Unconstitutional Constitution

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:11:00 +0000

Fluoride In Food

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:53:00 +0000

http://www.poisonfluoride.com/pfpc/html/f-_in_food.html

the manifesting beast

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:21:00 +0000

Humanity has begun to lose “faith” in the manifesting beast! in the Bush’s?

And looks to another to show the way of damnation, which head shall they pick from the manifesting beast this time? The McCain Dis [able] d head? The Billary head? Or the Brobama head?

All parts are of the manifesting beast, which hath seven heads and ten horns?

In seeking continued signs from man, man himself perpetuates an ongoing relationship with an image in his carnal mind of what he believes man to be, “in fact, in what he believes individually himself to be!”

A man of conscience!

But in reality, he continues to “worship,” an image of what he believes himself to be, by appearance and circumstance! And not in what he is in reality by nature! As long as man continues to project himself as master to the day, he continues to bow down to a self made image of god and not God Himself!

And it is proclaimed that:

“Ye know not what ye do worship” it is known who is worshiped,

the manifesting beast, “whose number is? he is who is worshiped? the manifesting beast he/she cannot receive the word of God, he/she cannot hear His voice! It is foolishness unto him/her!

Joh 4:22 Ye ⁵²¹⁰ worship⁴³⁵² ye know¹⁴⁹² not³⁷⁵⁶ what:³⁷³⁹ we²²⁴⁹ know¹⁴⁹² what³⁷³⁹ we worship: ⁴³⁵² for³⁷⁵⁴ salvation⁴⁹⁹¹ is²⁰⁷⁶ of¹⁵³⁷ the³⁵⁸⁸ Jews.²⁴⁵³

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“His sheep hear is voice! And another they will not follow!”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All the wiles he knowingly spun into the full velocity of this continuing “deadly black dance” to the manifesting of all human exploits of depravity, deified!

To “godhood!”

The full depravity of man!

Worshiped!

Exalted!

“Proudly Proclaimed” openly!! for all who can see!

The Manifesting beast is:

“That man who surrenders his birthright for comfort and security!”

Deserving neither comfort nor security!

He has placed his trust in mammon!

The Greek word for "Mammon", mamonas, occurs in the Sermon on the Mount (during the discourse on ostentation) and in the parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:9-13). The Authorised Version keeps the Syriac word. John Wycliffe uses "richessis".

Who owns You? are you sure...

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:42:00 +0000

With all the black ops occurring on college campi these days, from recruiting, to indoctrination of American citizens without their knowledge to the subjected under the guise of domestic terrorist i.e. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Virginia Tech, Columbine High, WTC 93/2001 all administrated under C.I.A. MKULTRA protocols and compartmental Procedures.

There is a greater need than ever to abolish the prohibition of licensed concealed weapons on school property, surely the US government is not going to support the manifestation of freedom or constitutional right exercised by the citizen?

So, it is all up to us, the great citizens of these United States of America (the greatest nation on God’s green earth.) Since the beginning of the Bush Administration of G.H.W Bush the execution of the plan of The Project for a New American Century which begot the USA Patriot Act I, II, The Military Commissions Act of 2006, Posse Comitatus,

The legal positions of Posse Comitatus have been further developed. The Sovereign Citizen, boldly states that U.S. citizen is a "sovereign citizen" (opposed to a "Fourteenth Amendment Citizen") and thereby be subject only to: common law and/or "constitutional law!” not to any statutory law (including most taxes).

The Uniform Commercial Code has an important part in these legal positions.

Sovereign Citizens boldly state:

“The U.S. government has enslaved its citizens by using them as collateral against foreign debt to (England and the Colonial Empire worldwide, The United Arab Emirates, Dubai, China.)

So, what act of terror do your handlers plan for us this time W?

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:45:00 +0000

To can take our guns from us, by force? Just as you did when Katrina hit New Orleans! And you say! Quote: ‘if you are not with us, (your) with the terrorists?’ What? more planes into buildings W?

I have a question: What is the act of terror? Answer: ‘Taking law abiding citizens guns away from them when we need them the most! When the dregs of society roam the flooded streets armed to the teeth with no fear Because!!! 'Is everybody listening?'

You disarmed the Citizenry!

What a bone headed idea that was! And, I guarantee your planning to do it again, aren’t you W? With some half cooked, hair brained cock-a-mammy story of terrorists around every corner, when it is your policies which give us these ‘so-called terrorist’ in the first place, whom you and your father created giving unrestricted access to and through this country’s wide-open borders.

That is the act of terrorism W! But, you already knew that, don’t you W? Through the signing of numerous executive orders, you single handedly over threw 200+ years of blood bought Freedom! You hide your true motives from the peoples of this great country; all the while our so-called elected officials skulk around in the dark.

Making back-door deals with their Puppet Masters of the CFR, and TLC to save and or increase their power base, or they’re quivering in a corner, afraid to speak up for fear of being named a unlawful enemy combatants, arrested, and shipped off to some concentration camps, which are popping up all over this country, and around the world.

Which you claim are for relocation in the act of a natural disasters, or for those who up rise in civil unrest against the tyrannical government yea right that’s why the Japanese American internment was the forced removal and internment of approximately 120,000^[1] Japanese and Japanese Americans (62% of whom were United States citizens)^[2][3] from the West Coast of the United States during World War II.

‘That’s BS! W, and you know it!’ A perfect example of what you, or should I say ‘your handlers’ have planned for the US citizen is resoundingly pungently reflected in what is already being done to Ed and Elaine Brown. When all they have done was simply asked of their subservient government ‘SHOW ME THE LAW’

But, through your hired mercenaries masquerading as Police / US Marshals, and BATF. Has ordered all mail, power, and access to food, water, Internet ‘so they can’t tell the world the truth,’ all cut off essentially starving the Browns out! Forcing them to live like staked and hunted animals. Intimidated harassed terrorized, tasered, beaten, and now we have learned through Ed himself ‘gassed and tortured!’

Were it not for their friends and supporters whom you now vehemently hunting down like animals harassing, and arresting them under trumped up charges of aiding and abetting as if the browns had broken any law but for standing up against a tyrannical government. When ‘There Is No LAW.’

