Thursday, May 29, 2008

Self Defense

(updated link) 05/29/08

Isnt just about using your hands, sometimes its about using your mind.

It also isnt just the criminals you have to defend yourself against.

I highly recommend every one of you watch the following video, it is geared more towards academia and professionals, but i think that only serves to reinforce the credibility of the ideas presented. this is not a fringe idea, this is not a hip hop "Stop Snitchin'" campaign, this is the facts. <---Video

There are thousands and thousands of laws on the book in every state of the union, and nearly as many felony laws in the massive library of laws we call the US Code. Any one of those many laws, even if not known to you (and there is no way anyone could know them all) can be used to deprive you of your Liberty. For example, are you aware that the 1981 amendment to the Lacey Act made it a felony to: "import, export, transport, buy, sell or receive fish, wildlife and plants taken or possessed in violation of federal, state, tribal, or foreign law or to transport fish or wildlife without a plainly marked package that clearly identifies the contents in accordance with the law".

So now, to remain certain you are not committing a felony, you have to not only know our laws, but the laws of every other country, even if those laws are not felony statutes. If you think this is far
fetched, you would be mistaken, as there are numerous accounts of convictions under this act, almost all of which result in serious prison time. Even if the fish was a gift from your uncle, and is protected by local law in haiti where the fish originated... Now admitting that you received the fish, say as to explain that you couldn't have committed the crime because you were at your uncles at the time, and you have just confessed to a felony and to a jail-able offense.

Fact: Anything you say can be used against you, but nothing you can say can be used in your defense. If you call the officer in court and ask him to repeat some wonderful clearing piece of evidence, it will be dismissed as hearsay, but if he misshears you say you did commit a crime, that is admissable evidence, and it becomes your word against his.

Fact: If you are caught in even an innocent or mistaken lie, the legal standard is that all of your testimony is also coloured by perjury, and close enough to a confession to assist in obtaining a conviction against you.

Fact: If you make a statement, even true, and the state can obtain a witness to claim something other than your claim, the same standard is applied, and you might as well have confessed, even if you are telling the truth.

Fact: "Off the record". Its like a unicorn. Neither one exists.

Fact: Congress, consistently passes around 300 new laws a year.

Consider the following:
  • In 2004, state and federal courts convicted a combined total of nearly 1,145,000 adults of felonies -- state courts convicted an estimated 1,079,000 adults and federal courts convicted 66,518 adults (accounting for 6% of the national total).

  • In 2004, 70% of all felons convicted in state courts were sentenced to a period of confinement.

  • Prison sentences in state courts averaged almost 5 years in 2004.

  • The average sentence to local jail was 6 months. The average probation sentence was about 3 years.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Sentencing Statistics

Dont betray yourself.

Dont become a statistic in a country with the highest rate of imprisonment in the world.

Dont think you can talk your way out of it.

Dont think they wont use anything you say against you

Dont think someone has to defend your rights, other than you.

Dont talk to the police.

Its a right, be proud of it. and exercise it.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." -- The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Please, defend yourself, before it is too late. Take the fifth.

If I've made any errors, please feel free correct me. Again, I'm not a lawyer, and i couldn't even begin to consider myself knowledgeable on the subject.

But, the guy in the video is both. Watch the video.

Semper Vigilans

Saturday, May 17, 2008

How to build a Human Bomb

Monbiot would like to let you know that the Pentagon has finally accomplished their goal of turning human beings into bombs.

If someone among you doubts the leaning this article takes, or find it some form of liberal apeasment i highly recommend you watch Adam Curtis' The Power of Nightmares.

You should know there, existant today, a cycle of politics that descends ever further into the freedomless abyss and calls even its enemies its greatest allies.

And remember, the Cold War saw no victor.

Tempus Fugit.

Protect and Serve Yourself

This is not an isolated story, though i hope it becomes an increasingly less frequent one, soon.

ALBANY -- Two years ago, Tunde Clement stepped off a bus at the city's main terminal downtown.

