30 Sunday Jul 2017
Posted in Other Columns
≈ Comments Off on Peter Brimelow on DUNKIRK: the Film and the Invasion of Britain (the one that Really Happened)
Please read the whole thing at the Unz Review. All of it, about the movie and about the … shift in England, is interesting and/or quote worthy. The pertinent, angry part:
“People Should be Hung from Lampposts, They Should be Burned Alive, for What They’ve Done to Britain.”
Yes they should. In America and in the Continental nations too.
16 Thursday Jun 2016
Posted in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes
Tags
BREXIT, Britain, crime, EU, Europe, false flag, freedom, government, gun control, immigration, Jo Cox, murder, Parliament, terrorism, The People
Liberals, please take note: gun control does not stop violence. Everyone, please take note: the politically powerful use violence to push agendas.
Jo Cox was an attractive woman, a wife and a mother. She was also recently elected to Parliament, representing people near Leeds. As a member of the Labour Party she supported policies most synonymous with those of American Democrats – including her opposition to BREXIT.
A stunningly beautiful politician. BBC.
BREXIT, for the basketball and tattoo crowd, means “British Exit” from the European Union. Britains are set to vote soon on whether to leave the EU; polls indicate the issue divides the population almost 50/50. The EU adds another, unnecessary layer of laws, regulations, policies, and expenses for the English to pay for and live under. It also pushes massive third-world immigration into European countries which are turning those countries third-worldish. Personally, I would love to see my ancestor home place bid farewell to the continental commies. I see BREXIT as the best thing Britain could do for itself since graciously admitting William (and the Lovetts) in 1066.
Huge and powerful forces are on both sides of the issue. Those of freer dispositions are in favor of leaving. The others, totalitarian in nature, are afraid of losing all the benefits of the EU – war, taxes, insane regulation of everything, foreign control of the country, suicidal immigration, etc.
Cox was gunned down today as she left a library. She died at a hospital shortly thereafter.
I know what you’re thinking. Britain has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the Western world:
Great Britain has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world. The main law is from the late 1960s, but it was amended to restrict gun ownership further in the latter part of the twentieth century in response to massacres that involved lawfully licensed weapons. Handguns are prohibited weapons and require special permission. Firearms and shotguns require a certificate from the police for ownership, and a number of criteria must be met, including that the applicant has a good reason to possess the requested weapon. Self-defense or a simple wish to possess a weapon is not considered a good reason. The secure storage of weapons is also a factor when licenses are granted.
The shooter allegedly pulled his gun from a bag which probably means it was a handgun – handguns are EXTREMELY restricted in England. Our Marxist friends tell us gun control works, that it is the only way to prevent gun crimes. One might think the Cox story was, therefore, a hoax. One would also assume Omar Marteen did not shoot anyone at the Pulse club because Florida law prohibits carrying a firearm into any establishment which serves alcohol. One would be wrong on both counts. Gun control doesn’t work that way. Gun control has made England a dangerous place.
The gun controllers know what they’re doing. For them it is not about preventing violence but, rather, about gaining control. They want to control how people defend themselves (or if they can at all) and they want to control whole nations (to include membership in super-national organizations like the EU). Once these criminals have a little power they will do anything to keep it. That would include making use of a false flag terror attack, which is what happened today in England.
Think about it: who stands to benefit from this horrible crime? In a time when way too many people make important decisions based on emotion, who would benefit from the death of a lovely proponent of staying in the EU? The question answers itself. Some will try to use this tragedy to galvanize (or frighten) the people into staying.
There is considerable backlash in Britain right now against EU policies – particularly the flooding of the country with people who have nothing at all in common with British civilization. People increasingly want the immigration spigot turned off. Some do not like their unique countryside coming to resemble Afghanistan or Somalia. Funny that. A few of these folks remember the 7/7 attacks, the young solider beheaded in the street, or the countless other attacks by Muslims in recent years.
And, no, Cox’s killer does not appear to be a jihadi. Tommy Mair, 52, is described as a loner and a native. Mair is a Welsh name, meaning “Mary”. Odds are Mair was a loser and lunatic, easily manipulated into carrying out the crime. Governments and political groups frequently use such persons as pawns in their campaigns for power.
In this case, as with 9/11/2001, if THEY didn’t directly plan it, they damn sure will try to benefit from it. Thus, it is (or will be taken advantage of as) a false flag event.
The morals of this story are several: gun control is useless; governments are useless and dangerous; Tommy Mair is useless (now that his role has been played). Most of this will be lost on the majority except the Mair part.
Rest in peace, Mrs. Cox. Rest in pieces, statist thugs.
07 Tuesday Jun 2016
Posted in News and Notes
Tags
bigots, Britain, civilization, college, intolerance, liberals, society, The People, The West, White Man
“Straight White Men Banned From Equality Conference.”
When I read that headline, my first thought (as a member of the banned class) was: “good!” After all, if lunatics don’t want you at their party, what’s the loss? They’re lunatics. I still understand some are upset.
*Note: for this story just substitute “UK” with “United States”, or “Canada”, or “The Western World”. *Another note: by “Liberal” in my title I mean communist/fascist leaning statists of the modern variety, not classically educated people. *Note the third: by “Bigot” I mean bigot.