Adding insult to injury, claims that the Browns had planted explosive on the land they so dearly loved, which they have openly proclaimed ‘a gift from The Lord God Almighty!’ ‘Whom you W also claim to serve.’ More flamboyant fabricated charges i.e.

‘Booby traps, planted explosives hanging in trees, stockpiles of weapons AK47’s and such!

Which in reality turn out to be Ed’s hunting rifle’ All your hired mercenaries acting as though they’re going in to capture the top criminals of ‘America’s Most Wanted’! Where’s John Walsh when you need him, huh? In truth W you have robbed these upstanding model Americans of their most valued God given right! Freedom!

Under the guise of doing your duty by seizing these dangerous Tax Evaders by trickery and treachery. If there is a LAW W then why are your minions petrified to walk up to the front door and place the Browns under arrest? Because you know as does the whole of the Congress, and the so-called Supreme Courts that ‘There Is No LAW!

You’re using those whom have, as yourself sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and its citizens against all enemies foreign and domestic. The exact opposite is what you have done to the Browns W and it is also, what you intend to do to the rest of us by force of the Military Commissions Act of 2006!

All the while! W you and your family are planning run off and live on your 98,840 acres complex in Paraguay, which by the way has one of the most corrupt judicial systems in the world ‘kind of sounds like the Courts of the good ole Us of A doesn’t it?’ The Paraguayan Senate voted last summer to “grant U.S. troops immunity from national and International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction.”

Why! might the president and his family need a 98,840-acre ranch in Paraguay protected by a semi-secret U.S. military base manned by American troops who have been exempted from war-crimes prosecution by the Paraguayan government?

Paraguay’s drug czar called it an “enormously strategic point in both the narcotics and arms trades.” And it sits atop the one of the world’s largest fresh-water aquifers. What does W know that the rest of us don’t? Maybe that there is a great tragedy coming to the US of the magnitude never even imagined, under the guise of terrorism under the total control of the World’s Handlers!

ARMed with knowledge

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 06:56:00 +0000

Where are Ed and Elaine Brown - Tax Honesty Patriots

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:51:00 +0000

Sign the Petition: Demand a fair Trial!

EDWARD BROWN 03923-049 65 White M 04-30-2012 NOT IN BOP CUSTODY

ELAINE BROWN 03924-049 66 White F 04-30-2012 DANBURY FCI

Killing No Child Left Behind

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:30:00 +0000

Killing NCLB in 2007
17 Reasons Why NCLB Must Go
By Jamie McKenzie
About Author

Congress must decide in 2007 whether to reauthorize NCLB/Helter-Skelter or let it die and replace it with a new law that makes sense.

The law is so badly flawed, it cannot be fixed. It is a wreck. It is un-American in its basic principles, relying upon fear, intimidation, threats and punishments in ways that would make Stalin happy. NCLB is the very kind of big government "state planning" that we were taught would be the downfall of the Soviets.

We need a new law with a focus on capacity building and encouragement rather than testing, fear and punishment.

Recent polls show growing public disillusionment with regard to NCLB's claims and promises.

See The 38th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools at
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kpollpdf.htm

A National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) study of the experiences and perceptions of more than 2,000 literacy educators (April 2006) shows that among these teachers charged with implementing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), 76% believe that the Act has had at least a somewhat negative influence on teaching and learning in English/reading classrooms.

http://www.ncte.org/pubs/chron/highlights/125383.htm

Pure Evil?

The Ed Secretary's recent comparison of NCLB to Ivory Soap showed a remarkable ignorance of the damage this program is doing to children, especially to disadvantaged children of color - the very children who were meant to benefit from the law.

Simple-minded right wing ideologues might be happy that 30% of the schools in Jeb Bush's state of Florida are judged failing by NCLB, but most of the world views these failures as remote from being good news or progress. Unless your purpose is to destroy the public system, NCLB ends up looking more like pure evil than Ivory Soap.

As mentioned above, the recent Gallup Poll reports that a majority doubts that NCLB has done any good. It is a policy lunge that must be reversed by the new Congress to be elected in November. Like Iraq and Katrina, NCLB is an example of monumental governmental failure - a set of policies and initiatives that have worsened the quality of life and damaged the prospects of many.

Seventeen NCLB Failures

Read details and evidence.

1. Disappointing Results
2. Failing Schools
3. Lack of Quality Teachers
4. Lowering of Standards
5. Narrowing of Curriculum
6. Ignoring of Children
7. Fear, Shame and Threats
8. Bad Tests
9. Fake Results
10. Educational Triage
11. Factory Style Learning
12. Loss of Best Teachers
13. Loss of Future Teachers
14. Loss of Morale
15. Drop Outs and Push Outs
16. Reduction in Time for Learning
17. Stagnation

Real ID No Need

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:55:00 +0000

Briefcase Sized DNA Analysis System

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday September 26, @10:15PM
from the portable-paternity dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Japan's NEC Corporation along with Aida Engineering have developed a briefcase-sized DNA analysis system that enables the police to perform comprehensive DNA testing at crime scenes in as little as 25 minutes. The same test would take at least a day to a week (if re-testing or conformation is required) in the lab. The system is compact enough to be carried to crime scenes or other locations where quick DNA analysis is required, making it the world's first portable DNA analysis system."

Why?

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:09:00 +0000

I have been asking myself why? Lately, Why is the NWO so obsessed with the enslavement, and eventual elimination of 80 percent of the world’s population by present numbers?

Why?

So they can have the whole world to themselves alone?

To heal the earth of this virus called humanity?

So, they can sit back in their ivory towers and marvel and worship the mother earth, and run around naked in the vast vistas of land?

Mat 16:26 for what is a man profited if he may gain the whole world, but of his life suffer loss? Or what shall a man give as an exchange for his life?

John 4:22 ye worship what ye have not known; we worship what we have known, because the salvation is of the Jews;

Why?

So, the 2 percentile can rule over the rest who are blessed enough to be aloud to live, to service them in their realms of domination? To be man herds, cattle, livestock to be used as consumables for their desires?

Rev 19:15 and out of his mouth doth proceed a sharp sword, that with it he may smite the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, and he doth tread the press of the wine of the wrath and the anger of God the Almighty,

Why?

