March 19, 2018

Gun-Owners Are Being Blamed for [Modern] Liberalism Failures

*Editor’s Note* – This is a very respectable article that appears in the American Thinker about the failures of liberalism. Which brings me to the point of my note. It should be pointed out that this author when referring to liberalism, should more accurately qualify it as Modern Liberalism or a collective ideology of several left-leaning ideologies. Ancient Liberalism contains many great qualities many of which both conservatives and liberals agree on. But not to lose the point of the piece.

It has often been stated that liberalism is a disease. This becomes obvious to those whose ideology is quite different. But Liberalism is not interchangeable with “Leftism,” “Progressivism,” or the Democrat Party.

The Modern American Liberalism version of ideology has been well-hijacked by the Left and the progressives. Leftism, progressivism, and liberalism are not the same and shouldn’t be used interchangeably. As an example, liberalism was never opposed to Capitalism. The differences in ideology between liberals and conservatives on Capitalism is who should control that show – one believing the government should control it, the other leaving it to a free enterprise/individual effort. Leftism opposes Capitalism and most think this is a liberal perspective. 

In likewise fashion, liberalism shouldn’t be interchanged with Progressivism. Progressivism is the promotion of making every aspect of our lives “modern” often in disregard of long-held moral and religious reasons as well as disregard for the rule of law or the interpretation of long-held laws, rights, and policy. We all suffer from progressivism to some degree.

The Democrat Party is a mish-mash conglomeration of anyone thinking the party supports and promotes their values. This is the same with the Republican Party. Party politics is a completely different animal and yet the use of the terms are incorrectly lumped together.

Perhaps it might even be more understandable if it was stated that a combination of some or all of the ideology of Liberalism, Leftism, Progressivism, and the Democrat Party that has created failed policies referred to in this article, as they may pertain to public safety, gun-free zones and the right to keep and bear arms.

“Liberalism is largely a process of adopting illogical and factually invalid positions and then artificially placing blame on its opponents when policies based on those positions inevitably fail.  For the blame to bear fruit, it is necessary for people of good conscience to be fooled into believing that their actions and beliefs are bad for society and have brought about shameful consequences.  At the same time, it is necessary for people whose consciences have already been deformed and co-opted by the faux morality of liberalism to be conditioned to think fellow citizens, who have caused no actual harm but hold contrary views, are evil.”<<<Read More>>>


Two Totalitarians Debate Guns

It’s what’s wrong with everything!

I’m reading this morning an article in the Bangor Daily News about a doctor and a sportsman debating guns. It became clear that both debaters were totalitarians and showed definite signs of ignorance of facts.

Here’s one example of the what was presented in this so-called debate: “During my time at the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, I was proud of SAM’s support for successful legislation that took guns away from those served with temporary protection orders. At that time only permanent orders gave the judge the option of taking away a person’s guns…

“Unfortunately it is very difficult for the police to get authority to enter that person’s house and make sure the guns are gone.”

This sounds like the talk out of the fascist President Trump’s mouth when he said he would confiscate guns and worry about due process later.

The irony and hypocrisy of the debate appear when the other side of the discussions says: “The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not absolute, but rather apply only if they do not deprive others of their rights.”

Both sides appear to want to disrespect a person’s granted and inalienable right to choose how they will protect themselves, one by taking guns and asking questions later (I guess that destroys any sense of innocent until proven guilty, i.e. Due Process) and the other by pretending that it is a just thing to deprive a person of a right so long as it fits conveniently into his narrative.

Ignorance in the debate shows in two ways. One, when one person suggests that gun ownership is all about hunting, and two, when the same person compares as equal a violation of a person’s constitutional and inalienable right to self-defense in the name of public safety to “lead in gasoline, sinkers and paint; mercury thermometers; dioxin in our rivers; asbestos in our ceilings and brakes; and smoking in public places, to name a few.”

I was reading another article posted on this website about social engineering, behavioral engineering for the purpose of belief engineering. In the Comments section was a post made about the Stockholm Syndrome. Defined as “feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor,” it is becoming more apparent that our society is loaded with victims (or willing participants) of this psychological phenomenon.

To fully understand how this applies to people, we must understand that “kidnapping or hostage-taking” can be either literal or figurative. There are many ways in which we are kidnapped or taken hostage over our free will. Feelings of affection and/or trust for those whose bent it is to diminish and eliminate our freedoms and individuality is being displayed on many fronts often without the awareness of individuals that they are lobbying for the rope that will eventually hang them.

To undergo debate that involves ceding rights as well as declaring that no right is absolute is eagerly playing into the hands of the hangmen. Denial of the intentions of the executioner is in and of itself a display of Stockholm Syndrome. We see this managest daily with trust for our government and the belief that this government has never, is not, and never will have tyrannical intentions toward placing you in slavery. We are slaves now and deny it. How much more difficult can it be to reach saturation?

Why are we even having this debate? To debate this issue is denying that anyone has an unquestioned right given them by their Creator to protect themselves, their family, and property. Willingness to remove that right is a call to place control over that right in the hands of a centralized authority. This now becomes a government-meted privilege, in which any authority with the power to parcel out rights has the same power to take them away. Our “syndrome” prevents us from that realization.

