Dee Finney's blog
start date July 20, 2011
today's date August 18, 2013
updated October, 2013
TOPIC: OMNIPHORISM - AN INVITATION
NOTE FROM DEE: THIS PAGE CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF A STRANGE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH OCCURRED ABOUT 9 a.m. THIS MORNING.
I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM A DEAR FRIEND OF MINE WHO ASKED IF I KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT ANIMAL BEHAVIOR.
I RESPONDED THAT I HAD HEARD THAT ALL ANIMALS BEHAVE AS IF ITS NOW AND SHE GAVE ME A LIST OF ANIMAL BEHAVIORS PROVING THAT ANIMALS HAVE LONG MEMORIES AND HOLD GRUDGES LONG TERM AS WELL. THEY ALSO PLAN THINGS IN ADVANCE.
SHE THEN DESCRIBED WHAT ONE OF HER AGED DOGS WAS DOING. THIS DOG IS 13 YEARS OLD, MOSTLY BLIND AND MOSTLY DEAF.
THIS MORNING, THIS MOSTLY BLIND, MOSTLY DEAF DOG WAS WALKING CLOCKWISE AROUND HER KITCHEN TABLE, WALKING INTO THE LIVING ROOM AND STANDING MOMENTARILY, THEN GOING BACK INTO THE KITCHEN, WALKING AROUND THE KITCHEN TABLE CLOCKWISE, AND THEN GOING BACK INTO THE LIVING ROOM AND THE DOG MADE THIS JOURNEY ABOUT 25 TO 30 TIMES WITHOUT STOPPING.
THIS PARTICULAR DOG'S DAILY HABIT IS TO GO OUTSIDE AND PEE, COME BACK IN AND EAT A BIT, AND THEN SPEND THE ENTIRE DAY UNDER HER DAUGHTER'S BED UNTIL IT WAS TIME TO PEE AND EAT AGAIN.
MY FRIEND AND I DID NOT COME TO ANY CONCLUSION EXCEPT WE BOTH THOUGHT IT WAS POSSIBLE THIS DOG EXPECTED SOMETHING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE IT COULDN'T ELUCIDATE TO IT'S HUMAN COMPANIONS.
WE HUNG UP OUR MUTUAL PHONES, HAVING REACHED NO CONCLUSION TO THE DOGGIE BEHAVIOR AND BECAUSE I WAS SITTING IN MY MEDITATION CHAIR, I JUST LEANED MY HEAD BACK AND CLOSED MY EYES.
IN THAT EXACT MOMENT, I HAD A VISION:
I SAW A #10 ENVELOPE THAT WAS NOT ADDRESSED TO ANYONE IN PARTICULAR. IT HAD A BRIGHT BLUE-ISH SILVER STRIPE ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE ENVELOPE WHICH WAS BEAUTIFUL TO BEHOLD.
AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS ENVELOPE WERE TWO OPENINGS WITH GOLD LABELS THAT COULD BE PULLED OFF INDIVIDUALLY AND IN FRONT OF THE GOLD LABEL - IT SAID: INVITATION $6 AND UNDERNEATH IT SAID" INVITATION $6
I THOUGHT THAT WAS STRANGE, TO BE INVITED TO SOMETHING AND HAVE TO PAY $6 TO ATTEND.
I THEN TURNED THE ENVELOPE OVER AND IN HUGE LETTERS ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE ENVELOPE, IT SAID:
O M N I P H O R I S M
IT WAS MUCH LARGER THAN THAT, BUT I DON'T HAVE A TEXT SIZE ANY LARGER THAN THAT TO SHOW YOU.
BELOW THAT WAS A SMALL BOX LISTING 6 ITEMS IN THE PROGRAM WE WERE BEING INVITED TO THAT WE HAD TO PAY $6 IN ORDER TO ATTEND.
I COULDN'T READ ALL THE ITEMS, BUT THE TOP ONE WAS CLEARLY
I ASSUME THE OTHER ITEMS WERE RELATED TO THAT TERM.
OMNIPHORISM WOULD MEAN 'MANY' APHORISMS.
1. A tersely phrased statement of a truth or opinion. Adjective: aphoristic.
2. A brief statement of a principle.
10-3-13 - MEDITATION: I was watching the Jim Bakker show on TV, and Jim stopped reading from the Bible and said he knew that some people were watching the show and mocking God. Two other people on the show started talking about things that happened to them when they were younger and doing drugs, etc.
Jim began preaching about how much God loves them.
My eyes got really tired so I closed them, and I saw in a VISION - a half wall in front of me, and sticking out from the top of the wall, floating in the air was the word INSURRECTION!
NOTE: On 10-8-13 - in Washington DC, truckers decided to clog the highways in protest of the government shutdown.
