Sad state of affairs: Legalese now needed, even if you shoot in self defense.

Posted from survivalblog.com. Link at bottom.

After the Shooting, by Tupreco

Permalink | Print

Your bedside clock says 3:40 a.m. You have just awakened to a sound like breaking glass. You pick up the phone to call 911 but the line is dead. It’s dark in the house and you ease out of bed to retrieve your handgun from the closet safe just as you have practiced dozens of times. You wait inside your bedroom door with your ear straining to hear. Someone is down the hall sliding something on the tile. At that instant, the 30-second delay on your security system expires and the alarm begins to peal. Another crash in the living room and you are now standing in the hall – gun drawn. A person you have never seen before senses your presence and turns toward you while reaching for his belt. He is close and coming toward you and has ignored your command to stop. You don’t specifically remember firing but he goes down after two hollow points catch him in the chest. The knife he was reaching for drops to the floor next to him as he falls. Time seems to stand still. Your cell phone rings and you jump – your security company is on the line about the alarm trip. You tell them to call the police. You hang up and call 911 and check his vitals – no pulse or breathing. Now what?

You just shot an armed intruder in self-defense. You have also just stepped into the middle of a legal minefield. This instance is a clear case of self-defense. Will it be seen that way? The widely-held belief that you are innocent until proven guilty cannot be presumed. The new world you have just entered is far from ideal and the burden of proving your innocence will be on you. What happens next? You will be anxious to talk to the first responders who just arrived, probably police and paramedics. You will also have to overcome an overwhelming and immediate desire to begin justifying your actions to anyone who will listen to you. But for now, saying as little as possible will be the best decision of your life. However, you will only restrain yourself if you know why it is so critical. And you know this because it is one of the key parts of your overall preparedness strategy.

And So It Begins…
Who among us hasn’t considered the likelihood that we may be called upon use lethal force in self-defense or to protect innocent life? We pray it never happens but if we are prepared to shoot someone, however justified, then we must be equally prepared to deal with the consequences. I am constantly trying to improve the resources and skills I need to protect my family just like you. Yet a critical part of that preparation includes knowing what will happen and what to do after you shoot. Do you have a clue about the unbelievable complexities that will occur after using deadly force? Do you know what resources exist to help you deal with them? If not, then this article is your wake-up call. It is time to act – now – so that you will be ready in such a situation.

Enter “the system”
I am not a lawyer. I am not a law enforcement officer. But I do have a some key friends in law enforcement and in state and federal courts. Realize that what is written here is not to be construed as legal advice in any way. It is an exhortation to do your homework, make a plan, and assemble a small team – a lawyer and a few key friends – who agree to be available at a moment’s notice as you will be for them.

The daily world my friends inhabit is a legal procedural system that is designed to establish whether a crime was committed and to identify possible suspects with all haste and diligence. These are the people who just showed up at your home in response to your frantic call. And there you stand with a gun and a body at your feet. The police are amazing at empathizing while getting the info from you that they know you are dying to unburden yourself with. All of this will happen before your attorney arrives. Getting as much information from you as soon as possible is their goal and it is a certainty that what you say will be used against you if needed. Talking without counsel will almost invariably hurt you. Even if the shoot is clearly justified, they will still be trying to get all the details from you. They will tell you they are trying to help and need your cooperation in order to clear you. But helping you is not their priority. That’s your lawyer’s job. What are they trying to do? They are gathering information to feed to the system. Realize that your innocence is just one of many outcomes available once the information is gathered and analyzed. The legal system is judged successful when cases are closed and convictions are handed down. That’s their true goal – it’s not to help you get cleared of wrongdoing. They don’t work to answer to you. They may be sympathetic but their job is to feed the system as it is currently designed. Justice may be the stated goal in broad terms but closing the case is the real objective. Getting you justice is your lawyer’s job. Are you getting the idea?

Do Your Research and Plan Ahead
There is good news though. Numerous good books and resources are available to help you and several are listed at the end of this article. My goal is to raise your awareness of this issue to a level where you realize you need to act today. Without a plan you will be at the mercy of events out of your control.

Start by thinking about how all of your past and present decisions and life choices will appear in the harsh light of the legal investigation you may face tomorrow. Which choices? All of them. You will be amazed as I was about the dozens of things you do innocently every day that will be portrayed negatively by an unsympathetic legal system. How your friends and neighbors describe what you say and do will get put on display. Will your personality and the gun-related details of your life make you look like Joe Regular Citizen or a crazed vigilante in the hands of skilled prosecutor? Don’t think it can happen? It’s all about the spin. Here are a few examples:

“You own an excessive number of guns and shoot frequently Mr. Smith…looks like you finally got your chance to use one.”

“Your honor, the bumper stickers and rifle rack on Mr. Smith’s truck demonstrate a strong mistrust of government and establish a vigilante mindset.”

“The range master at your gun club has testified that you always use representations of people as targets instead of a simple bullseye Mr. Smith. I think the jury would like to know why?”

“So you have testified that the man you shot was someone who was known to you and in fact owed you money. Can you explain why he was in your house that afternoon?”

These examples demonstrate how quickly any simple innocent act can be spun negatively and strung together to make you look like the criminal and portray the person who broke into your house and attacked you as the victim. The recommended books and links will be great resources to open your eyes. Use them and start today to assemble a plan. You will want to assemble a small team who can mutually agree to be available should the need arise. Meanwhile, here are some things to get you started.

Key Areas to Consider
When is lethal force legally justified? Case law justifying lethal force throughout the U.S. is generally consistent and of necessity is severely limited. The only time lethal force is justified is when someone reasonably believes that their life or the life of someone else is in immediate jeopardy. The justification only exists while the threat is present (or perceived to be present). In the opening scenario, you pointed your gun at a knife-wielding attacker who was ignoring your commands to stop. But the moment he drops the knife or turns and retreats does he cease to be an immediate threat? If a reasonable man would conclude yes, then the justification for lethal force ceases as well. Someone stealing your stuff? Nope. Breaking into your house? Not unless you truly believed (and can justify by the circumstances over and over later) that you believed your life was in danger.

“I did everything in my power!” You will be asked what you did to address the threat prior to shooting. In escalating order these things include fleeing, a verbal command, physical restraint, use of pepper spray or some other object, and finally your firearm. If any of these things are available you will be asked why you did not or could not use them before resorting to lethal force.

“I was in fear for my life!” There are many ways to express this but the reality is that you must genuinely believe that you were in fear for your life or that of another and saw no other way of escape before you will be cleared for using lethal force. Repeat it early and often. Expressions of remorse are normal and can be helpful or may be construed as guilt. That is why you should say very little and insist on speaking to your lawyer before making a statement or agreeing to be questioned.

“I had no choice but to shoot!” If the attacker continues to advance and can’t be deterred any other way, the last resort may be to fire your weapon. Self-defense doctrine suggests you should keep firing until the threat ceases. Next, any secondary threats (such as an accomplice) should be dealt with. Once the threat ceases then contact the authorities as quickly as possible, usually via 911.

What you will do after the shooting is over? You will now be in a highly agitated state and are capable (likely) to do and say things you will regret later. These are normal tendencies but with some forethought and planning, the damage to you can be minimized. If you do not call 911 right away it will go poorly for you. This is the conventional wisdom and it makes some sense. Calling quickly and rendering aid will support the fact that you are the victim here and did not want to kill anyone. Say as little as possible because EVERYTHING you say from here on out will be used against you if it can be. The minimum suggested is something like. “This is John Smith of 123 Main Street. I was just attacked in my home and was afraid for my life. Please send an ambulance because someone has been shot.”