Is that what this is all about? Or is it just plain ignorance. Maybe it’s both!




Straight Political Science Without The Politically Biased Candy Coating

The science of controlling the left versus right political paradigm without the political combatants knowing…

The Crux of the Matter
“The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”
– Quote from Caroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, Chapter 20
Tragedy and Hope
A History of Banking and Money by Carroll Quigley

Chapter 5-European Economic Developments

Commercial Capitalism

“The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”
– Quote from Caroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, Chapter 20

The Operations of Banking Were Concealed So They Appeared Difficult to Master

In sum, specialization of economic activities, by breaking up the economic process, had made it possible for people to concentrate on one portion of the process and, by maximizing that portion, to jeopardize the rest. The process was not only broken up into producers, exchangers, and consumers but there were also two kinds of exchangers (one concerned with goods, the other with money), with almost antithetical, short-term, aims. The problems which inevitably arose could be solved and the system reformed only by reference to the system as a whole.

Unfortunately, however, three parts of the system, concerned with the production, transfer, and consumption of goods, were concrete and clearly visible so that almost anyone could grasp them simply by examining them, while the operations of banking and finance were concealed, scattered, and abstract so that they appeared to many to be difficult. To add to this, bankers themselves did everything they could to make their activities more secret and more esoteric. Their activities were reflected in mysterious marks in ledgers which were never opened to the curious outsider.

In the course of time the central fact of the developing economic system, the relationship between goods and money, became clear, at least to bankers. This relationship, the price system, depended upon five things: the supply and the demand for goods, the supply and the demand for money, and the speed of exchange between money and goods.

An increase in three of these (demand for goods, supply of money, speed of circulation) would move the prices of goods up and the value of money down. This inflation was objectionable to bankers, although desirable to producers and merchants. On the other hand, a decrease in the same three items would be deflationary and would please bankers, worry producers and merchants, and delight consumers (who obtained more goods for less money). The other factors worked in the opposite direction, so that an increase in them (supply of goods, demand for money, and slowness of circulation or exchange) would be deflationary [and vice versa].

Such changes of prices, either inflationary or deflationary, have been major forces in history for the last six centuries at least. Over that long period, their power to modify men’s lives and human history has been increasing.
The Dynasties of International Bankers

The merchant bankers of London … brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other.
[Cecil] Rhodes (1853-1902) feverishly exploited the diamond and goldfields of South Africa, rose to be prime minister of the Cape Colony (1890-1896), contributed money to political parties, controlled parliamentary seats both in England and in South Africa, and sought to win a strip of British territory across Africa from the Cape of Good Hope to Egypt and to join these two extremes together with a telegraph line and ultimately with a Cape-to-Cairo Railway.

Rhodes inspired devoted support for his goals from others in South Africa and in England. With financial support from Lord Rothschild and Alfred Beit, he was able to monopolize the diamond mines of South Africa as De Beers Consolidated Mines and to build up a great gold mining enterprise as Consolidated Gold Fields. In the middle 1890’s Rhodes had a personal income of at least a million pounds sterling a year [equivalent to about $100 million a year in current U.S. dollars] which was spent so freely for his mysterious purposes that he was usually overdrawn on his account.

An association was formally established on February 5, 1891, when Rhodes and [William] Stead organized a secret society of which Rhodes had been dreaming for sixteen years. In this secret society Rhodes was to be leader; Stead, Brett, and Milner were to form an executive committee; Arthur (Lord) Balfour, (Sir) Harry Johnston, Lord Rothschild, Albert (Lord) Grey, and others were listed as potential members of a “Circle of Initiates”; while there was to be an outer circle known as the “Association of Helpers” (later organized by Milner as the Round Table organization).

In 1919 [Rhodes’ followers] founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) for which the chief financial supporters were Sir Abe Bailey and the Astor family (owners of The Times). Similar Institutes of International Affairs were established in the chief British dominions and in the United States (where it is known as the Council on Foreign Relations) in the period 1919-1927. The power and influence of this Rhodes-Milner group in British imperial affairs and in foreign policy since 1889, although not widely recognized, can hardly be exaggerated. We might mention as an example that this group dominated The Times from 1890 to 1912, and has controlled it completely since 1912 (except for the years 1919-1922).

[Note: The above excerpts are taken from chapters 5, 9, 20, 65, and 77 of Tragedy and Hope, with a focus on Prof. Quigley’s excellent discussion of the role of money and banking in world history. This is a 10-page summary. To go directly to a more in-depth 40-page summary, go to the following:

Political Science

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: political science
Political science is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, nation, government, and politics and policies of government. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state.[1] It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics, and the analysis of political systems, political behavior, and political culture. Political scientists “see themselves engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions, and from these revelations they attempt to construct general principles about the way the world of politics works.”[2] Political science intersects with other fields; including economics, law, sociology, history, anthropology, public administration, public policy, national politics, international relations, comparative politics, psychology, political organization, and political theory. Although it was codified in the 19th century, when all the social sciences were established, political science has ancient roots; indeed, it originated almost 2,500 years ago with the works of Plato and Aristotle.
Obviously one must be a polymath to grasp political science.


