FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

There is no valid argument for the destruction of our planet and any form of life on it.As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world - that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves. Be the change that you want to see in the world.

Unity is the key to Freedom

One can unite with an idea, two can agree and work together. To share knowledge or an “ideal”, absolutely nothing is lost in the giving, just the opposite the knowledge is expanded. The one who receives gains, the one who gives loses nothing, actually the giver gains a compatriot. So unity is the answer. But, ( there’s always a but, right?) given that the “system” we want to change is VERY adept at the use of force, uses that most of us are not totally aware of. The “unity” that we spoke of must pre-exist in such a numbers of minds that its’ very existance would be a catalyst, or provide a cascade effect that once started could not be stopped. A critical mass. Without the numbers AND the unity it stands the very probable chance of being annihilated as a “breach of Law” Despite that the “law: is initiated, controlled, held, and continuously being expanded upon by those in power, for the sole purpose of garnering more power. Cause and effect – You can only gain power (or anything else for that matter) by taking it from something or someone else. Despite common thought it IS a finite system. I’m all in. Victory or death. I have never been a spectator.
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

THE OLIVE BRANCH

THE OLIVE BRANCH

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Thanks to Congress the UN Plot to Confiscate American Guns Took a Giant Step Forward

Thanks to Congress the UN Plot to Confiscate American Guns Took a Giant Step Forward

un
Trapped within the fanfare Chinese Black Monday and the American stock market plunging almost 600 points yesterday, suspicious explosions in China and on an American military base, there has been a very important,  but quiet development ,which is escaping the attention of both the American people and the Independent Media.

The Corker Bill Spells the End of the Second Amendment

We are safe from the ravages of the UN Small Arms Treaty, aren’t we? In fact, many Senators have openly stated that they refuse to ratify this controversial treaty. Well, that is not exactly true. There is a new process established by the new Corker bill may very well have changed the way treaties are passed from here on out.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-arms-treaty-senators-threaten-to-block-it/

Under our Constitution, a full two thirds vote from senators for ratification to approve any kind of a treaty. This provision of the Constitution is very clear on this point and it is designed to prevent a treasonous subversion of the Constitution. However when one is living under a criminal enterprise, such as the one presented by the present criminal enterprise in power, who worries about following the rules? As a case in point, under the Corker bill, in order to have stopped the Iran nuclear deal, a two thirds vote to stop it from being implemented by the White House. This is not what the Constitution says and this out and out treason against the people of the United States as the Corker bill is a back door to taking our guns while nullifying the second Amendment.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Iran-nuclear-bill-Corker-Menendez/2015/04/20/id/639676/

Under the Corker bill, the following paragraphs describe what we are in for.

The Plot to Disarm America Is Commencing



The evidence is mounting that Obama and his colleagues at the United Nations are preparing for complete gun confiscation of civilian owned American guns. There is a new document, previously held secret, which has surfaced and clearly signals the intention of the United Nations to engage in gun confiscation in the relatively near future. The document is damning, however, the existence of the document is not even needed to prove the point that there is a major confrontation brewing between the American people and an international peace-keeping UN force, and it’s coming right around the corner.

Another Nail In America’s Coffin

The following is a smoking gun document that presents seven sequential steps designed to culminate in the total disarmament of the American nation. For those of you that know your history, you will note that there were 17 genocides in the 20th Century and in each case, these genocides were preceded by gun confiscation by the host government. According to the Democide Project located at the University of Hawaii, governments killed far more people,  an estimated 26o million victims, than even war. History shows that if we ever allow government, the UN, or the U.S., to ever be able to seize our guns, we are signing our death warrant!
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM%20

The following document is a declaration of war against the United States people. For those who find the document to be on the blurry side, scroll down to the Appendix to view a clearer copy.
The UN and its cohorts have accomplished steps 1-5 (see below). They are now working on steps 6 and 7 which would constitute complete disarmament of the American people.



The UN and its cohorts have accomplished steps 1-5 (see below). They are now working on steps 6 and 7 which would constitute complete disarmament of the American people.

If one examines the first five steps of the plot, it is easy to ascertain the pattern of gun confiscation that Obama has attempted to follow. I do not believe that Obama has to completely implement steps 1-5 before moving to enforce steps 6 and 7. Therefore, even though Obama has not completely implemented the first five steps across the country, he has done enough to usher in Steps 6 and 7 in this United Nations disarmament plan. Steps 6 and 7 are listed below:

6. Finally, codification of laws to completely makes any and all firearms illegal to own, possess or use outside of military and law enforcement usage.

7. Creation of a United Nations Police Taskforce with the specific mission of assisting member nations with the collection of weaponry from civilian hands”.

The proof for the validity of the intentions signaled by this document does not lie in the authenticity of any single document. The smoking gun evidence that Obama is progressively moving towards seizing all 300,000,000 civilian guns in this country, lies in the ubiquitous manner in which Obama has pursued sequential and progressive steps toward the disarming of the American people. As it has been said, “Judge a man by what he does, not by what he says”. The cases in point would be what Obama has tried to accomplish after the Boston Marathon Bombing, the Batman Aurora, CO. shootings and the Sandy Hook event. With some very sloppy bootstrapping steps following these events, Obama has progressively attempted to make guns more difficult to obtain and he has greatly expanded what is defined as “military grade weapons” and to limit what is considered to be “appropriate” for hunting as he has tried to block Americans from obtaining as many of these weapons as possible.

1. Classification of military grade weapons to be made illegal for possession”.
4. Codification of laws to begin the restricting and strict licensing of hunting grade firearms.”

I am certain that most people familiar with present Second Amendment debates will recognize the various and omnipresent “gun buy-back” programs funded with your tax money designed to remove guns from civilian hands.

2. Creation of programs to provide reasonable compensation for voluntary surrender of said arms”.
How many times have we witnessed Obama standing before the cameras and national press corps and threaten to take unilateral action against our gun rights following each one of the false flag events mentioned above? In each instance, Obama has used thinly veiled excuses that he only wants to take away guns that “military grade weapons”.

1. Classification of military grade weapons to be made illegal for possession.
5. Codification of laws to restrict the sale of, and possession of ammunition and components to manufacture ammunition”.

Connecting the Dots for Gun Confiscation

Even if the the UN document designed to disarm America, listed above, was not genuine (and it is), the following, very public document has been proven to be very authentic.

Under the heading, “Hiding in plain sight”, the United Nations has been advertising for the following position for over a year:
https://inspira.un.org/psc/UNCAREERS/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/UN_CUSTOMIZATIONS.UN_JOB_DETAIL.GBL?Page=UN_JOB_DETAIL&Action=A&JobOpeningId=34627&

Posting Title: Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Officer, P4
Job Title Code: DISARMAMENT, DEMOBILIZATION AND REINTEGRATION OFFICER
Department/Office: Department of Peacekeeping Operations
Duty Station: New York

Job Description: A minimum of seven years of progressively responsible experience in disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration or related area. Experience working within peacekeeping, peace-building or development programmes operations is desirable. Experience with small arms control, conflict/post-conflict crisis management, economic recovery is desirable. Experience coordinating multiple partner agencies, funds or programmes is desirable.

Secretary of State, John Kerry, signing away America's freedom, security and longevity.
Secretary of State, John Kerry, signing away America’s freedom, security and longevity as he signs the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

There  is even more fuel to throw on this raging fire as we consider the fact that, at the behest of President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry illegally, and in direct violation to the Constitution of the United States, signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The UN Arms Trade Treaty contains all 7 provisions listed  above in the Disarmament Commission of the United Nations.

un gun control

We should also be focusing on the military invasion that is about to unfold in this country. This will be the military invasion that will be UN sponsored and it will be the one that seizes our guns. Take a look at the following images of UN military vehicles spotted and photographed in our country in the past 14 months.

An occupation force is being mobilized.
An occupation force is being mobilized.

Conclusion

Thanks to Congress, Obama has found a backdoor way around the Second Amendment by subverting our treaty process.   The stealth in which this is occurring is mind-boggling. I hope that many of the readers will share this information with friends and neighbors. Americans cannot comply with the treason that will arise out of this act.



Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber- http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/
by Dave Hodges

LAWFUL REBELLION
STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT

"FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE "


Free Minds, Free People.

