This article is reprinted with the permission of Becky, and the generous FREEMAN. Please visit the site if you are concerned with the course of the nation.

by Becky Akers

Boston lies under a foot of snow this Monday March evening in 1770, so icy and cold that anyone who can huddle at home on the hearth should. Instead, much of the town is abroad and abuzz like an angry hive. Bostonians are infuriated at something their descendants will take for granted, indeed, will prize so highly they’ll pay for it: police are patrolling their city.

And have been for many months. In September 1768 a thousand British Redcoats disembarked at the town’s wharves. From there they “marched sword in hand through the principal streets of [Boston], then in profound peace.”¹ Their purpose was not to protect the 15,000 inhabitants but to keep them in line, much as police presently do. And, again like modern officers, they will collect money for the government, though rather than writing traffic tickets, they will enforce customs duties.

The colonists do not share their descendants’ idealism that the police “protect and serve,” nor do they mistake the Redcoats for “Boston’s Finest.” They see the soldiers stalking among them as the government’s bullyboys, and they despise them for it. Tonight, that antagonism will explode, becoming famous as a Massacre for killing five civilians and wounding others.

Historians offer a bevy of explanations and excuses for that calamitous confrontation: Americans resented the British as an occupying force; off-duty soldiers worked at odd jobs for low pay, stealing opportunities from Boston’s day laborers and provoking more resentment; the Redcoats were naturally arrogant, the colonists naturally touchy. But behind it all lies the simple fact that the soldiers were policing Boston. They marched through the city searching for contraband, infractions of the government’s rules, and anyone the administration deemed suspicious.

They also reintroduced His Majesty’s customs officers at the point of their bayonets. Prior to the Redcoats’ advent in 1768, Bostonians had so intimidated these officials that they fled the city. Ann Hulton was sister to one; she wrote, “Every officer of the Crown that does his duty is become obnoxious & they must either fly or be sacrificed. . . .” Ann flew with her brother and others to Castle Island, now part of the mainland but then a fort lying at a safe distance in Boston Harbor. From there, Miss Hulton continued her account of the colonists’ cowing of Customs: “These Sons of Violence after attacking Houses, breaking Windows, beating, Stoning & bruizing several gentlemen belong’g to the Customs, the Collector mortally & burning his boat.”² Only when the Redcoats could ensure their safety did the officers return to Boston. They remained for the next 18 months, retreating again with the troops after the Massacre: “The inhabitants of the town assembled in Faneuil Hall . . . unanimously resolved, that no armed force should be suffered longer to reside in the capital . . . . [T]he people, inflexible in their demands, insisted that not one British soldier should be left within the town . . . . [W]ithin four days the whole army decamped. . . . The commissioners of the customs and several other obnoxious characters retired with the army” to the fortified Castle Island.³

Could we whisk the army from their eighteenth-century fort to a modern precinct, the Redcoats would likely agree that their policing differed little from today’s—except in one remarkable detail. They would be astounded at the enormous authority most Americans grant the police and at the enormous respect, even glorification, following from that.

Both are centuries removed from the ridicule and revulsion red-coated police rated in eighteenth-century Boston. Perhaps the difference in attitude arises partly from our powerlessness against a force armed far beyond what most of us can manage. The Bostonians milling about the freezing streets that night carried pistols and swords every bit the equal of muskets and bayonets. If a man didn’t own a gun or blade, he hastened toward the coming showdown with the “invaders” and “foreign enemies” openly bearing a wooden stave or club, a knife, a hatchet, even a chunk of ice scooped off the street.⁴

Their weapons rendered the colonists boisterous and aggressive when standing up to the Redcoats. British General Thomas Gage reported that “The people were as Lawless and Licentious after the Troops arrived, as they were before. The Troops . . . seemed only offered to abuse and Ruin . . . to suffer ill usage and even assaults upon their Persons till their Lives were in Danger. . . .”⁵

That “lawlessness” bedeviled the Redcoats from their first moments in Boston, when they began hunting barracks. Thomas Hutchinson, Massachusetts’s royally appointed governor, offered a large public building to the soldiers, ignoring the “outcasts of the Workhouse and the scum of the Town”⁶ already renting rooms there. The “scum” objected to the governor’s exercise of eminent domain as much as Hutchinson would have had they offered the Redcoats his mansion. They promptly barricaded themselves inside the building.

Boston’s sheriff, backed by some soldiers, soon arrived. He discovered an unlocked window, climbed into the building, and ordered the “outcasts” out. They promptly barricaded him inside, too.

Meanwhile, the sheriff’s martial escort stood helpless, unable to rescue him, because the scowling, muttering townspeople surrounding the place heavily outnumbered the soldiers. This standoff continued for two days after Boston’s Council sided with the “scum” and refused to authorize their eviction.

Nor did the colonists’ “ill usage” abate over the next year and a half. Before the shooting began on the night of the Massacre a citizen scolded a group of British officers: “Why don’t you keep your soldiers in the barracks? . . . Are the inhabitants to be knocked down in the streets? Are they to be murdered in this manner? You know the country has been used ill. You know the town has been used ill. We did not send for you. We will not have you here.”⁷

Contrast that succinct and spirited lesson in liberty with the shuffling slave mentality of modern Americans. We bow and scrape when dealing with police officers in their various guises, whether the state trooper during a traffic stop or the Transportation Security Administration screener searching us without cause or warrant at the airport.

Also astonishing is the deference the Redcoats’ officers showed the colonists. Sometime after one Bostonian had scolded the officers, another asked British Captain John Preston whether he would order his men to fire on them. “By no means, by no means,” Preston answered respectfully. “My giving the word ‘fire’ under those circumstances would prove me no officer.”⁸ Thus while modern police order us about as though we are slow and stupid children, British officers requested, explained, and begged pardon.

After the Redcoats fired that night, a silversmith named Benjamin Burdick approached, obviously studying the troops in the moonlight. “I want to see some faces that I may swear to another day,” he said. Would any of us dare stop when we see a car on the side of the highway, with a trooper ticketing the driver, to announce ourselves as witnesses? Granted, Burdick was an imposing man, estimated to weigh 380 pounds by a neighbor,⁹ but even the largest among us is unlikely to heckle an armed cop. Not only do they outgun us, but there are too many laws protecting them, too much presupposition that, in any encounter, the state is right and the citizen wrong. The Redcoats in eighteenth-century Boston could rely on no such privileges. Indeed, the only response Captain Preston made to the brave Burdick was a mild, “Perhaps, sir, you may [be summoned to court as a witness].”¹⁰

Unthinkable, isn’t it? The police buffaloed, and citizens riding herd on them! But that’s become an impossible dream; it is as if the people and the police have swapped places. Why? Are Americans really that different now? Or have policemen, their nature and their relationship to the people they “serve,” changed?

William the Conqueror

Eighteenth-century Englishmen, whether in the colonies or at home, had a horror of the military’s policing them, of the government’s bringing troops against them instead of against national enemies, such as the French and the Spanish. This horror dates back centuries, to the Norman invasion of England in 1066, when an army under William the Conqueror devastated the countryside. The soldiers robbed, raped, burned, and brutalized, committing all the atrocities at which armies excel. Then, their victory secure, they added insult to injury by quartering their troops on the native Saxons. They also taxed them.

The Saxons contrasted this abuse by professional soldiers with the behavior of their own militias. Saxon farmers and shopkeepers fought to defend themselves when attacked, but they returned to their farms and shops once the danger had passed. They did not make a career of robbing people on behalf of the king, nor did they burn a man’s home and sack his shop. Militias were defensive, armies offensive: the difference keenly impressed Saxon farmers pondering plundered towns, farms in flames, and wives and daughters traumatized or even dying from rape.

