Trooper cuts off motorcycle, biker to face charges

Southeast, NY - A motorcyclist is still alive and in stable condition at Danbury Hospital in Connecticut, after hitting the right side of a New York State Police patrol vehicle, a guardrail, and then being thrown from his bike at high speed. 20-year old Matthew Hillman was rescued from a ditch by firefighters.

News reports indicate that a State Trooper positioned on a center-median in Fishkill, NY clocked the bikes at 100-mph, but was unable to pursue and then radioed ahead to another patrol to intercept the dual menace. That patrol engaged the first bike which passed by, cutting off the approaching second motorcycle, when the crash occurred.

The injured biker will face charges.

Wait, what? What about the Trooper? The Trooper must have known that there were two bikes to be on the lookout for to begin with. Second of all, just because someone is speeding, does not give the police the right to pull out in front of them and cause a wreck. Particularly with a motorcycle, which could easily cause a fatality.

And for that matter, we don't even know if the biker was actually speeding at that point. Okay, so maybe they were clocked at 100-mph in the next county, that is no proof that the biker was speeding when the police-patrol vehicle deliberately collided with him.Hard to imagine anyone actually surviving a 100-mph impact on a bike.

But maybe it was just an accident. Maybe the Trooper didn't actually see the second biker coming down the long stretch of interstate highway, at night, with his headlights on. Maybe the biker really was going so fast the Trooper didn't see him in time before pulling out and cutting him off by accident.

Somehow, I doubt that. I really don't care so much that the biker was running out his machine a little in the middle of the night on an open stretch of highway. I am far more concerned that a State Trooper appears to have tried to kill him because of it.

Guilty until proven innocent - Florida to take DNA upon arrest

This is a serious affront to liberty and due process. Media coverage and public apathy are just as offensive.

The Florida legislature has now approved $1.2 million for police to begin collection of DNA samples for all felony arrests. While some may view this as a unique and powerful crime-fighting tool, it is equally true that such sampling will be misused and exploited to nefarious ends by police, government, and corporations.

About this time last year we did a story outlining the preciousness of freedom and the dangers posed by DNA profiling in our article...

L.A. Touts Serial Killer Arrest to Quash Civil Liberty Concerns (UPDATED)

No need to rehash the points of that article here again, but be sure to check out that link of course. In the meantime though, let us have a look at this article from ABC-7 WWSB to expose the classic tactics of disinformation.

To begin, there is...

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

We see that there is no mention of resistance to this new program, no moment of pause, no consideration for the many valid reasons why DNA collection from anyone should be met with the utmost skepticism. And certainly there should be open discourse on taking DNA from citizens who have not been convicted of any crime.

Next we have...

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

...with the article reporting...

"We are very pleased with the decision," said Manatee County Sheriff's Office spokesperson, Dave Bristow.

Of course you are pleased the decision Mister Bristow, and the average Dorito-munching Wheel-watcher on the street will trust the word of the police authority, even if is the police themselves that we should be most afraid of in reality. And we should certainly be concerned about this end-run around the Constitution and due-process as well.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." ~Patrick Henry

Heck, police cannot even force you to take a breathalyzer because it is unconstitutional, but now they are going to be allowed to create a genetic profile of you from a DNA sample? But if the general reader even bothers to think about these things, next up on deck we have the emotional appeal to rhetoric. Invoke mental imagery of a ravaged and murdered little girl and a grieving father with...

Drew Kesse is also pleased with the decision. He has been lobbying for the change for years."The more we can take the scum off the street, that's what we need to do in this world," Kesse said. Kesse's daughter, Jennifer, was abducted from her vehicle at an Orlando area apartment complex in 2006

...which could fall under any of these headings if his authoritarian will were challenged...

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

...Pretty much self explanatory, but of course you would expect him to scream out the "how dare you" appealing to your emotions for his suffering and that of the victim, which then sets the stage for...

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

...With the emotional swirl of an abducted little girl, you can pretty much demand whatever you want from the public. After all, to go against whatever this man wants as a solution to his suffering, you must be "for" horrific crimes against children. Which of course is a fallacy, as is his...

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

...tactic. He jumps right to the conclusion that anyone who is ever arrested is not only guilty before the case ever goes to trial, but that they are also "scum." I for one, do not equate an arrest with a conviction. In this say and age, we have good reason to even take a conviction on a murder charge with a high degree of skepticism.

Take for example, the case of Barry Gibbs, who spent nearly two decades in prison after being framed by two NYPD Detectives. And even in the end, it was not some new DNA evidence that freed him, like so many convictions overturned by the Innocence Project. He just got lucky, the crooked cops were exposed and their cases reviewed.So let's not jump to the erroneous conclusion that DNA testing will prevent any false convictions. Indeed, it even raises the specter of using false DNA evidence to a secure a conviction that could not ever hope to be overturned by the Innocence Project.

The article then goes on to report that 21 states already have such databases. Indeed, it is quite alarming that this trend has been allowed to continue and has not been overturned as being an affront to the liberty of all citizens, whether guilty or innocent, convicted or acquitted. You see, even if you go to trial and are found not-guilty, it's too late. Your sample has already been taken and stored. The United States now has the largest DNA profiling database in the world which is right in line with the fact that we also have the largest prison population. The US has only 5% of the world's population but 25% of world's prisoner population, not including supervision programs such as probation.

Now lastly, the article rounds out with this enigmatic claim...

And to give you an example of the economic success of the database, law enforcement agencies around the state of Indiana were able to save $60 million over the past year with this program.

So there we have a news station, rather then being objective, offering up a financial endorsement without any substantiation or explanation. How does one save $60 million, by spending a few million more? Of course, again, your average brain-dead reader will simply think "oh, it saves money, I'm all for it," and flip to the next page without thinking twice about it.

Meanwhile, that statement could actually fall under any one of these categories...

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.


15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

As well as the aforementioned...

9. Play Dumb.

8. Invoke authority.

...and even...

4. Use a straw man.

...since cost is not really even relevant to infringement on liberty, or for that matter, catching a child-abductor. And finally...

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

...seeing as how they made such a brief little article, chock full of disinformation tactics but reporting little of substance on such an important story for the future of our society and the Republic for which we stand.

And just as one added side-note. With familial DNA mapping, it is not only you who will be genetically mapped if you are arrested, but your family as well.

Freedom declared threat to police

A recent brief on PoliceOne.com, a website for law-enforcement personnel to share information, declares "sovereign citizens threat to cops." What a shame that the police are so far around the bend, that they don't even realize the oath they took to uphold the Constitution was an oath to defend these principals, not to declare the adherents a threat. This is the true face of the police-state today, and a clear example of the perverted justice they uphold.

Government corruption, economic ruin and wanton violence against the people by a paramilitary police-state apparatus, has never been more prevalent or obvious. Yet in propaganda pieces like the segment from 60 Minutes that I will share here, the powers-that-be resort to flawed logic and rhetoric in order to make their case that freedom is bad, and that people who adhere to the founding principals of this nation are a threat to the nation. Yet they will show no proof that the claims of a sovereign are either incorrect or illegal. I'll let you go ahead and watch the clip first, then we'll talk more about it...



