No court should ever find one guilty of murder or manslaughter if defending their own lives from murder or kidnapping. For many people, NDAA, and violations of Posse Comitatus by military represents such a threat, and more recently, the Monsanto Protection Act. Therefore, we all might ought to so consider their reasoning; if one man should so fear the tyrannical act of their government, so then should we all.
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright © 2013, all rights reserved. Permission to repost hereby granted provided entire post with all links in tact, including this paragraph, are included.
Reading this post you will learn…
-
That self defense is a right, perhaps even when facing authorities acting legally;
-
That NDAA threatens EVERYONE’s life and liberty if it threatens even ONE;
-
That NDAA may just have let loose the Dogs of War, one confrontation at a time.
Can you shoot a lawman or soldier lawfully exercising his duty and still claim self defense?
Are Molotov Cocktails ever self defense? (click) From interesting art collection feedtacoma.com
In a casual conversation with some friends, an interesting dialog evolved which led to some serious debate and troubling afterthought at the implications of what had been said. It started simply. The topic of NDAA, having come up, someone replied, “Given that the government can simply haul someone away without any form of due process, and vanish them to some hell hole in Cuba or elsewhere for torture, endless imprisonment, I’m wondering…”
He was invited to continue. “Suppose some activist feels targeted by government in heavy-handed ways… someone who has been forced to a paranoiac defensive posture as result… and some Federal agents decide to show up for some reason. What happens if he figures they are there to vanish him like some South American dictatorship? What if he acts in self defense and pops the agents before they can do much more than flash their badges. Would that be reasonable self defense? Even if they were only there for some more innocent reason?”
“Or…” added another, “suppose someone started shooting at soldiers or Cops when they engage in these so-called ‘mock drills’ with Police in urban settings… thinking that the soldiers were coming after them or their guns. I’m surprised that pop shots haven’t already been fired.”
And I would have added, if the conversation were taking place today, the day Barry Sorento signed the Monsanto Protection Act… “Suppose someone burns down a Monsanto factory and ends up killing company employees in the process, trying to prevent the company from poisoning everyone with GMO crops, knowing that now, it is illegal to seek redress in the courts for cause? Would that be self defense?”
I know. You are probably thinking what I was thinking. Absurd questions. No one could convince a jury the FBI or the Army was there to kill them, or that the mere appearance of Agents or soldiers was logically a threat, right? Or arson and resulting deaths? And that is what caused the conversation to get interesting, because that very doubt sparked a lot of verbal wrestling in anecdotal exchanges. We eventually pinned the issue to the mat with a chain of logic which indeed deserves further consideration, here.
“There was this case I saw in the news,” another started, and he proceeded to describe something I myself recalled seeing, once he got out the details — which actually hit a little close to home, as will be explained shortly. “This Black guy, a known felon, used an illegal machine pistol to gun down a bunch of cops who had just busted down his door to serve a warrant. He went to jail, but not for their murder. It was ruled self defense. Imagine. A Black kills White cops in New York, and gets away with it?”
“How is that possible?” asked another.
“I saw a reenactment on TV,” I offered. “He was seated with his back to the door, watching TV in the dark with the volume up. Seven Cops entered the front door after a knock with guns drawn, and shouted for him. He had a fully automatic Ingram there on his armrest with 30 rounds, because some bad cops had already threatened his life. So he instinctively grabbed the gun and emptied it on full-auto and dove for cover, and then made good an escape. All but one of the cops died, despite wearing vests. He feared for his life, and once apprehended, the Defense was able to prove in court a reasonable basis for that fear. They got him on weapons charges, but not murder.”
Then I told them how easily I could identify with that. I recounted true events about a time when my first brush with ‘spooks,’ where some of those arrayed against me were in-place assets within five different local law enforcement agencies. When my investigations got close to unraveling their criminal enterprises, several of them apparently felt their offices gave them cart blanch to ‘get away with murder’ to protect their part in matters. They unilaterally sought to eliminate me, it seems:
a) a County Sheriff from a distant County threatened me with a gun in a folded newspaper, but was turned away due to a security camera’s presence after I pointed it out to him;
b) a local cop, with a possible helper as getaway driver, carved out a sniper’s nest in a tree on a hill outside my bedroom, from which a laser beam shown through my window as I retired in the dark one night — but I saw the beam drawing down the wall and rolled out of bed to avoid it;
c) that same cop later used a patrol car as a weapon. He zoomed onto the empty freeway from an entrance as I passed it, no lights or siren (not even headlights, until after he fled the scene). He crossed six lanes at about a 45 degree angle to force me to run me off the road on the far side at a bridge abutment, himself swerving into the parking meridian to avoid crashing himself, because I had managed to successfully evaded a side-swipe and retained control without ending up in the river;
d) two patrol cars pulled me over at an underpass at two AM in the morning, joined by several more pairs of cars both ahead of and behind me; County, local Police, and unmarked units. It was an ambush. But my wife turned out to be present, so they ‘explained’ their stop: “You have a burned out tail light.” Uh huh.
There were other incidents not quite as scary, too, involving high-speed chases with up to six vehicles, and a series of break ins by men with walkie talkies. So I had every reason to be paranoid about cops in those times. If you want to know how I ended these problems, read my book set, Fatal Rebirth, which also explains why I had become targeted in the first place. But here is the part which directly relates, also in the book: you can imagine my surprise when, after all those threats, two local Sheriffs walked in my front door without so much as knocking.
Had I had a gun sitting on my sofa arm, I would likely have at the least leveled it on them and demand their hands up. Fortunately, there were extenuating circumstances and their purpose was no true threat, and I had no such gun to risk any undue complications. But I would certainly have considered my actions to have been in self defense had it been so. I surely could relate to the story being cited.
With that realization, the dialog between us started to examine the questions asked more carefully. What follows are some additional observations and conclusions which illuminate the matter more thoughtfully, some of which include references to appropriate quotes. Some were offered at the time, others are added here, by me.
1) The Bill of Rights has as its sole purpose the intent, beyond cementing the integrity of government’s covenant with We, The People, that all citizens should be able to pursue happiness, and enjoy life and liberty, and carefully spells out a series of interlocking safeguarding Amendments to insure it so. One has no liberty if kidnappable on demand, and no assurance to life when torture and murder are part of the kidnapper’s tools. While it does not specifically addresses self defense as topic, it was concluded that “the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments specifically assure us that the Man who would be King’s portion of NDAA has no force of Constitutional law behind it”, as it tramples on these rights in the worst possible ways. Me.
2) Seven people felt so terrorized by NDAA’s threat upon their lives as activists and journalists reporting on sins of government that they went to Court. These included Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges, MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, and Daniel Ellsberg who was a focal point in the Pentagon Papers and Watergate debacles in the 60s, both exposing the Federal government’s abuses of the day. Supporters of Wikileaks were also party to the suit. A lawyer for the group said “There’s a lot of activists who understand how serious this is, but it’s less well known to the general public.”
3) We concurred in commentary on the case that, “Because the ‘war on terror’ is a war on a tactic, not on a state, it has no parameters or timetable. Consequently, this law can be used by authorities to detain (forever) anyone the government considers a threat to national security and stability – potentially even demonstrators and protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.” Journalist, Brian J. Trautman.
4) A Federal Judge in the case ruled those provisions in NDAA of concern are indeed unconstitutional and issued an injunction against their use. However, there has been no acknowledgement or sign from any quarters in government that they will abide by the findings, and there is every indication that the Obama Administration intends to ignore the ruling in further lawless ‘off the books’ application of NDAA. In appealing the case, it was revealed in arguments by government Lawyer’s that government had been utilizing such methods all along. Indeed, the government refuses to discuss if it is being used or will be used on Citizens in the United States, and it is known for a fact it has already killed three American Citizens abroad, including a 16 year old, with a Drone Strike.
5) Worse, at request of Justice (per the above link), another Federal Judge has granted a ‘Emergency Stay’ against the former rendering it moot and the Justice Department has argued that NDAA is not even necessary, because the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act of 2001, as interpreted already for use in permanent detention in Guantanamo, already gives government like powers. Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, told Congress it would be legal to kill an American in America with a drone. Oh, what slippery slope…
6) An almost endless series of Acts from the Patriot Act forward have spelled out an almost unlimited list of ‘reasons’ which can be used to ‘define’ a given act as ‘terrorism,’ all such reasons generally described in nebulous and sweeping terms deliberately vague so as to allow the broadest possible interpretation to suit the needs of government at any given moment in time with any given individual. You can even be deemed a terrorist for illegally downloading or copying a song or movie — an ‘act of financial terrorism’ which de facto enjoins the teenager ripping a song in an imagined conspiracy to topple the music industry and harm American free enterprise. A Mother was recently jailed under the Patriot Act as a terrorist for spanking her children on an airline, and detained for three months before she could even enter a plea.
