Who Needs The Truth When You Have Mockingbird?

US Govt Just Legalized Operation Mockingbird — FBI Can Now Impersonate the Media

Claire Bernish 

"FBI agents conducting undercover investigations have now been given the green light to impersonate journalists, the Justice Department determined last week — effectively legalizing the government’s most notorious propaganda program, Operation Mockingbird.

Last Thursday, the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General published what’s become the subject of outrage for journalists, civil and constitutional rights advocates, and legal experts  — “A Review of the FBI’s Impersonation of a Journalist in a Criminal Investigation.”

Allowing agents to infiltrate media organizations for any reason threatens to utterly undermine public trust, kill the very concept of journalistic integrity, and throttle the flow of information from sources and whistleblowers concerned with the legitimacy of journalists they contact.

As shocking as the finding sounds, it only validates the practice — in fact, the report centers around a case from 2007 in which an FBI agent pretended to be an Associated Press journalist to identify an elusive suspect online. At the time, the FBI “did not prohibit agents from impersonating journalists or from posing as a member of a news organization,” the report states.

But even the ubiquitous, mainstream AP — whose outlet became an unwitting pawn for the agency — sharply criticized the DOJ’s announcement.

“The Associated Press is deeply disappointed by the Inspector General’s findings, which effectively condone the FBI’s impersonation of an AP journalist in 2007,” Associated Press Vice President Paul Colford said in a statement cited by US News. “Such action compromises the ability of a free press to gather the news safely and effectively and raises serious constitutional concerns.”

In 2007, a high school student near Seattle emailed a series of bomb threats to his school, but his use of proxy servers thwarted police efforts to learn his identity — so they asked for assistance from the FBI’s Northwest Cybercrime Task Force.

Agents devised a plan, and, as the Intercept summarized, “An undercover agent sent the student email impersonating an editor for the Associated Press. The email included links to a fake news site designed to look like the Seattle Times.”

When the student followed the links, malware revealing his actual location installed itself.

It wasn’t until an ACLU technologist accidentally discovered copies of the bogus news stories in 2014 — buried in pages the Electronic Frontier Foundation obtained from the FBI via a Freedom of Information Act request in 2011 — that the plot to pose as journalists came to light, generating massive controversy and consternation.

Furthering the contempt, FBI Director James Comey penned a letter to the editor of the New York Times defending the agency’s impersonation, dismissively stating “we do use deception at times to catch crooks, but we are acting responsibly and legally.”

The Associated Press and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press didn’t believe either the veracity or legality of Comey’s statement, and sued the FBI to disclose documents relating to the practice — ultimately obtaining a redacted memo in which the agency acknowledged the agents violated the FBI’s own guidelines. However, the memo also stated that violation, under the circumstances, was not “unreasonable.”

A review was launched by the OIG, but Thursday’s conclusion simply confirmed the FBI’s previous finding it had done nothing wrong — and may proceed with future journalistic deception.

In June this year, the FBI firmed up its rules for when an agent can pretend to be a journalist — but the added rules haven’t quelled the ire.

As long as agents receive approval from the head of the FBI field office, the Undercover Review Committee, and the deputy director of the FBI — who then must meet with the deputy attorney general — they are free to pose as journalists during undercover investigations.

“We believe the new interim policy on undercover activities that involve FBI employees posing as members of the news media is a significant improvement to FBI policies that existed,” states the inspector general.

But no one outside the FBI or DOJ’s Office of Inspector General who grasps the grievous threat to free speech and press — or the potential slippery slope law enforcement co-opting the media represents — agrees anything short of an abolishment on the practice could be acceptable.

“The FBI guidelines adopted in 2016 in response to this incident still permit the FBI to impersonate news organizations and other third parties without their consent in certain cases, and fail to address the host of other dangers associated with FBI hacking,” Neema Singh Guliani, ACLU legislative counsel, said in a statement cited by US News.

“The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press is deeply troubled by today’s disclosure,” David Boardman, RCFP steering committee chairman, wrote in a statement last Thursday, “that the FBI believes that there is a place in this country for federal agents to impersonate journalists. Such a policy can seriously damage the public’s trust in its free press and the ability of journalists to hold government accountable. We urge the Justice Department to take seriously the need for reform and the importance of protecting the integrity of the newsgathering process.”

Anyone with cursory knowledge of the U.S. government’s nefarious programs to control its citizenry will undoubtedly see similarities between the FBI’s fake journalism plot and the post-World War II CIA propaganda campaign, Operation Mockingbird.

To ensure support for its operations and views, the CIA clandestinely recruited American journalists and media outlets, funded the creation of student and cultural organizations, launched purely propaganda-based print media, and, ultimately, worked its way into political campaigns and employed similar methods abroad.

Mainstream outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, and many others, actively and willingly disseminated propaganda disguised as news — through suppression, censorship, and selective focus, etc. — in the interest of the government.

Mockingbird covertly influenced national opinion for years, nefariously planting the CIA’s narrative on the unwitting collective public mind before finally being at least partially exposed over a decade later. It wasn’t until a congressional investigation in 1975 the putative full extent of the program was revealed. Although the CIA claimed it would no longer recruit journalists and media organizations into its folds, Mockingbird has oft been rumored never to have stopped.

Besides the revelations in this article concerning the FBI, documents revealed the government actively tried to influence public thought about Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange, in 2011.

It would seem Mockingbird endures to this day — and whatever premise the government claims as reason to become the American media — the public remains, for the large part, its oblivious, captive audience.

References:

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2012/03/just-around-corner-or-obama-hear-and.html

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2013/06/our-government-has-been-busy.html

FINALLY! First Senior Bankers on the Planet Responsible for 2008 Collapse Jailed

Source

The Esteemed Readers may find this article of interest, regarding the global implications of these types of banking frauds and how they may effect banking institution frauds in the United States.