After calling 911
After you call 911, you lose control of events almost immediately. For starters, the phone you just used to call 911 on is usually ‘locked’ so you cannot make any other calls on it. Calling your lawyer or a support team member as soon as possible is advisable (on another phone) and say little except that you want to help and will make a statement after speaking to your lawyer. If your lawyer is not available, call a prearranged friend (you have a team, right?). Have them make all necessary calls for you (lawyer, family, pastor, etc.) as you may be unable to do so. They will be questioned later about why they got a call from you so quickly so their response needs to be solid as well.

Then the police will arrive and they won’t know who the good guy is. Their first priority is officer safety followed by bystander safety, securing the scene, and then determining what just happened. Make sure they know it’s you that called. Having a just-fired gun in your hand is not the best way to greet them. Make sure your weapon is secured and safe. It will be confiscated by law enforcement immediately and this is routine. Your hands may be bagged to preserve evidence of gunshot residue (GSR). Permission to search the rest of your house will be requested (or may just be done if there are exigent circumstances). The stated explanation will be to secure everyone’s safety but equally important will be to examine what role you played in the events. Avoid this if you can. Hopefully your other firearms are locked up and secure and not all in one place should the decision be made to confiscate them. Do not appear to be a threat in any way.

Stop Talking!
When they start pressing you with questions, it will get tricky. There is surprisingly little consensus on what or how much to say. The rule here is “Less is better”. I should point out that an officer involved in a shooting is presumed innocent pending an inquiry and is treated very differently than a citizen. He is given representation immediately and is not required to say anything until the rep or lawyer can meet with them and they have a chance to calm down. They are usually placed on paid administrative leave for several weeks. You and I will have to try to go to work in the morning. Yet if we try to take the same approach by wanting to confer with counsel before giving a statement, it is presumed we are trying to hide something. Doesn’t seem fair but it is true. The standards are very different. I believe by now you are getting the idea.

Some expert suggestions
Massad Ayoob, noted expert in the self-defense use of firearms suggests that people memorize these five steps and use them immediately and nothing more.

1. “This person attacked me.” – establishes you are the victim.

2. “I will sign a complaint.” – further confirmation you are the victim

3. Point out evidence that supports you before it disappears.

4. Point out witnesses before they disappear.

5. “Officer, you will have my full cooperation after I have spoken with my attorney.”

His further suggestion is request medical attention for yourself as you may be unknowingly injured, in shock, or something similar. It will also get time for you to regroup your thoughts to avoid saying incriminating or conflicting things.

Alan Korwin is a widely-read 2nd Amendment rights author from Phoenix. Here are his new Safety Rules for Self Defense from his book After You Shoot

1. If you shoot in self defense you must then defend yourself against execution for murder

2. When you drop the hammer plan to cash in your life savings for your lawyer’s retainer. Avoid this unless your life depends on it.

3. Sometimes the innocent get decent treatment and sometimes they don’t

4. It’s always better to avoid a gunfight than to win one.

5. If innocent life doesn’t depend on it, don’t shoot. And if it does, don’t miss.

Expect unbelievable levels of scrutiny
Every decision you have made in your life up to this point will come into question at some point. You will have to justify the pertinent ones….Here are a few ways you will be challenged for starters:
1. Why did you shoot? Why did you feel threatened?
2. What did you do/say prior to shooting that could have prevented this?
3. Why that choice of pistol…shotgun…type of ammo?
4. How long or why did you wait to call 911?
5. Who else have you contacted? Why?
6. Did you know the victim? (Notice that now he is the victim and not you?)

Remember that the job of the police and prosecutor is to get you to tell them as much as they can get from you before your lawyer arrives. By the way, the time to establish a relationship with an attorney is before all this happens as part of your team. Don’t ask for an attorney – you must request to speak with YOUR attorney. Make sure you have one. Korwin’s After You Shoot has some great suggestions about how to put a team together.

Self-Defense Resources
Books
In the Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob
Self Defense Laws of All 50 States by Mitch Vilos
After You Shoot by Alan Korwin

Videos
“Don’t Talk to the Police” video – Professor James Duane
“Don’t Talk to the Police – a Police Officer Responds” video -Virginia Beach Officer George Bruch

Web Sites
US Concealed Carry Association Supports ways to be a responsible CCW holder
GunLaws.com Web site of firearms author Alan Korwin
FirearmsLaws.com Web site of attorney and author Mitch Vilos
Armed Citizens’ Legal Defense Network An education and legal defense organization
Massad Ayoob Group – Training and education on personal protection and self defense

My Simple Plan
Our Plan is very simple so it is also easy to remember. I am fortunate that I know a lawyer who is also a prepper, a sport shooter, and a friend. Two like-minded friends have agreed to be the team and we do this for each other. If any of us is involved in a self-defense shoot, we place what we call a Tiger Call to as many of the others as we can reach. We all have a second small disposable cell phone for this purpose. I carry both phones at all times. If one of us were to be involved in an incident these are the steps we have agreed to once the incident is contained and both 911 and the authorities alerted. The plan goes into effect when the Tiger Call is made.

Phase 1 – Immediate actions

• Call the lawyer immediately. Our code phrase within the group is “This is a Tiger Call on behalf of Joe Smith.” If unable to reach the lawyer, someone goes to his office or house as appropriate. Our lawyer has also given us a backup lawyer if he is unavailable or if he is the one involved in the shoot.

• Contact all other team members. Decide who will coordinate.

• Meet near the scene and attempt to observe and video events.

• Do not interfere or identify your presence and do not attempt to contact Joe

Phase 2 – Follow-up

• Contact pre-planned individuals so rides, child care, bail, moral support, etc. is available.

• Contact employers as planned to arrange for time-off without arousing alarm.

• Consolidate all notes and observations in writing. Sign, date, and photocopy them. Make duplicate copies of all recordings. These will all be given to the lawyer.

• Joe will contact the Tiger group as soon as possible.

Phase 3 – Family support

• The family will be in disarray and will need immediate support. Call secondary support friends and implement help as needed.

• The Coordinator will facilitate assistance and keep tabs for coordinating follow-up.

An occasional drill can be very helpful. Our first practice run helped us realize that we needed small kit like a B.O.B. just for Tiger Calls. Mine has bottled water, snacks, pencils, paper, mini binocs, and a cheapie video cam.

Now You Have Your Wakeup Call
A TEOTWAWAWKI scenario may not come in a broad encompassing sweep or last indefinitely. To the victims of the recent localized tornados it was more like the end of my world – a sort of personal micro-burst if you will. If you use lethal force without being suitably prepared you will experience a SHTF event all your own.

The thugs who show up to steal, kill, and destroy give neither warning nor thought to their actions apart from what they can score from you. However, the aftermath of a self-defense shooting will be life-changing for you. We all think about how to best prepare for numerous possible scenarios yet will completely overlook this area. I avoided this for years for the same reason I avoided preparing a will. I didn’t have the experience to know where to begin. It’s uncomfortable to think about dying. It’s equally uncomfortable to think about what to do if you shoot someone. Being responsible means doing your research and making a plan. So now I have both the will and plan for after a shooting. Do your research and make your plan. And by God’s grace you will never need to use it.