The World Stands On the Edge of World War III In Multiple Locations

The World Stands On the Edge of World War III In Multiple Locations


Very close facsimile to what I recently saw in the sky. Was this a sign of things to come?


Very close facsimile to what I recently saw in the sky. Was this a sign of things to come?
This is a very close facsimile to what I recently saw in the sky. Was this a sign of things to come?

I cannot recall writing an article which has caused me so much consternation than this one. Last night as my family was returning from dining out near the beginning of twilight, I saw a gigantic cloud stretching endlessly upward and spreading out. It looked just like a mushroom cloud, the kind you would see following a nuclear explosion. Was this an ominous sign, or was this simply a case of personal projection of where my mind is presently at? I may never really know the answer for certain, however, this moment in time is reflective of where I believe the world is at in the present moment.

History May Not Repeat, but It Sure Does Rhyme

wwI
As I reflected on the historical importance and relevance of recent current events, I was reminded of Mark Twain’s famous saying about the replication of historical events and I believe that the times we find ourselves living in now, are reflective of the pre-World War I era.

World War I was characterized by an arms race, a race for currency dominance (i.e. during the early part of the 20th century, the race for control of resources manifested in a race for colonial dominance. Today, rld warthis is manifested through the attack on the Petrodollar by the BRICS), and a set of entangling alliances which all but guaranteed war if only two parties were in conflict.

The events of World War I were set into motion with the assassination of Austria-Hungary’s Archduke Francis Ferdinand by an unknown Serbian national. Austria-Hungary was allied with Germany. Serbia was allied with Russia, which was allied with Great Britain and France. And the rest, as they say, was history.

Todays PossibleArchdukeHot Spots

There is no shortage of places where the slightest spark could set off World War III, but there are a few leading candidates.

Any location where these is the presence of a military provocation

North and South Korea
Taiwan
Ukraine
Syria

Provocation #1

Tianjin explosion
Tianjin explosion

The Tianjin explosion was waged as an act of war by the United States in response to China’s currency war with the subsequent Yuan devaluation, according to dissident sources from mainland China. Within hours, Mike Adams and I had both reached the same conclusion, that the weapon used to attack China was an American space-based weapon fired in retaliation for a recent Chinese currency devaluation which negatively impacted the dollar

Of course, after the event, the “coincidence theorists” were out in force accusing both Adams and myself of being part of a tin-foil hat conspiracy. When the event was duplicated a few days later, the coincidence theorists are nowhere to be found.

Provocation #2

A duplicate explosion, like the one at Tianjin, occurred at a chemical warehouse in Shandong province in eastern China on August 22, 2015, the People’s Daily China reported. The site is only one kilometer from a residential area. Firefighters were overwhelmed as they attempted to  deal with the explosion. In the present political climate, and with the MO being identical, how can anyone say that these provocations are connected and were carried out for the exact same reasons?



Please underscore these words, anyone who understands Chinese psychology, knows full well that the Chinese will retaliate in greater force than how they were attacked. The Chinese military is very strategic. Do not expect a knee-jerk Chinese reaction, but you can bet your bottom, soon-to-be worthless dollar, that a massive retaliatory strike is coming.

North Korea vs. South Korea

Earlier this week, North and South Korea exchanged artillery fire. South Korea resumed its propaganda broadcasts across the DMZ and North Korea threatened to use nuclear weapons against the South. What could have been looked at as mere blustering, took a serious turn when North Korea prepared short and medium range missiles and pointed them at Seoul. The US and the South Korean Air Forces responded by buzzing the North Korean side of the DMZ. Here is the report. South Korea and US forces stationed on the Korean peninsula have flown eight combat jets simulating the striking of enemy targets in a show of force against North Korea’s war threats amid the ongoing crisis.

Four F-16 fighter jets from the US and four South Korean F-15k fighters joined together on Saturday “to show off the military might of South Korea and the US combined air force power,” an official from South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said.

According to the South Korean official, the air warfare group has deliberately taken the flight route that would “alarm North Korea” and show the “allies’ resolute determination”  in retaliation for the provocation, reported Yonhap News.

For this to “mushroom” into a major confrontation would have taken no more than for a North Korean officer to order the firing of a SAM which could have brought down one of these planes. Meanwhile, the propaganda agenda of RT is in full evidence as they are championing the combat readiness of North Korea and their intention to attack the South as evidenced by the following tweet.


BREAKING: Pyongyang prepares short and medium range missile launches – S.Korean report http://on.rt.com/6pfq
Embedded image permalink

Chinas Naval Buildup for War

In the following video, China is seen retrofitting thousands of merchant ships for military purposes so they can be used in the event of a war, another disturbing indication of growing tensions between Beijing and Washington. Alex Jones produced and released this video in June.




Mythical Invasion of Taiwan by China

I am receiving reports that Taiwan is being fortified beyond present levels which is not surprising given the recent set of events. Everyone’s World War III scenario has China attacking Taiwan.

Below is a fictional account of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, supported by Russia and her allies, in the year 2055. The date of this video could easily be changed to 2015. These events are telling and it is frightening to think that we are this close to the invasion of Taiwan becoming a reality.




Syria and Ukraine

Earlier this week, Russia moved 50,000 troops to the Ukrainian border. ISIS is still operating in Syria and Putin has repeatedly warned that he will nuke the United States if we invade Syria.



Conclusion

The world is on multiple collision courses with World War III and please remember, it only takes one to begin the holocaust. Realistically, I do not see how the world is going to avoid World War III.


by Dave Hodges

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber- http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/


LAWFUL REBELLION
STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT

"FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE "


Free Minds, Free People.

WHAT AN ACTUAL LEADER WOULD SAY

WHAT AN ACTUAL LEADER WOULD SAY

In the current deluge of wannabe leaders clamoring for attention and trying to convince us that they are the boss who should be applying rules to us, it strikes me that all of them are looking backward and none are looking forward. (I do not consider “My administration will give you more bennies” to be seriously forward-looking.)

So, since none of this crowd is going to venture anywhere outside of their hermetically sealed status quo, I’d like to give you an example of something a real leader might say.

Late summer 2015, Anytown, USA: A small platform stands at the edge of a cornfield. A very average-looking person steps up to a microphone and speaks:

Friends,

I stand here, not to praise you, but to acquaint you with reality, at least as well as I am able. Perhaps that means I should be killed or at least run out of town. But if that’s so, then so be it. I am tired of living a life other than my own – the pre-scripted, advertiser-generated life that is shoved before my eyes day by day. And I suspect that some of you are tired of it as well.

Please allow me to begin by pointing out that all the fights from all the platforms this election cycle will concern trivialities – Team Red versus Team Blue – and competing varieties of fears – terrorists versus outlawed unions versus less free stuff versus whatever works in your little corner of the world. At most, these are fights over personalities – He’s an arrogant ass, she’s a conniving witch, and so on  – all of which really come down to, “My opponent is scarier than I am.”

None of these bobbleheads will ask the questions that matter: Who are we? What do we want? Where should we be headed?

You see, once we get past all the publicized fears – some real, but most imaginary – the dialog we’re having, if we care to admit it, is mostly self-praise. We laud our great “democracy,” even though not one in a thousand can define it. Or we brag about our wonderful “freedom” but avoid defining it, knowing that our definition wouldn’t stand up to the test. Freedom is “what we have,” and further questions are evidence of stupidity, bordering on treason.

The truth is that we’ve trained ourselves to evade reality. Praising ourselves is so much easier: Team America!

By doing this, my friends, we’ve been blind to the greatest opportunity that has ever stood before a human generation: If we wanted to, we could quickly and easily step into a golden age. In fact, we’ve been doing just that, half by accident, for a long time. If we bothered to work at it, even halfheartedly, we’d go down in history as the generation that transformed humanity forever.

But perhaps most of us wouldn’t like that. And if so, that’s our choice to make. My objection is that no one bothers to talk about it.

I’d like for you, for just a few seconds, to take a look at two graphs, which I pulled out of Julian Simon’s The State of Humanity. The first graph shows how much wheat is not grown, because our production capacity is so much greater than our demand for wheat.



This second one shows the price of wheat measured in wages.



And I have others like this, for other commodities.

There is one message that comes screaming through here, and it’s one that I know can be deeply troubling. Nonetheless, that message is true: Scarcity on planet Earth is dying.

