AMERICAN MARXISM BEWILDERS RUSSIANS

AMERICAN CAPITALISM GONE WITH A WHIMPER
By Stanislav Mishin, from Russia's Pravda www.Pravda.ru

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism
is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in D.C. that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonald's burger or a Burger King burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blinds the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Weimar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look like little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison.

Yes, the Americans have beaten our own thieves in the shear volumes. These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters. Should we congratulate them?

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too.

Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, and so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper -- but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world how free he really is. The world will only snicker. --Stanislav Mishin


The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appeared on his blog, Mat Rodina in Russia's Pravda newspaper.

Judicial Tyranny Run Amok in St. Clair County

On May 8, 2009, I appeared in courtroom 108 for the 20th Judicial Circuit Court in response to a Notice to Show Cause arising from a traffic ticket issued in 2006 by Collinsville, Illinois. The presiding judge was Zina Renea Cruse (pictured here). It appears that this courtroom is for first appearances relating to traffic/misdemeanor. Judge Cruse called my name and I approached the bench.

The judge then began to question me about the 2006 ticket, asking me how I wished to plead. I was taken aback, since the charge had been dismissed in 2006 by Collinsville, but the judge persisted in questioning me regarding the alleged ticket. I tried to explain how I was not there to answer any questions regarding any ticket, but there only to show cause why I should not be held in contempt by not appearing for a court date, of which I was never apprised of, relating to a charge of which I never received. I asked the Judge if she could produce for me a verified complaint alleging a charge, to which she showed me a printout of something which represented a copy of a ticket, but which was not an actual charge.

Judge Cruse attempted to enter a plea of not guilty on my behalf, upon which I objected to her attempting to act as my legal representative. I reiterated that I objected to her questioning me about the charge, and I would only entertain the issues regarding the show cause notice. She also attempted to schedule a bench trial for the 3 year old charge, which was previously dismissed, which I refused to accept or participate with.

In an example of further incompetence and lunacy, when I questioned why I was being questioned about a dismissed charge, Judge Cruse attempted to tell me that, since Collinsville is in both Madison and St. Clair Counties, the Madison County part of Collinsville was dismissed, but not the St. Clair County side. I asked her if there were two charges arising from one incident which were filed in two counties by one municipality; to which she replied, "yes". What that implies is that one traffic ticket issued by Collinsville subjected me to the jurisdiction of both Madison County and St. Clair County. That is either a bold-faced lie or an expression of incompetence. Furthermore, how would Judge Cruse have any information regarding the Madison County charge when she is sitting in St. Clair County? The charge from Collinsville was a municipal charge and the setting was municipal court in Collinsville. When I appeared for that charge the judge, Mallotte, attempted to engage in the same kind of chicanery as Cruse and attempted to entice me to entering a plea to a improper charge. Mallotte also attempted to enter a plea for me, upon which I objected. After I refused to participate with that insanity I received notice the charge had been dismissed.

At this time, Judge Cruse, ordered me in contempt and had me placed under custody. I was then cuffed and placed in a holding room and later transferred to a cell in cuffs and ankle chains. Judge Cruse acted with hostility, contempt, unprofessionalism, and ignorance in attempting to goad me into stepping into a trap laid by fraud and deceit by entering a plea and accepting without having seen or been informed of, an unsubstantiated charge. She acted as a despot in depriving me of 3 hours of my liberty without due process of law, for my merely questioning the proceedings and standing upon my rights. Judge Cruse acted outside her judicial capacity and in violation of her office. Judge Cruse expressed the fundamental defects of the legal system as it exists today, by refusing to listen to defendants or providing a discussion of the merits of the charges by arresting those who take exception to her demands, or fail to submit to her ignorance and oppression.

Judge Cruse, it would serve you well to understand the limits of your megalomaniacal judicial powers. Your powers to not extend beyond your little fiefdom, and do not attach to people who retain their Creator-derived rights and fail to submit to your, and your ilk's, despotism. You act as a brigand, thug, and tyrant. You possess no authority over me. I will not step foot into your courtroom again. I perceive you to be my enemy, untrustworthy, abusive, and illogical. I am in fear for my liberty should I meet you on your terms again, and I will not be a willing party to what amounts to my own undoing. It would serve you well to leave me be. Save your time, energy, and abuse for those intimidated by your delusional exercise of tyranny.

FOOTNOTE: It appears that Zina Cruse may also be an Associate Minister of the Christian Fellowship M.B. Church in St. Louis. If Ms. Cruse's courtroom demeanor is any reflection of her "Christian" beliefs then she is either a consummate hypocrite, or poor example of a Christian. Ms. Cruse can be emailed here z_cruse@sbcglobal.net Her Illinois Bar Association page is here.

My Cup of Tea

My Cup of Tea

Unless you have been in a coma, it is hard to escape all the talk about the Tea Party phenomena. People are getting tired of government waste and abuse. Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long. The Declaration of Independence states that, "...and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." The evils to which we are accustomed are no longer sufferable. It does not take government to decide when its evils are insufferable; or even to decide what the People consider evils, but each individual suffering under the systemic denial of their natural, unalienable rights to reach a point where they say, "Enough!"