This martial skepticism was reinforced during the civil wars of the 1600s, especially Oliver Cromwell’s military dictatorship. A “standing army,” with its professional killers and its existence even during peacetime, was considered the worst evil that could afflict a free people—if a people so afflicted could be called free.

By the eighteenth century this national attitude resulted in a poorly manned army of thin ranks. Add to this an abusive command relying on physical torture and low pay to control the soldiers, and it’s no wonder the British army had to resort to kidnapping to fill its brigades. It drafted almost literally out of the gutter those soldiers it didn’t take from the hangman. (Judges sometimes offered convicted murderers and other miscreants a choice between killing for the King or being killed.)

Recruits who weren’t ducking the scaffold usually came from society’s lowest rungs. Impressment officers prowled the streets of London, promising the naked, starving underclass a warm uniform and regular rations. When these blandishments failed, the officer tried to get his victim so drunk he would grasp a shilling: astoundingly, the government considered that pittance a fair exchange for a man’s life. You might think it easy to slip a coin into a poor man’s hand, especially one plied with free booze all night. But however brutal life on the streets was, everyone knew the army was worse. Nor was there any escape: once a soldier, always a soldier. It took death to free a man from his “deal” with the King.

Citizens feared the army drawn from such ranks much as we would a mob from our slums and penitentiaries. Perhaps a beggar or prisoner with the soul of a poet was recruited now and then, but if so, he was rapidly desensitized once he donned his uniform. Discipline was draconian, merciless, excessive, terrifying—we can exhaust the thesaurus and still not come close to describing the torture regularly inflicted on the poor cuss turned soldier or sailor. The most minor of transgressions earned horrific retribution, with flogging the favored punishment. These whippings consisted of hundreds of lashes and sometimes a thousand; they were so savage they could kill or, at the least, cripple the victim for life. Often the lashes were administered in sets over the course of several weeks or a month: this allowed the muscles (little skin would be left after the first strokes from the cat-o’-nine-tails) of the back to begin healing before they were once again ripped open. When the brutality finally ended and the victim’s wrists were loosed from the crossed halberds, a bucket of salt water was dashed across him—a crude and unspeakably cruel antiseptic.

Men abused so horrifically were unlikely to show mercy, kindness, or empathy to the civilians who crossed their paths. Governor Hutchinson described those in one of the two regiments loosed on Boston: “They are in general such bad fellows in that regement [sic] that it seems impossible to restrain them.”¹¹ An unbridgeable gap yawned between “citizen” and “soldier,” and though these men might protect England from France’s vengeance, most Englishmen felt little gratitude for this “service.” Britain engaged in many of the trade restrictions that our government does, spawning a century’s worth of war. This benefited the same politicians, bureaucrats, and manufacturers of armaments that current wars do. Everyone else realized the army guarded the interests of these groups at his expense—literally. Nor did people swallow any line about the troops’ “protecting” their liberty: these same soldiers also quelled civilians who rioted in protest of the government’s policies.

In some ways, using soldiers may have been friendlier to freedom than a dedicated police force. Sending troops against a citizenry that feared the army kept folks continually on their guard against them. Anyone who tried to portray these armed aliens as allies, in league with honest citizens to defend society from the bad guys, would have been dismissed as a fool.

Robert Peel

Then along came Robert Peel, MP, creator of England’s first police force.

Born in 1788, Peel joined Parliament as a Tory in 1809. His career there hopscotched between the party line and independence. This allows admirers to portray him as principled, while those who understand political power consider him adept at manipulating it. In 1812, as chief secretary for Ireland, he instituted the “Peace Preservation Police.” Ireland foamed then as now with religious-cum-political conflicts, so “peace preservation” translated to quashing resistance to the decrees of King and Parliament.

Peel’s police quashed so successfully that he was appointed home secretary in 1822. This was a troubled decade in England; four years later, a depression crippled the country. Predictably, crime and rioting increased with unemployment, especially in the cities. But, again predictably, this did not sway government to end the mercantilism causing the depression. Instead, as would any astute politician already famous for “solving” a similar problem, Peel called for a committee to investigate the possibilities of a police force in London.

Unfortunately for Peel, the committee wasn’t as astute as he. The first time around it reported that police were by their nature inimical to a free society. Peel sent them back to the drawing board for a more acceptable answer. Not surprisingly, the committee then recommended that the government should act. Specifically, it should organize and augment London’s existing officers.

There were about 450 of these, ranging from magistrates’ “runners” to Marine Police patrolling the Thames for contraband and untaxed goods. Peel consolidated these agents, hired enough new men to bring his number to 1,000, trained them, and put them in uniform as well as on the public’s purse.

Peel also codified nine principles for his police. These ranged from a mission statement (the purpose of the “peelers” or “bobbies,” as they were called in Peel’s honor, was to prevent crime and keep the peace) to the practical tip of securing the public’s cooperation through impartiality and courtesy. But one of Peel’s Principles struck liberty a blistering blow. For the first time, instead of the state’s agents being hurtful and alien, a force snatched from prison and poverty and turned loose on the public by a vengeful king, the bobbies were instead to pose as friends and neighbors. “The police,” Peel insisted, “are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interest of community welfare and existence.”¹²

The new bureaucracy, complete with two commissioners, was up and running by 1829. Given London’s crime wave, it seems reasonable to assume that law-abiding folk welcomed these guardians. Instead, they despised them. Nor did they cooperate with them. They called the bobbies by names far more Anglo-Saxon, sometimes assaulted them, and occasionally killed them. A jury even returned a verdict of “justifiable homicide” for a civilian charged with murdering one.

But just as a man gets used to hanging, so Londoners did to bobbies. Their hostility faded with time. Actually, the public’s feelings about these “members . . . paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen” probably little mattered when it came to continuing the bobbies’ patrols: an ostensibly free country now had an unanswerable excuse—protecting citizens from nongovernmental criminals—for infiltrating and monitoring the population. It would hardly relinquish this immense advantage without prolonged, mass rebellion.

Other governments eagerly watched Britain’s experiment with the intent of copying it. The first American city to do so was New York, in 1853. We might hope that a country founded in freedom would resist paying some citizens to enforce the state’s whims against others. Instead, Philadelphia boasted a force by 1856 and Boston by 1859, despite its rioting just 90 years before against red-coated police. Perhaps the blue coats lulled suspicion.

Preventing Crime

Americans heard the same excuses for the state’s monitoring them as Londoners had—the same excuses, in fact, which prevail today: the police would keep the peace and prevent crime. Never mind that the police have a questionable record of solving, let alone preventing, crime. Typically, police departments in large cities “solve” only 55–65 percent of homicides, though that doesn’t necessarily include apprehending the culprit. Governments have long resorted to asking, even haranguing, the public for help in solving crime; many now host websites listing their failures in the hopes that citizens will ride to the rescue.¹³ And despite New York City’s phalanx of 40,000 cops—an army larger than George Washington ever commanded at one time during the Revolutionary War—17,875 cars were stolen in 2005, a “sharp drop” from previous years.¹⁴

Broken promises have never threatened the existence of police departments, however. That’s because these institutions are extremely useful to the politicians who determine their fate. With the advent of New York City’s first force, politicians rejoiced at having an entire department of voters depend on them for a raise; even more did they appreciate the management positions they could award to influential supporters. They often looked on their city’s cops as political bodyguards, akin to Caesar Augustus’s praetorian guard: during elections, cops made sure the “right” folks voted.

