Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18   Go Down

Author Topic: (30) PREP FOR HARD TIMES  (Read 138275 times)

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Oathkeepers +CSPOA (Oathkeepers Fights Illegal Obama-assisted Invasion)
« Reply #210 on: July 19, 2014, 03:21:01 pm »

So?

The free market will prevail.
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3097
Re: Oathkeepers +CSPOA (Hundreds Are Dying At The Mexican Border)
« Reply #211 on: August 02, 2014, 12:49:28 am »

Breaking Report: Hundreds Are Dying At The Border

[Read the entire article at: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/08/01/immigrants-left-to-die-after-border-crossing/ ]
Immigrants Are Left To Die After Border Crossing

Most come from Central America and pay human traffickers known as ‘coyotes’ between $5,000 and $8,000 each to be smuggled into the United States.

Many don’t make it alive.

‘The fact is, they’re all homicides,’ Vickers said. ‘These people pay coyotes who are affiliated with drug cartels big money to be brought here and dropped off at the checkpoint. And they go through our private property to avoid detection.’

‘And the coyotes, a lot of times, by the time they get to the checkpoint, or even north of the checkpoint, run off and leave them. And you know, they’ll point at a light up north, one of those radio towers, and say, “Just keep walking toward that tower. Houston’s 20 minutes away”.’

Houston is a 280-mile drive from Falfurrias.

[] In the filmmaker’s footage, Vickers shows a photo he took of a gang-tattooed drug runner who was armed but dehydrated when the Texas Border Volunteers stumbled onto him, near the point of death from heat exhaustion.

[] Burgard also saw an Urdu-to-English dictionary that Vickers picked up near his ranch, dropped by ‘a coyote leading a group of Middle Easterners into our country.’

And Chinese immigrants, paying up to $50,000 each to be smuggled into Ecuador and then into the United States, are now numerous enough that the federal government has added Mandarin translations to signs at emergency stations dotting the Texas border region.

But it’s those ‘OTM’ aliens, especially the hundreds of unaccompanied minors crossing every day along the length of the U.S.-Mexico border, who have turned illegal immigration into relentless front-page news.

The flow is ‘four times what it was in 2011. A four-fold increase,’ says Vickers.

He agrees with Republicans in Congress who point fingers of blame at President Obama, who declared in 2012 that the federal government would no longer pursue illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children before 2007.

He also championed a bill called the DREAM Act – failed legislation that aimed to offer those immigrants permanent residency if they graduated from high school. ‘When Obama started talking about the DREAM Act, and this and that about the DREAMers, I mean it was like, overnight we started seeing hordes of these teenagers coming in from Central America,’ Vickers told MailOnline. ‘I’ve got pictures of them.’

[] The deluge of unaccompanied minors, he said, have occupied so much of the federal government’s resources near the U.S.-Mexico border – allowing for only sparse apprehension of gun and narcotics smugglers.

‘Before the tidal wave of women and children hit the border,’ he told MailOnline, ‘cartels say they were getting about 50 per cent of their personnel across. Since Border Patrol has been hit with this wave of human shields, cartels are now claiming to get up to 90 per cent of their people across.’

Burgard also showed MailOnline exclusive interview footage with a 27-year veteran of the U.S. Border Patrol who left his job because of the changing conditions on the ground.

‘I retired early because I was told I had to release a group of criminals because they may be DREAM Act people,’ the agent says, his face shielded because he feared reprisals.

‘I just could not see releasing these people who were convicted of crimes back into American society. I voiced my opinion. I was told basically to just shut up and do what I was told.’
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3097
Re: Oathkeepers +CSPOA (NYSIC Falsely Accuses OK of Terrorism)
« Reply #212 on: August 07, 2014, 10:00:36 am »

Oath Keepers comments on the NY State Intelligence Agency's (NYSIC) accusations of potential terrorism by NY Oathkeepers at http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/08/06/new-york-oath-keepers-refute-accusations-by-state-intelligence-agency . See NY Oath Keepers rebuttal of NYSIC follows.