Normally I think 60 minutes is a fantastic program. But this time it seems clear that they are being used as a propaganda tool, just like every other mainstream media source. Right off the bat, they try to portray sovereign citizens as some sort of new-fangled organized "movement" when really that is not the truth at all. They are not a society, they are not an organization, they are not a political movement. Tthey are citizens, just like you and I, who adhere to strict interpretations of our Constitution and who seek to legally unbind themselves from a complex web of statutory contract law.

This is a concept that is really not understood by the layman, and I am not about to explain it all here. I do suggest you look more into it yourself though by surfing the web a little and learning about it. But as an example to the reader, let us take a look at your driver's license and all the statutory regulations that go with the "privilege" of driving. The fact is, you have a Constitutionally protected God-given right to freedom of movement by whatever means you so happen to choose. So where do the police get the power to issue you a ticket for driving with s suspended driver's license, or for not paying the state tax to have your car registered? You gave them the power. When you signed on the dotted line to get your state-issued driver's license, you made a contract agreement to abide by the state laws or "codes" of the road. The sovereign refuses to be subject to or bullied into contract agreements that are contradictory to the liberties spelled out in the Constitution. That's it. It has nothing to do with shooting people, has nothing to do with taking control of the government (we are the government, in theory anyway), has nothing to do with recruiting new adherents to a Conservative wet-dream. The sovereign has many different social ideals, economic beliefs, and religious values even if it is no religion at all. That really is the entire point. Freedom.

So now the government has declared folks who take the Constitution literally to be "among the nation's top domestic terror threats" because some have become violent. If we are going to use that criteria, I suggest that perhaps it is the police who are among the nation's top domestic terror threats. When was the last time a sovereign citizen molested your child at the airport? When was the last time a sovereign citizen tore off your wife's clothes because she called for help, and then laughed about it (last second of vid)? When was the last time a sovereign citizen smashed a man's face in for using a video camera in his own front yard? When was the last time a group of sovereign citizens beat up on unarmed women in a restaurant? When was the last time a sovereign citizen got away with murder because of corruption and lies? When was the last time a gang of sovereign citizens broke into a war veteran's home and executed him in front of his wife and child?

And the favorite excuse of the apologists? "Cops are just people too." You're goddamn right they are just people too, which means they have no flipping right to do the crap that they do no matter what some court rules. The courts, no matter what they decide on paper or in collusion, have no damn right to decide that you no longer have your Constitutionally protected God-given rights of free men. They have no right to tell you that you cannot protect yourself against a home-invasion.

Of course, court mandated and approved supra-Constitutional police powers aside,  there are also plenty of cases of police officers committing actual crimes as well, not just abusing the rights of citizens. Blatant criminal acts that sometimes we actually hear about, on that occasion when such acts make it to the light of day through the blue wall of silence and multilayer system of corruption, cronyism, and propagandist white-washing. So if we are going to use the "few bad apples" excuse for police, who we should actually expect to be held to a higher standard with all of their power and authority, not a lower one, couldn't that same "few bad apples" excuse be used for any other group, including citizens?

So let us be clear here. I am not defending the actions of this man and his son who went over the edge and chose to murder two police officers for no obvious reason. That is not freedom, that is not liberty. I do not endorse violence for the sake of violence or to make some bullshit statement. But I will say this. With more and more proud, freedom-loving Americans being shoved around one too many times and left no place to turn, it hardly surprises me to see things like this happen, where folks decide they have had enough, and decide to shove back. Nevertheless, portraying some down on his luck supposed scam artist and his son as the spokespersons for citizens who value the Constitution is like saying that Biggie Smalls spoke for all New Yorkers.

In the first segment of the clip they focus on the actual shooting. I don't see anything in that video that would justify the actions of that man and his son. Of course, there might be something in the editing that I am missing. But really, I am a firm believer in "live to fight another day." I see no reason to kill a police officer unless a police officer is about to kill you, or to kill anyone else for that matter unless your own life (or another innocent) is in danger. As much as I "hate" cops from an ideological standpoint, I hate no cop personally just because of what he does for a living. (I've also met a criminal or two that were actually real good people, if misguided.) So seeing that bit of video, where the chief arrives at the scene, that got me choked up. I can hardly imagine what that must have been like.

Nonetheless, with the two shooters dead 90 minutes later, I wonder if the Chief is looking for someone else to blame. Indeed, even 60 Minutes calls sovereign citizens the Chief's obsession. A natural, psychological, human coping mechanism to try to find someone to blame for such a shocking and tragic loss, but it was not some movement that killed his son and son's partner any more than it was their job that killed them. It was a young gunman and his father, who are now dead. There is no one else that can be blamed.

Next up in the piece we hear from J.J. McNab, a self-employed, self-avowed "expert" on sovereign citizens who's last job was as a financial planner. I see nothing in her resume that says she is lawyer, much less a Constitutional scholar. Yet 60 Minutes interviews her as if she were indeed an authority, when clearly she is not. She begins with an erroneous and inflammatory statement claiming that the sovereign citizen claims they are "above the law" when in fact the exact opposite is true. The sovereign citizen sees that the government, the courts, and the police, are putting themselves above the law. And that of course is my very own interpretation, since the whole point of being a sovereign is that nobody tell you what to think or can tell other people what you think. Maybe she should look up the word sovereign.

She goes on to talk about the sovereigns' "twisted" view of history, yet she is no historian at all by any credential. She claims that people of the 18th century saw themselves as free of all legal constraints, and that sovereign citizens today also believe that and want to "return" to that time. The fact is, that people of the 18th century very much believed in the rule of law, a just law, prescribed by the document they put forth called the Constitution. The core values of what made this nation a nation in the first place, free of tyranny and oppression. The values which inspired a Revolution and set men free to prosper in a nation where one man would never have to bow before another. So then the question really becomes, at what time did the government see fit to deviate from that rule of law, from this promise of liberty?

The segment then goes on to equate sovereigns with anti-government forces. How can the people be anti-government in a true democratic republic when the people are the government? They equate the movement with terrorism, and even racism but then in the same breath say that black actor Wesley Snipes used "sovereign language" in trying to combat the IRS. 

Back again to the self avowed expert who now profiles what to look for in a sovereign citizen. A30-35 year old (white man) in economic dire straits who has probably lost their job and their wife. Many are "paranoid, conspiracy theorists" according to her. Nevermind the fact that she is not a psychologist or in any position at all to judge whether or not someone is paranoid, and nevermind the very relevant questions that so called conspiracy theorists put forth. There was once a time when people who said the world was round, or who believed in the Mafia were conspiracy theorists too. Simply more vilification of any who dares to question the status quo. And of course, nevermind too that profiling disillusioned white men is about as ignorant as saying a nigga from Brooklyn is probably a cop killer.

In the next segment they do a real hack job on the guy trying to explain what sovereignty is all about, so I don't have too much there to comment on, other than to say I don't trust the government any more than he does. Any true patriot will distrust their government.