Civil-service rules supposedly eliminated such corruption in the late nineteenth century, but any improvements were offset by the police’s expansion into everyday life. Their consistent presence on the streets attracted the attention of anyone wanting help. Folks who might have relied on family and neighbors turned instead to the patrolman in his noticeable uniform. Police were soon chaperoning lost children, adjudicating domestic disputes, controlling traffic, and even boarding bums in their station houses. Official involvement elevated these matters, sometimes serious but often merely mundane, into crises worthy of their own bureaucracies, fertilizing the growth of municipal governments.¹⁵

In contrast to their eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century forefathers, modern Americans take police for granted, much like driver’s licenses and parking tickets. If they think about them at all, it is not as a standing army quartered among them but as heroes who serve and protect. Even the latest corruption scandal or physical abuse of a prisoner scarcely dents the apathy and mistaken perception. Those who do rail against corruption and abuse seldom question the basic premise behind policing; instead, all that’s required is weeding out the rogues, tinkering with the regulations, and reforming the department yet again.

This is especially tragic given the warped emphasis policing brings to crime. The American judicial apparatus focuses on punishing those who transgress the government’s decrees, either extracting their money for the state or imprisoning them or both. Restoring the criminal’s victim is hardly ever a consideration (perhaps because most “crimes” the state now prosecutes actually have no victims). This contrasts baldly and badly with Anglo-Saxon justice, in which making the victim whole was the sole concern.¹⁶ Neighbors mutually pledged to assist anyone who suffered loss at the hands of a thief or murderer. Once the miscreant was apprehended, the community assessed his guilt and, if satisfied, required him to make restitution. Those criminals who refused faced ostracism, leaving them vulnerable to vengeance from their victims.

Occasionally, a violator was stronger than the community on which he preyed, at which point folks might solicit the king’s help. Early Anglo-Saxon kings maintained a palace guard, though these forces were small in number because the king paid them from his own pocket. Communities began including a royal recompense, then, in the violator’s restitution. But the royal eye quickly recognized a river of revenue in that recompense. This created a perverse incentive to invent more “crimes” with large fines. Gradually, the state arrogated to itself a monopoly on “solving” crime, with its profits trumping the victim’s restitution. That left folks with little reason to report misdeeds beyond the hope that the criminal, if caught, would no longer prey on them, and they quit doing so. The state had the last laugh, though: it became a crime not to report a crime. This permeates practically all American penal codes to this day.

Obviously, government’s interest lies in persuading taxpayers that the police protect them not the state. But the priorities are obvious. How many dollars of stolen goods are returned to citizens versus how many dollars in traffic tickets go to the state?¹⁷ How many political demonstrations are “contained” by the police versus how many stolen cars are recovered? How often is a senator or governor coddled by a police escort when he descends on a town versus how many ordinary folks fear to venture down a dark alley? Indeed, New York City’s percentage of “solved” murders in 2005 plunged perhaps because so many detectives were busy protecting visiting pooh-bahs. Clearly, the state profits far more from the police than do the people.

I once watched a trial in which a policeman was suing the police force that had employed him. He had been fired a few days before he would have retired. This brought his pension in doubt, which in turn brought him into court. His attorney emphasized his client’s valor by insisting that for 20 years he had performed “paramilitary” duties with a “paramilitary” force. He consistently and repeatedly portrayed the police as “paramilitary.”

Tragically, that makes us the “para-enemy.”

As a note here, Mr. Grigg uses the original quote from the 12^th Century Crusade that gave us “Kill them all. Let God sort them out.”

by William Norman Grigg

Recently by William Norman Grigg: The Death of Aiyana Jones: ‘Showtime Syndrome’ Claims a Child

Kevin Weeks was a career criminal employed as a Mob hit man, but even he possessed sufficient good judgment and self-restraint to avoid risking the life of a seven-year-old girl.

In Brutal, his aptly titled memoir of the years he spent working for Boston Mob boss – and protected FBI asset – James “Whitey” Bulger, Weeks describes how he was given an order to assassinate Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr, who relentlessly tormented Bulger in print. Weeks set up a sniper nest near Carr’s home. He had the target set up for the kill, but didn’t pull the trigger because Carr’s daughter, “a little girl, like seven-years-old or so,” was walking hand-in-hand with her father.

“I couldn’t take a chance of the bullet fragmenting and ricocheting or hitting her or just killing her father in front of her,” recounts Weeks.

This episode, admittedly, is retold from the self-serving perspective of a convicted murderer. Ironically, Carr himself, in his valuable book The Brothers Bulger, relates a somewhat similar story of a proposed contract hit that was vetoed by former Boston Mob boss Raymond Patriarca.

Joe Barboza, a hitman employed by Patriarca, pointed out that the hoodlum targeted by the contract lived in a three-story house in Boston. Barboza suggested that he could “break into the basement and pour gasoline all around and torch the place, after which I either get him with the smoke inhalation or I pick him off when he’s climbing out the window.”

“Barboza had worked out a plan for every contingency,” notes Carr. “He would bring three shooters with him, to watch each side of the house. They would cut the telephone lines to the houses, so that the victim couldn’t call the fire department. And just in case one of the neighbors called, before setting the house on fire Barboza planned to phone in false alarms across the city to tie up every fire company.”

Patriarca, who had few compunctions about killing when it suited him, wasn’t keen on Barboza’s plan, in large measure because of the potential harm to non-combatants.

“Patriarca asked Barboza if anyone else lived in [the targeted hoodlum's] house, and Barboza mentioned the victim’s mother,” continues Carr.

“You’re gonna kill his mother too?” asked Patriarca.

“It ain’t my fault she lives there,” the hit man snorted by way of reply.

“Patriarca canceled the contract,” Carr tersely summarizes. Barboza, not surprisingly, proved to be too ruthless and deranged for the Mob, and ended up – like Bulger – as another of the FBI’s protected assets.

It is a monumental pity that the Detroit Special Response Team, or the decision-makers above them in the Detroit PD, didn’t have the sense of proportionality displayed by Mob figures like Kevin Weeks and Raymond Patriarca. If they had, the murder suspect they sought – 34-year-old Chauncey Owens – could have been taken into custody without the midnight paramilitary raid that resulted in the burning and shooting death of seven-year-old Aiyana Jones.

Shortly after midnight on May 16, while Aiyana – a radiant little girl who might have grown up to resemble Zoe Saldana – was sleeping on the downstairs living room sofa where she would be killed just a few minutes later, the raid team gathered for a “safety briefing.”

As described by police sources to the Detroit Free Press, that briefing dealt entirely with considerations of “officer safety,” which – as any honest observer will admit – is the highest and most important consideration in any law enforcement operation.

The raid team “was told there was information that the suspect might be armed, possibly with an assault rifle and a handgun,” reports the Free Press. “Someone said there also might be dangerous dogs and that the house was believed to be a possible dope den.”

Another intelligence source speculated that the unprepossessing duplex might actually be the location of the missing Iraqi WMDs, which had been stored in a basement vault guarded by a basilisk.

No, not really.

But in its anxiety over officer safety, and its eagerness to stage a properly impressive raid for the benefit of the embedded A&E camera crew, the SRT did not take into account “the possibility of any children being present,” despite the fact that the front yard was littered with toys – a clue that even a police officer should be able to recognize – and warnings to that effect offered by neighbors as the raid unfolded.

Street officers and homicide detectives were already on the scene when the SRT’s armored personnel carrier rolled up in front of the duplex.

The APC was driven by Officer Joseph Weekley, who was also the first through the door after a flash-bang grenade had been thrown through the window. Weekley went barreling into the living room armed with a machine gun and protected by a ballistic shield.

Meanwhile, Aiyana – according to at least one eyewitness – was being severely burned by the incendiary grenade that had been thrown into her bed.

