Dee Finney's blog
start date July 20, 2011
today's date August 18, 2013
updated October, 2013
page 545
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
Insurrection
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.
INSURRECTION
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.
WASHINGTON -- A coalition of tea party truck drivers is planning a government shutdown demonstration on the Capital Beltway that rings Washington.
"Truckers Ride For The Constitution" -- known as "Truckers To Shutdown America" before their original Facebook page was shut down -- plans to clog the Interstate 495 inner loop from Oct. 11 to Oct. 13.
The truckers said they hope create enough of a backup on the highway to express their frustration with the "lawlessness" of members of Congress "who refuse to work on behalf of the American people."
"It has become apparent that our elected official [sic] will never respond to the will of the people as long as their greed wealth is not jeopardized," the demonstration organizers said in a press release. "The only thing that motivates every politician is their money -- cutting off their money-flow cuts off their life-blood. The Independent Truckers in the United States essentially keep commerce flowing for benefit of the central government.”
The group went on to list other grievances, saying truckers are "strangled with regulations" and the government "now support[s] Al Qaeda."
The coalition of independent truckers has been planning the event since mid-September. The original page listed their plans for the October strike as such: "Truck drivers will not haul freight! Workers will call in sick! Consumers will not buy or sell anything on this date! Stay home! Buy nothing!"
Earl Conlon, a trucker from Georgia organizing the logistics of the demonstration,told U.S. News that the group isn't calling for impeachment, just the arrest of members of Congress involved in the government shutdown. He identified House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) as two of his targets.
"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".
. A
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.
INSURGENCY
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.
AIRCRAFT OVERHEAD
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
Georgy;
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.
At least 51 people died in clashes across Egypt as the country's two largest political factions gathered in rival commemorations of Egypt's participation in the 1973 war with Israel, a day of deep significance for many Egyptians.
Both opponents and supporters of the country's ousted president, Mohamed Morsi, rallied in their thousands – ostensibly to mark the 40th anniversary of the Yom Kippur war which is viewed in Cairo as an Egyptian victory, despite ending in a stalemate that favoured Israel.
But rather than emphasising Egypt's unity, the different messages conveyed by each faction's demonstrations underscored divides. Morsi's supporters, whose marches filled highways in west Cairo, used the day to protest against his ousting, while his opponents took to Tahrir Square to praise General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's role in his overthrow. Deadly violence flared when tens of thousands of Morsi supporters tried to reach Tahrir Square. Soldiers, police and armed vigilantes blocked their path and started firing.
Arriving in west Cairo's Dokki suburb around 3pm, the marchers were met first by teargas, then rubber bullets and then live rounds, according to one witness who was at the front of the march.
"It was three groups of armed people – police, army, and residents – attacking helpless protesters, who didn't even do much to fight back," said Mosa'ab Elshamy, a photographer known for his pictures at Cairo clashes. "Today's march was made up largely of families, lots of women, lots of children. Sometimes marches take things into their own hands, start trouble, break something. But today's march was really remarkably peaceful until the police just shot at them without any kind of trigger."
Some reports suggested that a number of marchers carried firearms, but Elshamy said the protesters, who included hardcore football fans unaffiliated with Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood, simply held their ground for three hours – throwing stones and burning tires – before retreating.
He added: "As a couple of people were running away, they were gunned down, and they left quite a trail of blood."
Opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood argued the Islamists and others had sought a violent response in order to garner sympathy internationally, or to gain concessions during negotiations.
"They are trying to make trouble everywhere so that at some point, the deal will be: fine, stop the trouble, what do you want?" Alaa al-Aswany, one of Egypt's best-known authors and a fierce critic of the Brotherhood, argued in the buildup to the celebrations.
As the day wore on, Cairo became a tale of two Tahrirs – Tahrir Square in the east, where army helicopters flew over pro-military bands, and Tahrir Street in the west, where police and secular locals fired bullets and teargas on the pro-Morsi marches.
The juxtaposition highlighted Egypt's ideological divisions. "Today feels like a second victory," said Mohamed Abdel Aziz, a cleaner wearing a picture of Sisi around his neck. "We feel like we have won our country back from a gang that doesn't belong to Egypt."
Across town, protesters carrying yellow placards – in memory of those who died at several summer massacres of Morsi supporters – had a different idea about what the day meant. "Today is about saying no to the military coup, and bringing back liberty," said Saber Nafi, a pro-Morsi journalist.