Clement, a black man, was carrying a backpack and coming from New York City. That may have been enough to pique the interest of undercover sheriff's investigators scanning the crowd with their eyes.

They cornered Clement and began peppering him with questions.

He was quickly handcuffed and falsely arrested. He was taken to a station to be strip-searched and then to a hospital, where doctors forcibly sedated him with a cocktail of powerful drugs, including one that clouded his memory of the incident.

A camera was inserted in his rectum, he was forced to vomit and his blood and urine were tested for drugs and alcohol. Scans of his digestive system were performed using X-ray machines, according to hospital records obtained by the Times Union.

The search, conducted without a search warrant, came up empty.

In all, Clement spent more than 10 hours in custody before being released with nothing more than an appearance ticket for resisting arrest -- a charge that was later dismissed.

read the rest, here

Obviously, this is an overstep on the part of the police department, both in policy and in execution, but i wonder if Mr Clement could have better protected himself.

Im not saying that something shouldnt be done about a police department that drugs people without their consent, but i am saying that, if this was you stepping off of a bus and being approached by two obviously edgy police officers, that you are still provided with some measure of rational protection. I know i write alot about how slowly, (and sometimes rapidly) the freedoms and liberties we so cherish are being torn from us, as we are more and more subject to the will of the new state, the police, the corporate and government interests, but the fact is that we are not yet without the ability to protect ourselves in one way or another. And in fact, we must.

Even in prisons, there are rules even guards have to follow, and there are ways for prisoners to protect themselves. This is still a Civil Society, and as of this day, that civility, even as its pushed to its breaking point is all that the average citizen has to defend himself. Im sure that Mr Clement didnt think this could happen to him, and so, he failed to protect himself. When he realized what was happening, im sure he lashed out, in fear, like many of us would. But for Mr Clement, it was already too late, he had already given up his defensive tools, one way or another, and at that point could only flail futilely at officers who far outgunned him, both litteraly and metaphoricly in the categories of ability and force. You, like the prisoner in a jail, cannot reasonably expect to make it anywhere with strength or force. You are outgunned in every respect. But you are not without defense. There are Rules, there are Limited Rights, there is a system that you can follow, not to regain your absolute liberty, which is not the issue here, but simply to protect yourself against further infringement. And you must protect yourself, because when you are face to face with those men in blue, sworn to "protect and serve", and they are coming after you, there is no one else to protect you. You can turn to no one but yourself, and you cannot fight your way out.

No, the only place you outgun a police officer is in the category of rights, not force. You have rights, albeit limitted ones, and, with careful use, you can defend yourself there, far before it gets to a contest of force which you have no chance of winning, and which will even make things far worse than would sheepish submission. You must defend yourself, with these rights, on this basis of civility because if you give up those rights, you give up that defense, and if you later discover that you need them, you will have no chance to pick them back up.

These are not tools for only criminals to defend themselves any more than guns can only be used to defend a criminals right to commit a crime, they are tools availiable for the mother to protect the child, the father to protect the wife, the family and the individual to protect itself from a system and society that more and more consistantly is inconsistant in its rationality and security.

How you can protect yourself durring a police confrontation. Your rights as a defense against police abuse.
AKA: The Rules.

Rule #1 - Never talk to a police officer. Keep your mouth shut! (You never have to answer any questions a police officer may ask, except for your name, address and date of birth.) This is your right, protected by the Fifth Amendment

Rule #2 - Never talk to a police officer.
Shut up! (How can you be charged with something if you haven't said anything?) Remember anything you say or do can be used against you. It cannot be used to help you.

Rule #3 - "Am I Free to Go?"
As soon as a police officer asks you a question, ask the police officer, "Am I Free to Go?" If you are detained or arrested by a police officer, tell them that you are going to remain silent and that you would like to see a lawyer. This is your right, protected by the Sixth Amendment.