It should seem obvious to the Esteemed Readers, who is in control of the government, giving the unwillingness to prosecute, and why so many banks donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.


"Source - The Free Thought Project

by Matt Agorist

In April, Wells Fargo & Co admitted to defrauding the United States government for nearly an entire decade, which subsequently led to the housing market collapse — and the United States punished no one.

Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Citigroup Inc (C.N), Deutsche Bank AG (DBKGn.DE) and JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), have all previously made the same admission and settled similar federal lawsuits — again, with no one being held criminally responsible.


Related Financial System Detonating? Deutsche Bank Is Collapsing

Related Deutsche Bank Settles Lawsuit For Price Rigging, Turns “State’s Evidence” On Other Banks

While low-level bankers have been thrown in jail as apparent scapegoats in places like Iceland, not a single high-level CEO or officer has faced punitive criminal action—until now.

On Friday, three senior Irish bankers were jailed for up to three-and-a-half years for their conspiracy to defraud investors, subsequently causing the economic collapse of 2008.

According to a report in Reuters, the trio will be among the first senior bankers globally to be jailed for their role in the collapse of a bank during the crisis.

Watching these criminal bankers use the governments of the world to fleece the taxpayers in a series of bailouts and scams to defraud the people has been infuriating.

As Reuters reports,
The lack of convictions until now has angered Irish taxpayers, who had to stump up 64 billion euros – almost 40 percent of annual economic output – after a property collapse forced the biggest state bank rescue in the euro zone.

The crash thrust Ireland into a three-year sovereign bailout in 2010 and the finance ministry said last month that it could take another 15 years to recover the funds pumped into the banks still operating.

Former Irish Life and Permanent Chief Executive Denis Casey was sentenced to two years and nine months following the 74-day criminal trial, Ireland’s longest ever.

Willie McAteer, former finance director at the failed Anglo Irish Bank, and John Bowe, its ex-head of capital markets, were given sentences of 42 months and 24 months respectively.
Unlike the bankers who remain protected in America’s legal system, the Irish have decided to lay down the law.

“By means that could be termed dishonest, deceitful and corrupt they manufactured 7.2 billion euros in deposits by obvious sham transactions,” Judge Martin Nolan told the court, describing the conspiracy as a “very serious crime”.



“The public is entitled to rely on the probity of blue chip firms. If we can’t rely on the probity of these banks we lose all hope or trust in institutions,” said Nolan.

In the United States, the people have been forced to file their own legal action against the criminal bankers as the government does absolutely nothing to stop their crimes.

Despite the bankers’ best attempts at foiling the private actions against them, the people have pushed through.

A newly revived antitrust lawsuit, according to the appeals court, could be devastating to these 16 banks, including Deutsche Bank AG, Royal Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, UBS AG, HSBC Holdings Plc, Barclays Plc, Credit Suisse Group AG, Bank of America Corp, Citigroup Inc., and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Related Banker Arrest | HSBC Global Head Of FX Cash Trading Arrested At JFK Airport

“Requiring the banks to pay treble damages to every plaintiff who ended up on the wrong side of an independent Libor‐denominated derivative swap would, if appellants’ allegations were proved at trial, not only bankrupt 16 of the world’s most important financial institutions, but also vastly extend the potential scope of antitrust liability in myriad markets where derivative instruments have proliferated,” the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York said in the ruling.

Until the people wake up to the atrocities being carried out against them by criminal bankers who control the government, this fleecing of the citizenry will continue. To all those who bank with any of these huge banks — pull your money out today, move it to a local bank, or find another alternative.

Failing to do so only sustains their criminal behavior. Please share this story with your friends and family as it will most assuredly be a mere blip on their televisions and deliberately easy to miss.

About The Author

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Follow @MattAgorist
_________________________
Stillness in the Storm Editor's note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Do you think this article needs a correction or update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at sitsshow@gmail.com. Thank you for reading.
_________ 

Source:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/finally-senior-bankers-jailed/"

Allan's Law

I offer this in it's entirety to the Esteemed Readers for their education and information. Please also visit Gregory Allan's site, The Lawful Path for education you will not get from government controlled schools.


"The Origin of Law

by Gregory Allan

It's long past time we explore the meaning of the word "law."

I can't say I know how this knowledge will effect your day-to-day life. I know it has effected mine, but listing the ways would be tough. I only know it's important to me. I hope it is also interesting to you.

I've always been a rebellious sort. It used to get me into trouble a lot. Still does sometimes, though not as often now that I've gotten a little smarter. Wisdom comes with age, or it's supposed to. By the time we know enough to be useful, we're ready to turn in our spurs.

I was born in the sixties, and lived my teenage years through the seventies. It was a time of rebellion. Of resistance to authority. I wasn't the only one. Everybody I knew was that way. We didn't have a particular target in mind; we rebelled against everything.

Most of the children of the seventies eventually grew up. They got "real" jobs, and real families, and surrendered to the establishment. Whether they made money or went broke; raised their children themselves or paid to support their broken homes, they gave up their crazy rebellion.

Not me. I held on so long, I actually figured out the source of my craziness. I didn't have a problem with legitimate authority, only illegitimate authority. I'm not opposed to law. I'm opposed to illegal acts done in the name of the law.

Until a few years ago, I used to speak every month to a group of a hundred or so people. All these people were interested in law reform. There were a handful of us who would pick a topic and study it. Then we'd talk about what we'd learned.

One day while I was preparing a presentation, I looked up the word "law" in Black's Law Dictionary. The definition takes up a little more than one full page. But there was one paragraph which stood out for me:

"Law. [... 6th Edition, 4th paragraph:] In old English jurisprudence, "law" is used to signify an oath, or the privilege of being sworn; as in the phrases "to wage one's law," "to lose one's law."
It took awhile to sink in, but this definition caused an epiphany in me. I've never looked at the law, government, or the legal system in the same way. And it brings me to the main point of today's lesson, which is this:

All law is voluntary, and most laws don't apply to most people.
I know, that sounds stupid. Doesn't it? After all, we live in the United States of America, and this country has a long history of laws going back for more than two centuries. Not to mention that those laws are mostly based on English jurisprudence, going back much further.