News that a university lecturers’ union has banned straight, white men from attending their equality conferences in a bid to create “safe spaces” is deeply depressing.
University and College Union equality conferences are held exclusively for women, LGBT, ethnic minorities or disabled people, and members must declare their “protected characteristic” when applying to attend.
Surely UCU can see the irony of hosting an equality conference where – as George Orwell wrote – some are more equal than others?
Who in his right mind would want to attend this BS session and who is offended by being banned from the same? The Men of the West (such few as remain) don’t need “safe spaces” or a “protected characteristic”. This phenomenon is spreading (rather, it has spread) like wildfire to almost all college campuses. Ironic, yes. The liberals whine that white men have “privilege” because some people feel the need for safe spaces and the like. The others need special attention and the absence of white men in order to function. Maybe that’s an admission that we deserve the privilege.
Consider that, without the dreaded white man, the campus at UCU (London) would look less like this:
…and more like this:
If, by extremely odd chance a school did develop without Big Bad Whitey, the “women, LGBT, ethnic minorities and disabled people” would probably congregate somewhere like this:
Accordingly, a little thanks might be in order. And, as I see a ban from this nonsense as a high compliment, all is well. Actually, nearly all the schools and much of society is in free-fall collapse into some Stone Age abyss. Anyway, at least we know we’re not wanted in the abyss…
*Further notes: 1) that first picture is Imperial College and not UCU; 2) the countryside is very pretty in its natural state, and; 3) yes, 99.9% sure WE built that hut 10,000 years ago. Just illustrations, folks.
09 Wednesday Mar 2016
Posted in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes
≈ Comments Off on Mighty Mom Isn’t Mad
Tags
America, Britain, crime, firearms, freedom, government, guns, Jesus, Kentucky, Second Amendment, The People
A woman in Kentucky is the real life Wonder Woman. I’m not sure if she’s a mom but the title fit well with my headline and with yesterday’s post. She certainly is mighty. This unidentified heroine was shopping at a mall when she encountered a disturbed man. The thug chased her to her automobile and attacked her therein.
UK Dailymail.
Malls are like college campuses and other public places in that people have a desire to frequent them with an expectation of safety. Criminals and their enablers disrupt the expectation. So it was that evening in Kentucky.
Unlike Carol Allen and the mad moms, this particular lady didn’t rant and rave to a Senate committee about specious guarantees of safety in exchange for her freedom. Instead she exercised her freedom and carried her safety with her in her purse.
Once the cretin had her pinned inside her car she produced a pistol and shot him twice. That terminated the attack. The woman went home. The thug, John Ganobick, went to the hospital and then to jail. He later appeared in court sporting a thrachea tube.
Dailymail.
This kind of story plays out every day, every hour, in America. Each day some 3,000 good people use firearms to prevent crimes – usually without actually shooting anyone. It happens in malls, schools, homes, everywhere. You normally don’t hear about it in the American press because they have an agenda. They and their government want to disarm the people. The fact that guns save lives doesn’t help them and their cause.
You’ll note this story, from Kentucky, was reported by the British media. Many of the things I cover are chronicled in the European press, especially from England.
The Brits, having largely surrendered their right to self-defense, seem fascinated with Americans exercising our rights. They also seem a bit more objective than their counterparts in the U.S.
There’s a lot of hope in this story. Maybe the woman will inspire others to defend themselves. Maybe John Ganobick will come to Jesus while in prison, thus emerging a better man. Maybe some other thug will think twice before attacking another woman. Maybe the British will regain their stolen liberty. Maybe the mad moms and university whimps of America will go away and leave us free and happy. Just maybe.
Don’t be mad. Be mighty.
10 Sunday Jan 2016
Posted in Uncategorized
≈ Comments Off on Political Lies vs. Reality
Tags
American, banksters, Britain, crime, economy, Europe, freedom, Germany, government, gun control, ISIS, Libya, lies, Merkel, Obama, politicians, Second Amendment, terrorism, The People, The West, War
Shortly after announcing his illegal and unilateral plan to attack the Second Amendment Hussein Obama took to CNN for a “town hall” meeting on gun violence. These meetings used to happen at actual town halls. There citizens came to voice their opinions. Discussion proceeded on issues of civic importance. People gathered to either solve problems or do good things. Now these events, especially if they involve a prominent politician, are scripted theatrical productions designed to sway the television obsessed masses.
So it was on CNN the other night. Obama, with the arrogant air of a second-rate college professor, presumes everyone agrees with his communist views. He thinks all will rejoice in his policies. The event was carefully coordinated to project the sentiment. A few well placed plants gave the superficial illusion of dissent and debate. Still, the President controlled the show.
I have previously dismissed Hussein Obama’s plan of action for what it is, freedom control not gun control. Now I will dismiss another of his (“town hall”) lies about gun control. Barry “disputed the notion that most criminals got guns illegally or through personal connections, making background checks — a major focus on his policy initiative on guns — of little utility.” CNN.
The vast majority, almost the totality, of over the counter gun purchases are made by decent people for lawful purposes. Hussein Obama knows this. He knows too that criminals and terrorists will keep circumventing checks and regulations just as they do laws against murder and mayhem. Then again, he’s not trying to stop violence by criminals. Rather, he wants to stop those decent people with their lawful intentions. His plan is to insidiously peck away at freedom.