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." ~George Washington

But just after that, they go on to talk about different seminars and "scams" that are all over the internet. On that point, I do offer a word of caution. There are indeed many scams out there. Even someone as affluent as Wesley Snipes found out the hard way that trying to pry oneself out of the web of contract law is next to impossible. I do not declare myself a sovereign for that very reason if no other. Not because they are wrong mind you, but because I do not have the time, education, or skill to dedicate myself to the subtle nuances of sovereign law. One slip-up, and you wind up in the penitentiary with Wesley. But it can be done...




...and stuff like that folks, is why the system will degrade you, smear you with propaganda, imprison you, and ultimately murder you if they get half a chance. Because being a sovereign is a direct threat to your God-given rights. One mis-step, and they will come down on you with all the fury Hell hath to offer.

Nonetheless, as I said, it can be done, in more ways than one too. A smart sovereign would never go out and make a spectacle of themselves as a would-be martyr gunned down in some delusional blaze of glory. The true sovereign is the one who knows how to navigate this complex web of deceit, which is more than a century in the making. The true sovereign, and the real threat to the usurpers, are the sort of folks they point out in the next segment. The ones who use the system, against the system. What the 60 Minutes reporter calls "retribution" is completely legal, and some might say, completely justified. In that segment, they actually admit that sovereigns are not the "delusional" sort that JJ McNab tries to portray. While she claims these folks have turned off their "common sense switch," many have used the system's own rules and statutes against gate-keepers. The same sort of loopholes that might leave you stranded by the side of the road after police have impounded your car for a dirty license plate, or being charged with felony assault of a police officer for farting at a cop.

Next segment we have a judge from Queens holding court in Rosendale NY, a small local community I know well, claiming he is scared to death when he learns that some moron in his court over a misdemeanor traffic ticket had "contacts" with the West Memphis shooters. Number one, I would like to know what contacts that actually was. Passed eachother in some chat forum, subscribed to the same newsletter? Second of all, does he really expect us to believe that a judge from Queens who worked 30 years in the penitentiary with the most depraved human beings alive has never felt unsafe in his life before coming up against the "sovereign citizens"? Even in the video segment it appears that the judge himself can't even hold back his laughter.

And did you get a look at those goofballs that are this supreme threat to national security? To this judge to the point that he is sleeping with a gun under his pillow? Newsflash judge, if you are that scared maybe you should start lobbying the state to stop shutting down mental health units. Is the crux of this whole report telling the American people that our entire nation is about to be brought down by the Three Stooges? Seriously? Now Wesley Snipes, I might have bought that one.

Back again now to the brief segment with the man 60 Minutes has labeled as the "sovereign guru." The man is completely reasonable talking about the Second Amendment, and the purpose of the right to bear arms. He is absolutely right, it was never meant to protect our right of suck hunting. It was put into the Constitution to provide a sovereign natural right to resist tyranny, by force if necessary.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." ~Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

Quick cut to the police Chief who's son was murdered, who states, "Obviously the guy is crazy, and I think he should be brought up on charges."

There you have it folks, in clear. no uncertain terms, according to the police chief of West Memphis, if you believe in the Constitution, "obviously" you are crazy and should be brought up on charges.

"If they want to come after me, I'm very easy to find. The polic Chief in West Memphis, Arkansas... If they come after me, I have absolutely no problem with it, and might even like it."


"...and might even like it."


"...and might even like it."

Spoken like a true pig there Chief.

Rodney King trial evidence, LAPD radio transmissions, 1:13 a.m. from Powell and Wind to the foot patrol: "I haven't beaten anyone this bad in a long time."

Now don't get me wrong, if someone killed my boy, I might feel the same way. But what the chief fails to recognize, is that no one went after his boy. His boy went after them.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." ~Thomas Paine

Supplemental:

Operation Vampire killer 2000: American Police Action Plan for Stopping World Government Rule



Copyright, November-Blue Enterprise, used by permission

Freedom a threat to police

A recent brief on PoliceOne.com, a website for law-enforcement personnel to share information, declares "sovereign citizens threat to cops." What a shame that the police are so far around the bend, that they don't even realize the oath they took to uphold the Constitution was an oath to defend these principals, not to declare the adherents a threat. This is the true face of the police-state today, and a clear example of the perverted justice they uphold.

Government corruption, economic ruin and wanton violence against the people by a paramilitary police-state apparatus, has never been more prevalent or obvious. Yet in propaganda pieces like the segment from 60 Minutes that I will share here, the powers-that-be resort to flawed logic and rhetoric in order to make their case that freedom is bad, and that people who adhere to the founding principals of this nation are a threat to the nation. Yet they will show no proof that the claims of a sovereign are either incorrect or illegal. I'll let you go ahead and watch the clip first, then we'll talk more about it...




Normally I think 60 minutes is a fantastic program. But this time it seems clear that they are being used as a propaganda tool, just like every other mainstream media source. Right off the bat, they try to portray sovereign citizens as some sort of new-fangled organized "movement" when really that is not the truth at all. They are not a society, they are not an organization, they are not a political movement. Tthey are citizens, just like you and I, who adhere to strict interpretations of our Constitution and who seek to legally unbind themselves from a complex web of statutory contract law.

This is a concept that is really not understood by the layman, and I am not about to explain it all here. I do suggest you look more into it yourself though by surfing the web a little and learning about it. But as an example to the reader, let us take a look at your driver's license and all the statutory regulations that go with the "privilege" of driving. The fact is, you have a Constitutionally protected God-given right to freedom of movement by whatever means you so happen to choose. So where do the police get the power to issue you a ticket for driving with s suspended driver's license, or for not paying the state tax to have your car registered? You gave them the power. When you signed on the dotted line to get your state-issued driver's license, you made a contract agreement to abide by the state laws or "codes" of the road. The sovereign refuses to be subject to or bullied into contract agreements that are contradictory to the liberties spelled out in the Constitution. That's it. It has nothing to do with shooting people, has nothing to do with taking control of the government (we are the government, in theory anyway), has nothing to do with recruiting new adherents to a Conservative wet-dream. The sovereign has many different social ideals, economic beliefs, and religious values even if it is no religion at all. That really is the entire point. Freedom.

So now the government has declared folks who take the Constitution literally to be "among the nation's top domestic terror threats" because some have become violent. If we are going to use that criteria, I suggest that perhaps it is the police who are among the nation's top domestic terror threats. When was the last time a sovereign citizen molested your child at the airport? When was the last time a sovereign citizen tore off your wife's clothes because she called for help, and then laughed about it (last second of vid)? When was the last time a sovereign citizen smashed a man's face in for using a video camera in his own front yard? When was the last time a group of sovereign citizens beat up on unarmed women in a restaurant? When was the last time a sovereign citizen got away with murder because of corruption and lies? When was the last time a gang of sovereign citizens broke into a war veteran's home and executed him in front of his wife and child?