Even though the Tea Party phenomena is a good starting point, it relies upon people gathering together to express their discontent. The adage, "there is strength in numbers" may hold true, but there must first be strength within. What happens when the Tea Party participants have disbanded and go back to their daily routine? The strength of their collective body is dispersed to the respective individuals; often to be remanded back into the despotism from which they crawled for a moment of outrage. They resign to pay obligatory homage to the State, mind their business, pledge their allegiance, and comply with every regulatory edict that may inject itself into their private affairs. The State is none the worse for the momentary display of petulance from its conscripts.

If one is to take a honest assessment of their conscience, beliefs, and morals they would be hard-pressed to accede that what government does is in harmony with why it was first created. Many, I posit, are so preoccupied and distracted by the day-to-day demands upon their senses for maintaining their burdensome debt that they give little thought, if any, to just how little autonomy they actually possess. There are movements afoot where some States are proposing bills which purport to assert the State's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment; which unfortunately has been all but eviscerated thanks to the States having become federal municipalities through the disbursement of federal monies to supplant the reserved powers of the States. Yes, you have even been compromised by your State legislatures who exercised control over you by pandering to Uncle Sam for the spoils which had previously been extracted from you through fraud and coercion. How these States will substantiate their sovereignty with tainted hands dyed green from the Federal Reserve's worthless script, or red from the United States' imperial aggression worldwide, is yet to be seen. It is never too late for change.

Regardless, none of this is worthwhile without a fundamental change within our own minds. There is needed, a paradigm shift in the way we reason. Government is not something that exists in perpetuity. It requires people; people to lend their consent; people to submit to that authority; people to occupy the offices; people to oppress other people. It is all a game. An often violent and oppressive game,but a game nonetheless. If you want to identify the cause for all your suffering you need only to gaze upon yourself.

I held my own Tea Party some time ago. The only participant was myself. There was discord between my conscience and the innumerable demands placed upon me by external restraint and compulsion. I stepped outside myself and took a critical assessment. I was not pleased. Much of what I had done in the past was done through information handed down by others no more invested in their lives than I had been. It was hearsay, presumption, and ignorance. When I asked about the "why" I was to comply with edicts, there was never reasoning founded upon morality or justice, but upon what would happen to me if I did not obey. The truth is, we live under the threat of force, fear, and oppression. We are not truly free, we are free as long as we obey.

Each one of us has to come to terms with how we either submit or rule in our own lives. Over a year ago I took the steps to remove my consent, express or implied, from being a subject under this festering despotism I see before me. I have authored a Declaration which makes unequivocal statements to the world as to who I say I am and where my authority over my life derives. I have divested myself of the subjugation imposed upon me by way of my past ignorance. I can walk proudly and honestly, without fear, and confront so-called authority that believes it has acquired some lawful right to compel my allegiance. After sending a copy to the City of Collinsville, the then-Mayor, Stan Schaeffer, issued a memo identifying me as a possible "threat" because of my promise to exercise my natural right to self-defense. This mentality is prevalent in government institutions. Government actors do not like individuals who have lost their fear and confront their lies. They do not fear me as much as the message I offer taking hold in the minds of other free-thinking individuals. That was my cup of tea.

I still wait for supposed rulers to compel me to obey. I have made my Declaration and stand by it, to the end, if need be. If this causes government actors some discomfort then it is within their minds such discomfort originates. I am a peaceable man, but will defend myself against aggression. I am not to be ruled by any man, or group of men, without my explicit consent. This is where we all find ourselves today. Tea Parties are a good start, but until you possess the temerity, resolve, belligerence, and tenacity to stand upon your natural, Creator-derived rights, you are nothing but a subject. There is no strength in numbers, when the individuals amongst such ranks are living in fear and ignorance. You can read about my journey, and my Declaration, at http://www.markmccoy.com. You can start by freeing yourself, which is only a thought away.

Cops: Public Servants or Fascist Pigs? (Part 1)

It was not many years ago when I considered myself a supporter of
"law enforcement." (I made donations, had the F.O.P. and Sheriff's
department stickers and everything.) Cops were, I believed, the
good guys, protecting the innocent and imposing justice upon
evildoers. Oh sure, I knew there was corruption here and there, and
scattered examples of police abuse--a few "bad apples" in the ranks-
- -but all in all, I thought the cops were the good guys.

Now I'm really darn embarrassed that I ever thought that.

This will be the first in a series of messages where we examine the
question, are the American "law enforcers" of today noble public
servants, or despicable fascist pigs?

First, we must define our terms. For example, someone having a
short temper, or exercising bad judgment, even repeatedly, is not
necessarily a fascist pig. No, a cop's level of "fascismo," if you
will, must be measured by something other than just being stupid or
even malicious. To truly be a fascist, a cop must demonstrate that
he has the fascist mindset. So let's define what that is.

A NON-fascist cop, when he looks out at the world, would see lots
of good people, whom he would want to protect, and would never want
to harm, intimidate, or even inconvenience unnecessarily. His goal
would be to find the nasty people in the world, and see to it that
they are prevented from harming any of the decent people.