"We want these people arrested, and we're coming in with the grand jury to do it," Conlon told U.S. News. "We are going to ask the law enforcement to uphold their constitutional oath and make these arrests. If they refuse to do it, by the power of the people of the United States and the people's grand jury, they don't want to do it, we will. ... We the people will find a way."
NOTE: On 10-6-13 - in Cairo Egypt, it began:
A riot police officer fires tear gas during clashes between
anti-Mursi protesters, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood and
ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi supporters, along a road
at Ramsis square, which leads to Tahrir Square, at a celebration
marking Egypt's 1973 war with Israel, in Cairo October 6, 2013.
At least 28 people were killed and more than 90 wounded in
clashes during protests in Egypt on Sunday, security sources and
state media said, as the crisis since the army seized power
three months ago showed no sign of abating.
Credit: Reuters/Amr Abdallah Dalsh (EGYPT - Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST)
(Reuters) - At least 51 people were killed in clashes in Egyptian cities on Sunday, security sources said, after opponents and supporters of deposed president Mohamad Mursi took to the streets in one of the bloodiest days since the army seized power.
In a sign of more possible violence to come, an alliance including Mursi's Muslim Brotherhood urged Egyptians to protest from Tuesday and gather on Cairo's Tahrir Square on Friday, declaring: "No one will stop us from (Tahrir) no matter what the sacrifices".
riot police officer, on a armoured personnel carrier
surrounded by anti-Mursi protesters (foreground), fires
rubber bullets at members of the Muslim Brotherhood and
supporters of ousted Egyptian
President Mohamad Mursi
Credit: REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh
Egypt has been gripped by turmoil since the army ousted Mursi on July 3 after mass protests against his rule, prompting his Muslim Brotherhood to demonstrate in the streets.
On August 14, the military-backed authorities smashed two pro-Mursi sit-ins in Cairo, with hundreds of deaths, and then declared a state of emergency and imposed a curfew. Many of the Brotherhood's leaders have been arrested since.
At Ibn Sina hospital in the Mohandiseen district of Cairo, a Reuters reporter saw eight bodies shrouded in blue and white sheets among pools of blood.
"The Interior Ministry and the army killed my son," screamed Sabah el-Sayed, mother of Rami Imam, 29, stroking his leg. Imam's father said his son had been heading home from work when he got caught up in the clashes.
Abdelrahman al-Tantawi, a medic who brought Imam to the hospital, said he had seen police and army firing from a bridge at pro-Brotherhood demonstrators.
He said Imam had a bullet wound in his back. Reuters could not independently verify that account.
Authorities had warned on Saturday that anyone who protested against the army during ceremonies marking the anniversary of an attack on Israeli forces during the 1973 war would be regarded as an agent of foreign powers, not an activist.
The Interior Ministry, which said it had arrested 423 people, described the clashes as an attempt by the Muslim Brotherhood to "ruin the celebrations and cause friction with the masses". Scores of people were reported wounded.
In a speech at a late night ceremony, army chief General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the man who toppled Mursi, said: There are a lot of people who think Egypt's army can be broken. Egypt's army is like a pyramid but it is a pyramid because the people of Egypt support it."
Protesters had been heading towards Tahrir Square, the rallying point for the popular uprising that toppled autocrat Hosni Mubarak in 2011, security sources said.
The military often accuses the Brotherhood of inciting violence during protests, accusations it denies.
The state news agency reported that during clashes in the Nile Delta province of Qulubiya, authorities arrested 25 members of the Brotherhood who had 51 hand grenades.
A Brotherhood member was killed and at least two were wounded when marchers clashed with police in the town of Delga, 300 km (190 miles) south of Cairo, security and medical sources said.
The Brotherhood says it is opposed to the violent methods of other Islamist groups. Attacks by militants on police and soldiers in the Sinai Peninsula have increased sharply since Mursi was toppled.
Fears are growing that an Islamist insurgency will take hold outside Sinai in other parts of Egypt. A Sinai-based militant group inspired by al Qaeda said it tried to kill the interior minister in a suicide bombing in Cairo last month.
Protesters chanted "The coup is terrorism" and "Sisi is a killer".
The Brotherhood's political wing, the Freedom and Justice Party, said it held Sisi and the Interior Ministry responsible for Sunday's deaths.
"We call on all human rights organizations to condemn the crimes committed today. We call for an international investigation into the crimes of today," it said in a statement.
Cairo's Dokki district was littered with rocks and thick with tear gas. Security forces fired into the air in the capital and Egypt's second city, Alexandria, witnesses said.
Thousands of members of the Brotherhood, which was recently banned, reached within five city blocks of Tahrir Square - the rallying point for protesters during the revolt that toppled Mubarak.