Categories:

• Retreat Groups,

• Self-Defense,

• Survival Mindset

http://survivalblog.com/

Agenda 21 – Toles cartoon still rings true.

This is an old cartoon; while the original subject of concern differs, simply imagine Agenda 21 in place of  ”global economic summit” on the sign.  This NWO assault on property rights and government land control is what we now face, and must reject!

Big Brother and YOU

All this time I’ve blogged about privacy concerns. The fact that even TSA was hacked, gives me pause about being on too many sites.  In October I posted a Grassfire nation petition about the FCC (50 odd days till an UNconstitutional attempt to control the internet) 

I USE STARTPAGE AS MY SEARCH ENGINE. YOU SHOULD TOO.  Is your  e-mail is run by google?

I keep returning to a hard choice: Is my wish to be “web dead” with my present use of a pseudonym and no personal info in a “profile” pg  sufficient to keep the intruders off track?   I adamantly refuse to get a Facebook account; though some of my patriot connections are on Facebook. The new attack on ALIPAC only confirms my stance about privacy. Here is an article I dug up from my files; note the date!

Killer way to slay the Google beast!

‘They’re telling us they will turn data over to the feds’

Posted: January 27, 2010
8:51 pm Eastern 

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Who in the world knows as much about you and your private thoughts as Google?

That’s the question Katherine Albrecht, radio talk-show host and spokeswoman for Startpage, a search engine that protects user privacy, is posing to American Internet surfers.

“It would blow people’s minds if they knew how much information the big search engines have on the American public,” she told WND. “In fact, their dossiers are so detailed they would probably be the envy of the KGB.”

Google exposed in Joseph Farah’s “Stop the Presses!” autographed only at WND’s online store.

It happens every day, Albrecht explained. When an unfamiliar topic crosses people’s minds, they often go straight to Google, Yahoo or Bing and enter key terms into those search engines. Every day, more than a billion searches for information are performed on Google alone.

“If you get a rash between your toes, you go into Google,” she said. “If you have a miscarriage, you go into Google. If you are having marital difficulties, you look for a counselor on Google. If you lose your job, you look for unemployment benefit information on Google.”

Albrecht said Americans unwittingly share their most private thoughts with search engines, serving up snippets of deeply personal information about their lives, habits, troubles, health concerns, preferences and political leanings.

“We’re essentially telling them our entire life stories – stuff you wouldn’t even tell your mother – because you are in a private room with a computer,” she said. “We tend to think of that as a completely private circumstance. But the reality is that they make a record of every single search you do.”

The search engines have sophisticated algorithms to mine data from searches and create very detailed profiles about Americans. She said those profiles are stored on servers and may fall into the wrong hands.

She pointed to the recent cyber attacks that infiltrated Google’s operations in China. Bloomberg News reported that Yahoo was also among the victims.

Albrecht said the government may also subpoena citizens’ private information after it has been stored by Google, Yahoo and Bing. In a December 2009 interview with CNBC, Google CEO Eric Schmidt divulged that search engines may turn over citizens’ private information to the government.

“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place,” Schmidt said. “But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it’s important, for example, that we are all subject to the United States Patriot Act. It is possible that information could be made available to the authorities.”

A video of Schmidt’s statements follows:

 

“My jaw hit the floor when I heard that,” Albrecht said. “Now they are just coming right out and telling us that they will turn our data over to the feds. Based on what I know about how much information they have on us, it’s really terrifying.”

In addition to information collected from searches, Google also saves sent and received e-mails, including e-mail drafts, attachments and chat messages through its Gmail system.

“What these big search engines have is the eye in the sky,” Albrecht said. “It’s like the totalitarian dictator’s dream. They know everything, and with a couple of mouse clicks, they could find every single person in the country who observes Passover or attends a Catholic or Baptist church or who buys ammunition.”

She continued, “They’ve gotten so sophisticated that they actually boast that they can tell when their own employees are going to quit because they monitor their employees’ mouse clicks.”

 

Albrecht said she was alarmed to discover that another application

, Google Flu Trends, used aggregated Google searchdata to track flu activity around the world. The organization boasted that it could spot a flu outbreak even before the Centers for Disease Control suspected one. The search-engine giant collaborated with the CDC on the project.

 

The following is a Google video illustrating how the Google Flu Trends works:

 

“We have found a close relationship between how many people search for flu-related topics and how many people actually have flu symptoms,” Google explained. “Of course, not every person who searches for ‘flu’ is actually sick, but a pattern emerges when all the flu-related search queries are added together. We compared our query counts with traditional flu surveillance systems and found that many search queries tend to be popular exactly when flu season is happening. By counting how often we see these search queries, we can estimate how much flu is circulating in different states and countries around the world.”

Albrecht said Google monitored search patterns that indicated a person may have had the flu. Then it would pinpoint a person’s location using an IP address.

“They turned that map over to the government,” she said. “They didn’t give any personal information about individuals. They didn’t give individual IP addresses or say who the people were – but they could have.”

The search-engine giant uses its search records for marketing purposes, Albrecht explained.

She said some people wonder why Google would give them all this “free cool stuff” like Google Maps, Google Calendar, Google Groups, Google Spreadsheets, Google Earth and Gmail.

“When was the last time a company making billions of dollars gave you every single thing they offered for free?” she asked. “They’re not giving you those products for free. You’re the product, and that’s the bait.”

But she said there’s good news. Startpage, and its European brand Ixquick,, are introducing a new search alternative that will protect and never store private information about its users. Startpage will launch its new proxy service tonight at 10 p.m. EST.

Startpage, a private search engine, launches new proxy service tonight.

The proxy service allows users to search and surf the Web anonymously. With each Startpage search, the word “proxy” appears under each result. If a user clicks “proxy,” they may view the result privately.

Startpage visits the selected website, retrieves the information and shows it to the user in a privacy-protected window. A private user’s browser never interacts directly with the external website so the websites cannot capture or record personal data or load malware onto a private computer. Websites only see that a site in the Netherlands is visiting the website, she said. The search engine never records personal information, search data or IP addresses.

“Startpage doesn’t have any information, so even if it was served with a subpoena or, like Google, if it got hacked, there would be no records to obtain because it doesn’t keep any records,” Albrecht explained.

She said she hopes people will start supporting companies like Startpage and move their traffic away from the other big search engines, so Google, Yahoo, Bing and others will learn to respect user privacy.

“As consumers, we almost have an obligation to stop using them until they behave themselves,” Albrecht said. “Sometimes you want to know private stuff. It doesn’t mean you have something to hide or are doing anything wrong. It just means you don’t want other people knowing what you’re thinking about and looking up. It’s nobody’s business.”

Free Speech Under Siege In America By Those that Support Illegal Immigration

January 19, 2012

by William Gheen
President of ALIPAC
http://www.alipac.us

On Wednesday January 18, 2012 over 7,000 websites ‘blacked out’ in open protest of new legislation called SOPA and PIPA, which would have a chilling effect on free speech on the Internet and for all Americans.

ALIPAC would like to offer our full opposition to the SOPA and PIPA legislation as written because the legislation is so broad our primary mission to collect and archive all information possible about America’s illegal immigration invasion could be stopped by the legislation.

We did not black out our website at www.ALIPAC.us because it is new and still under construction after a recent revamping, but we are going to make our opposition to SOPA our first activist alert for 2012!