This is just a bunch of that "Patriot crap," isn't it? Maybe. But I don't think so.

Does that mean we can just go around, willy nilly, ignoring every law on the books? Of course not. We wouldn't even want to. Society has developed a lot of those laws for our mutual protection. Some of them are important. So how do we know which ones to follow, and which to ignore?

What Law is Not

Before we explore further into what law is, let's clear up what it is not. There are lots of definitions, and we need to be speaking the same language. Blackstone's Commentaries has this to say:

"Meaning of law.-- Law, in its most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action; whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. Thus we say, the laws of motion, of gravitation, of optics, or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations. And it is that rule of action, which is prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey." (Jones' Blackstone, Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1915)
Laws of nature have long been lumped in with laws of man, and termed collectively "The Law." I believe this is done to intentionally confuse the masses. A deep-seated subconscious belief is created in a man's mind, that the whole body of man's law is as unbending and absolute as the law of gravity. As surely as the sun rises and sets every day, all of a king's subjects must follow the king's laws.

Violating one of the king's laws is therefore subconsciously compared with the planets suddenly spinning out of alignment. The universe must be put back into balance!

It is this confusion we must erase, before we can understand the nature of law. We must separate in our minds the "facts" of nature, which are absolute, from laws made by man. Otherwise we'll never understand the truth about law.

Look at the second part of Blackstone's definition. It presupposes the existence of a "superior" who has the authority to tell people what to do, and what not to do. Where did such a superior get his authority?

Sir William Blackstone was a British subject, so he recognized the British Crown as his superior. What about Americans? Who are our superiors?

The American Declaration of Independence declares:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. . ."
I didn't see any part in there about an earthly superior.

The Origin of Law

Who made the first law, and why?

No one can say for sure. The Bible says the first laws were established between God and Adam. That may be true, or not. I wasn't there, so I can't say. I have my beliefs, and you have yours. If earlier laws were made, it must have been done long before Man developed a written language. In which case the event is lost beyond memory.

So let's examine God and Adam for a moment. The earliest law we know of was when God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Most people think this was a command that God laid down. They assume a sovereign authority of God over his creation.

I see this as a reasonable assumption. The creator has authority over the creation, as the owner has control over his property. But if you leave off here, I believe you'll miss the point of Man's covenants with God.

God seems to want us to understand the proper order of things. So, if you examine the Scriptures with this idea in mind, you'll discover that God treats us pretty much as equals. He acknowledges our sovereignty. He does this by granting us free agency.

"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17)
The verse says "God Commanded," but really He made a deal with Adam. He had created Adam, and given him eternal life. Then He told Adam, you may keep your eternal life, so long as you never eat from the forbidden tree. Adam agreed. This is the essence of a contract. When Adam breached the contract, God was generous. He could have killed Adam right way, but He didn't. Instead, He again acknowledged Man's free agency:
"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." (Genesis 3:22)
He decided to make Adam a different deal. Instead of killing Adam immediately He basically said, "I will spare your life, for a time, if you will go forth and multiply."

Again, a contract. In every instance throughout the Scriptures, you will see the same pattern. God never dictates commands. Instead He says, "If you will obey My Laws, you will have My blessings." That's why it's called a covenant. Covenants are contracts.

Maybe you reject the Biblical version. For the sake of argument, let's look at the "desert island" analogy.

If one man is alone on a desert island, he has no use for any law. He can do as he pleases, without complaint from any soul. He is subject only to the "facts" of nature. If he doesn't eat, drink, sleep, and have sufficient shelter from the elements, he will die prematurely. This goes to the "facts" of nature already discussed. Everything else is entirely up to him.

He can live his entire life without law, and without problems. But as soon as a second man appears on the island, they've both got problems. They will inevitably have arguments. One may be dominant; another submissive. Or they may get along wonderfully, as equals (yeah, right). But if they do, it will be because of mutual agreements.

Whatever the case, in the end they will either agree on rules of behavior, or else one will kill or dominate the other. That is the fundamental truth of Mans' existence. There are only two ways for men to avoid and/or settle disputes: violence, and contract.

So, the two men agree to rules of behavior. This works out fine, as long as both men follow the rules, and as long as no one else arrives on the island.

Sooner or later, one of the men violates his agreement. When this happens, the violator can voluntarily make restitution. Maybe even accept a punishment. Or the victim can voluntarily look the other way. Either of these is an example of contract. The only other alternative is war.

The situation is further complicated when other people start arriving on the island. Women show up too. That means children on the island, who grow up into adults. Since each new adult has his own free agency, he/she can contract, or not contract.

Some may agree to follow the same rules agreed to by the first two men. Some will make their own alliances, and their own contracts. Others may refuse to agree with anyone.

After awhile a few of the stronger men decide it's easier to steal than work. Weaker men with something to lose band together for strength. More contracts.

Some of the more industrious build a common wall around their homes and call it a city. The decide that all denizens of the city (citizens) have to agree to certain rules if they want the protection of the wall. Those who refuse either leave, or are killed. Those who stay, agree to the contract.

Cities promise other cities they will send men to aid in time of attack. Men who promised to fight to defend their own city are now compelled to defend other cities, and people they don't even know. Compelled by what? Contract.

Alliances form and dissolve. Countries are born. "Born," as though they are living creatures. We always say, "France did this," or "England did that." But countries are not living beings. They are groups of people who share many common contracts.