Violent Anti Gun Rally – Down Yonder In Califruitloopornia

They threw stone projectiles.. Better ban rocks… I never seen a rock leap up off the ground and attack anyone before.. Guess it might happen though.. GRIN… QUICK YTUBE DELETE THIS ONE ASAP!!


Trump’s Jesuit Wicked Merovingian Mind Control



Current Wizard Of Oz – Yet There Have Been Many

A government given the responsibility to care for a peoples every vital need—MUST be given the power to carry such a task out, which means the power to rule your every vital action.
This is the very definition of TYRANNY.


There have been many;

Wizards Of Oz


Here’s YOUR “Heroes” at Work

Was the guy who got slaughtered a dumb ass? You bet. The other guys in uniform, YOUR heroes, are dumber asses.


To Be Or Not To Be Their Slave

The following is gleaned from a book called Cases in Constitutional Law, last published 1967, Library of Congress Card 68-18704, by Robert E and Robert F Cushman. It contains 159 cases and over 100 cases commented on or referred to in the 159 cases. The book is 1168 pages. The book tells you how the Bill of Rights was nationalized..

I conversed with a friend named Fred and wrote this to him concerning another patriot that debunked my findings when he would not let truth sink into his core beliefs. Since then he has capitulated and now sees it but it took him over 6 years to come to terms with the fraud, realizing it has been a fraud all along. All bold type in Part two is straight out of the Book. My comments are regular type.

Hopefully after reading these two parts you will come to realize Lysander Spooner writing to expose this in the 19th Century was right. The con job was just that, a con job of immense proportions. How the fraud lived so long is only due to the fact our family tree parents, going back to 1776/1787 were led by the nose as are the people of today. You have to have a core belief, and that, my friends is based on a lie. So as all foundations are either true or false, hopefully you will find what you have been brought up to believe is one huge fraud.

The Informer

Hi Fred, Well now that I let off some steam, here is more on Barron. It wasn’t just as someone we know said that, the supreme court brought it up in 2001. They brought Barron up way before 2001. I have a constitutional law book Titled Cases in Constitutional Law. It is ripe with cases on Barron and many more in its 1168 pages of knowledge. There are cases that they did not bring up that are just as important, one being Hepburn and Dundas v Ellezy, 2 Cranch 445. The heading of the case states:
“A citizen of the District of Columbia cannot maintain an action against a citizen of Virginia in the circuit court for the district of Virginia. A citizen of the District of Columbia is not a citizen of a state, within the meaning of the Constitution.”

Reading this, it goes way over people’s heads and they are not aware. As Montgomery found out, that President Washington created the states as districts in 1791, hence the phrase “district of Virginia” in the above case. It is an important case and you must get it because it is ripe with info that will wipe out the myth that people have had on the jurisdiction. A passage in the case so states after the Court gets rid of the notion that the people of the states are on the same footing as the people of the District of Columbia and said the plaintiff could not sue in Virginia. This is the defense position statement.
“Even if the Constitution of the United States authorizes a more enlarged jurisdiction that the Judiciary Act of 1789 has given, yet the court can take no jurisdiction which it is not given by the Act. I, therefore, call for the law which gives a jurisdiction in this case.” .

A response was given by Plaintiff to rebut the above statement. The court then gave it’s decision and sided with Defense when Chief Justice Marshall said,
“The opinion to be certified to the circuit court is, that that court has no jurisdiction in the case.”

So basically the Judiciary Act of 1789 gives what jurisdiction the federal courts have, NOT the Congress as so many people believe and as the Defense attorney said, if it’s not to be found (jurisdiction) in that Act the fed court does not have it. Here we have direct admission that lawyers back then were dictating the parameters in which the courts had jurisdiction. The Informer, in his new history, brought this up when he cited the History of The American Bar by Charles Warren. I believe you have that book of the Informer. Might pay to reread it in light of this “revelation” the guy I was talking about had.

Now back to Barron. In the notes of the Constitutional Cases (BOOK) printed 1968, it states.
“While most rights in the Bill of Rights now do apply to the states, they do so only because they are essential to due process of law. The ruling in the present case that the Bill of Rights does not apply directly to the states has never been over ruled. ”

Brown v Walker (1896) Barron was again broached on self incrimination case. The BOOK had his to say;

     “In 1956 the Court reaffirmed the Brown decision in U1Imann v. United States . It rejected the defendant’s argument that “the impact of the disabilities imposed by federal and state authorities and the public in general-such as loss of ]ob, expulsion from labor unions, state registration and investigation statutes, passport eligibility, and general pubIic opprobrium–is so oppressive that the statute does not give him true immunity.” The statute, like the Fifth Amendment provision, protects the witness only from having to give “testimony which may possibly expose him to a criminal charge.”

Since Congress need not grant immunity from state prosecution in order to compel testimony, the question arises whether it may do so if it wishes. The control over evidence admissible in state courts is traditionally a question of state power, and even the Supreme Court in administering the due process clause has been reluctant to interfere with this state prerogative. In Adams v. Maryland (1954) the Court held that Congress could, under the supremacy doctrine, forbid a state to use testimony given before a congressional committee. Adams had been summoned before the Senate Crimes Investigation (Kefauver) Committee and had bared his soul concerning his boob making activities. The state of Maryland , which had been unable to get other evidence against Adams , read the transcript of the committee hearing into the trial record as a confession, and he was convicted of illegal gambling. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the ground that 859 forbade the use of such testimony “in any criminal proceeding against him in any court …. “While Congress could not compel testimony under the statute, such testimony as was given was protected; and the phrase “in any court” included state courts as well as federal. Forbidding such use of the testimony) was held to be a necessary and proper way of securing testimony. The Immunity Act of 1954 uses this same language, and the Adams interpretation was reaffirmed by the Court in the Ullmann case.

In the present case a federal grand jury was investigating charges against a railroad that it had granted discriminatory rates and rebates. Brown, who was an officer of the railroad, was called as a witness but refused to answer certain questions on the ground that the answers would tend to accuse and incriminate him. He was adjudged in contempt for his refusal to answer.

Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the Court, saying in part;

     It is true that the Constitution does not operate upon a witness testifying in state courts , since we have held that the first eight amendments are limitations only upon the powers of Congress and the Federal courts, and are not applicable to the several states , except so far as the 14th Amendment may have made them applicable. Barron v. Baltimore [1833] …. There is no such restriction, however, upon the applicability of Federal statutes ….[The Court here quotes the supremacy clause in Article VI.]
The act in question contains no suggestion that it is to be applied only to the Federal courts. It declares broadly that “no person shall be excused from attending and testifying . . . before the Interstate Commerce Commission . . . on the ground . . . that the testimony . . . required of him may tend to criminate him, etc. But no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify,” etc. It is not that he shall not be prosecuted for or on account of any crime concerning which he may testify, which might possibly be urged to apply only to crimes under the Federal law…; but the immunity extends to any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify, which clearly indicates that the immunity is intended to be general and to be applicable whenever and in whatever court such prosecution may be had.

But even granting that there were still a bare possibility that by his disclosure he might be subjected to the criminal laws of some other sovereignty, that . . . is not a real and probable danger, with reference to the ordinary operations of the law in the ordinary courts, but “a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character, having reference to some extraordinary and barely possible contingency, so improbable that no reasonable man would suffer it to influence his conduct.” Such dangers it was never the object of the provision to obviate.

The same answer may be made to the suggestion that the witness is imperfectly protected by reason of the fact that he may still be prosecuted and put to the annoyance and expense of pleading his immunity by way of confession and avoidance. This is a detriment which the law does not recognize. There is a possibility that any citizen, however innocent, may be subjected to a civil or criminal prosecution, and put to the expense of defending himself, but unless such prosecution be malicious, he is remediless, except so far as a recovery of costs may partially indemnify him ….

. . . While the constitutional provision in question is justly regarded as one of the most valuable prerogatives of the citizen, its object is fully accomplished by the statutory immunity, and we are therefore of opinion that the witness was compellable to answer, and that the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

Mr. Justice Shiras, with whom Mr. Justices Gray and White concurred, wrote a dissenting opinion. Mr. Justice Field wrote a separate dissent.”

In Powell v Alabama (1932) Barron was brought up again . Then in Palko v Connecticut (1937 Barron was again brought up and this is the BOOK’s comment .

     With the decision in Powell v. Alabama it appeared that the long struggle to nationalize the Bill of Rights might at last be bearing fruit. The Court had acknowledged that it no longer felt bound by the Hurtado reasoning; the application to the states of the Fifth Amendment right to just compensation and the First Amendment rights of free speech, press, religion, and assembly showed that some of the Bill of Rights guarantees could be applied to the states through due process of law. And now, in Powell, the Court for the first time had found one of the rights of persons accused of crime to be essential to due process.

‘The Palko case, printed below, made clear that the Court was not prepared to abandon earlier decisions such as Hurtado and Twining. Instead, it undertook to explain why some rights, such as the rights to counsel and free speech, are absorbed into due process; and why others, like jury trial and grand jury indictment, are not. It should be emphasized that the cases “absorbing” rights into the Fourteenth Amendment do not overrule Barron v. Baltimore (1820). The provisions of the federal Bill of Rights still limit directly only the federal government; it is the Fourteenth Amendment which limits the states. What the Court has done is to reverse the practical effect of the rule in Barron v. Baltimore with respect to part, but not all, of the Bill of Rights. Some of these rights are still not considered by the Court to be so fundamental as to be required by due process of law . The Court in case after case has been classifying the provisions of the Bill of Rights into those which are essential to due process of law and thus bind the states through the operation of the Fourteenth Amendment and those which are not essential to due process and by which ‘the states are not bound. In effect, the Court has established an “honor roll” of superior rights which bind both state and national governments. The opinion in the present case is important since it gives an official summary of this classification up to 1937 and states clearly the principles upon which the ‘classification rests.

In another situation, and for a very different purpose, the Court classified the provisions of the federal Bill of Rights. In fixing the constitutional status of territories after the war with Spain, the Court held that in governing “unincorporated” territories, such as Puerto Rico and the Philippines, Congress was restricted only by those guarantees in the Bill of Rights which are basic and fundamental, and not by those which are merely “procedural” or “remedial,” such as the guarantee of trial by jury. See Balzac v. Porto Rico (1922). This classification is essentially the same as that in Palko v. Connecticut .

One question which the Palko case failed to answer satisfactorily was what was meant by “absorption” or “incorporation” of a Bill of Rights guarantee into due process. Did it mean that the right, as listed in the Bill of Rights and interpreted by the Supreme Court in federal cases, was made applicable to the states? Or was the right as applied to the states a more general right, less clearly defined and permitting more leeway and discretion on the part of the states? Clearly, incorporation of the First Amendment has meant its application to the states exactly as it is applied to the national government. Justices Brandeis and Holmes, in their dissent in the Gitlow case, suggested that the free speech applicable to the states perhaps “may be accepted with a somewhat larger latitude of interpretation than is allowed to Congress by the sweeping language that governs or ought to govern the laws of the United States .” The Court, however, has never acknowledged such a distinction, and the same rules for deciding such cases are applied to the states and the nation alike.

With the gradual extension of due process to include other rights, an important controversy developed as to how these rights would apply to the states. This problem is discussed in connection with the specific rights in the chapter below.”

Another case is United States v Lanza (1922). This is what the court stated then I will go to the BOOK comments and bear in mind what happened at the Ruby Ridge trial against the government agent and put into that what the BOOK states.

Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion:

     “We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject-matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the Amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.

It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both, and may be punished by each. The 5th Amendment, like all the other guaranties in the first eight amendments, applies only to proceedings by the Federal government (Barron v. Baltimore [1833]) and the double jeopardy therein forbidden is a second prosecution under authority of the Federal government after a first trial for the same offense under the same authority. Here the same act was an offense against the state of Washington , because a violation of its law, and also an offense against the United States under the National Prohibition Act. The defendants thus committed two different offenses by the same act, and a conviction by a court of Washington of the offense against that state is not a conviction of the different offense against the United States, and so is not double jeopardy ….

If Congress sees fit to bar prosecution by the Federal courts for any act when punishment for violation of state prohibition has been imposed, it can, of course, do so by proper legislative provision; but it has not done so. If a state were to punish the manufacture, transportation, and sale of intoxicating liquor by small or nominal fines, the race of offenders to the courts of that state to plead guilty and secure immunity from Federal prosecution for such acts would not make for respect for the Federal statute, or for its deterrent effect. But it is not for us to discuss the wisdom of legislation; it is enough for us to hold that, in the absence of special provision by Congress, conviction and punishment in a state court, under a state law, for making, transporting, and selling intoxicating liquors, is not a bar to a prosecution in a court of the United States, under the Federal law, for the same acts ….
Judgment reversed.

Now for the comment by the BOOK:

          It was one of the universal maxims of the common law that no man should be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offense. Protection against double jeopardy is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment against invasion by the federal government, while a similar clause is found in the bills of rights of most of the state constitutions. A person is held to be in jeopardy when his trial has progressed to the point where he actually confronts the jury. If convicted, he may waive his immunity from double jeopardy by an appeal to a higher court which may allow him a new trial; but if acquitted, further proceedings against him by the prosecuting authorities are barred, the government not even being allowed to appeal the case on the ground of error of law. See United States v. Sanges (1892). Moreover, if he appeals his conviction and is granted a new trial the defendant can only be retried on the charge of which he was convicted. Thus in Green v. United States (1957) a person who was indicted and tried for first degree murder but was found guilty by the jury of second degree murder could not, after successfully appealing the second degree murder charge, be retried on the original charge of first degree murder. He had already been once in jeopardy for that cr/me and had not waived his protection by appealing his conviction for a different crime.

In certain recognized circumstances a court can declare a mistrial and subject the accused to a second trial without violating the protection against double jeopardy. This is true where it turns out that a juror is disqualified, see Thompson v. United States (1894); and in United States v. Perez (1824) it was held permissible where the jury could not agree on a verdict; “The prisoner has not been convicted or acquitted, and may again be put upon his defense. We think, that in all cases of this nature, the law has invested courts of justice with the authority to discharge a jury from giving any verdict, whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. They are to exercise a sound discretion on the subject; and it is impossible to define all the circumstances which would render it proper to interfere.” The double jeopardy clause would prevent declaring a mistrial and ordering a new trial solely to permit the government more time to secure evidence against the accused. In Downum v. United States (1963) the government asked that the jury be discharged when it discovered two of its key witnesses were missing. Two days later a new jury was empanelled and Downurn was convicted. The Court conceded that a new jury could be empanelled after the discharge of the first where there is “an imperious necessity to do so,” or in “very extraordinary and striking circumstances.”