Police fired tear gas and beat protesters to keep them away from the square, where people were gathering for the celebrations to commemorate the 1973 fighting.
Fighter jets roared overhead and military helicopters trailed Egyptian flags, as they did during the unrest that led to Mursi's overthrow.
Sisi has promised a political road map would bring free and fair elections and stability to Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood has rejected the political transition plan, saying the army-backed government installed by Sisi is illegitimate.
The Brotherhood, Egypt's oldest and most influential Islamist group, won every election after Mubarak's fall but grew increasingly unpopular during Mursi's rule. Many Egyptians accused him of trying to acquire sweeping powers and mismanaging the economy. He denied the accusations.
The Brotherhood accuses the army of sabotaging democracy by ousting Mursi, the first freely-elected president in Egypt, a U.S. ally which has a peace treaty with Israel and controls the Suez Canal, a vital global trade route.
The military says it was responding to the will of the people. "We are answerable to God and to you Egyptians for the mandate (by the) Egyptian people towards the army and police to preserve Egypt," said Sisi.
(Additional reporting by Yasmine Saleh, Maggie Fick,
Hadeel Al Shalchi and Omar Fahmy; Writing by Michael
Editing by Ralph Boulton and Christopher Wilson)
Egypt: at least 51 protesters killed as rival factions tear Cairo apart Opposing rallies to commemorate Egypt's participation in 1973 Yom Kippur war flare into day of violence across the country.
Lt. Commander Data was taking part in an operation the Federation has with a race known as the Son'a to observe another race known as the Ba'ku. They are wearing stealth suits so that the Ba'ku cannot see them. But suddenly, Data rips off his stealth suit, reveals himself and exposes everyone. Picard is them contacted by Admiral Dougherty who tells Picard that Data has to be stopped even if it means destroying him. Picard requests permission to try and stop him without doing that, he succeeds. He then tries to find out what happened to Data. That's when they discover a plot by the Son'a and the Federation to remove the Ba'ku from the planet because they want to tap the radiation being emitted by the nearby planet's rings which have regenerative properties. Picard then airs his objections to Dougherty who tells him that everything they are doing is within the Federation guidelines. That's when Picard steps down as Captain and decides to help the Ba'ku. Data, Crusher, Worf and Troi join him, while Riker and LaForge try to get the Federation to reconsider. When Ru'afo, the leader of the Son'a, learns of what Picard is doing, he decides to remove the Ba'ku even if it means eliminating them. Written by firstname.lastname@example.org
While on a mission to observe the peaceful Ba'ku race, Lt. Commander Data suddenly malfunctions, revealing himself and exposes a Starfleet task force assigned there. The immortal Ba'ku live in harmony with nature and reject advanced technology in their daily lives. Their planet and their culture is secretly researched by the Federation associated with an alien race called the Son'a. When the Son'a--and forces within Starfleet--attempt to take over the planet that has "magical" properties, it falls upon Captain Picard and the crew of the Enterprise-E to defend the Ba'ku as well as the very ideals upon which the Federation itself was founded. Written by Jack Witzig <email@example.com>
Lt. Commander Data, on a mission to observe the Ba'ku race, suddenly behaves as if having to fear for his existence. The peaceful Ba'ku, whose planet offers regenerative radiation and therefore incredible lifespans, live in harmony with nature and reject any kind of technology. Their planet and their culture is researched by Starfleet and the associated Son'a - in secrecy. But the Son'a, lead by Ru'afo, intend to abduct the Ba'ku in order to take the planet for themselves and for the Starfleet officials who all would like to regenerate their bodies. But they did not think of the loyalty of Captain Picard and the crew of the Enterprise-E to the Prime Directive. Written by Julian Reischl <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Engage! Captain Jean-Luc Picard and his Next Generation crew are back. From the beginning of the Federation, the Prime Directive was clear: no Starfleet expedition may interfere with the natural development of other civilizations. But now Picard is confronted with orders that undermine that decree. If he obeys, 600 peaceful residents of Ba'ku will be forcibly removed from their remarkable world, all for the reportedly greater good of millions who will benefit from the Ba'ku's Fountain of Youth-like powers. If he disobeys, he will risk his starship, his career, his life. But for Picard, there's really only one choice. He must rebel against Starfleet... and lead the insurrection to preserve Paradise. Written by Robert Lynch <email@example.com>
The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the set of laws that govern the ability of the President of the United States to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in 10 U.S.C. § 331 - 10 U.S.C. § 335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed.
The entire text of the Posse Comitatus Act, as amended in 1956, is as follows:
On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). Section 1076 of the law changed Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."
The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate. For military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:
The original wording of the Act required the conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, to be met as the result of
The new wording of the Act, as amended, still requires the same conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, but those conditions could, after the changes, also be a result of
and only if
Congress was granted the right to be informed immediately and every 14 days thereafter during the exercise of federal authority under these conditions.