What had been a festive afternoon quickly soured, with gangs of vigilantes and plain-clothed policemen in some streets attacking people suspected of being a foreigner, a journalist or a Muslim Brother.
Two liberal politicians – including Khaled Dawoud, a one-time spokesman for Egypt's main secular coalition – were attacked by Brotherhood supporters this weekend. Dawoud was spotted while driving through central Cairo, hauled from his car, and stabbed in his hand and twice in his chest. He is now recovering in hospital.
Clashes were reported in several other neighbourhoods in Cairo and across Egypt, though much of the country remained calm. Some Egyptians expressed frustration at their fellow citizens' overbearing nationalism, and at being pulled between what they feel to be two sides of the same authoritarian coin: the army and the Brotherhood.
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 rcs0411@yahoo.com
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 <tomveil@interstat.net>
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 <julianreischl@mac.com>
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 <docrlynch@yahoo.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:
Accordingly, actions taken under the Insurrection Act, as an "Act of Congress", have always been exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act.[1][2]
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 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, repeals the changes made in the 2007 bill.[3]
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.[4] 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
in strikethrough. (with the exception of paragraph and formatting
notation):
| 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. |
No change |
|
§ 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. |
No change |
|
§ 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.[5][6] 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[7] "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,[8] 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.:[9]
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:[10]
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.
(APPLAUSE)
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.
(APPLAUSE)
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.
(APPLAUSE)
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
haven't
cried that hard since I found out that there is 23 million
unemployed
people in this country.
(APPLAUSE)
Now that is something to cry for because that is a
disgrace, a
national disgrace, and we haven't done enough, obviously -- this
administration hasn't done enough to cure that. Whenever
interest
they have is not strong enough, and I think possibly now it may
be
time for somebody else to come along and solve the problem.
(APPLAUSE)
So, Mr. President, how do you handle promises that you have
made
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
-- I
know -- people were wondering -- you don't -- handle that OK.
Well, I
know even people in your own party were very disappointed when
you
didn't close Gitmo. And I thought, well closing Gitmo -- why
close
that, we spent so much money on it. But, I thought maybe as an
excuse
-- what do you mean shut up?
(LAUGHTER)
OK, I thought maybe it was just because somebody had the
stupid
idea of trying terrorists in downtown New York City.
(APPLAUSE)
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
that's --
now we are moving onward. I know you were against the war in
Iraq,
and that's okay. But you thought the war in Afghanistan was OK.
You
know, I mean -- you thought that was something worth doing. We
didn't
check with the Russians to see how did it -- they did there for
10
years.
(APPLAUSE)
But we did it, and it is something to be thought about, and
I
think that, when we get to maybe -- I think you've mentioned
something about having a target date for bringing everybody
home. You
gave that target date, and I think Mr. Romney asked the only
sensible
question, you know, he says, ``Why are you giving the date out
now?
Why don't you just bring them home tomorrow morning?''
(APPLAUSE)
And I thought -- I thought, yeah -- I am not going to shut
up, it
is my turn.
(LAUGHTER)
So anyway, we're going to have -- we're going to have to
have a
little chat about that. And then, I just wondered, all these
promises
-- I wondered about when the -- what do you want me to tell
Romney? I
can't tell him to do that. I can't tell him to do that to
himself.
(APPLAUSE)
You're crazy, you're absolutely crazy. You're getting as
bad as
Biden.
(APPLAUSE)
Of course we all now Biden is the intellect of the
Democratic
party.
(LAUGHTER)
Kind of a grin with a body behind it.
(LAUGHTER)
But I just think that there is so much to be done, and I
think
that Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are two guys that can come along.
See, I
never thought it was a good idea for attorneys to the president,
anyway.
(APPLAUSE)
I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they're always
taught
to argue everything, and always weight everything -- weigh both
sides...
MORE
(INSERT ZACH)
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?
(APPLAUSE)
A stellar businessman. Quote, unquote, ``a stellar
businessman.''
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.
(APPLAUSE)
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.
(APPLAUSE)
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
myself either.
(APPLAUSE)
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.
(APPLAUSE)
We -- we own it. It is not you owning it, and not
politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours.
(APPLAUSE)
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.
(APPLAUSE)
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)
(LAUGHTER)
I do not say that word anymore. Well, maybe one last time.
(LAUGHTER)
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.
(APPLAUSE)
But OK. You want to make my day?