I’ll pause to allow you a small freakout over that, to let all those prerecorded messages run screaming through your mind.

You see, our ruling systems have been built on the assumption of scarcity, and the idea that scarcity may be failing throws us into crisis.

Isn’t it odd that good news should upset us?

Scarcity, sadly, became more than a sad fact to us; it became a psychological necessity. But what if we no longer need to fight over resources? Is that a concept that we should rush to eliminate?

And in actual fact, there are fewer and fewer starving people all the time, and most of those are starving because of political distortions, not because of insufficient production technology.

All of this reminds me of a comment from Buckminster Fuller that I like to condense:

I decided man was operating on a fundamental fallacy: that he was destined to be a failure. I decided that man was, in fact, designed to be an extraordinary success. His characteristics were magnificent; what he needed was to discover the comprehensive patterns operating in the universe.

So, what if humanity is designed to be an extraordinary success? Why should this thought repel us, even before we honestly consider it?

You see, these are things we need to discuss.

We are, whether we like it or not, stepping out of scarcity, and it seems to me that we should decide whether or not that’s a good thing.

Our problem – our real problem, if we can muster the courage to admit it – is that we’re living with space-age technology and bronze-age rulership. But we can get past this problem if we wish, and we can easily meet all of humanity’s basic needs… if we wish.

But perhaps we don’t want to. Maybe it’s more important to us that we should be the biggest dog in town and that everyone else should be a little yap-yap dog.

And if that’s the case, we need to admit it to ourselves. Perhaps we’ll decide that what we really need is to be the dominant dog, and that all the morality stuff we talk about – golden rules and loving our neighbors – was all juvenile blather; that what we really want is to dominate everyone else.

And if that’s the case, we should get busy rebuilding our civilization in the form of the Roman Empire. We should get serious about beating the hell out of everyone else… at least until a new Christ comes along (or perhaps just people who remember the old one) and convinces our subjects that there’s a better way to live.

But in the meantime, we could kick the crap out of a billion brown people for a century or two, minimum. That’s our choice to make, of course, I’m only suggesting that we be forthright about it.

So, my friends, let me conclude by saying this:

If what we really want is to be the big dog, to feast on the fact that we’re able to kick all the smaller dogs around, then let’s do it. Let’s go full-Caesar on ’em. Let’s conquer everything, steal what we like, and live it up.

Or, if that’s not what we really want, then let’s get the golden age started; let’s dump the hierarchies that steal half our earnings and labor to keep fear alive. Let’s build and plant and thrive; and let’s welcome others to thrive with us.

Thank you for not shooting me.




Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber- http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/
Paul Rosenberg

LAWFUL REBELLION
STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT

"FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE "


Free Minds, Free People.

Preventing Gun Violence in America

Preventing Gun Violence in America



 When the men of Concord assembled at the North Bridge on April 19, 1775 to confront the British Army, it was not so much that they possessed firearms that carried the day. Rather, it was their discipline from having been drilled as a militia that provided the victory. Later, when the Bill of Rights was enacted, the Second Amendment was included to ensure that the People—fearful of a standing army—retained the power to organize in resistance to tyranny and to preserve their new republic. Moreover, the southern states demanded the right to maintain state militias to control their slaves.

Initially, in most states, and excepting a few officials, all white men were required to join the militia and equip themselves with a musket. Records were kept and officials knew who had firearms and how well they were trained to perform their public duty. Later, in the Wild West—contrary to movie images—cowboys had to deposit their guns at the sheriff’s office on entering most towns.

As America evolved to become a more urban and industrialized society, militias were replaced by National Guards in every state, and the percentage of Americans who personally owned firearms dropped. States began to legislate against the possession of dangerous weapons, such as sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, and prohibited carrying concealed handguns. Regarding these laws, the courts consistently ruled that the Second Amendment preserved the right of states to organize National Guards, rather than an unlimited personal right of gun ownership.

In 2009, the Congressional Research Service estimated there were more than 310 million firearms in America. In the absence of reliable records and based on background checks made on those who purchase from licensed dealers, it appears the total number of guns in America has been increasing by almost ten percent each year. Today, there could be as many as 350 million privately-owned guns, far in excess of the current population of 319 million.

Polls show that only 32 percent of all Americans own a firearm, including half of all Republicans and a quarter of Democrats. At 47 percent, southern whites have the highest percentage of guns, and less than 16 percent of all households keeping guns are occupied by a hunter.

While the overall recorded rate of violent crime has also been decreasing in the United States, the vast increase in the total number of guns may be driven by a residual fear of crime; the consequences of the wars on drugs and terrorism; criminal gangs; glorified violence in movies and video games; and disquiet about growing governmental power and the loss of freedoms.

Legal restrictions on the purchase of guns are largely ineffective for a number of reasons. The process imposed by law on purchases from licensed dealers is unwieldy, and there are statutory limitations on the maintenance of records by law enforcement. Individuals who would otherwise be denied the right to purchase guns can easily use “straw men” to make purchases on their behalf. Many corrupt licensed gun dealers are involved in the illicit trafficking of weapons. It is not difficult to purchase firearms at gun shows and from private individuals. Finally, the hundreds of thousands of guns which are stolen each year during burglaries and other property crimes become readily available on the streets. Astoundingly, more than a quarter of the guns purchased from federally-licensed gun dealers end up seized by law enforcement in connection with crimes committed within two years of the original purchase.

Police officers undergo rigorous training in the use of the firearms they carry, including the law and policy; alternatives to gun deployment; awareness of the background of targets; and self control of physical and mental faculties during highly stressful situations. Even so, viral videos of contagion shootings—wherein multiple officers fire off a fuselage of shots at unarmed or mentally impaired individuals—and other out-of-policy and illegal shootings by officers regularly appear on the Internet and television. With the proliferation of open-carry laws and the authorization of concealed weapons for untrained people, the United States is also experiencing a vast increase in accidental and unjustifiable deliberate shootings by untrained civilians armed with the same weapons carried by law enforcement officers.

Insanity:  With the highest level of gun ownership in the developed world, the U.S. also suffers the greatest gun violence—by far. Americans are 20 times more likely to be killed by a gun than the citizens in all other developed nations. We recognize the names and stories of the most violent and senseless incidents—Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Binghamton, Killeen, Tucson, Charleston, and now Lafayette; however, these media sideshows represent only a small percentage of the mind-boggling totals. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were a total of 33,636 firearms deaths and 84,258 firearm injuries in 2013, the last year for which complete statistics are available.

As horrible as these numbers are, the insanity of a modern urban society allowing itself to become saturated with deadly firearms is demonstrated by the harm done to children. Almost 75 percent of all children murdered each year in the entire developed world are killed in the United States—American children have a 17 times greater chance of dying of gunshot wounds. Children between the ages of five and fourteen in the U.S. commit suicide at twice the average of other developed countries, with firearm-related suicides being ten times the average. About one-third of all American children live in a household with a gun, and one in five have witnessed a shooting.

In addition to the murder of children is the horrific rate they suffer from accidental deaths and serious injuries in the United States as a result of the prevalence of firearms. Children younger than 15 years are nine times more likely to die from gun accidents than in other developed nations—mostly at the hands of friends and relatives. Guns are now killing three thousand American children and injuring seven thousand each year.

Just one of these cases demonstrates the craziness of allowing deadly weapons in the hands of children. Small .22-caliber “Crickett” rifles—as many as 60,000 per year—are marketed with colorful stocks as “my first rifle,” and a Kentucky family presented one to their five-year-old son. Believing the weapon was unloaded, the boy’s mother left him in the house playing with his gun. Unsurprisingly, the boy shot and killed his two-year-old sister—the children’s grandmother said it was “God’s will.”

Added to the tragedy suffered by these families in the increasingly punitive American society is the prosecution of grieving parents for having failed to prevent the deaths of their own loved ones. The greater crime is the one committed by society as a whole—which shares the responsibility for allowing the grave risk of danger to little children to continue unabated.

The insanity of the murder and mayhem inflicted on the children of America is easily verifiable—a more difficult question is the effect high levels of actual gun violence and imaginary gun violence seen on television and played out in computer games will have on future generations. It may be that, as a republic, America is sowing the seeds of its own destruction as gun violence overwhelms its ability to protect public safety in a manner consistent with the values of a free and democratic society.