NEW YORK OATH KEEPERS REFUTE ACCUSATIONS BY NY STATE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

On June 12, 2014, the New York State Intelligence Center (NYSIC), which is managed by the New York State Police, issued New York State Counter Terrorism Bulletin: CTM 14-07: Recent Spike in Violence Targeting Law Enforcement. In that bulletin, the NYSIC referred to three recent attacks on Law Enforcement Officers in the month of June, one in Canada and two in the United States. The bulletin stated:

“Based upon reporting it appears all the suspects in these incidents were motivated by elements of a far right anti-government ideology with a particular fixation on law enforcement.”

Here is a summary of the three incidents that the NYSIC used to justify their unwarranted connection to the New York Oath Keepers and other constitutional Liberty groups in New York State.

Incident #1: On June 4, 2014, Justin Bourque, a 24-year-old male in New Brunswick, Canada, with no criminal record, shot and killed three Royal Canadian Mounted Police Officers and was later captured. The report states: “…he struggled to hold a job, turned to drugs, and became increasingly obsessed with guns (particularly the ongoing U.S. gun debate which has spilled over to a lesser degree to Canada) and abuses by police.”

In reviewing Incident #1, where, exactly, is the connection to the New York Oath Keepers and other NY Liberty groups?

Incident #2: On June 6, 2014, Dennis Marx, a 48-year-old male in Forsyth County, Georgia, was shot and killed by Deputies trying to enter the county courthouse with a so-called “assault” rifle, body armor, an assortment of grenades, ammunition, food, water and flexible handcuffs. The NYSIC bulletin states: “Marx was scheduled to appear before a judge at the courthouse that morning on eleven felony drug and weapons charges. As to motive, Marx had long running issues with law enforcement and was a self-identified sovereign citizen.”

Again, in reviewing Incident #2, where, exactly, is the connection to the New York Oath Keepers and other NY Liberty groups?

Incident #3: On June 8, 2014, Jerad and Amanda Miller shot and killed two police officers, and a civilian who tried to stop them in Las Vegas. “…the Millers draped a Gadsden flag (‘Don’t Tread on Me’) over one dead officer, left a swastika on the other, and a note that said: ‘This is the start of the revolution.’” They then fled to a local Wal-Mart with the officers’ guns and ammunition. Additionally, they had: MRE-style food, knives and first aid supplies. They died in a shootout with police at that Wal-Mart.

The NYSIC bulletin also stated: “Jerad Miller had over a decade long criminal history in multiple states, including misdemeanor battery and drug trafficking.” Additionally, the bulletin indicated that, “Jerad and Amanda Miller had also traveled to Bundy’s ranch in Nevada, although they were reportedly asked to leave for being too radical and due to Jerad’s criminal record.”

In reviewing Incident #3, we again ask: Where, exactly, is the connection to the New York Oath Keepers and other NY Liberty groups?

The NYSIC bulletin goes on to assert: “Michael Brian Vanderboegh, a longtime militia member and founder of the III Percent Patriot Movement, which was supported by Jerad and Amanda Miller, traveled to NYS at least once in 2013 to speak to the Liberty Oath Keepers meeting in Monticello, NY.”

NOTE: For the sake of accuracy, Mr. Vanderboegh founded the “National III (Three) Percent Movement,” NOT the “III Percent Patriot Movement.” They are different entities. Plus, Vanderboegh is on record saying, what he created is “a movement, NOT a militia, NOT an organization that can be infiltrated, co-opted or broken up …it’s an ideal.” Also worthy of distinction, the Millers were NOT his supporters.

NO RATIONAL CONNECTION

So, what exactly caused those who authored the NYSIC bulletin to make the determination that we are a far-right extremist organization, posing a threat to police, when the New York Oath Keepers had absolutely nothing to do with the aforementioned incidents?