A FASCIST cop, on the other hand, would view everyone as his
inferior, to be controlled, interrogated, or even abused at will.
He sees himself, a representative of "authority," as having the
right to forcibly impose his will on anyone he wants, whenever he
wants, for any reason (or no reason) and the right to use outright
violence against any who do not obey his every whim.

So, in this message and the ones to follow, we will examine
examples of police conduct in this country, and rate the level of
"fascismo" demonstrated by American "law enforcement." What we
won't bother looking at are things like a car chase which ends with
a cop with too much adrenaline in his blood, or a cop shooting
someone with somewhat questionable justification. No, we are
looking for ATTITUDE. The goal is to determine if American cops
today think like defenders of justice, or like fascist pigs.

- ---<>---

As you may know, the feds now do internal "checkpoints," anywhere
they want within a hundred miles of the border. If you haven't yet
heard of this Orwellian absurdity, here are the basics:

http://www.aclu.org/priva...

(Yes, I know the ACLU is very selective about which rights it cares
about. It fights hard to defend the First Amendment, while fighting
hard to VIOLATE the Second Amendment. But their site gives a good
summary of the "Constitution free zones.")

With the "checkpoint" information in mind, here is the specific
incident we're considering this time, with our "fascistometers" at
the ready:

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

Once you've watched the entire video (it's less than nine minutes),
consider a few things:

1) First of all, would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig take part in
these warrantless, suspicionless searches at all? Well, no. To
think you have the right to stop and interrogate anyone who happens
to drive down a road, and the right to search through his stuff, is
a classic symptom of being a fascist pig.

2) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig view someone's reliance on
his Fourth Amendment rights (to not be subjected to an unreasonable
and unjustified search) as a REASON to search his car? Put another
way, would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig think that someone must
be a criminal if he doesn't want to volunteer to let some jackboot
rummage through his stuff? No. Again, this is a classic symptom of
someone with a fascist pig world view. (Note that in the clip, the
guy describes how the fascist pigs at one point admitted that
everything the guy went through was because he wouldn't answer a
question.)

3) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig FAKE "probable cause" in
order to get around that pesky Fourth Amendment? No. They had no
reason to suspect anything--to stop him at all, or to search him
after the stop--and then they LIED about it to make up an excuse to
do a search. Classic fascist pig behavior.

4) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig smash someone's car
windows, taser him, and forcibly extract him from his car, without
ANY "probable cause" to think the person had committed a crime?
Again, no. (If you're finding these questions difficult to answer,
please move to Cuba.)

5) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig grind someone's face into
broken glass, throw him to the ground, stomp on his head, and
otherwise assault him, when the person is unarmed and not
resisting, and when there is still no evidence that the guy had
committed any crime? No. (The clip doesn't say whether the cops
ever knew that the guy is a pastor.)

6) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig openly delight in someone
else's misery and suffering, while the person is handcuffed and
bleeding profusely, mocking and insulting the guy, when there was
still NO EVIDENCE that the guy had committed any crime? No. (I
could make another item about not letting the guy go to the
bathroom, but I'm trying to keep this relatively short.)

7) Here's an important one: Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig
QUIETLY STAND BY while his fellow "officers" did what is described
above? NO. If this was a case of one or two "bad apples" in law
enforcement, wouldn't some other cop there have tried to stop it,
or at least complained about it afterwards? So how often have you
ever seen that? Where are the "good cops" speaking out about this
stuff?

8) Would anyone who is NOT a fascist pig want to proceed to
prosecute the VICTIM of all the abuse I described above, despite
the fact that there is STILL no evidence that he committed a crime?
No.

Okay, so what's the verdict for this example? Well, if the story
above is an accurate reflection of what "law enforcement" in this
country is like today, then American cops are indeed fascist pigs,
who deserve our utmost contempt and condemnation. (And if it is NOT
an accurate reflection of the attitudes and behavior of the police
in this country, where are the GOOD cops speaking out against this?)

In closing, I'd like to say the following to Mr. C. Diaz, Mr. B.
Griffiths, and Mr. E. Gomez, and any other Nazi swine who
participated in the incident described above. If some day you pick
the wrong target for your Gestapo crap, and the guy blows your damn
fascist pig heads off, the world will be a better place.

Oh, and have a nice day.

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

You Are Being Lied to About Pirates

Who imagined that in 2009, the world's governments would
be declaring a new War on Pirates? As you read this,
the British Royal Navy - backed by the ships of more
than two dozen nations, from the US to China - is sailing
into Somalian waters to take on men we still picture as
parrot-on-the-shoulder pantomime villains. They will soon be
fighting Somalian ships and even chasing the pirates onto
land, into one of the most broken countries on earth. But
behind the arrr-me-hearties oddness of this tale, there
is an untold scandal. The people our governments are
labeling as "one of the great menace of our times" have
an extraordinary story to tell -- and some justice on
their side.

Pirates have never been quite who we think they are. In
the "golden age of piracy" - from 1650 to 1730 - the
idea of the pirate as the senseless, savage thief that
lingers today was created by the British government in a
great propaganda-heave. Many ordinary people believed it
was false: pirates were often rescued from the gallows
by supportive crowds. Why? What did they see that we
can't? In his book Villains of All nations, the historian
Marcus Rediker pores through the evidence to find out.
If you became a merchant or navy sailor then - plucked
from the docks of London's East End, young and hungry -
you ended up in a floating wooden Hell. You worked all
hours on a cramped, half-starved ship, and if you slacked
off for a second, the all-powerful captain would whip you
with the Cat O' Nine Tails. If you slacked consistently,
you could be thrown overboard. And at the end of months
or years of this, you were often cheated of your wages.

Pirates were the first people to rebel against this
world. They mutinied against their tyrannical captains -
and created a different way of working on the seas. Once
they had a ship, the pirates elected their captains,
and made all their decisions collectively. They shared
their bounty out in what Rediker calls "one of the most
egalitarian plans for the disposition of resources to be
found anywhere in the eighteenth century." They even took
in escaped African slaves and lived with them as equals. The
pirates showed "quite clearly - and subversively - that
ships did not have to be run in the brutal and oppressive
ways of the merchant service and the Royal navy." This is
why they were popular, despite being unproductive thieves.

The words of one pirate from that lost age - a young
British man called William Scott - should echo into this
new age of piracy. Just before he was hanged in Charleston,
South Carolina, he said: "What I did was to keep me from
perishing. I was forced to go a-pirating to live."

In 1991, the government of Somalia - in the Horn of Africa
-collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on
starvation ever since - and many of the ugliest forces in
the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to
steal the country's food supply anddump our nuclear waste in
their seas. Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government
was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing
off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the
ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first
they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies.
Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and
leaking barrels washed up on shore.

People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than
300 died. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia,
tells me: "Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There
is also lead, and heavy metalssuch as cadmium and mercury
- you name it." Much of it can be traced back to European
hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to
the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply. When I asked
Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it,
he said with a sigh: "Nothing. There has been no clean-up,
no compensation, and no prevention."

At the same time, other European ships have been looting
Somalia's seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have
destroyed our own fish-stocks by over-exploitation - and now
we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m worth of tuna,
shrimp, lobster and other sea-life is being stolen every
year by vast trawlers illegally sailing into Somalia's
unprotected seas. The local fishermen have suddenly lost
their livelihoods, and they are starving. Mohammed Hussein,
a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu,
told Reuters: "If nothing is done, there soon won't be
much fish left in our coastal waters."

This is the context in which the men we are calling
"pirates" have emerged. Everyone agrees they were ordinary
Somalian fishermen who at first took speedboats to try to
dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least wage a 'tax'
on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coastguard
of Somalia - and it's not hard to see why. In a surreal
telephone interview, one of the pirate leaders, Sugule
Ali, said their motive was "to stop illegal fishing and
dumping in our waters... We don't consider ourselves
sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who
illegally fish and dump in our seas and dump waste in our
seas and carry weapons in our seas." William Scott would
understand those words.

No, this doesn't make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes,
some are clearly just gangsters - especially those who have
held up World Food Programme supplies. But the "pirates"
have the overwhelming support of the local population for
a reason. The independent Somalian news-site WardherNews
conducted the best research we have into what ordinary
Somalis are thinking - and it found 70 percent "strongly
supported the piracy as a form of national defence of the
country's territorial waters." During the revolutionary
war in America, George Washington and America's founding
fathers paid pirates to protect America's territorial
waters, because they had no navy or coastguard of their
own. Most Americans supported them. Is this so different?

Did we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their
beaches, paddling in our nuclear waste, and watch us snatch
their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and
Rome? We didn't act on those crimes - but when some of the
fishermen responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for
20 percent of the world's oil supply, we begin to shriek
about "evil." If we really want to deal with piracy, we
need to stop its root cause - our crimes - before we send
in the gun-boats to root out Somalia's criminals.

The story of the 2009 war on piracy was best summarised by
another pirate, who lived and died in the fourth century BC.
He was captured and brought to Alexander the Great, who
demanded to know "what he meant by keeping possession of
the sea." The pirate smiled, and responded: "What you
mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with
a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you, who do it
with a great fleet, are called emperor." Once again, our
great imperial fleets sail in today - but who is the robber?

Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper. To
read more of his articles, click here. or here.

POSTSCRIPT: Some commenters seem bemused by the fact
that both toxic dumping and the theft of fish are
happening in the same place - wouldn't this make the
fish contaminated? In fact, Somalia's coastline is
vast, stretching to 3300km. Imagine how easy it would
be - without any coastguard or army - to steal fish from
Florida and dump nuclear waste on California, and you get
the idea. These events are happening in different places -
but with the same horrible effect: death for the locals,
and stirred-up piracy. There's no contradiction.

Limited Time Offer to Government

I wish to make a point. I know you are watching. You are looking for a reason. I bet it will be tied to some of the draconian legislation dealing with domestic terrorism. The free expression of ideas is no longer sacrosanct. Should an individual's words go against the grain of what government believes is in its best interests in preserving its powers then they are an enemy of the State.

I've been told by people who are concerned for me that I should lay low. I have "painted a target on my chest". It is foolish to express my opinions in provocative and controversial ways. If my words cause government anxiety then that is a shortcoming of government.