The United States of America has a Constitution which few of its own people who are alive today have ever read. Even the members of its Congress, who we can presume have read the Constitution, don't follow it. Each time they vote to pass a "law," it is supposedly done with the authority of the Constitution. But no matter how carefully one might read the Constitution, they won't find any section empowering Congress to pass those so-called laws.

I have searched the Constitution, and I can't find a single line in the whole document that tells the people living in America what they can or cannot do. The document is nothing more, or less, than an instruction manual for government. It presumes to grant certain powers to the people who work in government capacities. Mostly it limits what they can do, and what they can't. But it doesn't say a thing about you, or me, or anyone else living in the country.

I have asked literally thousands of people this question: "Did you, or anyone you know, actually sign the Constitution? How about the Federal Statutes? State Statutes?" Without exception, everyone answers "No."

"Did your parents, or event their grandparents sign any of those things?" Again, "No."

And here's the kicker: Even if your parents had signed a contract, agreeing to all the "laws," would they have had the authority to obligate you, once you became an adult? The answer is "No, not if each adult has free agency."

"Well then," you ask, "how can any laws apply to me?" And the answer is, "They don't, unless you agree to them." It's all voluntary, right up to the point where you enter into some kind of contract.

The contract can be written, such as an application for driver's license. Or it can be as easy as accepting a "free" handout. Nothing in this world is free. Any time a benefit is given, you can be sure there is an obligation attached somehow.

Many of the things people do, day in and day out, obligate them to contracts without them realizing it.

For example, people register a birth-certificate for their children; get them a Social Security Number, and send them off to "free" government schools. Then they cry out in anguish if the government takes their children away for the slightest infraction. They cry, "These are my children; they're not property of the State!" But they are wrong. Their children became property of the State when the parents put them in the State's care.

Governments resort to this kind of trickery out of necessity. Remember, laws are voluntary. Without law, the only means of compulsion is violence. Governments are good at violence, by their very nature. But government agents are always outnumbered. So they bluff.

They tell us we are subject to laws, and we believe them. They lay benefits at our feet, and the moment we pick them up, we become subject to their quasi-contracts. They tell us we must apply for a license to do something we have the right to do without the license. But once we obtain the license, we are obligated to the rules of the contract. Here's a real-life example:

My father was a land developer most of his life. He started a large development in Michigan, in the 1970s. He didn't have much cash, and he was using all the leverage he could. At the time, even by commonly accepted "laws," he wasn't required to have a real estate broker's license, because his company owned the land.
It was about this time that Michigan started passing all kinds of anti-development laws. The idea (though few knew it then) was to put all developers out of business. He was already half-way into building roads and surveying, when some of these very restrictive laws were passed.

It would have been impossible for Dad to comply. So he had only two choices: non-compliance, or bankruptcy. When Frank Kelly, the Michigan Attorney General tried to prosecute, Dad argued that all those regulations with which he was in non-compliance were tied to the Real Estate section of the Occupational Code. Since Dad wasn't licensed, the regulations didn't apply to him. The AG's response?

Real Estate Broker's licenses have always been very hard to get. You have to show that you've already been licensed, and actively working as a Salesman for at least three years. Then you have to pay a fee, and take a very difficult test. Many people who have been working in Real Estate for twenty years, can't pass this test.

In about 1978, Dad sat in a private meeting with the AG, in the AG's office. Kelly offered to grant Dad a Broker's license, on the spot. No fee, no test. Waive the Salesman's requirement. Dad told me later that he almost jumped at it. But then he realized that Kelly only wanted him to have a license to get a handle on him. If he'd have agreed to accept the license, Kelly would have shut down his development the same day.

There are many of us today who are being bled dry by unjust "laws." Does anything I've said here help bring some relief? You be the judge.

I don't think, at least at this time, we can escape the law buzzards completely. But we should be conscious of what contracts we enter into. Try to limit their number and scope, as much as possible. Realize that the biggest impediment to our success and freedom in this world, is the wall we build around our own minds.

Later we'll explore other terms. Escheat, adhesion, and authority come to mind. Until next time...

--Gregory Allan.

(Isaiah 33:22) For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.

The Lawful Path     -     http://lawfulpath.com

Copyright 1996, 2014, by Gregory Allan; All rights reserved."

From Anarchy to Slavery

To most people today anarchy is synonymous with chaos, which is the complete disregard for law and order. Most of what we call anarchy today is not what our founders had in mind.

To them anarchy would have been used in contrast to monarchy, or in other words self-rule versus being ruled over. The founders idea of anarchy was self-governance (the ability to govern your own life).

It was also evident to them that the People needed to maintain control of the election process and that is why they left it up to the the People. But when the political parties formed the population lost a small amount of control of the voting process. By infiltrating the State governments with political party activists, who introduced party agenda legislation that took control of the election process from the People and gave control to the States, which in effect gave the parties control of the State governments and the election process, and therefore the Federal Government.

When you had people who were levied with unjust tariffs and/or taxes, and British soldiers who subjected the people to unjust searches and seizures of personal property (our Fourth Amendment rights), they had the absolute right to exercise civil disobedience (our First Amendment rights) against those who imposed such actions upon them. We have those rights now.

For more on civil disobedience see: http://www.civilliberties.org/sum98role.html

“Throughout the history of the U.S., civil disobedience has played a significant role in many of the social reforms that we all take for granted today. Some of the most well known of these are:

1) The Boston Tea Party -- citizens of the colony of Massachusetts trespassed on a British ship and threw its cargo (tea from England) overboard, rather than be forced to pay taxes without representation to Britain. This was one of the many acts of civil disobedience leading to the War for Independence, establishing the United States of America as a sovereign state.

2) Anti-war movements have been a part of U.S. history since Thoreau went to jail for refusing to participate in the U.S. war against Mexico in 1849. More recent examples were the nationwide protests against the war in Viet Nam, U.S. involvement in Nicaragua and Central America, and the Gulf War. Actions have included refusal to pay for war, refusal to enlist in the military, occupation of draft centers, sit-ins, blockades, peace camps, and refusal to allow military recruiters on high school and college campuses.