Are the good people of New York State expected to go along with NYSIC’s faulty logic and misstatements of fact? Are they expected to ignore the truth—that there is absolutely no rational connection between these three incidents and New York Oath Keepers? Further, can the good people of New York have any confidence in an “intelligence” center that uses such faulty logic to publicly demonize an organization whose clearly stated purpose is to encourage OUR Military and Law Enforcement Officers, and others, to honor their oath? Can any reasonable person conclude that any or all of these three incidents justify the NYSIC classifying the New York Oath Keepers as a far-right extremist organization?

Are we now to presume that the County Sheriffs, District Attorneys, law enforcement officers and other public officials, who regularly speak at New York Oath Keepers’ meetings, are also now, by association, far-right extremists? Using the connecting methodology of the NYSIC, the Sheriffs and other invited guest speakers of New York Oath Keepers must also be considered far-right extremists. After all, they spoke before the same group as Mr. Vanderboegh and are, therefore, connected.

EVIDENCE?

Here is another important piece of so-called “evidence” outlined in this bulletin that caused this State agency to wrongly identify the New York Oath Keepers as far-right extremists: “The Oath Keepers is an organization composed of current and former military and law enforcement personnel, who take a pledge to ‘not obey unconstitutional orders such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as enemy combatants.’”

Is NYSIC suggesting that it is extreme and threatening to encourage our officials to honor their oath and refuse to obey unconstitutional orders?
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3097
Re: Oathkeepers +CSPOA (NYSIC Falsely Accuses OK of Terrorism)
« Reply #213 on: August 07, 2014, 10:04:05 am »

(Cont.)

Perhaps the people who wrote this NYSIC bulletin are unaware that U.S. military personnel, local law enforcement officers, and private armed government contractors illegally searched for and seized firearms from law-abiding citizens in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, making them vulnerable to looters or other criminals and unable to protect themselves. (The actions of these officials were later found to be unconstitutional.)

Perhaps the people who wrote this NYSIC bulletin are unaware that New Orleans police officers shot six American citizens, two of whom died, simply for crossing the Danziger Bridge trying to survive the devastation and death that Hurricane Katrina brought to New Orleans. (Five New Orleans police officers were later convicted of murder.)

Perhaps the people who wrote this NYSIC bulletin are unaware of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012, 2013, and 2014, and the dangerous provisions that authorize the federal government or their appointees the power to detain, indefinitely and without trial, any person suspected of terrorist activity or associations, or thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.”

OVERLAPPING MEMBERSHIPS?

Here is the final charge outlined in the NYSIC bulletin that caused them to identify the New York Oath Keepers as far-right extremists:

“There have been multiple observed instances of overlapping membership in the Oath Keepers and the III Percent Patriots, and the Oath Keepers’ founder has spoken supportively of the III Percent Patriot Movement.” (As cited previously, the National III Percent Movement that Vanderboegh founded is an ideal or goal to be reached. Again, Vanderboegh does NOT have an organized membership and is NOT connected to the “III Percent Patriots,” as incorrectly implied by the NYSIC.)

INTIMIDATION TACTICS?

It appears that the NYSIC bulletin is using the same cookie-cutter formula used in the infamous report from the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC): MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement, dated February 20, 2009. The MIAC report indicated that if someone is opposed to abortion, illegal immigration, the United Nations, and other issues, this justified considering them a potentially dangerous “militia member,” simply because of his/her stance on these issues. Furthermore, under the heading, “Political Paraphernalia,” the report stated, “Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidates: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.” It is important to note that after a nationwide swell of public outrage, on March 25, 2009, the Missouri State Highway Patrol rightly removed the MIAC report from circulation.

Are we to believe that the NYSIC is consciously engaging in the same type of misinformation campaign, and largely, for the same reasons: to harass, profile, and intimidate those they deem as political opposition? Why would anyone, especially public officials, intentionally slander New York Oath Keepers? The Oath Keepers are simply encouraging those currently serving to honor their oath, which always provides the benefits of protecting the natural rights of their fellow New Yorkers—as mandated in the Constitution. We are NOT far-right extremists, nor do we pose a danger to law enforcement.