Thus he lies about criminals using legally obtained weapons to carry out crimes. As if in poetic answer, at nearly the same time the liar preached to his choir, one of Hussein Obama’s Muslim ISIS buddies shot a Philadelphia police officer with a stolen police firearm. This is the truth. Criminals act, from end to end, as criminals. No legal gun purchases, no legal actions.
If Obama had a constituent… 6abc.com.
Lies versus reality.
Obama, a likely Muslim and immigrant himself, is determined to flood America with more people of his own persuasion. The entire West is in danger of being overrun by terrorist invaders – welcomed by our lying scum “leaders.” They pretend the invaders are helpless refugees fleeing oppression while the great and noble powers actively fight ISIS and other groups in places like Iraq, Syria and Libya.
The truth of that matter is that the U.S. and the West created ISIS. Colonel Gaddafi warned the West of the rise of ISIS in Libya and it’s threat to Europe. Libya was then destroyed by Britain, France and the United States, allowing the terrorists to flourish. The overthrow of Gaddafi benefitted British arms dealers and British and American bankers to the tune of hundreds of billions of (stolen) dollars. They gained riches while the people of Paris, San Bernardino and Philadelphia gained death and violence – just as Gaddafi predicted.
Lies versus reality.
The American stock markets just posted their worst opening week in history. Most global markets are in dire straits. The official lie is that things are fine and the economy is recovered and strong. Jim Cramer tells his CNBC audience not to worry. It’s time to buy, buy, buy. They said the exact same thing just before the bottom fell out in 2008.
Now even the likes of George Soros warn its 2008 again. He is part of the ongoing problem and should know. The reality is that there has been no substantial recovery from the last recession and now we are due for another. In the interim the Banksters have been kept afloat by hideous government spending sprees, public debt, and outright theft. The middle classes have seen no benefit.
What we have gained is more leeching immigrants, more state-sponsored terrorists, and more jobs for those groups (and only for them).
Lies versus reality.
Through all of this our “leaders” have turned against us – from Hussein Obama to Merkel. Merkel’s Germany is being plagued on a Biblical scale by violent “refugees.”
During new years celebrations in Germany scores of native women were assaulted and molested by immigrant invaders. Merkel’s police did nothing. When the oppressed women later protested, Merkel sent the Polizi in force to disperse the protestors.
Merkel’s days are numbered as are most of Europe’s treasonous leader’s. Europeans are sick and tired of being victimized by Islamic savages and by their own governments. The results may not be pretty.
Lies versus reality.
Stop supporting these degenerate monsters. Ignore their election year rhetoric. See them for what they are – thieves, enablers, destroyers, murderers. It’s their convenient lies versus our harsh reality.
27 Wednesday May 2015
Posted in Legal/Political Columns
≈ Comments Off on Trial By Combat
Tags
accused, Alexander Hamilton, America, ancient law, Athens, Boston Bombing, Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party, Britain, Congress, Courts, crime, death penalty, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, English common law, Fingoldin, freedom, Germany, John Adams, jury, King, law, Melkor, Natural Law, Parliament, people, police, punishment, Rome, Trial by Combat
Not too long ago I wrote about my experiences with the American Jury system in the 21st Century. It is broken. End of story. Any acquittal you read about is an anomaly – a celebration of truth and luck in a world gone wrong. Juries are no longer the last check against tyranny they were intended to be in ancient Rome or Athens.
Most people plead guilty to criminal offenses. Most of the rest elect to the convicted (not just tried) by a state appointed and employed Judge. The small few who make it before a jury – not of their peers – are usually found guilty. Everything goes the state’s way. Many celebrate this fact. I do not. We were supposed to have due process and equality under the law. This is especially important to the little person facing the endless resources of the government. It is also, now, a fiction. We have none of it. Just convictions.
(Temple of doom. Google.)
The defendant in the Boston Bombing trial, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was convicted and sentenced to death. His was one of the oddest trials I have ever heard of. It lacked even the plausible credibility of some Soviet-era show trials. In June Tsarnaev learns whether the judge will condemn him to die. He surely will be executed.
If, indeed, he did commit the alleged terror attack, Tsarnaev deserves to die. However, as I have noted before, there is amble evidence to suggest a government link to the plot. If the government is involved in any way, there is usually a plot participation. This might not excuse Tsarvaev but it would implicate others. It won’t though. There was absolutely no mention or murmur of this in court on Tsarnaev’s account. Alarmingly, there was no murmur at all from the defendant. There was no defense whatsoever.
In a way the defense strategy made some sense. They knew, as do I, there is no hope for honest truth or justice in an American court. Accordingly, they adopted an approach which plead Tsarnaev guilty while attempting to shift the blame to the defendant’s dead brother. The ultimate attempt was not to evade a conviction (a given) but, rather, to avoid the death penalty. The approach did not work.
The government opened with a sympathetic case – no-one likes terror attacks on innocent people. The defense then opened by acknowledging the crime and the defendant’s participation therein. “Yeah, he did it. But…” They closed the same way.