          Here the government had simply started the trial before it had located all its witnesses.
A move such as this does not, however, amount to a denial of due process when done in a state court. In Brock v. North Carolina (1953) the state court had declared a mistrial and ordered a continuance of the case in order to permit the state to deal with some of its own witnesses who had unexpectedly refused to testify on pleas of self-incrimination. Citing the Palko case, the Court held that the double jeopardy provision was not incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, and this particular action was not shocking enough to make the trial unfair. In 1967 the Court declined to decide whether or not the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment would be extended to the states. Although it had granted certiorari to decide the question, on a full hearing of the case it agreed that the state action did not amount to double jeopardy and dismissed the writ as improvidently granted. See Cichos v. Indiana .

Since one is not in jeopardy until his trial actually begins, indictment for crime does not put a person in jeopardy, and therefore repeated indictments do not constitute double jeopardy. Moreover, the government can appeal the dismissal of an indictment, and such an appeal gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to pass upon the constitutionality of criminal legislation which a lower court holds unconstitutional. See discussion in the note to Muskrat v. United States .

It does not constitute double jeopardy to try a person each time he commits the same offense over again . Thus a conscientious objector who has sewed a prison sentence for refusing to register for the draft may be tried and convicted again if he continues in his refusal. The same is true of a person who is punished for contempt for refusing to give testimony. Where, however, a witness is asked to identify a person as a Communist and in reply refuses to so identify “anyone,” she is guilty of only one contempt, despite a refusal to answer the same question asked 11 times with regard to other persons. See Yates v; United States (1957). Where Congress has made conspiracy to commit a felony a separate crime from the commission of the felony itself, a person may be tried for both crimes. Whether the second trial constitutes double jeopardy in cases like this depends on the nature of the evidence needed to convict. The Court in Morgan v. Devine (1915) quoted with approval from Bishop on Criminal Law: “The test is whether, if what is set out in the second indictment had been proved under the first, there could have been a conviction; when there could, the second cannot be maintained; when there could not, it can be.”

One of the obvious results of living under our federal form of government is that every person is subject to the criminal jurisdiction of two separate governments, the state and the national. It is entirely possible, therefore, for a single act to constitute an offense against the statutes of the United States and at the same time to be punishable under state law. This is true in the case of counterfeiting the national currency, corrupt practices in the conduct of congressional elections, assaults against federal officers, the larceny of goods moving in interstate commerce, violations of the former Prohibition Amendment, etc. In these cases it has long been held that a person may be tried and punished by both governments without violating the protection against double jeopardy. That guarantee is violated only by a second trial for the same offense against the same sovereignty, not by a trial /or the same act when it constitutes a separate and distinct crime against another sovereign. This doctrine had, of course, considerable practical effect in connection with the enforcement of the Prohibition Amendment, under which concurrent jurisdiction rested in the state and national governments. Note the similarity of this rule to the one applied to the self-incrimination cases.

In the present case Lanza had been convicted by the state courts of Washington for violating the state prohibition act. He was then indicted in a federal court for the same act, which also violated the Volstead Act. The district judge dismissed the indictment on the ground of double jeopardy and the government appealed. The Lanza rule, though sharply criticized, sti11 stands. Abbate v. United States (1959) held that a man convicted of a crime in Illinois could later be tried for the same act (dynamiting telephone communications) under a federal law. Lanza was specifically reaffirmed by a six-to-three decision. On the same day the Court held, five to four, that one acquitted in a federal court of robbing a federally insured bank could later be tried and convicted in a state court for the same robbery. See Bartkus v. Illinois (1959).

While the Lanza rule has a logical persuasiveness about it and the Court has done nothing to weaken it, it has not been given wide application. It is not, for example, followed in international law. As early as 1820 the Supreme Court recognized that while all states could try a person for piracy, “there can be no doubt that the plea of autrefois acquit would be good, in any civilized state, though resting on a prosecution in the courts of any other civilized state.” See United States v. Furlong. Nor has the Court felt the rule should apply in cases where two states have concurrent jurisdiction, as on the Columbia River where Washington and Oregon both have jurisdiction over the entire river so as “to avoid any nice question as to whether a criminal act sought to be prosecuted was committed on one side or the other of the exact boundary in the channel” “Where an act is . . . prohibited and punishable by the laws of both states,” the Court commented, “the one first acquiring jurisdiction of the person may prosecute the offense, and its judgment is a finality in both states, so that one convicted or acquitted in the courts of the one state cannot be prosecuted for the same offense in the courts of the other.” See Nielson v. Oregon (1909).

The manifest unfairness of the Lanza rule has been widely recognized, and following the Abbate and Bartkus decisions the Attorney General of the United States ordered that “no federal case should be tried when there has already been a state prosecution for substantially the same act or acts without the United States Attorney first submitting a recommendation to the appropriate Assistant Attorney General in the Department.” And in Petite v. United States (1960) Petite, a lawyer in deportation proceedings against the same man held in both Philadelphia and Baltimore, induced his client to swear falsely that he had been born in the United States. For this suborning of perjury he was convicted and punished in the federal district court in Pennsylvania , and later in the federal district court in Maryland . When the case came to the Supreme Court the Solicitor General moved that the second judgment be vacated and the indictment dismissed. He contended that the double jeopardy clause had not been violated, but stated that “the initiation of the second prosecution in this case was contrary to sound policy and that for that reason, and in the interests of justice, the indictment should be dismissed.” The Supreme Court, without passing on the double jeopardy question, granted the motion.”