(APPLAUSE)
All right. I started, you finish it. Go ahead.
AUDIENCE: Make my day!
EASTWOOD: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Clint Eastwood RNC Speech (COMPLETE): Actor Assails Obama ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/clint-eastwood-speech_n_1844908.html
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.
January, 2009
B.A.R.T police Officer Johannes Mehserle shoots and kills a handcuffed,
restrained, unarmed man, while multiple other officers are around.
Aug, 2012
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.
July, 2012
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.
October, 2012
A mother and her 2 children were brutally murdered in California home, and the
suspect did NOT use a firearm.
October 2012
Two children were found stabbed to death when their mother returned home. The
suspect was the children’s nanny.
September, 2012
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.
October, 2012
12 year old Oklahoma girl shoots home intruder to protect herself, after she
tried to evade them.
January, 2012
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, 2013
Anonymous Warns of ‘Insurrection in America’ Due to Obama’s Gun GrabThe 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.
When something looks too good to be true, maybe it is. This:
“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.”
…does not sound like Anonymous to me, but someone on our side posing as Anonymous. Corporate funded media I could easily imagine them complaining about, but government funded? Really?
So it’s news to you that
corporate and Government
are the same? Where have
you been the last 6
decades.
I was taught in Econ 101
back in 1973 that to
guarantee
profits you need to
legislate them. That was
going
on long before I took that
course.
Total separation of
business and state is a
must
to restore any hope of a
middle class.
And the corrupt GOP elie will never go for that kind of reform.
So it’s news to
you that corporate and
Government
are the same? Where
have you been the last
6 decades.
Ohferchrissakes. Over the past 6 decades, the Media has slowly, inexorably become the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. Another legacy of FDR. Meanwhile, the Left and the fringe Right (including yourself in one of those, presumably) have obsessed over “corporate ownership”, as if the media were ever independent of business concerns – they’re ALL businesses, you realize, even The Nation and Mother Jones.
By their actions, it is quite apparent that Anonymous couldn’t care less about Leftist influence in the Media, only “right-wing Fascist corporate control”… but only in America and certain European countries. Russia (very “right-wing”, almost monarchist these days – Czar Vlad the Poisoner) and China (old-school Italian Fascist rather than Maoist anymore) seem to hold no interest for them.
Actually, they’re are likely scared shitless about what Moscow or Beijing might to to them if they meddled there…
You were “taught in Econ 101″, and have never figured out you were fed Marxist propaganda all those years ago?
Gary- it’s not just the GOP that is corrupt. The liberals are in bed with big business to at least the same extent. Neither side is your ally. Wake up.
“Gary Ogletree
And the corrupt GOP
elie will never go for
that kind of reform.”
Gop [elite] hell. Go look at free republic – the supposed bastion of conservatism. Even those people believe corporations are literally people and as such have the right to buy politicians.
I have been following the actions of anonymous for some time now through MANY news articles. I suspect that many people are falling for a misconception that anonymous is a singular dedicated group of hackers. It is not. It is a codeword for ANYONE who wishes to oppose some goverment action but stay “anonymous.” At least that is my understanding of what I have read in article after article. They are not limited to just hacking, although their roots may have started with a small collective in the hacking community.
With an ever-growing intrusive state and federal government collecting data on all of us, purchasing assualt vehicles and weapons, millions of rounds of ammunition, we the citizens are already outmatched and can no longer defend ourselves should our government become overly tyrannical. There is no medium which we can use to organize without it being known and squashed immediately. Remember Napolitano’s “domestic terrorist” descriptions? It pretty much covers all of us.
Someday you may find yourself being anonymous.
I agree David. We’re already there…
This guys and ladies are pretty spot on — have listened to alot and for the most part are spot on — listen to some of it on youtube
anonymous isn’t a group of “set” members it’s an idea, the people supporting the occupy movement don’t speak for all of anonymous nor do the people or person who made this video. no one knows if a single person founded this organization, it just took off. the original members may or may not still even be involved hence the name so ANYONE and EVERYONE can be anonymous
Well, it could be that you don’t have to agree or disagree with everything a group or political body does. That’s part of using your own reasoning skills having a mind of your own. I see it even on PJMedia. People who need to know who said what, not what was said. I really don’t have time for group identity politics.
Who said it matters a great deal, especially if they are lying.