I will do this. I will make this overture. To-date, every effort I have made to engage government in extracting honest answers regarding its authority has brought nothing but silence. Considering the increasingly violent actions of government through aggression, police state tactics, disregard for individual liberties, I feel it prudent to avail myself to being humbled by the almighty State should it wish to contact me personally and with proof-shown, enlighten me to the error of my ways. Take me under the wing and reason with me. Correct my misperceptions and elucidate me with the higher, moral-law which I mistake as despotism, fraud, and tyranny. Bring me back into the fold, if you can.

Please, contact me. I will meet with you, personally. I will not engage you on your territory, but will meet at a neutral location. You may email or phone me as well. Know this, I will record the conversation. I will make it public. I am no stranger to being questioned by the "feds". I am aware of the games and pretenses. Do not insult my intelligence. I expect that if there was any evidence which gave rise to a criminal act I would already be in custody. I expect you to make my point and show the people how you assail a peaceable man.

Use my contact us form and provide when and where you wish to meet. I will be unarmed, and I would expect the same.

I will say that I do not expect any takers on this offer. I will instead expect violence, hyperbole, and contrived accusations. I hope you prove me wrong. What is there to fear? Why not take the opportunity to possibly convert me?

I await any contact, but not for long.

Citizenship created for slaves ala the 14th Amendment

"GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS
FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED!"
Guess who are consenting to be Governed ? Answer: Voters, 14th
Amendment citizens of the United States. If you don't claim to be
one of them, don't pretend you are one them, guess what ? You are
not one of the governed (voters) and will get no administrative
relief. Treason by Design, By L.B. Bork
pacinlaw.org
HERE IS THE UNCONSCIONABLE KICKER! You may refer to it as the SET-UP!
It is a fact that is well documented that you have to be a citizen of
the United States to vote in any elections. You may verify this by
checking your [S]tate statutes regarding the state voting
regulations. Although it is difficult to see as the language is
intentionally written to confuse people if you decipher Section 2 of
the Fourteenth Amendment you will see that the de facto states or
governments only represent people who are voting. Someone who is
versed in syntax may be of assistance in the deciphering process.
Accordingly, earlier above in this article it was stated that it is a
crime to vote in elections! Illustrated forthwith is the pertinent
text taken from Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment which
exemplifies that it is a crime to vote. This is so evil it is beyond
belief:
". . . the right to vote at any election. . . is denied. . . except
for participation in rebellion, or other crime. . . "
You must understand that you cannot just create "citizens of the
United States " without violating inherent Constitutional premises
under the Law of Nations; accordingly, the constitutional government
[s] of the several states of America need to be usurped. This is done
by making voters unwittingly throw off their allegiance to their
lawful governments. The clause illustrated in Section 2 of the
Fourteenth Amendment does this.

California Appellate Court Confirms Fragility of Red Light Camera Cases – You Have to Fight to Win

California Appellate Court Slams Sacramento Red Light Camera Program
Appellate court rules Sacramento County, California red light camera
program does not produce sufficient evidence to convict drivers.
A decision issued last month by the Appellate Division of the
Superior Court in Sacramento County, California would invalidate
at least eighty percent of red light camera tickets in Sacramento
if drivers were to bring their case to court and contest their
citations. A three judge panel found the photo system did not
generate evidence sufficient to convict local motorist David Graham,
38, of running a red light.
"Sometimes you can fight city hall," said Graham. "Now those bozos
will have to give me back every penny of the $371 they bilked me
for the ticket."
On March 2, 2008, Graham's 1995 Oldsmobile was photographed by a
red light camera at the intersection of Power Inn Road and Folsom
Boulevard. However, unlike most newer programs in California, the
angle of the red light camera photographs in Sacramento County do not
actually show the signal light in the photograph itself. Instead,
a data box superimposed on the citation photo shows the letter "R"
which indicates that the signal was red, according to Affiliated
Computer Services (ACS), the for-profit company that operates the
program. That was not sufficient evidence for the appellate court.
"Without photographs showing appellant committing the violation,
the system must be proven reliable beyond a reasonable doubt in
order for the people to meet their burden of proof," Presiding
Judge Maryanne G. Gilliard wrote.
The police employee who testified in Graham's case, Officer Holt,
said that he had examined logs that showed an ACS technician
had maintained the camera properly and that there were no
malfunctions. Graham used the California Rules of Evidence to
challenge this claim as hearsay.
"We have no way of knowing what the technician did to reach these
conclusions, because that technician is not in court, and Officer
Holt admits to having no direct, personal knowledge of what the
technician did," Graham wrote in his brief to the court.
The court noted that the first photograph on Graham's citation
showed his Oldsmobile behind the limit line with cross traffic
facing a red -- not a green -- light.
"Given the evidence adduced at appellant's trial, this panel finds
that a rational trier of fact could not reasonably find, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the light controlling appellant's entry into
the intersection was red when he first crossed the limit line,"
Judge concluded "Therefore, we find that substantial evidence does
not support appellant's conviction. The conviction is reversed with
directions to dismiss the complaint."
Graham is now asking the court to publish his case so that it will
have precedential value. California courts have protected red light
camera programs in the past by holding similar decisions unpublished
to prevent mass refunds from programs operating in ways that violate
California law.
A copy of the decision is available in a 150k PDF file at the source
link below.
Source: California v. Graham (California Superior Court, Appellate
Division, 2/20/2009)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2715.asp

ABOUT THE COMMON LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

Q. WAS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BASED ON THE COMMON LAW?

A. Yes. The Constitution of the united States of America originated as a Common Law document. That was the underlying law the founding fathers based the entire structure of our nation upon. It was the law of the land until the 1938 Supreme Court ruling (Erie Railroad) which statutorized the Common Law.