Then, the government called witnesses. These were victims who had survived the attack. They told the jury and court of their terrible injuries. Terrible as they are, they do not establish, at all, any criminal culpability. No mind – Tsarnaev had already admitted guilt. In most cases these statements of victims come at the very end of the trial – after guilt has been adjudicated. They are usually used to determine what level of punishment is deserved of the convicted. This case saw all phases conveniently wrapped into one show. No challenge or examination at all was conducted on behalf of the accused.
I, as a defense attorney, could have lessened the blow of these witnesses but asking them if they had ever seen (in person) my client before. None of them had. They had no way to link Tsarnaev to the crime scene.
That tenuous link came from a video and pictorial collage presented by the government. Cameras are everywhere these days and there were numerous shots of the Tsarnaev brothers at the Marathon. Nothing showed them setting off or planting the bombs. Then again, the defendant had already admitted his guilt.
No challenge came to this presentation. There was equal evidence of former government employees – current “security” contractors at the event – with the same backpacks and in the same places as the accused. The difference was that several (not presented) photos showed the brothers leaving with laden backpacks while the agents walk away unencumbered. Nevermind. Guilt admitted, remember.
The government presented weak findings as to how the alleged bombs were made. A good munitions expert could have dissected these as ridiculous. None did. All evidence was submitted without protest. There was then the matter of an alleged admission written on the walls of a hideout boat. No objections.
Given what they were presented with the jury rightly found the defendant guilty. He lost his gamble as to the jury’s recommendation of death. That should have come as no surprise. To the open-eyed and open-minded it should come as an alarm as to where the system has settled.
This is no system in which to place any faith of fairness. The prosecution will get whatever it seeks in most cases. Nothing will change. There are efforts to reform the game but it is too far gone. There is no public support for such efforts. Thus, any alternative seems logical, if it be at all feasible.
Before I go further let me state that everyone is entitled to a defense at trial in cases of alleged criminal offense. Ages ago several British soldiers were tried and acquitted in the Boston Massacre. Their attorney believed in justice, no matter how unpopular the accused. His name was John Adams. You may have heard of him, he served as our second President.
There is an older, if more archaic, alternative to the jury system in criminal or civil cases. You have never heard of it. No American lawyers understand it nor would they encourage it. The Courts will surely be averse to it though it has never been stricken from the codified law (like that matters anymore). No law school will teach it. No agent of the state would wish to face it. No right-minded person would assert the alternative. But, it is there.
There is (or was) a thing called Trial by Combat.
Trial by combat (also wager of battle, trial by battle or judicial duel) was a method of Germanic law to settle accusations in the absence of witnesses or a confession in which two parties in dispute fought in single combat; the winner of the fight was proclaimed to be right. In essence, it was a judicially sanctioned duel. It remained in use throughout the European Middle Ages, gradually disappearing in the course of the 16th century.
Wikipedia (May 27, 2015).
(Fighting it out. Google.)
Wikipedia says this was a Germanic legal tradition, which is true. However, the custom was known to many other ancient cultures. Also, it continued into the somewhat modern age.
The defense continued in regular practice into the Seventeenth and even Eighteenth Centuries. The accused or defendant would assert or demand his right. The prosecutor or plaintiff or a chosen champion would then join the accused in singular combat. This was to the death or to a submission – usually death. I cannot imagine too many district attorneys, police officers, or offended ex-wives going along, willingly, with such strategy. Then again, I cannot see most fat, lazy Americans demanding such a right let alone conducting such as trial.
In 1774 an attempt was made in Parliament, partly in response to the Boston Tea Party, to abolish the practice. This and all other reform efforts failed. No bill or law has ever rescinded the ancient right. The right was in place, part of the English Common Law, when the American colonies declared independence from the King. Thus, the right remained available to Americans. Mostly, such spectacles took form in gentlemanly duels – outside of the courts. Alexander Hamilton participated in one of these with fatal consequences.
Still, no state or Congress has ever formally repealed the practice. The courts have not definitively ruled on it either. This is the case in old England as well as in America.
As recently as 2002 a demand for trial by combat was made in Britain. In Suffolk a man made the demand as his defense in an administrative hearing concerning the local DMV. The magistrates in charge, deeming, him deranged at best, ignored him and fined him a small sum for failing to register (or de-register) his motorcycle. No appeal was made.
You would likely never assert this right as a defense or alternative course of trial. Nor would I. However, if facing severe criminal charges and punishment, trial by combat might mean the difference between prison and a mental hospital. Which seems better to you?
If, though, you should succeed in joining a wager of arms, you may count yourself among the fortunate, even mythical, few. In a federal criminal matter you may consider yourself Fingolfin doing battle with Melkor himself. May the honor and victory be yours.
28 Wednesday Jan 2015
Posted in Legal/Political Columns
Tags
ACLU, Alexander Hamilton, America, Anti-Federalists, Britain, Caesar, Congress, Federalist Papers, freedom, law, Natural Law, NDAA, police, Posse Comitatus, Robert Yates, Second Amendment, standing army, Thomas Jefferson
Sunday I re-posted a popular column on the Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878 to deter a standing army. It did not work, as I noted in that article. That piece briefly examined the use of the actual, federal military to combat drugs, terror, churches, etc. Here, I want to delve into a growing trend, the development of a psuedo-military, based entirely within our society. I’m writing about the militarization of our domestic police force.