For the last few years, we have been warning Americans about the three “nation breakers” that the same power factions supporting Amnesty for illegal aliens want to see applied to Americans in their quest for power and domination over us.

1. We have warned that these corrupt elites will try to pass a form of Amnesty which would eventually puts millions of illegal immigrants into a new voting block permanently displacing American voters who would stand up for Border Security. These illegal immigrants, once legalized, will then be given preference in government and corporate hiring and placed in positions of dominion over once sovereign American citizens.

2. We have warned that these corrupt elites will try to stifle freedom of Speech in America and on the web to prevent Americans from stopping their plans as we have in the past by stopping their amnesty legislation.

3. We have warned that they will eventually try to disarm the American public depriving us of our 2nd amendment rights to make their power over us permanent and supreme and insulated from any significant resistance to an increasingly diabolical series of abuses. With the British and Australians recently disarmed and dis-empowered, Americans are the last besieged and faltering bastion of freedom and citizen empowerment with rights.

We see SOPA and PIPA as the latest attempts by our US government, which is becoming more dictatorial and more authoritarian like their Chinese and Saudi Arabian counterparts each week, to silence free speech.

We have become experts in free speech and civil rights matters at Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) because our free speech and civil rights are under constant attack and our government appears to be helping the attackers more than American defenders like us.

Our website at www.ALIPAC.us is under constant attack from illegal alien supporters who do their best to disrupt our communications and our operations. They have proven there is no low they won’t go to including hacking and vicious Internet troll attacks.

On Sunday January 15, 2012 Google Inc. literally handed over the master e-mail control and password to our youtube account previously at ALIPAC1′s Channel – YouTube to an illegal alien supporting attacker. All of our videos that contain over 4 years of our work have been deleted. These videos had over 4.3 million views and were expressions of ALIPAC’s civil rights and free speech. They are all gone and so far Google has not responded to our numerous requests for assistance and account restoration.

Then there was the RightHaven copyright trolls that sued ALIPAC and hundreds of other bloggers trying to shake all of us down for money. We are thankful that many groups aligned to fight back and RightHaven has been stopped by the courts, but this attempt to silence those of us on the web that compile, analyze, aggregate, and utilize news articles was a very close call.

Then there is the attack of free speech that occurs when illegal alien supporters like NCLR La Raza (The Race), SPLC, ADL, Media Matters, MALDEF, LULAC, and a constellation of hundreds of other groups label an American peacefully speaking out against illegal immigration as a violent racist. These well financed national smear efforts have a terrible chilling effect on free speech for all Americans. Talk show hosts and news casters are encouraged not to allow those of that represent the views of most Americans on the air due to false claims of tenuous ties to mysterious racist blogs.

I have dubbed what these groups try to do to us as “hooding.” They attempt to silence those of us who become public figures by intimidation and libel. Minorities that believe this hostile propaganda would deem us worthy of violence or death because of our views.

What these invasion supporting groups do is the equivalent of tying an innocent man or woman to a utility poll in a urban minority neighborhood, taping their mouth shut, and putting a white hood on them to leave them to their fate. This “hooding” has become so prominent that now even the Executive Branch and the Department of Homeland Security are using this despicable technique to vie for more power and control over the disgruntled American populace.

In case many of you have not heard, this week the White House began meeting with police leaders from across America to explain to them that the new threat are Domestic Terrorists and that the Domestic Terrorists are not Muslim exremists. Here is how they are describing domestic terrorists to police.

Does this new Homeland Security release information describe anyone you know?

Homeland Security wants local police now looking for American citizens that…

“”…increasingly spoke out against the government, blamed the government for perceived problems and did so in a way that caught the attention of other people in their communities, according to the senior counterterrorism official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private White House event. Subjects became active on the Internet to espouse extremist views. In some cases, the subjects purchased weapons, ammunition…Analysts found that a person’s origin, ethnic background and socioeconomic status are not good indicators for potential violent extremist activity, the senior counterterrorism official said.” — Huntington Post, January 18, 2012

So now the Obama administration is seeking to silence you by sending you the message that law enforcement is now on the lookout for American citizen gun owners that speak out against the government or government policies instead of going after the murderous illegal alien drug and alien smugglers that are armed with assault weapons provided by the Obama administration. Yes, Americans speaking out against the government are now the targets of Janet Napolitano’s Homeland Security more than the Muslim extremists that comprise over 90% of those charged with and convicted of terrorism in the US in the last ten years.

The 9/11 terrorist never spoke out against the US Government online. Tim McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber, never organized online. In fact, the Obama administration offers no verifiable proof that there are any substantiation to these claims!

This is the same government that recently had to retract leaked documents claiming US veterans and citizens that support Ron Paul or fight against abortion, high taxes, and illegal immigration are potential terrorists.

While some of the left may be chuckling and rooting Obama on right now, they will come for you once they are done enslaving the Americans they worry about standing up to them effectively. Americans on the left, right, and center need to unify against these numerous attacks on American liberties and Constitutional governance.

At ALIPAC, we have archived entire articles for the last 7 years because when we started the Internet had no long term memory on these topics. Now our archives are used by citizens, journalists, researchers, lawmakers, candidates, etc…

Since we started, many of the older articles on our site no longer appear at the sources that first reported them. Reports of gang rapes by illegal aliens and school riots between black and Latino students have disappeared or been altered since their original publication. Our archive work at ALIPAC.us at least gives the American public a chance to know what is really going on.

But of course the elites who support the illegal immigration invasion of America have noticed our work and our successes and they conspire to take us down and silence us any way they can.

We encourage the 40,000+ national supporters of ALIPAC to get on the phones to Congress right away to say “I oppose the SOPA and PIPA legislation and want Congress and Obama to keep your hands off of free speech on the web.”

You can even use our brand new Congressional contact list that has many new features.

Let’s burn up those phone lines to DC once again and stop this latest attempt to silence groups like ALIPAC.

People ask me all the time why illegal immigration is allowed to continue and how Obama can get away with the things he is doing.

I’ll tell you the answer to those questions, it is because not enough Americans are standing up and speaking out yet. These bad things are happening because not enough Americans are taking the time to learn what is really going on and choosing to dedicate themselves to real reform.

Stand up and speak out against illegal immigration, against Obama’s unlawful gun running and amnesty for illegal aliens, against SOPA, PIPA, and the NDAA. Speak out while you still can and if you chose to bow down and stand down against those that would intimidate or threaten you into silence, it will likely be one of the last choices you are allowed to make for yourself in the ruins of what is left of America and the American dream.

——————http://www.alipac.us/f8/free-speech-under-siege-america-those-support-illegal-immigration-248592/

ACT! For America – ‘Could you be a criminal?’

 

NOTE: HIGHLIGHTS DIDN’T TRANSFER, I SUBSTITUTED BOLD ITALICS INSTEAD. “X”

 

 

January 5, 2012

 

“Could you be a criminal?”State Department partners with Organization of Islamic Cooperation in what could lead to criminalizing free speech .

 

“That could never happen here.”

When we shine a light on the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria for “denigrating religion,” that’s how some people respond.

Or when we warn about sharia law creeping into America. Or 85 sharia courts in Britain. Or “no go zones” in France.

And of course, our State Department would NEVER agree to a UN resolution that has the practical effect of criminalizing free speech, right?