3) The Women's Suffrage Movement lasted from 1848 until 1920, when thousands of courageous women marched in the streets, endured hunger strikes, and submitted to arrest and jail in order to gain the right to vote.

4) Abolition of slavery -- including Harriet Tubman's underground railway, giving sanctuary, and other actions which helped to end slavery.

5) The introduction of labor laws and unions. Sit-down strikes organized by the IWW, and CIO free speech confrontations led to the eradication of child labor and improved working conditions, established the 40-hour work week and improved job security and benefits.

6) The Civil Rights Movement, led by Martin Luther King, Jr. and others, included sit-ins and illegal marches which weakened segregation in the south.

7) The Anti-Nuclear Movement, stimulated by people like Karen Silkwood and the Three Mile Island nuclear power accident, organized citizens throughout the country into direct action affinity groups, with consensus decision making and Gandhian nonviolence as its core. Massive acts of civil disobedience took place at nuclear power facilities across the country, followed by worldwide protests against first-strike nuclear weapons, occupying military bases, maintaining peace camps, interfering with manufacture and transport of nuclear bombs and devices, marching, sitting in, blockading and otherwise disrupting business as usual at nuclear sites.

8) Environmental and forest demonstrations, with acts of civil disobedience such as sit-ins, blockades, tree sits and forest occupations, have emerged in the last decade, prompted by the continuing mass clear cuts and destruction of the forest ecosystem and widespread environmental consequences.

In all of these struggles, citizens had reached the conclusion that the legal means for addressing their concerns had not worked. They had tried petitioning, lobbying, writing letters, going to court, voting for candidates that represented their interests, legal protest, and still their views were ignored.

In each of these movements, the protesters were compelled by deep moral convictions. Their distress was strong enough to motivate them to go against the grain, to sacrifice personal comfort, to face unknown danger, to give up their freedom and risk going to jail. Their love of truth and justice drove them to action. Many, but not all, of those committing civil disobedience in the last two decades have been trained in Gandhian nonviolence philosophy and tactics.

Non-Cooperation is used by some protesters during civil disobedience actions. Non-cooperation may include going limp, refusal to give information at booking, fasting and refusal to participate in court proceedings.”

Please note that 'illegal street demonstrations or protests' are those that interfere with normal civil activities. Gathering peacefully, with respect to the civil liberties of the public, is not an illegal activity according to the Constitution and the natural rights of humanity.

The current federal government tyranny is far more pervasive than the Crown was in the 18^th Century. Today with real-time data acquisition and analysis, and with direct access to your financial accounts and transactions, the loss of privacy in our personal affairs by government, far exceeds what our founders were willing to endure before they said, “Enough!”

U.S. citizens who relinquish their freedoms little by little become, step by step, slaves to the very government created to protect their freedoms.  At what point will U. S. Citizens say, “Enough!”?

What Has Happened to Our System of Governance?

. (Credit: EPA)

The government of the United States of America has declared war on its own People and it is winning! Your life no longer belongs to you, it belongs to the government.

The government will decide the curriculum best suited for your child and what school they will attend. When they graduate, the government will place them in a government job that best suits the talents developed, which of course are always to serve the best interests of the government.

If it is determined that you do not raise your children in a manner that government approves, Child Protective Services will take them from you and assure they get a proper government approved upbringing. You can get all of the expensive attorneys you can afford or deal with a court appointed one. In the end it really won't matter because the courts that no longer serve justice will rule in favor of CPS and the government, because after all, who knows better on what is right for children than the government?

You will not be permitted to have any arms because you may do harm to others or yourself with them. Those found with arms or commit any crime with arms will be put to death; or at the government's discretion, given a sentence in a prison camp as a guard. 

The government will determine if you medical needs warrant the expense versus your potential worth to the government. In a nation of share the wealth, nobody can be permitted to burden society unless they are privileged by their service to the government and loyalty to their leader.

A Congress is no longer necessary since all they do is argue and never get anything done.  Some even bring up issues such as constitutionality, when it is clear, that anything government deems, “necessary and proper” or “promotes the general welfare” (from the government's point of view) is constitutional period. The President will determine what the best laws are and will just write an executive order to make it law. Those laws already written will be ignored or changed to best suit the needs of the government.

Even the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land cannot be questioned once they decide a law is constitutional. Why if that were permitted, every law the People don't like can be called into question. Government cannot permit such blatant disregard for the tyranny it forces upon us.

Liberty is rarely lost all at once. The branches are pruned off the Tree of Liberty, until it is either restored or destroyed. Government has been allowed to cut branches off the Tree of liberty by using fear as a tool to enact laws that deprive liberty for the promise of security. And every time another 'crisis' arises, another few liberties are taken away. 

Government can take all of your rights if you allow them to. The only thing they cannot take is free will.  That is the root from which the Tree of Liberty grows.  Free will in inherent in all of humanity and is our birthright. 

Have we reached the point of total enslavement by the government, now an entity unto itself?  Knowing what the government has become, it makes me wonder if Americans have forgotten who they are! (Or is it simply a matter of education?)

Final Countdown: Saving America With The Ballot

For too long now, Americans have assumed that whomever they elect for public office will protect their rights and represent their interests. What they fail to consider is that a political party has an agenda that is usually contrary to that of the People's.

Political parties are funded by special interest groups, political action committees (PACs), and by individual member dues and donations. The entire system is designed to produce power within the party and by consequence, eliminate independent candidates or third-party candidates from contending with the party's nominees. As a result, the representation of the People becomes incidental to the party platform, which of course is designed to benefit the party's largest donors.