This trend has resulted in a paramilitary police as well-trained and equipped as our national army. Barney Fife has been replaced by an armored, machine gun wielding storm-trooper.
Barney was a goofy, good-natured fellow with one bullet (in his pocket):
(Then. Google Images.)
The new masked face of law enforcement more resembles Darth Vader than a peace officer:
(Now. Google Images.)
William Grigg is far and away the best chronicler of modern, martial law enforcement. Just pick any one of his humorous and shocking articles on police state abuse: Article Archive at lewrockwell.com. Be forewarned, like a Pringles, just one won’t be enough.
I too have written short news notes on this phenomenon, none as good as Will’s.
Here’s a picture of a platoon of “officers” on the hunt for Boston Bombing patsy Dzhokhar Tsarnaev:
(Google Images.)
French police in similar fashion:
(Google, DailyMail, UK.)
The Pose Comitatus Act (“PCA”) reads, in its entirety: “Whoever, except in cases and circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 1385.
There has never been a prosecution under the PCA. Considering the constant creation of exceptions to the Act and the fact that the police are not a direct portion of the Army nor the Air Force, the militarization trend will not run afoul of the watered-down letter of the law. However, it violates the spirit of the law in horrific fashion.
At the end of the Roman Republic, more than twenty centuries ago, Gauis Curio attempted to disarm Caesar’s returning army in order to preserve domestic tranquility. See: Caesar, The Gallic War, Loeb Classical Library, 587 (Harvard U. Press, 2000). As you know, Caesar “crossed the Rubicon” and the Empire shortly thereafter commenced.
In early America the fear of armed military forces present in everyday life was of grave concern to our Founding Fathers. Beginning the Declaration of Independence with a nod to Natural Law, Thomas Jefferson listed the first grievance against the King that “He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. … He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.” Dec. Independence, para. 13 – 14 (1776).
In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, himself not the greatest proponent of freedom, railed against the standing army as “unsupported by any precise or intelligible designations of reasons.” The Federalist, No. 27 (Hamilton). “Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. ” The Federalist, No. 8 (Hamilton).
A more concise explanation was set forth by Robert Yates: “The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader.” The Anti-Federalist, No. 10 (Brutus [Yates]).
“Brutus” described the plight of both Rome and Britain under the rule of a standing army. “Julius Cesar … changed [Rome] from a free republic, whose fame had sounded, and is still celebrated by all the world, into that of the most absolute despotism. A standing army effected this change, and a standing army supported it through a succession of ages, which are marked in the annals of history, with the most horrid cruelties, bloodshed, and carnage; — The most devilish, beastly, and unnatural vices, that ever punished or disgraced human nature.” Anti-Federalist, No. 10 (Yates).
“The same army, that in Britain, vindicated the liberties of that people from the encroachments and despotism of a tyrant king, assisted Cromwell, their General, in wresting from the people, that liberty they had so dearly earned.” Id.
The Forty-Fifth Congress considered several issues in developing the PCA: a standing army versus a militia; limited central government; and, the proper (if any) uses for an army within the confines of the territory of the Republic. Rep. Abram S. Hewitt of New York commented on the subject: “If you want to fan communism, increase your standing army and you will have enough of it.” 7 Cong. Rec. H. 3538 (1878).
Numerous examples of Constitutional violations by federal troops aiding tax agents, governors, sheriffs, and district attorneys in Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, and New York were cited to Congress. Other related troubles occurred all across the country. The problem was national in scope.
Senator Benjamin Hill of Georgia remarked, “A posse comitatus is a wholly different thing from an army; it is different in every respect from an army…” 7 Cong. Rec. 4246. He continued, “it never was lawful, it never shall be lawful, to employ the army as a posse comitatus until you destroy the distinction between civil power and the military power in this country.” Id.
Today we see the destruction of that distinction. The police appear one and the same with the military – same tactics, same equipment.
The military equipment utilized by our police largely comes from the The Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) under the 1033 program (National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1997 (“NDAA”) (FY 1997)). “This law allows transfer of excess Department of Defense property that might otherwise be destroyed to law enforcement agencies across the United States and its territories.”
Since 1997 the program has transferred over $5 BILLION worth of military equipment to the police agencies of America – $450 million in 2013 alone. Again, the various, yearly NDAA provide Congressional cover which allows potential PCA violations to occur unabated.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently released a report which examined program 1033 and several examples of police militarization in the news. Kara Dansky, An MRAP Is Not a Blanket, ACLU, (12/02/2014).
Ms. Dansky recounted the police responses in Ferguson, MO and the horrific maiming of baby Bou Bou Phonesavanh in rural Georgia. The then 18 month old had “his chest ripped open and his face torn off by a flashbang grenade that police officers … threw into his crib during a paramilitary raid.” Id. The attack was part of a drug raid based on an erroneous tip from an informant – Bou Bou was not a suspect.
The Phonesavanh family faces over $1 Million in medical expenses as a result of this unnecessary, indefensible terror attack. ABC News. Look at the picture below (unpleasant).
Bou Bou is making a recovery but the police involved will not help with his recovery. UK Daily Mail. And, of course, they will face no charges for their evil acts. AJC.com.
(The fears of the Founding Fathers realized. ABC News.)