    "It is never to be forgotten that in the construction of the
     language of the Constitution,  we are to place ourselves as
     nearly as possible  in the condition of  the men who framed
     that instrument." Ex Parte Bain. 12 U.S. 1 7 S. Ct. 781.

    "We are bound to interpret the  Constitution in the light of
     the law as it existed  at the time it was adopted."  Mattos
     v. U.S. 156 U.S. 237 at 243.

    "It must  be  interpreted  in the light  of Common Law,  the
     principles and  history  of which were  familiarly known to
     the  framers  of  the  Constitution.  The  language  of the
     Constitution  could not be understood  without reference to
     the Common Law."  U.S. v. Wong Kim. Ark. 169 U.S. 649.18 S.
     Ct. 456.

    "In this, as in other respects, (a Constitutional provision)
     must be  interpreted  in the light of the  Common Law,  the
     principles and  history of which  were familiarly  known to
     the framers of the Constitution..." Minor v. Happersett. 21
     Wall. 162.

    "The  language  of the Constitution,  as has been well said,
     could  not be  understood without  reference to the Common
     Law."  1 Kent. Comm. 336,  Kepner v. U.S.  195 U.S. 100 at
     125.

Q. IS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES THE SUPREME LAW?

A. Yes. The Constitution of the united States of America is the Supreme Law of the Land. Even after the Common Law was statutorized, and courts became Merchant Law courts imposing the Uniform Commercial Code, it must be noted that the U.C.C itself declares that it cannot be in conflict with the Common Law -- and in situations where it is, it bows to the tenants of the original Common Law.

    "Law of the Land" means the "Common Law." State v. Simon 2
     Spears 761.767 (1884) Justice O'Neal.

    "Law of the Land" means "The Common Law." Taylor v. Porter
     4  Hill  140.  146  (1843)  Justice Bronson.    Webster's
     definition of "Law of the Land" at Dartmouth 4 Wheat 518.
     581.

Q. MUST THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND STATE LAWS CONFORM AND COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES?

A. Yes. State Constitutions and State laws must be in compliance with, and in conformity to, the Constitution of the united States of America for that State to be acceptable as one of the sovereign states of the union of the united States of America.
"Provided,  the Constitution  to be formed in  virtue of the
     authority herein given, shall be republican, and consistent
     with the  Constitution of the united States;  that it shall
     contain the  fundamental principles  of civil and religious
     Liberty;  conformable to the provisions of the Constitution
     of the United States."  Enabling Act of Congress.  Feb. 20,
     1811. C.21. 2 U.S. Statute 641.

Q. IS ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION SUBJECT TO COMMON LAW REMEDY?

A.  "Even Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, when brought inland,
     is subject to the  Common Law remedy  the same as  Equity; and
     cannot  supersede the  sovereign  Citizens'  God endowed/given
     unalienable/inalienable  rights,  and  these  same  rights  as
     secured in and under the  Constitution of the united States of
     America."  Title  5 USC.  Sec. 559 Sentence #2,  Title 28 USC.
     Sec. 2072, Miranda v. Ariz. 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).

    "(a) Saving to suitors, in all cases, the right to a Common Law
     remedy,  where the  Common Law  is competent  to give it;  and
     shall also have  exclusive original cognizance of all seizures
     on land,  or other waters than  as aforesaid made,  and of all
     suits for  penalties  and forfeiture  res incurred,  under the
     laws of the United States." 1 Statute 177. Sec. 9(a).

    "Third.  Of all causes of Admiralty  and Maritime jurisdiction:
     saving  to suitors,  in all cases,  the right of a  Common Law
     remedy,  where  the  Common Law  is competent  to give it." 36
     Statute 1161. Section 3rd.

    "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction exclusive
     of the Courts of the States, of:
     (1)     Any civil case of Admiralty  or Maritime jurisdiction,
             saving to Suitors  in all cases all other  remedies to
             which  they are  otherwise  entitled."  Title 28 US.C.
             Section 1333.

[Note that the term "Common Law" no longer appears in 28 U.S.C. 1333.]

Q. MUST THE DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND AGENTS OF THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT CONFINE THEIR ACTIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

A. The three branches of government and their bureaucratic departments, agencies, and agents, must confine themselves to acting in and under the Constitution of and for the united States of America and its boundaries, restraints, limitations, and prohibitions it imposes upon them.
    "That the people have an original right to establish, for future
     government,  such principles as,  in their opinion,  shall most
     conduce  to their  own happiness,  is the basis,  on  which the
     whole  American fabric  has been erected.  The exercise of this
     original right is a very great exertion,  nor can it, nor ought
     it to be  frequently repeated.  The principles,  therefore,  so
     established,  are deemed fundamental and as the authority, from
     which  they proceed,  is supreme,  and can seldom  act they are
     designed to be permanent."