In order that We the People are represented by our elected officials, we must be educated and informed in the duties of citizenship and self-governance. Just because we elect people to take responsibility in government does not negate the duty of the People to hold those we elect accountable for their actions, especially so when, those actions are contrary to the law and the will of the People.

The government says they want to fix the economy. The problems with the economy were created by government through mandates, laws, regulations, and taxes. Businesses were forced to close because they could not afford what government forced on them. Those that were able to, moved out of the United States to nations that offered better business environments. Result in America is loss of jobs and loss of tax revenue.

Government says it wants to fix education. It created the problem and now it wants us to trust that it can fix it with more money. It hasn't worked in over 100 years so what makes anyone think that it can be fixed by more money?

Government wants to fix health care and look at the mess they have created with that. What will it take before enough Americans realize that government is not the answer?

Every election, American voters go to the polls and vote for promises instead of reality. Neither party has improved the quality of life for Americans. Neither party has cut spending, in fact they have all increased it. And every day we hear and see more and more stories of corruption, fraud, intimidation, cover-ups, and lies. The very People we elected to protect us are in fact the very ones who are harming us in every aspect of our lives. And yet I still hear People speak of their Party as if it is all the fault of the other party.

In 2010, a change was made. People chose candidates who promised to represent the People and vote in Congress according to the will of the People and not the Party. Those who kept their promises were demonized by their own Party and the press. Those who buckled to the Party were rewarded as was Paul Ryan who, as a candidate promised to oppose any debt ceiling increase and then once elected, voted in favor of the increase and then justified his lies to all of America.

With wide-spread reports of voter fraud and intimidation, no outrage was reported in the media. With many reports of voter machine fixing by unbiased universities, these machines are still in use and being implemented in more districts. This will assure a vote outcome that will be determined by software control and not the actual votes of the People. The Esteemed Readers of this blog will recall several posts that described the fraud and the remedy.

If We the People are to make a difference in the restoration of America, it will have to b by those we choose to represent us. We can no longer allow party politics to divide us. We can no longer trust technology used in elections to reflect honesty and integrity. It is incumbent upon us all to verify that what we are told is in fact accurate and true.

What to do, what to do?

Recalling The Past: John Fitzgerald Kennedy

It occurs to me that Americans generally are apathetic and complacent. American People trust that government will always be there to protect their rights and provide security from foreign invasion. Results demonstrate a contrary outcome regardless of promises made by elected representatives.

The Constitution itself is misinterpreted and misrepresented by all three branches of the federal government, and the indoctrination in public education has effectively removed the true first branch of government from the awareness of the majority of the People.

It must be We the People who rise up and reclaim that constitutional representative republican form of governance or else give in to totalitarian tyranny over us all.

Read the Constitution and discuss it among your friends and families. Research the writings  of those men who are called the framers and founders to see what their feelings and thoughts were that inspired them to create such a unique form of governance in which the People were the sovereign(s) and the government(s) were their subjects and in their service.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." - JFK

What did he really mean by that? To discover the answer you must read the man, listen to all of his public addresses, and know that while he was a Democrat, he was a patriot and statesman. He was also a war hero. His view of America greatly contrasted with those in Washington at the time, and those who were influencing changes in government and policies, that greatly affected the nation.

Why was he assassinated? 
Regardless of how many fired upon him or who orchestrated the killing on that horrible day in Dallas, the plot was not simply the work of a sick minded expatriate:  it has turned out to be much more different than we were led to believe at the time. 

As we observe Veteran's Day and honor those who put their lives on the line defending liberty for us all, it must be our duty to also defend liberty so that those who died fighting for it did not die in vain.

 To all Veterans who gave their lives and to those who came home to tell of the horror of war, I salute you for the courage and honor you have displayed by your action in defense of the United States of America and protecting We the People.

The Blame Game: The Continuing Saga of Ineptitude

Let me make this as clear as possible. In the article posted by the Official Tea Party USA, the blame is given to the man occupying the White House and his party of Democratic Socialists. I agree to a point, but not entirely.

All appropriations emanates from the House of Representatives. The Constitution gave the House control of the purse of the taxpayer. The President and the Senate cannot force the House of Representatives to fund anything! The President and his Administration cannot pick and choose what parts of the government shuts down and which remain open, since funding comes from the House, it is only the House that can lawfully make those decisions on behalf of the People they represent.

John Boehner is lying to us all. The power of the purse is in his hands and not the Senate. It is up to him and the House to appropriate the funds necessary to maintain national security and emergency services during this debate over a continuing funding resolution which itself is the result of years of congressional failure to pass a budget.

The Democrats and their Indicted and Convicted Fugitive Criminal, illegal immigrant leader would have you believe that the Tea Party is to blame for the shutdown, but the reality is that the Tea Party and the congressional representatives they endorsed to represent the will of the People, are right in standing up to this blatant disregard for the rule of law. The person occupying the White House wants us to believe that the PPACA is the law of the land, but he and his Regime only follow the law when it is politically expedient.

The proper method(s) employed to remove unjust laws are spelled out in the Tenth Article of Amendment. It is the States who can use their power to nullify unjust federal laws. It has been used successfully in the past and since it is a constitutional method, cannot be prohibited by other unconstitutional laws.

All of this dancing around is a distraction from all of the other issues that really do matter. Benghazi, IRS targeting of groups who oppose Obama, NSA spying on the American People, Fast and Furious gunwalking to drug cartel criminals, arming terrorists in Libya, Egypt, and now Syria, telling Americans they cannot visit the White House because of funding issues while billions are sent to foreign nations, many which are enemies.

This is not a Democrat vs. Republican fight. This is a fight for our freedom and rights which are being eroded and lost to a government regardless of which political party is in power.