GOOD GOVERNMENT

This nation was founded on the principle that free men had the right and duty to act according to their conscience, and to support and speak about the means to achieve the most honorable representation in government. But instead, those not interested in honest debate seek to divert attention from real issues by routinely mischaracterizing their opposition as: rogue, subversive, uncaring, racist, extremist and anti-government.

The New York Oath Keepers fully understand that the Law Enforcement Officers in New York State are one of the last lines of defense against the growing lawlessness of our own state and federal government officials. So please keep in mind that we are your fellow law enforcement officers, military members, firefighters and other first-responders. We are your brothers and sisters, your fathers and mothers, your relatives, your friends, your neighbors down the street. We are small business owners and a multitude of other honorable New Yorkers who are committed to supporting and obeying constitutional laws.

REACH. TEACH. INSPIRE.

The New York Oath Keepers’ mission is to encourage and persuade all Law Enforcement Officers and all sworn government officials, to honor their oath.

We stand shoulder to shoulder with the good people of New York—including honorable Law Enforcement Officers—in defense of Liberty and in opposition to unconstitutional laws that deny the People and their Posterity their natural, unalienable, God-given rights.

IN CLOSING

If the goal of NYSIC is to achieve a high-standard of credibility, which is based on truth and fairness, we highly suggest, and in fact insist, that the officials at this agency initiate a public correction, indicating their error of classifying New York Oath Keepers as a far-right extremist group and/or a threat to law enforcement.

Lastly, New York Oath Keepers formally request a meeting with officials at NYSIC and the agencies associated with them. We will answer questions and clarify the Oath Keepers’ Mission. Of course, we will have questions as well.

Respectfully,

William Cooper, President, New York Oath Keepers (former Sgt. US Air Force)

John Wallace, Vice President, New York Oath Keepers (US Army-NYARNG; Lt. Col. NYSP Ret)

Dan Devlin, Vice President, New York Oath Keepers (MP US Army; PHX, AZ PD)

Frank Morganthaler, Vice President, New York Oath Keepers (USMC; Lt. FDNY Ret)

John Mahoney, Special Advisor, New York Oath Keepers (Sgt NYPD Ret; USMC; Special Forces Trainer, US Army Ret)
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3097
Re: Oathkeepers +CSPOA (State Militias Are Legal; Martial Law Is Illegal)
« Reply #214 on: August 18, 2014, 12:59:34 am »

THE BASTARDY OF "MARTIAL LAW"
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
August 9, 2014
[See full review at http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/08/16/edwin-vieira-the-bastardy-of-martial-law/ ]

My latest book - By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of "Martial Law" - is now available through Amazon. Its title encapsulates its theme: namely, that "martial law" (as most Americans conceive of it) is a wholly illegitimate concept which appeals to some supposed, but false, "necessity" in order to establish a very real tyranny.
Some might say that, in light of the present parlous condition of the Republic, and especially the pathetic indifference of average Americans to this sorry state of affairs, writing such a book will prove to be a fool's errand on my part-or perhaps a hopeless task quixotically undertaken for the benefit of fools. Obviously, I disagree. I consider the subject-matter of this book to be vital to this country's survival.

One would presume that, in light of the seriousness of the matter, Americans would ask: "What is 'martial law'?" and "How is 'martial law' legal?" Certainly, proof of the illegality of "martial law"-in any of its particulars, let alone as a whole-would provide a firm foundation for opposing it, and for deposing from public office those individuals who propose it. So I anticipate (or at least hope) that By Tyranny Out of Necessity, which demonstrates in exhaustive detail why the common misconception of "martial law" is industrial-strength bunkum, will be a smashing success in terms of its usefulness among patriots who intend to keep their heads out of the sand, their feet on the ground, and their eyes on the ultimate goal of living in what the Second Amendment calls "a free State".

Yes, one would presume, perhaps even expect, that such would be the case. Yet hoping does not make it so. There remains the possibility that this country has already plunged so far off the deep end of Spengler's Der Untergang des Abendlandes that nothing can be done to salvage the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any semblance of "a free State". What might constitute evidence for that lugubrious conclusion?