Fantasy. Following the Civil War, the National Rifle Association (NRA) was organized by former Union generals to improve rifle marksmanship, since only one-in-a-thousand shots fired by Union soldiers hit their targets. The NRA organized rifle clubs and advised state National Guards on how to improve marksmanship. It supported the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, and the Gun Control Act of 1968—which collectively regulated machine guns and other “gangster” weapons and established a system of federally-licensed manufacturers and dealers. Since that time, however, the leadership of the NRA has become increasingly radicalized, and it has become one of the most powerful political lobbies in the nation. It obstructs all gun control measures and defends the right of individuals to possess the weapons of their choice, including assault rifles, high capacity magazines, and armor-piercing bullets. Financially contributing to more than half of all members of Congress, the NRA opposes regulation. Instead, it promotes gun-safety education and increased sentences for gun-related offenses—since “people, not guns, commit crimes.” The NRA believes society would be safer if more, better-trained people owned more firearms to defend themselves against gun attacks. To this end, the NRA encourages children as young as five years to own firearms and participate in gun sports.

The NRA’s Eddie Eagle program teaches children to not touch found guns and to inform an adult. Evaluation of the program reveals that young children cannot resist picking up and playing with guns, irrespective of their indoctrination. All too often in families that keep firearms, children accidentally shoot their playmates, siblings and parents.

In 2012, a mentally disturbed 20-year-old boy shot his mother—a gun enthusiast who had taught him target shooting—and then went to the Sandy Hook school where he shot 20 children and six teachers before killing himself. The NRA’s response was to oppose gun-free zones at schools and to advocate arming teachers and deploying armed police officers in all schools.

After 32 students and faculty were murdered at Virginia Tech in the deadliest shooting by one person in U.S. history, the NRA recommended that students be allowed to carry concealed weapons on their campuses. Its lobbyist said, “Police can’t stop the crime, only the victim has a chance to stop it.” Instead of calling for more guns on campuses, survivors and the families of the Virginia Tech victims established a foundation to “address issues that contribute to violence such as bullying and mental health.”

As a result of the NRA’s efforts, eight states now allow their college students to be armed. The deadly combination of youth, alcohol, and guns has forced affected colleges to divert funding from education to security. Confronted with the same high risk factors, the military prohibits most troops from being armed on bases outside of combat zones, or during recruiting duties.

According to the Small Arms Survey, the manufacture of personal firearms in the United States is a multi-billion dollar industry with thousands of businesses holding federal licenses. The industry produces most of the guns and accessories sold in America and is the world’s leading small arms exporter. Manufacturers and dealers have organized the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) to lobby against government regulation. The foundation claims the gun industry contributes $33 billion to the U.S. economy each year.

On the other side of the equation, it is impossible to accurately calculate the financial impact gun violence has on American society when justice system costs, security procedures, and reductions in the quality of life are added to medical care expenses. The best estimate by the Pacific Institute of Research and Evaluation places the annual economic cost of the gun industry at $174 billion—more than five times its contribution.

It is pure fantasy to imagine that arming everyone—even assuming improved screening, a high level of training, and owner responsibility—will significantly improve public safety. By every measure, having a gun in a household increases the risk of death and injury. Research reported in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home with guns increased the risk of homicidal death by between 40 and 170 percent. Another study more precisely concluded that the presence of guns increased the risk of homicidal death by 90 percent. Women are more than three times as likely to be murdered by guns in the hands of their husbands or intimate acquaintances than by guns, knives, or other weapons wielded by strangers.

Rather than providing protection, possessing a gun actually increases the risk that a person will be shot during an assault. Armed victims of assault are 4.5 times more likely to be shot than unarmed persons. The possession of a gun by a victim escalates, rather than reduces, the potential of violence. Relying on the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Violence Policy Center found that for every homicide case in which a gun was justifiably used, there were 44 criminal homicides.

Despite these facts, the ultra-conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—which advocates the interests of big business in state and federal legislatures—has promoted “stand-your-ground,” or “shoot-first” laws around the country. The law, drafted by the NRA, provides a statutory defense for people who use guns in self defense during confrontations in which they feel threatened. (George Zimmerman used the Florida statute to escape conviction after he killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager.) According to NRA official, Wayne LaPierre, the law has “a big tailwind” as it has been adopted, in one form or another, by 25 states.

Following every mass shooting, one of the first questions asked is the mental state of the shooter and how he was able to obtain firearms. There are no easy answers since differing levels of mental competency are involved. Criminal defendants can rely on the defense of insanity only if they are found to be incapable of determining right from wrong. This is very difficult to prove, as people can exhibit a wide range of personality, emotional, and mental problems, while retaining the ability to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of their actions.

Many Americans receive psychiatric care and psychological counseling, and the willingness and ability to confront and resolve one’s emotional issues is considered a healthy thing to do. What is hard to determine is whether an individual’s mental problems pose a risk of harm to themselves or others to the extent it justifies a deprivation of the right to own firearms. This is because most interactions between patients and their therapists are necessarily privileged and confidential, and due process considerations make it very difficult to involuntarily commit mentally ill people.

Examining the two most recent mass killings, we find evidence that both shooters had mental problems. Given the ready availability of firearms—legal and illegal—could these massacres have been prevented?

Dylann Roof, the 21-year-old high school dropout who shot and killed nine people in a Charleston church had been arrested several times for drug possession and was convinced black people were “taking over the world.” He said he wanted to start a “race war” and was “looking to kill a bunch of people.” He posted that “N—— are stupid and violent.” Using birthday money, he legally purchased a .45-caliber semi-automatic pistol. As he shot down his black victims while they prayed in church, he said, “I have to do it. You’re raping our women and taking over the country. You have to go.” As bigoted as his statements may have been, it is unlikely they would have been sufficient to have had him civilly committed, or to now serve as a legal defense at his criminal trial.

John R. Houser, the 59-year-old bar owner who shot and killed two women and wounded nine others in a Lafayette theatre had once been hospitalized for psychiatric care. Hatred of women and domestic violence compelled his family members to hide his guns and obtain court protective orders. He ranted about white supremacy, displayed a swastika, and wrote about the power of a “lone wolf.” Despite this threatening behavior, he was able to legally purchase a .40-caliber semi-automatic pistol. Following the shooting, he committed suicide rather than be arrested.

These and other mass shooting cases are exceptional only because of the number of victims. The vast majority of gun assaults and homicides are committed by individuals who are emotionally disturbed, but who could not be committed or locked up. In cases of armed assaults and suicides, it is the ready availability of a firearm that allows an angry or depressed person to use a gun under conditions where otherwise there would be a much lower risk of harm to the individual or to others. It is fantasy to believe these troubled people could ever be properly identified and effectively deprived of access to firearms.

Only 32 percent of Americans own guns—but they own a lot of guns. If one-third of the population were infected with a contagious deadly disease, would the majority of the people, and their representatives, be justified in taking preventative steps to protect the public health?

Responsibility. Traffic accidents are one of the leading causes of death and injury in the United States with the CDC reporting 33,804 deaths during 2013, but firearm-related deaths are closely tied at 33,636. In a number of states, there are now more deaths from firearms than automobile accidents. Overall, while the rate of firearm deaths has been rising, the rate and number of traffic deaths has been falling as a result of effective government safety regulations for both drivers and vehicles.

Few people doubt the wisdom of requiring seat belts and air bags in cars; for transporting young children in approved car seats; that cars are registered; that drivers are educated, tested, and licensed; that they obey the rules of the road; and that they are required to have liability insurance. However, any legislative or executive action to regulate the safety of firearms or the ability of individuals to obtain and carry them is met with defiant resistance by the politically powerful gun lobby—and the politicians they bribe with campaign contributions.

Using a vehicle as a weapon is considered to be an assault with a deadly weapon (ADW) in most jurisdictions; however, one rarely hears about cars being used in that manner. All too often, road rage manifests itself with one driver shooting another. Automobile ADW is so rare that there are no readily available statistics to determine its frequency. Just imagine, however, the fear and outrage if there were 21,175 intentional fatal traffic collisions each year in the United States—which is the number of firearm suicides recorded by the CDC in 2013. Or, if cars were used as weapons almost a half million times each year—which is the number of Americans who reported they were victims of a crime involving a firearm in 2011 during a survey by the National Institute of Justice. Would drivers feel safe knowing that cars approaching from the opposite direction at a high rate of speed were being operated by unlicensed ten-year-olds?