And the favorite excuse of the apologists? "Cops are just people too." You're goddamn right they are just people too, which means they have no fucking right to do the shit that they do no matter what some court rules. The courts, no matter what they decide on paper or in collusion, have no fucking right to decide that you no longer have your Constitutionally protected God-given rights of free men. They have no right to tell you that you cannot protect yourself against a home-invasion.

Of course, court mandated and approved supra-Constitutional police powers aside,  there are also plenty of cases of police officers committing actual crimes as well, not just abusing the rights of citizens. Blatant criminal acts that sometimes we actually hear about, on that occasion when such acts make it to the light of day through the blue wall of silence and multilayer system of corruption, cronyism, and propagandist white-washing. So if we are going to use the "few bad apples" excuse for police, who we should actually expect to be held to a higher standard with all of their power and authority, not a lower one, couldn't that same "few bad apples" excuse be used for any other group, including citizens?

So let us be clear here. I am not defending the actions of this man and his son who went over the edge and chose to murder two police officers for no obvious reason. That is not freedom, that is not liberty. I do not endorse violence for the sake of violence or to make some bullshit statement. But I will say this. With more and more proud, freedom-loving Americans being shoved around one too many times and left no place to turn, it hardly surprises me to see things like this happen, where folks decide they have had enough, and decide to shove back. Nevertheless, portraying some down on his luck supposed scam artist and his son as the spokespersons for citizens who value the Constitution is like saying that Biggie Smalls spoke for all New Yorkers.

In the first segment of the clip they focus on the actual shooting. I don't see anything in that video that would justify the actions of that man and his son. Of course, there might be something in the editing that I am missing. But really, I am a firm believer in "live to fight another day." I see no reason to kill a police officer unless a police officer is about to kill you, or to kill anyone else for that matter unless your own life (or another innocent) is in danger. As much as I "hate" cops from an ideological standpoint, I hate no cop personally just because of what he does for a living. (I've also met a criminal or two that were actually real good people, if misguided.) So seeing that bit of video, where the chief arrives at the scene, that got me choked up. I can hardly imagine what that must have been like.

Nonetheless, with the two shooters dead 90 minutes later, I wonder if the Chief is looking for someone else to blame. Indeed, even 60 Minutes calls sovereign citizens the Chief's obsession. A natural, psychological, human coping mechanism to try to find someone to blame for such a shocking and tragic loss, but it was not some movement that killed his son and son's partner any more than it was their job that killed them. It was a young gunman and his father, who are now dead. There is no one else that can be blamed.

Next up in the piece we hear from J.J. McNab, a self-employed, self-avowed "expert" on sovereign citizens who's last job was as a financial planner. I see nothing in her resume that says she is lawyer, much less a Constitutional scholar. Yet 60 Minutes interviews her as if she were indeed an authority, when clearly she is not. She begins with an erroneous and inflammatory statement claiming that the sovereign citizen claims they are "above the law" when in fact the exact opposite is true. The sovereign citizen sees that the government, the courts, and the police, are putting themselves above the law. And that of course is my very own interpretation, since the whole point of being a sovereign is that nobody tell you what to think or can tell other people what you think. Maybe she should look up the word sovereign.

She goes on to talk about the sovereigns' "twisted" view of history, yet she is no historian at all by any credential. She claims that people of the 18th century saw themselves as free of all legal constraints, and that sovereign citizens today also believe that and want to "return" to that time. The fact is, that people of the 18th century very much believed in the rule of law, a just law, prescribed by the document they put forth called the Constitution. The core values of what made this nation a nation in the first place, free of tyranny and oppression. The values which inspired a Revolution and set men free to prosper in a nation where one man would never have to bow before another. So then the question really becomes, at what time did the government see fit to deviate from that rule of law, from this promise of liberty?

The segment then goes on to equate sovereigns with anti-government forces. How can the people be anti-government in a true democratic republic when the people are the government? They equate the movement with terrorism, and even racism but then in the same breath say that black actor Wesley Snipes used "sovereign language" in trying to combat the IRS. 

Back again to the self avowed expert who now profiles what to look for in a sovereign citizen. A30-35 year old (white man) in economic dire straits who has probably lost their job and their wife. Many are "paranoid, conspiracy theorists" according to her. Nevermind the fact that she is not a psychologist or in any position at all to judge whether or not someone is paranoid, and nevermind the very relevant questions that so called conspiracy theorists put forth. There was once a time when people who said the world was round, or who believed in the Mafia were conspiracy theorists too. Simply more vilification of any who dares to question the status quo. And of course, nevermind too that profiling disillusioned white men is about as ignorant as saying a nigga from Brooklyn is probably a cop killer.

In the next segment they do a real hack job on the guy trying to explain what sovereignty is all about, so I don't have too much there to comment on, other than to say I don't trust the government any more than he does. Any true patriot will distrust their government.

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." ~George Washington

But just after that, they go on to talk about different seminars and "scams" that are all over the internet. On that point, I do offer a word of caution. There are indeed many scams out there. Even someone as affluent as Wesley Snipes found out the hard way that trying to pry oneself out of the web of contract law is next to impossible. I do not declare myself a sovereign for that very reason if no other. Not because they are wrong mind you, but because I do not have the time, education, or skill to dedicate myself to the subtle nuances of sovereign law. One slip-up, and you wind up in the penitentiary with Wesley. But it can be done...





...and stuff like that folks, is why the system will degrade you, smear you with propaganda, imprison you, and ultimately murder you if they get half a chance. Because being a sovereign is a direct threat to your God-given rights. One mis-step, and they will come down on you with all the fury Hell hath to offer.

Nonetheless, as I said, it can be done, in more ways than one too. A smart sovereign would never go out and make a spectacle of themselves as a would-be martyr gunned down in some delusional blaze of glory. The true sovereign is the one who knows how to navigate this complex web of deceit, which is more than a century in the making. The true sovereign, and the real threat to the usurpers, are the sort of folks they point out in the next segment. The ones who use the system, against the system. What the 60 Minutes reporter calls "retribution" is completely legal, and some might say, completely justified. In that segment, they actually admit that sovereigns are not the "delusional" sort that JJ McNab tries to portray. While she claims these folks have turned off their "common sense switch," many have used the system's own rules and statutes against gate-keepers. The same sort of loopholes that might leave you stranded by the side of the road after police have impounded your car for a dirty license plate, or being charged with felony assault of a police officer for farting at a cop.

Next segment we have a judge from Queens holding court in Rosendale NY, a small local community I know well, claiming he is scared to death when he learns that some moron in his court over a misdemeanor traffic ticket had "contacts" with the West Memphis shooters. Number one, I would like to know what contacts that actually was. Passed eachother in some chat forum, subscribed to the same newsletter? Second of all, does he really expect us to believe that a judge from Queens who worked 30 years in the penitentiary with the most depraved human beings alive has never felt unsafe in his life before coming up against the "sovereign citizens"? Even in the video segment it appears that the judge himself can't even hold back his laughter.

And did you get a look at those goofballs that are this supreme threat to national security? To this judge to the point that he is sleeping with a gun under his pillow? Newsflash judge, if you are that scared maybe you should start lobbying the state to stop shutting down mental health units. Is the crux of this whole report telling the American people that our entire nation is about to be brought down by the Three Stooges? Seriously? Now Wesley Snipes, I might have bought that one.