A. The evidence. That I have had to write By Tyranny Out of Necessity (or, for that matter, any of my books touching on the Militia) is prime evidence of the decay into which this country has fallen. For, as By Tyranny Out of Necessity explains, the Militia are, as they always have been, the definitive preventive of and answer to "martial law", or any other manifestation of usurpation or tyranny. No threat of "martial law" would exist if Americans were properly organized in "the Militia of the several States", because any constitutionally valid form of "law" that needed enforcement by "martial" institutions against civilians would be the civil laws of the Union and of the several States executed by the Militia-that is, by WE THE PEOPLE themselves.

Even the half-witted rogues in the Disgrace of Columbia would think long and hard about the inadvisability of attempting to invoke "martial law" if WE THE PEOPLE awakened to their own constitutional authority in the Militia; refused to recognize the legitimacy of any form of "law" that needed "martial" enforcement against civilians, but was not executed by or under the control of the Militia; organized themselves for the purpose of revitalizing the Militia by means of State legislation under the States' reserved constitutional authority in that respect; and through that effort prepared themselves to oppose "martial law" even if that legislation could not be enacted in time in every State. Emphasis on the last point is vital: Even if patriots could not succeed in having proper Militia statutes enacted throughout this country before a major economic, political, and social breakdown occurred, they could at least motivate, educate, organize, equip, and train tens of thousands of Americans who would be capable of acting collectively in their and their country's interests. This critical mass does not exist at present; and it will never come into being unless and until adequate steps are taken to revitalize the Militia. Perhaps only a small part of it can be amalgamated before a calamity strikes. But something for some is better than nothing for all-a self-evident truth to which every passenger who found a seat in one of the few lifeboats on the Titanic would have attested.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Oathkeepers +CSPOA (State Militias Are Legal; Martial Law Is Illegal)
« Reply #215 on: August 19, 2014, 05:44:44 pm »

Our duly-elected State Legislature that only serves two years would need to request federal intervention...
Something not likely to happen without a very odd situation.
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3097
Re: Oathkeepers +CSPOA (State Militias Are Legal; Martial Law Is Illegal)
« Reply #216 on: August 22, 2014, 11:44:40 pm »

Our duly-elected State Legislature that only serves two years would need to request federal intervention...
Something not likely to happen without a very odd situation.
No, everyone has the right to self-govt, as admitted in the Declaration of Independence. All we need to do is declare independence again and be independent.
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3097
Re: Oathkeepers +CSPOA (The Buzz about Ferguson, MO)
« Reply #217 on: August 22, 2014, 11:46:33 pm »

The Buzz about Ferguson, MO
[Quoting from article; link is at the end.]

Everyone has something to say about Ferguson, Missouri’s monumental moment of madness. [] Oath Keepers finds that as of August 21, 2014, there is not enough information assembled to know whether justice shall point its wabbling finger at Officer Wilson or at Mr. Brown. Oath Keepers has no position on that question at this time.

Our focus at Oath Keepers national is on the deployment of police assets and a wee little problem about a stand-down order from above in the chain of command which caused the police to ignore the looters whilst firing non-lethal bullets and gas canisters at innocent protestors. And, we might add, there is this tiny little problem about trotting out the militarized assets of police-state equipment against citizens who were demonstrating peacefully.