Rule #4 - Never talk to a police officer. Keep your mouth shut! (You will be asked to cooperate, and told that if you have nothing to hide, you should answer a few questions, but what you are really being asked to do is to lay down your sheild, and hope that you are not run through on the point of a sword) You have nothing to hide, but you have no reason to strip away one of the only protections you are afforded.

Rule #5 - Safety. Never bad-mouth a police officer. Stay calm and in control of your words, body language and your emotions. Always keep your hands where the police officer can see them. Do not clench your fists or gesture wildly. Do not move suddenly, Do not run away and never, ever, touch a police officer in any way.

Rule #6 - Refuse to Consent to Searches.
Just say NO to searches! Remember if the police didn't need your permission, they wouldn't be asking you. Never give permission to a police officer to search you, your car or your home. If a police officer does search you, don't resist!

Rule #7 - Refuse to Consent to Searches. Just say NO to searches! Nothing that could be found could in any way be used to help you. Again, this is not a matter of "If you have nothing to hide..." This is common sense, and memorize the following phrase "I do not Consent to Any Searches." Say it often. This is your right, protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Rule #8 - "Am I Free to Go?" As soon as you have denied a police officers request to keep you for a search, ask the police officer, "Am I Free to Go?" If you are told you are free to go, ask what you are being held for. if you are free to go, thank him, and go on your way quietly and courteously.

Rule #9 - Safety. You may be frustrated. Never bad-mouth a police officer. Stay calm and in control of your words, body language and your emotions. Do not raise your voice. Always keep your hands where the police officer can see them. Do not clench your fists or gesture wildly. Do not move suddenly, Do not run away and never, ever, touch a police officer in any way.

Rule #10 - Ask for a Supervisor. If all else fails and you feel the police officer is abusing your rights, ask him to call his "supervisor" to your location. Ask him politely, note his badge name, and do not make demands or accusations. State firmly and calmly that you feel the situation is not playing out properly and that he should please call his supervisor to the location, you would be happy to wait.

Self Defense is a Human Right. Inalienable and uninteruptible.

Protect yourself and yours.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

30 Months

Len Savage, firearms expert, wants to tell you a story. A true one, that happened just down the street in small town america, just the other day. He should know, he was there at the trial, on the stand, when the story was first told. Now it may be over.

Mr. Olofson, a Drill Instructor in the National Guard, was asked by Robert Kiernicki to teach him how to shoot a firearm. Olofson did and from time to time would let Mr. Kiernicki borrow his oldest AR-15 , go to a public range and target practice. . . (O)n his third time at the range after 120 rounds down range the rifle sputtered three times and jammed. The Law enforcement on the range swept in... The rifle in question seized now by the ATF; It was sent to Firearm Technology Branch (FTB), the testing Arm of the BATFE. They examined and test fired the rifle; then declared it to be "just a rifle". You would think it would all be resolved at this point, this was merely the beginning. The Special Agent in Charge Jody Keeku asked FTB to re-test the firearm and this time use soft primered commercial ammunition.

FTB has no standardized testing procedures, in fact it has no written procedures at all for testing firearms. They had no standard to stick to, and gleefully tried again. The results this time..."a Machinegun". ATF with a self admitted 50% error rate pursued an indictment and Mr. Olofson was charged with "Unlawful transfer of a machinegun". Not possession, not even Robert Kiernicki was charged with possession (who actually possessed the rifle), though the ATF paid Mr. Kiernicki "an undisclosed amount of money" to testify against Mr. Olofson at trial.