Back again now to the brief segment with the man 60 Minutes has labeled as the "sovereign guru." The man is completely reasonable talking about the Second Amendment, and the purpose of the right to bear arms. He is absolutely right, it was never meant to protect our right of suck hunting. It was put into the Constitution to provide a sovereign natural right to resist tyranny, by force if necessary.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." ~Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

Quick cut to the police Chief who's son was murdered, who states, "Obviously the guy is crazy, and I think he should be brought up on charges."

There you have it folks, in clear. no uncertain terms, according to the police chief of West Memphis, if you believe in the Constitution, "obviously" you are crazy and should be brought up on charges.

"If they want to come after me, I'm very easy to find. The polic Chief in West Memphis, Arkansas... If they come after me, I have absolutely no problem with it, and might even like it."


"...and might even like it."


"...and might even like it."

Spoken like a true pig there Chief.

Rodney King trial evidence, LAPD radio transmissions, 1:13 a.m. from Powell and Wind to the foot patrol: "I haven't beaten anyone this bad in a long time."

Now don't get me wrong, if someone killed my boy, I might feel the same way. But what the chief fails to recognize, is that no one went after his boy. His boy went after them.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." ~Thomas Paine

Supplemental:

Operation Vampire killer 2000: American Police Action Plan for Stopping World Government Rule

Cellphone providers now required to transmit government propaganda

As with all technology, this looks like yet another double-edged sword. On the one hand, I might like to be provided with news about emergency events and other alerts, via cellphone. Forcing me to receive those alerts however (and attaching a hidden cost to my cellphone service in the process) is not something I am comfortable with. And really, what better way to corral the masses into certain mindsets at a certain given time, to the point of even literally driving their physical movements within a city?

Emergency officials will soon be able to blast critical alerts to anyone with a cell phone in a certain section of the city.


If Times Square needs to be evacuated because of a bomb threat or if a hurricane is bearing down on Queens, warnings will be bounced from cell towers.

NY Daily News

Not only will I be forced to get these alerts, but these alerts will interrupt your service and whatever task you might be performing (data, voice call, text, etc.) in order to get these alerts. The crying wolf amber alert system may be something that someone might be interested in getting updates from, but I sure as hell don't want whatever important call I may be on to be dropped simply so that I can be notified of another custody battle gone wild.

Also from the Daily News Article...

The messages, including urgent blasts from the President, information on imminent threats and Amber Alerts about missing children, will supercede all other phone traffic so they won't be stalled or delayed.

While the mainstream media outlets such as the Associated Press and CBS have touted this latest government intrusion into our lives as something beneficial, with catchy little quotes/soundbytes from the likes of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg who said this is a "quantum leap forward in using technology to help keep people safe," I prefer the counterspin reporting of infowars.com who reported...

It’s not enough the government and its corporate media propaganda tool commandeer the television and radio with phony terror alerts and incessant nonsense about Muslim miscreants who are inspired by FBI agents provocateurs to talk about terrorism.


Soon it this propaganda will reach out to your cell phone. It will be mandatory to receive this propaganda.


CBS and the AP report today that next year the government will mandate all new cell phones will be required to have a chip that receives government propaganda and fear-mongering. Many smart phones already have technology easily commandeered by the state. Government propaganda will supersede all other calls.


Carriers AT&T and Verizon say they will implement the technology. Eighty-five percent of Americans over 18 own a cell phone.


Following the debunked Osama death raid, the government announced it will alert the public to emergencies via cell phones. The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency said the system will warn people about terrorist attacks, natural disasters or other emergencies.


The new system will be in place in New York City and Washington by the end of the year and in cities across the country by the end of next year, according to CBS New York.


In addition to Amber Alerts and warnings of imminent doom from terrorists who hate us for our freedom, the system will send out “urgent blasts from the president,” according to the New York Daily News.

This article compiled by station.6.underground.

Cellphone providers now required to transmit government propaganda

As with all technology, this looks like yet another double-edged sword. On the one hand, I might like to be provided with news about emergency events and other alerts, via cellphone. Forcing me to receive those alerts however (and attaching a hidden cost to my cellphone service in the process) is not something I am comfortable with. And really, what better way to corral the masses into certain mindsets at a certain given time, to the point of even literally driving their physical movements within a city?

Emergency officials will soon be able to blast critical alerts to anyone with a cell phone in a certain section of the city.


If Times Square needs to be evacuated because of a bomb threat or if a hurricane is bearing down on Queens, warnings will be bounced from cell towers.

NY Daily News

Not only will I be forced to get these alerts, but these alerts will interrupt your service and whatever task you might be performing (data, voice call, text, etc.) in order to get these alerts. The crying wolf amber alert system may be something that someone might be interested in getting updates from, but I sure as hell don't want whatever important call I may be on to be dropped simply so that I can be notified of another custody battle gone wild.

Also from the Daily News Article...

The messages, including urgent blasts from the President, information on imminent threats and Amber Alerts about missing children, will supercede all other phone traffic so they won't be stalled or delayed.

While the mainstream media outlets such as the Associated Press and CBS have touted this latest government intrusion into our lives as something beneficial, with catchy little quotes/soundbytes from the likes of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg who said this is a "quantum leap forward in using technology to help keep people safe," I prefer the counterspin reporting of infowars.com who reported...

It’s not enough the government and its corporate media propaganda tool commandeer the television and radio with phony terror alerts and incessant nonsense about Muslim miscreants who are inspired by FBI agents provocateurs to talk about terrorism.


Soon it this propaganda will reach out to your cell phone. It will be mandatory to receive this propaganda.


CBS and the AP report today that next year the government will mandate all new cell phones will be required to have a chip that receives government propaganda and fear-mongering. Many smart phones already have technology easily commandeered by the state. Government propaganda will supersede all other calls.


Carriers AT&T and Verizon say they will implement the technology. Eighty-five percent of Americans over 18 own a cell phone.


Following the debunked Osama death raid, the government announced it will alert the public to emergencies via cell phones. The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency said the system will warn people about terrorist attacks, natural disasters or other emergencies.


The new system will be in place in New York City and Washington by the end of the year and in cities across the country by the end of next year, according to CBS New York.


In addition to Amber Alerts and warnings of imminent doom from terrorists who hate us for our freedom, the system will send out “urgent blasts from the president,” according to the New York Daily News.

Police State of Mind

The following presentation is brought to us by Station.6.Underground, used by permission.
...

I just came across an article written for USA Today newspaper titled, "New iPhone apps help drivers evade police...The iPhone and Android applications spot checkpoints and speed traps." The article was hosted by PoliceOne.com, a website for law-enforcement.

These apps can be used to detect things like speed traps and red-light cameras, but the focus of the article goes to checkpoint detection.