Anonymous isn’t a single person or ideal. It is a very large and very amorphous group composed of PC-savy folks whose only real unifying concept is the freedom of information. The political veiw point of the movement runs all the way from KKK members to Occupy with detours into Al Qaeda, the Tea Party, the Catholic priesthood, and eco-terrorists.
Even anarchists recognize when a dictator, ooops, sorry, President, overreaches.
Anarchism is very popular on both the Left and Right. See http://clarespark.com/2012/08/16/marx-rivals-and-our-enigmatic-president/. After I wrote this historical piece, I was besieged by searchers for “rage against the machine.” Such angst in the machine age may be more important than working class radicalism, which seems to have almost entirely dissipated.
Well, they are proponents of the more “direct action” approach. If you’re going to violate various laws and incur the wrath of the state to achieve your goals you’d have to be retarded not to wear a mask, whether a digital one like an IP address blocking scheme when hacking a website or a physical one when demonstrating. Most of these people are pretty savvy when it comes to technology and what our government is up to. They know that facial recognition technologies have gotten scarily good and our government has been making lists and not really bothering to check them twice. In other words, if you show up at an anti-government protest without a mask you’d better expect to have your picture taken, identity determined by recognition software, and your name added to some secretive list of potential subversives. It’s also true that if in a protest everyone is wearing non-descriptive clothing and similar masks it is much harder for police to pick out “leaders” for detainment or harassment. There can be an argument made for being unafraid to reveal your true identity, but part of the beauty of the internet and the reason it’s served as such a great forum for free speech is that is allows anonymity which encourages people to speak their minds, especially those who are in positions where they could reasonably fear reprisal should their identities become common knowledge. Websites that seek to have a chilling effect on controversial postings have been switching to using facebook connect instead of allowing one to register anonymously because then whatever people post becomes a part of their permanent digital trail, easily linked to them by future employers etc. When openly speaking against the government it is easy to see where there is a fear of it coming back to haunt you. What the government does with that list of people today may be very different than what it does later. How about all those patients who revealed things to their physicians with the expectation of confidentiality who are now having that information fed into the government’s database by executive order? The people making up Anonymous grew up in the age of the internet, no them anonymity is the default and a valuable tool. They understand that once the information associating you with something exists that can become a powerful weapon against you in the future. Better to just keep your name off the list by wearing the mask.
Thankfully, our recently elected Sheriff wrote a letter to the Editor just a few days ago, coming down firmly on the side of gun owners and gun ownership. This should not be surprising, as Oklahoma is the only state in the Union wherein the Prez won not a single county in either election. Actually, Oklahoma has more registered Democrats than Republicans, but consistently votes as though the State were composed on all Republicans. Gun ownership and hunting is a way of life here. I had my first gun, a single shot break over .410 shotgun at the age of 11. I can’t think of a single Sheriff in surrounding counties that feel differently. I am equally certain that the Police feel much the same, even with Oklahoma’s new open carry law.
The jack-booted thugs with the low i.q. and the badge most certainly are not part of the solution—except as in “final solution.”
By itself, a mask isn’t evidence they’re on the wrong side of the fight for liberty.
Ben Franklin created a false persona, “Silence Dogood,” to submit his writings for publication when his brother, James, who employed Ben as an apprentice in his printing shop, refused to publish the writings Ben offered under his own name. James published all 14 of the letters Ben submitted in The New England Courant and only learned Ben had written them later.
Best to reserve judgment on the basis of other factors.
Ben, a city boy, also wore a fur cap in Paris, implying he was a rustic frontiersman, and he refrained from corrected the assumption that he was a Quaker.
Participants in the Boston Tea Party disguised themselves as indians. Also, there was a great deal of planning that went on in secret, such as when the colonists buried a cannon to hide it and Paul Revere and his buddies set up the “one if by land, two if by sea” signals.
Had they been open about their intentions and opposition to the king they’d likely have ended up a footnote describing a minor rebellion in the North American colonies that was unsuccessful and in which the traitors were summarily hanged.
I’m opposing gun control with my name and face, and have been for longer than some of these self-righteous masked script kiddies have been alive.
You’re not alone.
Your comment reminds me of the great line Albert Finney delivers as the gamekeeper in Skyfall: “I was ready before you were born.”
For goodness sake.
Give ‘em a sardonic “Welcome to the party pal” and be glad we’ve got more allies.
Speaking of allies, remember it took guys openly crossing the beach and guys working secretly in the shadows of the hinterland to pull off D-Day. Doesn’t have to be one or the other.