To be mere tillers, sowers, growers, miners, builders, and breeders for their innately narcissistically delusional needs?

Dumbed and muted by designed to an echelon that whole of humanity is now unable to rise out of?

Luke 17:2 it is more profitable to him if a weighty millstone is put round about his neck, and he hath been cast into the sea, than that he may cause one of these little ones to stumble.

Why?

Lost in the fog of ignorance and delusion believing it to be the norm?

Simply, transformed sheepeople, following wherever the electronic device leads them?

Acts 8:32 And the contents of the Writing that he was reading was this: `as a sheep unto slaughter he was led, and as a lamb before his shearer dumb, so he doth not open his mouth;

‘These were not so lead, as He!’

Why?

Full Spectrum Domination!

Control!

And

Enslavement!

Through a debt embedded monetary matrix.

Humanity is enslaved, through contrived financial indebtedness via the fractional banking system, and the IRS. Through the Bush Sr. - Clinton - Bush Jr. – and so to be Clinton war mongering, the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, and RFID implantation enforcement via the Real ID Act of 2005.

All of these are a precursor to mandatory RFID implantation, and full spectrum control through an eventual integrated brain augmentation which will be enacted under the auspices of helping those of mentally impairment, and drug addicted, but with intentional RFID programmable abilities unto mind control of humanity.

Why?

‘For the Fait-accompli - TransHumanism!’

Human enhancement through an A.I., The DARPA Singularity to go online in 2012 implantation to modify, whom they deem property, without conscience of their actions.

Rev 13:17 and that no one may be able to buy, or to sell, except he who is having the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Rev 14:11 and the smoke of their torment doth go up to ages of ages; and they have no rest day and night, who are bowing before the beast and his image, also if any doth receive the mark of his name.

Rev 15:2 and I saw as a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those who do gain the victory over the beast, and his image, and his mark, and the number of his name, standing by the sea of the glass, having harps of God,

Rev 16:2 and the first did go away, and did pour out his vial upon the land, and there came a sore--bad and grievous--to men, those having the mark of the beast, and those bowing to his image.

Rev 19:20 and the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet who did the signs before him, in which he led astray those who did receive the mark of the beast, and those who did bow before his image; living they were cast--the two--to the lake of the fire, that is burning with brimstone;

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those who have been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God, and who did not bow before the beast, nor his image, and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand, and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years;

We Honor : Arron Russo - A Great American Patriot

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 04:33:00 +0000

Aaron Russo

February 14, 1943 – August 24, 2007

Russo created a one-hour, politically themed TV show entitled Aaron Russo's Mad as Hell. The program, part stand-up comedy monologue and part slash-and-burn political rant, offered Russo's views where he criticized NAFTA, The War on Drugs, the concept of a National Identity Card, IRS, Social Security, and the federal budget. When he was unable to find a syndicator for the show, Russo sold it as a video.

Russo made his first run for political office in 1998, when he ran in the Republican party primary for the governor of Nevada. He came in second in the primary, winning 25.9% of the vote in a four-way race. He then endorsed the Democratic candidate, Las Vegas mayor, Jan Laverty Jones, who lost to Republican Kenny Guinn.

Russo then joined the Libertarian Party in 1999, saying it was his "true political home." In 2000, he delivered a fiery speech at the Libertarian National Convention, calling Libertarians the "last, best hope for freedom in America." Russo subsequently planned to run for governor in 2002 as a Libertarian, but he was temporarily sidelined by cancer

In January 2004, Russo announced he was seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination to run for the President of the United States. Russo told LP News (February 2004) he was running because the United States is "heading to totalitarianism. I have a sincere belief [in] the Constitution and Bill of Rights as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Ben Franklin.

Unfortunately, neither political party respects the vision of our Founding Fathers, and these documents have been relegated to the dustbin. I want to dust them off and restore them to their proper role in our lives." At the Libertarian National Convention in May 2004, Russo received 258 votes, as opposed to 256 for Michael Badnarik and 246 for Gary Nolan, a majority being required to receive the presidential nomination.

Russo went on to be defeated on the third and final ballot by nominee Badnarik by a vote of 423-344. While some questioned his style , others argued his media experience would enable him to pose a serious threat to incumbent President George W. Bush, pulling enough votes from otherwise likely Bush voters to affect the outcome in battleground states, in the same way that Ralph Nader was considered to be in relation to Democrat John Kerry. ^[2]

In 2006, Russo wrote, produced, directed, and starred in a documentary feature film entitled America...From Freedom To Fascism. The film questioned the legality of the income tax and attacked the "growing authoritarianism" in American life.

On January 14, 2007, Russo announced his full support for U.S. Congressman Ron Paul's 2008 presidential bid. ^[3] ^[4]

Please Check Out: Thank You Aaron

Awakened Filter

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:19:00 +0000

Over the last seven years I’ve gone from being an egger listener to all the top conservative radio talk shows, to an awakened filter of the propaganda, which had indoctrinated me with since the early 90’s.

From: Rush Limbaugh, Pat Campbell, Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage along with Fox News radio.

Through the course of any given week the mantra is to be espousing through these hosts is ‘walk the line’ according to Network’s owners, who are known controlled CIA assets, under the preview of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Communication Commission, and more importantly The White House.

Seeing many of these hosts have in fact met with members of The White House, and quite possibly the President himself, for their ‘talking points’ from on high. Some have of their own words announced their visits to the High Priest ‘W’ in the Holy Place of D.C.

Their reoccurring preoccupation with meaningless mediocrity of sensationalism of ‘who, what, when, and where.’ Have caused the instability of the mentality of the citizenry through the relentless manipulation of their opinions and reducing the strength of their daily mental focus.

Over numerous days of superfluous terror alerts, color codes, mandatory airport security lines, roadblocks, and check points. All to curtail our very sense of security and well being, being under constant attack by the slave masters through the media.

Daily our freedoms are being usurped by those who stand ‘as’ our handlers all the while behind closed doors taking the rights our founding fathers fought and died for away from us. Taking our right to travel freely by illegal checkpoints.

Surveillance our every transaction weather public or private through digital (RFID) customer loyalty cards. Also, facial recognition software at our airports, reverse profiling. Not to mention Cameras, e-pass, OnStar, PGS,

Cell phone power off listening, high altitude surveillance blimps.