The apps' DUI checkpoint feature -- which sends alerts about drunken-driving checkpoints that have been reported by other drivers -- is troubling for some police agencies. "If people are going to use those, what other purpose are they going to use them for except to drink and drive?" says Capt. Paul Starks of the Montgomery County (Md.) Police Department.

F@ckin cops are so indoctrinated in their Gestapo mindset, that they can't even fathom the concept of freedom anymore. That someone might actually use that app just to avoid being caught up in a traffic jam caused by the DUI checkpoint, or better yet, that a person might want to avoid being held up, harassed, have their car ripped apart and searched without a warrant, or even have their car impounded even though they aren't drunk! In 2009, Los Angeles impounded 24,000 cars at DUI checkpoints, yet only 3,200 DUI arrests were actually made.

















The USA Today article then goes on to quote Starks saying...

"They're only thinking of one consequence, and that's being arrested. They're not thinking of ending the lives of other motorists, pedestrians, other passengers in their cars or themselves."

So the cop is assuming that everyone who uses theses apps must be drunk for one thing. But you're damn right Starks, the first thing on any civilian's mind should be the consequences of being arrested...









...But of course, it is important to keep in mind that many, many people who are stopped and searched, even placed in handcuffs and arrested, are not guilty of any crime whatsoever. All the police have to do is claim that they smell weed...









I don't know about you, but it seems pretty reasonable to me that anybody in their right mind would prefer to avoid that shit.

In this video, a guy from NY State tries to exercise his 4th Amendment rights by refusing to give the Sheriff's department consent for a search. There is some back and forth over whether or not the deputy needs a warrant once the K-9 has "alerted" on the vehicle. But in the end, the deputy decides to impound the car and have it towed to the station while he waits for a warrant to come through from the D.A.'s office. The civilian is cuffed and put in the back of a squad car, denied his doctor prescribed medication that was supposed to be taken during the time he was in custody, and finally after 4 hours of filming his camera goes dead. He posted the highlights of the footage in this Youtube video...









But then again, you don't even have to be in your car, or at home, like on this occasion when police searched a man's car while it was sitting in his own driveway after he left to go to the music store. Police claimed that they got a 911 call from the house, even though there was no phone line in the house...









Still think the police give a flying fuck about your rights or the Constitution? Do you still think that the Constitution even exists? Wake up and smell the Fascism folks, the house is burning.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." ~Fourth Amendment

Congressional hearings on Islam: Rise of the Fourth Reich

Congress will begin hearings Thursday on the threat of radicalization of Muslims, despite protests and questions of Islamophobia. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) who is the the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee has stated that the goal of the hearings is "to establish and show the American people that there is a real threat of al-Qaida recruiting and of homegrown terrorists being self-radicalized within the Muslim community."

So in other words, it's stated purpose is propaganda. King has already made up his mind and now seeks evidence to support his biased position after the fact, and a pulpit from which to spread his message to the American people. In one breath he says that his only target is al-Qaeda, but in the next he talks about how the Muslim community is not doing enough to deter extremism in their midst.

But let's stop right there for a moment. Al-Qaeda. While the government and the media still use the term to instill fear in the hearts of Americans each day, it has been well established that there is no such thing as al-Qaeda. There is no monolithic terrorist network, there is no organization taking orders from Osama bin-Laden or any successors.



Okay, so there really is no al-Qaeda. But is there a threat from radicals and fundamentalists on American soil among American-Muslims? King brings up 9/11, of course. So ten years after the fact, Congress suddenly now finds the need to have these hearings on the threat of Muslim radicals in our midst? Let's not forget that the alleged 9/11 hijackers were not Americans. Not even Afhganis of Iraqis for that matter. They were mostly Saudi Arabians. That is of course, if you take the government's word for it.



Okay, so maybe there are still questions about 9/11, but we know there are religious radicals. The question then is, are religious fundamentalism really a threat here in America, domestically? Well, we know that the Oklahoma City bombing was done to avenge the deaths of radical Christians. That bombing was entirely domestic. Everyone involved were American citizens. So why did we never see Congressional hearings about Christian fundamentalists? Or, for that matter, radical elements within the U.S. Military? After all, Timothy McVeigh was a decorated war hero.



See our related article: Border War: The Blind Eye of America

In the wake of 9/11, such domestic threats are overshadowed by the fear of Muslim extremists, the sort who are alleged to have carried out the most spectacular act of terrorism the world has ever known. So how many extremist are there in the world? What are the chances of something like that actually happening again ? What is the real threat? One in five people on the planet are Muslim, yet the world is not ablaze with daily horrific acts of terrorism in the name of Islam. The reason for this is that the fraction of Muslim fundamentalists which exist could be likened to what the Ku Klux Klan or the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity.

Now among that faction of radical Islam, we actually have to look a little deeper too. How many Muslims are really so committed to their rhetoric, that they are willing to die for it? How many would act, and not just spew hate speech? A much smaller percentage again, to be sure. Just like the KKK and their ilk, they talk a good line, but when was the last time you heard of a Klansman even going to prison for his beliefs, much less dieing for them? But let's go ahead and assume that some of these Muslim radicals are a little more committed than their Christian counterparts Out of what is estimated to be a few thousand truly hardcore radicals around the globe, from more than a billion Muslims, how many would actually be able to carry out an attack on American soil? Especially one anywhere near the scale and complexity of 9/11. How many radicals would actually have the will, the commitment, the capability, the skills, the connections, and the resources to carry out such an attack? When you think about it that way, it's pretty hard to imagine how a ragtag group of hard-drinking strip-club visiting cocaine snorting supposedly strict adherents of fundamentalist Islam were able to even carry out 9/11 in the first place.

Of course, that doesn't mean the Muslim terrorists didn't actually carry out the 9/11 attacks. That can be debated elsewhere. It also doesn't mean that it would be impossible for Islamic radicals to carry out a terror attack, on any scale, here on American soil, however unlikely that prospect might be. But is that enough to have Congressional hearings singling out Muslims as a threat or as harboring a threat against the American people?

According to the official story, Muslim radicals are responsible for 2,998 American deaths, in one, single, coordinated attack on American soil. Last year, 5,890 people were murdered by a black person. This means that in 2009 you were almost twice as likely to be murdered by a black person, than you were to be killed by a radical Muslim in the year the attacks actually happened. Now compound those odds over a ten year period, since 2001, in which no more attacks have happened, and you can see that blacks are are a far greater threat to Americans than any Muslim.

Oh, did you find that offensive? Good. Because these hearings are just as offensive, with even less merit.

Some have called these hearings a return to McCarthyism. No folks, it is far worse than that. This is the face of Fascism, on the order of what happened in Germany in the few short years before the Holocaust. This isn't about political ideals. This is about the United States Congress making an open attack on a religion, with strong racial and ethnic overtones.

The only question then is, why? Feel free to contact us if you really don't know at this point, but let's finish off with this. There is no real threat from Muslims. No more so than any other group of people, far less in fact. You are twice as likely to be crushed under a vending machine than you are to be killed by a terrorist. Your odds of being killed in a 9/11 style terror attack are about 8 million to one. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning... four times.

Fallout from Wikileaks already hitting home?