It’s not clear whether Aiyana suffered her fatal gunshot wound before or after Weekley entered the house. In either case, Officer Weekley has been identified as the shooter. He initially claimed that his gun accidentally went off during a “scuffle” with Aiyana’s 47-year-old grandmother.

Within a few hours that account was “clarified” by the police, who said that there was incidental “contact” between Weekley and Aiyana’s grandmother; the latter denies having contact of any kind with Weekley.

Geoffrey Fieger, the attorney representing Aiyana’s family, claims to have seen a videotape of the raid showing that the shot was fired into the house shortly after the grenade was hurled through the downstairs window.

Chauncey Owens, who has been charged with the murder of 17-year-old Je’Rean Blake, was arrested in the upstairs flat, a separate domicile from the one in which Aiyana was killed. Prior to the SRT raid, Owens had been seen on the streets near the duplex. There was no reason – well, none not dictated by the demands of Homeland Security Theater – to mount a midnight paramilitary operation to take Owens into custody.

Why wasn’t an effort made to arrest him on the streets – after staking out the duplex, if necessary? That question, of course, fails to take into account the “reality TV” camera crew. Once that factor is considered, it’s a matter of res ipsa loquitir.

A&E’s Detroit SWAT program made Joseph Weekley a television star. The May 16 raid, as some veteran police officers might put it, wasn’t Weekley’s first rodeo. Nor was this the first time his conduct put children at severe risk.

Weekley took part in a February 2007 SRT raid on a Detroit residence occupied by several children. A lawsuit filed on behalf of the family claims that the SRT gunned down two dogs “without any justifiable reason whatsoever,” and that during the operation the officers “had their guns pointed at … [a] child and [an] infant.”

In that 2007 raid Weekley and his comrades were pursuing a suspect in an armed robbery. As was the case last Sunday, the SRT wasn’t dealing with a hostage situation or a barricaded shooter, let alone a heavily armed serial killer on a rampage. None of the people terrorized by the raid and detained at gunpoint was charged in connection with the crime. At least in that earlier incident, the SRT – in what appears to be an example of unwonted restraint – declined to use a flash-bang grenade.

Paramilitary units like the Detroit SRT are used to carry out what are described as “high-risk” operations. This description is generally true – when applied to those targeted by the raids; the risks experienced by the heavily armed raiders in body armor are minuscule.

On average, between 100–150 such raids take place every day in this supposedly free country. Most of them are narcotics enforcement actions against people involved in non-violent, consensual behavior. Typically, the only “risk” confronted by law enforcement personnel in such circumstances is the possibility that if they knock on the door and present their warrant the evidence will disappear down the toilet. Under this order of priorities, the convenience of prosecutors enforcing asinine drug laws is served at the expense of those brutalized and often killed without reason in their own homes.

The decision to carry out a SRT raid was almost certainly dictated by the media ambitions of Detroit Police Chief Warren Evans, who – in the words of Detroit News columnist Charlie LeDuff – is positioning himself as a “reality TV” star.

“Television executives around the country have been shown what is known in television parlance as the ‘sizzle reel’ of Chief Evans himself, a video compilation of Detroit’s top cop trying to take back the streets,” writes LeDuff, who saw that footage several weeks ago. “It is part of a pitch for a full-blown television series.”

As Detroit’s civic and economic implosion accelerates, the city has become an irresistible setting for state-centric media outlets “peddling mayhem,” continues LeDuff. “Spike TV featured the Detroit bureau of the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2008. A&E is taping a season of ‘Parking Wars’ here; production on a series about the Fire Department wrapped late last year. Even Animal Planet is in on the deal with ‘Animal Cops Detroit.’”

Chief Evans’ “reality” show pitch begins with the uniformed bureaucrat “gripping a semi-automatic rifle, standing in front of crumbling Michigan Central Depot, staring down a camera and declaring that he’ll do whatever it takes to take his city back from crime. The camera will tag along with Warren Evans as he goes on house raids, smokes cigars with his underlings and recalls words to live by told to him by his mother.”

LeDuff’s disclosures do much to explain why the A&E camera crew went along on the SRT raid that killed Aiyana Jones, and why the Department chose to stage a midnight “Shock and Awe” operation rather than quietly bringing in the suspect.

Aiyana Jones was killed because the Detroit PD wanted to boost Chief Evans’s Q Score.

Nearly two decades ago, millions of Americans were mortified by the assault on Randy Weaver’s family in northern Idaho and the federal siege of the Branch Davidians at Mt. Carmel.

In the first atrocity, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi proved – by gunning down a nursing mother who was cradling her infant daughter – that he wasn’t burdened with the scruples that prevented Kevin Weeks from pulling the trigger on Howie Carr.

The latter episode ended with the FBI (aided by the Delta Force) carrying out – on a much larger scale – an arson/murder plan very similar to the one proposed by Mob hit man Joe Barboza, and vetoed by Mob boss Raymond Patriarca. As Barboza proposed, the Feds pumped the Branch Davidian dwelling full of gas and, when the fire erupted, used snipers to pick off anybody attempting to flee the holocaust. They even interdicted fire and emergency crews while the victims burned and suffocated.

Waco and Ruby Ridge were anomalous only in the sense that they were large, well-publicized versions of the daily acts of state terrorism carried out by the Regime, both here and abroad. Pashtun and Tajik families terrorized by Special Forces raids in Afghanistan could profitably compare notes with survivors of SWAT raids in the United States.

Jason Moon, who served with the U.S. Army in Iraq, brought back a video in which a sergeant told his troops that “The difference between an insurgent and an Iraqi civilian is whether they are dead or alive.” For the benefit of those who fail to take that sergeant’s meaning, Moon explains: “If you kill a civilian he becomes an insurgent because you retroactively make that person a threat.”

Jason Washburn, who served three tours in Iraq, has recounted how troops were encouraged to carry “drop guns” to be deposited near newly-minted “insurgents”; eventually, this instruction was modified to permit “drop shovels,” since a solider in the heat of combat must assume that someone armed with a shovel was planting an IED, and the holy imperative of “force protection” dictates that he take no chances.

By his third tour of Iraq, recounts Marine Jason Wayne Lemue, the rules of engagement had achieved a certain compelling clarity: “[W]e were told to just shoot people and the officers would take care of us.”

Terrifying as all of this is, the really bad news is that there is substantial reason to believe that there are fewer restrictions on the use of lethal force by domestic paramilitary police than there are on U.S. military personnel operating overseas.

This trend will likely grow much worse when the Homeland Security Apparatus is filled with veterans of the Empire’s current foreign campaigns. You know, the kind of people who can blithely dismiss the anguish of a father whose children have been gunned down by foreign invaders by saying, “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their children to a battle.”

I can’t help but see just a hint of that casual sadism in the following detail regarding the death of Aiyana Jones: Charles Jones recalls that after he heard a flash grenade followed by a gunshot, he rushed into the living room, where “police forced him to lie on the ground, with his face in his daughter’s blood.”

It was a terrible thing, of course. But at least the troops were safe. And, as Joe Barboza might observe, it wasn’t the SRT’s fault that Aiyana lived there.

It was announced today Oct. 24,2009 that President Barack Obama signed into law a Declaration. The declaration that Obama signed late Friday authorized Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to bypass federal rules.

“As a nation, we have prepared at all levels of government, and as individuals and communities, taking unprecedented steps to counter the emerging pandemic,” Obama wrote in the declaration, which the White House announced Saturday.

Lets us all hope, this isnt what we have been expecting in the last several months. Illegal Forced Vaccinations, unwarranted martial law, illegal search and seizure, detention without just cause.