At the same time Mr. Olofson was being charged with "Unlawful Transfer" because the rifle malfunctioned and had a M-16 trigger, disconnector, and hammer; calling it an AR-15 with M-16 trigger parts (not the parts that make a machinegun). The ATF removed "a machinegun" from the NFRTR or NFA registry, claiming it was an AR-15 with M-16 parts, therefore NOT "a machinegun". I have the documents, I can prove this. The court was never shown this information. When Mr. Olofson's Attorneys requested the court compel the ATF to provide this and other documents that proved his innocence to the court. The ATF Chief Counsel's Office told the court the documents contained tax information (federal excise tax stamp for $200) and the court was prohibited from seeing them. All documents were kept secret from the Honorable Judge Clevert and the rest of the court. Even the letter from the ATF to the manufacturer of Mr. Olofson's rifle from 1986, which mandated a "safety recall" due to the rifle going "full auto" if it malfunctioned. ATF Chief Counsel told AUSA Haanstad, who then told the court "The Court will have take our word, that the documents in question contain tax information and contain no exculpatory evidence".


That supposedly exculpatory document was never admitted to the court, the rifle was never examined by the defense, or by anyone other than the ATF, who denied an independent test, even when their own test at first showed zero evidence of wrongdoing. A paid (and no doubt, threatened with felony charges if he didnt) witness corroborated the governments story, but in the end it was sheer will on the part of the BATF and Prosecuting Attorney that brought charges forth against an outspoken but respected member of the community and national service, using tax money to build a case out of air with the abuse of an old recalled rifle and to buy a witness, who easily could have done something to the rifle in the weeks he had borrowed it. It was a series of (and i do mean several) no knock SWAT raids on Olofson's house, and the houses of several of his relatives, that netted nearly zero additional "evidence" (barring a .pdf and several emails that served to flesh out Olofson's political beliefs.), but a large amount of property seizures, and it was a judge who disallowed the admission of a strong defense and, in effect, "took the BATFe's word for it." Which, im sure, is what the local sheriff did when he lent his SWAT team to the feds front line. Its hard to say, exactly, who, if anyone is responsible, but what is certain, only one person will be held responsible in what appears to be a gross miscarriage of justice, and that is a man accused of giving a firearm to someone who then had a malfunction. This man was never accused of buying a machine gun, nor of manufacturing one, but somehow of giving one away, without an explanation of where it came from.

David R. Olofson, 36, was sentenced on May 13th, 2008, to 30 months in prison 2 years probation with 30 hours community service each year, and a $100.00 fine. He will leave behind his three children and his nearly 20 years of service in the armed forces. He will not be allowed to own a firearm, and in effect will be stripped not only of his rank and career, but of his rights as a US citizen.

Two and a half years.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Monday, May 12, 2008

Americans are Living and Dying in a Police State

Very good article at American Chronicle on the increasing use (40,000 times last year) of swat teams and what it means to public safety and liberty

SWAT teams were designed to deal with very violent individuals who represent a clear and present threat to the public. However, they are now being used to execute warrants on non-violent offenders and even those who have no prior criminal history at all. Turning our neighborhood cops into shock troops will do nothing but erode public confidence in the police and endanger the lives of innocent Americans.

Recently, Boston´s new police commissioner William Fitchet announced that the department´s Street Crimes Unit will begin wearing military-style black uniforms, to instill a sense of "fear." At last week´s city council meeting, police Sgt. John Delaney told council members that the black uniforms would send the message that officers were serious.

Did someone declare martial law?

Read the entire article, here:

Sunday, May 11, 2008

EFF Forces FBI to Rescind

The FBI has backed down on a secret request for information about auser of the Internet Archive digital library, thanks to a legal challenge from two prominent advocacy groups.

The case, which was brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the archive, dates to last year but only became public on Wednesday. That's because the typeof request involved, known as a national security letter (NSL), is accompanied by a gag order that forbids the recipient from disclosing its existence or discussing it with anyone except his attorneys, whoare also gagged. As a result of a settlement, the FBI agreed to withdraw the national security letter and to lift the gag order.

Internet Archive founder and digital librarian Brewster Kahle
The 2001 Patriot Act and its subsequent reauthorization dramatically expanded the FBI's ability to use NSLs, which do not require a court order and are supposed to be used only in investigations related to terrorism. Investigators are able to use the tactic to obtain customer records and logs from Internet service providers, telephone companies, financial institutions, but Congress in 2006 imposed limits on the FBI's ability to use NSLs on libraries. The EFF said this is the first known case to challenge an NSL served upon a library since those legal changes took effect.