Guns are the only consumer products that are not subject to federal regulation, and it is not the Second Amendment that prevents the registration of guns in the same manner as vehicles and the testing and licensing of gun owners as is required for all drivers. This fact was made clear by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 when it struck down a ban on the possession of handguns (District of Columbia vs. Heller) as violating the right to personally bear firearms. Regarding regulation, the court said its “opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

The Court explicitly did not address the District’s licensing requirement that had been upheld in the lower court, which ruled: “Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a ‘well regulated militia.’ The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up.” From this, it would appear that, while the Court now says the Second Amendment confers a right to personally own a gun outside of a militia, the right is subject to reasonable regulation.

The Court’s opinion was delivered by Justice Scalia, who interprets constitutional meaning as it was understood at the time of enactment. Since militia members and their weapons were subject to government inspection and regulation at the time the Amendment was enacted, it would not seem unreasonable to expect that even the conservative branch of the Court would uphold firearm registration and licensing of owners similar to that presently imposed on the ownership and operation of automobiles, or the carrying of concealed handguns. Necessarily, reasonable regulations would have to preserve due process and could not be so onerous as to constitute prohibition.

Since a small minority of Americans actually own guns, the primary obstacle to responsible regulation of firearm ownership is the combined power of the NRA, NSSF and ALEC, which have mastered the political tactics of legal bribery, negative campaigns, and intimidation litigation. Even so, state and federal legislators brave enough to endure the wrath of the gun lobby would undoubtedly find broad public support for firearm registration and owner licensing. In a survey conducted in 2014, 72 percent of respondents said they would favor “a law which would require a person to obtain a police permit before he or she could buy a gun,” although other surveys indicate growing support of gun rights.

Even with reasonable registration and licensing, firearms would continue to pose a significant danger to public safety due to their overwhelming proliferation throughout American society. Therefore, additional, constitutionally acceptable, steps would have to be taken to further reduce the threat.

It is far too quick and easy for an angry person to point a finger wrapped around the trigger of a gun and apply slight pressure—thereby destroying the lives of the victim and the shooter. Efforts to protect both must deal with the fact that gun violence is often a consequence of other psychological and social issues, such as domestic violence, child abuse, and bullying of the perpetrator. Even without guns, these causative factors can manifest themselves in violence, albeit at a far less deadly level.

In addition to teaching small children to avoid picking up a gun, they must also learn to respect the equality of others and to avoid violent behavior. Children are more capable of acquiring empathy and experiencing positive interpersonal relations, than resisting playing with an attractive deadly toy. There is clear evidence that children can be taught to resolve conflicts and problems without resorting to violence. School-based anti-bullying programs have become widespread and have been successful in reducing violence among students.

Just because Americans have a right to own firearms does not mean that they have to do so. The percentage of individuals who own firearms continues to decrease. People can continue to freely choose to give up their firearms and to live, more safely, without them—both personally and as a society. There have been some successes with “buy back” programs whereby people are paid for their guns. All too often, however, the guns turned in are old, defective, or obsolete. What is needed is a broad-based grassroots movement to encourage the American people to participate in achieving a voluntary and massive reduction of operable firearms in their own homes and communities.

Imagine an innovative national program whereby surrendered and confiscated guns are welded into massive peace sculptures in front of local courthouses, police stations, and other public buildings.

Competitions could be held for artists to design unique works of art for each location. Instead of blood running down the sidewalks, let it be rust, as these monuments to nonviolence slowly grow with discarded weapons and become more interesting over the years. Just as those who fight and die for freedom are honored, those who nonviolently strive to achieve peace should also be memorialized. Perhaps, some day Americans will look at these sculptures in amazement and recall a time in when people owned machines designed to kill other people and how they voluntarily overcame their addiction.





Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber- http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/
William John Cox

LAWFUL REBELLION
STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT

"FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE "


Free Minds, Free People.

Embedded Advisors are Key to winning against the Islamic State


The path to victory is clear. The only question is what it will take to finally take that path

Embedded Advisors are Key to winning against the Islamic State





“I saw the war through the eyes of the Vietnamese people. I saw the war through the eyes of villagers that I lived with. I saw the war through the eyes of Vietnamese soldiers and Marines there weren’t there on one-year tours, but were there for the duration.  I saw the war from the Delta to the DMZ. I saw the war from Cambodia to the coastal plains in the east. And it was a totally different perspective than I was hearing from my counterparts.”
– Gen. Anthony Zinni, speaking of his tour-of-duty as an Adviser in Vietnam

After the Islamic State seized the Iraqi city of Ramadi (the capital of the critical Anbar Province), last week, those lobbying for complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Syria began speaking out more forcefully.

Their argument is encapsulated by the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson in his recent article about the future of U.S. involvement after Ramadi: “Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how many troops [Barack Obama] sends back to Iraq or whether their footwear happens to touch the ground…  Further escalating the U.S. military role, I would argue, will almost surely lead to a quagmire that makes us no more secure. If the choice is go big or go home, we should pick the latter.”

Fortunately, we do have another option between “going big” or “going home” and clear path to victory: A substantial advisory effort, closely embedded with Iraqi security forces (Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish Army and Police forces) supported by a substantial increase in American airpower.

My own background and experiences as an adviser to Afghan National Security Forces have provided unique insights. First, I deployed for a year to Kandahar Province, then I became the senior U.S. military adviser to Helmand Province (from 2007-2008, before U.S. Marines replaced my command in Helmand).

We not only trained and equipped the Afghan National Security Forces, but accompanied those forces on combat operations against the Taliban.  As advisers, we experienced the stark difference between the fighting “will” of Afghan forces with U.S. (or coalition) advisers and without those advisers.  In short, when U.S. advisory teams accompanied Afghan Forces on missions, it was our experience those forces would fight to the last man and show incredible bravery.

Conversely, in many cases when Afghan Forces were not accompanied by advisers we would learn of those forces appearing to show far less will to fight. The embedded forces, with access to airpower, meant everything.   \

Accompanying indigenous forces with access to overwhelming airpower is the key to winning. In the first months of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, a few hundred special-operations advisers with access to devastating airpower helped the beleaguered Northern Alliance drive the Taliban from power. The Taliban were not only an Islamist military, but governed Afghanistan similar to the Islamic State which now governs huge swaths of Syria and Iraq. Until the U.S. advisory effort became embedded with the Northern Alliance, the war appeared to be at a stalemate. The difference came with the confidence and firepower brought to bear with the advisers. One benefit to the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan is that we now have thousands of trained and experienced advisers to fill the roll if called. Most of us would be happy to join this mission.

As Gen. Anthony Zinni learned in Vietnam, the advisory effort gains a true perspective on the war and is in the best position to help local forces win. Many observers of Vietnam note the success of the Marine “Combined Action Platoon” program (CAP), in which Marine rifle platoon-sized forces actually lived with the Vietnamese. They provided security and confidence to the allied Vietnamese, and also gained the best intelligence perspective of what was actually happening on the ground. I had the same experience in Afghanistan, and advisers to the Iraqi forces made the same claims. It would be the same embedding our forces to fight the Islamic State, and not just training and equipping forces that end up “giving” our equipment to the enemy.

About a week after the fall of Ramadi, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter told reporters he believed it important to review the “training” mission of Iraqi Forces to see “what we can do to enhance the effectiveness [of Iraqi forces].” This came after what the Secretary had earlier referred to as a lack of “will” of Iraqi forces to fight against the Islamic State in Ramadi. He went on to say, “I think training and equipment affect the effectiveness of the forces and therefore ... their confidence in their ability to operate, so there is a direct relationship.”

Though I believe we need to review our training mission in Afghanistan, if we stop at “training” we will likely not “enhance the effectiveness” of the Iraqi forces.

What is needed is not only more training and equipping of the Iraqi forces, but substantially more airpower and embedded advisers. We must take the risk of American casualties and fully embed our advisers to gain success. That’s the part that’s missing right now, and would make all the difference without turning this fight into a seeming “quagmire” of hundreds-of-thousands of conventional troops.