The column below that recently appeared in Forbes (highlights added) is longer than we normally put out, but it is SO IMPORTANT that you be aware of what’s coming our way. Please take a few minutes to read it—because your first amendment rights may soon be in jeopardy.

Of course, that could never happen here.

Could You Be A Criminal? US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure

Abigail R. Esman, Contributor

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/12/30/could-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure/

While you were out scavenging the Wal-Mart super sales or trying on trinkets at Tiffany and Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18.  

An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences),   the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”

Whatever that means.

Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval –despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.”

What’s worse, the measure codifies into the UN agenda support for the very notion democracies now wrestle with, and which threatens to destroy the very fabric of our culture: tolerance of the intolerant, or rather, the question of whether a tolerant society must also tolerate ways of life that are intolerant – that oppress women, say, or advocate violence against homosexuals, or force strangers to marry against their will.  

It is, in fact, this very concept that the OIC has long pressured Western governments to adopt in other ways, and that those supporting the adoption of Sharia law in the west have emphasized. Yet if we fall into that trap – as it appears we are – we will have lost the very heart of who we are.

The Good, The Bad…

Those who support the new measure rightly laud its recognition of the importance of free debate. and the inclusion of new clauses that call for “speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” and “[fostering] religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to contribute openly and on an equal footing to society.”

What opponents (rightly) find distressing are calls to adopt “measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.”

(Additional clauses that call for countering religious profiling are also questionable, however civil rights organizations may feel about this, given the problems of Islamic terrorism in the real world. But that’s another matter.)

Oddly, Human Rights First, which previously loudly opposed the initiative for its limitation on “blasphemous speech,” is among those who now praise the newer version. In a statement, the organization opined:

Rather than imposing new restrictions on freedom of speech, which it does not, the new consensus resolution opens the door to an action-oriented approach to fighting religious intolerance. That is very consistent with the U.S. policies and practices – combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting freedom of speech. Resolution 16/18 urges states to train government officials to address religious tensions, to harmonize actions at local and national level, to raise awareness of negative stereotyping of persons, to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue, to foster religious freedom and to speak out against intolerance (among other recommendations). The only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to “imminent violence”, which is in accordance with US law.

But others are less forgiving, noting, among other things, that the resolution does nothing to prevent the continued use of anti-Jewish materials in the schools of Saudi Arabia (where the Protocols of Zion are treated as fact, thereby absolving Saudis of charges of “racism”) or the ongoing persecution of Jews and Christians in numerous Muslim countries. And yet, ironically,it was exactly those same countries who initiated the motion, as put forth in its initial drafts by the General Assembly, with expressions of concern for “cases motivated by Islamophobia, Judeophobia, and Christanophobia.”

Indeed, as M. Zuhdi Jasser, an observant American Muslim and the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, remarked in an e-mail, 

“Anyone who believes that Resolution 16’18 is some kind of a breakthrough is sadly being duped by the most obvious Islamist double discourse.  The shift from ‘defamation’ to ‘incitement’ does nothing at all to change the basic paradigm where Islamist nations remain in the offense, continuing to put Western, free nations on the defense.”  

Rather, said Jasser,  “We should be putting Islamist autocracies on the defense and then simply reiterate that our First Amendment principles already protect the rights of all minorities — whether Muslim or otherwise — and that the best standard of free speech is the American one.    

Beginning to categorize speech as ‘incitement’ is a slippery slope that could open the floodgates for any post-tragedy analysis to indict what would otherwise be free speech absurdly as incitement in some far-fetched cause-effect analysis that would depend on proving that speech causes violence.”

Exactly.

It is, indeed, galling to think that we would enter into negotiations of any kind, with anyone, about the freedom of expression that is so central to our very way of life and the core of the founding of America. Ever.

The background to all of this, unsurprisingly, is an effort on the part of Muslim countries to limit what they consider to be defamatory and blasphemous speech: criticism of Islam, say, or insulting the prophet Mohammed – which, as we’ve learned, can mean anything from drawing a cartoon or making a joke in a comedy sketch to burning a Koran. Such acts – according to some readings of the Koran and, indeed, according to law in some IOC countries – are punishable by death. Hence the riots that met the publication of the so-called “Danish cartoons,” the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh, and on and on.

… And The Deceptive

And here’s where Resolution 16/18 gets tricky.

Because who, exactly, arbitrates what is “incitement to imminent violence”? Violence by whom? If drawing a caricature of the Prophet incites violence by Islamic radicals to the tune of riots, arson, and murder, all sanctioned by the IOC itself – then drawing such a caricature (or writing a book like the Satanic Verses) will now constitute a criminal act. And that is exactly what the OIC was aiming for. It is also in direct violation of the principles of Western democracy – and the First Amendment. (Though it is crucial to note that any resolution passed by the General Assembly remains nonbinding, which makes you sort of wonder what the point of all this is, anyway.)

Moreover, since many would claim that the persecution of blasphemers is mandated by their religion, conflicts emerge between guarantees of free expression and the guarantee of freedom of religion and the practice of one’s faith. In othr words: your free speech allows you to insult my prophet: my freedom of religion compels me to kill you for it.

What was that about “incitement to violence”?
Whose violence?

This is how the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation plays “Gotcha.

This is how the American government, however unwittingly, subsumes its own Constitution in deference ot the demands of the Islamic state.

It’s a dangerous game.

True, the Human Rights First position on the issue is significantly more optimistic:

“The U.S. will always enforce its own standards on freedom of expression; these are enshrined in this country’s Constitution. But its legal exceptionalism on freedom of speech does not necessarily mean that the U.S. administration needs to be diplomatically isolated when it comes to promoting globally the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which many in the U.S. perceive to be core and founding American values. On the contrary, since the U.S. joined the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Obama administration has openly expressed its ambition to exert leadership within the U.N. body.

The U.S. demonstrated that leadership by securing the passage of Resolution 16/18 at the Human Rights Council and by moving immediately to show through the Istanbul Process Conference that states have tools at their disposal to combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting free speech.”

But note that word: “combat.” That same word appears in Resolution 16/18, which states “Understanding the need to combat denigration and negative religious stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through, inter alia, education and awareness building.” (Emphasis mine.)

“Combat” implies warfare. Is that the language we want here? Is that one of the options under the vague and wide-open term “inter alia”? And are the “tools at their disposal” – education, interfaith dialogue, and debate — really going to “combat” hatred, especially when that hatred is disguised as proper adherence to one’s faith? When racist myths are taught as historical fact to children across a large swath of the globe?

As for that “faith” thing: it strikes me that those of no faith – atheists – are not addressed anywhere in this resolution. Are they also to be protected from hate crimes? Is atheism among the ideas to be debated and taught in these awareness-raising sessions? If so, why is that not so stated? If not, why not?

Then there is the ongoing whimpering about the “targeting” of Muslims in non-Muslim countries. Actually, that “targeting” is largely mythical, or at the very least, heavily exaggerated. Throughout the world, from France to the Netherlands to Germany to the United States of America, the majority – by a large margin – of those hate crimes and incidents of discrimination perpetrated on the basis of religion target Jews. (another resource available here) And in virtually every case, the “extremism” in question has been Islamic extremism. (Though recent reports of the despicable behavior or ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel puts a new perspective on the matter.)

The Bigger Picture

But here’s the biggest problem: when the exercise of free speech leads to violence far beyond our control. It’s called “terrorism.”   And neither the U.N. General Assembly nor the United States of America has the power to stop it.  

More importantly: by agreeing to curb speech that could lead to “imminent violence,” we in essence accept the blame for any terrorist acts against America (and the West). We agreed not to provoke, after all.

This, of course, is an unacceptable paradigm, and one we cannot allow to stand.

Integral to the greatness of America is the simple fact that no other country in the world places so sacred a value on free speech – indeed, on free expression – as does the United States. Holocaust denial, for instance, is verboten in Germany. Mein Kampf is banned in the Netherlands. France last week criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide in Turkey (an act that resulted in widespread condemnation by the OIC, whose Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, had the audacity, days after the ratification of 16/18, to bluster that those who defend cartoons that mock Mohammed as “freedom of thought and expression” have no business limiting the speech of those who deny the Armenian genocide. “This is an indisputable and unacceptable paradox,” he declared). And so on.

Yet in all of this, America has stood strong in its defense of free speech – even blasphemous, hateful, racist, sexist, Pentecostal, homophobic, and ignorant speech. We must continue to do so, no matter what pressures we may face. Because in the end, limiting our rights to self-expression and – above all – the questioning of religious beliefs – will never help to make the world more peaceful – or more free

 

Obama Signs the NDAA. Goodbye 4th Amendment

Gary North

The Tea Party Economist

Helping you to get through the economic mine field in one piece.

A free daily subscription service from Ron Paul’s original staff economist.                                                                               Matthew 6:32-33

 

President Obama signed the National Defense Appropriation Act, a law that ends the 4th Amendment in the United States unless the Supreme Court overturns it.

He offered this explanation.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

Here is a man with a law degree telling us that he signed a bill into law, despite serious reservations. Who cares what reservations he has? He signed it into law.

Then he added this PR fluff.

Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Then he attacked his enemies.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

There is no question that he has thumbed his nose at the Left that elected him. He has fulfilled the critics’ mockery: “Let Obama be Bush.” He admitted the truth: the hated Section 1021 was already operational. In short, he has expended Bush’s legacy.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

I feel so much safer!

Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

He has made a political promise. He made lots of them in 2008. We have not seen him deliver.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

He will decide how to interpret the law.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Those sections he does not like he will ignore.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

He adds other limitations. You can read the complete original by clicking the link.

He ends with this:

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

He is following the lead of Bush II. He signs laws that he knows are bad, then adds provisions that he says he will not enforce. There is no Constitutional provision for this selective enforcement.

We no longer live under the Constitution.

Continue Reading on www.whitehouse.gov

From WND: Tea-party leader shocked by arrest on gun charges

WEAPONS OF CHOICE

Faces up to 15 years in prison, despite concealed-carry permit

Posted: December 15, 2011
6:49 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2011 WND

Mark Meckler, co-founder and chairman of Tea Party Patriots

 Mark Meckler, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, one of the largest and most prominent tea-party groups, was arrested today at New York City’s LaGuardia Airport on a gun charge – despite showing police his pistol permit and explaining that the weapon is registered in California.

“Mark Meckler, an attorney and national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots, who holds a concealed-carry permit from the state of California, today was charged with a firearms violation at LaGuardia Airport in New York City,” said Brian Stapleton, Meckler’s lawyer, in a statement.

“While in temporary transit through the state of New York in possession of an unloaded, lawful firearm that was locked in a (Transportation Security Administration)-approved safe, he legally declared his possession of the firearm in his checked baggage at the ticket counter as required by law and in a manner approved by TSA and the airline, yet was arrested by port authority for said possession,” Stapleton said.

According to the Associated Press, Queens prosecutors say Meckler was taken into custody at about 5:20 a.m. today after he attempted to check in for his Delta flight and presented a box containing a Glock 27 pistol and 19 cartridges of ammunition. Meckler told authorities he carries the gun for protection because he receives threats. 

Meckler, 49, declared the weapon and is licensed to carry the gun in his home state of California.

However, the report notes that his California license is not valid in New York, which has strict rules on concealed weapon carry.

Meckler faces up to 15 years in prison on a charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, a Class C felony. He was released following arraignment, and his court date was set for Jan. 12.

“Before leaving home, passengers should acquaint themselves with the weapon laws of the jurisdiction that they are visiting and comply with any and all legal requirements if they choose to travel with a weapon,” said Queens District Attorney Richard Brown, according to the New York Daily News. “Otherwise, they may find themselves being arrested and charged with a felony – as is what occurred in this case.”

Read more: Tea-party leader shocked by arrest on gun charges http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=377885#ixzz1giT18DHa

This is A Mafia Style Run Government – Alex Jones Tv (Sunday Edition) 1/3

Made before Gaddafi’s capture and execution, but appropriate. 
On these Sunday Editions of the Alex Jones Show, Alex covers the latest developments in the effort by the globalists to violently depose Gaddafi and turn Libya into a failed state like Iraq where political instability and social chaos are the rule of the day. Alex also talks about the autocratic green police and the recent raid of Gibson Guitars under the pretense that the company used illegal wood in the manufacture of its products. Alex also takes your calls.

God versus Socialism: The planks we walk to our doom

Written on October 28, 2011 at 6:00 am by Joel McDurmon

 

People have no idea how much freedom we’ve lost, how far we’ve gone.

It is no stretch to say that America is not what it used to be. Many lovers of our country will readily identify with the sentiment. What needsto be pushed, however, is a reminder about how and in what ways we have changed. The program we have followed and where we have ended up needs commentary.

Not so long ago, Christians and conservatives in this country defined themselves politically by opposing the great threat of Communism. We hear hardly anything of this today. The idea that Communism was a real threat not so long ago, yet is almost forgotten today, presents a classic example of the American public’s short memory. Mention Marxism in a conversation today and you will almost definitely be hearing crickets in a short time. No one cares: it’s history. The wall fell, we won, move on.

Yes, the Berlin Wall fell, but it fell in our direction. No one talks about this. The Soviet Union fell, but Marxism and Socialism have long flooded all of Western and Eastern Civilization. America is no exception. Marxism is history, yes, and yet the influences of Marxism and various ideas of socialism have never been more dangerous than now, when it stands ready to expand further into every office of government, and when we are yet asleep to it.

So let me briefly state my problems with America as it has come to be. First, we pride ourselves on free-market economics and private ownership of property, but these ideas have been phantoms as long as there has been property tax, which is little more than rent paid to government. If you disbelieve that, then try to go a year or two without paying your property tax, and you will learn who your landlord is. You will be fined, jailed, or “your” property will have a lien filed against it, or it will be confiscated. We don’t own so much as rent from the government. That we have a free-market is likewise ridiculous to defend in the light of recent events. If the Federal Reserve can “print” money at will, and the U. S. Treasury can buy stakes in bank shares, then the market is not free of either State manipulation or intervention.

Second, we have a heavy progressive (or “graduated”) income tax. For the few who may not know, “graduated” means that those who make more money should not only pay more tax based on equal percentage of tax, but should also bear the added burden of an increased percentage. Greater wealth is disproportionately taxed, which penalizes and discourages financial success. The graduated system is unfair, arbitrary, and unbiblical. The United States instituted the graduated income tax by the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. It has been increased—again disproportionately—many times since.