The situation with the Internet Archive began last November, when the FBI served founder Brewster Kahle with an NSL (PDF) seeking an unspecified individual's name, address, and "any electronic communication transactional records" (i.e., not the content of communications, but logs of activity) pertaining to the user. Kahle,who is an EFF board member, believed the request was overbroad and decided to challenge the query in court, handing over only publicly available documents in the mean time.

"The free flow of information is at the heart of every library's work," Kahle said in a statement Wednesday. "That's why Congress passed a law limiting the FBI's power to issue NSLs to America's libraries. While it's never easy standing up to the government--particularly when I was barred from discussing it with anyone--I knew I had to challenge something that was clearly wrong."

The Internet Archive, founded in 1996, is a repository for archived Web sites, public domain books, concert recordings, and films, among other things. It has about half a million registered patrons and,according to the EFF, does not collect IP addresses of those who submit items to the collections or of those who read, view, or listen to its collections.
The Bush administration is hardly a stranger to lawsuits targeting itsuse of NSLs, and its challengers have met with some success in recent years. Last fall, for instance, a federal judge ruled the surreptitious requests for information were unconstitutional. A federal appeals court is expected to hear the government's appeal next month, the EFF said.

In addition, the FBI has taken heat two years in a row from the Department of Justice's inspector general--and, by extension, members of Congress--for misusing its NSL powers, including making attempts to seek and get information that would otherwise require a court order.The FBI says it has since instituted more internal checks on the process.
The police agency on Wednesday was quick to defend its actions in the Internet Archive case and the NSL approach more broadly. Here's a snippet from a statement released by spokesman John Miller:

"The information requested in the National Security Letter was relevant to an ongoing, authorized national security investigation.National Security Letters remain indispensable tools for national security investigations and permit the FBI to gather the basic building blocks for our counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations. Internet Archive voluntarily provided publicly available information to the FBI, and identified for the FBI that information it possessed which was not publicly available. Internet Archive's refusal to disclose this information formed the basis of itscivil suit, which the parties have now resolved through settlement."
Attorneys for Kahle said they considered the settlement a great victory. But they again voiced concern that untold numbers of improper NSLs have gone unchallenged because of their secretive nature.

"It appears that every time a national security letter recipient has challenged an NSL in court and forced the government to justify it,the government has ultimately withdrawn its demand for records,"Melissa Goodman, an ACLU staff attorney who worked on the case, said in a statement. "In the absence of much needed judicial oversight--and with recipients silenced and the public in the dark--there is nothing to stop the FBI from abusing its NSL power."

If anyone ever mentions these "national security" letters, demand thatthey either name the individuals who have wrongly been served with them,or admit that there is no problem because our omnibenevolent governmentwould never, ever, ever, misuse its power. This way you can claimvictory debating those concerned over such violations of civilliberties, as they cannot name the individuals wrongly served with these"national security" letters without getting them into even more trouble.When your opponents point out that one of the safeguards againstarbitrary abuse of government power is the requirement that thegovernment follow due process and prove its case against the accused ina public trial, scream that they are anti-Americanwant-the-terrorists-to-win libruls and repeat ad nauseam.

Now remember, the only reason we are hearing about this case is that it was taken to court by the EFF, whom i reccomend you sign up and support today, as they are on the front lines of privacy and freedom issues in the digital age every day), and because in this case, the receipient of the letter was a library, which is excluded. Let me make this clear. If you or i get one of those letters, if your boss, or your isp, your bank, your favorite filesharing server, whatever, gets one of these letters, no one will ever speak out about it, no word will ever be heard of it, and we, not all of us, will have the money or resources to fight, even if the letter, and its request, is mistaken or illegal. (which it seems most must be)

Support these advocacy groups, because one day, you may not be able to speak for yourself.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

EFF call to Action

From EFF, related to my previous post:

An outrageous Justice Department proposal directs federal law enforcement agencies to collect DNA samples from anyone they arrest. Speak out against this proposal that turns the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" on its head!