Baby Bou Bou’s ordeal blows apart the oft-repeated idiot’s argument that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.” These SS-style atrocities are oft-repeated as well – in every corner of America.
Echoing the Founding Fathers, the ACLU piece ends: “Militarized policing is dangerous, and American communities deserve better.” We’re not likely to get better any time soon. In 1980 there were approximately 3,000 paramilitary SWAT team raids in America; now there are more than 80,000 per year. Michael Synder, 10 Facts About The Growing SWAT Team Raids In America…. Over one-third of those raids are erroneous. Id. Will Grigg has an endless supply of horror stories about the needless, often deadly attacks on innocent Americans.
Yes, there are circumstances which warrant overwhelming police force, but they are few and far between. Anymore, SWAT teams are deployed for anything and everything – from traffic offenses to searches for teenagers.
The worst part of this is the near complete acceptance of these tactics by the American public. In the immediate wake of the Boston False Flag Bombing the entire city of Bay Area dutifully sheltered in place while a veritable army combed the streets looking for one man. Travel was restricted, homes were searched without warrants, businesses closed, and millions willingly surrendered their freedoms.
It is my theory that the bombing was conducted as part of a test – designed to gauge the public’s willingness to accept a police state. If I am correct, the experiment was a total success. This scenario could likely be played out anywhere. Your local police department (certainly your State) likely has the resources – the tanks, guns, training – to carry out a similar invasion. The odds are you will shelter and comply as told too.
As I have written previously, the Second Amendment was crafted to ensure the people’s ability to resist, with arms, martial tyranny. In addition to our lack of adequate arms and lack of resolve, we now have in our midst a formidable adversary. This mixture is very dangerous indeed.
(Google.)
26 Tuesday Mar 2013
Posted in Legal/Political Columns
Tags
10 Commandments, America, Angles, arms, Assize of Arms, Britain, Catechism, Catholic Church, Cicero, Codex Justianius, Deuteronomy, Digesta, England, Exodus, God, Israel, Jesus Christ, John, King Arthur, King David, King Henry II, King John, kings, law, Leviticus, Lex Talionis, Magna Carta, militia, Natural Law, Normans, Numbers, people, Pilate, Psalms, Romans, Saxons, Second Amendment, self-defense, Smauel, truth, tyranny
This is the second installment in my new series about the Second Amendment, militias, government, and the natural right of self/defense. After a few more segments I’ll get to the American experience. This column is concerned with more ancient sources. Read on.
My last segment concerned the Natural Law and the provisions therein allowing for armed resistance of force and tyranny. For those not acquainted with Natural Law (American attorneys, etc.), it is the universal law instituted by God for the management of human societies. God’s first draft was extraordinarily simple, as He supposed that people would be capable of easily governing themselves in paradise. The law was codified as: “Don’t eat that fruit.” Unfortunately, the first humans were as dense as their descendants today. They ate the fruit and thus complicated our lives forever.
God later attempted to set out ten simple laws He expected us to obey. True to our fallen, fallible, self-determining ways, we messed those up too. After constantly displaying an inability to adhere to the simple, the ancient Hebrews began to demand of God a “modern” system of government for themselves. They seemed jealous of surrounding Peoples who had, among other things, kings. God, in His omnipotence, offered that they Hebrews didn’t really need or want a king. They begged to differ, instituted a king, and began to suffer immediately.
After the failure of the kings, and the subjugation of the people by more powerful earthly empires, God sent His Son in yet another attempt to clarify His law. Jesus, simultaneously ratifying the existing law and providing an alternative route to salvation, issued another simple commandment. We have not been too quick to pick on that one either. Thus, it appears that people are stuck with their worldly trappings and their constant inability to deal honestly ad logically therewith until the Second Coming. Thus, in our present state, and if we are even capable, we must attempt to relate our world to the eternal principles of the Lord. That is Natural Law. Having ignored and broken the concrete mandates given us, we are left to guess at how such Law applies to our civilizations. Unlike the laws of science, math, and physics, which are difficult but possible to extrapolate and apply, the Laws of society are much less definable. This grasping process has been the work of scholars and theologians for millennia.
The Law as applied to self-preservation has been called the first law of nature. This makes sense as, without resorting to keeping ourselves from harm, most of the other “laws” we can divine seem to matter little.
Previously, I examined several Bible verses which supported the right of self-defense and preservation. I also cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the duty (not only the right) to defend oneself and those in one’s charge. This doctrine has existed for thousands of years. We are commanded: “Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.” Psalm 82:4.
King David, definitely not a pacifist, praised God, saying, “Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.” Psalms 144:1. First Samuel 25:13 described an Israelite muster: “And David said unto his men, Gird ye on every man his sword. And they girded on every man his sword; and David also girded on his sword.” The Israelites were a militia, not a standing army, note that David and every man was equipped with his sword, not a government issue model. Men were expected to report for duty already armed with their own weapons. That means they had to keep and bear those weapons in order to fulfill their duties to their society. This was also the early American situation, as it should be today.
These weapons were and are necessary to preserve freedom in society. Any sane man will pray that he never need use any measure of force in defense however, he should be ready to do so if necessary. The fifth or sixth Commandment (depending on how counted) clearly sets forth God’s intention to preserve life: “Thous shalt not kill.” It is also translated, “Thou shalt not murder.” Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17.