Red Lines in The White House, Or Stirring A Pot of Lies - Part 3

Because of the politically appointed and strategically placed democratic socialists (read as Marxist communists), the same government side show barkers and shills (Susan Rice of Mohammad MOVIE FAME and a newer player Samantha Power) are trying to sell an agenda based in lies, False Flag Actions, and political loyalty to the person occupying the White House and are barking for war. The Secretary of State, John Kerry (relying on information regarding the chemical weapon attack from a paid advocate and lobbyist for the extremist rebels (think Al Qaeda)), who has intimated an incredibly small action, which if anything, what-so-ever, unfolds poorly will begin anything from full scale warfare to World War III.




This current cadre of self serving criminals are all under the control of extra territorial entities. The CFR, Trilateral Commission, and Builderberg Group (Esteemed Readers may just remember Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barry Soetoro/AKA BHO rode together in a Limousine to the Bilderberg Group meeting at Chantilly Virginia.)

Backing up this carnival of ineptitude and negligence, Hillary Clinton former disgraced Secretary of State (because of the Benghazi debacle {dead ambassador, dead seal team members, dead un-named people} no one held to account for any action or inaction, except a few suspended government scapegoats who are now happily back on the government payroll, survivors (having had their names changed and being relocated all over the country with federal gag orders in effect) who admits the CFR controls some actions within this puppet administration.


     
CFR was founded in 1921 by Edward Mandell House, a Marxist! The CFR elite, (like George H. W. Bush, Willard Mittington Romney, John Kerry, William Jeffreson Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Diann Feinstein, Alan Greenspan and others) those on the top, who control the International Bankers for control of the entire world. Their agents are bred, educated, and trained to be placed behind the scenes at all levels of government. As experts and advisers, they mold government policy so as to further the plans of their masters. They lure people away from God by offering them money, the world, the flesh.

The elite use all peoples to serve their New World Order purposes. They divide to conquer, supplying arms and money to both sides, inciting people to fight and kill each other, in order to be able to achieve their objectives. they foster the terrorism of atomic warfare and deliberately cause world famine. The primary goal of CFR is to form a one world government to have complete control of the entire world, destroying all religions and governments in the process.

As the esteemed Reader may recall the only officials to suffer the aftermath of the debacle as Michael Savage reported, "There are reports that two high-ranking military officers, Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette and General Carter Ham, were fired by Obama for wanting to come to the assistance of the beleaguered U.S. missions in Benghazi."  

Tod Beamon reported, "Benghazi whistle-blower Gregory Hicks has been demoted to a desk job for speaking out on the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks at the U.S. post in Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, his attorney said." Newsmax reported, "He was offered a choice: no job or a job that doesn't mean anything," attorney Victoria Toensing told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV. "It's a desk job."

Gregory Hicks

After reading and understanding the lead in article, parts 1 and 2, the esteemed readers may wonder just who are we giving aid to and why?  Is the ongoing series of wars or interventions ever going to end?  What you may ask, is this really all about?  These Middle East region countries, because of the rigid religious rule, will never accept even limited democracy. They continue to kill or execute whoever just happens to get in the way and everyone who does not have the same beliefs.


Is all this carnage being carried out to create a new caliphate for Muslim extremists?

Are the correct questions being posed?  Are there any other reasons that might explain a larger picture?

Could there be a much different reason for destabilizing the Middle East?  The esteemed readers may have asked themselves these questions and others. 

Fixing Government: Grand Jury Presentments

UPDATED:  7/10/2016

What recourse do the people of America have when every branch of government, and the bureaus, departments and agencies we have entrusted with maintaining law and order under the the US Constitution are filled with incompetent and negligent elected and appointed officials to such an extent that many should be considered criminals, who have no regard for the rule of law?

Obama has stated on several occasions how he will bypass Congress by Executive Order (and has done just that on many occasions), to accomplish his social Utopian policies and goals. Just as Congress passed the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act in 1913, so to did they pass the unconstitutional Affordable Care Act, never having read or vigorously debated it, which was then signed into law by the President. It even survived a Supreme Court challenge, after Justice Roberts changed a few words and then declared the act a tax; even though, a first year law student can see how blatantly unconstitutional the act is, as was covered in Power Grab by Dictator of National Healthcare.  

There is much less about healthcare in this Act-Law-Tax and much more to do about taking your freedom of choice and depriving citizens of their rights and money.

Scandal after scandal has hit this nation since 2008 and yet the privately owned major media ignores the atrocities and instead focuses on any trivial event to distract and deflect any interest in the important issues facing this nation. The owned major media needs to focus on the boy, as his handlers groomed him to be, who would be King.

Now, the issue at hand is what We the People can do to correct many of these problems.

The answer lies within the Constitution. Contained within the Fifth Article of Amendment is the method by which the People have the right and the ability to bring charges against a criminal within the government. Any government official at any level within government can be brought up on charges by the People through a convened Grand Jury.

"With government corruption and treasonous acts running rampant, particularly with regard to President Obama and his administration, many have asked what ordinary American citizens can do to legally mete out justice. Short of violent revolution, there is only one strong legal mechanism that can be invoked. That is the so-called "citizens grand jury," by which Americans themselves can enforce the law. This is our only recourse to hold the president and his accomplices truly accountable for their actions. Over the years, impeachment has not worked, nor has any other means to address crimes at the presidential and other high levels of government.

In this regard, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution establishes that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." A proper understanding of the effect of this requirement begins with the common law, since, as Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand stated in In re Kittle, "we took the [grand jury] as we found it in our English inheritance, and he best serves the Constitution who most faithfully follows its historical significance."

The grand jury dates back at least to 1166, under the Norman kings of England. These earliest grand juries were convened to provide answers from local representatives concerning royal property rights, but developed into a body of 12 men who presented indictments at the request of either private individuals or the king's prosecutor. (Susan W Brenner & Gregor G. Lockhart, "Federal Grand Jury: A Guide to Law and Practice," 4 [1996]). The Magna Carta granted individuals the right to stand before a grand jury to be charged of their crimes. (Id)





By 1681, an important characteristic of the grand jury had developed: the rule of secrecy. This characteristic set up the grand jury as a bulwark against government abuse. Grand juries were designed to exclude all outside persons, including the government's prosecutors, ensuring that all phases of an investigation (not just deliberation) remained secret. Thus, English grand juries functioned to prevent prosecutorial abuses by blocking the king's attempts to prosecute.