7) The rhetoric out of Washington and media spin doctors is all-too often such that almost anyone who disagrees with the official point of view is demonized and described as a mix of ‘dangerous,’ ‘mentally ill,’ and/or even (especially) as ‘terrorist,’ all in the name of political expedience. FBI has recently circulated to Police Departments and Community groups (a Hitler-like attempt at recruiting citizens to spy on citizens) a series of official lists of ‘indicators’ that a person is a potential terrorist to specifically include persons ‘overly concerned with the Constitution,’ or who ‘buy coffee with cash,’ or ‘use a hot spot.’ Ron Paul supporters are potential terrorists, according to FBI, which shows just how easily the label can be applied for political convenience. These lists actually ask you to call and report such persons to DHS/FBI. Indeed, not one person present in the conversation leading to this post remained free of such wholesale classifications. Such labeling establishes in the minds of the outspoken, real or imagined, an air of viable threat of loss of life and liberty and, thereby, sways the minds and mood of the public against them closer to becoming potential reality. It is, in my opinion, a form of calculated psyops mind control. “In a government bottomed on the will of all, the liberty of every individual citizen becomes interesting to all.” Thomas Jefferson.
8) All the talk of banning guns, and the U.N. Treaty which would, if signed by the man claiming to be President, and ratified, would force the end of the Second Amendment and the disarming of America, came into play simultaneous to a series of violations of Posse Comitatus so brazen as to make news in mainstream media. It has seemed in the minds of some as if these mock invasions of U.S. cities by military was in preparation for coming after the guns. Add to that the military’s ‘Shoot Americans’ questionnaire to troops, General Tommy Frank’s admission that we are headed for a military government, revelations of military manuals which dictate that protestors should be shot, the ordering of 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition by Homeland Security, the refusal of Obama’s candidate to head and actual atrocities already committed (Ruby Ridge, Waco, The Liebe Street Raid, Katrina, ICE ‘border stops’ checkpoints nowhere near the border, and similar TSA abuses, etc.), there is little reason for an informed thinker to see such fears as wholly baseless.
9) Every State in the Union recognizes exercise of deadly force in self-defense as a right, provided the acts were undertaken with a demonstrable reason to fear for their life or liberty (e.g., kidnapping, vanishing, torture, or murder, and in many cases, simply serious harm or significant casualty loss).
So, if someone ‘deemed’ a terrorist by loose rhetoric of manipulative minds or secret edicts of government machines because of unpopular political views… should such a person be approached by Men in Black, or Blue, or Army Green, the question remains valid: has Obama created a situation where even one such person might reasonably fear for their lives sufficient to arm themselves and proactively defend against the possibility?
We pray not, and yet, it is likely unavoidable that such will eventually come to pass one way or another, in time. It may indeed already have come to pass but simply not have made the news beyond statements that (the party) was ‘killed resisting arrest.’ What reason would authorities have to broadcast details suggesting otherwise?
When government embarks on a tyrannical course against its own citizens, some such confrontation is ABSOLUTELY ASSURED. How it turns out is a matter of happenstance no one can predict for certain, though it must result in a bad end for someone, or multiple someone’s. In truth, it is bad for us all, as it ratchets up the tension and increases the likelihood of a repeat scenario. In time, if we study history, we learn it must lead to armed rebellion. Thus we should be mindful to the tenth point we had concluded in our conversation:
10) If just one person’s rights can be trampled upon by government at will, than the rights of no one is respected and do not remain valid; they become mere political rhetoric, a lip service. If one of us lives in fear for cause, then we all ought be mindful; the fear is truly a threat to us all. If one of us must act in self defense, then ultimately, we might all be better off acting in mutual defense sooner than later. “Freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.” — Coretta Scott King. “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” ― John F. Kennedy
When is it a greater crime: to kill in self defense of others, or to allow others to die for lack of preempting their murder?
So, each of us must ask ourselves the following question: “Do I fear my government enough to consider the possibility that a confrontation may represent a kidnapping and life or death situation for me, if not at that moment, then as result of events which follow the moment? How can I, in good conscience, not consider to defend myself?
Indeed, for me, merely writing this makes me even more likely the target of NDAA. And I freely admit to qualifying to no fewer than a dozen ‘traits’ of a terrorist according to FBI’s little snitch lists. And, you know, with 85 terror tactics like ‘paying with cash’ on that list, SO ARE YOU. That’s exactly what I’m saying. If one of us… all of us.
And just as important, who has the most ultimate power: the individual with rights under just Law of the Land, or an unjust and illegal law in the hands of the corporate state? The answers SHOULD be, the former, especially when there is no individual, but a united collective of individuals with the same intent.
The United States of Sorento Corporation
My ultimatum to the Sorento Corporation:
So I’m putting government on notice: Dear U.S. Sorento Corporation, fictitious holding company DBA United States, as listed in Dun and Bradstreet, and now a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Corporation: I have a reasonable fear for my safety by YOUR own assigned definitions under your illegal corporate bylaws, which relegate me to the class of client termed therein as a terrorist. This terrorist therefore reserves the right of self defense, by any available means, up to and including your discorporation, and that of your parent and holding company. This I do under the authority granted my by the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and the license of being a Free Sovereign Man, and not your personal property or chattel.
Moreover, the weapons I have and will use in my defense are beyond your ability to overcome by drone, by stealthy assassins, or by overpowering forces. They are ideas, and you cannot kill an idea. It is truth, and you cannot imprisson a truth once it is revealed. It is a willingness to die for my country, and you cannot kidnap that fact. You may, in fact, only martyr me, at best — a thing more to my advantage than to yours.
Take your best shot, if you dare, for I am everyman, and what you do to one of us you do to all of us. And frankly, I don’t think you can afford very many more martyrs before you spark a revolution. Which leads me to the notion, with apologies to friends Anonymous…
Does Anonymous act in self defense given they fight tyranny?
We are all everyman. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us!
Like this:
Like Loading...
proparanoid 
Has NDAA Made Shooting Federal Agents, Soldiers, and Cops Legal?
Mar 30
Posted by Author H. Michael Sweeney
No court should ever find one guilty of murder or manslaughter if defending their own lives from murder or kidnapping. For many people, NDAA, and violations of Posse Comitatus by military represents such a threat, and more recently, the Monsanto Protection Act. Therefore, we all might ought to so consider their reasoning; if one man should so fear the tyrannical act of their government, so then should we all.
by H. Michael Sweeney copyright © 2013, all rights reserved. Permission to repost hereby granted provided entire post with all links in tact, including this paragraph, are included.Reading this post you will learn…
Can you shoot a lawman or soldier lawfully exercising his duty and still claim self defense?
Are Molotov Cocktails ever self defense? (click) From interesting art collection feedtacoma.com
In a casual conversation with some friends, an interesting dialog evolved which led to some serious debate and troubling afterthought at the implications of what had been said. It started simply. The topic of NDAA, having come up, someone replied, “Given that the government can simply haul someone away without any form of due process, and vanish them to some hell hole in Cuba or elsewhere for torture, endless imprisonment, I’m wondering…”
He was invited to continue. “Suppose some activist feels targeted by government in heavy-handed ways… someone who has been forced to a paranoiac defensive posture as result… and some Federal agents decide to show up for some reason. What happens if he figures they are there to vanish him like some South American dictatorship? What if he acts in self defense and pops the agents before they can do much more than flash their badges. Would that be reasonable self defense? Even if they were only there for some more innocent reason?”
“Or…” added another, “suppose someone started shooting at soldiers or Cops when they engage in these so-called ‘mock drills’ with Police in urban settings… thinking that the soldiers were coming after them or their guns. I’m surprised that pop shots haven’t already been fired.”
And I would have added, if the conversation were taking place today, the day Barry Sorento signed the Monsanto Protection Act… “Suppose someone burns down a Monsanto factory and ends up killing company employees in the process, trying to prevent the company from poisoning everyone with GMO crops, knowing that now, it is illegal to seek redress in the courts for cause? Would that be self defense?”
I know. You are probably thinking what I was thinking. Absurd questions. No one could convince a jury the FBI or the Army was there to kill them, or that the mere appearance of Agents or soldiers was logically a threat, right? Or arson and resulting deaths? And that is what caused the conversation to get interesting, because that very doubt sparked a lot of verbal wrestling in anecdotal exchanges. We eventually pinned the issue to the mat with a chain of logic which indeed deserves further consideration, here.
“There was this case I saw in the news,” another started, and he proceeded to describe something I myself recalled seeing, once he got out the details — which actually hit a little close to home, as will be explained shortly. “This Black guy, a known felon, used an illegal machine pistol to gun down a bunch of cops who had just busted down his door to serve a warrant. He went to jail, but not for their murder. It was ruled self defense. Imagine. A Black kills White cops in New York, and gets away with it?”
“How is that possible?” asked another.
“I saw a reenactment on TV,” I offered. “He was seated with his back to the door, watching TV in the dark with the volume up. Seven Cops entered the front door after a knock with guns drawn, and shouted for him. He had a fully automatic Ingram there on his armrest with 30 rounds, because some bad cops had already threatened his life. So he instinctively grabbed the gun and emptied it on full-auto and dove for cover, and then made good an escape. All but one of the cops died, despite wearing vests. He feared for his life, and once apprehended, the Defense was able to prove in court a reasonable basis for that fear. They got him on weapons charges, but not murder.”
Then I told them how easily I could identify with that. I recounted true events about a time when my first brush with ‘spooks,’ where some of those arrayed against me were in-place assets within five different local law enforcement agencies. When my investigations got close to unraveling their criminal enterprises, several of them apparently felt their offices gave them cart blanch to ‘get away with murder’ to protect their part in matters. They unilaterally sought to eliminate me, it seems:
a) a County Sheriff from a distant County threatened me with a gun in a folded newspaper, but was turned away due to a security camera’s presence after I pointed it out to him; b) a local cop, with a possible helper as getaway driver, carved out a sniper’s nest in a tree on a hill outside my bedroom, from which a laser beam shown through my window as I retired in the dark one night — but I saw the beam drawing down the wall and rolled out of bed to avoid it; c) that same cop later used a patrol car as a weapon. He zoomed onto the empty freeway from an entrance as I passed it, no lights or siren (not even headlights, until after he fled the scene). He crossed six lanes at about a 45 degree angle to force me to run me off the road on the far side at a bridge abutment, himself swerving into the parking meridian to avoid crashing himself, because I had managed to successfully evaded a side-swipe and retained control without ending up in the river; d) two patrol cars pulled me over at an underpass at two AM in the morning, joined by several more pairs of cars both ahead of and behind me; County, local Police, and unmarked units. It was an ambush. But my wife turned out to be present, so they ‘explained’ their stop: “You have a burned out tail light.” Uh huh.There were other incidents not quite as scary, too, involving high-speed chases with up to six vehicles, and a series of break ins by men with walkie talkies. So I had every reason to be paranoid about cops in those times. If you want to know how I ended these problems, read my book set, Fatal Rebirth, which also explains why I had become targeted in the first place. But here is the part which directly relates, also in the book: you can imagine my surprise when, after all those threats, two local Sheriffs walked in my front door without so much as knocking.
Had I had a gun sitting on my sofa arm, I would likely have at the least leveled it on them and demand their hands up. Fortunately, there were extenuating circumstances and their purpose was no true threat, and I had no such gun to risk any undue complications. But I would certainly have considered my actions to have been in self defense had it been so. I surely could relate to the story being cited.
With that realization, the dialog between us started to examine the questions asked more carefully. What follows are some additional observations and conclusions which illuminate the matter more thoughtfully, some of which include references to appropriate quotes. Some were offered at the time, others are added here, by me.
1) The Bill of Rights has as its sole purpose the intent, beyond cementing the integrity of government’s covenant with We, The People, that all citizens should be able to pursue happiness, and enjoy life and liberty, and carefully spells out a series of interlocking safeguarding Amendments to insure it so. One has no liberty if kidnappable on demand, and no assurance to life when torture and murder are part of the kidnapper’s tools. While it does not specifically addresses self defense as topic, it was concluded that “the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments specifically assure us that the Man who would be King’s portion of NDAA has no force of Constitutional law behind it”, as it tramples on these rights in the worst possible ways. Me.
2) Seven people felt so terrorized by NDAA’s threat upon their lives as activists and journalists reporting on sins of government that they went to Court. These included Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges, MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, and Daniel Ellsberg who was a focal point in the Pentagon Papers and Watergate debacles in the 60s, both exposing the Federal government’s abuses of the day. Supporters of Wikileaks were also party to the suit. A lawyer for the group said “There’s a lot of activists who understand how serious this is, but it’s less well known to the general public.”
3) We concurred in commentary on the case that, “Because the ‘war on terror’ is a war on a tactic, not on a state, it has no parameters or timetable. Consequently, this law can be used by authorities to detain (forever) anyone the government considers a threat to national security and stability – potentially even demonstrators and protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.” Journalist, Brian J. Trautman.
4) A Federal Judge in the case ruled those provisions in NDAA of concern are indeed unconstitutional and issued an injunction against their use. However, there has been no acknowledgement or sign from any quarters in government that they will abide by the findings, and there is every indication that the Obama Administration intends to ignore the ruling in further lawless ‘off the books’ application of NDAA. In appealing the case, it was revealed in arguments by government Lawyer’s that government had been utilizing such methods all along. Indeed, the government refuses to discuss if it is being used or will be used on Citizens in the United States, and it is known for a fact it has already killed three American Citizens abroad, including a 16 year old, with a Drone Strike.
5) Worse, at request of Justice (per the above link), another Federal Judge has granted a ‘Emergency Stay’ against the former rendering it moot and the Justice Department has argued that NDAA is not even necessary, because the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act of 2001, as interpreted already for use in permanent detention in Guantanamo, already gives government like powers. Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, told Congress it would be legal to kill an American in America with a drone. Oh, what slippery slope…
6) An almost endless series of Acts from the Patriot Act forward have spelled out an almost unlimited list of ‘reasons’ which can be used to ‘define’ a given act as ‘terrorism,’ all such reasons generally described in nebulous and sweeping terms deliberately vague so as to allow the broadest possible interpretation to suit the needs of government at any given moment in time with any given individual. You can even be deemed a terrorist for illegally downloading or copying a song or movie — an ‘act of financial terrorism’ which de facto enjoins the teenager ripping a song in an imagined conspiracy to topple the music industry and harm American free enterprise. A Mother was recently jailed under the Patriot Act as a terrorist for spanking her children on an airline, and detained for three months before she could even enter a plea.
7) The rhetoric out of Washington and media spin doctors is all-too often such that almost anyone who disagrees with the official point of view is demonized and described as a mix of ‘dangerous,’ ‘mentally ill,’ and/or even (especially) as ‘terrorist,’ all in the name of political expedience. FBI has recently circulated to Police Departments and Community groups (a Hitler-like attempt at recruiting citizens to spy on citizens) a series of official lists of ‘indicators’ that a person is a potential terrorist to specifically include persons ‘overly concerned with the Constitution,’ or who ‘buy coffee with cash,’ or ‘use a hot spot.’ Ron Paul supporters are potential terrorists, according to FBI, which shows just how easily the label can be applied for political convenience. These lists actually ask you to call and report such persons to DHS/FBI. Indeed, not one person present in the conversation leading to this post remained free of such wholesale classifications. Such labeling establishes in the minds of the outspoken, real or imagined, an air of viable threat of loss of life and liberty and, thereby, sways the minds and mood of the public against them closer to becoming potential reality. It is, in my opinion, a form of calculated psyops mind control. “In a government bottomed on the will of all, the liberty of every individual citizen becomes interesting to all.” Thomas Jefferson.
8) All the talk of banning guns, and the U.N. Treaty which would, if signed by the man claiming to be President, and ratified, would force the end of the Second Amendment and the disarming of America, came into play simultaneous to a series of violations of Posse Comitatus so brazen as to make news in mainstream media. It has seemed in the minds of some as if these mock invasions of U.S. cities by military was in preparation for coming after the guns. Add to that the military’s ‘Shoot Americans’ questionnaire to troops, General Tommy Frank’s admission that we are headed for a military government, revelations of military manuals which dictate that protestors should be shot, the ordering of 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition by Homeland Security, the refusal of Obama’s candidate to head and actual atrocities already committed (Ruby Ridge, Waco, The Liebe Street Raid, Katrina, ICE ‘border stops’ checkpoints nowhere near the border, and similar TSA abuses, etc.), there is little reason for an informed thinker to see such fears as wholly baseless.
9) Every State in the Union recognizes exercise of deadly force in self-defense as a right, provided the acts were undertaken with a demonstrable reason to fear for their life or liberty (e.g., kidnapping, vanishing, torture, or murder, and in many cases, simply serious harm or significant casualty loss).
So, if someone ‘deemed’ a terrorist by loose rhetoric of manipulative minds or secret edicts of government machines because of unpopular political views… should such a person be approached by Men in Black, or Blue, or Army Green, the question remains valid: has Obama created a situation where even one such person might reasonably fear for their lives sufficient to arm themselves and proactively defend against the possibility?
We pray not, and yet, it is likely unavoidable that such will eventually come to pass one way or another, in time. It may indeed already have come to pass but simply not have made the news beyond statements that (the party) was ‘killed resisting arrest.’ What reason would authorities have to broadcast details suggesting otherwise?
When government embarks on a tyrannical course against its own citizens, some such confrontation is ABSOLUTELY ASSURED. How it turns out is a matter of happenstance no one can predict for certain, though it must result in a bad end for someone, or multiple someone’s. In truth, it is bad for us all, as it ratchets up the tension and increases the likelihood of a repeat scenario. In time, if we study history, we learn it must lead to armed rebellion. Thus we should be mindful to the tenth point we had concluded in our conversation:
10) If just one person’s rights can be trampled upon by government at will, than the rights of no one is respected and do not remain valid; they become mere political rhetoric, a lip service. If one of us lives in fear for cause, then we all ought be mindful; the fear is truly a threat to us all. If one of us must act in self defense, then ultimately, we might all be better off acting in mutual defense sooner than later. “Freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.” — Coretta Scott King. “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” ― John F. Kennedy
When is it a greater crime: to kill in self defense of others, or to allow others to die for lack of preempting their murder?
So, each of us must ask ourselves the following question: “Do I fear my government enough to consider the possibility that a confrontation may represent a kidnapping and life or death situation for me, if not at that moment, then as result of events which follow the moment? How can I, in good conscience, not consider to defend myself?
Indeed, for me, merely writing this makes me even more likely the target of NDAA. And I freely admit to qualifying to no fewer than a dozen ‘traits’ of a terrorist according to FBI’s little snitch lists. And, you know, with 85 terror tactics like ‘paying with cash’ on that list, SO ARE YOU. That’s exactly what I’m saying. If one of us… all of us.
And just as important, who has the most ultimate power: the individual with rights under just Law of the Land, or an unjust and illegal law in the hands of the corporate state? The answers SHOULD be, the former, especially when there is no individual, but a united collective of individuals with the same intent.
The United States of Sorento Corporation
My ultimatum to the Sorento Corporation:
So I’m putting government on notice: Dear U.S. Sorento Corporation, fictitious holding company DBA United States, as listed in Dun and Bradstreet, and now a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Corporation: I have a reasonable fear for my safety by YOUR own assigned definitions under your illegal corporate bylaws, which relegate me to the class of client termed therein as a terrorist. This terrorist therefore reserves the right of self defense, by any available means, up to and including your discorporation, and that of your parent and holding company. This I do under the authority granted my by the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and the license of being a Free Sovereign Man, and not your personal property or chattel.
Moreover, the weapons I have and will use in my defense are beyond your ability to overcome by drone, by stealthy assassins, or by overpowering forces. They are ideas, and you cannot kill an idea. It is truth, and you cannot imprisson a truth once it is revealed. It is a willingness to die for my country, and you cannot kidnap that fact. You may, in fact, only martyr me, at best — a thing more to my advantage than to yours.
Take your best shot, if you dare, for I am everyman, and what you do to one of us you do to all of us. And frankly, I don’t think you can afford very many more martyrs before you spark a revolution. Which leads me to the notion, with apologies to friends Anonymous…
Does Anonymous act in self defense given they fight tyranny?
We are all everyman. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us!
Related articles
Share this:
Like this:
Posted in Abuse of Power, Government, military, Political Commentary, Uncategorized
Leave a comment
Tags: kidnapping, Murder, National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, posse comitatus, self defense, US Sorento Corporation, vanishing