Third, we have strong anti-family laws, including inheritance tax. In other words, when you die and leave wealth to your children or other designees, the government grabs anywhere from 18–55% of the amount for itself. This is a denial of the sacredness of the family as a unit, and the rights of families to determine the use of their own wealth. It is also a double tax on property, and a blatant attempt to again penalize wealth. It diminishes successful families’ strength in that it detracts from parents’ ability to advance their children’s future. Thus, it is an attack on the traditional family structure and leadership in society in general.

Fourth, following almost immediately on America’s 1913 imposition of income tax, was America’s less obvious 1913 Inflation Tax, which came in the form of the Federal Reserve. America’s first central bank was proposed by Alexander Hamilton and created in 1791. It was closed twenty years later and continued off and on due to mass opposition until the covert form emerged into law in 1913. . . . With recent events, the fall of many banks has left primarily only a few big banks standing. This “crisis” and the mindless and immoral actions of Congress to go along with the various “bailouts” have pushed our central bank closer to an exclusive monopoly.

Fifth, we have many, massive, subsidized government programs. These are all transfers of wealth based on factors other than the market. There are too many to name here, but farm subsidies come to mind: farmers are paid in various ways in order to manipulate crop prices across the board. Ethanol alone has been subsidized to the tune of $10 billion. This diverts corn from other markets into an otherwise market-doomed purpose (ethanol would never brew in a free market); not only does the public get hit with the $10B, it also suffers a rise in the price of meat and other products that require otherwise market-rate corn. These billions are a miniscule part of the overall government subsidy equation, which from 1995–2010 equals about $262 billion.[1]

Sixth, and finally for now, we have compulsory public education regulated at federal, state, and local levels. “Compulsory,” because even if we home school or privately school our children, we are still compelled to pay taxes for public schooling. “Public,” because the taxes are used to fund government-run schools. This tax-funded schooling is presented as free, of course, but it is only free to those who don’t pay property taxes. Our government spends about $700 billion per year on public education, just for primary and secondary levels. The State determines whether, when, and what you will teach your kids. If people want to participate in this system, that is fine with me, but do not compel me to pay for it. This is a robbery of freedom. Also, when schools function legally as “in place of the parents,” the State has again usurped the role of the family.

God versus Socialism (e-Book PDF Download)
Only $5.00

Why the Concern?

The concern over these particular aspects of modern America—and believe me there are many others—is that they are all innovations imposed upon America in direct contrast to the original American way of life. More to the point is the historical source of these points of discussion:

I have lifted them all from the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

The reason these points are un-American and anti-biblical is that their source was anti-American and anti-Christian in principle.

What I have described above cover roughly seven of the ten “planks” of the Communist Manifesto. I could probably work to show others, but have neither the time nor necessity. The relevant points are these (1, 2, 3, 5, 7/9, 10):

(1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

(2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

(3) Abolition of all right of inheritance.

(5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

(7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state . . .

(9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries . . .

(10) Free education for all children in public schools.

The historical connections are clear, too. For example, the springs of the graduated income tax in America flow directly from Marxism. The connection is direct and unmistakable. The first group in American history to advocate the graduated income tax was the Socialist Labor Party, a dedicated collection of Marxists founded originally as the “Workingman’s Party of America” in the People’s Republic of New Jersey in 1876. Their 1887 platform unashamedly declared “we strive for the acquisition of political power.”[2] Among their many “Social Demands” is “Progressive income tax and tax on inheritances; but smaller incomes to be exempt.”

The short-lived Populist Party followed in 1892. Their platform decried “a vast conspiracy against mankind” to demonetize silver and monopolize gold in the hands of a few, among other things. The document contains classic Marxist verbiage, accusing “bondholders” of wanting to “decrease the value of . . . human labor,” and to “fatten usurers, bankrupt enterprise, and enslave industry.”[3] The party died out quickly but had a lasting impact, much of its platform being picked up by the Democratic Party the following election year.

It was then in 1896 that William Jennings Bryan gave that most famous political speech in American history: the “Cross of Gold” speech. Bryan adapted ideas of the former Marxist groups to please American ears and persuade American hearts. Already two years prior he had argued in favor if the income tax, and was now calling it “a just law” and further pushing for the inflation of the money supply. The success of his speech derives from his successful weaving of Marxism and Christian language. Lines like “[tarrif] protection has slain its thousands the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands,” echoed to the religious mind unreligiously bent on envy of other people’s wealth. He called his crusade a “righteous cause” and “holy.” It was brilliant political propaganda. Unequally yoking Marx and Christ (2 Cor. 6:14–18), Bryan argued that the gold standard would be a crucifixion of the “producing masses” and the “toiling masses.” The famous concluding lines leveraged the suffering of Christ for the Marxist agenda: “you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.” Christians by millions bought into the rhetoric. Tens of millions still do.

And lest we forget the fundamentally anti-religious nature of this plank of Socialism in the country, the Socialist Party platform of 1887 demanded “Separation of all public affairs from religion; church property to be subject to taxation” (note the irony here: the church cannot get involved in public affairs, but the public treasury should benefit from the church’s property). What the Socialist Party could not accomplish with its explicitly anti-church platform, Bryan and his Democrats accomplished by appropriating biblical language to say the same thing.

Likewise, the socialization of education stems directly from the work of early socialists in America. The “Father of the Common Schools” was Massachusetts lawyer and politician Horace Mann (1796–1858). He predates Marx, and thus is not dependent on him, nor was Mann an atheist like Marx, but an enthusiastic churchgoer. His theology, however, was suspect, as he embraced Unitarianism in its early days when it was mission-minded—presenting itself as the culmination of Protestantism and ready to lead the direction of the natural order. Mann rejected orthodox Calvinism and believed strongly in the “perfectibility of man.”[4] This naturalistic belief was, however, couched in religious language: public education would eliminate ignorance, poverty, and crime. In his system, the State replaced both the church and the family: “Society, in its collective capacity, is a real, not a nominal sponsor and god-father for all its children” (classic political salvation).[5] Rushdoony summarizes, “Mann’s work was two-fold, first to secularize education, and, second, to make it the province of the state rather than the community and the parents.”[6] The story of the socialization of education, then, is the product of unbiblical theology. It results in an unbiblical view of education and society that abolishes the role of church and family.

Fall and Recovery

Why do I rehearse these aspects of American history specifically, and why should they bother you so much? Simple. These changes in the American system directly reflect the famous Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. We have witnessed a gradual progression into a Marxist America, all the while boasting ourselves champions of freedom. Well, the “land of the free, and the home of the brave” has become, in fact, the “land of the Fed, and the home of the slave.” We no longer live in the America that fought for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but in the America which will fight tooth and nail for government funding and special-interest politics. America today is more Marxist than anything, and a large portion of the voting public wishes to make it even more so.

I say these things realizing that many will pelt me with tomatoes and bricks, call me un-American, an America-hater, and most definitely unpatriotic. But here’s the catch: it is only because I absolutely love and adore the America of the Pilgrims, the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers, etc., that I point out how much we have lost. This is not the same country. It has been flooded with socialism. Envy, greed, and subsequent lust for political power have raped lady liberty, ravaged our land, and stolen the inheritance of the American Dream. It is not patriotism to keep saying “America, America,” when the America of our fathers is all but gone. It is ridiculous to sing “America the Beautiful” when socialists and statists have marred the cheeks of her once-free and optimistic smile. The America that remains is but a shell filled with Prussian and European-style Socialism, wrapped in red, white, and blue. This is not true patriotism.