Below is a comparison between the previous and current wording of
10 U.S.C. § 331
10 U.S.C. § 335
with new or revised sections and wording in bold and deleted wording
strikethrough. (with the exception of paragraph and formatting
|Original Insurrection Act of 1807||As amended by 2007 Defense Appropriations Bill|
§ 331. Federal aid for State governments
Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.
§ 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
§ 333. Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
§ 333. Major public emergencies;
(a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.--
(b) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.--
The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of the authority.
§ 334. Proclamation to disperse
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.
§ 334. Proclamation to disperse
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.
§ 335. Guam and Virgin Islands included as "State"
For purposes of this chapter, the term "State" includes the unincorporated territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands.
No change; words "or possession" added after each instance of "State" in § 333.
On February 7, 2007, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) introduced legislation that would revert the Insurrection Act to its previous state. Sen. Leahy argues that the modifications to the law make it unnecessarily easy to assert federal authority over national guard elements without the consent of governors, and that the changes removed a "useful friction" that existed between the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act.
Senator Leahy remarked on September 19, 2006 "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. It creates needless tension among the various levels of government – one can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."
No mention of Section 1076 was made in the President's statement about H.R. 5122. While this section was in effect, it allowed the President to declare a public emergency and station the military anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities.
Criticism in 1997 of weakening the PCA (Posse Comitatus Act) and using the federal military for domestic conditions charged that it endangered the military and the U.S.:
The PCA's exceptions-in-name and exceptions-in-fact endanger the military and the United States by blurring the traditional line between military and civilian roles, undermining civilian control of the military, damaging military readiness, and providing the wrong tool for the job. Besides the current drug interdiction exceptions, the 104th Congress considered two bills to create new exceptions to the PCA. The Border Integrity Act would have created an exception to allow direct military enforcement of immigration and customs laws in border areas. The Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act would have allowed military involvement in investigations of chemical and biological weapons. [...] Increasing direct military involvement in law enforcement through border policing—an exception-in-fact—is an easy case against which to argue. Investigative support—an exception-in-name—is passive, indirect enforcement. Drug interdiction—an exception-in-name for the most part—falls between border policing and investigative support because of the extensive military involvement.
This case was also argued by the Departments of Justice and Defense in 1979:
The [PCA] expresses one of the clearest political traditions in Anglo-American history: that using military power to enforce the civilian law is harmful to both civilian and military interests. The authors of the [PCA] drew upon a melancholy history of military rule for evidence that even the best intentioned use of the Armed Forces to govern the civil population may lead to unfortunate consequences. They knew, moreover, that military involvement in civilian affairs consumed resources needed for national defense and drew the Armed Forces into political and legal quarrels that could only harm their ability to defend the country. Accordingly, they intended that the Armed Forces be used in law enforcement only in those serious cases to which the ordinary processes of civilian law were incapable of responding.
These changes were repealed in their entirety in 2008.
SEC. 1068. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS IN SECTION 1076 OF PUBLIC LAW 109–364 RELATING TO USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES. (a) INTERFERENCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: ‘‘§ 333. Interference with State and Federal law ‘‘The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it— ‘‘(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or ‘‘(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.’’. (2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE.—Section 334 of such title is amended by striking ‘‘or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws’’ after ‘‘insurgents’’. (3) HEADING AMENDMENT.—The heading
|Wikisource has original text related to this article:|
Let me explain, gun grabbers, how your confiscatory fantasy plays out. Let us imagine for a moment that a sweeping gun control bill similar to the one currently suggested is passed by the House and Senate, and signed into law by a contemptuous President.
Perhaps 50-100 million firearms currently owned by law-abiding citizens will become contraband with the stroke of a pen. Citizens will either register their firearms, or turn them in to agents of the federal government, or risk becoming criminals themselves. Faced with this choice, millions will indeed register their arms. Perhaps as many will claim they’ve sold their arms, or had them stolen. Suppose that as many as 200-250 million weapons of other types will go unregistered.
Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment. Among the most ardent opposing these measures will be military veterans, active duty servicemen, and local law enforcement officers. Many of these individuals will refuse to carry out what they view as Constitutionally illegal orders. Perhaps 40-50 million citizens will view such a law as treason. Perhaps ten percent of those, 4-5 million, would support a rebellion in some way, and maybe 40,000-100,000 Americans will form small independently-functioning active resistance cells, or become lone-wolves.
They will be leaderless, stateless, difficult to track, and considering the number of military veterans that would likely be among their number, extremely skilled at sabotage, assassination, and ambush.
After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more will invariably end “badly.” Whether innocents are gunned down, a city block is burned to ash, or especially fierce resistance leads to a disastrously failed raid doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that when illusion of the government’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters will become the hunted.