Here is a list of laws Relating to National Emergency Laws.
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Assistance And Emergency Relief Act

13CFR123.1 Chapter I–Small Business Administration Part 123–Disaster Loan Program

United States Code TITLE 50 – WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 34 – NATIONAL EMERGENCIES

Executive Orders

Executive Order 10995
Assigning Telecommunications Management Functions

Executive Order 10997
Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions To The Secretary Of The Interior:
electric power, petroleum and gas, solid fuels, and minerals

Executive Order 10998
Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions To the Secretary Of Agriculture
Food resources, farm equipment, fertilizer, and food resource facilities

Executive Order 10999
Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions To The Secretary Of Commerce
transportation, the production and distribution of all materials

Executive Order 11000
Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions To The Secretary Of Labor
Manpower management employment stabilization

Executive Order 11001
Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions To The Secretary Of Health, Education, And Welfare
health services, civilian health manpower, health resources, welfare services, and educational programs

Executive Order 11002
Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions To The Postmaster General
national emergency registration system

Executive Order 11003
Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions To The Administrator Of The Federal Aviation Agency
emergency management of the Nation’s airports, operating facilities

Executive Order 11004
Assigning Certain Emergency Preparedness Functions To The Housing And Home Finance Administrator
all aspects of lodging or housing and community facilities

Executive Order 11005
Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions To The Interstate Commerce Commission
railroad utilization, motor carrier utilization, inland waterway utilization

Executive Order 11051
Prescribing Responsibilities Of The Office Of Emergency Planning In The Executive Office Of The President

Executive Order 11490
Assigning emergency preparedness functions to Federal departments and agencies

Executive Order 12472
Assignment of national security and emergency preparedness telecommunications functions.
In order to provide for the consolidation of assignment and responsibility for improved execution of national security and emergency preparedness telecommunications functions, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Executive Order 12656
Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities
National Security Emergency Preparedness Policy: Continuity of Government

Executive Order 12919
National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness

(a) Identify requirements for national emergencies, including military, industrial, and essential civilian demand

(b) Assess continually the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of adequate industrial resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;

(c) Be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate industrial resources and production capability, including services and critical technology for national defense requirements;

(d) Improve the efficiency and responsiveness, to defense requirements, of the domestic industrial base; and

(e) Foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.

Executive Order 12938
Proliferation Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction
weapons of mass destruction constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Executive Order 13074
Amends Executive Order 12656 adding a new section 501(16) regarding Noncombatant Evacuation Operations

“The President has the power to seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, call reserve forces amounting to 2 1/2 million men to duty, institute martial law, seize and control all means of transportation, regulate all private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all Americans…

Most [of these laws] remain a a potential source of virtually unlimited power for a President should he choose to activate them. It is possible that some future President could exercise this vast authority in an attempt to place the United States under authoritarian rule.

While the danger of a dictatorship arising through legal means may seem remote to us today, recent history records Hitler seizing control through the use of the emergency powers provisions contained in the laws of the Wiemar Republic.”

Whether the argument is pointless, or if there is something to be learned, the most crucial part of this whole miasma is that the courts are consistently telling the People that they have no right to ask, or that a questionable single document is enough to satisfy the Constitutional question.

I don’t have access to any of the records that would be considered critical, and neither does anyone I know. We are told that they are there, but none of us are allowed to see them.

Why are the president and the Democratic Party spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep his records secure? I don’t know how many of you have applied for a job recently in any critical sector, but your potential employer is doing a thorough background check on who you are, and that includes what your credit might look like.

Some apartment owners, probably most, in New York are doing background checks in accordance with standards set through Sarbanes-Oxley. You, or I, can’t even get on a plane without them, those fun folks at the airports, doing an investigation of what we have on our person, questioning everything including a tool as essential as a nail clipper.

So why is that we should just shut our mouth when it comes to the highly suspect activity surrounding Obama’s records? Is there something to hide? Congressman Trent Franks is convinced that Obama is qualified, but that there is something that must be resolved.

World Net Daily has been on the case from the outset, long before Obama even had the nomination to be president.

Congressman Franks is convinced, based on a couple of newspaper clippings that Obama is indeed qualified. For heck’s sake congressman, are you also convinced that you should be sending a 1040 to the IRS?

Let me rephrase that. Are you also convinced that you should be sending a form that violates 44 U.S.C. 3500 – 3520, to an entity that the Supreme Court once observed had not been created by an act of congress? Or should we be taxing the people of this country into oblivion in order to bail out institutions that have caused an economic crisis from which we may not be able to recover?

And maybe we should give more power to an institution, the Federal Reserve, which you pretend is actually a part of the government while we’re at it. And while we are at it, which we are, lets bail out a bunch of foreign banks to boot.

Back to the point of Obama. We know one thing for sure; government officials lie, and the major media swears to it.

The problems we face from the vetting of Obama’s qualification will not go away with a real and true copy of the original birth certificate because the issue has gone on too long with the government telling the people that we have no right to pose such questions, or to demand a response. Those are fighting words where I come from, but we are all too willing to lie down at the foot of some judge who has no more authority than does any individual sovereign.

Now another point has come to light in this struggle to find the truth. There is now information coming from Hawaii officials that Obama’s records have been amended. Devvy Kidd has written an article OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY: HOW DEEP DOES THE CORRUPTION GO? Read it as it is important you at least understand the issue is simply not the question of eligibility, but of a broad based fraud.

I have written this short article for one purpose, and that is to address the question of the major media. I have been asked on more than one occasion, “Don’t you think that if this had any teeth, people like Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity would be all over it?”

No, I don’t believe that either would jeopardize the lucrative positions that they have attained for themselves. Nor do I believe that the American media represents in any form an honest enterprise seeking to divulge the truth to their listeners, viewers, or readers.

Scrupulous and straightforward reporting has not been part of the American landscape for decades. Journalists are no longer people of honor, but rather they are propagandists making huge sums of money to look good and deliver the information needed to keep you in the dark.

There is nothing we can do. I can’t vote for a third party because I’m throwing my vote away. You can’t fight City Hall. I have heard all the tripe for too long and far too many times. Your congress critter, and the minions that permeate government are counting on the fact that you are convinced nothing can be done. More importantly, they are counting on the fact that you have completely lost touch with the spirit of the American Revolution.

‘Nick’

VIDEO

Damon W. Root

President Barack Obama’s announcement that he wants federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter comes as something less than a shock. For months, Sotomayor’s name has topped most lists of potential candidates. With her compelling personal story, which stretches from a Bronx, New York housing project to Yale Law School to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Sotomayor’s likely appointment as the Court’s first Hispanic justice nicely complements Obama’s own “only in America” narrative.

But when it comes to her judicial philosophy, there are some real causes for concern. In particular, on the hot-button issues of affirmative action and Second Amendment rights, her record suggests a decidedly illiberal vision of constitutional law.

Consider affirmative action. Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Ricci v. Destefano, which centered on charges of reverse discrimination at the New Haven, Connecticut fire department. In 2003 the department administered a test to fill 15 captain and lieutenant vacancies, but when the results came in, no African Americans made the cut (14 whites and one Hispanic earned the top scores). In response to local pressure, the city then refused to certify the results and decided instead to leave the positions open until a suitable new test was developed. This prompted a lawsuit from a group of white firefighters who had been denied promotion, including lead plaintiff Frank Ricci, a 34-year-old dyslexic who says he spent months preparing for the now-voided test by listening to audiotape study guides as he drove to work.