Illegal stops by mercenary police officers harassing citizens with ‘no probable cause’ but to harass and intimidate the people.

Whom they have no intention to protect and serve’.

Got Milk

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:40:00 +0000

rBST / rBGH - Banned outside the United States

POSILAC - Bovine somatotropin (bST), or bovine growth hormone (BGH), is a specific type of growth hormone that is primarily released by the anterior pituitary gland of cattle.

In addition to regulating somatic growth, bGH also influences the amount of milk produced by a dairy cow. Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), also known as rBST is a synthetic version of BGH that is injected into a cow to artificially maintain her milk production.

The sale of Posilac is illegal in virtually every developed country with the exception of the United States. ^[27] In the United States, the use of rbST has been approved by the FDA.

In Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, rbST is not approved for use. ^[28]

The European Union declared the use of rbST as safe in 1990, but in 1993, a moratorium was placed on its sale by all 25 member nations.

Canada's health board, Health Canada, refused to approve rBGH for use on Canadian dairies, citing concerns over animal health. The study they had commissioned, however, found "no biologically plausible reason for concern about human safety if rbST were to be approved for sale in Canada.

The only exception to this statement is... (possible hypersensitivity)."^[29]

Voluntary removal of rBGH from the milk supply

No milk is free of BST. ^[38] However, several milk purchasers and resellers do not purchase milk produced with rBGH. As of February 2007, Safeway in the Northwestern United States stopped buying from dairy farmers that use rBGH^{[citation needed]}. The two Safeway plants produce milk for all of Oregon, Southwest Washington, and parts of northern California. Safeway's plant in San Leandro, CA had already been rBGH-free for two years.

Trader Joes supermarkets only sell rBST-free milk, be it organic or not. Their non-organic rBST-free milk is not more expensive than major supermarkets' milk. Another company going rBGH free is Chipotle Mexican Grill that has also announced it will only serve rBGH-free sour cream at its more than 530 restaurants.^[39] Kroger Company has announced its intent to sell only milk produced without synthetic hormones by February 2008.^[40]

Publix Supermarket Consumer Relations department says "Publix milk has been rBST/rBGH free since May of this year [2007] and is readily available in all fat levels and sizes at your neighborhood Publix."

References

27.
^http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/dairy/bovine-growth-hormone/rbgh-fact-sheet

28.
^http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1447.shtml

29.
^http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/vet/issues-enjeux/rbst-stbr/rep_rcpsc-rap_crmcc_e.html

38.
^http://www.monsantodairy.com/about/human_safety/ifst_rbst1.html

39.
^[2]
Safeway & Chipotle Chains Dropping Milk & Dairy Derived from Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone, Organic Consumers Association.

40.
^ [3] http://www.thekrogerco.com/corpnews/corpnewsinfo_pressreleases_08012007.htm

Your vote means Nothing!

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:57:00 +0000

The apparent selection of Barack Obama as the next President prior to any election, should settle the argument once and for all that our Presidency is not elected, but is selected, and at times years in advance.

Your vote means Nothing!

Just as Carter, Ford, Reagan, Bill, Bush Senior, and W Bush, where all select, and now prior to any Election Hillary has been set as the next President of the United States. Before a single vote is cast.

Your vote means Nothing!

States are forcibly implementing paperless voting machines upon the people, which contributed to the corroborated fraud in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. The Tom Feeney Congressional Campaign hired Software Programmer:

Clinton Eugene Curtis of Yang Enterprises to compile source code for the Diebolt Touchscreen Voting Machines, the voting systems code is written to flip the vote 51 to 49 in favor of the chosen winner.

Your vote means Nothing!

Voter Fraud – Paperless trackless voter machine transactions are hacked via internal modem. The Motor Voter Act has been a large contributor of those oversights in illegally registered voters.

These machines have been setup for all future voting activities: included within the voter registrar are pets, the dead, and felons and also convicted murderers all have been found as registered voters, using these trackless voting machines.

Your vote means Nothing!

The world’s top financial and economic leaders i.e. ‘Corporate America’ the purchasers of political power from all three branches of our government thereby become the puppet master of our government.

Your vote means Nothing!

Bringing the preemptive strategy of America i.e. ‘War’ to bear on the rest of the oil rich nations Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and soon after they will cause major conflict in Russia, and China.

Your vote means Nothing!

Constitutional Terrorists

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:20:00 +0000

"Public Servants" Going After "Constitutional Terrorists"?

by Angel Shamaya

November 14, 2001

KeepAndBearArms.com -- The Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation created a flyer some time back during Clinton's Presidency, asking the recipients to help them fight domestic terrorism. I received one of these flyers this past weekend at the Arizona "Freedom in the 21st Century" gathering. The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (Greater Phoenix, Arizona) and the Maricopa County Attorney were placed on the flyer, as well -- before they saw the actual wording of the flyer -- in an effort by the FBI to "work jointly with local law enforcement."

Called the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the program was created, presumably, to help preserve the American way of life. This flyer was created -- by the feds -- to disseminate information about who the bad guys might be. However, its wording made it look like a disinformation campaign to paint at least a few groups of Real Americans as domestic terrorists. Among other things, the FBI was asking people:

"If you encounter any of the following, Call the Joint Terrorism Task Force":

"defenders of the US Constitution against federal government and the UN"

[That describes many civil liberties groups and most gun rights and American Sovereignty groups in existence -- and, by extension, their members.]

"Groups of individuals engaging in para-military training"

[Such as, perhaps, shooting your semi-automatic "assault weapon" with some friends out in the desert?"]

Also being sought are "Common Law Movement Proponents" who

"Request authority for a stop"

[That's illegal now?]

"Make numerous references to the US Constitution"

[That's illegal now?]

"Attempt to 'police the police'"

[That's illegal now?]

And let's not forget the other potential "domestic terrorists" being sought. We really need to watch out for these people:

"Lone Individuals"

[Do you meet that description?]

"Rebels"

[Know any gun rights activist who doesn't have at least a touch of rebel pumping through the old bloodstream?]