The second translation is a prohibition on illicit killing, the first is a total ban. In a perfect world it would be natural to follow a total ban on killing others made in God’s image. However, as noted above, we have removed ourselves from perfection, be it temporarily. Thus, given where we are, while we should strive for perfection, we may be limited to keeping from unlawful killings.
In Leviticus, it appears that everything carries the death penalty. Many of these provisions have actually been codified into civil law over the ages. I’m not sure if anyone was ever executed for eating a shrimp. However, Leviticus gave us the basis for many capital crimes still such today. Accordingly, killers (murderers) may be executed in contravention of the Lord’s prohibition on killing. Leviticus 24:16-17. Numbers and Deuteronomy give further qualification as to which killings are crimes versus accidents.
Coupled with those passages I cited last time, these dictates seem to logically indicate that force, including lethal force, may be used to repel unjust criminal activities. The attendant duty upon us is to use the least force necessary to accomplish our defense.
Jesus exercised the ultimate restraint, in this regard, while enduring His treatment at the hands of His native detractors and Pilate. Jesus made clear His purpose: “I came into the world…to bear witness to the truth; and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice.” John 18:38. Demonstrating an eternal human misunderstanding, Pilate replied “What is truth?” His purpose was not to overthrow earthly tyranny, but to provide an eternal alternative. Rather than being an act of non-self-defense, Christ’s actions were the ultimate act of defense of others. This truth may have been lost on one Roman, it was not on all Romans.
American law has been greatly influenced by our colonial past and our origins under the English Constitutional and common law. In turn, English law was dependant on ancient Rome for many of its sources. It must be remembered that the Kingdom of Britain once co-existed with the Eastern Roman Empire. Thus, the legal traditions passed to the Isle of Britannia were those of earlier Roman glory – from the Republic and the earlier Western Empire. From the founding of Rome until the time of Cicero, Roman laws were largely unwritten, even the Constitution. Codification cam much later, under Justinian. The Codex Justianius was issued in 529 A.D., five decades after the fall of the West. The Digesta of ancient law was written soon thereafter. Thus, began our tradition of dual sources of law – statutes and case-law.
(Justinian. Google.)
I previously cited to the Codex for its express allowance of the use of armed force to deter attack, by private parties and government agents. This dual provision is tremendous as it presupposed that no-one is above the law and that even government force may be repelled when illegitimate. Increasingly in America, the government takes the opposite position – that it is infallible and may not be resisted, even when tyrannical. This is nonsense and may be disregarded as such.
In the next installment I will delve into the English tradition regarding arms and defense. This tradition slowly coalesced into the modern theory of the militia being comprised of armed individual men. Here, I will briefly note some of the long-standing traditions concerning arms in the British Isles before the rise of the common law and the Magna Carta.
“England” has been populated by various peoples probably for about 10,000 years. The earliest peoples there were organized along the lines of families and tribes, each with its own society and rules. It is obvious that most of these people were armed as they were constantly at war with one another and with the occasional outsider. It is clear as mud as to what extent they retained formal doctrines regarding rights, arms, militia duties, etc. “Self” defense often involved the entire tribe and was given to degenerating into all out war. We could assign the Lex Talionis “the law of revenge” or the “law of the jungle” as the chief governing principle of these early Britons.
As the centuries B.C. counted down, civilization and order began to grow in the Isles. Legend has it that King Arthur was able to unite most of the peoples of lower England under his banner. Whether he pulled a sword out of a stone is another matter but it seems that by his time (7th Century B.C.) swords were common among the people, both for use defensively and for militia service.
Thus, when the Romans arrived in 43 B.C., they found a fierce and well armed people, not at all amenable to taming. Four centuries of Roman occupation saw many changes in English life, including the ordering of the militias more along the lines of precise Legionary lines. This, civil and engineering upgrades, and Christianity generally served to the benefit of the people, then and following the Roman’s departure.
Following the Romans, came the Angles, the Saxons, and eventually the Normans, each of whom introduced new character to England. By at least the Twelfth Century England had evolved into a nation-state, not entire undistinguishable from its present form. Then, standing armies were rare and the kings relied upon their subjects to form militias during times of needs. Accordingly, free-men were expected, even ordered to keep arms for their and the common defense. Assize of Arms, Henry II (1181).
King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215 which, in Section 61, provided for armed rebellion of sorts (lead by the nobility) in the event the Crown became tyrannical. This process, of course, necessitated the continued institution of armed citizens.
(Magna Carta Memorial, Runnymede, England. Google.)
Next time, I will move forward in history and begin covering more modern English sources concerning the people, their rights, especially concerning arms and defense. This will serve as a prelude to the customs of those English persons who colonized America, carrying the ancient traditions with them.