An outrageous Justice Department proposal directs federal law enforcement agencies to collect DNA samples from anyone they arrest. This is a radical departure from current policies, which allow DNA samples to be collected only after an individual has been convicted of a crime. This new proposal threatens to swell the government's DNA database with the sensitive genetic information of innocent people -- Americans involved in peaceful political protests, for example.

The public comment period will end on Monday, May 19, so now's time to speak out against this proposal that turns the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" on its head!

Consider the following points for your comments to the Department of Justice:

  • Innocent people do not belong in a criminal DNA database.
  • DNA is not a mere fingerprint -- it contains sensitive medical information that should not be recklessly collected and stored by the government.
  • "DNA profile matching" is inexact, and its accuracy varies wildly based on a number of factors. The bigger the database is, the greater the odds are that innocent people with be implicated for crimes they did not commit.
  • Allowing the collection of DNA samples by third-parties will drastically increase the incidence of errors and outright abuse of private genetic information.
Speak out by clicking "Add Comments" on the filing page to file an electronic comment with the US Department of Justice.

In Addition i might add that faulty dna collection might result in the conviction of a person arrested for a crime they were cleared of, by a match in the national database of unsolved crimes, and is therefor forcing someone to be a witness against themselves. (small matter of the constitution)

From the Mouths of Dragons.

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the "hidden" confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process."

--Alan Greenspan, 1966

Yeah, thats right, the same economist Greenspan who went on to chair the Federal Reserve, and lowered the interest rate to a meager 1%, thereby plunging the united states into a lending fit, resulting in the highest rate of inflation since the Great Depression.

At least you cant say he didn't know what he was doing.

Whether or not Bernanke knows what he is doing, as he repeats his predecessors strategy, remains to be seen.

If you would like to know what he was doing exactly, and what is being done, and i hope you do, i think we ought to start from the begining, a base line, so we are all on the same playing field. The story here, really, starts in 1913, in a place called Jekyll Island. For a very good rundown of this Creature from Jekyll Island, please watch G. Edward Griffins short documentary film of the same name, HERE

Now if you want to do something about this additional tax you are paying, there are many options, one of which is the Liberty Dollar, a private organization who aims to replace the current fiat system, with a form of currency backed by a concrete tradeable commodity. Currently you can buy gold and silver, in coin form, not just as bullion, but marked with an approximately current value, and will, therefore lock in its face value, even as the dollars that purchased it, continue to lose buying power. Since 1913, when the federal reserve dollar was created, it has lost 96% of its buying power. While i am apprehensive about the day to day feasibility of spending liberty dollars in day to day life (even though a quick search shows 52 businesses within 50 miles of me who do accept Liberty Dollars) I cannot see any downside to converting long term savings into a form of currency that will not lose that same value. In less than 100 years, those original dollars went from being able to buy a $1.00's worth of goods, to being able to buy what was $0.04 worth of goods. Leaving money to sit, in dollars, is to ask for that downward trend to continue, and to allow your money to evaporate into private coffers were they will then be spent on more chains for your necks.

These are problems.

There are Solutions.

Tempus Fugit

Sunday, May 4, 2008

A resurgence of state rights?

On May 11, 2008, the statutory deadline for compliance with the REAL ID Act will pass without a single state meeting its requirements. Indeed, more than 17 states have passed legislation objecting to or outright refusing to implement this national ID law. Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security handed out extensions of the compliance deadline just for the asking, but state leaders from across the ideological spectrum refused even this small gesture of acquiescence. A REAL ID rebellion is underway, and it has ushered in a debate on whether the United States should have a national ID system. The debate didn’t happen when the law passed because Congress held no hearings, and there was no up-or-down vote on REAL ID in the Senate. Votes this year on REAL ID funding, or perhaps repeal of the national ID law, will reveal where Members of Congress stand on the question whether law-abiding American citizens should be practically or legally required to carry a national ID. Please join us to hear two prominent leaders present their distinct perspectives on REAL ID, identification policy, national and individual security, identity fraud, and privacy.