This tradition was continued and expanded by colonial grand juries. In America, the grand jury originally began as a defense against the monarchy and was arguably even more independent than the English grand jury of the 1600s. American grand juries initiated prosecutions against corrupt agents of the government, often in response to complaints from individuals. For example, a Massachusetts grand jury refused to indict the organizers of the Stamp Act rebellion. (See Roger Roots, "If It's Not A Runaway, It's Not A Real Grand Jury," 33 Creighton L. Rev. 821, 832). Four years later, another Massachusetts grand jury indicted some British soldiers located within the city boundaries for alleged crimes against the colonists, but refused to treat certain colonialists who had been charged by the British authorities for inciting desertion in a like manner. Similarly, a Philadelphia grand jury condemned the use of the tea tax to compensate British officials, encouraged a rejection of all British goods and called for organization with other colonies to demand redress of grievances.

By the dawn of the 20th century, the powerful role of the grand jury had come to be established law. In 1902, a Minneapolis grand jury, acting on its own initiative, hired private detectives and collected enough evidence to indict the mayor and force the police chief to resign.

In Frisbie v. United States, Supreme Court Justice David Brewer declared that "in this country it is for the grand jury to investigate any alleged crime, no matter how or by whom suggested to them, and after determining that the evidence is sufficient to justify putting the suspected party on trial, to direct the preparation of the formal charge or indictment." [157 U.S. 160 (1895)]

Again, in Hale v. Henkel, Supreme Court Justice Henry Brown stated that "we deem it entirely clear that under the practice in this country, at least, the examination of witnesses need not be preceded by a presentment or indictment formally drawn up, but that the grand jury may proceed, either upon their own knowledge or upon the examination of witnesses, to inquire for themselves whether a crime cognizable by the court has been committed." [201 U.S. 43 (1906)]

More recently, in United States v. Williams, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia held, writing for the majority of the court, that "[t]he grand jury's functional independence from the Judicial Branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing and in the manner in which that power is exercised. 'Unlike [a] court, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury "can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not."'" [504 U.S. 36, 48 (1992) (quoting United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991)]

Speaking of the origins of the grand jury, Scalia also found that "the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the government and the people. Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office." [ Id. at 47]

Although the customary practice for summoning a federal grand jury is by a court (see Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or FRCP), such action is mandatory "when the public interest so requires." Regardless, the FRCP does not preclude citizens from exercising their own rights to impanel grand juries under the Constitution. [See, i.e. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), establishing the doctrine of judicial review.] Thus, it is clear that citizens themselves can impanel a grand jury, and if a true bill of indictment results, the courts are technically required to commence proceedings and the executive branch to enforce the court's edicts. However, if the courts refuse and the executive branch does not carry out its duties by, for instance, arresting the criminally accused, Americans do have a right to make "citizens arrests," hold trials and legally mete out punishment in their own right. Indeed, this is what occurred in the western part of the United States, in particular, during our early years as a nation — before there was a developed federal court system and executive branch.

Given the increasingly corrupt and treasonous actions of our public officials, which have nearly destroyed our republic, and the almost complete breakdown of the justice system as run by the government, the time has come for we Americans to rise up and use the God-given rights left to us by our founders. We can do this by using citizen-impanelled and administered grand juries to hold presidents like Obama and others at the highest levels of government accountable for the crimes that have driven our nation to the brink of extinction.", by Larry Klayman.

The post How To Bring Back Real Grand Juries explains this in some detail. There is Supreme Court precedence to validate the authority of We the People.  In that article it references Larry Klayman who was interviewed to see if there was any merit to this claim of Grand Jury presentments by ordinary people. It was assumed that a Grand Jury could only be convened on the order of a prosecutor or court order. But Mark, the author of the post at The Daily Paul, quotes the explanation of Mr. Klayman:

"We the people have been providentially provided means of legal recourse to address the criminal conduct of persons themselves entrusted to dispense justice," Klayman told WND.

He said in the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Williams, in 1992, "Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government 'governed' and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights."

Klayman said the Founding Fathers wanted the grand jury to not be part of the judicial branch, and they wanted a path citizens could follow to seek redress of their grievances without having to ask permission of the state, as the state will nearly always seek to protect its own establishment interests.

"Thus, citizens – ordinary Americans – have the unbridled right to impanel their own grand juries and present 'True Bills,' which are indeed indictments, to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding upon which the accused has full constitutional right to present a defense and seek to prove her innocence," Klayman said.

"Importantly, even the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allow federal prosecutors to present indictments after a grand jury has issued them, does not preclude citizens from so doing."

Grand Juries are pivotal to keeping corrupt government in check. They are the ones that charge corrupt public servants with crimes.

Klayman quoted from the Williams decision: "Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history … the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the ... branches described in the first three Articles. It 'is a constitutional fixture in its own right.' … In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people."

"In this way, the 'Rule of Law,' not violence, may seek to preserve the Republic, and to avoid armed revolt among the people as occurred in 1776," Klayman said.


The 1992 case brings important tools to the American People, both local and federal grand juries under the Bill of Rights, are needed to investigate the crimes being carried out by government! 

The questions for my fellow Americans is this:


When will people realize that Grand Jury presentments are the tools of Last Defense and begin convening? Who will charges be drawn against?

Reference Manuals for Citizens Grand Juries:

Citizens Grand Jury ManuaL for the Court

Citizens Grand Jurors' Handbook

Common Law Restoration