21 Thursday Mar 2013
Posted in Legal/Political Columns
Tags
America, AR-15, ASU, Australia, Britain, crime, criminals, Dianne Feinstink, firearms, freedom, God, government, law, Liberty, magazines, Natural Law, NRA, regulation, responsibility, Second Amendment, Second Amendment Foundation, self-defense, society, Stand Your Ground, The People, tyranny, violence
This morning I recived an email from The Second Amendment Foundation, a toothier NRAish organization, for those of you unfamiliar. You can see the email as a website here: http://smna.conservativecontacts.com/track?t=v&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWlkPTExODA3Jm1zZ2lkPTgzMDAmZGlkPTQwMCZlZGlkPTQwMCZzbj0xNjc4MjMwMCZlaWQ9bG92ZXR0cEBlYXJ0aGxpbmsubmV0JmVlaWQ9bG92ZXR0cEBlYXJ0aGxpbmsubmV0JnVpZD1sb3ZldHRwQGVhcnRobGluay5uZXQmcmlkPTYwMjYxJmVyaWQ9NjAyNjEmZmw9Jm12aWQ9JnRnaWQ9JmV4dHJhPQ==&&&2100&eu=200&&&. I hope the link works; the site contains a ten question survey, which I decided to turn into a short column. Read on, friends.
By the way, check out the SAF: http://www.saf.org/. They produced the video I posted a while back about racism in gun controls. They do good work on behalf of our freedom. Sign up for their email updates.
I took the liberty of cutting and pasting the survey whole from the email here, without permission. I figure they won’t mind as I am promoting them. Anyway, The questions are “yes” or “no” answerable. I took the opportunity to show you how I would answer along with further explanation. Here we go:
| QUESTION 1: | Do you own a semi-automatic firearm that has a detachable magazine, folding stock, or pistol grip? YES NO |
| I would answer Yes, although all of you know I don’t really own any firearms. I don’t belive in them…
(Guns, like cigars and tobacco products are very dangerous. Avoid both…) |
|
| QUESTION 2: | Do you own a clip or magazine that holds more than ten rounds? YES NO |
| Again, with the above “truthful…” caveat, I answer Yes. | |
| QUESTION 3: | Do you think the Feinstein Gun Ban would reduce gun violence? YES NO |
| NO! Gun control has nothing at all to do with ending violence. Every country which enacts strict gun control (see Britain, Australia, etc.) experiences a dramatic increase in violent crime. Gun control is about disarming the people so as to make them helpless in the face of tyranny. | |
| QUESTION 4: | Do you think you could need more than 10 rounds in a self-defense situation? YES NO |
| Yes! Abosolutely! The other day at the 2A forum at ASU (GRU), someone asked me this question. I responded with the case of a local gun dealer who was confronted by 4 armed thugs in his shop. They drove a van through the wall in hopes of a 100% discount on his merchandise. Fortunately, he was armed with an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine. It took all 30 rounds to convince the “shoppers” to vacate the premises. There is no rational reason to limit the capacity of self-defense as the chance of danger is never so limited. | |
| QUESTION 5: | Do you oppose all attempts to ban semi-automatic firearms? YES NO |
| Yes! I oppose all attempts to ban any firearms – semi-automatic, AUTOMATIC, black-powder, or any other kind. The free People should have available for their protection any and all means of defending their liberty and their lives. | |
| QUESTION 6: | Do you oppose regulations that limit the amount of ammunition you may purchase? YES NO |
| Yes! Like the guns themselves, the only limits on the amount of ammunition one purchases should be desire and ability to pay. I tend to oppose regulations period. | |
| QUESTION 7: | Do you believe gun control laws will only hurt law abiding citizens? YES NO |
| No. Surprised? Don’t be. I think gun control hurts everyone. Even a convicted felon might find a need for weaponry if attacked in a situation not of his creation. Gun control only helps ACTIVE criminals – the government, banksters, street thugs, etc. I don’t want to help any of these types. | |
| QUESTION 8: | Would you feel safer if all law-abiding citizens possessed firearms? YES NO |
| No. Again, hear me out. While I support the general right of all qualified, responsible individuals to possess firearms, there are a large number of my fellow citizens I do no trust. I would not fell safer if every Tom, Dick, and Harry had a gun. Some of these folks can’t operate automobiles or shopping carts without trouble. They sure as heck aren’t competent to use weapons. But, I leave this to them, the Lord, and anyone but the government to sort out. You and I owning guns makes me safer (you too), regardless of how we feeeeeel. | |
| QUESTION 9: | Should laws that protect our self-defense such as the Stand Your Ground Law exist? YES NO |
| Yes, although the need for such laws is a sad commentary on our society. The right to self defense is as natural as the laws of phsyics. We should not need laws to protect the right, though it seems better to have them and not need them than the alternative. Overall, I would prefer if people stopped committing crimes thus eliminating the need in the first place. Again, that’s out of my personal power to control. | |
| QUESTION 10: | Do you believe the 2nd Amendment was written to protect U.S Citizens against a tyrannical take over? YES NO |
Yes! There is no doubt about it. While hunting, collecting, and sport shooting are all important, as is the right of defense against criminals and dangerous critters, the real purpose of the 2A was to ensure the People would always be able to resist tyranny if necessary. Thank God we do not face such a situation today. Such tyranny would only come from a regime that did things like tax our incomes and threaten us with death by drones – unheard of in Amerika.
There you have it! My answers and views de jure. Perhaps you have similar or divergent views. You are entitled to them and, by all means, feel free to list them here in response to mine. I only ask that, for any opinion you hold, make sure it is the result of reason and not a knee-jerk or parroted position. Think for yourselves. Arm yourselves. Live free and prosper!
PERRIN LOVETT 
You must be logged in to post a comment.