Be sure and notice the following two things on the flyer, as well:

1) There is NOT ONE MENTION of "Islamic Fundamentalists" anywhere.

2) Defenders of the US Constitution and the common law from which it grew are being classified on the same level as the bottom-feeding Skinheads, Nazis and the KKK.

READ THE FLYER FOR YOURSELF

The flyer is a tri-fold, so you'll have to turn your head sideways to read one of the sections.

Front Page Back Page

NOTE: The far right side of the above "Front Page" is the actual front of the tri-fold flyer. The far left side of the above "Back Page" -- the part that mentions the 'defenders of the US Constitution' -- is the inside flap... the first thing you see when you open the flyer.

HISTORY OF THE FLYER

According to Terry Chapman of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office -- whose name is on the flyer as the MCSO contact -- the FBI created the flyer and printed the MCSO and Attorney's Office before the text was approved. He said it was created as a full color brochure to hand out to officers, not for the general public -- and that as soon as he saw it, he urged them not to use it, knowing it had some problems.

"The flyer never got off the ground," said Officer Chapman, "but it did manage to make it's way out -- and maybe it's right that it did." He genuinely didn't like this piece of junk, and he showed true concern about my issues with the flyer, too. "We were not happy with it. It was formulated, I think, for legitimate purposes, but it fell on stony ground because of the way it was worded -- the unfortunate profiles that were put in there outraged a number of people who received it."

"It's dead in the water as far as I know," said Chapman. "I just can't imagine the FBI putting it out there again. It wasn't for the public. The fact that it's circulating again has gotta be by unofficial sources."

Mr. Chapman couldn't name the FBI agent who created the flyer, saying the individual who created it was no longer with the FBI's Phoenix branch, which he described as having "revolving doors." Sheriff's officers didn't like the flyer, either. Said Chapman, "I had a Lieutenant from our own office call me and ask 'Am I on your list?' Am I a threat?' for supporting the constitution?'" Chapman was embarrassed by the seeming targeting of "decent, honorable segments of the community" by the flyer -- he hoped it would never be handed out or go anywhere at all.

According to Chapman, the FBI approached the Sheriff's Office saying they wanted to put a flyer together to help local law enforcement raise officer awareness about who to watch out for. They asked for a local contact name and number for use of a flyer they wanted to produce, and because Terry Chapman heads up MCSO Intelligence, he was the likely candidate. Possible lesson for Chapman: don't let yourself get used by misguided federal agents again.

The big question: Why the hell does the FBI have someone running around promoting that Defenders of the Constitution (and the common law from which the Constitution was born) are domestic terrorists?

The FBI has not returned phone calls on this matter. But suffice it to say that there has been at least one unAmerican weasel running around their camp urging people to turn against We The Real American People. We'd sure like to know this fool's name and location within the Bureau. If you track that information down, please contact me personally; we've got a bone to pick with him and his boss, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft / Alberto Gonzales respectively .

CONTACT THE AGENCIES MENTIONED ON THE FLYER

FBI Phoenix Office

Website: http://phoenix.fbi.gov/
Email: phoenix@fbi.gov
Special Agent in Charge - Guadalupe Gonzalez

FBI's "Civil Rights" Website:
http://phoenix.fbi.gov/contact/fo/phnx/pxcivil.htm

FBI's "Counterterrorism" Website:
http://phoenix.fbi.gov/contact/fo/phnx/pxterr.htm

FBI Arizona Regional Offices:
http://phoenix.fbi.gov/contact/fo/phnx/pxterrit.htm

The Maricopa Sheriff's Office

Website: http://www.mcso.org/

Feedback form for Sheriff Joe Arpaio:
Via Website: http://www.mcso.org/submenu.asp?file=public
Via Email: complaints@mcso.maricopa.gov, information@mcso.maricopa.gov

Maricopa County Attorney

Richard M. Romley
http://www.maricopa.gov/attorney/MCAOhome.asp
http://www.maricopa.gov/feedback/feedback.asp

MEDIA - intimidating sound bite

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:39:00 +0000

MEDIA- a source material containing information, a conveyance through which data is transported. When did the media, ‘the conveyance’, ‘the transporter’ of the news and information, become ‘the news and information’, and not the events, which occur?

Conscripted presentations of the conveyance ‘itself’ as the all-knowing ‘omnipotent authority’ without respect for the data being reported by it! Brings the observers a constructed traducing of the data ‘projecting a given desired inference’.

When the control of thought through the manipulation of presented data and its resulting effect becomes the whole point of the media, what then will be the long-term effect to the observer’s psyche absorbing the traduced data unwittingly?

With the reoccurring and relentless ‘flash bang of shock bombs’ of intimidating sound bite, is flung out like raw meat to the starving masses, by talking heads, to capture the attention of an intellectually diluted commodity, to keep mental continuity obstructed through stringent emotional abuse.

ECHELON

COINTELPRO

The REAL ID Act - bad for 2nd Amendment

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:05:00 +0000

Gun Owners of America
wrote:

National ID Cards

-- Threats to gun owners' privacy are a huge concern--
Gun Owners of America
!E-Mail Alert!

8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, February 9, 2005

The National ID card is back in the news, as Congress is getting set once again to debate the issue. You will remember that late last year, Congress passed (and thePresident signed) legislation which starts us down the road to a National ID card. In the name of preventing alien terrorists from operating in this country, the so-called Intelligence Reform bill gave federal bureaucrats unprecedented new powers to force changes instate-issued driver's licenses -- including, possibly, the addition of computer chip technology that can facilitate the tracking of all U.S. citizens. Now, the House will be debating new legislation, H.R. 418, that was recently introduced by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI).

In considering this bill, the U.S. House will vote on whether to empower the federal government to determine who can get a driver's license --and under what conditions. Since you need a driver's license to purchase a gun from a dealer,this will give BATFE the expanded ability to impose even greater forms of gun control -- something which it has long coveted. This will become even more apparent if an anti-gun Democrat like Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2008. H.R. 418 is, unfortunately, supported by many Republicans who believe that repealing our liberties will somehow make us "secure."