Thanks goes out to the INFORMER and others who were the reason for the legalism cleverness used to trap us all into bondage.. Because these real truth seekers and freedom fighters fought to expose this treachery.. To a mass society with deaf ears and blind eyes..

So there you are citizen, the real story. Now I think you citizen[s] have a lot of cognitive dissonance and ego to get rid of. After all, I would say you dear citizen are several years behind the actual truth and knowledge of this great corporate  legal con in your core beliefs mythical thinking. Well, if you ever obtain the level of competence that we have obtained then you can be onto better things and won’t be so ego centered in the future with that mockery you’re so trained in.  It is nice to be eating humble pie once in awhile, really, its not so bad. I think everyone has a lot to learn from reading this and the cases if they so choose. But they need interpretation like this BOOK gives, because after all it’s what “they”  the citizens sovereign owners who established this politically charted nation/state who interpret as ruling, to manage us, not how we interpret these laws they wrote. We are only citizen slaves by contract, remember?

A Bill of Privileges was never a Bill of Rights…

Have a nice day.



Are You A Practicing Communist National Socialist Communitarian

Here in the United States today, we citizens pride ourselves on being staunch anti-communists. A lot of us think of the communists as the bad guys and the cause of our troubles and that the rest of the worlds. This bad guy must look really bad and we should spot him easily in a crowd. Let us examine what a communist really is. Communism is a way of life that is contrary to most teachings of the Bible..

In 1848 Karl Marx fine tuned this way of life with his communist manifesto, he also put the 10 planks of communism together with the help of a few friends, namely the Vatican. Now this statement is easy to prove but I want to discuss the Manifesto right now. Just keep in mind Karl Marx did not create communism or write it, he only helped to improve upon it.

The communist manifesto is the foundation of what communist ideology is all about. A true communist in a communist country would be practicing all these 10 planks. Today in the USA, The citizen via various corporate contractual agreements are practicing all of these 10 planks and most of the citizens don’t even know that they are in reality communists. They should rather call themselves something else. Keep in mind while reading these planks, you dear Comrade are a card carrying Socialist Securities Insured member of this ‘Community’ hoping to someday collect your Social Security Retirement checks..Think about that the next time you say you hate socialism..

Now to the Manifesto

(THE ABOLITION OF PROPERTY AND LAND AND THE APPLICATION OF ALL RENT IN LAND TO PUBLIC PURPOSES). As an old law of Moses and in the first 150 years of America, when you owned land, you had absolute title to that land and no other party could lay claim on it whatsoever unless you sold the land or voluntarily let another party lay claim. But then, you had the right to get it back if it would take your grandchildren to claim it all back. Today, we have only what you might call a 99 year lease. The state can confiscate your land for non-payment of taxes. The only reason the state can do this is that you don’t really own your land. The state has controlling interest on your land and you are merely paying rent, and this rent goes towards the public use.

The 2nd Plank:(A PROGRESSIVE, GRADUATED INCOME TAX). Need I explain this ? We all know that we have income tax in this United States of America and that the more you make, the higher your Tax bracket, the more you are taxed. We did not have income tax until the 1940s.

I will add that there are trusts out there to protect the very wealthy from the IRS created by them that created that federal reserve bank system. Which is privately owned. For example Movie stars don’t own anything, the TRUSTS they established own it all and they are mere employees of that trust, so when for example Bruce Willis gets 25 mil for one of his stupid fake movie roles that 25 mil is installed in a safe place called a trust. He then draws out a paycheck and pays his fair share of that to the IRS.

The 3rd Plank:(THE ABOLITION OF ALL RIGHT OF INHERITANCE). In the old law of Moses, and the first 150 years of America there was no inheritance tax. In the Law of Moses, land was transferred to the eldest son absolutely. In the the first 150 years of America, the right of inheritance was also absolute. There were no parties involved. This started with getting a marriage license which makes the state the third party. When a spouse dies, the other spouse cannot claim the fruits of the marriage because of the third party. the state now would in affect say “buy me out”. Then the land would be forced to be sold just to pay the state, and almost always attorneys, who always want cash. This happens to senior citizens in the good ole USA all the time, work 30 or 40 years to pay off a mortgage then when one passes the other’s SSI income isn’t enough to live on let alone pay the state rent on the house the couple bought and paid for.. Thanks so much you Senators, you whores of Babylon.

The 4th Plank:(THE CONFISCATION OF ALL PROPERTY OF EMIGRANTS AND REBELS). Some people are beginning to find out what is really going on. They are beginning to rebel against these communists and/or satanic practices and in the process, SWAT teams are sent against them. Businesses are padlocked: Homes are leined; bank accounts are seized, some are jailed with out due process; and others killed. What will it take for the die hard left right paradigm true believers to finally recognize they are under the ancient TALMUD, and Babylonian law, calling it The Commercial Code. When will Bible believing folks wake up to the truth and truly follow Bible Scripture rather than the Law of Hammurabi..