In recent weeks, the disclosure of classified material by non-profit media group Wikileaks has been the subject of much discussion. So just a quick re-cap here to start off, for those that may not be familiar with the story. Wikileaks has published hundred of classified and sensitive documents, diplomatic cables, that give a revealing look inside America's international political and war strategies. Wikileaks claims to now have hundreds of thousands of such documents, which they promise to publish over time. The U.S. military claims these documents were leaked to Wikileaks by an Army Private whom they have kept in solitary confinement for the last seven months.

As a sort of sideshow now to this whole affair, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been detained in England on a warrant by Swedish authorities who want to question him over charges of sexual misconduct. Swedish officials claim that there is no political motivation behind these charges, and that the charges are unrelated to the goings-on at Wikileaks, despite the fact that he was already detained and questioned while in Sweden this past summer on these same charges. With the release of new material came this renewed effort to arrest Assange once again. The timing of all of this is certainly coincidental at the very least.

Jiulian Assange Interrogated by Swedish Police

But now to the topic at hand, as it most directly pertains to the freedom of speech. In the United States, free speech is protected under the Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” -First Amendment

Free speech is also recognized internationally under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." -Article 19

Nevertheless, debate has raged as to whether or not Wikileaks is guilty of high crimes for publishing the classified material. The debate centers on whether or not free-speech protections extend to the publication of classified government documents and if Wikileaks did in fact break any laws that are already in place. Assange and Wikileaks were no doubt confident that they were breaking no laws, as numerous U.S.-based publications have printed sensitive material in the past without facing the threat of prosecution, and no pertinent laws have been put on the books since the First World War. (Not to mention the fact that Assange is not an American citizen, Wikileaks is not an American organization, and any such "crime" did not take place on American soil.) So it would seem that opponents of Wikileaks are really more concerned with how damaging the material is, rather than the fact that classified material is being published. 

Speaking from a supporter's home in England where he is staying under house arrest, Julian Assange stated today that he fears an imminent indictment by U.S. Authorities against either himself or Wikileaks by a secret grand-jury. An msnbc.com legal panel also predicts that there will be an indictment. 

A report of the panel's discussion can be found at this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40653249/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/

The implications for free speech, and freedom of the press would be profound if such an indictment were handed down, and certainly if a conviction were secured it would completely undermine the very foundations of a free press in America. At stake here is one of, if not the most cherished and fundamental liberties that define us as a nation. More alarmingly, let us have a look at what effect this is having already on the American press. There is a virtual media blackout on the contents of the information published by Wikileaks, as the U.S. media runs spinelessly in full retreat of what has already been reported publicly, not only by Wikileaks themselves but by other news organizations in Europe and elsewhere. As Dr. Ron Paul points out in the audio recording here below, the main-stream corporate media are completely focused on the leak, rather than the content.

Also, U.S. Based servers have dropped or blocked access to the Wikileaks website, and an American must now access servers on foreign soil to read the content at all. So exactly what does it mean to be an American today, when we must travel to foreign soil, even digitally, in order to practice our Constitutionally protected rights? With corporate media already dominating the mindset of the masses with biased and incomplete reporting, outright blackouts of news, and then cramming their content with tabloid “junk-food news,” the last bastion of hope for free speech now is the internet. And that folks, is why there is a war on now to censor the internet. There is a war on to control what Americans think, and what Americans can and cannot see. You can read more about that here in one of our previous articles...

Book Burning in the Digital Age...and so it begins

Some might say that American companies and press outlets have good reason to avoid Wikileaks like the plague right now, at least until the chips do fall where they may. Spineless as it may be to not defend the core principals by which a press organization operates in the first place, their fears are not without some merit. It does however show a lack of integrity, and boldly hints that profits are more important than the actual reporting of news. It also goes to show how oppressive our government actually is, that in this supposedly free country, the press will run and hide from anything that might upset the government, before any case has even been made. Now it appears that this hint of trouble has already undermined our ability as a people of a so-called free and open society to get the story, the full story, the true story. And now it has spilled over into general reporting, beyond news that has anything to do with the Wikileaks story.

Take the news that is being reported today for example, by the Associated Press, as it appeared on Yahoo. The story is about the CIA station-chief in Islamabad, Pakistan, being recalled from his post in the wake of his cover being blown in a Pakistani lawsuit accusing him, and others named in the suit, of killing civilians there with missile strikes. Threats have been made against him, and his name is being openly reported overseas, in Pakistan especially. Yet here in America, we are barred from knowing his name because, as the AP claims, “...he remains undercover and his name is classified.” So while the enemies of America now know full well the identity of the CIA station-chief, we here at home are still barred from this information. For what purpose?

CIA station-chief pulled from Islamabad

Clearly, material that was once considered classified, is no longer in fact classified once it is leaked to non-classified persons, regardless of the circumstances or the sensitivity of the information.

classified clas·si·fied [klas-uh-fahyd]

adj.

1. Arranged in classes or categories.

2. Available to authorized persons only, as for reasons of national security: a classified document.

This fact not only shows that the AP is being shamefully cautious and “white-gloved” when dealing with information that the U.S. government may object to being reported, but goes right to the heart of the matter as it pertains to the Wikileaks dissemination of formerly classified material. Once the material is leaked to non-classified personnel, it is no longer classified by the very definition of the word.

How much other material is being censored by the AP, or other news sources, which the American government may find objectionable? Are we to tolerate wholesale censorship and the destruction of our fundamental liberties, simply because the government might be offended by the reporting of fact, truth, or opinion? And when did this government for the people and by the people, suddenly become the masters of the people, dictating what is and is not allowed, in direct opposition the ideals put down as inalienable rights of the people in the founding document of this nation?

Some have argued that this whole matter with Wikileaks has been a “false-flag” operation all along, an “internet 9/11” as some conspiracy theorists have termed it, in order for the American government to seize control of the internet. Whether or not Assange and Wikileaks are actually a CIA asset is debatable, even if not likely, but one thing is clear; the American government is poised to exploit this matter in a way that stands in stark contradiction to the ideal this nation once held most dear.The days of freedom of speech and freedom of press in America, as we have known them for hundreds of years, are at an end.

We have enjoyed so much freedom for so long that we are perhaps in danger of forgetting how much blood it cost to establish the Bill of Rights.  ~Felix Frankfurter

We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.  ~Edward R. Murrow

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.  ~James Madison, speech, Virginia Convention, 1788

Nations grown corrupt
Love bondage more than liberty;
Bondage with ease than strenuous liberty.
~John Milton

(Special thanks to Ahkronn for contributing to this article)

Tea Party or Brownshirts?

Alaska Dispatch editor and founder Tony Hopfinger was arrested Sunday as he posed questions to U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller. Following a town hall meeting at Central Middle School in Anchorage, Hopfinger pressed the Sarah Palin endorsed candidate if he had ever been reprimanded for politicking and other irregularities while working at the Fairbanks North Star Borough in 2008. Bodyguards told him to stop asking questions, or leave the public school building. The henchman refused to identify themselves, but threatened to arrest Hopfinger for trespassing, then acted, putting the journalist against the wall in an armbar and then slapped on a set of handcuffs, stating that he was now under arrest.