Ricci’s suit was initially thrown out at the district court level, prompting an appeal to the Second Circuit. At that point Sotomayor joined in an unsigned opinion embracing the district court’s analysis without offering any analysis of its own. This prompted fellow Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes-a liberal Democrat appointed by President Bill Clinton-to issue a stern rebuke. “The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case,” Cabranes wrote. “This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”

It’s an important point. Ricci gets at the very heart of the debate over whether the Constitution should be interpreted as a colorblind document. As the liberal legal commenter Emily Bazelon noted at Slate, “If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes’ ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed.” Given that the Court is likely to side with Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs, Sotomayor’s silent endorsement of New Haven’s reverse discrimination is certain to come back to haunt her during her confirmation hearings.

Equally troubling is Sotomayor’s record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. At issue was a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks. After last year’s District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down DC’s handgun ban, attention turned to whether state and local gun control laws might violate the Second Amendment as well.

“It is settled law,” Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, “that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.” But contrast that with the Ninth Circuit’s decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which reached a very different conclusion, one that matches the Second Amendment’s text, original meaning, and history:

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.

This split between the two circuits means that the Supreme Court is almost certain to take up the question in the near future. What role might soon-to-be Justice Sotomayor play? As gun rights scholar and Independence Institute Research Director Dave Kopel told me via email, Sotomayor’s opinions “demonstrate a profound hostility to Second Amendment rights. If we follow Senator Obama’s principle that Senators should vote against judges whose views on legal issues are harmful, then it is hard to see how someone who supports Second Amendment rights could vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor.”

As a respected jurist with an impressive legal resume, Sotomayor appears just as qualified to sit on the Supreme Court as any recent nominee. But from the standpoint of individual liberty and limited constitutional government, there are significant reasons to be wary of her nomination.

Damon W. Root is a Reason associate editor.

GPS Marking of Every House in U.S. Not Authorized by

Supreme Law of the Land

By: David Deschesne,

Editor/Publisher, Fort Fairfield Journal May 6, 2009, page 1

The U.S. Census Bureau has been overstepping the U.S. Constitution’s requirements for a simple enumeration of the citizens for years, but their current plans to mark the GPS location of every address in the U.S. is just the latest in a long list of usurpations of the General Government’s Constitutional authority.

The Bureau of Census is sending its army of workers to every address in the United States within the next couple of months in order to log the Global Positioning System (GPS) location of every American citizen’s home.

Cataloging the physical location of people’s homes is far removed from the Constitutional grant of authority to the government to merely count how many people are living in the several states in order to assign an appropriate number of Representatives to them in the U.S. House of Representatives¹ so, there must be another purpose for this action.

The term “Census” is Latin for to appraise or to assess a value thereon. In Roman history it was a registration or count of citizens and their property to determine taxation.”²

The spirit of the word ‘Census,’ as to appraise or assess a value on the citizens’ labor and their property, does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, only an enumeration (counting) of people every ten years in order to appropriate Representatives.

The Bureau of Census is a relatively new creation, not actually in existence in the beginning of the United States. It was established temporarily in 1899 and as a permanent office within the Department of Interior in 1902, just a few years prior to our nation surrendering its money supply to a private cabal of international banks. In 1903, the Bureau of Census – now functioning as a de facto “Bureau of Appraisals” was absorbed by the newly created Department of Commerce and Labor, which was later separated into two separate departments. The Bureau of Census (Appraisals) was reorganized in 1950 and remains in the Commerce Department to this day.³

Congress created the Bureau of Census (Appraisals) to begin the laborious task of cataloging, serial numbering and tracking the value of all personal and business property in the United States, as well as the humans therein for the purposes of appraising their value and preparing them for use as collateral against the nation’s debt under a proposed fiat debt money scheme to be implemented later on in 1913.

Ten years after its inception, the Department of Commerce was restructured as a stand-alone entity separating Labor into its own Department (15 USC 1501). The private, for-profit corporation, known as the Federal Reserve System was formed in the same year as the restructuring of the Department of Commerce. Under the new Federal Reserve System’s plan, all new money would be brought into existence via loans to the government and citizens. The Bureau of Census (Appraisals), as a division of the Department of Commerce, is charged with keeping track of the number of human chattels whose labor is pledged against the national debt via the Federal income tax. The Bureau of Census (Appraisals) also appraises and keeps track of manufacturers, mineral industries, distributive trades, construction industries, agriculture, religious organizations and transportation. All towns, cities, and municipalities are required to annually submit a report of all new construction, multi-family units, new businesses, and any losses to the Bureau of Census (Appraisals) for the purposes of keeping a current valuation of all property in the United States.⁴

Just prior to the bankruptcy of the United States in June, 1933, the Bureau of Census (Appraisals) undertook a bold new venture. During the month of April, 1930, over 100,000 persons were engaged in taking the census. At that time the usual questions regarding race, color, sex, age, occupation, whether married or single, and whether able to write were asked. In addition were such questions as the value of your home and whether owned or rented, whether you were the owner of a radio, and detailed questions regarding unemployment.⁵ This information was needed in order to assess a value on the chattels and collateral the Federal Reserve banks needed before loaning money to the soon to be bankrupt U.S. government.

The Under Secretary for Economic Affairs compiles all Census data and makes it available to those who are in need of it – such as banks seeking to determine how well a state or geographic area of people are able to collateralize a bond issue (loan) with their currently existing labor and property.

The current scheme of using unwitting census workers to mark the GPS location of every address in the United States, under the banner of a Constitutional enumeration of the citizens, has nothing to do with counting people in order to appropriate Representatives to Congress. Instead, it appears to be an unconstitutional ploy to catalog and track all citizens’ property which has been pledged to the banks and creditors who hold the notes on the United States’ now $11+ trillion national debt.

“We are using the GPS data to help our census takers find your home when they come around next year,” said one census worker. However, when asked since she was able to find the person’s house without a GPS coordinate to begin with, why was a GPS coordinate necessary for another census worker, she was unable to explain.

Some have speculated that the GPS coordinates are for the Federal Government’s future use in silencing protestors, confiscating firearms or foreclosing on homes on behalf of the foreign banks and countries who have loaned the U.S. trillions of dollars in unpayable debt. Whatever this government’s intentions are, history has shown they are not benevolent.

The Fort Fairfield Journal contacted Paul Powell, Partnership Coordinator for the Boston Regional Census Center to ask what Constitutional authority the Bureau of Census had to catalog GPS coordinates, what the information was being used for, what other information was being collected about the address at the time the GPS coordinates were taken, and what steps the Bureau of Census was taking to protect the privacy of those who chose not to allow their home to be cataloged as such. Mr. Powell acknowledged receiving the questions, but refused to comment or provide answers.

While the Bureau of Census (Appraisals) may have enacting legislation to grant its authority by fiat, the U.S. Constitution has granted no power to the Federal government to do anything other than count people, with respect to the Census. Therefore, the Census workers’ cataloging the GPS positions of every home address in the U.S. is blatantly unlawful activity initiated on behalf of the private banking industry now running Congress. According to the 10th amendment, any power not granted to the Federal government, or prohibited by the Constitution to the States, is reserved to the States or the people respectively.

^Notes

^{1. see U.S. Const., Article 1, Sec. 1, Clause 3.}

^{2. World Book Dictionary/Thorndike Barnhart; 1969 ed. ©1969 Doubleday & Company Inc., p. 333.}

^{3. U.S. Government Manual 2000-2001, p. 608}

^{4. op. cit., p. 137}

^{5. see MacGruder’s American Government, ©1939 Allyn and Bacon, pp. 285-286.}

The following is a resolution proposed in the New Hampshire legislature. It is aimed at reclaiming the sovereignty of the people through the power that is granted to the state, which is endorsed with the power to protect the rights of the citizen through the 10^th Amendment.

This is a subject that has been completely ignored by the major media.

It is also interesting to note that there are currently a total of 5 states with such a resolution on the table, and one other state, Montana, which has proposed the revitalization of the Militia in accordance with constitutional mandates.