The risk of casualties among those embedded is worth the price, as Americans now understand we cannot allow the Islamic State to continue to metastasize. Jihadists from throughout the world, including Europe and the U.S., have flocked to the Islamic State. And the perceived success of the Islamic State is bringing further momentum. A recent Al Jazeera online poll showed around 80-percent support for the Islamic State among the 40,000 who took the poll. Similar shocking polling-percentages come from a number of seemingly moderate Muslim nations. These numbers should not be ignored, and we cannot stick our head in the sand and pretend this is a “JV” team supported by only a “tiny number of extremists.”

After describing the worst case scenario of involving major U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Syria, Gene Robinson exclaimed, “The other choice is to pull back. This strikes me as the worst course of action—except for all the rest.”

Wrong on two counts. First, as most are beginning to realize, we cannot simply “pull back” from the horror of the Islamic State, no more than we could ignore Nazi atrocities in World War II. After what we know of the massacres, beheadings, tortures, rapes, sex slaves, and the threats of the Islamic State to murder our citizens and commit terror on American soil, we have no place to run. We must fight. Importantly, our way to security is not the choice Robinson would have us believe: Overwhelming conventional troops or nothing. The way to victory is with embedded advisers calling in true airpower.

The path to victory is clear. The only question is what it will take to finally take that path.


By Lt. Col. (P) Bill Connor 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber- http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/


LAWFUL REBELLION
STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT

"FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE "


Free Minds, Free People.

The Unconstitutional “Anchor Baby” Delusion

The Congressional and historic record make clear that the legal concept of birthright citizenship, used by countless aliens to gain U.S. citizenship through anchor babies, is both wrong and unconstitutional.

The Unconstitutional “Anchor Baby” Delusion

“The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” – House Report No. 784, June 22, 1874

With the 2016 election heating up, many Americans are finding the opportunity to express anger over the nation’s illegal immigration problems.

Donald Trump, a long-shot as a presidential candidate (having never held public office), shot to the top of the polls after making seemingly incendiary remarks about illegal immigrants. I write “seemingly” because many believe his statements to be blunt truth, even if politically incorrect.

In addition to allegations of criminals coming across the southern border from Mexico, Trump is now broaching a question long hidden in the recesses of debate: Does the Constitution grant birthright citizenship to all born within the geographic borders of the United States? This question directly ties to immigration, as the babies of illegal immigrants are being granted immediate citizenship, thereby “anchoring” residency and citizenship rights to family members. Hence the term “anchor baby”. The numbers involved run into the millions, affect the nation in many ways, and cannot be overlooked. It’s time to challenge the conventional wisdom of birthright citizenship. Let me explain.

The specific language of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment is the start point. Section 1, begins: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Stop at those nine words and birthright citizenship would appear to be the clear intent of the 14th Amendment. However, the clause continues: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” It’s important to understand that the drafters of the 14th Amendment crafted the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to protect the rights of slaves/former slaves against any state or local jurisdiction, particularly from the old Confederacy.

The 13th Amendment ended slavery, the 14th Amendment ensured due process and equal protection for former slaves, and the 15th Amendment guaranteed former slaves the right to vote (against state and local government). Interestingly, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment specifically references slavery in that Congress would not be responsible for the debt for freed slaves. The intent was to protect the rights of former slaves, but did not apply to the children of aliens to the United States.

A great example of the narrow application of the citizenship clause can be seen with citizenship rights of American Indians. At the time of the 14th Amendment, and for decades thereafter, native Americans were not granted citizenship despite being born within the geographic boundaries of the United States. Congress, using the provisions of Section 5 of the 14th Amendment (The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article), and the Article 1, Section 8 (Congressional power over naturalization/immigration) finally granted citizenship to native Americans in the 1920s. Babies born to foreign Consuls, ministers, Ambassadors serving in the United States were not (and still are not), citizens, despite being born within the United States. Similarly, babies born to those illegally entering the United States remain citizens of the countries parents departed. The examples abound of the exceptions to birthright citizenship because it does not exist as a right. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled the children of illegal immigrants obtain birthright citizenship, though the Court has ruled on the citizenship of children whose parents were in the United States legally being naturalized.

The history of birthright citizenship provides perspective. The ancient and unjust feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship or “Jus Soli” has a checkered past and is rightly on the ash heap of history. Jus Soli is accepted almost nowhere in the “modern” Western world due to the primitive and inhumane roots of the concept in medieval Europe. Going back the age of “divine right of Kings,” Jus Soli granted the monarch the greatest number of “subjects” within his realm. Babies, who happened to have been born in the king’s realm, were the legally required to “serve” the king as his subject for life, and could not leave the realm without the monarch’s license.

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was purposely inserted by Congress to prevent Jus Soli in America. Acclaimed lawyers Howard and Trumbull helped draft the 14th Amendment, and would have been familiar with Jus Soli. In fact, Representative Aaron Sargent from California argued, without dispute during the debates over the Naturalization Act of 1870, that the citizenship clause was not justification for aliens to obtain citizenship at birth. It’s ironic that the same Liberals who oppose Western practices not in keeping with the norms of the modern Western world, like the death penalty, demand the United States recognize Jus Soli for babies of illegal immigrants.

Its time for Americans to call this out for what it is: unconstitutional.

Mark Levin, a Constitutional lawyer, president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, and former senior member of the Reagan administration has written convincingly on the subject: “If it [the 14th Amendment] means what the proponents of birthright citizenship say, it would stop right there. ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States’ are citizens. There’s no need for anything else, but that’s what it says. Then it says, and, ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’… Jurisdiction has nothing to do with geography. Zero. It had to do with political allegiance to the United States of America. How do we know it? Because they (those drafting the 14th Amendment) said it … Now here’s the good news, there’s another part of the Constitution. It’s Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4. Here’s what that says, in plain English; ‘The Congress shall have power to … establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ … that means Congress, not the courts, not the president, not ICE, it means the United States Congress has the power to regulate immigration in this regard.”

The Congressional and historic record make clear that the legal concept of birthright citizenship, used by countless aliens to gain U.S. citizenship through anchor babies, is both wrong and unconstitutional.

The American people demand, through spokesmen like Donald Trump, that we cannot continue to ignore the importance of legitimate citizenship. It is time for Congress to follow the will of the people and the Constitutional duties under Article 1, Section 8 and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. Citizenship in the United States is something special bequeathed to us by those who followed the law. It’s about time we started following the law, and the truth of the Constitution.



By Lt. Col. (P) Bill Connor 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber- http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/


LAWFUL REBELLION
STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT

"FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE "


Free Minds, Free People.

Anchor babies/Human shields


Screw the Democrat and Republican Parties and their particular brands of self-serving Political Correctness removing us from dealing with the real problems in America.

Anchor babies/Human shields




Well, here we are. I warned you it was coming soon. The cannibals in the Republican Party are attacking each other.

The Republican Party is formulating a battle plan to diminish the challenge their most dangerous enemy has presented for them. They’re trying like hell to figure out just what it will take to diminish the power and destructive might of forces they refuse to recognize in an opponent. And, thus we see the Republican Party’s need to coalesce behind battle-plans allowing them to progress beyond their present status of perpetual “also-ran”.

The main problem with this tactical development is their drive not to overcome Hillary Clinton but Donald Trump or any of the other droids seeking to maintain a liberal, socialist leaning nation where the middle class pays for everything, and the “poor” and “disadvantaged” have no responsibility to produce for themselves or the common good. This act shows how stupid the Republican Party hierarchy is right now. The hierarchy is too idiotic to recognize if they adopted his combativeness while fiercely addressing issues the Democrats shrink from; they could better control the narrative Trump has stolen from them in their rejection of the American people’s ideal.

They’d rather be “one –size fits none” than tailor-made for the ideals of the Constitution.

I’m no fan of The Donald. But Trump, for all of his blather, bombast and bullspit (sic) has vocalized what many people feel is the truth: Political Correctness (PC) is dishonesty in action and it’s destructive in practice. It hides personal, political agendas and there’s no illumination possible because of the “Black hole” of carefully crafted words disguising the truth of the debate. PC casts shadows on truth. It darkens perception by diverting attention to the act of PC as opposed to dealing with the issues to be addressed.