It also took a lot of others involved in nothing but lies and subterfuge — fake radio traffic, fake tanks, fake airplanes, etc., to convince the Germans the invasion would be at Calais instead of Normandy. As the British were fond of saying at the time, “Confusion to the enemy.”
One disguised corpse… (operation mincemeat).
You should really learn to take all the help you can get. Even if it comes from, to some of you, ideologically impure source. Enemy of your enemy may not always be your friend, but he can still help you to defeat your enemy.
“script kiddies”
I loathe that term. Usually, its employed by someone meaning to belittle someone else’s technical knowhow. I’ve typically found that the someone using it doesn’t have the first technical clue themselves.
When the faceless bureaucrats of the EPA, IRS, Ag Department, and other offensive entities come our from behind their masks, then those calling themselves Annonymous will be a level “playing” field and can become public.
Don’t forget to add the FED to that list.
Same here. You got to hand it to them though; ACLU certainly isn’t stepping up.
ACLU only likes left/liberal causes.
Nah, ain’t buying that; it’s a setup for some sort of astroturf operation. These people are hardcore lefties; they don’t need or want 2nd Am. rights for the citizenry because they all assume they’ll be among the rulers and will have guns and the right to use them as they please.
Next thing you know, the FBI will be stinging (entrapping) alleged militia members or Tea Party activists who were sitting around blogging or who got together to drink coffee and BS politics and we’ll start having show trials of the racist scum who dared to attempt to overthrow the Soros Junta. Hell, they can fake the whole thing using actors right down to executing the plotters and at least 51% of the res publica would believe every bit of it, another 30% wouldn’t know or care about it, and the rest of us would just be marginalized as extremists, racists, whatever buzzword the communists are using that week.
Five years ago if somebody had asserted to me that the government could or would fake something like Newtown, I would have thought them a nutso tinfoiler/black helicopter type. Today, I can’t say I believe they faked it, but I can’t dismiss it out of hand.
Don’t dismiss it out of hand…hackers could realize they’ve been duped, and the Aaron Swartz thing probably isn’t going over well.
Art Chance,
Nah, ain’t buying that; it’s a setup for some sort of astroturf operation. These people are hardcore lefties; they don’t need or want 2nd Am. rights for the citizenry…
With you on that one. I’d love to be proved wrong, but I’m very, very skeptical.
Many of them aren’t as left wing as you think, or at least they don’t follow the Obama wing of the left lockstep. Anarchistic may be closer to the truth, or left libertarian. They’ll join in things like the occupy movement because they hate “big business” but they’re not worshipers of the state either. Check out the website encyclopediadramatica.se (warning, VERY NSFW) which is sort of the unofficial anonymous wiki, and look at their articles parodying the left. They sarcastically refer to Obama as “Black Jesus” and mock the people worshiping him, they make fun of the whole “anti-racist” thing and everything PC in general, and they absolutely hate net censorship.
The mainstream left wing are
raging hypocrites in any number of
ways. They act like Bush’s wars and
drone strikes are crimes against
humanity while Obama’s are great,
the patriot act and domestic
surveillance are perfectly fine as
long as Obama’s in power, etc. They
are partisan hacks with no real
principles beyond accruing power.
Anonymous hates central government
power whomever wields it and is at
least willing to call a spade a
spade and stand by their beliefs
regardless of the party of the man
in the oval office. They hate
Obama’s surveillance, they hate his
attempts at censoring and
controlling the internet, they hate
that his DOJ has arrested and
imprisoned a number of them for
what they consider “activism”, and
they openly mock the media’s
efforts to shove his agenda down
our throats.
The movement has many flaws, but
they are not in bed with the
mainstream
Obama/Soros/Hillary/fascist left.
In fact they recognize it for what
it is. They’re a breed of
libertarian left that has all but
disappeared from mainstream
politics, so its easy to assume
that just because they oppose many
conservative interests they support
the whole liberal fascist agenda,
but they don’t. I’m willing to
believe that they’ll help make an
honest stand for gun rights,
possibly hack registries and
databases, leak documents exposing
illegal activity on the part of the
government, etc.
Anonymous is leaderless, there are various cells using the same name. Can’t wait the leftist faction to start denouncing the libertarian faction. Hope to see the day they hack the DoJ or EPA.