Unnamed citizens and federal agents will be the first to die, and they will die by the dozens and maybe hundreds, but famous politicians will soon join them in a spate of revenge killings, many of which will go unsolved.
Ironically, while the gun grab was intended to keep citizens from preserving their liberties with medium-powered weapons, it completely ignored the longer-ranged rifles perfect for shooting at ranges far beyond what a security detail can protect, and suppressed .22LR weapons proven deadly in urban sniping in Europe and Asia.
While the Secret Service will be able to protect the President in the White House, he will not dare leave his gilded cage except in carefully controlled circumstances. Even then he will be forced to move like a criminal. He will never be seen outdoors in public again. Not in this country.
The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they can not be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic.
You can expect congressional staffs to disintegrate with just a few shootings, and expect elected officials themselves to resign well before a quarter of their number are eliminated, leaving us with a boxed-in executive, his cabinet loyalists trapped in the same win, die, or flee the country circumstance, military regime loyalists, and whatever State Governors who desire to risk their necks as well.
Here, the President will doubtlessly order the activation of National Guard units and the regular military to impose martial law, setting the largest and most powerful military in the world against its own people. Unfortunately, the tighter the President clinches his tyrannical fist, the more rebels he makes.
Military commands and federal agencies will be whittled down as servicemen and agents will desert or defect. Some may leave as individuals, others may join the Rebellion in squad and larger-sized units with all their weapons, tactics, skills, and insider intelligence. The regime will be unable to trust its own people, and because they cannot trust them, they will lose more in a vicious cycle of collapse.
Some of these defectors will be true “operators,” with the skills and background to turn ragtag militia cells into the kind of forces that decimate loyalist troops, allowing them no rest and no respite, striking them when they are away from their most potent weapons. Military vehicles are formidable, but they are thirsty beasts, in terms of fuel, ammo, time, and maintenance. Tanks and bombers are formidable only when they have gas, guns, and can be maintained. In a war without a front, logistics are incredibly easy to destroy, and mechanics and supply clerks are not particularly adept at defending themselves.
Eventually, the government will turn upon itself. The President will be captured or perhaps killed by his own protectors. A dictatorship will form in the vacuum.
If we’re lucky, the United States of America, or whatever amalgam results, will again try to rebuild. If we’re very lucky, the victors will reinstate the Constitution as the law of the land. Just as likely though, we’ll face fractious civil wars fought over issues we’ve not begun to fathom, and a much diminished state or states will result, perhaps guided by foreign interests.
It will not be pretty. There will be no “winners,” and perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of dead.
Yet, this is the future we face if the power-mad among us are not soundly defeated at the ballot box before they affect more “change” than we, the People, are willing to surrender to would-be tyrants.
[author's note: This article is just one of an evolving series of posts reacting to current events that many are interpreting as possible threats to our Republic and the Constitution. Please proceed to the main page to keep up to date. Thank you.]
CLINT EASTWOOD'S SPEECH TO THE RNC CONVENTION: AUGUST 30, 2012
HE WAS SPEAKING TO AN EMPTY CHAIR TO THE SIDE OF HIM:
The following is a transcript of actor Clint Eastwood's speech at the Republican National Convention on Aug. 30, 2012.
EASTWOOD: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you
very much. Save a little for Mitt.
I know what you are thinking. You are thinking, what's a
movie tradesman doing out here? You know they are all left
wingers out there, left of Lenin. At least that is what people
think. That is not really the case. There are a lot of
conservative people, a lot of moderate people, Republicans,
Democrats, in Hollywood. It is just that the conservative
people by the nature of the word itself play closer to the vest.
They do not go around hot dogging it.
So -- but they are there, believe me, they are there. I
just think, in fact, some of them around town, I saw John Voigt,
a lot of people around.
John's here, an academy award winner. A terrific guy.
These people are all like-minded, like all of us.
So I -- so I've got Mr. Obama sitting here. And he's -- I
was going to ask him a couple of questions. But -- you know
about -- I remember three and a half years ago, when Mr. Obama
won the election. And though I was not a big supporter, I was
watching that night when he was having that thing and they were
talking about hope and change and they were talking about, yes
we can, and it was dark outdoors, and it was nice, and people
were lighting candles.
They were saying, I just thought, this was great.
Everybody is trying, Oprah was crying.
I was even crying. And then finally -- and I
cried that hard since I found out that there is 23 million
people in this country.
Now that is something to cry for because that is a
national disgrace, and we haven't done enough, obviously -- this
administration hasn't done enough to cure that. Whenever
they have is not strong enough, and I think possibly now it may
time for somebody else to come along and solve the problem.
So, Mr. President, how do you handle promises that you have
when you were running for election, and how do you handle them?
I mean, what do you say to people? Do you just -- you know
know -- people were wondering -- you don't -- handle that OK.
know even people in your own party were very disappointed when
didn't close Gitmo. And I thought, well closing Gitmo -- why
that, we spent so much money on it. But, I thought maybe as an
-- what do you mean shut up?
OK, I thought maybe it was just because somebody had the
idea of trying terrorists in downtown New York City.
I've got to to hand it to you. I have to give credit where
credit is due. You did finally overrule that finally. And
now we are moving onward. I know you were against the war in
and that's okay. But you thought the war in Afghanistan was OK.
know, I mean -- you thought that was something worth doing. We
check with the Russians to see how did it -- they did there for
But we did it, and it is something to be thought about, and
think that, when we get to maybe -- I think you've mentioned
something about having a target date for bringing everybody
gave that target date, and I think Mr. Romney asked the only
question, you know, he says, ``Why are you giving the date out
Why don't you just bring them home tomorrow morning?''
And I thought -- I thought, yeah -- I am not going to shut
is my turn.
So anyway, we're going to have -- we're going to have to
little chat about that. And then, I just wondered, all these
-- I wondered about when the -- what do you want me to tell
can't tell him to do that. I can't tell him to do that to
You're crazy, you're absolutely crazy. You're getting as
Of course we all now Biden is the intellect of the
Kind of a grin with a body behind it.
But I just think that there is so much to be done, and I
that Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are two guys that can come along.
never thought it was a good idea for attorneys to the president,
I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they're always
to argue everything, and always weight everything -- weigh both
XXX I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they're
always taught to argue everything, always weigh everything,
weigh both sides.
EASTWOOD: They are always devil's advocating this and
bifurcating this and bifurcating that. You know all that stuff.
But, I think it is maybe time -- what do you think -- for maybe
a businessman. How about that?
A stellar businessman. Quote, unquote, ``a stellar
And I think it's that time. And I think if you just step
aside and Mr. Romney can kind of take over. You can maybe still
use a plane.
Though maybe a smaller one. Not that big gas guzzler you
are going around to colleges and talking about student loans and
stuff like that.
You are an -- an ecological man. Why would you want to
drive that around?
OK, well anyway. All right, I'm sorry. I can't do that to
I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen.
Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we
-- we own this country.
We -- we own it. It is not you owning it, and not
politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours.
And -- so -- they are just going to come around and beg
for votes every few years. It is the same old deal. But I just
think it is important that you realize , that you're the best in
the world. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican or whether
you're libertarian or whatever, you are the best. And we should
not ever forget that. And when somebody does not do the job, we
got to let them go.
Okay, just remember that. And I'm speaking out for
everybody out there. It doesn't hurt, we don't have to be
(AUDIENCE MEMBER): (inaudible)
I do not say that word anymore. Well, maybe one last time.
We don't have to be -- what I'm saying, we do not have to
be metal (ph) masochists and vote for somebody that we don't
really even want in office just because they seem to be nice
guys or maybe not so nice guys, if you look at some of the
recent ads going out there, I don't know.
But OK. You want to make my day?
All right. I started, you finish it. Go ahead.
AUDIENCE: Make my day!
EASTWOOD: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Aug 30, 2012 ... Mitt Romney probably hoped that surprise guest Clint Eastwood would make his day at the convention. Instead, the 82-year-old actor gave a speech to an empty chair next to him....
Warnings of insurrection in America
Attention all Americans, we are anonymous. In early December of 2012, a crazy person in Connecticut went to a school and killed 20 schoolchildren and a number of adults.
The attack in a theater in Colorado was the act of a crazy person. There are always some crazy people, and there are already laws in place making it illegal for them to obtain or use guns. It is illegal to take a gun into a school or theater. It is illegal to kill people. Yet these laws did not stop these events, because criminals do not obey the law. Only law-abiding citizens obey the law, and the law-abiding citizens are not the problem./p>
Connecticut is the 4th highest gun control state in the country, and it’s
very hard to get a gun.
Chicago and New York have the highest crime rates and both have had total gun bans for years, yet gun violence increased.
Mexico has a total gun ban for all citizens, but in the last three years, more than 55,000 people have been killed by guns, because only the drug cartels and criminal government have them.
Throughout history, authoritarian governments have used gun violence as an excuse to take peoples’ firearms and control their population. This is exactly what Adolf Hitler did to disarm the German people, and look at the atrocities his administration committed. [President] Obama has been working hard to try and ban semi-automatic weapons and shotguns, while at the same time, increasing the weapons and firepower that police and government agencies have.
Within minutes of the Connecticut shooting, politicians were on the state-run media, saying it was time to get rid of guns, and they will be talking about it for weeks to come. The [President] Obama administration, and his government-funded media, have been promoting this idea for months. Every time there is a shooting performed by a crazy person, the media talks about it non-stop for weeks, months. But when there is an illegal or unlawful shooting by police that does not fit [President] Obama’s agenda, the story is barely mentioned, such as some of the following cases.
Aug 2nd, 2012
Chavis Carter was shot in the head while handcuffed in a patrol car, in police custody. Police claim he hid the gun and shot himself, even though he already told his girlfriend they would go to a movie when he got out.
B.A.R.T police Officer Johannes Mehserle shoots and kills a handcuffed, restrained, unarmed man, while multiple other officers are around.
A man at the Empire State building has killed a co-worker, so the police showed up and unleashed a hail of gunfire at the man, killing him, and the police bullets also injured many pedestrian bystanders.
Some protesters demand answers from police about why they shot a man in the back. The police responded to the crowd of protesters, that had many children (under the age of 10) with rubber bullets and attack dogs.
These stories got barely a whimper out of the press, and certainly did not get the coverage of several weeks, even though they are just as newsworthy. In addition, are the other major violent crimes where firearms were not even used.
August 2007 – Connecticut
In a home invasion, a wife and two children were murdered. The wife and the youngest daughter were also victims of sexual assault. Only the father/husband survived, but he was badly beaten.
A mother and her 2 children were brutally murdered in California home, and the suspect did NOT use a firearm.
Two children were found stabbed to death when their mother returned home. The suspect was the children’s nanny.
Sibling’s throats slit by intruder.
The press also hardly mentions the cases where guns were used by law-abiding citizens to save lives, avoid being raped or killed.
12 year old Oklahoma girl shoots home intruder to protect herself, after she tried to evade them.
14 year old boy kills intruder when a gang of four men break into his house where he was alone with his 17 year old sister.
Many would have you believe that guns are the cause of violence, but that is like saying fat people are obese because they have forks and spoons. It is caused by the person that commits the acts, not the instrument they used.
If guns were the cause of the violence, then the police would be committing more violence with guns and would need to be disarmed, instead of being more heavily armed. And the military and national guard should never be used to perform law enforcement duties.
Other anons, and many other people including Alex Jones and many others, have provided lots of evidence over the years to these facts. It has been known and predicted by many for several months, and in some cases years, that Mr. [President] Obama’s intentions are to confiscate all firearms, or at least as much as he can, to make it easier to usher in a Fascist police state, and establish a one world government, under a one world currency system.
It was a tragedy in Connecticut, where the school children were murdered by a crazy person, and as we have demonstrated in this video, there are countless tragedies where the press did not report on it as much, because it was not on the political agenda.
How dare Mr. [President] Obama soil their memories and who they were, and are, by using this and other events for his own purpose. Guns have been used to save lives, and could have been used to save other people. Mr [President] Obama would have you believe that guns are the cause of these crimes that CNN, FOX, and the rest of mainstream media talk about so much, but it is hardly mentioned when crimes are committed by authorities that are ever-increasingly armed. Mr. [President] Obama will tell you he needs to get guns out of the hands of criminals, but he will be taking them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while the criminals will still have them and will have other means of inflicting harm. The law-abiding citizens will be helpless.
Those that were saved by guns will become victims, and those that could have been saved by guns will have that history repeated, as others are no doubt raped and murdered.
Mr. [President] Obama, the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution does not talk about an army; that is covered elsewhere in the Constitution. It does talk about a well-regulated militia, which is made up of civilians with their own weapons. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution does not talk about protecting government or government resources, but it does talk about being necessary for the security of a free state. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution does not say a single word about hunting or sport. But it does say “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
To the American people, as many laws have been banning firearms in cities such as Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C have been implemented, and as the courts get them, they are now being overturned as being unconstitutional. Even if they were not ruled on, they are an infringement to your Second Amendment rights, and you have no obligation to obey it, and the courts have no obligation to enforce it.
16 AM Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Mr [President] Obama, as the chief law enforcement officer of the country,
you are responsible for the conduct of those under your command. There will be
no further tolerance of any of the following:
Any act to infringe on any of the Bill of Rights, as identified in the US Constitution.
Any act to seize or locate any firearms or ammunition.
Any act to control the ownership of firearms or ammunition.
Any act to control the manufacture or sales of firearms or ammunition.
Any act to document ownership, purchases, or attempts to purchase firearms or ammunition.
Any act to deploy or stage for deployment any military forces or government employees or agents thereof, for the purpose of asserting control over the population or the rights of the people or states as defined in the US Constitution. Such as would be used in Martial Law.
Any act to write, form, negotiate, enter into, or comply with any international treaty that would or could do any of the points mentioned previously.
