Tag Archives: Tenth Amendment

How to Celebrate July 4 by Compassing the Death of the King—a day to Remember the Importance of Bad Manners, Disrespect All Authority, Never to be Satisfied with anything “Conventional”, and so Always to Resist the Lure of Safety in the Authoritarian Impulse

Posted on July 4, 2012 by | Leave a comment

In particular—STAND UP FOR SMALL TIME BULLYING, HAVE A FIGHT WITH YOUR SPOUSE/SIGNIFICANT OTHER (then make up), AND GIVE A COP A COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS HIGHLIGHTED and tell him to study it real hard and consider getting an honest job where he’s NOT a paid bully for the richest and most powerful people only….. or even that he use his experience in oppressing others and destroy lives for meaningless violations of traffic laws, zoning regulations, and the like—and turn around and join in the cause of freedom.

I have meant to write about this one minor topic all year because it has been irritating me: the Southern Poverty Law Center has been sponsoring a gigantic national campaign against “BULLYING” all year, and I think it’s about time somebody stood up for the Bullies.

What is particularly disturbing about the SPLC’s campaign to stop bullying is that it is all about suppressing the bad manners of “little people.”  I do not favor BIG Bullies—I have dedicated my life to fighting the arrogance of the Banks, the Judges and “licensed” attorneys they carry around in their pockets, and all the legal and systemic ways in which our Government of the Rich, by the Rich, and for the Rich has, in the name of “the General Welfare” assumed to tell us all what to do.

Do you see where this is leading?  The SPLC campaign against Bullying is just one more attack on the Freedom of Speech, the right to maintain highly individualistic values, and the right to deal with other people in whatever manner seems appropriate—or even without any manners at all.

Now I grew up in a home where decorum was valued above all things.  Everyone was extremely quiet and no one ever spoke above a hush.  I guess that’s why I eventually married a Greek girl who came from a family where everyone yelled at each other morning news and night, fought constantly, and basically acted the way out of control Mediterranean types are famous for acting.  Ok, it’s also a large part of the reason why that particular Greek girl and I parted company, but the point is, liberation from norms is: LIBERATING.

Now the SPLC has paid HUNDREDS, maybe nationwide THOUSANDS of extremely good looking young kids (99% white) to go around in red v-neck shirts or jackets, depending on the weather, in malls and commercial streets from the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica to Michigan Avenue in Chicago and Newberry Street in Boston asking people to sign petitions and make contributions to stop BULLYING in Schools.

What this plainly means is that the SPLC wants to invade yet another social arena and tell people how to live and what to think.  You see, ridicule is a key element of political discourse—I’ve dished it out and I’ve taken it, sometimes gracefully sometimes not so much.  Ridicule and “Ritualized Humor” as a means of social control was and remains a powerful tool.  It is very sinister when the corporate Government itself resorts to manipulation of norms through ridicule—and the Obama administration and its allies have engaged in a great deal of such manipulative conduct through their agents and operatives on the World Wide Web—including ridicule of some of the positions nearest and dearest to me (such as the importance of adherence to the Constitution and Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a non-Christian, non-American, non-Democratic, and completely non-Constitutional President).

I object to the use of “big money” to engage in bullying for “big players”—and what I see is the huge IRONY of the SPLC employing major corporate money and corporate methods to try to suppress “the little guy or gal” even more than s/he is already suppressed.

The BULLYING that the SPLC wants to attack is, of course, bad manners directed in politically incorrect ways at certain “disadvantaged” and hence now FAVORED groups in society.  The SPLC wants to USE THE POWER OF SCHOOL DISCIPLINE (i.e. the power of the STATE, for all intents and purposes), to correct people’s manners in school in regard to whatever the “SPLC cause supported group du jour” may be.  In short, to enforce POLITICAL CORRECTNESS even for adolescents and pre-teens in Middle School, High School, and probably even elementary school and kindergarten.

THIS IS CALLED: STATE CONTROL OF MIND-FORMATION.   And of course, the concept of “bullying” is just vague and nebulous enough that it can apply to criticism or ridicule of anything you want it to apply to—I daresay that EVEN ordinary political debate could easily be targeted—”You Republicans have got to stop bullying the Democrats”—or vice versa….Anyone ridiculed, in particular, for supporting the current President, I daresay, would be a bully worthy of expulsion from any school at any level.  Unofficial, Private Audience Criticism of the President has already cost people their jobs in the U.S. Army and led to summary discipline against even U.S. JUDGES—who ordinarily cannot be reprimanded or reproached for ANYTHING.  (look up, for example, the case of Montana District Judge Richard Cebull, whose crime was that he dared quite literally to call Obama a “son of a bitch”—and was ordered to write a letter of apology to the President and his family: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/richard-cebull-obama_n_1317131.html).

We all have to have the right to call the President a “Son-of-a-Bitch”—or worse.  I recall in the movie “Raising Arizona” in the opening narrative I think, when Ronald Reagan was called a “Son-of-a-Bitch” and I can’t remember anybody (right or left) so much as batting an eye.  I had voted for Reagan and I certainly laughed at the jab in its context.

So it worries me extremely that just as the right to ridicule the high and mighty is under attack, and that people as “immune” from any sort of prosecution as Judges and military officers are being persecuted for speaking ill of the President, that the SPLC goes out into the malls and preaches that even small acts of unkindness or breaches of manners should be punished.

So, for this Fourth of July—-PLEASE insult someone in a position of power, and hand him or her a copy of the First Amendment as you do so—maybe even the whole Bill of Rights.   And, here’s another suggestion—either have a fight with your husband or wife or significant other, or just discuss the bumper sticker I’ve seen on the back of so many LAPD squad cars recently: IS THERE ANY EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

I would contend there is: we are HUMAN, and in ADAMS FALL, WE SINNED ALL.  An old song by Hank Williams, Sr., (not coincidentally called “MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS”) includes the wonderful line “If my wife and I’re a fussin’ brother that’s our right, cause me and that sweet woman got a license to fight, why don’t you mind your own business.“)

I suggest that any couple who cannot admit that they are incapable of controlling their emotions and actions at all times is not mature enough to be married—but that’s just my opinion and I don’t plan on trying to enforce it on others.  I definitely believe, however, that any couple contemplating marriage or living together should ask themselves whether, when they get into a fight, one or the other would resort to dialing 911 and calling the police.   Any prospective partner who says “yes” he or she would call the police—should be SHUNNED.  Marriage and home-making are all about forming a new community, a shelter from the larger cruel world, and any spouse who would bring in the ravenous dogs of state-empowered law enforcement into that community is unworthy.

I write this today, July 4, 2012, because exactly ten years ago today and tomorrow, my aforementioned Greek wife Elena destroyed our home and marriage precisely by calling the police (Williamson County Sheriff’s Department) when we were having a marital dispute about who should drive our one remaining car (since one car was in the shop) to run las minute holiday errands, including buying a fireworks display for the Fourth of July.

Elena called 911 only after she had bitten and stabbed me, which was a bad move on her part because the Williamson County Sheriff’s Department ended up arresting HER rather than me.  Oddly enough, I worked for the next forty eight hours to get her out of jail, but she never forgave me (even though it was pretty much all her fault).  That was the beginning of the end.  But it was also the beginning of my education in the most horrific abuses of the Family Courts in America—all of which were embodied in and committed by Judge Michael Jergins and attorney-flesh eating vultures such as Laurie J. Nowlin and J. Randall Grimes of Williamson County Texas, without any doubt the scum of the earth, along with social workers like Travis County’s Mark Ashworth, who work to make sure that all marriages fail and all spouses turn to the state for dispute resolution—when that resolution is always destruction, which is always the feeding of the vultures.

The use of the police to intervene in Domestic Relations disputes is another clear and plain attack on the autonomy of the home, the sanctity of the family, and the autonomous responsibility of each individual to govern himself or herself.  The use of the Courts to impose restraining orders on one or another spouse who may have raised his or her voice or slapped or hit the other is just a matter of putting the state in charge of our human nature.  We are animals, and animals fight—more commonly in nature about sex and food than anything else.

Judge Michael Jergins in Williamson County adjudged me a bad father because I discussed my family’s problems with our minor son, Charlie, who was the primary victim of our family’s problems.   It was Michael Jergins, Laurie J. Nowlin, and J. Randall Grimes who opened my eyes to the possibility that Family Law and Domestic Relations law could be used to overturn the constitution “in the best interests of the child” and finally I understood the relationship between Welfare and Communist Dictatorship: “you will lead good lives, as we define good, or else you will die and have nothing.”

When Moses handed down the commandments from Mount Sinai and Christ preached to the people to love and care for one another—these were exhortations to the people to live a good life—not warning that their lives would be taken away if they didn’t.  In fact, it was precisely this kind of legalistic bullying and oppression by the Pharisees and Sadducees that Christ came into the world to protest.

No group more epitomizes the Pharisaic path of oppressive bullying more than the SPLC in modern times—CONFORM OR BE OSTRACIZED!  So, at the very least, they deserve to be ignored when they come forward asking you to contribute to their campaign.  Or you can, as I’ve done several times now, ask them how they square their views of bullying with the First Amendment to the Constitution—not to mention the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (powers and rights reserved to the people).

So we need to celebrate our bad manners, disrespect all authority, never be satisfied with anything “Conventional” (especially manners, norms, or wisdom) and above all we must alway accept the dangers of freedom—that we will fight with those we love and then have no one but ourselves to fall back on when there is no one to come to our aid—and hence to be REQUIRED to FORGIVE and LIVE TOGETHER, in order to take care of each other, as Christ taught us all.

So on this Fourth of July—let us celebrate our Free Will, our freedom to engage in bad manners is protected by the Constitution, and we should celebrate the fact that returning to the Sermon on the Mount is a far better solution than either the strictures of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, or the Family and Domestic Relations Code of any State.   If we cannot live well, in fact, we must at the very least strive to live free.

Expressing our opinions of others—i.e. “Bullying”—is good and healthy so long as we do not use the excessive and overwhelming force of government to “act it out.”  The SPLC, the police, the family courts and their social workers, and other arms of the current corporate governmental regime are our enemies, not our friends, lest we ever forget.  Let us never allow THEM or their rapacious tyranny into our homes and schools lest they consume our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

***********************************************************************

To end on a slightly lighter note, I suggest singing and reflecting on the real wisdom of Hank Williams’ lyrics to “Mind your Own Business”—if some elements are out-dated (such as the reference to “party line”) some are timeless, immortal and directly relevant to the doctrines of Political Correctness and Elitist manipulation such as that engaged in by the SPLC “Mindin’ other people’s business seems to be high tone“):

Words and music by Hank Williams, sr.

If the [d] wife and I are fussin, brother thats our right cause me and that sweet womans got a license to fight [d7] Why dont you [g7] mind your own business (mind [d] your own business) cause if mind [a7] your business, then you wont be mindin [d] mine. Oh, the woman on our party lines the nosiest thing She picks up her receiver when she knows its my ring Why dont you mind your own business (mind your own business) Well, if mind your business, then you wont be mindin mine. If my woman stay out til two or three Now, brother thats my headache, dont you worry bout me. Just mind your own business (mind your own business) If mind your business, then you wont be mindin mine. If I get my head beat black and blue Now thats my wife and my stove wood too Just mind your own business (mind your own business) If mind your business, then you wont be mindin mine. I got a little gal that wears her hair up high, The boys all whistel when she walks bye. Mind your own buisness blah blah, you sure wont be minding mine. Mindin other peoples business seems to be high-toned I got all that I can do just to mind my own Why dont you mind your own business (mind your own business) If you mind your own business, youll stay busy all the time.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Constitutionalist, Gospel of Luke, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why is Senate Bill 1867 so bad? In the Exercise of Absolute Power, Justice Forbids Status Crimes and Requires Blindness to all Categories of People (Prejudicial legal Classification of “Protected” or “Disfavored” Groups ALWAYS violates due process and leads down a short, steep, and very slippery slope straight into Totalitarianism)

Posted on December 3, 2011 by | 7 Comments

Someone named “Jonathan” wrote in and asked: “So I’m just curious to know whether you would extend miranda rights to foreign terrorists operating on American soil? Why should an American who joins say Al Qaeda be entitled to a trial or a lawyer or any other right under our Constitution?”***(note below)

My answer to these questions [and the pathetic Senate debate excerpted here from the December 7, 2011 Daily Show with Jon Steward (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development)] is that, contrary to current civil rights practice in the United States, governmentally imposed categories and mandatory categorization of people NEVER promotes equality but ALWAYS tends to support and advance both tyranny and real inequality.  Nobody said it better than Rand Paul: “Detaining citizens without a trial is not American.”

By contrast, voluntary categorization, classification, and all assertions of identity originating from the people are among the surest guarantors and symptoms of freedom and genuine equality.  In fact, I would submit that the voluntary and intentional creation and maintenance of identity is one of the Great Traditions of the United States of America which has defined some of the greatest and most distinctive events in the history of this Continent, from the settlement of the Pilgrim Nonconformist Separatists in New England in the 17th Century through the “Great Awakening” of the 18th Century, the Mormon emigration Westward (and many smaller “separate community, separate lifeway” experiments) in the 19th Century (including the Amish), right up until the Cultural upheaval of the 1960s, when “Hippies” and “Flower Children” sought to give a new meaning to Freedom in America.   The decision to maintain cultural separateness has historically been protected by the United States Supreme Court in the greatest of its “substantive due process” decisions (e.g. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923) and Wisconsin v. Yoder,  406 U.S. 205, 232—233 (1972)).**  

I would go so far as to maintain that involuntarily classifying people  or sorting them into “favored” and “disfavored” groups as a matter of law without trial always leads to violations of due process.  No movies or other literature ever illustrated this inherent injustice in the prejudicial and discriminatory processes of classification and labeling people one way or another than V-for-Vendetta in 2005 and Paul Verhoeven’s Black Book in 2006.  

I would also say that the only real PURPOSES people EVER have in classifying their fellow man (and woman) into involuntary groups is to deny them due process, and that this is simply intolerable under the American Constitution.

Note that the Bill of Rights contains no categories of persons, but only restrictions on the power of government: absolutely and unqualifiedly stated.  Rather, Amendments I, II, IV, IX, and X refer simply to “the people.”  Amendment V refers to “no person” and “any person”, since criminal prosecutions are almost always, by definition, brought on a one-by-one individual basis.  Even Nazi Germany, for example, never indicted “the Jews”, nor, during the 1950s, were there ever prosecutions against “the Communists”.  Due process of  law simply does not allow for categorical indictments.

Finally, Amendment VI refers only to “the accused”, again an individual classification.  (Despite the customary usage of the masculine gender throughout the bill of rights when referring to individuals, no one has ever suggested that the framers intended these rights only to apply to men: it was the grammatical economy of the time not to say “he and she” or “his and hers” or “him and her” as it is sometimes thought more acceptable to do now.)

So these are the major reasons why, in response to Jonathan’s question, I believe that “Miranda rights” (i.e. the full inventory of rights Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights) should be extended to all “foreign terrorists operating on American soil.”  To do otherwise would be to “prejudge” both who is foreign and who is a terrorist, and would  make both words “foreign” and “terrorists” into prejudicial, disfavored categories exactly analogous to “Negro” under Jim Crow in the South, “Jew” in Nazi Germany, and “Bourgeois” or “Capitalist” in Stalinist Russia.

What the 1996 AEDPA, the 2001 PATRIOT Act, and the Senate in passing S.B. 1867 have done, though, is actually MUCH worse than MERELY “discriminating against foreigners and terrorists” and in fact, much worse than “merely discriminating against, Blacks or Jews or even (to give two give two examples of a super-irrationally feared and overused but extremely vague pair of categories in modern law) “Sex Offender” and “Illegal Immigrant.”  No, the Category of “Terrorist” alone is “void for vagueness” as a matter of law.  See Papachrisou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 169-170 (1972), and Kolender v. Lawson (Kolender v Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1982), attached here in adobe.pdf):

. . . “As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903, 103 S. Ct. 1855 (1983). 

(On the whole, the text of Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville is more amusing for its analysis of how the distinction between “idle rich” and “vagrant” under the City of Jacksonville, Florida’s “Vagrancy” ordinance blurred into meaninglessness….Papachristou v City of Jacksonville 405 US 156 92 SCt 839 02-24-1972).  ”Terrorism” as a status crime under S.B. 1867 or category of criminal conduct is void for all the same reasons as was “vagrancy.”

What the Senate has done in S.B. 1867 is worse than “mere discrimination” against any of those categorical groups because in each case (Black, Jew, Sex Offender, Illegal Immigrant) there is at least a fairly narrow and objectively determinable set of traits or characteristics which define membership in the group.  There may be ambiguity at the edges, people of mixed race and ethnicity, “sex offenders” convicted of “statutory rape” where the girl lied about her age in  an objectively credible way, cases of “illegal immigration” where family hardship brought or kept people together for mutual support in violation of immigration laws, but on the whole, Blacks, Jews, Illegal Immigrants, and Sex Offenders all know who they are, and they can either “lie low” or decide to leave the country if they are able.

What is so totally monstrous about the category of “terrorist” in particular and “foreigner operating on American soil” is that theses terms are simultaneously vague, overbroad and subject to arbitrary and capricious application to the degree that even racial categories and categories based on convictions for violation of laws are not.    And in the context of modern America, merely calling someone a terrorist MAKES them a terrorist, especially (but not only) when it is a member of the government making the accusation.  To allow denial of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to individuals accused of terrorism is simply to allow the government to deny these rights to anyone it wants, whenever it wants, for any reason it wants.  We now have a “Government of the Dictators, by the Dictators, and For the Dictators” (as Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address should honestly and probably have been written).   The dictatorial decision about who is a terrorist is left open—WIDE OPEN.   The Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas (Greg Abbott and James Carlton Todd) have been calling the author of this blog a “dangerous paper terrorist” since 2005.  (Yes, I admit it, I have occasionally thrown paper airplanes at government buildings in protest against policies with which I disagree, OK?   So I guess that means I’m off to Guantanamo Bay? or the Domestic Equivalent?   In fact, when arrested by Live Oak at the edge of the Suwannee River on the order of Houston Federal Judge Lynn N. Hughes in August 2006, they raised the prospect of Guantanamo Bay for me in Jacksonville, only half joking…at most half….or maybe not at all I’m still not sure, but here I am in West L.A./Santa Monica).   It is not trivial at all.  They have been throwing around these terms like “paper terrorist” ever since 9/11, and the purpose is, frankly, to create an atmosphere of terror and prejudice against the people so labelled.  After that experience, I just “went with it”.  But even in 2005, there was another disbarred attorney (Zena D. Crenshaw NJCDLP “National Judicial Conduct & Disability Project) who came in from Indiana to help Francis Wayne Williams-Montenegro with my family law case in 2005.  She tried to show that the Attorney General was trying to prejudice the Court against me (it was difficult to make the Williamson County 395th Judicial District any more prejudiced against me than it was) by calling me “the most dangerous paper terrorist” in Texas, but it didn’t go anywhere.  Zena rightly predicted that they were trying to sweep all Judicial Reform activists into the category of “terrorists.” In fact, Judicial Reform, Anti-Income Tax/IRS Reform, Prison Reform, Anti-Big Oil Activists, we’re ALL terrorists now.  The FBI has guidelines and we “fit” even before S.B. 1867 became law.  I said to Zena in 2004-5 and I say now that to be accused of anything so preposterous is a “red badge of courage” and I wore it proudly (still do in fact), despite the fact that my saying so on videotape resulted in my getting arrested AGAIN in December 2007 in Mexico City and brought to Los Angeles (this time on the order of Judge Janis Graham Jack of Corpus Christi, in the same Southern District of Texas in which Judge Lynn N. Hughes sits, and which George H. W. Bush [Bush 41st] calls “home”).

The way “Jonathan’s” questions above are written actually illustrated just how bad S.B. 1867 is: After asking whether I would “extend Miranda Rights to foreign terrorists operation on American soil” (I submit that such rights have existed ever since the adoption of the Bill of Rights and the problem is not “extending” such rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, but in taking them away), “Jonathan” then asks: “Why should an American who joins say “Al Qaeda” be entitled to a trial or lawyer or any other right under our Constitution?”

This question is probably the scariest of all, if serious and not merely rhetorical. My answer is simple: BECAUSE AN AMERICAN WHO JOINS AL QAEDA IS STILL AN AMERICAN, THAT’S WHY.  But Again, to Repeat, and this is SO IMPORTANT: the Bill of Rights do not discriminate between Citizens and Non-Citizens, Americans and Non-Americans, just “people” and “persons” (so the only categorical distinctions made implicitly, if any, would be those between “people” or “persons” and animals [sorry, PETA][or plants I guess---wheat plants have any Constitutional rights before being eaten...even for arbitrary and capricious purposes as being ground into flour and made into extremely unhealthy and fattening cakes or cookies....]) .

But then that does wrap up this little exercise about why S.B. 1867 is such a very bad law: Americans can be characterized as “terrorists” and reduced to ashes by such categorization.    And it could be that “Jonathan” has more confidence in the meaning of these terms than I do.  I happen to believe that “Al Qaeda” was basically created and established, fostered, aided, and abetted, by the Bush-Reagan administration and set loose to create “domestic terrorism” to justify the very repression of civil liberties which have taken place since the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989-90 and the consequent evaporation of the Cold War as a reason for suppressing freedom and the Bill of Rights.  So I think “Al Qaeda” is a government made fraud, that 9/11 was a U.S. government-sponsored “false flag” attack, and that Oklahoma City MAY have been a government-sponsored incident of false terrorism.  (Please view this brilliant 5 minute summary, text also copied below at Note*: http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/)

In support of these hypotheses of mine, I can only point to patterns of history: from 1963-1972, from John F. Kennedy through George Corley Wallace,  a series of public assassinations by public shootings of “troublesome” non-conformist politicians took place in a waive of “lone gunmen” with no precedent in American History, and no tradition that survived.  The failed attacks on Ford and Reagan were just that, failures, and were easily traceable either to Squeaky Fromm/ Manson or John Hinkley personal and family psychological problems.

It is hard to believe that the generation that came of age during the decade 1963-1972 simply bred a series of “lone gunmen” who acted without obvious motive (but all happened to oppose, directly or indirectly, the policies and power of Lyndon Baines Johnson, even though John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and George C. Wallace were all at least nominally allies or at least in the same [Democratic] Party at one time or another, though Wallace ran Third-Party [American Independent] in 1968 and Malcolm X, though he hated all Democrats “categorically” as “Dixiecrats” was partially allied with Johnson on the question of Civil Rights).

It is equally hard to believe that another Decade long episode, namely the series of incidents of Domestic “Terrorism” or at least confrontation between Federal and Private parties that the Government sought to characterize somehow as “terroristic” from Ruby Ridge in 1992-9/11/2001, was merely a historical accident and not planned.  ALL the major terrorist acts since 9/11 have occurred in Europe….THAT is the legacy of 2001-2011.  Every decade has a different set of problems, with no overlap at all between the “Assassination” decade and the “Terrorism” Decade (unless you count the early 70s epidemic of hijacking which led to early restrictions on air-travel as partly overlapping with the decade of assassination).   No, it seems that the Government picks its crisis formula based on what it wants to achieve and then “stages” criminal acts and history accordingly.   So, Jonathan, whoever you are, does this answer your question?  Do you really want to live in a country where they can decide, tomorrow, that YOU are a terrorist and lock you up forever?

****I know only a few Jonathans… I hope that “Jonathan” who is the author of these questions is posing them only for rhetorical purposes to test my commitment to moral consistency and philosophical coherence.  Because, if the author of these questions is serious, and if he reflects widespread opinion in America, then…. I’m even more depressed about the passage of Senate Bill 1867 than I was before.  I can only hope this Jonathan is Dr. Jonathan Harris Levy (Brimstone & Co.)(http://www.brimstoneandcompany.com/), formerly attorney for noted Orange County Dentist Orly Taitz and (the one and only) other William Howard Taft Law School graduate I’ve ever encountered, because that would just confirm my suspicion that Orly supports the 93 bad guys who voted for this bill….  If it’s anyone of any higher level of academic achievement in law than the William Howard Taft Law School involved in presenting these questions, well that’s just demoralizing….

**If we desire homogeneity in this Country, we are well on the way to a “shake and bake” society of people no more different than one box of hamburger helper is from another.  I do not personally desire such homogeneity, but I think it is best left to the people to make voluntary associations and define local color and establish meaningful cultural diversity by devolving power downward rather than concentrating it upward.

Note*:

Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.

(Watch French, German, Spanish or Portuguese translations of this video.)

TRANSCRIPT: On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.

These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.

Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidenceliterally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.

The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimonyextracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.

The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.

The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.

NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7′s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety“.

The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.

This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him, and her. (and her and her and him).

Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and mobile production facilitiesand the rescue of Jessica Lynch.

If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.

This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, SEC, MSM, White House, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission. Because Ignorance is Strength.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.

→ 7 Comments

Posted in 2012 Election Campaign, 9-11 Truth Movement, Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, Dianne Feinstein, History and Civilization, INCEPTION, Law, Movies & Philosophy, politics, United States Senate, V-for-Vendetta

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Protected: I will run for the United States Senate from California in 2012.

Posted on February 26, 2010 by | Enter your password to view comments.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Enter your password to view comments.

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tenth Amendment Summit in Atlanta

Posted on February 25, 2010 by | Leave a comment

http://pledge.tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/10th-amendment-pledge-state.pdf

I heartily endorse and take this pledge as an essential part of my campaign and indeed, my political philosophy.

Thursday and Friday of this week I am attending the Tenth Amendment Summit in Atlanta, at which, for the first time in public (this blog/website not counting!) I announced that I am running for Barbara Boxer’s Seat in the Senate in California.  Senator Barbara Boxer is a hard core establishmentarian Democrat of the modern “socialist” tradition, and if there is any hope of ever restoring the United States of America to its status as “the land of the free and the home of the brave”, the word “Democrat” has to mean something other than “socialist.”  There was some discussion on Thursday night about the meaning of the words “Democratic” and “Republican” and “Federalist.”  ”Federalism” of course lies at the heart of the Tenth Amendment debate.  ”Federal Revenue Sharing” is close to 100% of what State governments spend these days.  ”Demokratia”, meaning in Greek “rule by the people,” is contrasted with “Res publicae” which is simply Latin for “Common Wealth.”   In terms of ancient history, which is kind of a hobby of mine I guess, being a former archaeologist, the two words are not competing terms.  A Commonwealth (Republic) could be a Democracy or a Monarchy or an Oligarchy.   The United States at the present time is best described, in my opinion, as a Plutocratic Oligarchy (an elite ruled nation whose elite is defined solely by monetary wealth rather than productivity or education or anything else).  Plato in his book “The Laws” opined that an Oligarchy was the worst of all possible forms of government, because it was less susceptible to change and reform once it had “gone bad.”

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

It’s Not Just Obama, It’s the System (from the Tenth Amendment Center)

Posted on December 4, 2009 by | 1 Comment

It’s Not Just Obama, It’s the System
by Timothy Baldwin

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/04/its-not-just-obama-its-the-system/

Let us assume for the moment that it became revealed that Barak Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States, proving that he was ineligible to be President of the United States. Ok, now what? Would Obama be removed from office? Perhaps. Then what? Joseph Biden would be our next President. Ok, then what? Would the United States be freer? Would the States and the people regain their sovereignty stolen by the federal government? Would America’s form of government revert back to its original nature and character of 1787? Would self-government, the consent of the governed, limited government and federalism once again become the guiding principles throughout these states united? Would the ideals and principles of freedom once again become popular, accepted and advanced by the people and their agents in government?

Since the Confederate States of America lost the war in 1865 against the union-destroying aggressions of Abraham Lincoln and his military, the federal government has egregiously encroached upon the powers and sovereignty of the people and the states respectively. Regulations, controls, taxation, deception, falsehoods, subterfuge, “bait and switch” have all been the norm. Thievery under “color of law” has been their modus operandi. Through myriad usurpations, all three branches of the federal government have suppressed and oppressed true freedom throughout these states. It has, through masquerade and fraud, turned our original federal form of government into a national, seemingly-all-powerful empire. It has overtaken virtually every major element of society. It has bribed (and in some cases, forced) corporations, churches, states and citizens into giving the federal government our own powers and resources, with the promise of giving them back, of course, at our expense and with their demands. The federal government has unjustifiably entangled itself in the affairs of foreign nations, corporate elites and bankster mobs. It owns major media, education institutions and religious minds across America. In essence, it has created a seemingly impenetrable matrix of fraud, deceit and corruption, Republic or Democrat in the White House notwithstanding.

Despite the well-intentioned efforts and thoughts of many in America who feel that removing Obama from the Presidency, based upon constitutional grounds (i.e. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4), will somehow restore freedom to America, this simply is not the case and entirely misses the true crux of the problem. Do not misunderstand what I am saying: most certainly the constitution should be followed, and we the people of the states and the state governments should insist on it. No one believes that more than I. However, this fact must be realized before freedom will ever show its face again in America: the federal government (and those who control it) is not salvageable; its usurpations and encroachments are treasonous; its blatant unconstitutional actions have put the people of these states in a state of war; and without true revolution, freedom will never be restored in America.

The federal government–and by current default, the states–operates under a system and form contrary to freedom as expressed in America’s Declaration of Independence. It operates under the form of government which history proves is the enemy of a free republic. It operates under the very form of government that our founders rejected in September 1787 and that the ratifiers of the constitution rejected thereafter. It operates under a top-down structure, whereby the states and the people are mere subjects and corporations of the centralized head–the very form our founding generation seceded from in 1776. Freedom’s current plight in America has little to do with Obama being illegitimate as the President and has everything to do with the people of the states being controlled by a governmental system we never created or approved.

Even a brief look at recent history will reveal the numerous examples where the people have attempted to hold the federal government accountable to the constitution. Yet, that same government is more powerful and corrupt than ever, and the people and states are weaker and more oppressed than ever. It would not matter in the slightest if Obama were removed and replaced with Biden, Pelosi, McCain, Bush, Clinton, Gingrich, Palin, Scarborough, or any other eligible President. A new President would no more change the form and system of the federal government than would pumping trillions of dollars of tax payer monies create a stable and sound economic system in America. Just as America’s paper currency (the dollar) is not backed by a solid foundation (e.g. gold-silver standard), so too the executive branch of the federal government is not backed by substantive principles of freedom.

Make no mistake about this: there has not been a United States President elected since 1861 that has advocated for the true principles of federalism and freedom, and both major political parties have only cemented and built upon the previous President’s legacy of federal power at the expense of the states and people. If you think that freedom will be restored because a Republican who claims to be pro-life, pro-family, or pro-business sits in the White House, you are mistaken. If you think that Obama’s true birth place being revealed will restore all that we have lost for over 100 years and will somehow decapitate the head of the beast (thereby granting victory to “conservative America”), think again.

Those who have controlled the federal system have shown their intent of ignoring, demeaning and contradicting the United States Constitution. They care nothing of it, and only lead us to believe they do just to get elected. As Nancy Pelosi laughed when recently being asked the question, “Does the constitution grant Congress the power to pass the national health care bill?”, she only illustrated both the latent and patent practice and philosophy the federal government has possessed for generations. Do we need any more evidence at this point to conclude that our federal government is unconstitutional in its actions, powers and intentions? I think not. The only question is, what do we do about it?

In 1776, the delegates from the colonies met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in attempts to rectify the unconstitutional political actions of their national government. Like many of us today, they knew the designs of their government to reduce them to submissive slaves; they knew their government overstepped the authority given them by the consent of the governed; they knew that their government had committed acts of “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” So, what did they decide to do? Replace their king with a new king? Use the court system to invalidate the illegal actions of the king? Use parliament to address their grievances to the king? Try to establish that the king was not of the hereditary lineage legally capable of being king? Wait until a new king would assume the throne to accomplish freedom? None of the above.

Instead, our founding generation secured the blessings of liberty by doing what all free peoples decided to do throughout history when confronted with the evident intents of tyrannical government: they became independent from the source of tyranny. They declared their natural right to govern themselves. They formed and constituted government by and on the consent of the governed. They ridded themselves of the entire system of the “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object [which evinced] a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.” They became independent and sovereign states!

You claim to love freedom: you do well. But freedom will never be restored by replacing Obama with Biden, nor will it be restored by establishing that Obama is not legally eligible to hold the executive office. You claim to love the constitution: you do well. But the constitution will never be restored until the principles, form and system it created are restored. You claim that Obama’s birth certificate is crucial in restoring freedom? Your thoughts are likely pure, but your focus is misplaced. There have been open and notorious unconstitutional actions forced upon us by the federal government over the past 140 years. What makes this particular issue the winning contestant in restoring freedom?

Moreover, where are those in the federal government also demanding what you claim is so crucial to restoring the constitution? Where are those in the federal government demanding that the federal government give the states and the people back their money and power? Where are those in the federal government demanding that the tenth amendment be adhered to? Where are those even considering running for a federal position who preach and practice concepts of federalism? Where is the federal judicial system that even understands what federalism is and is willing to contradict ninety years of court opinions and rulings that have virtually stripped states of their retained rights under the tenth amendment? Where are the federal political statesmen who proclaim that the federal government be resisted by the voice and the arm of the states, as Alexander Hamilton explained? The answer is, no where!

The questions that should be asked are the ones whose answers provide real solutions to restoring our Confederate Republic. The solutions sought should not be ones whose only end simply replaces one quarterback for another; yet all the while, their team continues to control us by insisting that we play their game by their rules in their (home) stadium with their referees, all of which are controlled by those sitting in the glass boxes overhead who smoke their cigars, drink their wine, play with their whores and laugh at us as we drudge through the game thinking that we are gaining ground when we lose only ten yards instead of twenty. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

Our methods of change are proven ineffectual, the expressed terms of the constitution notwithstanding. It is time for a different course of action–a course that has already been given to us by principle and practice. It is time that we the people of the states think in the pure political and philosophical terms that formed our country and secured our freedom in 1776. It is time that the states of this country reclaim what has been taken from us and to reignite the flames of independence and federalism which will cause freedom to burn brightly for us and our posterity for years to come.

Tim Baldwin is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also one of America’s foremost defenders of State sovereignty.  See his website.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,