HCR 6 – AS INTRODUCED

2009 SESSION

09-0274

09/01

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9; Sen. Denley, Dist 3

COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs

ANALYSIS

This house concurrent resolution affirms States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

09-0274

09/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and

Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and

Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and

Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “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,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and

That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “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;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; and

That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction; and

That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories; and

That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or person who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of the General Court; and

That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.

I am certain that when Alice went down the rabbit-hole she did not expect to encounter the odd and mysterious creatures that inhabited the world that came from the mind of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, or as most know him, Lewis Carroll.

In twists and turns of a fanciful adventure, Alice wanders through a world filled with surprises, something akin to our current state of affairs.

Decades ago the American people, along with most of the known world, were duped into adventures in economics that were devised and cultivated by the banking cartel. Down a hole we fell as paper flew off the printing presses of the central governments in order to fuel what appeared to be prosperity.

As Alice learned in her adventures, not everything is real, not everything is for the better, and at some point it is out the hole and back into reality. For the young Miss who traveled about in Carroll’s mind there was an end to a fairytale meant to amuse, and delight. For the people of this globe the current monetary system is not a tale to brighten our day, or make our lives simpler, and better. One might even be wary enough to realize that the banking cartel is pushing us to a global form of feudalism.

There are always answers to questions that were never asked in the first place, and solutions to problems that did not exist. The solution to the expansion of real property was to create a Fiat Monetary System. The question not asked from the outset was who would benefit from the solution?

Facts and figures do not lie. Putting together balance sheets would be impossible in a paper money system without a little tweak hear, and a little twist there. The tweaking had to start somewhere so the congress of the United States gave us a bank that they pretended was a central bank of the Federal Government. They did so by calling it Federal. They neglected to inform the people that it actually had nothing to do with the government of the United States other than to lend it money that was created out of thin air.

The current congress of the United States gave the banking cartel a bailout of some Seven Hundred Billion Dollars, and they neglected to tell the people that the number actually had nothing to do with real figures, or that the American people had nothing to say about how much would actually be taken from their pockets. At present, there are estimates that the number is already in the trillions, and could reach into the tens-of-trillions.

Mr. Carroll created mysterious, and fanciful characters to amuse and delight the minds of children. Our banking system creates money out of thin air in order to vanquish, and impoverish the people who fall victim to a cartel of unimaginable greed.

The solution to the problem, turn to the same people that created the disaster, and then depend on the perpetrators to resolve the issues. In that vane we have just elected the president of the world, who with twisted word, and convoluted promises akin to the ramblings of a Mad Hatter, has seduced the masses into believing that he is some sort of deity.

We continued our way down the rabbit hole on Tuesday, January 20, 2009, through the inauguration of Barack Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka a few other names, on the heels of a celebration for a truly great man, Martin Luther King.

Dr. King was a man who believed in the spirit of freedom. He believed in the individual, not just blacks, but also every man. He knew the evil of government, and often spoke out against the atrocities that are created by all governments, no matter how good they appear to be on the surface. Dr. King attempted to enlighten the American people, from the poor of the ghetto, to anyone who would listen and throw off the blinders.

We have come to a point of desperation. As each day passes the economic news deteriorates sending ten of thousands to the ranks of the unemployed. The food banks are being depleted, and our businesses are shutting their doors in record numbers.

There comes a time when all around appears to be dark, and unexplainable. There is dread for many while others sit complacently by as the nation falls prey to the schemes of the wicket that seem to control the day-to-day occurrences. Our future, the future of this nation lies in the balance if we are unable to act.

We are at war in lands far from our native soil. Many of our soldiers come home tired, sick, and hurting from the ravages of depleted uranium that has savaged the nations we now occupy. Our coffers have been sacked by bailouts, foreign aid, benefits to illegal aliens, and a never-ending war against the boogey man.

Billions more are being spent on unlawful agencies designed to quell domestic unrest while the military now stations troops inside our own borders for the purpose of helping with checkpoints for drunk drivers, and other pretend purposes. Make no mistake; they are here to put down domestic insurrection.

All this is taking places right under the noses of a complacent and ambivalent American public that long ago lost its desire to be free. We have been duped into believing that government serves some purpose other than to adhere to the rule of law and protect our rights rather than abuse them.

It is times such as these that men like Dr. King are missed. “The truth of these words is beyond doubt but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.”

So here we sit in the midst of a constitutional, economic, and moral crisis unable to differentiate fact from fiction as the wild and strange creatures that inhabit our capitals create chaos, and dissention.

America was once a great Constitutional Federal Republic consigned to the equality of justice that was established in the common law. Now it is a democracy wherein the greedy, the selfish, and the ignorant trample on the rights of our neighbors, and the graves of those who gave their lives to preserve freedom.

Self-reliance has turned to government programs for a myriad of different aspects of our lives. Each time we sign a government form we give away a bit more of our freedom, but that is not enough for the powers-that-be. They have decided to fluoridate our water so we are more docile; the same drug used in the Nazi concentration camps to keep the prisoners compliant.

They have decided that parents are not allowed to raise their children as they wish. They teach them agenda in school, and vaccinate our children so that they are more susceptible to immune deficiency, and the ever-growing problem of Autism.

Our food supply is being tainted by genetic modification, and cloning. Our lives are licensed at every level to the point we can’t add a fixture to our home without the authorization of the local municipality. Our property can be taken at any time if there is government employee who sees an opportunity to take what belongs to another, and make a profit under the guise of Eminent Domain.

All these things are being done at the point of a gun. So what do we do? We elect a president who wants to relieve us of any ability we may have to resist by force. The most draconian gun laws are already in the works under the new completely controlled socialist congress. And what will our state legislators and governors do about it? They will conform. They will comply, and they will send in the foot soldiers to relieve you of your property and your ability to defend.

We are the darker side of Lewis Carroll’s imagination. Strange creatures that are not meant to produce fanciful thoughts in the minds of youngsters, but rather evil apparitions that come from the legends of horror.

The nightmare began sometime ago for a few of us, but it will come to all. It will affect all those who believe for the sake of believing, and all of those who hope with nothing more than hope as their goal.

‘Nick’

PART 1 of 3

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

December 29, 2008

(Reprinted with permission)

A militarized police state is coming to this country-into your own neighborhood, and with you and your family as its targets-unless you start, right now, to enforce the Constitution, as is your right and your duty.

In addition to their long-standing strategy of “federalizing” and para-militarizing State and Local police departments under the General Government’s Department of Homeland Security, the big brains in the Disgrace of Columbia have two additional schemes openly in the works: (i) the overtly military, which depends upon the deployment of the Armed Forces as domestic police; and (ii) the covertly military, which depends upon the creation of some new, ostensibly civilian, “national-security force.”

The question is, “What should patriotic Americans do about this situation?”

[A] The government of the United States is a type of political machinery. When in doubt about how to use any piece of machinery safely and effectively, the prudent operator should first consult the manufacturer’s set of instructions-in this case, the Constitution. The Constitution explicitly provides for four, and only four, “homeland-security” establishments:

(i) “the Militia of the several States” [Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16; Article II, Section 2, Clause 1; and the Second Amendment];
(ii) “Armies” [Article I, Section 8, Clause 12];
(iii) “a Navy” [Article I, Section 8, Clause 13]; and
(iv) “Troops” and “Ships of War” that the States may “keep * * * in time of Peace”, but only “with[ ] the Consent of Congress” [Article I, Section 10, Clause 3].