The 5th Plank:( THE CENTRALIZATION OF CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE BY MEANS OF A NATIONAL BANK WITH STATE CAPITOL AND AN EXCLUSIVE MONOPOLY). This brings us straight to the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK. Privately owned by 12 European families and operated by 8 Jewish families of European decent. The basis of the Federal Reserve Note which is a certified Negotiable Debt Instrument is merely a line of credit which is the reason it has no gold or silver backing it, it is welfare insurance script. The government borrows these notes to pass out to the people and you will notice how huge the constitutors-tax payers federal deficit they are responsible is. All for the cost of printing these notes. In the Law of Moses and in the first 150 years of America, people used gold and silver coins which had intrinsic value. This worthless money is then distributed through the local banks. You constitutor tax payers owe this deficit back to the elite Europeans that set this deal up here in the Estates.

The 6th Plank:(THE CENTRALIZATION OF THE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORTATION IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE). This is accomplished by the Federal communications commission which controls, regulates and licenses all news papers and magazines: Radio and television stations, local or national distribution who are a corporate or a state created entity. Transportation is controlled by various state departments of motor vehicles and enforced by the various law enforcement agencies, did ya get that word FORCED in there. I guess the mainstream government controlled media are looking out for you. They’re teaching you constitutor citizen milk cows to self censor any uncomfortable TRUTH as well…

The 7th Plank:(THE EXTENSION OF FACTORIES AND THE INSTRUMENTS OF PRODUCTION OWNED BY THE STATE AND BRINGING INTO CULTIVATION WASTELAND AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF SOIL GENERALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COMMON PLAN). Factories are all controlled by the government by means of permits and licenses, and various other agencies like OSHA, labor boards and others. Smaller businesses are really extensions of these factories because most are franchises. You cannot put up a business and start selling somebody’s product unless you first ask and pay for this privilege, even if you create the product your self, or buy in bulk, Farms are told which crop to grow and harvest, and are sometimes paid not to harvest, the most profitable crop being industrial hemp was outlawed in 1937, as this product was to competitive and Dupont and big oil cant be having that. Farms and ranches are controlled by various government agencies like soil Conservation Districts, B.L.M Forest service Management agencies via various contractual agreement. ACHTUNG POLICE STATE.

The 8th Plank:( EQUAL LIABILITY FOR ALL TO LABOR AND ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ARMIES, ESPECIALLY FOR AGRICULTURE). Equal liability is accomplished by means of the social insecurity account and most are members of an industrial army because you cannot get a job with a corporation unless you have a socialist insecurity number. You are part of the socialist Insecurity army and being unemployed, The unemployment office will send benefits to you. Ever collected Socialist Unemployment Checks Comrade?

The 9th Plank:( THE COMBINATION OF AGRICULTURE WITH MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES AND THE GRADUAL ABOLITION OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TOWN AND COUNTRY BY MORE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION OVER THE COUNTRY). Real wealth comes from the land and in the 1920s, almost half the population owned their own land out- right. That has fallen steadily since then through farm foreclosures because those farmers were needed in the cities to work war machine factories building implements to conquer the rest of the world. Equal distribution is not distributed evenly but rather distributed where you are needed. By the turn of the century, this country has more super corporate farms and the millions of family owned and operated farms are vanishing, recently almond growers in California were ordered by the FDA to no longer sell RAW Almonds, they must first go to the NEW PASTEURIZATION CORPORATE PLANT before the market. Russia comes to mind, maybe China perhaps. Oops.. I thought Communism was myth…

The 10th Plank:(THE FREE EDUCATION OF ALL CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS). Really do I need to explain this ? Even private and church schools need to obtain permits and licenses from the government and follow a state approved curriculum. This way your children can be taught humanistic principles and communist ideology. Subtly but surely. That’s why the idiots running The Government its FREE Welfare Indoctrination for everyone Public schools system think they are doing right, they were schooled to do it that way, and then when those other folks complain about it because its NOT FAIR AT ALL their labeled dissident trouble makers..

One big difference between Russia/China and America is that in Russia/China people do not pretend to have property, they do not call themselves homeowners unlike in The United Estates. Private property has been subjugated to the 10 planks of the communist manifesto. . Now are you a practicing SOCIALIST COMMY, why of course YOU are. And you didn’t even know it…

The Left Right Paradigm IS Communism and National Socialism All rolled into one nice package… Communitarianism.. The people that did this to YOU are very clever rascals..

So are YOU a practicing Communist National Socialist Communitarian Communazi? That government is…Did YOU vote? Well then if you voted for this you’ve nothing to complain about.. This is what they keep serving you with…

There you go.. Now go call some silly boy a communist… AND you dear Constitutor Citizen tax payer who agrees with all of that National Debt responsibility as you’ve had all of your personal wealth placed in collateral as part of the agreement shoudl have have no trouble spotting those scary communists walking amongst us all.. Try the mirror out this morning, see if that guy scares ya…

This write up is the property of Karl Marx and whoever those men in black ghost writers were who tutored him in London back in the 1840s…


Modern Educayshun


I don’t think a rational person would need it explained to them how the entire system is corrupt. It is in effect, ‘self-evident’ to any lucid observer. Obviously those who’ve corrupted it, conspired together to do so.. Oops…

Rugged individualism has been traded in for Pussyism…