But GOA joined a large coalition of citizen-activist organizations this weekin opposition to H.R. 418. In a letter to Congress, the coalition stated: "Standardization of driver's licenses has long been recognized as a bureaucratic back- door to implementation of a national ID card. With its required linking of databases and ability of the Secretary of Homeland Security to require a prescribed format, HR 418 takes us well along that road. Concerns are further heightened when the bill fails to even provide lip service to privacy concerns, and proposes to share all of our data on the driver's license database with Canada and Mexico."

Realizing government's tendency towards mission creep, no one should be surprised if this database grows to contain far more informationthan that which is relevant to driving. HR 418 requires that the database shall contain "at a minimum," all information contained on the driver's license as well as driving history. There is no limit to what other information may eventually be contained in the database -- something which should definitely concern gun owners. H.R. 418 is being touted as a way of cleaning up some of the problems with the law that was enacted last December. But this bill is still an attack on states' rights.

It still takes us down the road to aNational ID card. And it would still do nothing to keep real terrorists from operating in our country.

ACTION: Please contact your Representative and urge him or her tooppose H.R. 418. You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers arealso available).

Enemies of America

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:24:00 +0000

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have

attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It
would have been impossible for us to develop

our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and

prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely

preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

-David Rockefeller
Private Banker
Council on
Foreign Relations
June 1991

www.freedomtofascism.com

THE IRS LIES TO EMPLOYERS

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:09:00 +0000

HOW THE IRS LIES TO EMPLOYERS ABOUT WITHHOLDING

By: Devvy

December 4, 2003

NewsWithViews.com

"Truth is the first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Maese, 1809. ME 12:232

In my recent article on How The IRS Violates It's Own Code, the facts were carefully presented which definitively proved how the IRS deliberately lies and misleads Americans by unlawfully seizing (stealing) assets by circumventing the law.

This article will prove how the American worker and employer alike have been hoodwinked regarding the withholding process. The purpose behind this chicanery is not to benefit America, but to further enrich the coffers of the private banking cartel aka the Federal Reserve.

There is no need for an income tax, flat tax, sales tax or any other direct tax. All Americans are encouraged to look behind the curtain so that they might fully understand the grand plunder sucking the lifeblood out of our economy. See: http://www.devvy.com. Don't be fooled by this current illusion of a "booming economy." Debt is not prosperity.

Employers must withhold

So says the Great Deceivers, the Internal Revenue Service. Employers are routinely told that they must, under certain provisions of the tax code, withhold taxes of all sorts from an employee's paycheck. Funny thing though, when sincere Americans request that the IRS send its representatives to public seminars on this issue, the IRS is no where to be found.

Robert Schulz, Chairman of the Board of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., made a swing through 37 cities in April and May of 2003. Before he arrived at each destination, he sent, via certified mail, an invitation to both the IRS and U.S. Attorney's offices to come to his public seminars and correct him if he was giving out the wrong legal facts regarding withholding. What could be more reasonable?

In not one of those 37 cities did either DOJ or IRS send any representative, begging the question, "Why not?" Schulz is a man of honesty and integrity. His invitations to DOJ and IRS were sincere; his only desire was to be absolutely certain that the information he communicated to attendees was legally factual. Instead, he was met with the same usual arrogance in the form of silence. Why do you suppose that is?

Abracadabra, courtesy of the IRS

Lynda Wall is an expert in the field of withholding and has been assisting employers and employees alike for many years in understanding the law regarding this issue. We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc. will be holding our national convention in Washington, DC this coming January and Ms. Wall will give a two hour, comprehensive seminar that will firmly establish in anyone’s mind once and for all how the IRS lies to employers about this process and the lawful remedy.

According to Ms. Wall:

"The IRS will tell employers and employees that according to IRC section 3402(a)(1) of their code: ".......every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary."

"However, this is what the law really says: no (federal, state, city or county) municipal corporation shall levy or collect or cause to be levied or collected any tax upon the income, or any part thereof, of any person, resident or nonresident (also known as the "Full Paycheck Law"). Employers are prohibited from taking amounts from pay for federal or state taxes, fees or other charges absent the lawful, knowing, written consent of the employee.

"The Code of Federal Regulations clearly advises the employers at 26 CFR §31.3402(p)-1(a) "An employee who desires to enter into an agreement for withholding...shall furnish his employer with Form W-4 (or its equivalent) for withholding. The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding." Then, 31 CFR §215.2(n)(1) clearly tells the employers they cannot take amounts from the workers' pay for any form of State tax UNLESS the employee VOLUNTARILY elects to have such sums withheld.

"Consensual taking from pay occurs ONLY when an employee voluntarily elects in writing to volunteer to participate in any (federal, state, city or county) municipal corporate tax, program, insurance (disability, Medicare), trust (social security), including non-judicial tax levy, garnishment for taxes, tax offsets, tax interest or penalty and the employer consents such a request."

The fruits of your labor belong to you

Pursuant to 26 CFR §31.3402(p)-1(b)(2), either the employer or the employee may terminate the withholding agreement (W-4 or its equivalent) by furnishing a signed written notice to the other. An employer cannot lawfully take amounts from the worker's pay without the risk of being sued after the worker submits his/her written notice to terminate the withholding agreement (W-4 or its equivalent).

According to Ms. Wall, when the employer's tax professionals (CPA or attorney) are the ones negligently advising the company to convert and transmit the worker's property (pay), those incompetent tax professionals are at risk of being sued for negligence, malpractice and misfeasance. Sheds a whole new light on things, doesn't it?

State laws protect workers from non-consensual taking from pay without the worker's explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent. Only the worker or contractor/payee can make the determination whether or not he/she wants to volunteer to participate in government taxes, fees or other charges (i.e., social security trust contributions [FICA], social programs [Medicare], benefits [disability]) as well as non-judicial liens/levies, penalties and interest.

By all means, every employee and employer should go to the law library and verify the information above. It is accurate, it is factual and it is the law on the books. Don't take the word of the IRS for anything. Check the facts for yourself. Then sit down and have a heart to heart chat with your tax professional and find out why he/she doesn't know the law. After all, they're supposed to be the experts looking out for you, the client.