Of these, only the Militia are described as “necessary” for “security”: “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” [Amendment II]. And not just for “security” in some general sense, but specifically for “the security of a free State.” The Second Amendment, through the Militia, guarantees an actual “State,” with independence and sovereignty-not just some impotent subdivision of a regional or global supra-national conglomeration in which each constituent nation has lost its original unique identity and authority for self-governance. And the Second Amendment, through the Militia, guarantees “a free State”-a State in which the people actually (not merely theoretically) govern themselves, because that is the only form of political organization entitled to the adjective “free.” Thus, the Second Amendment, through the Militia, preserves America’s entire political system, including the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of all the States.

Besides being uniquely “necessary,” the Militia are also the only permanent “homeland-security” establishments the Constitution mandates. Congress is not required “[t]o raise and support Armies” or “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy,” or to allow the States to “keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,” if any or all of those forces are not deemed “necessary and proper” under the circumstances [see Article I, Section 8, Clause 18]. But neither Congress nor the States may dispense with “the Militia of the several States,” which the Constitution recognizes as preëxisting its own ratification and presumes will continue in existence indefinitely.

The Militia are permanent because they are composed of We the People themselves. Constitutions and governments may come and go; but the People remain. Thus, the Militia are the only constitutional “homeland-security” establishments with any claim to the title “democratic” (in the good sense of that adjective).

The People govern themselves if they, and they alone, exercise supreme political power. In the final analysis, opined Mao Tse-tung rightly, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” The Militia are composed of We the People in their entirety-armed, organized, disciplined, and trained to wield the Power of the Sword. Therefore, the Militia constitute the ultimate embodiment of popular self-government. Indeed, popular self-government is impossible without the Militia.

Not surprisingly then, the Constitution expressly delegates to the Militia the authority and responsibility “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” [Article I, Section 8, Clause 15]. As self-governors, We the People must exercise the ultimate power to execute the laws, because directly or indirectly they make all the laws. From the point of view of human sovereignty, We the People are the law-subject only to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

The President, too, has the constitutional responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” [Article II, Section 3]. And to enable him to perform this duty, the Constitution appoints him as “Commander in Chief * * * of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” [Article II, Section 2, Clause 1]. Revealingly, though, the Militia’s subordination to the President can occur only “when [they are] called into the actual Service of the United States.” Otherwise, the Militia are subject to the command of only their own officers-because the Constitution “reserv[es] to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers” [Article I, Section 8, Clause 16].

The limiting adjective “actual” appeared in only one other place in the original Constitution: namely, the “actual Enumeration” on the basis of which “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States”(Article I, Section 2, Clause 3). But its use was not continued when that provision was reformed by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. So the now unique presence of that adjective as a condition to the President’s rightful exercise of his authority as “Commander in Chief * * * of the Militia” must have no little significance.

In that context, “actual” means “existing in fact,” “current,”"not spurious,” “real,” “genuine.” Thus, the requirement that the Militia come under the President’s command solely in “the actual Service of the United States” provides a safeguard against any rogue President’s usurpation and tyranny. The requirement of “actual Service” authorizes the Militia, on explicit constitutional grounds, to ascertain for themselves whether any purported commands from such a President relate, at that time and in fact, to genuine, as opposed to spurious or pretended, “Service” in the real national interest-that is, the national interest as We the People understand it. That is eminently sensible. For who else is qualified to make that ultimate determination? If a rogue President and his partisans amongst equally rogue Members of Congress were entitled to say, without fear of legally effective contradiction from the individuals called upon to perform the “Service”, that the “Service” were indeed “actual”, no need would exist for the word “actual” to appear at all. But, “‘[i]n expounding the Constitution * * *, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added.’” Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553, 572-573 (1933). Therefore, the requirement of “actual Service” reflects and reinforces the Second Amendment’s definition of the Militia’s purpose: “the security of a free State,” a “State” in which the People really and genuinely govern themselves, particularly with respect to the critical decision to employ their own martial force in the “Service” of “the common defence.”

In addition, because the Militia, in and through the performance of their rightful functions, are “necessary to the security of a free State,” they have an absolute constitutional duty, as well as a constitutional right, to refuse to accede to commands from a rogue President that are unrelated to, let alone contradictory of, “the actual Service of the United States.” More than that, if the Militia are “called into the [purported, but false] Service of the United States,” they become the subjects of an unconstitutional act committed in their very presences, because that false “call[ ]” attempts to involve them directly and instrumentally in an illegal enterprise. In those circumstances, they plainly have the authority and the responsibility sine die et per sese “to execute the Laws of the Union” then and there-both in their own self-defense and in the names of their States and of the United States-against the perpetrators of that improper “call[ ]” along with all the latters’ co-conspirators and accomplices, whoever they may be.

All this, of course, is not a matter solely of constitutional theory. The Constitution incorporates the Militia into its federal system because the Founding Fathers were familiar with the Militia’s practical indispensability in many “homeland-security” capacities. Today, the Militia have the opportunity to demonstrate their usefulness in more areas than ever before. For example-

Fully revitalized Militia will provide literally millions of individuals to patrol streets, malls, public places and buildings, and sensitive private businesses-thus maximizing deterrence against both terrorists and common criminals.

Because the Militia are composed of every adult in the community, their revitalization will result in ferreting out every illegal alien who makes his presence known to anyone in any community.

The Militia will stress Local preparedness, independence, and self-reliance in every form, from providing an inventory of the work necessary to repair and upgrade crumbling infrastructure; to securing supplies of food, fuel, medicines, and other critical materials adequate for any emergency; to developing systems of production, distribution, and consumption that the people themselves control, secure from manipulations by outside speculators; to putting into use an alternative constitutional and economically sound monetary system that will protect common Americans from the inevitable and unavoidable collapse of the Federal Reserve System.

With the Militia monitoring polling places and verifying and counting paper ballots, the present-day scourge of voting fraud will end.

Because all elected public officials, police, and bureaucrats will be members of the Militia (albeit exempted from performing most normal Militia duties while serving in those positions), and therefore will be subject to investigation by the Militia for whatever infractions of the law may be credibly alleged against them, political corruption, police brutality, and “the insolence of office” so widespread, entrenched, and uncontrollable today will receive swift, sure, and severe exposure and punishment. And,

When young adults, through Militia discipline and training, recognize that they are being prepared to direct their country’s future under their own authority and in their own interest-when they understand the personal as well as the public purpose and benefit of and from patriotism-then the level of aimlessness, dissipation, drug use, and gang violence so prevalent among today’s youth will shrink into insignificance.

Regrettably, this picture of real social progress and “change we can believe in” because common Americans would themselves cause it to happen is at present no more than visionary. Although the Constitution requires that all able-bodied adult Americans (not subject to exclusion for some constitutionally acceptable reason) be organized in some manner in “the Militia of the several States,” Congress and the States’ legislatures have consigned the vast majority of Americans to the oxymoronic “unorganized militia.” Although the Constitution requires that all members of the Militia (other than conscientious objectors) possess firearms equivalent in firepower to those carried by at least light-infantry units in the Armed Forces, Congress has enacted statutes (in which the States acquiesce) that make it very difficult if not impossible for average Americans to acquire such firearms-and the Supreme Court in the recent Heller case has endorsed this situation (albeit only in dicta), even while pretending to uphold “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” Although the Constitution requires training the Militia in order to prepare common Americans to deal-according to the principles of self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and particularly self-governance-with “homeland-security” problems in their States and Localities, no such programs are in general operation, preparation, planning, conception, or even contemplation. And although the Constitution recognizes no professional “police forces” whatsoever-whether attached to the General Government, the States, or Localities-the States treat their “police forces” as independent of and even superior to their (largely nonexistent) Militia, when constitutionally if “police forces” may exist at all they must be specialized units within, and ultimately subject to control by, the Militia. For part two click below.

Click here for part —–> 1, 2, 3,

© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved