Archive for Roman Empire

Do these people have an uncanny strong resemblence to each other?

Posted in Does Your Government Scare You?, Uncategorized with tags , , , , on May 11, 2010 by undercover4liberty

Advertisements

Criminalizing Everyone……Police State Rising

Posted in Does Your Government Scare You?, Police Brutality, Police State, What Rights do you Have? with tags , , , , , , , , , , on October 7, 2009 by undercover4liberty

By Brian W. Walsh

“You don’t need to know. You can’t know.” That’s what Kathy Norris, a 60-year-old grandmother of eight, was told when she tried to ask court officials why, the day before, federal agents had subjected her home to a furious search.

Story

The agents who spent half a day ransacking Mrs. Norris’ longtime home in Spring, Texas, answered no questions while they emptied file cabinets, pulled books off shelves, rifled through drawers and closets, and threw the contents on the floor.

The six agents, wearing SWAT gear and carrying weapons, were with – get this– the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Kathy and George Norris lived under the specter of a covert government investigation for almost six months before the government unsealed a secret indictment and revealed why the Fish and Wildlife Service had treated their family home as if it were a training base for suspected terrorists. Orchids.

Evil Orchid Growers

Evil Orchid Growers

That’s right. Orchids.

By March 2004, federal prosecutors were well on their way to turning 66-year-old retiree George Norris into an inmate in a federal penitentiary – based on his home-based business of cultivating, importing and selling orchids.

Mrs. Norris testified before the House Judiciary subcommittee on crime this summer. The hearing’s topic: the rapid and dangerous expansion of federal criminal law, an expansion that is often unprincipled and highly partisan.

Chairman Robert C. Scott, Virginia Democrat, and ranking member Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican, conducted a truly bipartisan hearing (a D.C. rarity this year).

These two leaders have begun giving voice to the increasing number of experts who worry about “overcriminalization.” Astronomical numbers of federal criminal laws lack specifics, can apply to almost anyone and fail to protect innocents by requiring substantial proof that an accused person acted with actual criminal intent.

Mr. Norris ended up spending almost two years in prison because he didn’t have the proper paperwork for some of the many orchids he imported. The orchids were all legal – but Mr. Norris and the overseas shippers who had packaged the flowers had failed to properly navigate the many, often irrational, paperwork requirements the U.S. imposed when it implemented an arcane international treaty’s new restrictions on trade in flowers and other flora.

The judge who sentenced Mr. Norris had some advice for him and his wife: “Life sometimes presents us with lemons.” Their job was, yes, to “turn lemons into lemonade.”

The judge apparently failed to appreciate how difficult it is to run a successful lemonade stand when you’re an elderly diabetic with coronary complications, arthritis and Parkinson’s disease serving time in a federal penitentiary. If only Mr. Norris had been a Libyan terrorist, maybe some European official at least would have weighed in on his behalf to secure a health-based mercy release.

Krister Evertson, another victim of overcriminalization, told Congress, “What I have experienced in these past years is something that should scare you and all Americans.” He’s right. Evertson, a small-time entrepreneur and inventor, faced two separate federal prosecutions stemming from his work trying to develop clean-energy fuel cells.

The feds prosecuted Mr. Evertson the first time for failing to put a federally mandated sticker on an otherwise lawful UPS package in which he shipped some of his supplies. A jury acquitted him, so the feds brought new charges. This time they claimed he technically had “abandoned” his fuel-cell materials – something he had no intention of doing – while defending himself against the first charges. Mr. Evertson, too, spent almost two years in federal prison.

As George Washington University law professor Stephen Saltzburg testified at the House hearing, cases like these “illustrate about as well as you can illustrate the overreach of federal criminal law.” The Cato Institute’s Timothy Lynch, an expert on overcriminalization, called for “a clean line between lawful conduct and unlawful conduct.” A person should not be deemed a criminal unless that person “crossed over that line knowing what he or she was doing.” Seems like common sense, but apparently it isn’t to some federal officials.

Former U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh’s testimony captured the essence of the problems that worry so many criminal-law experts. “Those of us concerned about this subject,” he testified, “share a common goal – to have criminal statutes that punish actual criminal acts and [that] do not seek to criminalize conduct that is better dealt with by the seeking of regulatory and civil remedies.” Only when the conduct is sufficiently wrongful and severe, Mr. Thornburgh said, does it warrant the “stigma, public condemnation and potential deprivation of liberty that go along with [the criminal] sanction.”

The Norrises’ nightmare began with the search in October 2003. It didn’t end until Mr. Norris was released from federal supervision in December 2008. His wife testified, however, that even after he came home, the man she had married was still gone. He was by then 71 years old. Unsurprisingly, serving two years as a federal convict – in addition to the years it took to defend unsuccessfully against the charges – had taken a severe toll on him mentally, emotionally and physically.

These are repressive consequences for an elderly man who made mistakes in a small business. The feds should be ashamed, and Mr. Evertson is right that everyone else should be scared. Far too many federal laws are far too broad.

Mr. Scott and Mr. Gohmert have set the stage for more hearings on why this places far too many Americans at risk of unjust punishment. Members of both parties in Congress should follow their lead.

Big Government is the Plantation Mentality

Posted in Criminal Politicians, Does Your Government Scare You?, End the Fed, Impostors, Obama's Socialist Tactics Exposed, Pompous Politicians, Republic vs Democracy, Your Government Protecting Your Rights with tags , , , , , , , on August 20, 2009 by undercover4liberty

fore_fathers_big

Government defined

So about now, the obvious question should be: What exactly IS government? The answer comes from German sociologist Max Weber: Government is that entity which has a monopoly on force within a prescribed geographic area. The key word here is FORCE. Government and only government can legally use physical force to achieve its goals. Government agents can punish you, with whatever level of violence they think is necessary, to whip the citizenry into line.

biggovernment

A government agent can approach you with a deadly weapon iwant
and demand your money. You and I cannot legally do that. But the agent can whip out a card that says he’s a government employee, and for reasons that befuddle me, it’s suddenly OK.

A government agent can tell a business owner: “Mr. Businessman,
big-biz-tmwha081113

we don’t like the way you run your business, we don’t like the prices you charge, we don’t like what you pay your employees. Our people will now come in and straighten things out.” And if the business owner protests, they can haul him away and lock him up.

The government, by way of the Federal Reserve, can counterfeit our currency. They say they’re “stimulating the economy,Fiat-Empire

” but if you or I attempt to “stimulate the economy” like that,counterfeit-fake-bill-main_Full we would surely endure much suffering.

The targets of government violence do not even have to be inside our borders. The U.S. government can say to any foreign government anywhere: “We don’t like the way you govern your nation. nuke-war-h0011Therefore, we will attack you, invade you, embargo you, and bomb you until you fall into line with our desires.”

Government is violence. And violence is never a tool of productivity, wealth, prosperity, or problem-solving, and it should not matter if the perpetrator has a card saying he’s an employee of the government.

The only positive role of force in a civilized society is to DEFEND your life and property against others who employ violence or dishonesty. But when government uses force to steal your property, run your life and your private affairs, counterfeit the currency, and provoke war, that is not defending anybody. Let’s call government what it really is: a gang of thugs.

The standard response to this charge is that government must do these things because they are acting in the “national interest” or the “common interest” or the “common good” or whatever buzzword you prefer. So let me get this straight: the government must steal my money to pay hordes of fat-cat government bureaucrats their 6-digit salaries because … it’s in my “interest”? The government must spend tens of $billions of my dollars each month to turn some hellhole over in the Middle East into the biggest special interest project in history, because it’s “good” for me? I have no patience with people who feel they can run my life and spend my money better than I can, and are all ready, willing, and able to physically punish me if I disagree.

Another standard answer is that government force is justified because “the people” voted for it, thus government has a “mandate.” Let’s examine this myth. If one does the math, one realizes that the President of the United States is usually elected by only about a fourth of the adult population. (70 million voted for Obama, out of a population of about 250 million over the age of 18, yielding about 28%.) What kind of “mandate” is 28%? And this figures gets much lower when state and local offices are considered, due to low voter turnout.

Furthermore, the typical average voter is a clueless moron who values style and image over substance. Ask any voter in that 28% group why they voted as they did, and odds are you will not get an intelligible answer. They will probably say that the candidate “made them feel good,” or that they simply picked a candidate at random, or they will give the “sheep” answer: “everyone else was voting for him, so I did too!” And this is how politicians acquire the power to run our lives?

The Alternative

So if government didn’t “run the country” and protect the “public interest” and do all the things it attempts to do, who would? The answer, in short: people. Workers, volunteers, entrepreneurs, you and me. People, voluntarily cooperating with one another, acting in their own best interest, can solve problems and produce the goods and services we all need and want. It’s called free enterprise – a system where people are allowed to buy, sell, work, and trade without interference, so long as their actions are peaceful and honest. The free market always can solve problems and produce what people need better than government. There are no exceptions.

Consider: an airplane crash, an event that most people instinctively think only government can prevent. So which of these two people is in a better position to prevent an airplane crash? The CEO of the airline, who’s very livelihood depends on convincing the public that his product is safe, or some bureaucrat in Washington, who’s livelihood depends on the continuation of airplane crashes?

Consider: government “entitlement” programs, where the vast bulk of the collected revenues go to bureaucratic overhead. In contrast, non-profit organizations must demonstrate positive results, else their contributions will disappear.

Profit or non-profit, all private institutions in the free market must convince you to donate, or to buy their product, because it will make your life, or some else’s life, better. They must persuade you to come to work for them by offering a better job than the next guy. Government, on the other hand, says: follow our orders or we will punish you. The free market offers a positive incentive. Government offers a negative incentive.

Is the free market perfect? Of course not, because the free market is run by people, and people are imperfect. But wait a minute – who runs the government? People do, not gods!

But what about all those businesses and non-profits that run fraudulent operations and steal people’s money, or who hire goons and thugs to apply coercion? Let me point out that that is NOT free enterprise. As already stated, people should be left alone as long as their actions are peaceful and voluntary. It is true that, in any society, you will have some people who use violence and dishonesty to try to get ahead. But this type of behavior has never been acceptable and has always been outlawed. But let’s be consistent here – no exceptions if the violent perpetrator happens to bear a card saying he’s a government employee.

Conclusion

So where is this argument going? Should we totally abolish all government? Not necessarily. Government can have a role, but it’s a very small role: to institute a system of justice to protect us from force and fraud. As stated earlier, force is justified only for defending life and property. There are those who feel that government should perform that task; a compromise here is not unreasonable. But everything else government does, or attempts to do, must go.

So quit supporting politicians who use every crisis, every emergency, every problem, every piece of bad news as yet another excuse to make government bigger, more powerful, and more expensive. Instead, look for a politician who promises something like this:

“Because of the current crisis situation, I propose that we totally abolish each of the 100 government agencies listed on this report, and that we reduce government spending by 90%. Yes, I know it’s very drastic, and it will be very painful; but, it’s an emergency. And it’s a proven fact that big government does not work.”

Police Brutality in it’s finest hour………

Posted in Impostors, Police State, Uncategorized, What Rights do you Have? with tags , , , , , , , on August 11, 2009 by undercover4liberty

Police officers have become increasingly brutal in recent years.
As this video shows, Law Enforcement Agencies around the country have stooped to new lows in order to intimidate the public at Large.

Issuing Corporal Punishment and using their badges to subdue the public into submission, with a lack of any criminal culpability, will only enhance their belief that the Authority vested in them is in fact a license to become Judge, Jury and Executioner at their whim.

police-brutality

None of the bystanders seemed afraid or in fear of this Senior Citizen, they seem to be more concerned about her welfare and safety than that of their own.
I’m sure that she had no ill intent toward anyone, and it’s evident that she was disoriented and confused.
Confused_and_Alone
However, once Law Enforcement is on the scene, no matter what the facts, or obvious situation, the Police go into combat mode. They have no time, or tolerance for the people they swear to serve. It’s obey my order, or “Else”.

taser-m26
The “Else” is usually followed by some type of brutality, resulting in the injury and in some instances Death of the perceived violator.
This Female Officer
z155203225
in the video is obviously Larger, Younger and Healthier than the 84 yr old Perpetrator that she is performing her newest WWE move on.
I wonder if the Officer’s Grandma, or Mother taught her this tactic? I wonder if this Officer would approve of her own Grandma, or Mother being treated this way?
I think not !!!!!
Cops are being trained to use Military style tactics on American Citizens.
Just Look at your local Sheriff’s Deputy and his daily uniform, he is better armed than any of our troops overseas, and instead of being a Peace Officer, He/She has been trained to be a Warrior.
Not a warrior and defender of our borders, our Constitutional Bill of Rights, our freedoms, but as a warrior against citizens that abhor the police state.

The fact that this happened to an elderly woman should promote absolute outrage at this Officer, her Police Dept. and her City.
This was an obvious abuse of power, a Draconian form of Law Enforcement not unlike the Roman Vigiles a Police Force
coupled with Fire Fighters in ancient Rome. They were Privately Owned Slaves that did the owner’s bidding and were trained privately to enforce the wishes of whatever the Owner wanted.
Police and Security Firms are often well Unionized, which means they are privately owned.
They sell their services to localities and in turn police the citizenry.
Therefore I submit to you that their allegiance is to those that pay their salaries, and not to the People at Large.
This Video proves that Law Enforcement is at war with the U S Citizen, because Law Enforcement has an agenda.
That Agenda is Money and the Corporate takeover of Law Enforcement.
We have allowed Banks to regulate our money, they are corrupt, we have allowed Insurance Co. to regulate our health, if we allow Law Enforcement to regulate our Humanity, God forbid, It is already corrupt and Bankrupt.
Write this Police Officer’s City Counsel, tell them to fire this Neanderthal, and to restore public confidence in Law Enforcement.

Obama, Chavez, Castro, Ahbor Freedom of Speech

Posted in Criminal Politicians, Does Your Government Scare You?, Impostors, Obama's Socialist Tactics Exposed, Police State, Pompous Politicians, The Constitution, What Rights do you Have? with tags , , , , , , , , , , on August 5, 2009 by undercover4liberty

In the waning days of the election, St. Louis and Missouri sheriffs and top prosecutors announced a plan to arrest and prosecute Obama opponents. “A local television station’s coverage of a Missouri campaign ‘truth squad’ on behalf of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has touched off a national Internet frenzy,” the Detroit Free Press reported on September 30, 2008. “What has prompted all the furor is that several members of the Obama’s ‘truth squad’ in Missouri are prosecutors or members of law enforcement. They include St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer and St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch. All are Democrats.”

The Obama White House is calling for informer-citizens to denounce opponents of the president’s health care plan. A post on the White House website posted today reads:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment,” Gov. Matt Blunt responded. “This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights.”

Fidel_Castro_poster_Barack_Obama

Although the Obama administration has yet to call for prosecuting Obamacare opponents, the fact they are compiling a list of suspects is seriously troubling and reveals the authoritarian mindset of the administration.

CB Trinidad Americas Summit Obama

It also brings to mind Nixon’s enemies list compiled by convicted criminal Charles Colson. Nixon’s list of political opponents would eventually total of over 30,000 names.
nixon_obama_pomp_culture

Considering the large number of Americans opposed to Obamacare, it is possible Obama’s list of political enemies may exceed that number in short order.

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

376 U.S. 254
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
No. 39 Argued: January 6, 1964 — Decided: March 9, 1964

Held: A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves “actual malice” — that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Pp. 265-292.

mal⋅ice
  
1. desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy.
2. Law. evil intent on the part of a person who commits a wrongful act injurious to others.
grossly negligent without concern for danger to others. Actually reckless disregard is redundant since reckless means there is a disregard for safety.

reckless disregard

grossly negligent without concern for danger to others. Actually reckless disregard is redundant since reckless means there is a disregard for safety.

21st Century Traitors

Posted in Criminal Politicians, Does Your Government Scare You?, Impostors, Police State, Pompous Politicians, Republic vs Democracy, The Constitution, True Patriots, What Rights do you Have? with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 21, 2009 by undercover4liberty

Reflections And Warnings – An Interview With Aaron Russo

Posted in Criminal Politicians, Does Your Government Scare You?, End the Fed, Impostors, Police State, Prophetic/Bibical, Republic vs Democracy, The Constitution with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 7, 2009 by undercover4liberty