partnership, or unincorporated association.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.) THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING. ARE YOU A PERSON? GENERALLY THE WORD INDIVIDUAL WOULD MEAN A REAL PERSON, OR PEOPLE, BUT USED WITH THE OTHER WORDS GIVES IT THE MEANING OF BEING AN ARTIFICIAL ENTITY, SUCH AS A CORPORATION OR OTHER GOVERNMENT-CREATED ENTITY. PERSON DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN PEOPLE.

So, what constitutes a "crime"?

(720 ILCS 5/4‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑2)
Sec. 4‑2. Possession as voluntary act.
Possession is a voluntary act if the offender knowingly procured or received the thing possessed, or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient time to have been able to terminate his possession.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/4‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑3)
Sec. 4‑3. Mental state. THIS MUST BE PROVEN IN COURT!!!
(a) A person is not guilty of an offense, other than an offense which involves absolute liability, unless, with respect to each element described by the statute defining the offense, he acts while having one of the mental states described in Sections 4‑‑4 through 4‑‑7.
(b) If the statute defining an offense prescribed a particular mental state with respect to the offense as a whole, without distinguishing among the elements thereof, the prescribed mental state applies to each such element. If the statute does not prescribe a particular mental state applicable to an element of an offense (other than an offense which involves absolute liability), any mental state defined in Sections 4‑‑4, 4‑‑5 or 4‑‑6 is applicable. WE WILL LOOK AT THESE SECTIONS.
(c) Knowledge that certain conduct constitutes an offense, or knowledge of the existence, meaning, or application of the statute defining an offense, is not an element of the offense unless the statute clearly defines it as such.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/4‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑4)
Sec. 4‑4. Intent. NOPE, INTENT IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE OFFENSE SECTION.
A person intends, or acts intentionally or with intent, to accomplish a result or engage in conduct described by the statute defining the offense, when his conscious objective or purpose is to accomplish that result or engage in that conduct.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.) OKAY, SO YOU INTEND TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPPON UNDER THE EXERCISE OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

(720 ILCS 5/4‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑5)
Sec. 4‑5. Knowledge. THE CRIMINAL ACT STATES "KNOWINGLY". LET'S LOOK AT "KNOWINGLY".
A person knows, or acts knowingly or with knowledge of:
(a) The nature or attendant circumstances of his conduct, described by the statute defining the offense, when he is consciously aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstances exist. Knowledge of a material fact includes awareness of the substantial probability that such fact exists.
(b) The result of his conduct, described by the statute defining the offense, when he is consciously aware that such result is practically certain to be caused by his conduct.
Conduct performed knowingly or with knowledge is performed wilfully, within the meaning of a statute using the latter term, unless the statute clearly requires another meaning.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/4‑ (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑
Sec. 4‑8. Ignorance or mistake. (a) A person's ignorance or mistake as to a matter of either fact or law, except as provided in Section 4‑3(c) above, is a defense if it negatives the existence of the mental state which the statute prescribes with respect to an element of the offense.
(b) A person's reasonable belief that his conduct does not constitute an offense is a defense if:
(1) The offense is defined by an administrative regulation or order which is not known to him and has not been published or otherwise made reasonably available to him, and he could not have acquired such knowledge by the exercise of due diligence pursuant to facts known to him; or
(2) He acts in reliance upon a statute which later is determined to be invalid; or
(3) He acts in reliance upon an order or opinion of an Illinois Appellate or Supreme Court, or a United States appellate court later overruled or reversed;
(4) He acts in reliance upon an official interpretation of the statute, regulation or order defining the offense, made by a public officer or agency legally authorized to interpret such statute.
(c) Although a person's ignorance or mistake of fact or law, or reasonable belief, described in this Section 4‑‑8 is a defense to the offense charged, he may be convicted of an included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact or law were as he believed it to be.
(d) A defense based upon this Section 4‑‑8 is an affirmative defense.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
IGNORANCE OR MISTAKE IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, BASED ON THE ABOVE CONDITIONS. HOWEVER, BELIEF THAT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS FOR THE CARRYING OR POSSESSING OF A FIREARM, EXCEPT WHERE THE POLICE POWER, WHICH APPLIES TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY RELATING TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE AND MORALS, APPLIES.

I would go into more detail, but this would make for a very lengthy post. All I can say is, read the law. All of the law. Definitions and intent as well. The law does not provide penalties for open carry, only concealed carry, and then under specific circumstances. I think a weapons charge under this statute, based on open carry, is able to be beaten, with the proper attorney who actually looks at the law and challenges the system based on what the law says, and uses proper case law and precedent, avoiding any mention of United States citizenship or alluding to having engaged in a commercial activity. Once you possess the FOID card, and then violate the statute, you are nailed because possessing the FOID card is the nexus that lends the presumption that you are, in fact, requred to have one and therefore engaged in a commercial activity. Once you place yourself under the autority of the police power, your constitutional rights are gone, and the U.S. citizenship priviledges apply, which do not include the second amendment. If anyone is interested in learning how U.S. citizenship means waiving your second amendment rights just let me know and I'll show you a PowerPoint presentation detailing this fact. You can also look up 14th Amendment and Incorporation Doctrine. The Incorporation Doctrine says that courts do not consider all of the Bill of Rights to be "fundamental rights", and have not considered the second amendment to be a right of U.S. citizenship.
Is anyone ready to take up arms yet? It's about time!

State Sponsored Terrorism, Kidnapping, and Child Abuse

2008-05-20T21:58:00.005-05:00

Like a master of illusion, the bureaucratic jack-booted do-gooders in Texas have commandeered the media, your reason, and some 416 children under the pretense that they are saving the more nubile young ladies from the ravishing clutches of perverted older men. To justify this assault upon a private culture that considers itself outside the pestilential creature that is government, words such as “statutory rape, polygamy, and cult” have been capriciously tossed about. Television shows have sought the counsel of experts in human behavior, linguistics, and body language to impugn the outward appearance, mannerisms, inflections, and thoughts of the women. The only indictment borne from the witch hunt is they don’t appear “normal”; hardly a justification for invading a private society on unfound accusations and terrorizing children and parents.

Despite the personal feelings of any of you, or of an assemblage of criminals, otherwise known as a legislature, it is not within the purview of the state to inspect, question, assess, or approve the behavior of private people or their cultures. I am not defending the act of having sex with 14 year old girls, as the unfounded accusations assert, but then again I have not had sex with girls of such age. However, if it had not been for “underage” girls having had sex in the past I can assure you all that humanity would not have progressed to this day. Yet, one has to ask themselves what is the issue which makes that act objectionable? Is it our perception that a dirty-old-man is gratifying himself at the expense of an unknowing and exploited child? Is it that such a precious treasure should not be exposed to such a vile and immoral act as sex? Is it possibly because the government has not given its approval to such unconscionable behavior, such as it has with legalized murder through warfare, capital punishment, rendition, torture…. etc.? If government lowered the legal age of consent to 14 years there is nothing you or your indignant self-righteousness could do about it. It would be “legal”.

When an “older man” has relations with a “young girl”, where is the state? The state does not prevent the act from taking place despite the law which rests on the books. Yet, where are the parents when the state violates young women? We have government mandated vaccinations which expose children to things more immediate and injurious by way of the compounds in the vaccine than the possible harm arising from contracting the illness to begin with. I comment on one sadistic jurist named C. Phillip Nichols from Prince George’s County, Maryland. My commentary can be found on my blog at http://markmccoy.com/blogspot. It is not hard to find. The Justice Department visits regularly. Malfeasant Nichols threatened parents with jail time if they failed to inoculate their children, despite the parent’s objections to introducing pathogens and agents to their children’s bloodstream. Nichols’ behavior smacks of bio-terrorism and disregard for liberty and parental autonomy. Likewise, the gumma which are confiscating children in Texas are on par with Nichols, sans bio-terrorism. Who is there to save children and parents from the abuse of government?

Why does the state not raid the homes of parents who allow or assist in their children joining the military to be used for imperialistic or corporate aggression? Are parents who place their children before the canon’s mouth for glory and political mischief any less culpable for the resulting harm than those who permit a young woman to take an older husband? How many of these allegedly “abused” girls have died as a result of their “illicit” union compared to the number of children sent to their deaths by the contrived and fallacious wars created by government?

Look at it like this. If sex with children was a priority for government then they would have raided the Catholic Church and the priests possessing priapic adolescent proclivities. If the state were concerned with polygamy it would look at itself and the “spousal” relationships it keeps with despots, tyrants, and dictators abroad. As a matter of fact, worse than polygamy is bigamy wherein one has many marriages. Every licensed marriage is a three-party contract between the two parties and the state. Talk about a slut, to use a vulgar colloquialism. If government gave a damn about morality it would immediately crawl into a hole and proceed to pull kitty litter over itself in order to spare us the stench. If people really cared about liberty, tolerance, privacy, and justice they would train their sights on usurpers and tyrants who deem to act on behalf of the consenting governed.

I do not believe it is within the purview of anyone to judge any people, culture, society, or behavior when their reason has been corrupted and replaced with the arbitrary and violent conscience of absolute power. If we are about ridding the world of evil then let’s start where evil is readily identified, known, and abundant; in the halls and offices of people serving that presumed master, government.

Fat, dumb, and happy in Amerika.

2008-05-10T19:54:00.000-05:00

Let’s not mince words. The “Great American Democratic Experiment” has failed. “In what way?” you ask, shifting your gaze from your wide-screen plasma ejaculating NASCAR, football, and “So You Think You Can Dance” to address your tattooed, belligerent, corporate-branded, entitlement-minded children. You look about your overpriced, oversized, over-mortgaged home and entertain escaping in your fuel-hungry, overpriced vehicle. You inventory your legal plastic tender and contemplate the looming interest rate that will soon engulf more of your overtaxed income that serves to further bloat the swollen bellies of voracious malfeasants, traitors, terrorists, thieves, murderers, and vermin posing as legislators and law-makers lying greased and prone for their corporate sodomites.

The American Experiment that began with our founding traitors, terrorists, and landed-white-males standing on a Declaration of Independence and finally settling for a Constitution that embraced slavery, protected the privileged, and favored the mercantile, has accomplished exactly what it intended; that is, to feed the multitude a steady diet of propaganda, compensate them with fiat currency, commercially satiate their prurient desires, fatten them from the trough of government benefits, exact their allegiance, commandeer their children, and superficially educate them in preparation for corporate conscription.

The only involvement the so-called “We the People” have had in this experiment is to serve as lab rats for government to expose to war, deceit, division, and illusory wealth. And as sure as the carcinogenic fare was placed in front of their noses the rats consumed all their bellies could hold. What hath this experiment wrought for a so-called free people? It has produced evidentiary testament that speaks to blissful ignorance, voluntary servitude, moral abdication, spiritual prostitution, and cultural degradation. It is virtually impossible to live, work, eat, trade, associate, reproduce, or travel without the licenses, permits, or regulations of government sapping your common sense and free-will.

It would serve most of you well to forget these words and absorb the messages emblazoned onto your psyche by the corporate media, courtesy of your keepers. So-called “cults” who promote polygamy or “underage sex” are impugned, attacked, and their children confiscated; yet, parents proudly decorate their sons and daughters in the military regalia of an imperialistic despotism and allow them to be marched into foreign lands to die as glorious corporate mercenaries in not-quite-so-conquered foreign lands whose indigenous peoples exhibit more courage, temerity, and resolve than our morally exsanguinated and conscience bereft conquerors could ever hope for. Police routinely electrocute, shoot, or beat people, yet nary an indignant word is uttered by the masses because it was claimed to have been done “within established policy”. It is deemed unpatriotic to not tithe what the government commands. Never before has a society so immersed in technology, opportunity, and apparent capability been rendered so “fat, dumb, and happy” by relinquishing all that is theirs into the hands of arbitrary, corrupt, co-opted, and self-serving oligarchs.

As long as the din of platitudes flows past the Botox lips of the catatonic consumers inhabiting Gomorrah, Inc. by the incessant stream of National Anthems, Pledges of Allegiance, Oaths of Office, and Star Spangled Banners then the truth will lie as it has for eons; consistently and obviously etched upon the redacted words of history, ignored or re-written by those with power to perpetually subjugate those without.

King for a day.

2008-01-27T13:20:00.000-06:00

I intended to write on this topic sooner, but wanted to see how Martin Luther King, Jr. was remembered over “his” holiday. For one day a year, we take time to recognize, acknowledge, honor, dismiss, forget, and deny a man that was murdered for standing up for what he believed. Decades after the dust has settled from King’s “rabble rousing”, we have relative equality, since people do not prosper under liberty, but ignorantly suffer under sophistic rights. Moreover, in a consummate act of patronization, we recognize a government holiday named after one of its victims. We give one day to recognize a struggle that took a lifetime, and a life.

King was not the first to posit civil disobedience. Mahatma Gandhi and Henry David Thoreau were both progenitors of that doctrine. After each generation of peaceful strides, government responded with more legal and institutionalized tyranny and oppression. Of course, King is lauded for making great strides in achieving racial, political, and societal equality, but is it that blacks are elevated to the same level as whites; or were whites lowered to the same level as blacks? If you have two glasses; one filled to the brim with rights, and the other half-filled with rights, and you wish to make them equal in volume, you don't necessarily need fill the lowest one, but may instead opt to empty the fullest one. This is the equality King achieved; or more accurately, the equality the government created.

I am not here to disparage King's work, his message, or the man himself. I greatly admire and respect what he stood for and accomplished. I've heard people refer to King as a failure for black people still not having true racial equality. I believe King was a success, as evidenced by his untimely murder. If there is failure to be assigned, then let it rest on the heads of all who have settled for the watered-down, diluted, manufactured, prescribed, defined, and regulated "privileges and benefits" the government dispenses to placate the otherwise restless rabble so as to keep them fat, dumb, and happy. We have failed. We have failed to protect that which we possess, individual sovereignty. We failed to remain vigilant over encroaching power. We have submitted to servitude, and self-delusion.

What did King accomplish, exactly? He stood defiant against institutionalized legal power. He stood defiant against the state. He was assaulted, stabbed, beaten, reviled, hated, and ultimately murdered. King did not die for what he believed. He died because he was shot. Let it be said that he was murdered for what he believed. He did not wish to die. If someone had said to him, "Dr. King, believing such things will cause your life to flee your body." I presume he would have given it a second thought, and then probably proceed nevertheless. However, his beliefs affected his opponents to such a degree that they moved to permanently silence him. His message was infectious and dangerous. What kind of world would this be if ALL men were treated as equals? Where would government get its power to soothe the pain of injustice it creates? What if all we had to do to defeat tyranny is to simply disobey?

Where King and I part ways is where he advocated passive civil disobedience. I fall more along the lines of the Black Panthers or Malcolm X. I agree with taking a passive, disobedient stand against tyranny, but I find when government or authority fails to honor that peaceful overture and instead compel allegiance, obedience, or action; then righteous, violent self-defense is warranted, by any means necessary. As Malcolm X said, "It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself." I understand why King took the tact he did. His foe is was, and still is, impressive, ruthless, violent, and pervasive. Violence turns many away from what would otherwise be a just battle. Yet, when one comes upon a battle and sees only carnage, if is hard to identify with the struggle when the reason for the bloodbath unknown to the observer. King needed to win minds more so than kill tyrants.

The government's response to "uppity black-folk" was the Civil Rights act of 1966. What were the "equal rights" Uncle Sam so generously gave to his subjects? If you look to Title 42 United States Code, Chapter 21, Subchapter I, Section 1981, it will tell you that "Equal Rights" include, in part, "… full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other." Where, in that legislation, do the words “rights” or “liberties” appear? Moreover, in order to achieve this equality, without acknowledging Creator-derived unalienable rights belong to blacks as well as whites, the government created the subordinate "white citizen" class and elevated, or laterally moved, the blacks to that subjugated group.

Instead of blacks being acknowledged to have unalienable rights, like the Declaration of Independence states belong to “all men”, prescriptive and diluted privileges were created, called "Civil Rights”, and offered to the People in exchange for their unalienable rights, and their allegiance. Government slyly created a slave class and tricked the blacks into staying right where they were, along with the ignorant and newly-subjugated "white folks". Honestly, I don't know why blacks wanted the same rights as whites. Blacks had to be forced into subjection, and whites hurriedly marched headlong into it.

After all the strife, struggle, battles, and deaths ,we have a legal pacifier shoved into the gaping mouths of the infantile masses. Subjects gladly trade what their Creator bestowed for what government creates. The government did not set a day aside to honor Dr. King's accomplishments and promote his message. The message they wish to convey is, if you exhibit audacity, arrogance, fearlessness, righteousness, and independence, then you too will suffer beatings, oppression, insult, and most likely death. This is what we are to remember on this government-made holiday. It is the reminder that Dr. King stood for something more important than life. He did not willingly succumb. For his petulance he was killed, and it would serve us well to not follow in his footsteps, and instead, accept the scraps off master's table and obey.

So, we have Martin Luther King for a day, and servitude for the rest. Pay obligatory homage to fallen heroes, but don't dare emulate them or suffer like-fate. Ignore what you possess by right of your birth. The government claims to be able to provide for your comfort and security. Surely you don't believe your Creator blessed you with anything comparable to the power of that malignancy called government. I urge you all to exhibit audacity and independence. Step outside your comfort zone. Venture off of the plantation. When "master" comes-a-stalking to get you back in line turn that passive disobedience into righteous self-defense. Why be King for a day when you can rule yourself for life?

Mark McCoy

Judge C. Philip Nichols, Jr. Found Brain Dead Behind the Bench

2008-01-05T21:00:00.001-06:00

It saddens me greatly to inform you all that my harshly worded metaphors involving the too-long-for-this-world Judge Nichols may have contributed to his synaptic demise. Reports of his death have been greatly under exaggerated. View the body here.