Unlawfully penalizing employers

The IRS threatens employers with huge fines if they don't withhold payroll taxes. Funny thing though, according to a September 15, 2003 letter from GAO (General Accounting Office) to Congressman Elton Gallegly regarding W-4’s and reporting, this little nugget of truth stands out:

"Under current law, IRS does not have statutory authority to impose a penalty to enforce employer compliance with the reporting requirement. The reporting requirement was promulgated in Treasury regulations."

How many employers has the IRS defrauded for untold millions of dollars in fines when in fact, they had no legal authority to impose or enforce such penalties and fines?

Tax cheats

The IRS likes to use a lot of rhetoric about "tax cheats" who won't "pay their fair share." When one lifts the curtain and exposes the lies and fraud being conducted every day by the IRS, one would venture to say that the real "tax cheats" are those who work for the IRS.

Employers are being fleeced to the tune of approximately 30% of their operating budget in "payroll deductions." The worker over a ten year period with $200 of taxes withheld each pay period, would get clipped for $104,000! For what? Certainly not to fund our military, social security or any other legitimate, authorized expenditure by Congress. Those expenditures are funded through borrowing by Congress. Debt is not prosperity.

The American workers and employers have been cheated long enough. If someone owns the fruits of your labor, stolen from you by deceptive and deceitful methods, then you are a slave. The withholding issue was sold under the guise of patriotism because the American people did not want this new taxing scheme back in 1942. Sixty-one years later, the American people still don't want this fleecing of the fruits of their labor which does not benefit them in any way. This process only encourages addictive over spending by Congress and more borrowing from the central bank. Again, debt is not prosperity.

We the people have two choices: You can either stay on your knees to this tyranny or you can get the facts and then enforce your rights using the law.

What future will you pass on to your children and grand babies? Freedom or indentured servitude?

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Help Us Keep You Informed

Devvy Kidd is the Executive Director of We the People Congress, Inc., based in Annapolis, Maryland; WTPC is an affiliate of We the People Foundation. Devvy is a contributing writer for www.NewsWithViews.com Devvy's web site is: www.devvy.com E-Mail: devvyk@earthlink.net

Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 06:54:00 +0000

Self-Reliance For Self-Defense -- Police Protection Isn't Enough!

by Peter Kasler

All our lives, especially during our younger years, we hear that the police are there to protect us. From the very first kindergarten- class visit of "Officer Friendly" to the very last time we saw a police car - most of which have "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned on their doors - we're encouraged to give ourselves over to police protection. But it hasn't always been that way.

Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens - even in large cities - were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded "standing army."

England's first police force, in London, was not instituted until 1827. The first such forces in America followed in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia during the period between 1835 and 1845. They were established only to augment citizen self-protection. It was never intended that they act affirmatively, prior to or during criminal activity or violence against individual citizens. Their duty was to protect society as a whole by deterrence; i.e., by systematically patrolling, detecting and apprehending criminals after the occurrence of crimes. There was no thought of police displacing the citizens' right of self-protection. Nor could they, even if it were intended.

Professor Don B. Kates, Jr., eminent civil rights lawyer and criminologist, states:

Even if all 500,000 American police officers were assigned to patrol, they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when and where to strike. But we have nothing like 500,000 patrol officers; to determine how many police are actually available for any one shift, we must divide the 500,000 by four (three shifts per day, plus officers who have days off, are on sick leave, etc.). The resulting number must be cut in half to account for officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic, etc., rather than patrol. [1]

Such facts are underscored by the practical reality of today's society. Police and Sheriff's departments are feeling the financial exigencies of our times, and that translates directly to a reduction of services, e.g., even less protection. For example, one moderate day recently (September 23, 1991) the San Francisco Police Department "dropped" [2] 157 calls to its 911 facility, and about 1,000 calls to its general telephone number (415-553-0123). An SFPD dispatcher said that 150 dropped 911 calls, and 1,000 dropped general number calls, are about average on any given day. [3]

It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.

Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. [6] Frequently these cases are based on an alleged "special relationship" between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," [7] but failed to remove him from his father's custody.

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf." [8]

About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. [9] Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship" existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship" to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable.

A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch [10] very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.

Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."

It is painfully clear that the police cannot be relied upon to protect us. Thus far we've seen that they have no duty to do so. And we've also seen that even if they did have a duty to protect us, practically- speaking they could not fulfill it with sufficient certainty that we would want to bet our lives on it.

Now it's time to take off the gloves, so to speak, and get down to reality. So the police aren't duty-bound to protect us, and they can't be expected to protect us even if they want to. Does that mean that they won't protect us if they have the opportunity?

One of the leading cases on this point dates way back into the 1950s. [11] A certain Ms. Riss was being harassed by a former boyfriend, in a familiar pattern of increasingly violent threats. She went to the police for help many times, but was always rebuffed. Desperate because she could not get police protection, she applied for a gun permit, but was refused that as well. On the eve of her engagement party she and her mother went to the police one last time pleading for protection against what they were certain was a serious and dangerous threat. And one last time the police refused. As she was leaving the party, her former boyfriend threw acid in her face, blinding and permanently disfiguring her.

Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful. The lone dissenting justice of New York's high court wrote in his opinion: "What makes the City's position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." [12]

Instances of police refusing to protect someone in grave danger, who is urgently requesting help, are becoming disturbingly more common. In 1988, Lisa Bianco's violently abusive husband was finally in jail for beating and kidnapping her, after having victimized her for years. Ms. Bianco was somewhat comforted by the facts that he was supposedly serving a seven-year sentence, and she had been promised by the authorities that she'd be notified well in advance of his release. Nevertheless, after being in only a short time, he was temporarily released on an eight-hour pass, and she wasn't notified. He went directly to her house and, in front of their 6- and 10- year old daughters, beat Lisa Bianco to death.

In 1989, in a suburb of Los Angeles, Maria Navarro called the L. A. County Sheriff's 911 emergency line asking for help. It was her birthday and there was a party at her house, but her estranged husband, against whom she had had a restraining order, said he was coming over to kill her. She believed him, but got no sympathy from the 911 dispatcher, who said: "What do you want us to do lady, send a car to sit outside your house?" Less than half an hour after Maria hung up in frustration, one of her guests called the same 911 line and informed the dispatcher that the husband was there and had already killed Maria and one other guest. Before the cops arrived, he had killed another.