As of today, only two states have completely ignored the DHS requirement to file an extension. Citizens of their states, may, in the future, have difficulties in traveling, or upon attempting to enter a federal building.

It seems to me that the rebelion of the states, and the ensuing civilian war some 200 years ago was primarily fashioned upon the principle that the thirteen states of the new england colonies would no longer accept blanket edicts from the distant egalitarian ruler, who would pass on its own laws and rulings upon a smaller and theoreticly independent government, without thought of the cost such restrictions might have upon those states.

Mark your calendars and listen to Mark Sanford, Republican Governor of South Carolina and Jon Tester, Democratic U.S. Senator from Montana, as they talk about why they oppose the federal governments attempts to mandate a national ID and surveillance network at the Cato Institute this Wednesday, May 7, 2008. As you should know, South Carolina is one of those two states who have refused to even file for the extension.

The forum will be streamed live, starting at 12:00 noon, online at the following links:

tv Watch the Event Live in RealVideo
Listen to the Event in RealAudio (Audio Only)

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Its 1939 all over again.

It is 1939 all over again. The world waits helplessly for the next act of naked aggression by rogue states. Only this time the rogue states are not the Third Reich and Fascist Italy. They are the United States and Israel.

The targeted victims are not Poland and France, but Iran, Syria, the remains of the Palestinian West Bank and southern Lebanon.

So begins former assistant secretary of the treasury under Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts' scathing allegations of an American addiction to lies in the pursuit of america's, (and israel's) great manifest destiny.

Read Roberts' article in its entirety, HERE

Liberty is a two way street, and you cant hold a man down, without getting right down there yourself. Become free, or become the oppressor, but you will never do both, no matter what their constant barrage of lies might tell you.

The past is on repeat.

historia vitae magistra

Thursday, May 1, 2008

May Day, 2008

As todays May Day celebrations, worldwide, draw to a close, I cant help but think how far this country has diverged from the country that made the phrase synonomous with workers rights protests in 1886 with the Haymarket Affair of Chicago.

How far we have come from a nation that remembers that we were not always sitting on top, and that to get there, a few battles had to be won. A nation that remembered who fought those battles. Today is a commemoration of many of those valliant struggles, and a day of solidarity across many ideals and movements. Its true that a few groups of communists and anarchists still commemorate the date here in the US, (for which they earn my commendation) but for the most part, it has all but been forgotten. Gone are the girls in white dresses lined up to see the parades, and gone is the idea that workers, everywere, had to stand up for themselves and take responsibility for the conditions they subjected themselves to on a daily basis, just to make ends meet. Times were tough, but those men and women understood that if there was any chance to change the machinery they were caught in, the mechanism of that change would have to be them.

Its true, the workers movement, and May Day as a whole was hijacked by unions and communists, and all sorts of organisations, The same organizations so many of us, look up to to make the world better for us but i think, its important to remember, The celebration of may day began with the workers themselves. Individual, sovereign beings campaigning for a better world, taking responsibility, and accepting sacrifice to acheive the world they thought they deserved. It, like this country, began with the people.

And it will end, with the people.

Here are a few links to pictures of celebrations around the world, for a picture knows no language barrier.

We Must be the Change We Wish to See in the World.

Whatever Happened to Never Again?

The Above is a speculative map of known ICE DRO, FEMA, and Military personnel holding facilities in the United States, either Completed, Empty, In Use, or under construction in the United States. Click the image for a clearer view. My apologies for not having a link to the original interactive map.