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
Treaties do not confer powers not authorized by the Constitution…
Any action taken by you to attempt to perform those acts, or similar acts as interpreted by the American people, or any attempt by you to skirt your responsibility to the true office of the presidency, will be viewed by many people as your willful act of insurrection and treason against the American people, as those acts would be willful disregard of your oath of office.
Any further attempts by your administration, law enforcement, or those under authority of the presidency, to assist anybody attempting such acts will be viewed by many people as your willful act of insurrection and treason against the American people, as those acts will be willful disregard of your oath of office.
Any further attempt by you, your administration, law enforcement, or those under authority of the presidency to do any of those acts mentioned, or anything similar will be viewed by many people as your willful act of insurrection and treason against the American people, as those acts will be willful disregard of your oath of office.
Upon such acts, it is the responsibility of the Vice President and cabinet members to immediately exercise their authority under the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the US Constitution to remove you from office. Failure of such actions may be viewed as an act of insurrection and treason by the Vice President and cabinet members, as such failure would be willful disregard of each of their oaths of office.
Upon failure of the Vice President and cabinet members to perform such duty of your removal, it then falls upon Congress to immediately force your removal by legal means. Failure of any member of Congress to perform such duty, or to hinder in any way, will be viewed by many people as an act of insurrection and treason against the American people, as such failure would be willful disregard of each person’s oath of office.
Upon failure of the Congress to perform such duty, it will be the responsibility of the United States Supreme Court, for failure to act in the past or present to rectify said situation will be viewed by many people as an act of insurrection and treason against the American people, as such failure would be willful disregard of each Supreme Court Justices’ oath of office.
Upon failure of all the aforementioned bodies to perform such duties, it will be authority and duty of any and all members of the United States Armed Forces to remove the President, Vice President, cabinet members, members of Congress, and the US Supreme Court Justices from power, by military force.
Failure by all military members to perform such duties will constitute as an act of civil war against the American people by said authorities.
This video has links to other sources, and these are the news and education reasons, and examples of defensive use, that no doubt some people will try and have removed. Download it, and reupload it, we’ll pass it along. Let the truth be known.
We are Anonymous.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
BRIDGET JOHNSON RESPONDS TO ANONYMOUS WARNING OF INSURRECTION
Jan. 17, 2013Anonymous Warns of ‘Insurrection in America’ Due to Obama’s Gun Grab
The international hacktivist group Anonymous today warned of “insurrection in America” as the government controls and twists the narrative on gun-related incidents.
Known for the Guy Fawkes masks worn at protests, Anonymous has styled itself as an anti-authority crusader against government corruption and lack of transparency, and supported the Occupy protests. And now the hackers are stepping into the gun control debate, warning in a lengthy message today that “throughout history authoritarian governments have used gun violence as an excuse to take peoples firearms and control there population.”
“Obama has been working hard to try and ban semi-automatic weapons and shotguns while at the same time increasing the weapons and firepower that police and government agencies have. Within minutes of the Connecticut shooting, politicians were on the state run media saying it was time to get rid of the guns and they will be talking about it for weeks to come,” Anonymous wrote on its blog. “The Obama administration and his government funded media have been promoting this idea for months. Everytime there is a shooting performed by a crazy person the media talks about it non-stop for weeks or months. But when there is an illegal or unlawful shooting by police that does not fit Obama’s agenda the story is barely mentioned.”
Anonymous notes that not only do police shootings barely get any attention, but cases where slaying are committed without guns or where guns are used to save lives also fly under the radar.
“Mr. Obama the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution does not talk about an army, that is covered elsewhere in the constitution. It does talk about a well regulated militia which is made of civilians with their own weapons. The second amendment of the US Constitution does not talk about protecting government or government resources, but it does talk about being necessary for the security of a free state. The second amendment of the US constitution does not say a single word about hunting or sport. But it does say ‘The peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’.”
“To the American people, as many laws have been banning firearms in cities such as Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C have been implemented and as the courts get them, they are now being overthrown as being unconstitutional. Even if they were not ruled on, they are an infringement to your second amendment rights and you have no obligation to obey it and the courts have no obligation to enforce it.”
In a section directly addressing Obama, Anonymous warns there will be “no further tolerance” of any act to infringe on the Constitution, confiscate weapons or control gun ownership, or enter into any treaty that would do the same.
“Any action taken by you to attempt to perform those acts or similar acts as interpreted by the American people or any attempt by you to skirt your responsibility to the true office of the presidency will be viewed by many people as your willfull act of insurrection and treason,” Anonymous continues. The group then goes on to detail how Obama could be removed, by military force if necessary.
One wonders how Anonymous might use its hacking skills that have perpetually confounded the government and big business to step in on the side of gun-rights proponents.