Take this controversy concerning “ANCHOR BABIES”. The term was coined to denote the Constitutional dilemma of children being born of people illegally entered and residing in America. The definition is a child “anchors” the parents in the United States because the child was born in America and becomes a native born citizen of the United States under the principle defined in the 14th Amendment. The theory is nobody wants to destroy a family by deporting the parents even though the child IS a citizen. The 14th Amendment was designed and passed to assure slaves maintained their citizenship post-Civil War.

PC says: “These are bad, bad people who would hurt a family”.

Unfortunately, the controversy concerning the term leads us away from noting the frailty of the 14th Amendment and the destructive element of people looking to abuse the honorable intent of the Amendment. They’re trying to use it as a tool to remove illegal aliens from responsibility for their criminal actions conducted with malice aforethought.  While everybody’s attention is directed to the “inhumane” treatment of “anchor babies”, they refuse to address the fact the mother crossed the border with the direct intent to violate the laws of the United States.

In this nation we impound the goods and money developed from the illegal actions of criminals. We address the fact these material possessions ARE a result of illegal actions and a fundamental element of criminal law is that NO individual, corporation or group shall profit from criminal acts in violation of standing, stated law. You don’t make millions of dollars from selling drugs and upon conviction for these crimes in court keep the ill-gotten gains. The state impounds the goods and profits.

In this case being discussed, the ill-gotten gain is citizenship and that citizenship of an infant is designed to keep the parents in this country because the child has “rights”. Where this is interesting (as it applies to developing a strategy) is in the fact a principle exists in legal understanding. This is called the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

The “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” doctrine is an offspring of the Exclusionary Rule. The Exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law. (“The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”.)

It’s interesting the principle of the “Poisonous Tree” is used to restrain the improper activities of the Police but isn’t used to combat the criminal efforts of illegal aliens to secure their residence in America through their conspiracy to bypass the spirit of a law. Should the conspiratorial efforts of a person be rewarded because the ill-gotten gains and benefits of the criminal activity are transferred to an “innocent” infant?

Special: Wipe Out Credit Card Interest Within 5 Minutes by Doing This
I wonder. Mostly I wonder why the so-called “legal experts” almost never argue for the benefit of people forced to support those violating the spirit of law and address the outright rape of the society directed to support them. Law is theory based on moral imperative. It is supposed to be based on ethical standards known, understood and shared by society. But law is subjective and the passions of the debate teams arguing the finer points shade the understanding.

I don’t want to hurt a kid; but I don’t want to have his/her parents profit from a vastly expanding Welfare State seeking to create a complex of socialist inspired crap I must pay for. So many people say the state will be hurting the innocent child. But, I’d say that it’s the parent that’s endangering the child by consciously USING the kid as a Human Shield designed (since before the child’s birth) to protect the parent from deportation. Therein exists the immorality of the process.

Screw the Democrat and Republican Parties and their particular brands of self-serving Political Correctness removing us from dealing with the real problems in America.

Thanks for listening

By Sarge


Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber- http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/


LAWFUL REBELLION
STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT

"FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE "


Free Minds, Free People.

Please Don't Go

Please Don't Go 

For my son Joshua Christainson I lost him in 2012 my heart still feels his loss I love you son




I'll hold your hand till it goes cold.
I'll hold my tears until you go.
With all the life that leaves your bones,
it soaks the purpose from my own



I'll hold your hand till it goes cold.
I'll hold my tears until you go.
With all the life that leaves your bones,
it soaks the purpose from my own.

Ohhh-ohh-oh
Please don't go...

I love you more than you could know.
You've got a hole inside my soul.
It's like a mountain soaked in snow.
It's in the earth the river flows.

Ohhh-ohh-oh
Please don't go...
Ohhh-ohh-oh
Please don't go...

I've kept my own side of the bed,
thinking you'd be home again.
I hold myself so I can sleep.
My pillow holds the streams of me.

Ohhh-ohh-oh
Please don't go...
Ohhh-ohh-oh
Please don't go...

So lay yourself down on my chest,
'cause I know how to hold you best.
I'll keep you through these last few breaths,
and kiss and love you till the end.

Ohhh-ohh-oh
Please don't go...
Ohhh-ohh-oh
Please don't go...

By Stephanie Rainey -  Video and Lyrics


Let It Shine

Americans must break free of the apathy-inducing turpor of politics, entertainment spectacles and manufactured news.

Let It Shine



“This little light of mine, I’m gonna’ let it shine! Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.”

Imagine children lustily singing the above lines which eventually became a civil rights anthem. Their innocence and happy resolve enlightens us. Yes! In the face of wars, refugee crises, weapon proliferation and unaddressed climate change impacts, let us echo the common sense of children. Let goodness shine. Or, as our young friends in Afghanistan have put it, #Enough! They write the word, in Dari, on the palms of their hands and show it to cameras, wanting to shout out their desire to abolish all wars.

This past summer, collaborating with Wisconsin activists, we decided to feature this refrain on signs and announcements for a 90-mile walk campaigning to end targeted drone assassinations abroad, and the similarly racist impunity granted to an increasingly militarized police force when they kill brown and black people within the U.S.
http://www.wnpj.org/

Walking through small cities and towns in Wisconsin, participants distributed leaflets and held teach-ins encouraging people to demand accountability from local police, and an end to the “Shadow Drone” program operated by the U.S. Air National Guard out of Wisconsin’s own Volk Field. Our friend Maya Evans traveled the furthest to join the walk: she coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence in the UK. Alice Gerard, from Grand Isle, NY, is our most consistent long-distance traveler, on her sixth antiwar walk with VCNV.

Brian Terrell noted what mothers speaking to Code Pink, as part of the Mothers Against Police Brutality campaign, had also noted: that surprisingly many of the officers charged with killing their children were veterans of the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He recalled past national events, such as the NATO summit in Chicago, in 2012, whose organizers tried to recruit temporary security officers from amongst U.S. veterans. Former soldiers, already traumatized by war, need support, healthcare and vocational training but instead are offered temp jobs to aim weapons at other people in predictably tense settings.

The walk was instructive. Salek Khalid, a friend of Voices, shared “Creating a Hell on Earth: U.S. Drone Strikes Abroad,” his own in-depth presentation about the development of drone warfare. Tyler Sheafer, joining us from the Progressive Alliance near Independence, MO, stressed the independence of living simply, off the grid and consuming crops grown only within a 150 mile radius of one’s home, while hosts in Mauston, WI welcomed Joe Kruse to talk about fracking and our collective need to change patterns of energy consumption. The ability to withhold our money and our labor is an important way to compel governments to restrain their violent domestic and international power.

We weren’t alone. We walked in solidarity with villagers in Gangjeong, South Korea, who’d welcomed many of us to join in their campaign to stop militarization of their beautiful Jeju Island. Seeking inter-island solidarity and recognizing how closely they share the plight of Afghans burdened by the U.S. “Asia Pivot,” our friends in Okinawa, Japan will host a walk from the north to the south of the island, protesting construction of a new U.S. military base in Henoko. Rather than provoke a new cold war, we want to shine light on our common cares and concerns, finding security in extended hands of friendship.

On August 26th, some of the walkers will commit nonviolent civil resistance at Volk Field, carrying the messages about drone warfare and racial profiling into courts of law and public opinion.

Too often we imagine that a life swaddled in everyday comforts and routines is the only life possible, while half a world away, to provide those comforts to us, helpless others are made to shiver with inescapable cold or fear. It’s been instructive on these walks to uncoddle ourselves a little, and see how our light shines, unhidden, on the road through towns of our neighbors, singing words we’ve heard from children learning to be as adult as they can be; attempting to learn that same lesson. The lyric goes “I’m not going to make it shine: I’m going to _let_ it shine. We hope that by releasing the truth that’s already in us we can encourage others to live theirs, shining a more humane light on the violent abuses, both at home and abroad, of dark systems that perpetuate violence. On walks like this we’ve been fortunate to imagine a better life, sharing moments of purpose and sanity with the many we’ve met along the road.



Kathy Kelly
Kathy Kelly (Kathy@vcnv.org) co-coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence (www.vcnv.org)

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber- http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/


LAWFUL REBELLION
STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT

"FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE "


Free Minds, Free People.

The Raping of America: Mile Markers on the Road to Fascism

The Raping of America: Mile Markers on the Road to Fascism



Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”—Martin Luther King Jr.

There’s an ill will blowing across the country. The economy is tanking. The people are directionless, and politics provides no answer. And like former regimes, the militarized police have stepped up to provide a fa├žade of law and order manifested by an overt violence against the citizenry.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/aug/24/global-stocks-sell-off-deepens-as-panic-grips-markets-live
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/28/americas-fatal-freedom-apathy/
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-15/the-political-circus-is-coming-to-the-iowa-state-fair

Despite the revelations of the past several years, nothing has changed to push back against the American police state. Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—continue to be choked out by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.

Despite the recent outrage and protests, nothing has changed to restore us to our rightful role as having dominion over our bodies, our lives and our property, especially when it comes to interactions with the government.

Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases—these are just a few ways in which Americans continue to be reminded that we have no control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials. Thus far, the courts have done little to preserve our Fourth Amendment rights, let alone what shreds of bodily integrity remain to us.

Indeed, on a daily basis, Americans are being forced to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States.

In other words, we are all guilty until proven innocent.

Worst of all, it seems as if nothing will change as long as the American people remain distracted by politics, divided by their own prejudices, and brainwashed into believing that the Constitution still reigns supreme as the law of the land, when in fact, we have almost completed the shift into fascism.

In other words, despite our occasional bursts of outrage over abusive police practices, sporadic calls for government reform, and periodic bouts of awareness that all is not what it seems, the police state continues to march steadily onward.

Such is life in America today that individuals are being threatened with arrest and carted off to jail for the least hint of noncompliance, homes are being raided by police under the slightest pretext, and roadside police stops have devolved into government-sanctioned exercises in humiliation and degradation with a complete disregard for privacy and human dignity.

Consider, for example, what happened to Charnesia Corley after allegedly being pulled over by Texas police for “rolling” through a stop sign. Claiming they smelled marijuana, police handcuffed Corley, placed her in the back of the police cruiser, and then searched her car for almost an hour. They found nothing in the car.http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Woman-claims-constitutional-violation-in-vaginal-6431919.php

As the Houston Chronicle reported:
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Woman-claims-constitutional-violation-in-vaginal-6431919.php

Returning to his car where Corley was held, the deputy again said he smelled marijuana and called in a female deputy to conduct a cavity search. When the female deputy arrived, she told Corley to pull her pants down, but Corley protested because she was cuffed and had no underwear on. The deputy ordered Corley to bend over, pulled down her pants and began to search her. Then…Corley stood up and protested, so the deputy threw her to the ground and restrained her while another female was called in to assist. When backup arrived, each deputy held one of Corley’s legs apart to conduct the probe.

As shocking and disturbing as it seems, Corleys roadside cavity search is becoming par for the course in an age in which police are taught to have no respect for the citizenrys bodily integrity.

For instance, 38-year-old Angel Dobbs and her 24-year-old niece, Ashley, were pulled over by a Texas state trooper on July 13, 2012, allegedly for flicking cigarette butts out of the car window. Insisting that he smelled marijuana, he proceeded to interrogate them and search the car. Despite the fact that both women denied smoking or possessing any marijuana, the police officer then called in a female trooper, who carried out a roadside cavity search, sticking her fingers into the older woman’s anus and vagina, then performing the same procedure on the younger woman, wearing the same pair of gloves. No marijuana was found.
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2012/12/irving-women-sue-state-troopers-in-federal-court-alleging-roadside-body-cavity-searches.html/

David Eckert was forced to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after allegedly failing to yield to a stop sign at a Wal-Mart parking lot. Cops justified the searches on the grounds that they suspected Eckert was carrying drugs because his “posture [was] erect” and “he kept his legs together.” No drugs were found.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2013/11/nm-man-sues-over-multiple-anal-cavity-searches.html

Leila Tarantino was subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic during a routine traffic stop, while her two children—ages 1 and 4—waited inside her car. During the second strip search, presumably in an effort to ferret out drugs, a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino. Nothing illegal was found. Nevertheless, such searches have been sanctioned by the courts, especially if accompanied by a search warrant (which is easily procured), as justified in the government’s pursuit of drugs and weapons.
http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-citrus-hernando/woman-claims-deputies-strip-searched-and-forcibly-removed-feminine-hygiene-product-on-roadside

Meanwhile, four Milwaukee police officers were charged with carrying out rectal searches of suspects on the street and in police district stations over the course of several years. One of the officers was accused of conducting searches of men’s anal and scrotal areas, often inserting his fingers into their rectums and leaving some of his victims with bleeding rectums. Halfway across the country, the city of Oakland, California, agreed to pay $4.6 million to 39 men who had their pants pulled down by police on city streets between 2002 and 2009.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/criminal-charges-against-police-in-strip-search-case-expected-today-gf5cb94-173312411.html
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Strip-searches-cost-Oakland-4-6-million-4035103.php

Its gotten so bad that you dont even have to be suspected of possessing drugs to be subjected to a strip search.

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Florence v. Burlison, any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials without reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is carrying a weapon or contraband.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf

Examples of minor infractions which have resulted in strip searches include: individuals arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell, making an improper left turn, engaging in an antiwar demonstration (the individual searched was a nun, a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years). Police have also carried out strip searches for passing a bad check, dog leash violations, filing a false police report, failing to produce a driver’s license after making an illegal left turn, having outstanding parking tickets, and public intoxication. A failure to pay child support can also result in a strip search.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf

It must be remembered that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was intended to prevent government agents from searching an individual’s person or property without a warrant and probable cause (evidence that some kind of criminal activity was afoot). While the literal purpose of the amendment is to protect our property and our bodies from unwarranted government intrusion, the moral intention behind it is to protect our human dignity.

Unfortunately, the indignities being heaped upon us by the architects and agents of the American police state—whether or not we’ve done anything wrong—don’t end with roadside strip searches. They’re just a foretaste of what is to come.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government doesn’t need to strip you naked by the side of the road in order to render you helpless. It has other methods, less subtle perhaps but equally humiliating, devastating and mind-altering, of stripping you of your independence, robbing you of your dignity, and undermining your rights.

With every court ruling that allows the government to operate above the rule of law, every piece of legislation that limits our freedoms, and every act of government wrongdoing that goes unpunished, we’re slowly being conditioned to a society in which we have little real control over our lives. As Rod Serling, creator of the Twilight Zone and an insightful commentator on human nature, once observed, “We’re developing a new citizenry. One that will be very selective about cereals and automobiles, but won’t be able to think.”

Indeed, not only are we developing a new citizenry incapable of thinking for themselves, we’re also instilling in them a complete and utter reliance on the government and its corporate partners to do everything for them—tell them what to eat, what to wear, how to think, what to believe, how long to sleep, who to vote for, whom to associate with, and on and on.

In this way, we have created a welfare state, a nanny state, a police state, a surveillance state, an electronic concentration camp—call it what you will, the meaning is the same: in our quest for less personal responsibility, a greater sense of security, and no burdensome obligations to each other or to future generations, we have created a society in which we have no true freedom.

Government surveillance, police abuse, SWAT team raids, economic instability, asset forfeiture schemes, pork barrel legislation, militarized police, drones, endless wars, private prisons, involuntary detentions, biometrics databases, free speech zones, etc.: these are mile markers on the road to a fascist state where citizens are treated like cattle, to be branded and eventually led to the slaughterhouse.

If there is any hope to be found it will be found in local, grassroots activism. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., it’s time for “militant nonviolent resistance.”

First, however, Americans must break free of the apathy-inducing turpor of politics, entertainment spectacles and manufactured news. Only once we are free of the chains that bind us—or to be more exact, the chains that “blind” us—can we become actively aware of the injustices taking place around us and demand freedom of our oppressors.




By John W. Whitehead

John W. Whitehead is an attorney and author who has written, debated and practiced widely in the area of constitutional law and human rights. Whitehead's concern for the persecuted and oppressed led him, in 1982, to establish The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties and human rights organization whose international headquarters are located in Charlottesville, Virginia. Whitehead serves as the Institute’s president and spokesperson, in addition to writing a weekly commentary that is posted on The Rutherford Institute’s website ( www.rutherford.org )


Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber- http://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/


LAWFUL REBELLION
STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT

"FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE "


Free Minds, Free People.