Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All?

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | anarchy-vs-minarchy | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Anarchy vs. minarchy: which is better? Can we be free with a limited government? Can we be safe in a stateless society? Is voluntaryism the answer?

Anarchy vs minarchy is the contrast between the idea of a society with no government (anarchy) or a small, limited government (minarchy). For many awake and aware people, the current state of the world is so dysfunctional that they have gone beyond the point of trying to justify our current governmental structures. For this growing number of people of all nations and cultures, it’s no longer about left vs right, Democrat vs Republican, socialism vs conservatism or all the other false dichotomies that abound on the political spectrum. For many of us, there’s simply no point in investing time and energy into an illusion – the political illusion – while pretending it actually makes a difference. Why argue who is going to be the better slavemaster or the lesser of 2 evils? We are really only left with 2 choices: between having a small government or having no government. So which would be better for humanity, minarchy or anarchy?

Definitions of Anarchy, Minarchy and Voluntaryism

First of all, the words anarchy and minarchy come from the Greek words “an-” (meaning without), “arkhos” (meaning rule, chief or ruler) and the Latin prefix “min-” (meaning small). Thus, anarchy is a society or nation with no rules (i.e. government-sanctioned law), rulers or a ruling class, whereas minarchy is one with a minimal amount of rules, rulers and a ruling class. Care must be taken not to confuse minarchy with monarchy! Also, instead of the term anarchy, it may be more apt to use the word voluntaryism, which describes a stateless society where all human interactions are voluntary and where no central authority exists to make or enforce laws.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | anarchy-voluntaryism-479x240 | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Can we set up a society where every interaction is voluntary? That is the goal of anarchy or voluntaryism.

Anarchy ≠ Chaos

Before we begin, it’s important to address a common misconception, that anarchy = chaos. Anarchy does not equal chaos! You can still have organization, cooperation, harmony and trust in a society where there is no central authority. It is up to the individual members to act in such a way to create that society. You can even have hierarchy in a voluntary society, where members voluntarily choose to structure an organization like that (e.g. for purposes of speed, coherence and efficiency). However, such hierarchy would never be forced on anyone, because the organizations containing it would be voluntary associations.

Likewise, it’s important to stress that anarchy does not mean utopia either. It’s naive to think that everyone will just magically get along and there will be no criminals or evil if we just remove government. However, as I will get to later, the point is about humanity evolving in terms of responsibility so that we can face these problems in a different way.

The Pros of Minarchism: Arguments For a Small, Limited Government

Many people who become anarchists or voluntaryists first become minarchists, because the idea of imagining the abolition of all government in a single step is very daunting for most. Minarchists believe that we can’t do away with government altogether, because it’s necessary and fulfills too many vital, essential roles that would be difficult or impossible to otherwise fulfill. These are the top reasons and justifications usually proposed for minarchy:

– Need for a central register in society (e.g. to be the one “official” list of titles to property, which plays a key part in dispute resolution);

– Need for central planning and centralized authority for good organization;

– Need to have some mechanism to control and offset other power gangs in society, such as the Mafia and the Corporatocracy;

– Criminal justice (i.e. catching criminals, providing the arena and the judge for trials of suspects); and

– Health safety protection (e.g. forcing quarantine in case of an outbreak).

Some people also advance the claim that government (and governmentally-approved corporate structures) are the reason that Western nations evolved faster than other nations. In this entertaining debate at Anarchapulco, Mark Skousen makes the points that we need minarchy to force a criminal suspect to actually come to the courtroom and stand trial, to ensure quarantine in emergency situations, and to enforce eminent domain (the right government takes upon itself to be able to force buy anyone’s property for national and municipal organizational purposes).

The Cons of Minarchy: Arguments Against a Small, Limited Government

His opponent, Larken Rose, vehemently denies that minarchy is a good idea. He points out the following reasons why:

– Minarchists advocate the “arch” or the existence of a ruling class. All monarchists are statists. They still believe in external authority. They still advocate some kind of government; they just think or want that such a government only do what they want it to do;

– Who decides what the “minimum” amount of power is that a government is allowed to wield? It will always be arbitrary;

– The constitutional limits written down to supposedly restrain minarchy governments don’t work. No one pays attention to the limits, and it’s ultimately not possible to enforce them;

– A constitution almost always provides for its own amendment, so anyone can “legally” and “constitutionally” change the entire constitution piece by piece. Look at how the Weimar Republic “legally” gave Hitler massive power and became the totalitarian state of Nazi Germany;

– Practically speaking, has minarchism ever done what it was promised to do? Like communism, it may be good in theory, but has a government EVER existed that only protected individual rights and never grew larger or out-of-control? Look at the US experiment: it was based on the theory of limited government, but has now grown to become the biggest empire in the history of the world (far more tyrannical than King George ever was), engaging in routine tyranny such as mass surveillance, theft via mandatory and excessive taxation, torture, assassination, foreign intervention and continuous imperialistic war around the world;

– Morally speaking, it’s fundamentally wrong (and impossible) to delegate rights you don’t have. How can a government claim any moral right to do what people cannot morally do? Where did government get its supposed right to steal, punish, imprison and kill, when it’s only made up of people, and no single person has that right himself or herself? Why does “government” suddenly have magical and extraordinary moral rights?

But We “Need” Government … Don’t We?

The usual knee-jerk response from people is that we “need” government and we can’t possibly do away with it completely. But does this stand up to closer scrutiny? Do we really need government to perform all the functions it currently does, or could we open a market for various businesses to compete? For example, could we have a free market for garbage collection? Utilities? Road-building? Dispute resolution? In all cases, there’s no logical reason why we couldn’t allow private businesses to perform these functions and services. Sure, it some cases it’s easier to have competing business (utilities) than others where central planning makes it more efficient (road-building), but couldn’t people find a fair way to get together and pay for these voluntarily in groups, neighborhoods and associations? Anarchists such as Stefan Molyneux have developed the idea of a free market of DROs (Dispute Resolution Organizations) who function as private defense agencies and arbitrators, and whom people employ when they go into contract with each other as a trusted 3rd party. Indeed, big corporations such as PayPal, eBay and Visa already have such private arbitrators anyway, preferring to use them than governmental courts.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | tyrant-appears-as-protector-plato-479x225 | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Without Government, Who Would Protect Us From Evil?

As stated above, anarchy does not mean an automatic utopia. From a voluntaryist point of view, removing government is a great step towards freedom, but many will be scared of the idea. “Who will protect us from evil?” they ask. The answer is, quite simply, that we all have to face it regardless of the existence of government or not. There will still be people and groups trying to trick, steal from and control others. Anarchy can’t protect against all evil. Nothing can. We have government right now, and such conniving people and groups still exist! The big problem is that all too often government becomes the vehicle for such evil rather than a protector against it. As Plato said, when the authoritarian comes on the scene, he appeals to people’s fears and base needs for safety and security. At first, he’s a savior and a protector; later, he’s a tyrant.

When you create a center of power, you create an incentive and invitation for dark forces to seize control of that center of power – then they can magnify and “force multiply” (to use a military term) their dark agenda. Has there ever been a governmental situation where this did not happen? As I discussed in the article The Top 3 Reasons Why the System Keeps Perpetuating Itself, you can use the analogy of the ring of power from the Lord of the Rings. Creating a ring of power (a metaphor for a ruling class, a government and a belief in authority) is dangerous in and of itself, because you are creating an artificial construct which you can never guarantee will be always used for good. We all know the famous phrase that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There’s no way around it!

We all know that politicians are puppets of a darker force. Put simply, the dark force behind government uses government to carry out its plans. What we see in practice, time and time again, is that government ends up enabling the very thing it was supposedly created to stop or protect against! So many insiders have told us this is exactly how the game works. For example, remember the story of Smedley Butler, who exposed how corporations try to win over the centralized coercive power of government to sanction their crimes, and wrote how he regretted becoming a “high class muscle man” for the corporatocracy.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | who-will-guard-the-guards-juvenal-quote | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Who will guard the guards or guardians? It’s a problem as old as time itself. A quote from the ancient Roman author Juvenal.

Government has shown itself to be a vehicle for an astonishing amount of evil. Government is an idea – nothing more – yet the practical implementation of this idea has caused untold death and destruction. The term democide was (according to Wikipedia“revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel (1932–2014) as ‘the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder’”. In other words, democide means death by government. Democide was the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century, responsible for around 262 million victims according to Rummel, including genocides like Stalin’s Great Purges, Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward and the deaths from the colonial policy in the Congo Free State. Yes, communist and fascist governments may be a worse flavor of evil, but so-called liberal democracies like the UK and US have been drenched in blood for centuries now.

Can the Free Market “Guard the Guardians” Better?

Of course, there is no guarantee that anarchy will stop all evil, but perhaps the free market can do a better job than a minarchist system. First off, people so inclined would be happy to take charge of their own defense (by owning and using guns, by taking self-defense courses, etc.). But the defense of your person, your property and your family could also be outsourced to a private group or organization that you trusted. One idea is that, in a free market, DROs could just be like private defense agencies who are vying for your business. The first thing they would have to do would be to convince you that they aren’t a threat themselves and that they are not going to try to seize power over everyone. They would have to have grand guarantees and promises (e.g. Molyneux suggests something like they have to give all their money to charity and close down business if they are caught lying). They would be subject to the scrutiny of the market. If they were found to have deceived people, their business would suffer. People would have the choice to use or not use them.

It has been pointed out that the weakness of libertarianism as a philosophy is that is strong on big bullies (centralized government) but weak on small bullies (local gangs, abusive parents/spouses, etc.). For instance, how would a voluntary society deal with domestic abuse within a family? One answer is that DROs could be called just as cops are now, and while they wouldn’t have the “legal authority” to attack or imprison the abuser (because there would be no such thing as legal authority in an anarchist society), they could certainly use force in self-defense just as any other person would, regardless of if they have a badge and uniform or not. People would have to participate more in forming local groups to resolve conflict and achieve justice for victims. While this may sound scary to some, remember this: as much as government may help some victims of abuse, government also shields and covers up the perpetrators of massive abuse (a great example is how government members participate in pedophilia at the highest levels all across the world).

Again we are left with the awkward realization: government commits and encourages more evil than it stops, or to put it more accurately, the concept and creation of government allow evil and evildoers to amplify their influence and control people more than if government simply did not exist.

Government Creates and Protects Mafia and Corporate Monopolies

Even if you ignore the egregious evils of governmental democide, which some may try to explain away by saying it’s government gone bad, the fact remains that government itself often protects the “bad guys” rather than the “good guys”. By having the power to make law for an entire area, government can create monopolies (e.g. money issuance) and black markets (e.g. prohibition on alcohol). The international banking cartel led by the Rothschilds has prospered mostly because the government has given away its own power to create currency, and has made it legal and mandatory for everyone to accept fiat currency or paper money. Without that governmental decree, the banksters would face more serious competition in the forms of alternative currencies, and people would have more options against them. This is a classic case where government serves and encourages evil rather than protects us from it.

Government itself is a monopoly. It can be defined as the organization within a given geographical area that claims the sole right to rule and the sole right to initiate violence against others who do not obey its decrees. It sets itself up as the sole authority. Once you have a monopoly, you remove the power of the free market and competition. The end user or consumer no longer has options. New World Order conspirator John D. Rockefeller once said, “Competition is a sin”. As a monopoly, government removes itself from the normal pressures that companies face in an economic environment where companies have to perform well or else risk going out of business – and therefore has no real incentive to do its job properly.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | anarchy-government-is-not-reason-eloquence-force-washington-quote | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

When an organization gains a monopoly, it shields itself from ostracism – a great tool of anarchy. Ostracism is the technique by which citizens in a free and voluntary society can make their preferences known, and a kind of way that they “vote” by who they associate with, what products they buy and with whom they do business. Collectively, it forms a network of economic checks and balances which are far better than anything the Constitution could ever protect against (and after all, the US Constitution is just “a goddamn piece of paper”

 in the eyes of tyrants).

Government is not a servant; that’s the lie fed to us. Government is a violent master. Government is first and foremost violence, and secondarily an organizational tool. The above quote is attributed to first US president George Washington.

Removing the Belief in Authority and Taking Responsibility

True anarchy or true voluntaryism takes place first inside your mind, not in the outside world. It all comes down to the belief in authority, to the notion that we have to have a ruling class, or that any ruler can be legitimate in a world where we are all born equal. A careful analysis shows that government cannot justify its political authority, no matter whether you use the arguments of social contract, implicit consent, explicit consent or consequentialism. All of these arguments can be overturned with logic to show that government is simply force masquerading in a variety of disguises such as consent, duty or so-called benevolent dictatorship (an oxymoron). Believing out of fear that we have to have government (no matter what) is a symptom of mind control.

True anarchy is not chaos or disorder, but rather removing the belief in authority, and keeping the rest. It’s overturning the idea that politicians and government get an exemption from morality. There is no need to do away with organization and cooperation; there is a need to do away with the initiation of violence.

Underneath it all, there is a general tendency in some people to be lazy and scared. We want a final arbiter or decider because we don’t want to have to work out things ourselves. Yes, it can be tricky, complicated and difficult to resolve disputes and conflicts, especially when they go into grey ares. It takes responsibility, effort and skill in dispute resolution. But can we justify outsourcing this just because we don’t feel like being more responsible? Or putting out too much effort? Or because we imagine we don’t have the skills and we don’t want to push ourselves to develop them? Can we really justify creating this fictitious seat of power, this morality-free zone, just because we feel too uncomfortable trying to work these things out ourselves? My answer is that we cannot justify it, nor can we even possibly outsource it, for every government necessarily has within it the seed of power, corruption and violence; otherwise, without the power to coerce, it would not be government.

Conclusion: Trust Our Cooperative Tendencies

In closely comparing anarchy and minarchy, it is difficult to justify the minarchist position. When you put them under the microscope, government and political authority are not legitimate; they are force. The terms limited government and government by consent are oxymorons, because there are no good examples in the real world of a government that stays limited forever, and a government never really has the consent of all its citizens, most of whom are simply born into an existing system of coercion by coincidence of birth (and taught through indoctrination to never question it).

The stateless society trusts the inherent tendency among humans (and Nature) to cooperate. Yes, there is competition in life, but the greater part is cooperation, symbiosis, trust and harmony. It is possible to find win/win solutions that don’t require the need for an outside authority, and to take that model and apply it to a whole society. To continue to believe in authority is to create a game where you may win or you may lose; it’s creating a throne or seat of power which “bad guys” can overtake. It’s well nigh time for humanity to grapple with the question of anarchy vs minarchy, to move beyond the fears which are holding us back from creating a more free society.

Sources:

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUjwmC7byCM

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/system-perpetuation-top-3-reasons/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/political-authority-no-real-basis/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/satanic-pedophilia-network-exposed-australia/


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

What is Liberty? What is a Mind?

What is Liberty? What is a Mind? | statue-of-liberty | Civil Rights Consciousness Government Government Control Know Your Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests US Constitution & Bill Of Rights

By: Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News |

“Liberty is the child of intelligence.” (Robert Ingersoll, 1877)

A mind that can’t grasp the concept of liberty wanders in a dark asylum of illusions.

The American Constitution wasn’t written to generate passive benefits. It wasn’t a philosophic food-stamp operation.

Originally, the aim of public education was to impart an understanding of what it meant to participate in a new Republic, as a citizen, in a great experiment.

And that experiment was liberty. With responsibility.

For each individual.

Plugging in arbitrary values is not education.

“Getting everything for nothing” is not education.

During the recent UC Berkeley campus shut-down of free speech, in what was apparently a major takeaway from classes at that august University, chanting students repeated, over and over: “No borders, no nations, f*ck deportations.”

Not exactly on the level of, say, John Adams’ letters and speeches, but these are different times.

Throwing a rock through a plate glass window for no reason is now a badge of pride.

You could take the theme of “individual liberty with accountability and responsibility,” and in two weeks, with willing students, accomplish far more than most liberal arts colleges achieve in four years.

Accountability implies a person is doing something with his life, and he knows what it is.

He’s making choices—exercising his liberty—and he stands behind those choices and actions. And he can tell you why.

He’s not primarily a recipient or a beneficiary.

But there is no way you can teach liberty-plus-responsibility, or engage in a discussion about it, with a person who is determined to accrue every government freebie he can hunt down and bring to ground.

For example, suppose, just suppose you wanted to have a reasonable conversation about the enumeration of federal powers in the Constitution, and how it was intended to preserve liberty. You wanted the forum to be held at a university.

If anyone showed up at all, you’d be lucky. If people became aware of the implications of the topic, they’d protest and set fires and smash cars and demand the university cancel the event. This is called “dialogue.”

When the primary goal of education is socialization and the ruthless inculcation of “values,” the corollary is: the student’s mind must shut down when anyone questions those values.

This is the strategy of a cult.

“I can’t discuss this issue with you. I’m forbidden. And even if I could, I wouldn’t be able to understand what you’re talking about.”

That is what education has come to. That is the fate of the ambition to teach the young what it means to live and participate in a Constitutional Republic.

It is no accident. It’s not merely a random outcome. It’s the result of people taking control of the education system and using it to create disabled minds.

A disabled mind always needs help. And that is precisely the kind of society that has been on the drawing boards for over a century. The Recipient Society.

“You all need help, and we the government exist for that purpose. Forget what the Constitution says. We’ll give you what you need. In return, you pledge your support for us. Don’t leave the fold.”

If you looked around at society and made a list of 10000000 major continuing high-level crimes, and if you then eliminated them in a stroke of pure genius—but the individual never fixed himself, never became both free and responsible, you would fail. The society would keep lapsing back.

Make no mistake, those 10000000000 major crimes need to be prosecuted and eliminated, but the individual doesn’t, therefore, undergo a sudden and miraculous spiritual cure.

The individual is passive or active. He is bright or dull. He is free or enslaved. He is a dynamo or a whisper. He is free and responsible or mired and terminally dependent.

Regardless of external circumstances, he makes those choices.

One might wish this were not so, but it is so.

The enormously positive prospect is: at any moment, he can make a new and better choice.

And then everything changes.

If you’re looking for the powerful lever in human life, there it is…

There is no reason for the free and responsible individual to wait until the whole society catches up to him. That would be a losing game.

If you, engaged in inventing the future you profoundly desire, put a hold on your actions and looked around and decided you were “cheating,” because others weren’t doing for themselves what you’re doing for yourself, you would no longer be free. You would no longer be responsible to yourself.

The race to the lowest common denominator is a picture of what societies have become.

There is no reason to share in this madness.


(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post What is Liberty? What is a Mind? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

How We Become Slaves Of ‘The System’

How We Become Slaves Of ‘The System’ | slaves | Civil Rights Consciousness Government Government Control Know Your Rights Sleuth Journal Society

By: Bob Livingston, Personal Liberty |

Almost everything you think and do is against your best interest and you don’t even realize it. It’s planned that way.

The state seeks absolute control of your mind, body and spirit. Can the state succeed? It has, but only a precious few ever know.

Your mind and your thoughts are not your own. Almost every thought you have channels you toward the state.

By the time a child grows up and goes through the public (non)education system, he or she has no thoughts of his or her own. By the time that person is finished with college, the system has sealed his or her thought processes so that nothing is questioned. The imperative to inquire beyond what comes from the propaganda media and our leaders is gone.

Our minds are so smug in darkness and organized confusion that we are complete automatons. Our ego, our individuality, is completely excised and we are completely transferred into the state organism and group thought. Any deviation from the system by anyone is met with hostility by friends and neighbors.

By this we become locked into a system based only on conventional wisdom.  Conventional wisdom is what everybody knows. It is the court history (faux history) we receive in school and through the controlled media, repeated ad nauseum.

Conventional wisdom is based on confusion and disinformation. It has a crowding-out effect in our thought processes that stifles inquiry. In other words, conventional wisdom programs us to reject any information or thought not in harmony with our preconditioning and experience. It is called cognitive dissonance.

The more one is formally educated, the more he/she is locked into the system mindset.  (Why do you think there is such a push for everyone to receive a college education whether a person is so inclined or not?)

I myself went through four years of college, worked on a master’s degree, and attended law school. What a pity! It took valuable time and money for me to pay for the brainwash. It took years to get over it. I had to completely erase this education foolishness before I could begin to have half sense. My inquiring attitude and much, much reading helped me escape the programmed maze that entrapped me. The many conflicts and confusion was emotionally and financially costly.

Not even your body is your own.

A brand new baby gets vaccinations before it leaves the hospital and the parents are glad. They don’t question what’s in the vaccines or what they’re for.

There’s even now a push to begin vaccinating babies in the womb. As it is, the state begins to seize an infant’s body the first day of its life. It is being prepared for death the day it is born. Then as many as 50 more vaccinations come before the end of high school. All is done in the name of health and for the good of society. It’s all for profit of the giant pharmaceuticals enforced by the political system. The parents believe that it’s good.

There are many knowledgeable people who are against compulsory vaccinations simply because it is a violation of medical freedom. But the problem goes much deeper. It is at the heart of the survival of the system.

Then there is an organized system of sickness called healthcare. This system must have an endless supply of bodies yours.

Thousands of tests, biopsies, sonograms, catheterizations, etc., etc., leading to making huge profits through drugs, surgery, radiation, etc., leading to the general demise of the natural immune system guaranteeing sickness and death yours.

Individual responsibility for one’s own health in America is unthinkable and almost nonexistent. It was so planned. They need and want your body. It is huge profits for the system.

Beyond that, vaccines and the sickness care system are about a population control system based on the cold reality of the survival of the money (credit) creation monopoly that rules the world. Consumers will and must die. The push for universal vaccinations is not ideological fantasy. It is cold-blooded conspiracy to control population. California has mandatory vaccination and has eliminated both the religious and philosophical exemption. As California goes, so goes the nation.

When you understand the money system you will know for certain why population control has now changed from an urgency to a priority of the establishment.

Those of you new to Personal Liberty® and reading some of these things for the first time may be shocked and asking, “What do vaccines, healthcare, the money system and population control have in common?”

In a few words, money creation (money creation is credit creation) is the exclusive monopoly of the central bank. In the U.S., this is the Federal Reserve and Federal Reserve banks.

All wealth flows to the creators of credit. But a credit creation monetary system cannot exist without regulation. Regulation is absolutely essential in all areas of life. In America, do we have regulation? In spades.

Specific for this discussion is the subject of population regulation or population control. A credit-based monetary system will break down if it gets more consumers than producers. As our population gets older and “top heavy,” consumption exceeds production and, through welfare and social security payments, wealth reverses from the money (credit) creators to the consumers or non-producers. This cannot be allowed over time.

Therefore ways  benevolent ways of course, as they cannot just vaporize you when you reach a certain age, a la “Logan’s Run”   must be found to get us to expire when we retire. We have many population control mechanisms in place, including mass medication with drugs and fluoride in our drinking water.

And one of the most sinister and disguised population controls in place is mass inoculations and vaccinations. When our children are vaccinated, there is a certain percentage who die as a result, and many are disabled in various ways for life. However, the most insidious part of it is the development of degenerative diseases much later in life, say about in the 50s and early 60s, at about retirement age.

Human liberty and personal survival in our time must originate in truth no matter how incredible and shocking to our conditioned minds. Governments control the public mind with disinformation and confusion. No modern government could exist for 24 hours if it told the people the truth.

Of course, the establishment news will label these truths as “fake news.” Most of the readers  due to cognitive dissonance  will label this as “conspiracy theory.”

Both are code words designed to make you and keep you as slaves to “The System.”

(I realize for many of you your first reaction — especially if you are a newer reader of Personal Liberty, is to dismiss this sort of new information out of hand. You are probably asking, “Who is this Bob Livingston,” and “What does he mean?” I urge you to consider it carefully, to follow the hyperlinks provided above, and to take advantage of the related articles below to further your study. –BL)


Bob Livingston founder of Personal Liberty Digest™, is an ultra-conservative American author and editor of The Bob Livingston Letter™, in circulation since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

The post How We Become Slaves Of ‘The System’ appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Know Your Rights: Police Checkpoints (VIDEO)

Know Your Rights: Police Checkpoints (VIDEO) | police-checkpoint | Civil Rights Know Your Rights Multimedia Tyranny & Police State US News

Know Your Rights host Britt Hysen speaks with Nina Hodjat of Hodjat Law and DUI Partners about 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

More at VoicesofLiberty.com

Save

The post Know Your Rights: Police Checkpoints (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Random Acts Of Revolution

 say no

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolished slavery. This means that if you are a slave today, it’s either illegal, or you have voluntarily accepted your servitude.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

You have a Constitutionally protected right to be free. If you aren’t free, then revolution is your duty.

Many people believe that revolution requires that they lead a march, stand in front of a crowd with a bullhorn, or form a militia. They feel like it’s a job for the Alex Joneses, the Adam Kokeshes, the James Wesley Rawleses, and the Bradley Mannings of the world.

They’re wrong. You don’t have to be a person with thousands of followers on Twitter and Facebook. You don’t have to be a person with a military leadership position on your resume. You need not get yourself arrested on the steps of the White House, got to prison forever for telling the truth about your unit in the army, or stare down a bunch of scary-looking thugs in jack boots.

But you do have to do something.

You can’t just sit there and complain unless you are really just another armchair Rambo.

The way you lead your life every single day can be an act of revolution. By refusing to concede your natural rights, quietly and resolutely, you are performing an act of revolution. Walking the walk doesn’t always require civil disobedience or militia membership (although those actions definitely have their places). It requires your consistent determination not to be infringed upon.

It doesn’t matter if you are a soccer mom from the suburbs, a college student in a dormitory, a church-going dad and husband, or a person who has found themselves homeless through the ongoing economic crisis – by living resolutely, you are performing an act of revolution.

Don’t get me wrong – we need the Alexes, the Adams, the militias, the Bradleys, and the JWRs. We need the people who stand in protest. We need those who expose wrongdoing. We need the organizers, the shouters, the big personalities, the quiet strong types, and the leaders. But these are not the only ways to revolt. If every single person was off organizing their own rally, there’d be no one left to march in it.

What it is imperative upon us to do is to find our compass and follow it. We must make ourselves immune to control by not needing what “they” hand out. We have to be armored against the way everyone else lives and choose our own paths. We must stubbornly refuse to participate in the hoop-jumping that is everyday life in North America. By all of us who believe in liberty doing this, we form an army of stubborn non-participants in the status quo.

Here’s an example. It’s a small thing, a battle that today only affected my daughter and me. My daughter is not vaccinated. She attends a public school where the kids must be vaccinated, or hoops must be jumped through. I filled out the initial forms stating that I had an objection of conscience to vaccines. I was contacted by a representative of the school system who suggested that I sign instead the form that stated a religious objection, because that was “easier”. I refused, because my objection is NOT one of religion, and I felt like that was a cop-out. I knew that I was within my rights to have an objection of conscience, and I felt that it was important to make a point that might make it easier for the next parent. I was then told that I’d have to pay $25 and get a statement notarized to allow her exemption on my basis. I said I’d be happy to get a statement notarized, but not at my expense. I pointed out that nowhere does our local law state that I should have to pay any money for my child to NOT do something. Lo and behold, after 5 months of politely going back and forth, being escalated through numerous different superiors of superiors in the school board and public health system, my daughter is still unvaccinated, I have not spent $25, and she was not suspended from school. The point I’m making is not about vaccines, but about not stepping back from your rights, for your convenience or for the convenience of others. This requires that you read the relevant laws and understand them. It requires a certain degree of persistence and a willingness to be a pain in the butt.

There are valid reasons for revolution.

One of the benchmarks of tyranny is the dizzying arrays of laws on the books, with more and more added every single day. It is humanly impossible not to break multiple laws every single day. Regulations are revenue builders and/or control mechanisms. If the “authorities” can ALWAYS find a law that you’ve broken, then they can ALWAYS give a “reason” for punishing you. Punishment might include incarceration, hefty fines, or the removal of some privilege (like taking away your driver’s license or not allowing your child to go to school).

If the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

~ James Madison, Federalist Papers 62

The police state is growing at a dizzying rate, and often the news makes it look like we live in Nazi Germany. It is now or never. Like cockroaches, “they” – the thugs in jackboots and their masters – multiply in the dark, and will soon overtake us if we don’t put a stop to it right now. They want to take our guns because that would make our resistance more difficult. They keep buying up ammo and now have more than enough to kill every man, woman, and child in America multiple times. The NDAA means that any person can be indefinitely detained. There has been a sustained attack on the Bill of Rights and one by one our rights are being submerged beneath the desires of those who would demand our submission.

How can you be an everyday revolutionary?

The most revolutionary act is to be self-sufficient and in need of nothing that the government can provide for you in exchange for some small liberty. When there is nothing that you require enough to submit, then bullying you becomes much more difficult.

This list of suggestions is by no means comprehensive. Please, add your own random acts of resistance in the comments below.

  • Question absolutely everything you hear on the news. Always be a skeptic. All major media goes back to just a few conglomerates. The “news” is now all a propaganda ploy to help the rich get richer and the powerful remain in power. The media can make or break a candidate with unholy zeal in less than a week. These people and others like them are the ones that decide what “we the people” get to see. If they feel like a candidate or a news item might upset the status quo, they black it out by refusing to cover it.
  • Call out the media. Let everyone know that the mainstream media is the enemy of the people. When you see coverage that is clearly biased, take a moment to call out the media about it. Take the time to comment on mainstream media websites and point out the unbalanced coverage. If you use social media, share this information and post on the media outlet’s social media pages as well.
  • Get out of the banking system. By opting to “unbank” or “underbank” there is a limit to what can be easily stolen from you. When you have physical control of your financial assets, you are not at as high a risk of losing those assets, and therefore, less likely to be dependent on “the system.”
  • Turn your savings into precious metals or tangible assets. On the same note as unbanking, you definitely don’t want to rely on a 401K or savings account to provide for you in your old age. Ask the people of Cyprus how well that worked out for them. Diversify with assets you can touch. Purchase tangible goods like land, food, ammo, and seeds. Once you are well supplied, move on to precious metals to preserve your wealth.
  • Educate others. At the (very high) risk of people thinking you’re crazy, it’s important to let people know WHY you do what you do. If you are an anti-Monsanto activist, teach others about the dangers of GMOs. If you object to a municipal policy, speak at a town meeting or send a letter to the editor of your local paper. By ranting incoherently or by keeping your mouth shut, you influence no one. By providing provable facts, you can open minds and awaken others to tyranny.
  • Get others involved in the fight. For example, if you are fighting with the city council that wants to rip out the vegetables growing in your front yard, let your friends and neighbors know, post a notice at the grocery store, and write a letter to the editor. When injustice occurs, use the power of social media to spread awareness. Often a public outcry is what is necessary to get the “authorities” to back down. Look at the case of Brandon Raub, the veteran who was kidnapped and taken to a mental hospital for things he posted on Facebook. Raub was not charged, but he was detained in the psych ward involuntarily. His friends and family immediately mobilized and spread the videos of his arrest all over the internet. It snowballed and alternative media picked it up – soon Raub was released, and all because of a grass roots and social media campaign to bring the injustice to light.
  • Grow your own food. Every single seed that you plant is a revolutionary act. Every bit of food that you don’t have to purchase from the grocery store is a battle cry for your personal independence. When you educate yourself (and others) about Big Food, Big Agri, and the food safety sell-outs at the FDA, you will clearly see that we are alone in our fight for healthy, nutritious foods. Refuse to tolerate these attacks on our health and our lifestyles. Refuse to be held subject to Agenda 21′s version of “sustainability”.
  • Take control of your health. It is imperative that you not blindly trust in the medical establishment. Many members of this establishment are merely prostitutes for their pimp, Big Pharma. Millions of children are given powerful psychotropic drugs to help them fit into the neat little classroom boxes, and the numbers are growing every day. Americans spent 34.2 BILLION dollars on psychiatric drugs in 2010. (Source) Big Pharma is an enormously profitable industry that only pays off if they can convince you that you’re sick. Learn about the toxic injections and medications, weight the risks and benefits, and always look for second and third opinions before making a medical decision. Maintain your health by avoiding toxins, exercising, and ditching your bad habits to reduce the number of doctor’s visits that are necessary.
  • Refuse to comply. If you know your natural rights, which are guaranteed under the Constitution and its Amendments, then it makes it much harder for “authorities” to bully you. You don’t have to let them search your home without a warrant, you don’t have to answer questions, and you don’t have to comply with laws that are in conflict with the Constitution.
  • Learn. Every day, spend time learning. This shouldn’t stop once our formal education ends. Fill your mind with history, with current events, with constitutional law, and information about the natural world. Learn about health, study economics, research things that interest you, and unravel the complicated conspiracies that are afoot. To pursue unbiased knowledge is to free your mind from the prison of propaganda and indoctrination.
  • Don’t consume chemicals that cause you to be dumbed down. Avoid chemical-laden food with brain-killing neurotoxins like MSG and aspartame. Don’t drink fluoridated water.
  • Embrace your right to bear arms. Be responsible for your own safety and security.
  • Don’t be in debt. No one can be free if they are in debt. If you are in debt, you are forced to work in whatever conditions are present, for whatever amount is offered, complying with whatever criteria is necessary to keep your job. in order to either pay your debt or face penalties. As well, the high interest rates that you pay only serve to make the bankers more wealthy. Instead of borrowing, save until you can afford something or realize that if you could actually afford it, you wouldn’t need to borrow money to have it.
  • Be prepared for disaster. Have enough food, water, and supplies to take care of your family in the event of a natural disaster. Don’t expect FEMA to take care of you.
  • Be involved in your children’s education. For some, this means homeschooling or unschooling, and for others this means being on top of what they are learning in a formal school setting. Join the PTA and actively volunteer if your child goes to school. Be an advocate for your child and insist that the teachers teach. If your child goes to school, supplement this at home with discourse about current events and outings that help them learn about the world around them.
  • Be the squeaky wheel. If you see something wrong, don’t just ignore it. Say something about it, and keep saying something until it changes. Whether this is some process that infringes on your privacy, a job requirement that impedes your health, or another injustice, pursue it relentlessly. Ask questions publically, write letters, and use social media to bring pressure to encourage a change.
  • Reduce your consumer spending. Spending less helps to starve the beast by reducing the sales taxes you pay and withdrawing your financial support to big conglomerates. If we vote with our dollars, eventually there will, of a necessity, be a paradigm shift that returns us to simpler days, when families that were willing to work hard could make a living without selling their souls to the corporate monoliths. A low-consumption lifestyle reduces your financial dependency, which allows for more freedom.
  • Ditch popular culture. If reality TV isn’t a tool for dumbing people down, I don’t know what it is. My daughter recently begged to watch an episode of a popular reality TV show that “everyone” was watching. She managed about 15 minutes of it and then said, “This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen.” She decided to read a book instead. Popular entertainment is a media tool used to change our perspectives about our personal values, and to tell us how to think and feel about issues.
  • Buy locally. Support local small businesses to help others who are fighting for independence from the system. You might pay a little bit more than you would at your big box store, but the only people benefiting from your purchases made at the corporate stores are those with the 7 figure annual bonuses.
  • Develop multiple streams of income. Don’t put all of your eggs in one basket. Figure out several ways to bring in income. Not only does this free you from being a wage slave, but it allows you to hire friends or family members. You are less entangled in the system and not subject to corporate whims. If one business fails, or becomes subject to regulations that make it no longer worthwhile, you are not forced to comply just to keep a roof over your head.
  • Say thanks, but no thanks. There is no such thing as a benevolent hand out. Nearly anything offered for free (particularly by a government entity) has strings attached. Maybe there is a handy-dandy registration form that you need to fill out. You might be influenced to vote a certain way just to keep the freebies coming. You might have to pee in a cup every two weeks. Perhaps one day you’ll need to have a microchip embedded in your hand. Either way, by accepting handouts from those in “authority”, you become beholden to them or you need them, and someone who is free is neither beholden nor needy.
  • Don’t take the easy road. The PTB like to seduce people with simplicity. ”If you just sign this paper, it will be much easier,” they say. ”This chip is for your convenience,” they tell you. ”By giving up this, it lets us take care of you and you will be much safer.” The easy road only gets you to Slave Street a whole lot faster. Take the difficult road and be responsible for yourself. Don’t take shortcuts that compromise your beliefs. Go to court to fight a ticket, read the laws and defend yourself, and know that anything you give up, you will never get back.

According to the Declaration of Independence, ”Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

That means that you don’t have to accept the unjust laws. That means you don’t have to quietly take it, muttering under your breath that it isn’t right, but not daring to raise your voice. That means that “they” are only in control of you if you allow it.

There are nearly 316 million people in the United States. (source)

Only 3% of the population fought in the Revolutionary War, and 10% actively supported them.

If 9,480,000 people quietly and peacefully revolted by withdrawing their consent to be governed by tyrants we could not be silenced.

If 31,600,000 people supported those revolting, we could not be stopped.

The government might be watching us, but we can watch them right back. Make the way you live your life a revolutionary act.

What random act of revolution did you commit today? Please share it in the comments section below.

The post Random Acts Of Revolution appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

What Do We Stand For?

light-bulb-idea-discovery-unique-different

At the very edge of oblivion, some men reflect, and some men snivel and cry.  I have spent many years now studying the societal strengths and failings of modern American culture, and I have to say, that most citizens within our once grand Republic will do far less reflecting and much more crying when the bell tolls.  This is not to say that I believe the fight is lost.  Far from it.  In fact, I would consider myself an optimist amongst many of my peers in the Liberty Movement as to our chances of defending Constitutional freedom today.  There is a very strong core within our country that still embraces the ideals of individualism and independence.  The problem is, those who are awake face each day surrounded by lunatics and the giggling blind.  It’s difficult to find solace within the asylum of the “mainstream”, and so, we begin to assume we are alone.

Even worse, we sometimes have to deal with misguided and biased persons that join the Liberty Movement, not to stand upon any solid fundamental principles, but who seek to impress their own twisted world views upon us as if they “know better”.  You would think that the concept of freedom would be simple to understand and grasp, but for some, it is like plunging into a trigonometric wonderland of confusion.

As the U.S., led by the Obama Administration, moves forward with yet another war in the Middle East, using covert terrorists as proxies and enacting violent policy based on dubious or non-existent evidence and far flung accusations, I realize that with all the blathering voices out there telling us what to think, what to do, what to fear, who to admire, who to worship, how to live, and what to aspire, perhaps it is time for each of us to solemnly question what we stand for, and what America is supposed to stand for?

Really, think about it.  What are we here for?  What purpose do we serve in the grand scheme of things?  What are our defining principles?

Have we lost track of ourselves as Americans so completely that we cannot even explain in a reasonable fashion what kind of people we want to be, and what kind of world we want to live in?  Are we so busy squabbling with each other that we have no time to examine the foundation upon which we all rely?

I think it is safe to point out that the actions of our government, for many decades now, have not represented or reflected the ideals of the public.  I can’t say I’ve met very many people that would voluntarily or happily cheer the course of our nation.  Much of what is done in our name is not done for our benefit, or the benefit of our children.  Most of the crimes committed by our government are crimes we would never want to be remembered for as individuals.

If this is the case, and deep down we all want a much different legacy than what is being created for us, what would this legacy be?  I believe that most Americans would not argue with the following list of virtues…

Enduring Individualism

Most Americans want to be in control of their own destinies.  The sad reality though is that many Americans believe themselves to be in control of their own destinies when they are not.  They believe they are informed when they are actually ignorant.  They believe they are rich when they are actually poor.  They believe they are self-sufficient when they are actually as helpless as newborn babies.  They believe they are courageous when they are actually cowards.  And, they believe they are righteous when they are actually guilty of numerous crimes against their fellow man.  One cannot be an individual unless he understands himself, and his own weaknesses.

True Independence

Americans want to see themselves as independent and self-reliant, and yet many of us go about pursuing this independence in backwards ways.  Socialists view an independent life as a gift granted by society through the tool of government.  In other words, they believe that the collective is responsible for supporting and sustaining the individual, and the individual owes the collective allegiance for its efforts.  Objectivists tend to treat independence as a kind of “get out of jail free card”, as if true individuals should only care about themselves and their posterity, and there should be no consequences for their own harmful actions.

What both sides can’t seem to fathom is that independence is about responsibility.  It’s about responsibility to one’s self, to make one’s own way in life without the constant aid of a nanny state.  It is also about responsibility to one’s inner conscience, which warns us not to maliciously violate the life and liberty of others.  Whether on the “Left” or the “Right”, Americans have forgotten that real independence comes with strings attached.

Decentralization Of Power

At this very moment, the White House has decided whether it will  unilaterally attack a foreign nation that presents absolutely no clear  and present danger to the United States. In a play for limited liability  and shared guilt, Obama has “offered” to “allow” Congress to vote on  the decision to go to war in Syria, while stating openly that as  President he has the authority to initiate an attack anyway, without its  oversight. The White House is moving to strike Syria because its  attempts at covert destabilization and terrorism (again, without the  approval of Congress) have failed, and it is trying to erase its  mistakes in a hail of missiles. Centralization of power is the exact  opposite of what America was founded on. Checks and balances exist for a  reason. Such measures are ingrained in the Constitution in order to  ensure that our entire country is not led down a path of criminality and  destruction based on the decisions of only a few men.

The great allure of centralization is that each political faction within the U.S. is easily tempted by what they could do if the system was under THEIR control.  Like J.R.R. Tolkien’s “One Ring”, the Left and the Right foolishly imagine that if only the dark power of centralism was in their hands, they could use it for “good”.  But nothing good ever comes from centralization.  The ring must be destroyed forever, and decentralization is the only answer.

Spiritual Freedom

Americans have become increasingly schizophrenic as to what this actually means.  Surely, most of us understand and agree that each individual has a right to worship as they wish, and participate in any religion they choose.  The moment we begin to use government as a way to interfere in the worship of one religion, we risk one day having government used to interfere with our own religion.  Sadly, this ideal has been turned on its head by some who think that spiritual concerns should be erased from government altogether.  Government is not and never will be a purely objective entity, because government is made up of human beings, and human beings always bring their ideals to work.  I fail to see the harm in allowing a courthouse, for instance, to post the Ten Commandments on its wall.  This is an expression of a predominant spiritual ideal that ultimately harms no one.

By the same token, however if one day a court in another town decided to post the precepts of Buddhism on its walls, there should be no complaints from Christians either.  Unfortunately, all sides (including Atheists) seek to apply their own spiritual (or secular) views as if they are in contest with each other, and this leads to all sides attempting to use government as a weapon to enforce those views.  I think the Founding Fathers, though many of them Christian, saw the great danger in religious groups battling to force their particular beliefs on each other.  The Constitutional protections of religious freedom were thus designed to make spiritualism a personal, rather than political endeavor.  Most of us do not wish to live in a society in which our government has been sterilized of all spiritualism, but we also refuse to live under the insanity of a theocracy.  The only answer is the original answer of the Founding Fathers; to believe as we wish to believe, and to leave everyone else the hell alone.

Non-Interventionism

Our country was built on the philosophy of non-interventionism, but today, those who promote the strategy are immediately accused of being “isolationists” by the mainstream.  I think the stupidity of interventionism has been made abundantly clear over the past decade, as our mindless adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Yemen and Syria are falling apart.  Nothing has been accomplished in these offensives on the other side of the world except the further erosion of America’s economy, not to mention our credibility.

As polling appears to suggest today, many Americans are once again finally learning to embrace non-interventionism in the case of Syria, and this awakening should be encouraged further.  Regardless of the rationalizations given by the establishment, freedom (if that is indeed what the White House is selling) cannot be spread by force of arms or sold like a fast food franchise.  Further, we should be taking care of the liberties being eroded within our own borders before gallivanting around the globe pontificating to foreign nations about their supposed inadequacies.

Constitutional Liberty Before Political Party

Political parties are the bane of American life.  They are the primary means by which our population is controlled and distracted.  Parties are poison.  When I vote, I vote for the individual representative, not his party.  His party may argue that only THEY are the true purveyors of freedom.  His party might argue that only THEY have my best interests at heart.  His party may even argue that only THEY are honest and forthright in their platform.  But, if the individual politician and his record does not reflect the promises of his party, then what they have to say is utterly meaningless.

There are no “lesser of two evils”; there is only honorable or dishonorable, Constitutional or unconstitutional, sincere or deceitful.  A Republican who breaks his oath to defend the Constitution is no more likely to gain my support than a Democrat who does the same.  This is a concept that has been lost on Americans for many years now.  The idea that there should be no such thing as “party loyalty”, only loyalty to one’s own conscience, is one we need desperately to return.  The dangers we face in our current era are a product of both major parties, and anyone who says otherwise is wearing debilitating blinders.  As we creep closer to disaster, it is vital that we remember that at bottom the coming fight is between champions of freedom, and proponents of tyranny, whatever party they may claim membership in.

I could continue for a hundred pages on the underlying structures of Constitutionalism that we still value  but have been estranged from for so long.  As our nation enters a new stage of social, political, and economic unrest, there may be very little left to hold onto.  As I stated before, as a country, we can either reflect, or snivel.  We can take action, beginning with ourselves, or we can complain (starting with others).  We can stand firm in our core principles, or we can argue endlessly about the nuances and biases surrounding those principles.  We can come together under the banner of freedom in the face of despotism, or, we can remain divided and conquered.

Article first appeared at www.Alt-Market.com

The post What Do We Stand For? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Conservative Civil Liberties

liberty-stockxchange2
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”  —Edmund Burke

The myth that civil liberties are the stock and trade of organizations like the ACLU has been exposed as but a mere memory of days gone by. What “so called” progress achieved by left leaning advocates in the arena of fighting for individual liberty, is relegated to the back corners of history. The true basis for fostering a culture of respect and preservation of citizen rights always reverts to the principles founded in the law, based upon natural rights. The trap that most social advocates fall into is that their reading of history has a significant blind spot. The notion that evolving circumstances are equivalent with a shifting character of rights misses the inalienable constancy of inherent autonomy as the primary principle.

Tom Head, over at About.com Guide provides a list and claims that – The civil liberties we have today weren’t created; they evolved. A careful review exposes the conventional wisdom that judicial review in Marbury v. Madison is a valid legal method. The sorry case history of the courts and juridic equity is seldom a shining light of favorable civil liberty protections.

1215: The Power of the Monarchy is Reduced

The Magna Carta restricts the absolute power of British monarchs, holding them accountable to the rule of law.

1689: The Rights of English Subjects Are Defined

The English Bill of Rights guarantees free speech to members of Parliament, bans cruel and unusual punishment, and supports a limited right to bear arms.

1776: The Power of the Monarchy is Rejected

In the U.S. Declaration of Independence from Britain, Thomas Jefferson argues that the sole legitimate purpose of government is to protect individual rights.

1787: A New Democratic System is Established

The new U.S. Constitution establishes limited roles for the President and Congress, but does not yet grant significant power to the Supreme Court.

1789: The Rights of U.S. Citizens Are Defined

The U.S. Bill of Rights protects the natural rights of U.S. citizens from infringement by U.S. Congress, but because the Supreme Court has no power to strike down legislation, it is in effect little more than a statement of principles. At this point in history it applies exclusively to the U.S. government–and not to U.S. states, which have their own, separate bills of rights.

1803: A Mechanism for Protecting Rights is Created

In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court strikes down its first law and in so doing establishes its power to strike down unconstitutional legislation.

1868: The Rights of U.S. Citizens Are More Clearly Defined

The Fourteenth Amendment is ratified. Although its original purpose is to limit the efforts of Southern states to severely restrict the rights of recently freed slaves, it effectively makes individual states accountable to the human rights standards established in the Bill of Rights–though it will be more than a half century before the Supreme Court comes to that conclusion.

1925: State Legislatures Must Respect the Rights of U.S. Citizens

In Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court holds that states are bound by the U.S. Bill of Rights by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. The means by which the Fourteenth Amendment extends the power of the Bill of Rights is most commonly referred to as the incorporation doctrine.

1965: The Right to Be Left Alone is Defined

In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court holds that the Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution imply a right to privacy. This right to privacy will later be cited in court rulings legalizing abortion (Roe v. Wade, 1973) and striking down laws prohibiting gay sex (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003).

Placing legitimacy in the courts to interpret the law is essentially a practice by statist hypocrites hiding behind their own distortion of the eternal law. Pharisee Christians makes this point.

“John Marshall played godlike when he decided Marbury v. Madison. Federal Supreme Court judicial review crucified the Republic on a manmade cross of judges. Sunday Christians are celebrating a pagan holiday. If Constantine could move the Sabbath to a different day of the week, what hampers US District Judge Myron Thompson from banishing the granite tablets of a believer like Roy Moore?”

The Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights, U.S. Declaration of Independence and U.S. Bill of Rights are and were essentially political results brought about by revolutionary conflict. The introduction of justification for such revolts rests upon the old regimes violations of fundamental principles of natural rights that every person possesses.

The only law that is lawful is the one endowed by our creator.

This is the most fundamental of conservative doctrines. Civil liberty rests upon the supremacy of individual gifted invariable rights. The authentic conservative recognizes this reality as a core component of any political action.

In practice, what is often labeled as conservative is actually just another version or twist on the authoritarian imperium that we get from every party establishment toady. The antithesis of genuine advocacy of civil liberties is the NeoCon promotion of their recycled internationalist empire, which requires the sacrifice of human dignity as the price for an imaginary security.

Contrast this perversion of conservatism with The Pillars of Modern American Conservatism by Alfred S. Regnery.

“The first pillar of conservatism is liberty, or freedom. Conservatives believe that individuals possess the right to life, liberty, and property, and freedom from the restrictions of arbitrary force. They exercise these rights through the use of their natural free will. That means the ability to follow your own dreams, to do what you want to (so long as you don’t harm others) and reap the rewards (or face the penalties). Above all, it means freedom from oppression by government—and the protection of government against oppression. It means political liberty, the freedom to speak your mind on matters of public policy. It means religious liberty—to worship as you please, or not to worship at all. It also means economic liberty, the freedom to own property and to allocate your own resources in a free market.

Conservatism is based on the idea that the pursuit of virtue is the purpose of our existence and that liberty is an essential component of the pursuit of virtue. Adherence to virtue is also a necessary condition of the pursuit of freedom. In other words, freedom must be pursued for the common good, and when it is abused for the benefit of one group at the expense of others, such abuse must be checked. Still, confronted with a choice of more security or more liberty, conservatives will usually opt for more liberty.”

bastiatBefore Libertarians claimed the mantle as liberty champions, true conservatives carried the torch. When Frederic Bastiat writes in The Law, he acknowledges “Life Is a Gift from God”.

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

So when Edmund Burke proclaims:

“It is better to cherish virtue and humanity, leaving much to free will . . . than to attempt to make men machines and instruments of political benevolence. The world as a whole will gain by a liberty without which virtue cannot exist.”

He concludes that righteousness requires personal liberty and warns against governmental altruism.

And when Russell Kirk writes in Rights And Duties: Reflections On Our Conservative Constitution, his endorsement that liberty only exists in practice within an orderly framework, he is drawing a distinction from the abstract theorists.

“Two centuries later, the provisions of the Bill of Rights endure–if sometimes strangely interpreted. Americans have known liberty under law, ordered liberty, for more than two centuries, while states that have embraced the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, with its pompous abstractions, have paid the penalty in blood.”

The essence of conservative civil liberties links the relationship that all natural rights are bestowed with the ability for moral conduct by way of an orderly system that protects the exercise of individual rights.

All the confusion about authentic conservatism and the misleading emphasis that civil liberties are the bailiwick of progressives, ignore the intellectual underpinnings of the traditional defenders of our heritage.

When the term Radical Reactionary is used, civil liberties are core objectives in a respectful free society. “Essentially, at the end of the day, what matters is that the values and principles of traditional Western Civilization are founded upon rational honesty and spiritual compliance.”

The honest accept personal responsibility in light of divine providence. The order that Kirk often references is that compliance that observes the basic self-worth of each person.

Conservatism recognizes natural limit to convention and government. Popular culture in whatever era usually ignores proven standards of civilized conduct. As Thomas Jefferson made clear, the state in every age abuses the “Rights of the People” primal authority.

It is for this reason that citizens of all persuasions and ideologies share the task of advancing civil liberties, a most conservative practice.

“In the civil society, the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract statistic or faceless member of some group; rather, he is a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience. He is free to discover his own potential and pursue his own legitimate interests, tempered, however, by a moral order that has its foundation in faith and guides his life and all human life through the prudent exercise of judgment.” – Mark R. Levin

The post Conservative Civil Liberties appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

The Planned Institutionalization Of Kidnapping

CPS-kidnapped

Many of us have childhood memories of things we did when we were children. We have both good and bad memories of things we wish we’d never done. Perhaps you got in trouble at school, engaged in a fist fight, or broke something. But what if you were held legally responsible for every childhood error you ever made? How difficult of a life that would be? For many of us, as we grew older we learned that kids make mistakes and mistakes are part of the growing up and learning process.

As children, many of us had parents or a guardian that enforced some level of rules and demanded certain responsibilities of us. Perhaps we looked up to someone as a parent, guardian, or a mentor. But what if everything our parents, guardians, or mentors did in the privacy of home was legally monitored by big government?

We later observed that these childhood experiences made us who we are today. But what if a personal, family, and home life learning experience is no longer legal? What if your life was being scripted for you so that you no longer enjoy the natural surroundings of a family home life?

Most Americans even today have appreciated a home life that is distinct from their work, school or other aspects of your life; a place that offers a sense of security, familiarity, comfort and above all a sense of privacy from the outside world. This sense of privacy and sense of safety from the outside world is a safety net that every animal on the planet seems to need. Home is your place of dwelling, wherever it is. In fact one dictionary definition of ‘home’ reads: ‘a place in which one’s domestic affections are centered’. Having and maintaining a home is part of our fundamental survival. It also provides humans with a sense of orientation and reference. For this reason we are careful who we invite into our home, and conversely we are more likely to invite only those we trust and care about. But what if government invited themselves into your private home to enforce rules on you at home to control and monitor home activity?

Reflecting back again on your earlier years and glancing back at all the mistakes you made, you may consider how each childhood mistake taught you a lesson in life. You may be thinking about what advice you would have for those who face similar situations. But what if all those memories were replaced by a lifetime of being watched by government instead. A government whose job it is to document home incidences, and use them in a future analysis to determined your ‘home grade’.

As the years have passed, you may have realized the importance of a strong family/home network in personal mental, emotional, and spiritual development. Perhaps if you were raised in a conservative environment or if you had more liberal yet conscientious, spiritual and respectful parents you may have been taught Honor and respect your parent’. You probably thought as a kid, why not? After all, your parents brought you into this world, isn’t that worth some kind of resect? This all seemed to make sense then.

That was then however, this is now. Enter our current system; a system in which the concept of parents is slowly being phased out. The parental position is being portrayed as a position that, though you may occupy it now, like a job or a license however, government is planning on ‘removing’ the position from the parents … by taking away their children that is. If parents fall into a category deemed appropriate for parent-child separation, government plans on using this as a tool to ‘remove’ your children. There are many individuals working toward a global agenda who want to replace parents as the primary guardian of children and they want to replace them with government. Yes government as the primary determinant of the child’s welfare. What we are seeing is the dark shadow of tyranny rising in slow motion on America. We are all now seeing systematically and methodically, exactly how and what tyranny and fascism is really all about. The war against parents and children is just beginning to warm up.

In the country which has promoted freedom, the American way, the American dream, and the land of opportunity for so long; the same country who mastered the art of self-promotion and self-righteousness is now having to face the harsh reality that we are now clearly staring down the barrel of tyranny and fascism. The empire is employing a Red Dawn scenario on the unaware. On the surface the perpetrators lie and tell you they come in peace. On paper however they are moving as fast as they can to control every form of human activity. First they came to break the family, next they will come to take the family. Amongst the many agendas there is now a focused effort by our government to legalize kidnapping of our kids by creating a plethora of backdoors to quietly create government records, documentations, recommendations and applicable penalties of your day to day parent to child home activities. Even though we know what it takes to thrive as a human being, big government is working overtime to put out the flames of freedom, stifle the focus and self-advancement that thriving consists of, and instead control all human behavior.

The tools being used? Redefining what constitutes neglect, a complete undermining of all parental rights and a complete takeover by government of your ‘home sweet home’ private life.  Federal agencies like Health and Human Services (HHS), and Child Protection Services (CPS) are working together to formulate things like the ‘official’ definitions of ‘neglect’, what constitutes a child being at ‘high risk’, and what requires government ‘intervention’. I had to read this MANUAL for myself after coming across other articles on the topic. To truly understand what this takeover is all about one must consider things like the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), Agenda 21, the climate religion, forced vaccinations, GMO’s, depopulation, ‘sustainable’ cities, gun control, the militarization of police, DHS bullet buying madness, and many more things including the enormous amount of legislation in just the last few years collectively designed to take away all of your rights; you couldn’t script this any more predictable and one sided.

Additionally agencies like the FBI are promoting the terrorizing of internet downloading. This is an obvious attempt to not only censor the internet but to treat 12 year old little Johnny in Somewhere USA as a ‘terrorist’ for downloading content on the internet without permission.  This act alone may offer multiple avenues by which government can come pick up (or remove, kidnap, transfer, gain custody of etc.) little Johnny for various reasons including ‘terrorism’, ‘neglect’, or other reason which may require “intervention” from a federal agency. This intervention will require a ‘decision’ to be made by a ‘professional’ who will use the HHS/CPS ‘manual’ as a ‘guideline’. You get the picture.

With the global government agenda in full swing, it is very important for every single American to realize the legislations that are being passed at super highway speed. These lightning speed legislations are for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to give big government complete unchallenged power over all human activity.

Let’s remember that those committed to the global government plans are determined to see this nightmare through. History unfortunately has proven repeatedly that the only possible end result of big unchallenged tyrannical governments is death and destruction.

What we are seeing is the implementation of Agenda 21 and U.N. global government control plans over humanity in real time. This is not about America or about freedom and it certainly is not about thriving. Let us thrive and come above the lies. Let’s reach as high as we can to be the amazing living beings we were meant to be. We may not know all that we were meant to be, but we know what we were not. We were not meant to be mindless slaves who live in fear hoping a collectivist governmental system will keep us alive in their own controlled and engineered manner.

Big government is clearly knocking on the door of your personal life, will you let them in? What will it take for more people to wake up? Will it really take a season or an era of missing and disappeared children? Will it take big government coming to arrest mom or dad over something that happens at home? Is this what Obama’s promise for an army of civilians bigger than our military is all about? Who are these children who will serve in Obama’s army? The signs are all around us and there is no time to wait. For America end times are here. The time is now to expose these slow moving but progressing agendas. Get active and take a stand for freedom before it’s too late.

The post The Planned Institutionalization Of Kidnapping appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Gun Self-Defense Is A Natural Right (VIDEO)

gun-control-history

The confusion that exists in today’s mercurial society is a direct result of not understanding the nature of individual human rights. All valid authority is based upon willing consent. The cornerstone of human being personhood is the inalienable right of self-defense. This indisputable principle is under attack on all fronts by the “Politically Correct” authoritarians who see the individual as an inconvenient impediment to their bizarre vision of a social order based upon compelled obedience to a global agenda of destructive myths and false promises of a utopian world.

Eliminating guns from the hands of ordinary citizens is their unholy grail of compulsion and intimidation control over personal and independent resistance to this obscene New World Order. The Global Gulag essay, Guns, Guts and Goons states the dilemma concisely.

“Government of, by and for the people has become domination, coercion and submission to the State. The inarguable linkage that private gun ownership has given pause to the most abusive authoritarianism, has served this nation well. Since the founding of the country, the clear lesson of history, that an armed population counteracts and checks the effective ambition of despots, protected our liberty.”

One of the more intriguing examples of the elite’s duplicity comes directly from the serial abuser of gun rights from the Peoples Socialist Sanitarium of California. Only an arrogant charlatan like Senator Barbara Boxer would nonchalantly complain that her personal safety is compromised by threatening hordes of progressive rebel rousers. Gun wielding security details are perfectly acceptable if employed to safeguard establishment careerists, while maintaining the social disorder for the riffraff.

Disarming the hoi polloi is essential to keep the system on track. Sen. Boxer: ‘If I Didn’t Have a Lot of Security, I Don’t Know What Would Have Happened’, demonstrates why super delegates are necessary to neutralize populist sentiment.

“It was a scary situation,” Boxer told CNN on Wednesday. “I was there…It was frightening. I had — I was on the stage and people were six feet away from me and if I didn’t have a lot of security, I don’t know what would have happened.”

The immutable right for defending one’s person has no ideological test. It is an absolute justification for protecting the distinct safety of your being. For this reason alone, no government can morally disarm its citizenry from possessing the effective means to guard your security. The obsession of the anti-gun crowd to ban weapons defies all rational understanding.

Counting their illogical fixation is a common sense appeal to set the record straight. Let’s get down to a most effective messaging campaign presented by the National Rifle Association. Put aside whatever varied bias you might have towards this organization and focus upon the essence on these short vignettes. Take the time to appreciate the veracity exhibited by ordinary people, summarizing eternal truths.

Hypocrisy

The Hollywood celebrities, billionaires, and other elites who attack the Second Amendment want to take our God-given freedom away. Yet at the core of the Second Amendment is the eternal truth that no life is more worthy of armed protection than another. The NRA Foundation educates for the protection of these rights. We are Freedom’s Safest Place.

South Side

Chicago is one of the most dangerous cities in America. Yet it’s injustice is America’s problem—either we fight this cancer of corruption … or we pray it doesn’t come closer. The NRA Foundation educates for the protection of your rights. We are Freedom’s Safest Place.

Safety

Do you believe the government can keep you safe? What’s the cost to a country that thinks its rules can shield good people from bad things? Our safety is our job, because our lives are our job — and Good Guys deserve every chance to be safe. – See more at: http://batr.org/reactionary/052416.html#sthash.3vZ3LiS8.dpuf

Arguments like these register with the electorate. Law abiding people admit that the failure of government to prevent career criminals, violent gangs, mentally disturbed nut cases and rogue officials from threatening your life and well being, is greatly increased when guns are prohibited from your possession.

As long as the extreme left strives to ban fire arms and confiscate the millions already in the hands of the public, America will become less safe. For this reason, it is clear that the Presidential race presents an obvious choice. Donald Trump Tells N.R.A. Hillary Clinton Wants to Let Violent Criminals Go Free, makes an emphatic distinction.

“Donald J. Trump accused Hillary Clinton on Friday of wanting to let violent criminals out of prison and “disarm” law-abiding citizens in unsafe neighborhoods, and warned that women, in particular, would be at greater risk if she were elected president.

Accepting the endorsement of the National Rifle Association at its annual convention here, Mr. Trump — who has not always been the staunchest opponent of stricter gun controls — said the November election would be a referendum on the Second Amendment. He claimed, hyperbolically, that Mrs. Clinton, his likely Democratic opponent, “wants to take away your guns.”

“Crooked Hillary Clinton is the most anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment candidate ever to run for office,” he said.”

Few people challenge that public officials and especially presidential office holders have become targets for physical harm. Security details are expected to increase the level of safety around their public appearances and travel appointments. However, the general public is deemed too dangerous to allow for their own protections, even in their own homes in many municipalities. So it is not surprising when Trump tells Hillary to Dump Bodyguards’ Guns, but we all know that the rules for the rest of us do not apply for the NWO princesses of elitism like Boxer and Clinton.

Awr Hawkins makes some irrefutable points in his article, Gun Ownership A Natural Right, Not a Political One.

“Therefore, natural rights are not political inasmuch as they exist with or without the consent of those in political office—such rights even exist without the citizens’ consent—and the Founding Fathers gave us the Bill of Rights to protect them.

So the lesson for incoming officeholders is simple—gun rights are not like speed limits, school funding, defense spending, or treaties with foreign countries. The government’s role is not to regulate such rights but to protect them in accordance with the Constitution. This is what our Founders meant by the words, “Shall not be Infringed.”

Essentially, self-defense boils down to Shall not be Infringed, but in this “PC” and multicultural guilt ridden environment of self loathing and abdication of personal responsibility, the federal government groupies want individuals to be subservient dependents.

The burden of justification is not with the gun owner. The requirement to strip a natural right from the citizenry can never be justified. Yet, the entire movement to destroy the Second Amendment is based upon illegitimate authority that the collectivists promote as enlightened progress.

This sickness is more lethal than a drive by shooting in the hood. At least you have a chance for dodging a stray bullet, but in the world of gun prohibition, the end result is always an eventual dictatorship.

As the militarization of all levels of government proceeds, the ultimate target of all this coercion is designed to focus on the patriotic movement of loyal constitutionalists. Since the followers of the Clinton/Boxer establishment hate real Americans, it is instinctive for tyrants to adopt any measure that disarms their natural foe.

Guns are all about preserving freedom from despotism. The self-defense of your person is an absolute natural right, but the ability of rebellion and resistance to an illegitimate government is a political response.

It is acknowledged that not everyone would consider a revolt as an acceptable alternative. Nevertheless, it is beyond prudent and rational comprehension to resist the use of fire arms as a means to ensure your own personal safekeeping.

Non-violent advocates as advanced in BREAKING ALL THE RULES adopt the position of Martin Luther King, Jr on this subject.

“As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of “self-defense.” In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law.” – Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (Chapter II, Black Power)

The larger question of actual revolution, whether violate or not; is outside the limited scope of individual defense of your person. How you come down on this issue reveals much of what constitutes your acceptance of the true natural order. If you cannot respect yourself, by what authority do you claim you have over your neighbors?

As the population is herded into crowded metropolitan socially inhabited ghettos, the arming of the apartment resident becomes even more relevant for survival. As the tyrannical autocrat keeps pushing to strip the means for protection from residents, their fear of an armed public is so obvious. And their own personal response is to live within walled communities, with multi layers of armed security and limited access from the outside world.

// <![CDATA[
(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:8579569225718631,size:[0, 0],id:”ld-2569-9090″});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src=”//cdn2.lockerdome.com/_js/ajs.js”;j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,”script”,”ld-ajs”);
// ]]>

The post Gun Self-Defense Is A Natural Right (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Memphis Police Tackle Man To Ground, Arrest Him For Filming Them (VIDEO)

© Francesco DaDon Guglielmette / Facebook

© Francesco DaDon Guglielmette / Facebook

Police in Memphis have launched an investigation after a video was posted online purportedly showing police officers assaulting a man for filming them in the line of duty, even though he has a legal right to do so.

The video was posted to Facebook on Monday by Francesco DaDon Guglielmette who claims he “was assaulted by Memphis police just for recording,” which is something that Memphis Police Department have previously stated is allowed.

A number of police officers can be seen talking to a number of men by a police car when Guglielmette is asked to move onto the sidewalk by one of the officers.

“The sidewalk is made to walk, not to stay,” the officer says to Guglielmette who is walking away.

The police officer, who has not been identified, continues to follow him, however, repeatedly asking him to move further along. The officer then appears to grab Guglielmette and wrestle the phone off him, dropping it to the ground.

Another onlooker is understood to have picked up the phone and Guglielmette is seen on the ground surrounded by five police officers who are trying to arrest him.

“Arrested on false charges and treated like an pure animal,” Guglielmette wrote in a Facebook post.

“Someone broke in to my lil brother home… I get a phone call to go check on his mom,” Guglielmette explained. “We the ones who called the police… They were just mad because I was recording them abusing their authority.”

MPD posted a message to their Facebook page stating that the officers involved have been identified.

“This video has been turned over to our Inspectional Services Bureau and a thorough investigation is underway,” the post reads.
Capture

“I understand the outrage from the community concerning this video; however, I do ask that you all allow us to conduct a thorough investigation into the actions of this officer,” said Interim Director Michael Rallings.

According to MPD’s policy document, “members of the general public have a First Amendment right to video record, photograph, and/or audio record MPD members while members are conducting official business or while acting in an official capacity in any public space, unless such recordings interfere with police activity.”

“If a person is taking photography or recording from a place where he or she has a right to be, members are reminded that this activity itself does not constitute suspicious conduct,” the policy reads.

The officer will be the latest from the Memphis department to have an investigation launched into their activities.

In April, officer Michael Smith was indicted on three counts of rape as well as sexual battery, official oppression and official misconduct after a 26-year-old woman accused him of sexually assaulting her outside a nightclub in the city, reported WREG.

“I mean, those are the people who are protecting our streets who’s being accused of sexually assaulting someone,” Bridgett Bilda told WMC Action News 5.

Source: RT

// <![CDATA[
(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:8579569225718631,size:[0, 0],id:”ld-2569-9090″});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src=”//cdn2.lockerdome.com/_js/ajs.js”;j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,”script”,”ld-ajs”);
// ]]>

The post Memphis Police Tackle Man To Ground, Arrest Him For Filming Them (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS