James Von Brunn has died and the ADL attacks the 2nd amendment

Posted on

James Von Brunn, the accused Washington DC Holocaust Museum shooter has died in a prison hospital before ever going to trial. I’m sure the government is glad. There were too many questions about the shooting that they would rather not have brought up in a show trial.

It’s also convenient for the media. They can now spin this story into the recent ‘terrorist’ events and reaffirm the ‘domestic terrorist’ threat.

Right on cue the ADL has a press release

In a brief detailing the “serious threat” of armed violence by extremists and extremist groups, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that states retain the right to reasonably regulate the possession of firearms by those who practice and preach racial and ethnic violence

“We have placed the problem of armed extremism squarely before the high court,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “Racist and anti-government extremists often have an obsessive fascination with firearms and have shown a willingness to engage in acts of shocking and often deadly violence. We urge the Supreme Court to ensure that cities and states retain the latitude they need to keep guns out of the hands of extremists, terrorists, and violent bigots.”

ADL’s “friend of the court” brief in McDonald v. City of Chicago points to the long history of gun violence by anti-government and racist extremists. The brief describes three such examples in detail: the June 2009 shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, by avowed anti-Semite and white supremacist James Von Brunn (an incident which left a security guard dead); the April 2000 shooting spree in Pittsburgh by white supremacist Richard Baumhammers (which left five dead); and the deadly standoffs in Waco, Texas in 1993 and Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992.

McDonald v. City of Chicago focuses on whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits most regulation of firearms by cities and states.

ADL has long supported the reasonable regulation of firearms, particularly when it comes to the possession of weapons by extremists.

“Extremists and those who commit hate crimes pose a serious threat to the safety of the general public and, more specifically, to the members of the discrete racial, ethnic and religious groups who often become their targets,” reads the ADL brief. “Armed extremism leads to violent extremism with profoundly unsettling frequency and profoundly tragic results.”

Thought crimes and the disarming of those accused of them legitimized by the high court has long been an ADL objective. In their brief they say ‘those who practice and preach racial and ethnic violence’ but what they really want is the repression of freedom of speech, especially if that free speech is exposing the crimes of Israel and jewish extremists such as the ADL itself.

Also see:

The James Von Brunn Story

The ADL … American Dago Lobby swings into action!


Thoughts for the 4th

Posted on Updated on
art by David Dees…from Rense

Barbecuing Iraqis on the 4th of July

By Gary Corseri

Our present disjunctive world system could be compared to the “bizarro world,” of the classic Superman comics where good is bad, up is down—the world is a cube and all is backwards. But that, at least, would imply some kind of order. Maybe so. … The Chaos Theorists tell us that even chaos in extremis has a feedback loop of information and order is reasserting itself. Yin and yang, Shiva and Vishnu bound together like two suns exchanging star stuff. All well and good for the metaphysicians among us. For the rest: “Man that is born or woman is of few days, and full of trouble.”

more: Thomas Paine’s Corner

It’s the Inequality, Stupid

By Vi Ransel

Our government, composed, ostensibly, of the people’s own representatives has refused to take the banks – merely corporations initially created to serve the needs of the people – in hand and deal with them. The tail has become the dog. The Federal Reserve and Rubin’s sorcerer’s apprentices of deregulation have unleashed the hounds of economic hell and allowed the few who rule from behind the curtains of the financial system to sit upon the rest of the American people as if on a throne. And by that I mean toilet. They’ve plundered and pillaged the United States of America into a reasonable facsimile of a banana republic after financial gang rape by NAFTA, the IMF and the World Bank.

As the financial aristocracy which holds the reins of the banks settles ever more comfortably into the driver’s seat of the rest of the American people’s lives, they strangle the entire economy, squeezing out every last drop of profit at the people’s expense. The level of inequality is staggering, and it’s being ratcheted up even further on the ski lift of excess to the summit of the sheer cliff overlooking the abyss of total economic collapse.

more: Thomas Paine’s Corner

Good Child Rearing Ends Wars

“Do we really want to have massive armies and jails and emotionally crippled adults forever?

“Must each generation continue to torture and neglect its children so they repeat the violence and economic exploitation of previous generations?

“Why not achieve meaningful political and social revolution by first achieving a parenting revolution?

“If war, social violence, class domination and economic destruction of wealth are really revenge rituals for childhood trauma, how else can we remove the source of these rituals? How else end child abuse and neglect? How else increase the real wealth of nations, our next generation? How else achieve a world of love and laughter of which we are truly capable?”

more: aangirfan

also from aangirfan: Rumours swell that the government staged 7/7

50 things wrong with Cap and Tax: A Garden of Piggish Delights

Waxman-Markey is part power-grab, part enviro-fantasy. Here are 50 reasons to stop it.

By Stephen Spruiell & Kevin Williamson

he stimulus bill was the legislative equivalent of the famous cantina scene from Star Wars, an eye-popping collection of the freakish and exotic, gathered for dubious purposes. The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, known as ACES (the American Clean Energy and Security Act), is more like the third panel in Hieronymus Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights — a hellscape that disturbs the sleep of anybody who contemplates it carefully.

more: My Hate Speech

How Can I Not Be Angry

Lately, as a woman living in Gaza, as a wife and more importantly as a mother, I faced many critical situations where I can no longer have the space, or the willingness, and the capacity to deal with it in a normal and calm way, especially when these situations are happened to be with my children, which make it even worse. Angriness occurred too quickly, patience is no longer available, and tolerance is a far beyond dream.

Of course all of these symptoms appeared after the cast lead operation, and after the continued blockade on Gaza. A state of loss, emptiness and anger overwhelmed not only me but for sure other mothers and wives but also the rest of the Palestinian people living under such in human circumstances in Gaza. A common complaints can show how both mothers and wives in particular are dealing with sever states of continues worry ness, anger, frustration and despair. The effect of such an endless struggle affects not only our relations with our children but also with our husbands and more importantly with our acceptance of what and how we became.

We are no longer the loving mothers, no longer the source of love, and security to our children, and no longer the source of support to our husbands, which widen the gab of emptiness and helplessness inside each one of us.

more: Najwa Sheikh Ahmed at The Peoples Voice

The Perfect Child


Sepracor hopes to market its insomnia treatment, Lunesta, for use by children.
Sepracor hopes to market its insomnia treatment, Lunesta, for use by children.

more sordid details: MSM Monitor

On the 2nd Amendment:

Let freedom ring…ALL Freedoms

Brady Campaign observes Independence Day by lobbying against liberty

Independence requires the will and means to preserve it

First, read the Declaration of Independence. When was the last time you read it in full, and reflected on its meaning, for the men who signed it, for the generation guided by it, and for yourself?

We will not disarm.

Joy in Mudville!

Now if all corrupt politicians would resign, we would really have reason to celebrate.

Sarah Palin resigning, political scandal
Sarah Palin looking into her future and seeing trouble?

Sarah Palin may be resigning due to criminal indictments or for the money.

This is clearly a political drama yet to explode. Somewhere is a scandal waiting to be uncovered. So much for Palin’s righteous Christian integrity and belief in public service.

After almost eight years of the fraud of the ‘War on Terror,’ Homeland Security finally decides to re-open the Statue of Liberty. What… Did the Mossad/CIA promise not to attack it?

Independence and Liberty

The U.S. government intrudes into our financial lives in every conceivable way. Every industry is regulated by thousands of bureaucrats and millions of pages of federal regulations.

We have a welfare state only slightly less socialistic than that of most other Western democracies. We have the largest budget, the largest government program – social security – the largest military and the largest prison system on the planet.

And now we are facing a welfare-warfare state crisis that boggles the mind. The Obama administration has continued and built upon the foreign interventionism of Bush, expanding the war in Afghanistan and into Pakistan. On civil liberties, he has solidified most of the worst legal positions and policies of the Bush administration.

Independence from out-of-control government might seem like a dream now. But the ideas of liberty can be the most powerful thing on earth. To do your part, declare your own independence from the dominant statist zeitgeist, and spread the message of freedom to people you care about today.

Happy Fourth of July.

more: Anthony Gregory

Oath Keepers – Orders We Will NOT Obey

Posted on


1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a state of emergency on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to keep the peace or to maintain control.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

(Read the full declaration here…

OATH KEEPERS is an association of Military, Veterans, and peace officers who will honor their oaths to defend the Constitution, will NOT just follow orders, will stand for liberty, and will save the Republic, so help us God. Our motto is:

“Not on Our Watch!”


In a stunning conversation with a friend, who is a serving member of the Armed Forces, over the weekend, it was revealed that transfers to regiments and other units in the UK on home duties are being undertaken by the MOD based upon whether an individual was prepared to ‘open fire’ on UK citizens during civil disturbances.

I found this long and extracted conversation to be both bizarre and frightening. I will state at this point that he is someone that I have known for years, and trust implicitly. The fact that service personnel are actually being asked in special briefing sessions whether they would fire on their own nationals indicates that the rumours about the Army being put on standby are indeed very true.

As if to add weight to this, it was reported yesterday as a tag on a posting about UKIP by Richard North on EUReferendum that plans for Army involvement were well advanced:

Recently, from a confidential source, I received information that the MoD was buying up unusually large quantities of tear gas and other riot equipment. Clearly, it has no intention of being caught out, as it was at the beginning of the Troubles, having to ration tear gas and riot shields. Maybe they might even find a use for all those Snatch Land Rovers, when they are returned from Iraq.

The implications of putting the Army on the streets, though, are horrendous. Currently, the Army is riding on the crest of a wave of public approval but, as it did in Northern Ireland, sentiment can very quickly turn. The ramifications for the campaign in Afghanistan might be significant. An Army which is sent out against its own people is not likely to attract much support for its other activities.

But there is not much prospect of the Army disobeying orders. As we saw in the 2001 Foot and Mouth epidemic, it went to work with a will, engaging in illegal activities, intimidating ordinary people and conspiring with the civil authorities to enforce false arrest. It will do so again if ordered, with the back-up this time of the Civil Contingencies Act which makes legal much of what was illegal back in 2001.

It goes a long way to explain why our servicemen and women are not getting the equipment they need in the war zones, lack of transport, lack of helicopters, lack of personal protection equipment. We know for instance that there are several hundred Italian made soft personnel vehicles in storage in the UK for use here, bought by the MoD to replace the snatch Land Rovers, but never sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, and the fleet of 8 Chinooks that was due to be dispatched this month are now to be kept in the UK.

We believe that this Government is looking for that confrontation with the people in order to invoke the Civil Contingencies Act and make use of the plethora of authoritarian laws it has prepared over the 12 years in control.

It continues to introduce new rules, rulings and guidelines on a daily basis designed specifically to inflame the anger in the population, hoping that they will eventually snap and take to the streets.

The Questions that really needs to be asked here is this.

Is the Army legally entitled to support a Government no longer wanted by the people?.
Would the Army comply with such orders on the British Mainland?

I want to know exactly what this Government has planned for Military deployments in the UK, and whether they would be deployed against their own citizens.

It is known that many of the senior personnel in the MoD have received Common Purpose training. The content and purpose of that secret training now needs explaining.
{more – Ian Parker-Joseph}

‘The Ron Paul Platform’

Posted on

By Editor ∙ Truth Rocker ∙ September 2, 2008

I purchased and read the book The Revolution: A Manifesto, and upon the Republic rally today, here is the platform:

The Ron Paul Platform: Foreign Policy

“Neoconservatives, the false conservatives who got us into the Iraq mess and pushed hard for war with Iran, continue to hold their positions of prominence. Why that is so is quite beyond me…. Meanwhile, where is the exposure for those who favor a non-interventionist foreign policy? These individuals would have avoided the Iraq fiasco altogether.

“America would be trillions richer over the long term, Iraqi society would not be in shambles, and countless Americans and Iraqis alike would still be alive. Noninterventionists have been entirely vindicated. And yet they do not enjoy the places of prominence that the establishment has bestowed upon those who have been consistently wrong, and responsible for carnage and destruction that have destroyed our good name around the world and isolated us more than ever in our history.” More…

The Ron Paul Platform: The Constitution

“A ‘living’ Constitution is just the thing any government would be delighted to have, for whenever the people complain that their Constitution has been violated, the government can trot out its judges to inform the people they’ve simply misunderstood: the Constitution, you see, has merely evolved with the times. Thus, as in Orwell’s Animal Farm, ‘no animal shall sleep in a bed’ becomes ‘no animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets,’ ‘no animal shall drink alcohol’ becomes “no animal shall drink alcohol to excess,’ and ‘no animal shall kill any other animal’ becomes ‘no animal shall kill any other animal without cause.’

“That’s why on this issue I agree with historian Kevin Gutzman, who says that those who would give us a ‘living’ Constitution are actually giving us a dead Constitution, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachments of government power.” More…

The Ron Paul Platform: War Powers and the Draft

“Whatever kind of evidence you want to examine, whether constitutional or historical, the verdict is clear: Congress was supposed to declare war, and the president in turn was to direct the war once it was declared….

“The draft is a totalitarian institution that is based on the idea that the government owns you and can dispose of your life as it wishes. Republican Senator Robert Taft said that the draft was ‘far more typical of totalitarian nations than of democratic nations. It is absolutely opposed to the principles of individual liberty, which have always been considered part of American democracy.’

“The Korean War was the great watershed in the modern presidential power grab in war-making. President Harry Truman sent Americans halfway around the world without so much as a nod in the direction of Congress.” More…

The Ron Paul Platform: Abortion and the War on Drugs

“By a simple majority, Congress could strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, thereby overturning the obviously unconstitutional Roe. At that point, the issue would revert to the states, where it constitutionally belongs….

“Government exacerbates racial thinking and undermines individualism because its very existence encourages people to organize along racial lines in order to lobby for benefits for their group. That lobbying, in turn, creates animosity and suspicion among all groups, each of which believes it is getting less of its fair share than the others….

“The federal war on drugs has wrought disproportionate harm on minority communities. Allowing for states’ rights here would surely be an improvement, for the states could certainly do a better and more sensible job than the federal government has been doing if they were free to decide the issue for themselves….

“We should not think in terms of whites, blacks, Hispanics and other such groups. That kind of thinking only divides us.” More…

The Ron Paul Platform: Economic Freedom

“Economic freedom is based on a simple moral rule: everyone has a right to his or her life and property, and no one has the right to deprive anyone of these things.

“To some extent, everyone accepts this principal. For instance, anyone going to his neighbor’s home and taking his money at gunpoint, regardless of all the wonderful, selfless things he promised to do with it, would be promptly arrested as a thief.

“But for some reason it is considered morally acceptable when government does that very thing. We have allowed government to operate according to its own set of moral rules.” More…

The Ron Paul Platform: Civil Liberties

“The misnamed Patriot Act, presented to the public as an antiterrorism measure, actually focuses on American citizens rather than foreign terrorists. The definition of ‘terrorism’ for federal criminal purposes is greatly expanded, such that legitimate protest against the government could someday place an American under federal surveillance. Similarly, your Internet provider can be forced to hand over user information to law enforcement without a warrant or subpoena.

“The biggest problem with these new law enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, and checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. ‘Sneak and peek’ and blanket searches are becoming more frequent every day. Most of the provisions have been sought by domestic law enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism but rather to increase their police power over the American people.

“The federal government has not shown us that it failed to detect or prevent the September 11 attacks because it lacked the powers over our lives that it was granted under the Patriot Act.” More…

The Ron Paul Platform: Personal Freedom

“Regardless of where one stands on the broader drug war, we should all be able to agree on the subject of medical marijuana. Here, the use of an otherwise prohibited substance has been found to relieve unbearable suffering in countless patients. How can we fail to support liberty and individual responsibility in such a clear-cut case?

“What harm does it do to anyone else to allow fellow human beings in pain to find the relief they need? What kind of ‘compassionate conservatism’ is this?” More…

The Ron Paul Platform: Money

“Americans are concerned about our financial picture: the housing bubble, the collapsing dollar, the specter of inflation. Most don’t know what’s causing it, but they correctly sense that something in our economic system is rotten.

“Neither political party will speak to them frankly and honestly. Instead, the people are told by the talking heads on television that their rulers know just what is wrong and will promptly put things right. A little more monetary manipulation by the Federal Reserve is all the economy needs, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the system.

“These contrived, self-serving answers satisfy very few, but they are all the answers the American people are ever given.

“Once again, Americans are deprived of a full and fruitful debate on a subject of the utmost importance. The entire range of debate is limited to minor tinkering: should the Fed make this trivial adjustment or that one? Read the major newspapers and watch the cable news channels: you will not see any fundamental questions raised. The debate will be resolutely confined to superficialities.” More…

The Ron Paul Platform: The Revolution

“I have heard it said that mankind does not want freedom, that people are happy to be slaves as long as they are entertained and well fed. I have likewise heard it said that most Americans have bought into the version of events they are given in the mainstream media and they are perfectly content to be told what to think — what is good, what is bad, who is politically acceptable, who is politically unacceptable.

“I don’t believe this for a second. For one thing, our own American Revolution would have been impossible if this mentality had prevailed. Contrary to what many Americans have been taught, a majority, not a minority, of the colonists supported the fight for liberty against Great Britain.” More…


Post by way of:


Posted on

Michael Rivero

Politicians and pundits use the phrase “Cost of Freedom” a lot, usually in reference to something they are asking you to do that you probably prefer not to, such as pay higher taxes, wear a uniform, submit to intrusive surveillance, or simply keep quiet about any doubts you may have about the former.

Before going into the cost of freedom, however, perhaps we need to take a closer look at what we mean by freedom, exactly.

There is no pure, perfect freedom. We all agree that there are certain things we should not be free to do, such as to walk in and out of each others’ homes removing TV sets and jewelry, or shoot the neighbor who is hard of hearing and falls asleep each night in front of the too-loud TV set. We understand and agree to certain rules required to create a society in which specialized skills operate together in mutually beneficial commerce.

So, let us start out by defining a free society not as a society where people are free to do what they wish, but as one in which we freely choose to surrender certain behaviors in exchange for the benefits of living within that society. A covenant exists between the rulers and the ruled in which each freely agrees to follow a set of rules of behavior, in exchange for a certain set of rights. In the United States, that covenant is enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, a contract which lays out what the government may, and more importantly may not do.

In a free society, the covenant must be enforced on both the rulers and the ruled equally. To enforce the covenant upon the people there is law enforcement, and when needed, prison. To enforce the covenant on the side of the government, the Founding Fathers created a government of three components, each charged with keeping an eye on the other two, and when needed, to legally restrain excess of authority.

The Founding Fathers created a nation in which government was broken into separate components that enforced the covenant on each other because history has shown that power attracts the very sort of people who should never have it. With precious few exceptions, most people who seek power do so for very selfish reasons, and willing to do anything to get it, are usually equally willing to do anything with it. A free society must be one in which the freedoms of the rulers are subject to the same limits as the freedoms of the people.

At the dawning of the Third Millennium, the United States has fallen from the Republic created by the Founding Fathers to a society in which the government is not enforced to adhere to the covenant, and rights and freedoms are surrendered by the people not in exchange for benefits, but by trickery and deception.

The US Government has fallen from the high and noble ideals on which the nation was founded. The covenant is broken, and the US Government rules the nation by fear, not only of its direct authority but of an endless and unbroken chain of manufactured fears used to terrorize the people of the nation into agreeing to surrender more rights, more money, even the lives of their children.

For almost 50 years following WW2, the US Government waved the fear of “The Communist Menace” at us all, in response to which We The People surrendered trillions of dollars building nuclear weapons to point at the Soviets. Looking back, we see that the Communist government was at the same time waving “The Capitalist Menace” at their citizens, to trick them into surrendering their wealth into building of nuclear weapons to point back at the USA.

Following the collapse of the USSR, the United States Government lost its most potent demon to wave at the masses. But it was quickly replaced with SARS, Aids, Swine Flu, Avian Flu, Ebola, Global Warming, Global Cooling, inflation, deflation, and most recently terrorists. Each and every demon was waved at us to trick us into surrendering more of our money, more of our children’s lives, more of our rights, and each and every demon had no more substance than the paper-mache’ heads used by the Wizard of Oz to trick Dorothy into making war on the Wicked Witch of the West. Fear gave politicians issues to run on, defense and medical corporations markets for their products, and media sensational content for their periodicals and broadcasts.

That it was all trickery and deception with the purpose of tricking us out of our rights was best illustrated by President George W. Bush’s plan to deal with Avian Flu, which not only enriched his good friend Donald Rumsfeld, but also included gun confiscation. It should be noted that firearms (and the second amendment) do not increase one’s susceptibility to infection by viruses. Clearly, the real agenda isn’t to save the populace from a flu virus (which as of this writing has actually killed few humans), but to grab the guns and remove the right to firearms recognized by the Founding Fathers.

The problem with a government that rules by fear is that once they have started to use fear on their own population they can never stop, never allow the fear to subside, never allow the population to calm down and think rationally. Because when the population stops being afraid, when they start to think, they will start asking why they cannot have all the rights, freedoms, and money back. This actually happened following the collapse of the USSR in 1990, when Americans, tired of the trillions in taxes collected and spent on the nuclear deterrent, demanded a drastic reduction in military spending. So, in 1991, the US tricked Saddam Hussein into invading Kuwait by promising they would not object, then invaded Iraq, thereby having a convenient war to keep the military budget inflated.

Today we are in two wars, both of which now appear to have been started with outright lies by the US Government. Americans are starting to say “no” to more wars and that is a good thing, for above all else freedom means the freedom to say “no” to the government,; to remind them that they too are bound by the covenant to restrict their actions to the letter of the Constitution and the laws.

The Cost of that Freedom isn’t paying more taxes or wearing a uniform; it is simply to decide one will not be afraid of the manufactured demons put forth in print and in TV that serve no purpose than to keep the people meek and under control. That is all it takes; the will to not be afraid.

Of course the government does not like people who refuse to live in fear, or who say no. Every time a citizen stands up and says “no” the tyrant fears. Every time a citizen refuses to be afraid the government will work extra hard to make that person afraid, and even today we see those who speak out, because they are no longer afraid, subjected to harassment and intimidation. Yet they remain unafraid, for they see the harassment and intimidation for what it is, a symptom of a government losing control of the people, and they choose to remain unafraid.

So, that’s really all there is to it. Refusing to be afraid. Refusing to be tricked out of your rights.

Freedom is the freedom to say “no”, and the freedom to live your life unafraid.


Americans, the Common Law, and Freedom – What you need to know.

Posted on Updated on

Friday, August 22, 2008

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —“

When you read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence remember what the world looked like to the men who wrote it. Then look at our world through their eyes; understanding their world and the institutions they used routinely brings understanding of what has gone so wrong with our world today.

Their world was the same and different. The agreement to go to war came after a long process of discourse over the issues, not by leaders, but by ordinary people. The Committees of Correspondence drove a dialogue on why the people should govern themselves, enacting formally what they had been doing for two centuries. They were a people who expected to cooperate, looking across into each other’s eyes, never up to anyone in government.

Over that time they had built a vibrant and robust society that was stretching out in all directions. The people governed themselves, using of a system of organizing tools, proven over time. Those tools were town government operating with transparency, ensuring that real control remained directly in the hands of the people. For justice, they used the Common Law, brought with them from England.

Control of the functions of government through the town ensured that government would never eat up the seed corn. Direct scrutiny by the people on what was spent, the authority always with them to approve or deny, kept government small and honest. Delving back in time you see these people assumed that no one went into government to make money or secure their retirement because the pay was terrible and there were no benefits. Those serving in government were assumed to have enough money to be able to donate their time. That model still persists in some parts of New England. The same principles were in use for the justice system through the Common Law Courts. Judges performed a service to the community, drawing from their own time to do so.

In use by the people for centuries, the common law was not something apart from the people but like the air they breathed. School children saw it operating and were prepared to use it themselves when they became adults. Going to court was serious, a process treated with respect, but instead of dividing them they entered into that process knowing that, ultimately, there would be justice. Contrast that to how the system of courts looks to us today.

The Common Law is a system for justice that is handled directly by the people. That is the system our Founders assumed would continue; it was one of those tools, used sparingly, that allowed a free people to govern themselves directly. Town government, with its absolute transparency and resulting low costs, along with the Common Law, were the foundation for freedom that the Founders assumed would continue.

Elections handled directly by the people; the votes totaled openly and transparently.

Spending by government overseen directly by the people.

Common law courts that possessed the right to judge both the facts and the law.

The system worked. It remains the system intended by our Founders. It can still work today.

How do we become, again, a people who govern themselves? That we can do so is inherent in our mission statement. The Declaration of Independence says,

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The first Amendment of the Bill of Rights owes its existence to a common law case heard in New York in 1735. In 1735 the Royal Governor of New York attempted to suborn the right of jury to decide fact and law. It had begun with the publication of the New-York Weekly Journal in 1633 with Zenger as the editor. The paper began because Crosby, the Royal Governor, was corrupt and the people needed the truth. Zenger was arrested and incarcerated for telling the truth on November 17, 1734. The bail set made his release impossible.

The Zenger Case was heard on August 4th of that year saw a jury of twelve men render the verdict of not guilty, thus overthrowing the law and setting a course that lead to the principle that the truth is its own defense. It was this case that remained in the minds of our Founders when they wrote the Bill of Rights, addendum to the Constitution, which was intended to limit government, never us.

The verdict of Not Guilty affirmed the right of anyone to break a law that violated the conscience of the community and the right of an individual to speak the truth.

The Zenger Case is with you any time you serve on a jury.

The Common Law is the muscle behind our rights.

Many today think of the Common Law as antiquated and impractical; nothing could be further from the truth. The disused understanding of these tools are waiting for us to pick up. They are easy to use and bring with them amazing benefits, also forgotten, that created the American people as different from any nation on the face of the Earth.

When you are empaneled as a juror on a Common Law Court you already understand that this is a grave responsibility. You take up the charge to become, with those others serving, the conscience of your community. You leave behind you any prejudices. Those who serve understand they must see the matter at hand dispassionately, demand the facts, scrutinize the evidence, see beyond evasion to the root of the issues. Then, the juror must reflect on each other point, listening as if the life of their community depended on it.

America itself owes its existence, in part, to another case where the jury refused to violate the conscience of the community and the right of the individual. That jury heard its case in England in 1670. King Charles II demanded the prosecution of William Penn for the crime of preaching his Quaker faith. The jury foreman, Edward Bushel, along with the rest of the jury, found the law unjust, in violation of the people’s right to worship. The case was heard at the Old-Bailey from the 1st to the and 5th of Sept.

Afterwards, the jury was incarcerated for returning a verdict that outraged the judge. He directed that the jury reconsider their verdict. They retired and returned with the same verdict, Not Guilty. The judge then confined the jury in Newgate Prison to remain without food or water until the desired verdict was rendered. They continued to hold that William Penn was not guilty. Eventually they were fined and released.

William Penn, then 26 immigrated to Pennsylvania. The lesson of the right of the jury to decide is the birth right of all Americans and the midwife of our freedom.

The Common Law and its principles remain in use, though those now in power try to disguise their existence. A pivotal example of the same kind of courage shown in the Zenger and Penn cases took place in the township of Credit River, Minnesota on 12th December 1968. The issue was the fraud being perpetrated by banks across the world. It is known as the Credit River Case.

Jerome Daly faced eviction from his home. Daly had sued the bank, his house in foreclosure; while reviewing the papers and practices he had noticed that the mortgage was issued with no legal consideration. The verdict rendered hinged on the admission by the president of the First National Bank of Montgomary that there was no legal consideration with the loan written for Jerome Daly’s mortgage. The bank president testified, ‘this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or law that gave the plaintiff the authority to do this.”

Daly kept his home. Two weeks later the judge in the case, Mahoney, was murdered. No one ever said that freedom and justice would come without costs.

Courts that follow the common law accept the tenet that the jury decides on all issues, both fact and law; they can demand more information. Nothing is hidden from them. The judge is only there to be called on by the jury. They must understand that the rights of individuals trump statute, and, most importantly, they are acting as the incarnation of the conscience of the community.

Arguably, the most important check and balance to power in government is the power of the informed jury to decide on the issues of both of law and fact. Today, we as Americans face the need to restore to use the tools that connect us to our own power, granted not by government, but by God.

Start with your local county, establish your own Heritage Association on the common law and the Constitution.

Let your local law enforcement know what their obligations are under the Constitution.

Celebrate Jury Rights Day, September 5th . Get to know the Fully Informed Jury Association.

A free people will govern themselves; a people who will be free do it themselves.

Servile Nation

Posted on Updated on

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

by William N. Grigg

Time to even things up: Advocates of universal enslavement are planning to hold a “National Service Summit” in New York City this September. In anticipation of the advent of St. Barack’s Millennial Kingdom, advocates of state-mandated “service” will push for enactment of legislation requiring all 18-26 year olds waste at least two years of their lives in government-imposed slavery.

Service is a pervasive blessing of a free-market society — or even a society as cankered with collectivism as ours has become.

Every second of each day, countless acts of service are being rendered. They are performed by auto mechanics and attorneys, doctors and dog groomers, musicians and manicurists; service is given by “sales” associates in our much-maligned retail superstores, by taxi drivers, by convenience store clerks.

Those services are offered in voluntary exchange for money (well, the government-issued simulacrum of the same) on terms that are mutually beneficial to the buyer and seller.

Altruistic service likewise abounds in the United States. It takes place in families, religious communities, private clubs and fraternal organizations, and in the form of spontaneous individual acts of conscience.

To an advocate of “National Service,” however, none of these activities are innately worthwhile. They haven’t been mandated or certified by the State. Thus they are missing the magic ingredient that supposedly makes government “service” morally superior to the private variety: Coercion.

From that perspective, the janitor who cleans up a shopping mall in exchange for a paycheck is to be disdained as someone seeking his own economic benefit, while an AmeriCorps “volunteer” who cleans up a public park in exchange for money extorted from taxpayers at gunpoint is to be celebrated as the embodiment of the Common Good. Yes, they both perform the same function, but only the labor of the latter has been consecrated through the exercise of government coercion.

Contemporary advocates of National Service, whether they admit it or not, seek to install coercion — not commerce or contract — as the organizing principle of the economy. They likewise seek to indoctrinate young Americans in the idea that human needs are best met through social regimentation administered by a supervisory elite. And behind the conceit expressed in the common refrain that National Service teaches a person to serve something “larger than himself” looms the murderous assumption that the individual exists to serve the pleasure of the State.

All of this explains why modern collectivists, from the Jacobins to the Bolsheviks to their disavowed but unmistakable kindred, the Fascists and National Socialists, have made compulsory universal “service” a central pillar of their totalitarian platforms.

“The Youth belong to the Leader”: The Nazi vision of “National Service.”

The Jacobins fought a civil war against the heroic Vendeans in the effort to impose conscription — for both military service and forced labor — on a recalcitrant population. Decades later, the demand for universal, state-mandated labor and the conscription of “industrial armies” was the eighth plank of the Communist Manifesto.

After the founding of the Soviet regime, Vladimir Lenin insisted that each of its subjects consider himself part of a “great army of free labor” to be used as the Bolshevik oligarchy saw fit. “The generation that is now 15 years old … must arrange all the tasks of their education in such a way that every day, in every city, the young people shall engage in the practical solution of the problems of common labor, even of the smallest, most simple kind,” declared the founding Soviet dictator.

A nearly identical ethic of common servitude was championed by the Fascist regime founded by Benito Mussolini. Fascist theoretician Alfredo Rocco declared: “For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.”

In his 1936 book The Philosophy of Fascism, Mario Palmieri explained that under Mussolini’s variant of quasi-socialist collectivism, “a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified … with this need of raising the State to its rightful position.”

The “rightful position” Palmieri alludes to, of course, is master.

Not many people realize that nearly two decades before Mussolini’s ideological priesthood taught those tenets in Italy, the same gospel of collectivism was being preached in the United States under the reign of the despicable Woodrow Wilson. In fact, there’s a strong case to be made that fascism and national socialism were invented by American collectivists, rather than their counterparts in Italy or Germany.

Bernard Baruch, chairman of Wilson’s War Industries Board (and the son of a German who fled that country to avoid conscription) unflinchingly espoused the concept of state ownership of its subjects in an August 7, 1918 newspaper editorial:

“Every man’s life is at the call of the nation and so must be every man’s property. We are living today in a highly organized state of socialism. The state is all; the individual is of importance only as he contributes to the welfare of the state. His property is his only as the state does not need it. He must hold his life and possessions at the call of the state.”

Responding to those who condemned conscription as a form of impermissible enforced servitude, Baruch assumed that there is some ineffable quality of government that elevates and purifies officially sanctioned slavery.

“Enforced and involuntary service for a private master,” Baruch insisted, “is and has been clearly and repeatedly defined by our Supreme Court as slavery.” But this wasn’t true of those drafted into the military, or into industrial armies through the Wilson regime’s “Work or Fight” program: “A soldier serves the nation directly. There is but one master in the case and that master is America. He serves to profit no one but the country as a whole” — or, more honestly stated, the government ruling the country.

As someone who lusted to impose an austere uniformity upon irrepressibly individualistic Americans, Baruch was sorely disappointed when World War I ended so quickly.

“Had the war gone on another year, our whole civil population would have gradually emerged (as wardrobes and inventories became exhausted) in cheap but serviceable uniform,” he wrote wistfully in his book American Industry in the War, published in 1941 as the Regime in Washington geared up for a second mass bloodletting. “Types of shoes were to be reduced to two or three. The manufacture of pleasure automobiles was to cease.”

The authentic face of American fascism: Bernard Baruch, as he appeared while directing the Wilson Regime’s War Industries Board.

Although Baruch and his comrades failed to consummate their desire to transform America into a dull gray collectivist monolith, the former War Commissar could take some satisfaction in knowing that his work was appreciated abroad.

Writing of Germany’s National Socialist regime, Baruch proudly noted: “German military experts have said, ‘Except for a few minor changes, the German economic mobilization system was conscientiously built in imitation of the similar American system.'”

Let me repeat, and italicize, that admission:

Bernard Baruch, the architect of Wilson’s wartime collectivist state, was proud that the Nazi regime was using his program of universal conscription as the blueprint for their own totalitarian order.

A few years before Baruch the Malignant was put in charge of the American economy, social philosopher and psychologist William James devised a slightly different framework for universal slavery. In a 1910 essay of the same name, James introduced a concept that has since become an exceptionally tiresome rhetorical trope: “The Moral Equivalent of War.”

As a self-described pacifist, James sought to extract “the higher aspects of military sentiment” from the “bestial side of the war-regime.” Like many social engineers who write with extended pinky fingers, James found that there was something about the regimentation and pageantry of militarism that stirred his loins. He mused that there must be some way to preserve the collectivist advantages of war, without all of that icky bloodshed.

Why not have “a conscription of the whole youthful [male] population to form for a certain number of years a part of the army enlisted against Nature,” wrote James, using the term to describe both the physical challenges of a country that was still part wilderness, and those elements of youthful human nature James found disagreeable.

“To coal and iron mines, to freight trains, to fishing fleets in December, to dish-washing, clothes-washing, and window-washing, to road-building and tunnel-making, to foundries and stoke-holes, and to the frames of skyscrapers, would our gilded youths be drafted off, according to their choice, to get the childishness knocked out of them, and to come back into society with healthier sympathies and soberer ideas,” wrote James. “They would have paid their blood-tax*…. Such a conscription, with the state of public opinion that would have required it, and the many moral fruits it would bear, would preserve in the midst of a pacific civilization the manly virtues which the military party is so afraid of seeing disappear in peace.”

Once again, young men perform all of the various kinds of “service” referred to by James — as employees or even as business owners.

But this won’t do. Only conscripted service will accomplish what he, like other statists, desired: Teach the youngster to put the State at the center of his life, impressing upon him the idea that he belongs to the State, and that anything he has can be demanded of him by the State at any time. Just as importantly, it would preserve the chief “benefit” of war by imposing quasi-military regimentation on young Americans during peacetime.

Epicene collectivist Richard Stengel, who doesn’t look like somebody familiar with the proper use of either a shovel or a rifle, seeks to re-institute slavery in the form of mandatory “National Service.”

Roughly a century later, Time‘s Richard Stengel dumbed down and reheated William James’s proposal in “A Time to Serve,” an essay he published in his little magazine roughly a year ago.

“It may seem like a strange moment to make the case for national service for young Americans when so many are already doing so much,” writes Stengel. “Young men and women have made their patriotism all to real by volunteering to fight two wars on foreign soil. But we have battlefields in America, too — particularly in education and health care — and the commitment of soldiers abroad has left others yearning to make a parallel commitment here at home.”

Two elements of this paragraph shriek out for a response.

First, Stengel identifies education and health care as two areas desperately in need of help. This isn’t surprising, given the amount of government involvement in those two fields. This illustrates one of the nastiest hidden aspects of the “National Service” concept: Government creates or exacerbates social problems through corrupt intervention, and then forces people to work for free on behalf of a government-mandated “solution.”

Secondly, young people face no impediments should they feel a calling to help clean up the government-created messes in education or health care, or to offer uncompensated service for any other cause. Stengel’s disingenuous language about a national service program being a boon to those who want to make a “commitment” of that kind is a variant on a familiar theme — the idea that conscription would “give youngsters an opportunity to serve,” as if such opportunities didn’t exist.

Young people face no shortage of opportunities to enlist in the military, or in any of the numerous government-created “service” organizations. The real intent is to reduce their opportunities by forcing them to serve.

Stengel, a co-chairman of the elitist pro-servitude lobby Service Nation, proposes that Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 be required to spend at least one year in “national or military service.” This wouldn’t be “mandatory,” he insists, because in his scheme it would be the taxpayers who are coerced: “Every time an American baby is born, the Federal Government would invest $5,000 in that child’s name in a 529-type fund [a college savings account]…. At a rate of return of 7% — the historic return for equities — that money would total roughly $19,000 by the time that baby reaches age 19.” The money would be released after the youngster has paid the “blood tax” of national service.

Stengel’s proposal is just one version of what has become the semi-official template for a new conscription program: Various proposals are circulating in which a year or more of “national or military service” would be required of young Americans as a condition of college admission, or financial aid for college.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-New York), who has sponsored legislation to reinstate the military draft based on that concept, has pointed out that although young people could request domestic assignments of various kinds, the final decision as to where the subjects would serve would be made by their masters: “[I]t would seem to me that … you bring everybody in, and then you determine what can you do with them, what contribution can they make?… We can train people to do these non-military jobs. They can go overseas. They can stay here. They could be the eyes and ears.”

Those who volunteer for military service today have no control over how or where they serve, and find that the government reserves the power to redefine its service contract at whim. Why should we believe that a universal mandatory service program would operate any differently?

This September 11-12, Service Nation will hold a two-day summit in New York City to inaugurate a year-long campaign to enact a mandatory universal service program. Organizers anticipate the involvement of both John McCain and Barack Obama, who represent complementary halves of the mandatory service concept.

The notoriously bellicose McCain lusts for the manpower necessary to carry out various wars and foreign occupations that would last for generations.

Barack the Blessed (we pause now for a moment of chastened reverence) has proposed the creation of a “civilian national security force” that would be “just as powerful, just as strong” as the military. And like all advocates of government-administered “service,” Obama believes that “volunteering” works best when it is mandatory under penalty of law.

His wife Michelle — who once ordered people in an economically depressed Ohio community to eschew lucrative corporate employment and instead serve as instruments of the State — has predicted that as ruler Obama will demand that you shed your cynicism . . . That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual …..”(Emphasis added.)

Whether it takes the form of a military draft, or the creation of huge armies of state-supervised “free labor,” National Service is designed to make the State the central focus in the life of every individual. It is a perverse political sacrament intended to compel subjects to seek first the good of the State and its supposed righteousness.

Rather than catechizing them in collectivism, young people desperately need to be taught that the only genuine public service is that which takes place through commerce and contract, rather than coercion. They should be helped to understand that a youngster who flips hamburgers or mows laws in exchange for a private paycheck is performing a socially useful service immeasurably superior to the purported “service” performed by tax-subsidized drones.

They should be instructed to despise the State and oppose all of its works and pomps — its fraudulent currency, its fictional reserve banking system, its wars both domestic and foreign. They should be raised to see the State for what it is: The grand impediment to all genuine social progress and the greatest source of needless death and misery in human history.

To put it in a single phrase: Young people must be taught to shun the State as their mortal enemy, rather than to embrace it as their redeemer.

*To anyone possessed of so much as a whisper of historical perspective, the phrase “blood tax” has a chilling resonance: That expression originally referred to the practice of the Ottoman Turks of stealing young Christian boys, forcibly indoctrinating them in Islam, and deploying them as Janissaries — occupation forces and tax collectors for the Sultan.