During his detainment, other reporters began filming and posing questions to Hopfinger, at which point the security detail also threatened to arrest them and pressed them down the hallway away from the detainee. After about 30 minutes, Hopfinger was finally released when Anchorage police arrived and refused to take him into custody.

In the wake of the arrest, Joe Miller told Fox and CNN on Monday that he had been required to bring his own private security detail for his town hall meeting at Central Middle School. The school district said that they made no such requirement however, that a hallway monitor and parking lot monitor were all that was expected. The Miller event failed to meet their contractual obligation to make an “expectation speech” at the beginning of the event, reminding people to be respectful, to park properly, and to remain only in permitted areas.

It is left to Anchorage Municipal Prosecutor Al Patterson to decide whether to charge Hopfinger with trespassing and assault alleged by the security team now identified as Dropzone Security Services. The basis of the assault charge stems from the fact that the Anchorage Dispatch editor shoved one of the guards. He counters that it was a defensive move to counter the encroachment upon his freedom of movement by the guards, which is a violation of his civil rights and can lead to liability under false imprisonment or even kidnapping if he was not breaking any laws by being there. But were the guards legally justified in making such a detainment, blocking his freedom of movement, based on a charge of trespass? Perhaps.

What many folks don't realize, is that private security actually have more authority than a police officer in some respects. Whereas a police officer must establish probable cause to make an arrest, a security contractor has no such obligation and can dictate conduct arbitrarily and at his own discretion as a contract agent of another person or the place being guarded. Something to think about there folks. Another unseen but potent facet of the corporate sponsored police-state that has been built up around us. Private security have more power than your local public servant peace officer. So long as they are operating within the confines of their contractual agreement.

In other words, yes, security guards can in fact kick you out of a public school that has been rented out for private use, and arrest you for trespassing if you refuse to leave. More on that in a moment though. This is hardly the sort of thing that a U.S. Senate hopeful should be endorsing anyway, legal or not. Refusing to answer a reporter's questions certainly leads one to conclude that the candidate might be trying to hide something that the public should know. Even if it were simply frivolous badgering by a reporter, having that reporter arrested hardly seems to be the sort of conduct we should expect from a Senate hopeful at a political event which the public had been invited to, even if it was paid for with private campaign funds. This was not some private fund-raising dinner in a hotel where a heckler came in and started upsetting tables. This was a public “town hall” meeting at a public school. Having a reporter arrested for asking questions hardly seems to be an expression of freedom and openness by a man hoping to represent Alaska in the United States Senate. And so much for the lip-service given to Constitutional liberty by right-wing politicians. Once again we see that there is an asterisk next to freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, that reads, “in designated areas, by permit only” where contract law supersedes the Constitution.

But had Mr. Hopfinger actually been trespassing in a designated area, privately secured under contractual agreement? The fact that the guards did not identify themselves and were not in uniform is one important point. If they failed to express by what authority the arrest was being made, the arrest may be invalid leaving them open to lawsuit for false imprisonment, even if they did in fact carry such authority. But did they even really have such authority there in the hallway of the school? No, in fact they did not. The event contract states that the district leased the stage, the cafeteria, and the parking lot, not the hallway in which the arrest took place. Therefore, those security agents had no more authority to arrest him there than if he were standing on a public street corner yelling through a bullhorn. They cannot charge that he was trespassing in an area in which they had no contractual authority over, any more than they could walk into a public school and arrest anyone they want on any other day.

Another sticking point is that Dropzone Security was practicing security without a business license. That's correct, Joe Miller hired a rogue, unlicensed security firm for his event. Depending on the laws of the state, this may in fact be a crime, and Dropzone is also in violation of the law. The IRS might also be interested look into the fact that this company has been operating a for-profit venture without a license for almost a year now. And hopefully Mr. Miller's accounts are in order as well, as to how he was actually paying this fly-by-night outfit. Regardless, the fact that Dropzone security no longer exists in the eyes of the law invalidates all authority of Dropzone security personnel and their contractual agreements. Now if each individual was contracted to Joe Miller directly, then we would have to look at their individual security licenses, and their personal contract agreement with him. That would also mean, that they were acting as private bodyguards, and not as event security staff, which also mean that they had no authority to make an arrest based in trespassing.

A little sidebar here for a moment. The authority of a security guard emanates from what some may call a citizen's arrest, or a private person's arrest as it is called in Alaska. This means that anyone can arrest anyone else if they witness that person commit a crime. If you contract to perform this task on behalf of another person or organization, this is called practicing security, and requires a license issued by the state. So contracting without a license is illegal, but you still have a right as a citizen to make an arrest when you witness a crime. So then, could these security guards have still made the arrest then, even if the contract with their employer was invalid? No, because as we said, the event lease only covered the stage, cafeteria, and parking lot, therefore the crime of trespass did not in fact occur. At that point, only an authorized representative of the school district could have validated such a charge.

Now back to the identity of the security guards. Each individual failed to identify themselves, to properly display or to provide on demand their Alaska state license to practice security, to identify the company they were working for, or to otherwise state by what authority the arrest was being made. As if that weren't bad enough, as it turns out, two of the guards that assisted in the arrest and tried to prevent reporters from filming the detention, are active duty soldiers of the United States Army, 3rd Maneuver Enhancement Brigade at Fort Richardson. That's correct, the United States Army has now become directly involved in bullying and detaining reporters in public for political reasons. It should be noted however, that public information officer Maj. Bill Coppernoll has stated the soldiers did not have permission from their current command to work for Dropzone. That point of course could further complicate the validity of the arrest, and strengthen the case for a counter-suit of false imprisonment if Hopfinger should he decide to prosecute.

In short, the press is being bullied, detained, and accused of committing criminal activity by members of the U.S. Army on behalf of a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, after daring to ask questions about that candidate's improper use of public resources for partisan political activity. Brilliant.

DoD DIRECTIVE 1344.10

SUBJECT: Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty


b. A member on AD shall not:

(1) Use his or her official authority or influence for interfering with an election; affecting the course or outcome of an election; soliciting votes for a particular candidate or issue; or requiring or soliciting political contributions from others.

...

(3) Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions.

Having active-duty military forces participate in partisan politics is un-democratic to say the least. Soldiers tieing up journalists on behalf of political candidates is so far over the line that it really calls into question just exactly what sort of country have we become. And what sort of candidate for the Senate would come out to emphatically support what happened? The true nature of of the Tea Party is revealed to be more authoritarian and fascist in practice than the “small government, pro-constitution” soundbites they offer up to the media. Yes, this is Joe Miller, Tea Party favorite. He refuses to speak to the press outside of carefully staged engagements, and uses the United States Army to threaten and imprison journalists in public should they dare to ask questions outside of his campaign format.



Alaska Dispatch editor detained at Miller event


Miller bodyguards at forum included active-duty soldiers


Breaking news from “Sarah Palin's Alaska”