No, the true patriot loves freedom, family, and property. The word “patriot” literally means “of the fathers.” A true patriot, therefore, conserves the good his fathers built and passed down. He loves vast horizons untaxed by cold marble institutions in distant Capitols, unfettered by radicals in black robes. A true patriot loves the land, and his Father is God not “the State,” and not “the People”; his land is protected by law, respect for law, and as a last resort, the right to defend, not progressively taxed away by politicians wanting to “spread the wealth around,” neither rented from the State as a privilege to live under its almighty watch.

Is there a way to stop, even reverse the godless trend of the past 150 years? As pessimistic as this all may sound, change is possible. It begins with mentally and spiritually reclaiming our founding principles of individual freedom and enterprise. We must make up our own minds and hearts that these principles are worth defending. And unlike those spineless Congresspersons who, after voting “no” on the bailout, sickeningly caved and voted “yes” after some of the loot was thrown to their pet projects and districts. We must never compromise our principles.

Once we secure these convictions, we must pass them to the next generation. This means maintaining a strong biblical view of the family and of education. Education should be compulsory (in the sense that Deuteronomy and Ephesians command us to educate our children), but this is compulsory before God and not the civil State; and education should be costly (in personal time, money, and effort), but no one should ever be forced to pay for someone else’s education. This seemingly simple tax for public education violates nearly every sacred boundary known to man, especially when the content of that education begins and ends with blasphemy. Unless we recover education as a distinctly family- and church-oriented mandate, we will continue to watch society slide into secularism.

Further steps include continual effort to secure public debates and discussion in churches and public forums. Debates should center on America’s Christian history and the necessity of Christianity as the foundation of social order. Marx consciously erased this foundation, claiming it was but an abstraction of the real problems of mankind. He said that any objections to his system from a religious standpoint “are not deserving of a serious examination.”[7] But he was too self-consciously opposed to Christianity for his dismissal to carry any truth. Christian freedom, God-given rights, and law-protected family and property all posed the ultimate threat to his man-centered takeover of the world (and thus of other men). His program of abolishing property, abolishing the traditional family, socializing education, and socializing sex were all contrived precisely as anti-biblical ideas. It was the institution of his system that Marx saw, not as the product of, but as the means to abolishing religion itself.[8] He saw his program as the economic and social counterpart to Darwin’s work in nature: an explanation of social order that does not require God.

God and Government: A Biblical, Historical and Constitutional Perspective

Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of Marx’s success was the fact the he only succeeded because Christians refused to get involved to begin with. Marx always kept this in mind and exploited it. Reporting on the socialist Hague Congress of 1872, Marx made this unfortunately true remark:

One day the worker will have to seize political supremacy to establish the new organization of labor; he will have to overthrow the old policy which supports the old institutions if he wants to escape the fate of the early Christians who, neglecting and despising politics, never saw their kingdom on earth.[9]

This “neglecting and despising” of politics by Christians has continued in modern American history, and America has since followed the anti-Christian program of Marx and abandoned that of the Bible. This blind following has included many Christians. The reversal of this trend will require bringing these issues into the open as worldview issues. The church must allow and encourage political and economic discussion, and the public must be made to know that we have the answers. The transformation will not happen overnight, but it can happen.

Endnotes:

1. This number has been updated from the figures available for the book in 2009. [↩]
2. “The Socialist Labor Party of North America Platform,” 1887; http://www.slp.org/pdf/platforms/plat1887.pdf, accessed October 16, 2008. [↩]
3. “National People’s Party Platform”; http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5361, accessed October 16, 2008. [↩]
4. Quoted in R. J. Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of American Education: Studies in the History of the Philosophy of Education (Philipsburg, NJ: Prebyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1963), 19. [↩]
5. Quoted in R. J. Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of American Education, 24. [↩]
6. R. J. Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of American Education, 27. [↩]
7. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy, ed. Lewis S. Feuer (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1959), 26. [↩]
8. Karl Marx, “Capital, Book I,” Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels On Religion (New York: Schocken Books, 1964), 136. [↩]
9. Karl Marx, “On the Hague Congress,” Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Works, 50 vol. (New York: International Publishers, 1988), 23:255. [↩]

Obama Killing US Constitution

A few days ago we got news that another leader of Al-Qaida was killed by the superiority of American Defense; albeit it was on the offence when the killing happened. I would not be a US Patriot if I did not feel somewhat good about the death of the terrorist. Even though this is good news for the preservation of our country, something uneasy has been bothering me about this. Over these last few days of listening and thinking, something finally hit home as to why I really do not ‘feel too good’ about Obama killing a US Citizen; Obama does not value our US Constitution, American citizenship or our laws and let me explain why!

We can celebrate Barak Obama authorizing the killing of terrorists like Osama bin Laden. He was a true terrorists and bin Laden did not know America and was not from America. Bin Laden wanted to destroy our country and proved it with the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers. Celebrating his demise seemed poetic justice after 9/11 happened.

The question today is “As a nation, how should we feel about our President determined to kill American Citizens without due-process of our Laws?” What if we were marching on Washington, DC because Obama refuses to leave office after a terrible defeat in 2012 and he unleashes DRONES on us? Tell me PATRIOT, in the mind of OBAMA, what is the difference? I am not saying ‘your mind,’ I specifically am referring to HIS mind; Obama. Here is justification in the mind of Obama, “In Sept 2011, I deliberately killed a United States Citizen in Yemen, and there was no out-crying for DUE PROCESS for that citizen! So, why not kill a bunch who is trying to throw me out of office because they too are trying to also take down America.” Can you NOT see this from his point of view?

Do not take me wrong, getting rid of anyone trying to do harm to America is a very good thing. What bothers me is how we get rid of them should depend upon who they are; or does it matter? I am asking you America, tell me, why should you NOT care that this citizen was deliberately silenced of his 1^st Amendment rights? Again, tell me why he deserved to be executed without “due-process” in support of our US Constitutional Laws? He was a United States Citizen; more so than Obama.

I believe that it is a mistake to give Barak Obama a pass for deliberately killing a United States Citizen without trying to capture him, interrogate him and cause him to turn in others whom he was associating with. I feel very badly Obama has little regard for our US Constitution and our Laws anyway. Obama has proven this over and over again by his Executive Orders that are deliberately by-passing Congress. He has empowered the EPA, Department of Education, and Energy to take control of critical aspects of our Laws that will crush our freedom. Obama has shown little regard to helping free enterprise and capitalistic endeavors that has built America into what it is because of his Socialists mentality. The bottom line is that Obama does NOT care one bit about what it means to be an American Citizen because he is NOT ONE. How could he care?

Now, we are in a situation, where our technology can strike decisive blows to an enemy. The question is, “WHO IS THE ENEMY of OBAMA?” This is why I am uneasy about the deliberate killing of an American Citizen no matter what he has said or who he has called his friends. What if my friends and those who I associate with are also deemed by Obama to be against the US? Without due process, Obama can swoop in with a DRONE and kill us all just because I was exercising my 1^st and 2^nd Amendment rights? How can we sit back and celebrate this killing when the next target could be ourselves?

We are United States Citizens and under the US Constitution we are protect and are allowed specific unalienable rights as FREE PEOPLE. It does not say “only if…” does this apply to us. Let us wake up and be happy that a TERRORISTS can no longer plan attacks against us. Let us also wake up to the fact, that a fellow citizen was deliberately targeted and killed by our Socialist President.

I am asking you American Citizen, right now, does this really make you happy?