QI - US prison population.mov

Massive Meat Log

Video released of SWAT killing Marine veteran in his home

This is an update from a story that was posted here:

http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.com/2011/05/after-two-tours-in-iraq-marine-murdered.html

You will notice that after nearly a hundred rounds pop off, that there is one single shot fired after a long pause. I would venture a guess that it was a headshot.

NY Trooper charged in fatal hit and run

NY Trooper Charged After Running Over Man Lying In Road


Officials: Trooper Confirmed Pedestrian Hit, Leaves Scene

See the brief at the link:

http://www.wptz.com/news/28018457/detail.html

After getting flamed by an anonymous commenter who actually had nothing of value to say, I figured it was about time to bust out this classic bit of material to share with you guys. The closer you get to the truth, the more venemous your detractors will become, resorting to any dirty trick in the book to discredit you and the facts you present. It is one thing to have differing opinions on any given subject. It is quite another to resort to logical fallacies and dirty tricks to make yourself and/or your opinion appear more valid than someone elses.

Special thanks to the Mainstream Media Review for letting us copy their page and introduction to the list...

The 25 Tactics of Truth-Suppression and Disinformation have been circling the web since the 1990's under various titles. I have no idea how to properly attribute an original author since it has been duplicated so many times, but it is a fantastic list to keep handy when you are trying to pull truth from spin. Whether you are arguing in a chat forum, or watching a freshly aired news report on television, this list makes the lies much easier to spot.


Many times, folks will apply these tactics inadvertently, having themselves been caught up in the propaganda. I think from time to time that anyone might accidentally make a flawed argument when they are arguing passionately about something. We are emotional beings after all, complete with our own subconscious biases and world view. That does not make us disingenuous. What must be despised though, is these tactics being applied in a manner that is clearly deliberate, and used repeatedly. There are some folks out there that are very adept at applying these tactics with such skill that it is quite difficult to discern at first, even after you have been made aware of the ways in which lies are spun into "truth," and truth is made to be something dis-believed. Many of these people are trained professionally and are well paid by campaign bosses, corporations, intelligence agencies, and so forth. But even more sinister, is that you will see these tactics being employed and endorsed by your favorite, most trusted news sources. In the land of "free speech" it has become all too easy to assume that what you are being told is the truth. After all, if one news channel told a lie, another news channel would simply report the truth, right? Not really, not anymore...

As you can see that chart is a little dated now, but I'm sure you see the point there anyhow. Your ability to get unbiased news is at an all-time low. Since 2004, the odds have not improved. Now to put that in some perspective here, look at what we were falling for back in the 90's, when there was still some real competition left and a standard to be upheld...

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.

By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.

How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think".

~Adolf Hitler

25 Tactics of Truth Suppression and Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

~ ~ ~

WWII like you have never seen it before

Apocalypse: The Second World War (2009) is a six-part French documentary by Daniel Costelle and Isabelle Clarke about the Second World War. It was first aired from September 8, 2009 to September 22, 2009 on France 2 channel. The documentary is comprised exclusively of actual footage of the war as filmed by war correspondents, soldiers, resistance fighters and private citizens. The series is shown in color, with the black and white footage being fully colorized, save for some original color footage. The only exception to the treatment are most Holocaust scenes, which are presented in the original black and white.


The documentary was shown on the Smithsonian Channel in the United States, where it was narrated by actor Martin Sheen[1], on the National Geographic Channel and Channel 4 in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia[2] and Asia[3], on YLE Teema in Finland[4], on Rete 4 in Italy, and on IBA, the national public channel in Israel.[5]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse:_The_Second_World_War

This landmark documentary series provides an in-depth examination of the Second World War through the eyes of those who lived through it. Using uncensored footage -- most of it previously unseen -- the series shows, in breath-taking color, what history's most devastating war was actually like -- on the battlefront, in the air and on the sea.


Available now on DVD & Blu-ray

Next generation police cruiser

LAPD goes back to the Caprice with this 2012 prototype. The LPR or License Plate Reading technology is something that I have been against since it's inception for a number of reasons including questionable Constitutionality issues, but it's little surprise that it would be technology deployed on the latest police cruisers. The real cutting edge tech on this unit is the FLIR, or Forward Looking Infra Red system that can detect the heat from a person's footprints after they have already left the area. Up until now, the public has seen FLIR used mostly on police helicopters as a sort of alternative to night-vision tech.

Check out the vid for yourself, and see what you are up against, I mean, what will help police catch evil bad guys.

Black boxes for vehicles to be compulsory by next month

Well, I knew it was only a matter of time, but I don't like the idea. The last thing we need is to give insurance companies even more power for one thing. For another, I can see this being used to glean information that would be readily abused by lawyers and police. Won't be long now an we will see cases where, say, someone gets convicted of manslaughter for going 2 mph over the limit, meanwhile the black box didn't catch the real cause of the wreck in the first place. But of course, 9 out of 10 dumbasses who thought OnStar was a good idea will think this is an even better idea.

By next month, every driver in the U.S. will be required to have a black box in their vehicle.


The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will declare that all automobiles are required to contain the event data recorder - similar to those found in aircraft - in order to monitor driving habits and provide a snapshot of the final moment of impact if the car crashes.


The snapshot will be able to be viewed by law enforcement, insurance companies and automakers and the owner of the vehicle will not be able to turn it on or off.

Full article at link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1390435/Black-boxes-vehicles-compulsory-month.html#ixzz1NPVHqk00

Related articles:

http://www.carblackboxstore.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=162

http://www.prisonplanet.com/feds-to-mandate-black-box-on-all-new-cars.html

TSA threatens to make Texas a no-fly zone

(NaturalNews) In what can only be called a ruthless threat of total economic warfare, the TSA has threatened to enforce an economic blockade of Texas if the state legislature passes its bill criminalizing the TSA's lewd pat-downs that have agents reaching down the pants of innocent travelers (http://www.naturalnews.com/032401_T...).


Texas state Sen. Dan Patrick had sponsored the bill which initially earned widespread support throughout both houses of the Texas legislature, but as the bill neared final passage, the TSA sent a threatening letter to Texas explaining that if the law were passed, the TSA would block all flights to and from Texas cities.

Full article at link including inline links there with supporting data and info:

http://www.naturalnews.com/032514_TSA_Texas.html

Why is abortion illegal for men but not women?

Now before we get off on the wrong foot here, I want to say that clearly the man who is the subject of the news article below was wrong in his actions. The title of this article is a bit satirical. You can't go violently attacking people in a civilized society. But having said that, I can empathize with the man, and would like to examine the deeper socio-economic issues behind this news brief...

Man charged with trying to abort his pregnant girlfriend

LIBERTY – A 20-year-old Liberty man has been charged with felony abortion in the second degree and other charges for allegedly punching his 17-year-old pregnant girlfriend in the stomach in an effort to abort the pregnancy.


Travis Mervine was also charged with third-degree assault, fourth-degree criminal mischief, second-degree unlawful imprisonment, criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, and harassment in the second degree.


The girlfriend called police on May 22 from her mother’s house to report she had been held prisoner by Mervine at his home from May 21 through May 22 and while there, he punched her in the stomach.


Mervine was located and arrested on Lake Street in the Village of Liberty and while police were taking him to court for arraignment, he fled from an officer on foot, while handcuffed.


After a four hour manhunt, Liberty Police, assisted by a Fallsburg Police K-9 unit, State Police and the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office, he was located at his father’s home in Liberty. He was also charged with felony escape in the second degree.


Mervine was arraigned and remanded to the Sullivan County Jail without bail.

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2011/May/24/Mervine_arr-24May11.htm

Right off the bat I have a problem with this article. I don't know if it is just an error in reporting or not, but why is he being charged with felony abortion if it was only an attempt? We'll leave that technical question alone from here on out though, and focus instead on the deeper issues here.

Clearly we see a young man, trapped by circumstance, desperately thrashing about in vain to keep his freedom. Not only freedom from incarceration after his violent outburst, but to maintain his freedom of choice and his own economic freedom. To that extent, I certainly can empathize with him even if I don't condone his actions. This system of hypocrisy breeds this sort of violence and rebellion.

If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, there is nothing the father can do about it. He can not insist that the child be born, cannot sue the woman if she chooses to kill the unborn against his wishes. She does not even have to tell him that she is pregnant or going for an abortion in the first place.

Yet when it serves the purposes of women, children suddenly becomes a "mutual" choice and responsibility. If the man decides he does not want to be father, or simply can't be a father under his current circumstances for any reason, he's shit out of luck. Not only does he have no say in whether or not that child is brought into the world, but then he is also forced to pay for it against his will, quite often literally beyond his financial means to do so even if he wanted to. Other men simply may not want to fill the role of a father, which every child certainly should have. Single parent homes are far from ideal despite what we as a society have been brainwashed to believe. If a man does not want to be a father, then he should not be forced to be. When you do force him, you wind up with situations like this one reported above, maybe worse. Or, more commonly, men who begrudgingly and halfheartedly try to meet "their responsibility" as women and the government become loathed, and even his own children become objects of pain and hatred rather than love and pride.

Of course, there is the tired old excuse that the man should wear a condom if he does not want to be a father. Sorry folks, that shit don't fly with me. Women have far more choices when it comes to birth control, up to and including termination of a pregnancy (or simply insisting that the man wear a condom in the first place.) With rights comes responsibility. Why should the man be responsible for the WOMAN'S CHOICE? It is not a shared responsibility, it is not a mutual decision, it is the woman's choice, plain and simple, as this news article makes abundantly clear. The woman is responsible for her own body, and the man has NO RIGHTS over whether or not "his" child is brought into the world.

Can I sue a woman who transmits some disease to me, knowing that she had a disease, because I chose to not wear a condom? Certainly not. And the same should go the opposite way. A woman should not be able to sue a man financially, for the consequences of the transmission of biological material, which she knew full well the potential consequences of. She could have gone on the pill, patch, shot, used the ring, foam, sponge, spermicide, diaphragm, implant, or female condom, insisted that the man wear a condom or simply elected to not have sex with a man who had no intention of being a father to a child. (Here's a hint ladies, if he didn't put a ring on it, he doesn't wanna be your baby-daddy.) A woman can also choose to abstain when she is most fertile and ovulating, and obviously much more likely to become pregnant. Short of that, the woman can still resort to the morning-after pill, and ultimately it is her choice, the woman's choice alone, whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

So long as it is "her body, her choice" then it is also her responsibility. She should have no right whatsoever to insist that a man participate in any way, financially or otherwise, with the rearing of that offspring that was the product of her choice, and her choice alone. Unless of course, we want to make it a truly mutual responsibility, and outlaw abortion without the consent of the father as well. With freedom comes responsibility.

SUPPLEMENTAL:

Technically, in some instances a woman can also be guilty of illegal abortion under NY Penal Code. But basically, those amount to abortions that are done outside of a clinical setting under the care of a sanctioned physician. You will also notice too though, the gender bias applied to such cases. Keep in mind here too, that these laws make no distinction as to the willingness of the female to participate in an abortional act perpetrated by a man. In other words, even if the woman does not want the baby, but the man commits the abortional act on her behalf, he is STILL guilty of a felony.

S 125.40 Abortion in the second degree.
A person is guilty of abortion in the second degree when he commits an
abortional act upon a female, unless such abortional act is justifiable
pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05.
Abortion in the second degree is a class E felony.


S 125.45 Abortion in the first degree.
A person is guilty of abortion in the first degree when he commits
upon a female pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks an abortional act
which causes the miscarriage of such female, unless such abortional act
is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05.
Abortion in the first degree is a class D felony.


S 125.50 Self-abortion in the second degree.
A female is guilty of self-abortion in the second degree when, being
pregnant, she commits or submits to an abortional act upon herself,
unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three
of section 125.05.
Self-abortion in the second degree is a class B misdemeanor.


S 125.55 Self-abortion in the first degree.
A female is guilty of self-abortion in the first degree when, being
pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks, she commits or submits to an
abortional act upon herself which causes her miscarriage, unless such
abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section
125.05.
Self-abortion in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor.

Parenting by taser

When a mother couldn't get her daughter to take a bath before bed, she decided to call 911. But is this even really a police matter? Had the child committed any crime? It doesn't appear so. Nonetheless, the child wound up being tasered and handcuffed by the officer who responded. Just because you have an unruly child, does not give someone the right to treat that child like an animal for one thing. And for another, the police have no right to violate a child's rights, even at the request of a parent. Is stun-gun parenting to be a new service provided by police now?

And let's not forget here, that despite their all-too-frequent use by police, tasers were never meant to be used as a submission tool. They were meant to be deployed only as a less-than-lethal alternative to shooting someone. Tsers are not a harmless toy, and people are killed by the jolts regularly.

So here we are now a society where it has become illegal for a parent to spank their child. Instead, we call in the nanny-state henchman to issue electric torture in order to get children to submit.

After 'feel-good' hiring blitz in US, McDonald's to replace workers with touch-screens

You can bet your ass this will be coming to the U.S. sooner than later. Our supermarkets have already put a hiring freeze on cashiers as they replace them with automated checkout lines. So as it turns out, the April hiring blitz really was just another P.R. propaganda stunt in order to get people feeling better about the economy on the one hand, and giving an excuse to have no sympathy for the poor on the other, as the number of unemployed and food stamp recipients continues to swell nationwide. A band-aid on a bullet hole.

McDonald's to Replace Cashiers with Touch Screen Computers

McDonald's restaurants in Europe will soon be swapping the chain's legendary "service with a smile" with "service with a beep." European McDonald's restaurants are preparing to replace cashiers with touch screen computers at terminals where customers will be able to order up their hamburgers and fries and pay with credit cards.


About 7,000 of the fast food franchise's locations in the United Kingdom will be fitted with the touch screen technology, which aims to make the McDonald's experience more convenient and accommodating.


The touch screen method of ordering will improve efficiency and make the average transaction three to four seconds faster for each customer, Steve Easterbrook, president of the European branch of McDonald's, told the Financial Times. Easterbrook didn't provide a date for when the touch screens, which were inspired by a trip to Japan, will be introduced to UK McDonald's restaurants.


The new terminals will also phase out cash as an accepted payment method, as the machines will only take credit and debit cards. No word yet on whether McDonald's in the United States will be next in line to replace cashiers with computers, but the addition doesn't seem to be part of the ongoing $1-billion makeover of the company's U.S. restaurants.


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/mcdonalds-replace-cashiers-touch-screen-computers-200601087.html

Illegal to smoke outdoors in NYC

Fuckin NY, swear to god. First they tell us we can't smoke inside, now we can't smoke outside. They blame second-hand smoke for people dieing, and ignore all the rest of the much more serious pollutants and toxins. They talk about how second-hand smoke kills, but there has never been one single scientific study done which proves it. It's a bunch of mind control and revenue generation. You watch, ten years from now after this smoking ban has gone into affect, even more people will be dieing from polluted air. But dumbass fuckin NYers go right along with this and believe everything they read in the newspaper.

New York (CNN) -- Smokers in New York City looking to light up in most public places will not be able to without paying a price after an outdoor citywide smoking ban takes effect Monday.


The law, which Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed in February after it was passed by the New York City Council, will make smoking illegal in New York City's 1,700 parks and on the city's 14 miles of public beaches. Smoking will also be prohibited in pedestrian plazas like Times Square.

Story continues at link:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/23/new.york.smoking.ban/

And just as an afterthought here, the Mayor talks about cigarette butts as being the second most important factor in imposing this new law on us. Well gee Mr. Mayor, why not enforce the littering laws already on the books? NYC is a fuckin dump and it's not because of cigarette butts.

This is all just another excuse for the bacon to pull some shit LIKE THIS on you.

Man in wheelchair body-slammed, face smashed by police

UPDATE:

This press-release statement was just issued to CopBlock.org when they inquired about the incident seen above:

On Thursday, May 19, the Metro Transit Police on routine patrol at the U St. Metrorail station observed a patron in a wheelchair drinking an alcoholic beverage. The officers asked the patron to leave the area and he refused. The officers then attempted to issue the patron a citation and when the patron refused to comply with the issuance of a citation he was told that he would be placed under arrest. The patron resisted arrest which resulted in him falling out of his wheelchair. The patron was arrested for assault on a police officer and drinking in public.


The patron was transported to a local hospital with a minor injury. Metro Transit Police are following up on this report.


Steven Taubenkibel
Public Information Officer
WMATA-Office of Media Relations
P: 202 962 2474

Shakedown: Roadside extortion by police

You can see a whole series of video investigations by this news channel at the following link:

http://www.newschannel5.com/category/211433/nc5-investigates-policing-for-profit

U.S. Federal Authority is Martial Law

This is an excellent piece that I first read a few years ago. With more talk of the sovereign-citizen "movement" lately, I thought now would be a good time to drop a link here for you guys to have a read. This is some of the history behind sovereignty, and how it was stripped away from us as a people.

In this piece I will be providing documentation which shows that the United States of America’s Constitution, as prescribed by the nation’s founders, no longer has direct authority, and that the nation operates under a declared state of martial law. While it is true that the Constitution is referenced, and still alive in spirit to some extent, it is also true that it no longer binds effective governance in legitimacy. Sovereignty has been stripped from the people.


Let us begin with looking at what it means to be a free and self-determined people...

Please visit the link to view the full essay:

http://marselusvanwagner.blogspot.com/2010/07/us-federal-authority-is-martial-law.html