The more precise among you will no doubt notice that it is in fact a bit pessimistic, some would even say paranoid. Its contents include every Federal Airfield and Military Base that has land that could be requestioned, according to existing domestic emergency procedure and regulation, into holding facilities. So to call every blip on this map a "Prison Camp" is a bit inflammatory. However, its not the facilities currently being used for other things that should concern you. Its the dozens of new projects, the hundreds of ICE DRO processing facilities that are being built, or have been built to expand the governments holding capabilities far beyond the capacity currently allowed for in emergency plans. The idea that an emergency plan allowing for the detention and processing of humans in hundreds of existing facilities is not enough, this is what should concern you. The rapid expansion of a prison system that is not connected directly to a court system, this should concern you.

Its true, not every one of these facilities are directly earmarked as holding and processing facilities, but now, there are nearly an equal number of permanent facilities that serve no other purpose. These facilities are not to be used only for emergencies, they are to stand as a permanent place in American life, with full time administration, and full time guards.

The less suspicious of you will note that the stated purpose of these facilities is not to wontonly round up millions of Americans and intern them. You would be correct, the stated purpose is to act to "protect the continuity of government" in times of emergency, and to assist in the “removal of all removable aliens.” (who is removable is simply a matter for lawyers to figure out im sure, Illegal, legal, who's to say...) So, as long as you not an illegal alien, or active dissident or insurectionist, or supporter of terrorism, you should have nothing to worry about right?

Ask yourself, how would you prove that you are an American Citizen in good standing, with no alliance to any insurrection or rebellion, when they come to arrest you and put you on a train to take you to one of what may be close to 600 known and marked prison camps, without charge, evidence, or trial? How will you PROVE it to them, and who will insure they accept your proof? No lawyers, no judges, just you, and the end of a gun.

Its true, it might never come to this dreadful "Endgame" (their term, not mine) and American civilians may not be rounded up en mass and shoved in processing facilities around the country. the government may well have no intention of suspending Habeus Corpus universally, targeting specific groups, placing them in large scale transports, and shipping them to holding facilities to remove their threat to the state, but then, why would you not be upset with the spending of millions upon millions of dollars on a program that would be best used in that exact manner? If you are not mad at the threat of a government deciding the necessity of throwing Americans into reprocessing camps to stabilize the government, shouldn't you be mad at a government that is wasting so much money and resources planning for exactly that scenario?

Suppose you have figured out how you would prove that you are an American Citizen in good standing, with no alliance to any insurrection or rebellion, and will be waiting for the teams, papers in hand.

Now ask yourself, how could you NOT ally yourself with ANY rebellion or insurrection in the face of a government that would think nothing of raiding, seizing and putting 11-15 million people on trains and shuttling them to "processing facilities"?

How many of those people do you think will leave? If you think its 11-15 million, you are either naive or id guess, illiterate. Read a book.

History, is on repeat.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Word of advice, if you get nothing else out of this, remember this: Dont get on the train.

Ron Paul's Book Reaches No. 1 on Amazon Sales.

by Walt Thiessen

Could Ron Paul's new book, The Revolution: A Manifesto be an instant bestseller? It's looking good so far. Today is its first day of official release, and already it's up to #1 on the bestseller list. The list changes minute by minute, so it will likely be in a different position when you click on the Amazon link above.

When I reviewed the book a few days ago, I never expected to see this kind of interest in the book. Of course, I also didn't expect the huge groundswell of support Paul received over the past year. Silly me.

Today the Paul campaign sent out a press release in which Dr. Paul said, "Two days ago I did a book signing in New York at the Borders on Wall Street. All 530 copies had been sold before I even arrived....They had underestimated you again."

No kidding. The question now becomes how long the book will remain on the bestseller list. That will depend upon whether the book takes on a marketing life of its own, similar to the way the Paul campaign took on a life of its own via grassroots supporters. Potentially, this is a book that could end up being passed along from person to person to person. For a political book, it's a pretty easy read. Yet, it also touches all the significant topics of the day. If this book becomes America's flavor of the month in May, there's no telling what could happen in following months.

Of course, that's the goal of those who are promoting this latest "book bomb." Time will tell how well it will succeed. I wonder how quickly it can reach one million copies sold?