TMP! I’m proud of you for a change! In the U.S. a faction of the Anarchist Party broke to form the Libertarian Party for the same exact reasons the progressives/socialists/Communist Parties broke to join the Democrat Party. One major difference though! The Libertarian Partys new platform more closely identified with the GOP and thus, they joined with the GOP.
There are many factions of the anarchists representing several slightly differing ideologies around the world. Some operate quite overtly and many more operate very much covertly, depending on their ideologies and activities. Today, most in the U.S. operate covertly though, that didn’t always use to be the case. The new resurgence of the anarchists in the U.S. certainly do operate covertly. Of the more organized and prominent factions, they are affiliated with some of the long standing European anarchists groups — not so nice! They travel the world over and are very well funded.
Until last year, I followed their literature and their online activity. Got to be to much for me to find their online sites and bulletin boards as they opened and closed sometimes on a daily basis. Anyway, the government has agencies who do track them and so much better than myself.
They don’t mean well the the U.S. and its government! They, like the progressive socialists and communists know well, human nature when given freedoms and its perpensity to corruption and self defeat and they do everything possible to perpetuate it.
During the Spanish Civil War, the Anarchists stepped up to keep Madrid’s water and power going and trsh picked up. The other parties were too busy backstabbing each other.
(Puts tin foil hat on)
The Obama Regime could be preppin’
for their “Reichstag Fire.”
That wasn’t a tinfoil hat you grabbed, there, bub.
That was reality.
We’re literally one ‘national emergency’ away from martial law and an ‘enabling act.’
At this point in time, almost any ‘emergency’ would do…
They’ve already pulled two “Reichstag Fire” incidents: The Aurora Movie shooting and the Newtown shooting. Three, if you count Fast And Furious. But that one was botched, and it backfired. It’s not just conspiracy theory anymore. Too many puzzle pieces are falling too neatly into place, and even the “low information” crowd are starting to figure it out.
Fast and Furious was intended to set up a Reichstag Fire incident. The other two are, IMO, not set ups.
Sandy Hook is being exposed as a hoax. Witnesses said the Batman shooter had a helper, and witnesses at the Sikh temple said there were four shooters, not one. No tin foil hat neccesary. The gun grab is in trouble, they need an excuse to declare martial law. There is some speculation that something is planned for the Super Bowl. I think the Marxist-Leninists only have two years. Implementation of Obanacare will likely cost them the Senate majority. I’m expecting flash mob race riots with highly publisized police shootings to kick off the mass arrests. The unthinkable is quite possible.
Ah, yes riots. The most compelling answer to the question “why do you need an ‘Assault rifle’?”. As the left loves to point out the AR-15 is designed to kill large numbers of people quickly, and that’s exactly the reason why a citizen needs one in defending his home or business from rioters, whatever their motivation. What would Obama do if there were another Rodney King style riot, perhaps triggered by the Trayvon Martin case? I guarantee he wouldn’t send in troops to quash it like Bush did. Matter of fact I doubt he’d do anything to reign in “his people” (as he’s called them, not me). Citizens would be on their own in defending themselves. What’s he going to do when the rioters come up against a wall of citizens armed with those evil “assault weapons”? That’s anybody’s guess, but I wouldn’t put anything past him in trying to protect the “righteously angry” looters.
George Zimmerman.
I’m sorry- but the 6 yr old grandson of someone I know was shot and killed at Sandyhook, so knock off the ‘hoax’ bs. It’s bad enough both parties are exploiting the tragedy to further agendas- especially the progressives (there are no Democrats anymore). Real people died, and real families were torn apart. If anything, it’s a damnation of the state of mental health care in this country, not the state of gun control (I grew up shooting and going to shows, and frankly, I still think the initial Brady bill is cr*p).
We don’t know how many were killed, nor how many did the shooting. We have enough to know the narrative is a lie, a hoax.
They didn’t NEED to fake Newtown. All they had to do was to INVITE it, by means of gun-free zones.
Home | About Us | Media | Contact Us
Copyright © 2005-2012 PJ Media All Rights Reserved. v1.93 PJMWeb1
|
|
THIS IS WHERE I POST WHAT I'M DOING AND THINKING
BLOG INDEX 2011
BLOG INDEX 2012 - page 1
JANUARY THRU APRIL 2012
MAY THRU AUGUST 2012
SEPTEMBER THRU DECEMBER
BLOG INDEX 2013
BLOG INDEX - PAGE 2 - 2013
The Huffington Post | By Ashley Alman Posted: 10/08/2013 12:42 am EDT