[] Here is how one of our Oath Keepers on the ground there put it -

The previous focus on peaceful protesters with lines of policemen equipped in riot gear, in fundamentally static positions, are being thwarted by modern looters and thugs with cell phones and team work. One active sergeant told us, “I don’t want my guys stationary, they just become targets for the thugs throwing bricks and taking pot shots at us with their pistols”. The analysts in our group take this kind of reporting very seriously. The local police are equipped to handle the current situation, but only if a paradigm shift in strategy and tactics can be made. The leadership, Gov. Nixon and down the chain of command must make the changes before the whole city of Ferguson turns into a burned out war zone, more businesses are destroyed, and more lives are lost forever. One retired Green Beret in our group suggested that instead of grouping our officers in large blocks (50 to 100 men), that Nixon must order a specific change in tactics. Break up these groups into rapid reaction teams of 20 to 25 officers and hide them, staging them in places spread around Ferguson. Our intel guy concurred, and added that the younger minority officers should be in street clothes to blend in and work as Scouts, identifying threats and looters. The Scouts should be directing the rapid reaction teams to protect the businesses from the ongoing crime, and refocus the police resources away from unconstitutional activities like shooting OC gas at peaceful protesters. They should get to the business of putting the criminals behind bars. With hundreds if not thousands of criminals stealing the businesses of Ferguson blind, how many arrests have been effected? The percentage is embarrassing, not enough. The Highway Patrol’s tactics did not work, and it is time to admit it. Bringing the National Guard in for force protection secures the Command Location, but what about all the other locations where people’s lives are being destroyed? The National Guard is not the answer when the number of civilian arrests that need to be made, beg for an increase of 1000 percent. Officers should be focused on looters, not bullying the media in McDonalds. We need officers to put criminals in jail, not shoot tear gas at reporters too stupid to not shine lights in the officers eyes while they are trying to work. We need a Governor smart enough to reject the riot control tactics developed before cell phones that are now failing catastrophically, and smart enough to not disable the internet and violate our rights and freedoms. We need a Governor to show enough wisdom and to lead our state by the Constitution rather than against it with ineffective abuses like curfews. Governor Nixon should be wise enough to defeat the criminals without taking our rights and freedoms, and to change failing tactics and demand from police that they discern between peaceful protesters and looting thugs.
(end paraphrased message from Missouri Oath Keepers)

Read more at http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/08/21/whats-the-buzz/
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Oathkeepers +CSPOA (The Buzz about Ferguson, MO)
« Reply #218 on: August 23, 2014, 04:54:35 am »

No. For the federal government to institute martial law in NH it would be a constitutional issue.
The Declaration was a declaration and not a document of governance - which is why the Articles and State Constitutions came into being at the same time.
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3097
Re: Oathkeepers +CSPOA (The Buzz about Ferguson, MO)
« Reply #219 on: August 23, 2014, 09:22:29 am »

(Cont. from previous post)

Open Letter of Warning to Governor Nixon From Missouri Oath Keepers
See: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/08/22/open-letter-of-warning-to-governor-nixon-from-missouri-oath-keepers-2/
(Also photo there shows military suppressing freedom of the press in Ferguson, MO.)
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3097
Re: Oathkeepers +CSPOA (Help Stop Cartels Taking Over Our Border Lands)
« Reply #220 on: September 04, 2014, 06:30:26 pm »

Drug Cartels are taking over our Mexican border lands and bringing in Middle Eastern terrorists and Cartel thugs.

Oathkeepers describes the situation here:
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/09/04/texas-border-ranchers-fear-for-their-lives-and-families-appeal-for-help/

And see these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE_Ix6OEaMI&list=UU-OvPXGAoeZsnzqq6IOZWfw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxnwYg7dMZI&list=UU-OvPXGAoeZsnzqq6IOZWfw

Fernando explains that the standing orders of the Border Patrol are:
    They’re not even to draw their weapon on  these people – if they can they are supposed to just continue on their way, move out and leave them alone.  And to me, that puts my family in danger because that [open] gate is right at the end of my street.  If they leave them alone , let them continue on their business, they’re going to end up on my property.
[/i]
« Last Edit: September 04, 2014, 06:40:02 pm by Luck »
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3097
Re: Oathkeepers +CSPOA (PA Cops Support 2nd Amendment Rights)
« Reply #221 on: September 08, 2014, 09:51:58 pm »

Auditors in one PA sheriff's county tried to force him to release the names of local people with concealed weapons permits (if I read the article correctly). He refused and they filed a lawsuit against him. Numerous other sheriffs and legislators supported the sheriff and the case was won recently.

See the whole article here: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/09/08/sheriff-nace-stands-tall-for-gun-rights-in-pennsylvania/
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3097
Re: Oathkeepers +CSPOA (Police Abuse in PA Manhunt)
« Reply #223 on: October 21, 2014, 12:05:19 pm »

October 20th, 2014
PENNSYLVANIA OATH KEEPERS AND PRINCE LAW OFFICE CONDEMN POLICE STATE OVERPLAY

Pennsylvania Oath Keepers team with prestigious law firm to condemn newest police-state manifestation.

The story went national in the last week of September, 2014. An elusive suspect who is believed by authorities to have shot two police officers has been the subject of an intense manhunt in a wooded area of eastern Pennsylvania.

I shall link readers to two op-eds at the Prince Law Office site, but first let’s read how Pennsylvania Oath Keepers are reacting to what has unfolded during this manhunt. Here is how Tom Wise describes it:

Imagine peering cautiously from behind your door as heavily armed squads of armored police officers meander across your lawn. Feel the vibrations as armored patrol vehicles roll down your street, and a six and half ton armored breeching platform digs ruts across your front lawn. Pretend the local businesses are closed, parents and children separated, pets are left to fend for themselves, and the elderly are left without care because police have cordoned off your neighborhood. Your friends are helpless, sleeping in their cars through the cold mountain nights, and your family is hungry as they wait for you to return with food. But police refuse to allow you to drive back home.

This bizarre scenario isn’t taken from the plot for Red Dawn. This happened, and is still happening, in Barrett Township and other North Eastern Pennsylvania towns, and your state police are doing this “for your own good.”

Please understand that we are all praying for the family of Cpl. Bryan Dickson, and for the healing of State Trooper Alex Douglass. The loss or injury of any of our public servants is heartbreaking, and we support our State Police in their search for the killer.

At the same time we must ask ourselves if the loss of freedom and liberty, and the endangering of the residents of any town in the United States of America is the proper response in the search for one man. One man who, for what public information we now have, is accused by what seems at best a circumstantial connection to the crime.

In addition, those who have questioned authority’s response and point out its inherent assault on the citizens’ Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, and who have stood for the citizens of Barrett Township in the protection of their civil-rights have had their lives threatened. Threatened for taking a stand against an emerging militarized police presence.

Residents of Canadensis Pennsylvania were overwhelmed by State Troopers searching for Eric Frein, the accused police killer. Videos provided by residents have shown large groups of police officers in full battle gear, automatic weapons ready, walking through yards and wooded areas in squad formation.  Pennsylvania State Police have brought in a six and half ton armored mobile sniper platform with breeching capability affectionately named “The Rook.”

Is this the right way to find a fugitive? What ever happened to neighborhood policing? What has happened to asking questions, and seeking input from those that live in the affected area? Do we no longer seek to partner as citizens and protectors? What ever happened to good old fashioned tracking, seeking clues, and detective work, using more peaceful means to police? Is brute force really an effective tool in finding a fugitive from the law?

We the people of Pennsylvania, Oath Keepers in support of the Constitution of the United States, standing ready to support our local and state police in times of trouble or calamity and to protect the Constitution, insist that our officers stand down in Barrett Township. No citizen of the great Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania should be subjected to the suspension of inalienable rights under the constitution in the common exercise of police discretion. No citizen accused of a crime should have their constitutional protections infringed, as we are assumed innocent until proven guilty.  No police presence should take the role of a domestic army positioned to face the citizens rather than our outward enemies. The safety of our family and friends cannot be so threatened by police in the fulfillment of their duties, nor should our citizens be moved to accept such a threat as common to our lives.


-

So that is how Tom Wise and the leadership of Pennsylvania Oath Keepers have worded their concern. Tom Wise makes good points. One point he brushed over very lightly but hinted at is found down the column at this article on the local ABC affiliate News-13 website:

Lt. Col. George Bivens is quoted saying:  “Lethal force is authorized upon positive identification if he is not actively surrendering,”

Link: http://abc13.com/news/accused-cop-killer-repeatedly-appears-then-eludes-manhunt/322722/

Shoot him if he doesn’t act right when apprehended, use lethal force if he does not “actively surrender”. No arrest, no charges, no trial, no jury verdict – just take him out unless he is actively surrendering.  And then hope you shot the right guy.

Well, that is sorta where another side of this story comes into play. The esteemed Prince Law Firm has spoken up in opposition to this police-state drama, and for their trouble in defending the Constitution they are now receiving death threats from anonymous statist-minded parties. Anyone can relate to why a law firm devoted to protecting citizens’ Constitutionally-guaranteed rights would object to a call for lethal force to be used on a man who has not been brought to trial.

The elder Prince in Prince Law Office, PC, wrote an op-ed on the firm’s blog and titled it “The Uproar”. It was written and published by Warren H. Prince, Esq. on September 25, 2014. Link:

http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/09/25/the-uproar/

Warren Prince began his article with these words: “I must admit that I’m surprised by the vitriol arising from Joshua’s recent post about State Police action in Pennsylvania. Our staff has received death threats. Can you believe it? Death threats because we expressed an opinion contrary to theirs and in support of the Constitution.”

Warren Prince was alluding to an article his son, Joshua Prince, had written on the law firm’s blog, which has stirred the ire of some statist-minded people who want to see an over-played show of force by the State Police, and by some others who want to use this manhunt as an “on the job” training situation for teaching cops how to use their new military-grade mechanical toy, that “Rook”. After all, as the Department of Homeland Security continues to pre-position military-style equipment all over America by granting such vehicles and equipment to police departments and Sheriffs’ offices, it would come in handy for them if the local police were to be trained on how to use that equipment. The police then become an equipped extension of the military in a liaison of military-police state “martial governance” which DHS is attempting to construct.

In a more recent article by Joshua (Josh) Prince, the issue is clarified even more. Please read the whole article at the Prince Law Office blogsite, here:

http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/10/03/the-legal-issues-of-the-eric-frein-manhunt/

From that article:

The Legal Issues of the Eric Frein Manhunt

By Joshua Prince, Esq., October 03 2014

Prince Law Office

As our viewers are likely aware, several of our recent blogs (mainly my own) regarding the Eric Frein manhunt have resulted in some controversy. Prince Law Offices has always stood by the rule of law and the Constitution. It is in that spirit that the blog articles at the heart of this controversy, and this response, were written.

At Prince Law Offices, we believe that our legal system, of which the Constitution is the heart, exists both to prosecute those who commit crimes and to protect the civil and natural rights of the citizens. Sometimes, those two goals come into conflict with one another, as they have here. The Pennsylvania State Police are operating to catch and prosecute the suspect of a capital crime. They should fully utilize the resources provided them under the law to pursue and arrest the suspect, who will then be afforded an opportunity to defend himself before a judge and jury. Let us not forget that, as of now, he is a suspect and no matter what evidence has been presented by the media or the police, the foundation of our criminal justice system is that everyone receives the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It is for precisely situations such as this that the protections of the Constitution exist, and Prince Law Offices proudly stands by its dedication and commitment to protecting the Constitutional rights of all citizens.

While the State Police are clearly working to execute their mandate to enforce the criminal laws of the Commonwealth, our concern is they are neglecting the other side of the equation – the protection of all citizens’ Constitutional and natural rights.

(end quoted excerpts from Joshua Prince article at above link)

So it is imperative that this vision of justice be brought before the public mind. Oath Keepers commends the Prince Law Office as well as State chapter President Larry Liguori, Tom Wise, and all the other Pennsylvania Oath Keepers who are working to do just that. We will post an update as things there develop.

Elias Alias, editor
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 12:06:56 pm by Luck »
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3097

Oath Keepers oppose militarization of police in Bucks County, PA.
Video: http://youtu.be/kAXQZnDPDWM
Article: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/10/26/bucks-county-pennsylvania-oath-keepers-object-to-new-mrap-for-police/

To join a CPT (county? preparedness team) in your area contact David Helms, Oath Keepers National CPT Coordinator at cpt@oathkeepers.org.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18   Go Up