But certainly no cop would stand by and do nothing while someone was being violently victimized. Or would they? In Freeman v. Ferguson [13] a police chief directed his officers not to enforce a restraining order against a woman's estranged husband because the man was a friend of the chief's. The man subsequently killed the woman and her daughter. Perhaps such a specific case is an anomaly, but more instances of general abuses aren't at all rare.

In one such typical case [14] , a woman and her son were harassed, threatened and assaulted by her estranged husband, all in violation of his probation and a restraining order. Despite numerous requests for police protection, the police did nothing because "the police department used an administrative classification that resulted in police protection being fully provided to persons abused by someone with whom the victim has no domestic relationship, but less protection when the victim is either: 1) a woman abused or assaulted by a spouse or boyfriend, or 2) a child abused by a father or stepfather." [15]

In a much more recent case, [16] a woman claimed she was injured because the police refused to make an arrest following a domestic violence call. She claimed their refusal to arrest was due to a city policy of gender- based discrimination. In that case the U. S. District Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that "no constitutional violation [occurred] when the most that can be said of the police is that they stood by and did nothing..." [17]

Do the police really harbor such indifference to the plight of certain victims? To answer that, let's leave the somewhat aloof and dispassionate world of legal precedent and move into the more easily understood "real world." I can state from considerable personal experience, unequivocally, that these things do happen. As to why they occur, I can offer only my opinion based on that experience and on additional research into the dark and murky areas of criminal sociopathy and police abuse.

One client of my partner's and mine had a restraining order against her violently abusive estranged husband. He had recently beaten her so savagely a metal plate had to be implanted in her jaw. Over and over he violated the court order, sometimes thirty times daily. He repeatedly threatened to kill her and those of use helping her. But the cops refused to arrest him for violating the order, even though they'd witnessed him doing so more than once. They danced around all over the place trying to explain why they wouldn't enforce the order, including inventing numerous absurd excuses about having lost her file (a common tactic in these cases). It finally came to light that there was a departmental order to not arrest anyone in that county for violating a protective order because the county had recently been sued by an irate (and wealthy) domestic violence arrestee.

In another of our cases, when Peggi and I served the man with restraining orders (something we're often required to do because various law enforcement agencies can't or won't do it), he threatened there and then to kill our client. Due to the vigorous nature of the threat, we went immediately to the police department to get it on file in case he attempted to carry it out during the few days before the upcoming court appearance. We spent hours filing the report, but two days later when our client went to the police department for a copy to take to court, she was told there was no record of her, her restraining order, her case, or our report.

She called in a panic. Without that report it would be more difficult securing a permanent restraining order against him. I paid an immediate visit to the chief of that department. We discussed the situation and I suggested various options, including dragging the officer to whom Peggi and I had given the detailed death threat report into court to explain under oath how it had gotten lost. In mere moments, an internal affairs officer was assigned to investigate and, while I waited, they miraculously produced the file and our report. I was even telephoned later and offered an effusive apology by various members of the department.

It is true that in the real world, law enforcement authorities very often do perpetuate the victimization. It is also true that each of us is the only person upon whom we can absolutely rely to avoid victimization. If our client in the last anecdote hadn't taken responsibility for her own fate, she might never have survived the ordeal. But she had sufficient resolve to fend for herself. Realizing the police couldn't or wouldn't help her, she contacted us. Then, when the police tried their bureaucratic shuffle on her, she called me. But for her determination to be a victim no more, and to take responsibility for her own destiny, she might have joined the countless others victimized first by criminals, then by the very system they expect will protect them.

Remember, even if the police were obligated to protect us (which they aren't), or even if they tried to protect us (which they often don't, a fact brought home to millions nationwide as they watched in horror the recent events in Los Angeles), most often there wouldn't be time enough for them to do it. It's about time that we came to grips with that, and resolved never to abdicate responsibility for our personal safety, and that of our loved ones, to anyone else.

COPYRIGHT - 1992 - Peter Alan Kasler

Related Footnote:

After ordering Darrow against the car and searching him, Sergeant Kuehnlein released the motorist. Update: Website used by Saint Louis police contained threats of harassment and bodily harm against Darrow in June.

View video of incident below. Warning: Police officer uses graphic language.

A young Saint Louis, Missouri motorist faces trouble with local police upset at the national attention his September 7 video of an out-of-control officer has drawn to ongoing problems within area law enforcement agencies. On Sunday, Brett Darrow filmed a Saint Louis Metropolitan Police Department cruiser staking out his home.

Project For a New American Century

THEY WANT YOUR SOUL !

Know your Liberty, and be responsible for it !

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Joe) — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 08:13:00 +0000

Bandwidth courtesy of Freedom-Fight.net

Technorati Profile

Unconstitutional Constitution

Fluoride In Food

the manifesting beast

Who owns You? are you sure...

So, what act of terror do your handlers plan for us this time W?

ARMed with knowledge

Where are Ed and Elaine Brown - Tax Honesty Patriots

Killing No Child Left Behind

Real ID No Need

Briefcase Sized DNA Analysis System

Why?

We Honor : Arron Russo - A Great American Patriot

Awakened Filter

Got Milk

rBST / rBGH - Banned outside the United States

The sale of Posilac is illegal in virtually every developed country with the exception of the United States. [27] In the United States, the use of rbST has been approved by the FDA.

Your vote means Nothing!

Your vote means Nothing!

Your vote means Nothing!

Your vote means Nothing!

Voter Fraud – Paperless trackless voter machine transactions are hacked via internal modem. The Motor Voter Act has been a large contributor of those oversights in illegally registered voters.

These machines have been setup for all future voting activities: included within the voter registrar are pets, the dead, and felons and also convicted murderers all have been found as registered voters, using these trackless voting machines.

Your vote means Nothing!

Your vote means Nothing!

Your vote means Nothing!

Constitutional Terrorists

MEDIA - intimidating sound bite

The REAL ID Act - bad for 2nd Amendment

Enemies of America

THE IRS LIES TO EMPLOYERS

Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals

Know your Liberty, and be responsible for it !

The sale of Posilac is illegal in virtually every developed country with the exception of the United States. ^[27] In the United States, the use of rbST has been approved by the FDA.