    "This original  and supreme  will organize  the government,  and
     assigns, to different departments, their respective powers.  It
     may either  stop here,  or establish  certain limits  not to be
     transcended by those departments."

    "Between  these  alternatives  there is no  middle  ground.  The
     Constitution is either a superior,  paramount law, unchangeable
     by  ordinary  means,   or  it  is  on  a  level  with  ordinary
     legislative acts,  and like other acts,  is alterable  when the
     legislature  shall please  to alter it."  Marbury v. Madison. 2
     Cranch (5 U.S.) 137.176. 177 (1803).

    "..because, the United States have no constitutional capacity to
     exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain,
     within the limits of a  State or elsewhere, except in the cases
     in which it is expressly granted..." -Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan.
     44 U.S. 212 at 233; Article 1 Sec 8 Clause 17 U.S. Constitution.

    "That the Legislative,  Executive  and Judicial  departments are
     each formed in a separate and independent manner;  and that the
     ultimate basis  of  each is  the Constitution  only  within the
     limits  of which  each department can alone  justify any act of
     authority/jurisdiction." Hayburn's Case. 2 Dall. (2 U.S.) 409.

    "Neither the Legislative, Executive and the Judicial departments
     of the Federal Government  can lawfully exercise  any authority
     beyond the limits marked out  by the Constitution."  Dred Scott
     v. Sanford. 19 How. 393.

    "The  United  States  is  entirely  a creature  of  the  Federal
     Constitution,  its power and authority  has no other source and
     it can only act in accordance with  all the limitations imposed
     by the Constitution."  Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1(1957). IL. Ed.
     2nd. 1148.

    "The  Federal  Constitution  has  supremacy  over a  treaty  and
     executive agreement" Reid v. Covert. 354 U.S. 1.

    "The rights and liberties  of the Citizens of  the united States
     are not  protected by  custom and  tradition  alone,   they are
     preserved from the  encroachments of the government by express/
     enumerated  provisions of the  Federal  Constitution."  Reid v.
     Covert. 354 U.S. 1.

    "The prohibitions  of the Federal Constitution  are designed to
     apply to all branches of the national government and cannot be
     nullified by the executive  or by the executive and the senate
     combined." Reid v. Covort. 354 U.S.1.1 L. Ed. 2nd; 1148 (1957).

Q. IS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPERIOR TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS?

A. Yes. The Constitution of the united States of America is not only the Supreme Law of the Land, and the actual government of the united States, but it is superior to all administrative laws, rules and regulations, and their administrative law, rules and regulations must be in compliance with and in conformity to, the Constitution of and for the united States of America.
    "Where rights are secured by Constitution are involved, there can
     be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them"
     Miranda v. Ariz. 384 U.S. 436 at 491(1966).

    "..A regulation which is inconsistent with law is invalid." Title
     5 U.S.C. Sect. 301.

    "... because  a statute  may  not  operate in  derogation  of the
     Constitution." Title 5 U.S.C. Section 559. Sentence 2.

    "Congress may not,  by any definition it may adopt,  conclude the
     matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution."
     Eisner v. McComber. 252 U.S. 189 at 207.

    "Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify  any substantive
     right and shall preserve the right of trial by jury as at Common
     Law and as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution."
     Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2072 at Clause #2.

Q. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ARTICLE I AND AN ARTICLE 3 COURT?

A. Administrative tribunals and administrative judges must restrict themselves to acting in and under the Constitution of the united States of America at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 9, and under the Administrative Procedures Act at Title 5 U. S. C. Sections 701 through 706, Olmstead vs. U.S. 277 U.S. 438 at 485, and are prohibited from hearing any issue At Law which has been enumerated to Constitutional Article 3 courts only. Since the Constitution of the united States of America has no provisions for Article I administrative tribunal courts to hear issues of law enumerated to them, they are prohibited for doing so in and under the further declaratory and restrictive clauses of the Preamble, too, and the Bill of Rights, Amendments 9 and 10; and Article 3 of the Constitution itself.
    "To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." Article
     1. Sec 8. Clause 9. U.S. Constitution.

    "The judicial power of the United States  shall be vested in one
     supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may,
     from time to time, ordain and establish..." Article 3 Section 1
     U.S. Constitution.

    "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
     arising under this Constitution."  Article 3. Section 2. Clause
     1. U.S. Constitution.

    "The enumeration  in the Constitution  of certain rights  not be
     construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
     Amendment 9, the U.S. Constitution.

    "The  powers   not  delegated  to  the  United  States   by  the
     Constitution,  nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
     to the States  respectively,  or to the people."  Amendment 10,
     the U.S. Constitution.

Q. DOES THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE SUPERINTENDENCY OVER BOTH ARTICLE 1 AND ARTICLE 3 COURTS?

A. The supreme Court of the united States of America has the superintendency of all inferior administrative Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 9 tribunals/courts and all Article 3 inferior At Law/Common Law courts created/ordained and established by the Congress of the united States of America.
    "This is the supreme Court,  and by reason of  its supremacy must
     have the superintendence of the inferior tribunals and officers,
     whether judicial or ministerial."   Marbury v. Madison, I Cranch
     143 at Pg. 63 (1803).

Q. WHAT ARE THE DUTIES OF COURT JUDGES?

A. It is the prime duty of court judges to protect the God endowed unalienable rights of the individual sovereign Citizen from governmental encroachments.
    "The judicial branch has only one duty, to lay the Article of the
     Constitution  which is  involved  beside  the  statute  (rule or
     practice)  which is challenged  and to decide whether the latter
     squares with the former." U.S. v. Butler. 279 U.S. 116th Am. Jur
     2nd. Sec. 177.178.210 and 547.

    "It  is  the   duty  of  the  courts   to  be  watchful  for  the
     Constitutional   rights   of  the   citizen   against   stealthy
     encroachments thereon." Boyd v. U.S. 116.635.

    "This Constitution  is the supreme Law of the Land.  All judicial
     officers of the united States  are bound by oath or affirmation,
     to support this Constitution." Hayburn's Case. 2 Dali.(2 U.S.S.)
     409; Article #6. Clauses 2 and 3, U.S. Constitution.

    "Disobedience  or evasion of a  constitutional mandate may not be
     tolerated,  even though  such disobedience  may promote  in some
     respects  the best interests  of the public."  Slote v. Board of
     Transfer. 274 N.Y. 367.

    "...And  officers  (of government)  that  carry  on a  government
     independent  of  a  Constitution,  constitute  but  a  de  facto
     government of assumed and unlimited powers." Hepburn v. Griswald
     8 Wall. 611.

    "Law repugnant to the Constitution is void..." Marbury v. Madison
     1 Cranch 137 (1803).

    "The law provides  that once State  and federal  jurisdiction has
     been challenged,  it must be proven."  Main v. Thiboutot. 100 5.
     Ct. 2502 (1980).

    "Where  there   is  absence   of  proof   of  jurisdiction,   all
     administrative  and  judicial  proceedings  are a  nullity,  and
     confer   no   right,   offer  no  protection,   and   afford  no
     justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attach."
     Thompson v. Tolmie. 2 Pet. 157.7 L.Ed. 381. Griffith Vs. Frazier
     8 Cr. 9.3 L.Ed. 471.

    "Once jurisdiction is challenged,  it must be proven."  Hagens v.
     Lavine. 415 U.S. 533 Note3.

    "No  sanctions  can be  imposed  absent  proof of  jurisdiction."
     Standard v. Lavine. 415 U.S. 533 Note 3.

    "The proponent  of the Rule  has the burden  of proof..." Title 5
     U.S.C.. Sec. 556(d).

    "Jurisdiction  can  be  challenged  at any  time,  even on  final
     determination." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2nd 906 at
     910.

Q. CAN THE STATE GOVERNMENTS GRANT OR TAKE AWAY AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS?

A. No. Individuals have God endowed unalienable Rights (Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2) and these same rights are secured in the Preamble and the Constitution of the united States of America, and in the Preamble and the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments) of the Constitution of the united States of America. These Rights existed long before the organization of the State and can be taken from an individual only by Constitutional due process of law that is in conformity with the Constitution of the united States of America.
    "The individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a
     citizen.  He is entitled to carry on his private business in
     his own way.  His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no
     duty  to  the  State  or to  his  neighbors  to  divulge his
     business,  or to open his doors  to an investigation, so far
     as it may  tend to incriminate him.  He owes  no duty to the
     State,  since  he receives  nothing  therefrom,  beyond  the
     protection of his life and property."

    "His rights  are such as existed by the  Law of the Land long
     antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be
     taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with
     the Constitution."

    "Among his rights are  a refusal to  incriminate himself, and
     the immunity  of himself  and his  property  from arrest  or
     seizure except under warrant of the law."

    "He  owes  nothing  to  the  public  so  long  as he does not
     trespass upon their rights."

    "Upon the other hand,  the corporation  is a creature  of the
     State.  It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of
     the  public.  It receives  certain  special  privileges  and
     franchises, and holds them  subject to the laws of the State
     and the limitations of its charter."

    "Its powers  are limited by law.  It can make no contract not
     authorized   by  its  charter.   Its  rights  to  act  as  a
     corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the
     laws  of  its  charter."  Hale v. Henkel.  201 U.S. 43 at 89
     (1906); Pinkerton v. Verberg 78 Mich. 573.584.

Q. DO INDIVIDUALS HAVE RIGHTS TO LABOR?

A. Yes. Individuals have a God given unalienable right to labor, and to the fruits of that labor. That right is a natural right and a constitutional right, from unlawful interference from government encroachment.
    "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right
     secured by the Federal Constitution."  Murdock v. Penns. 319
     U.S. 105.

    "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there
     can be no rule  making or  legislation which  would abrogate
     them." Miranda v. Ariz. 384 U.S. 436 at 491(1966).

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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