Right To Remain Silent Used as Evidence of Guilt

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." -Amendment V, US Constitution

Genovevo Salinas was arrested in 2007 and charged with capital murder in the case of a 1992 double-homicide where two brothers were gunned down in a Houston, Texas apartment. 

The first trial ended in a mistrial, but in the second trial new evidence was introduced and the suspect was convicted. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal and decide whether that evidence used against the suspect was admissible, or whether the evidence put before the jury was a violation of his rights.  

Under interrogation by police, Salinas answered questions for approximately an hour before falling silent when asked specific questions about ammunition used in the crime. At the time of his questioning, the suspect was not under arrest and had not been issued his "Miranda warning" informing him of his rights. A police officer testified during the second trial, over the objections of the defense, that Salinas showed signs of deception during that interrogation. 

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but noted that federal appeals courts are split as to whether "pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence is admissible as substantive evidence of guilt."

In other words, SCOTUS must now decide if you have the right to remain silent, under the 5th Amendment, before you have been arrested.  

A report from Reuters states...
"... Texas opposed the appeal, saying that the protection against compulsory self-incrimination is irrelevant when a suspect is under no compulsion to speak, as Salinas was because he was not under arrest and was speaking voluntarily. It also said that any error was harmless."
Now that sounds like a lot of legalese double-speak to me.

Looking into the case a little more on the side, it does appear to me that the guy is probably guilty. The question he refused to answer was later proved through forensics, not testimony of the suspect. But that is not really the question here. How we reach a verdict is as important, if not more important than the verdict itself. Sure, today it is easy to convict a habitual criminal druggie border jumper in what appears to be a pretty much routine open and shut case. What happens though, when this precedent is used to convict someone like yourself perhaps, in a case that is not so clear, and where you might truly be innocent?

So the question today is simply this... Can the police tell a jury you are guilty because of when or how you chose to stop answering their questions?

The state of Texas says yes, that they can now submit as criminal evidence, your refusal to speak with police if you are not under arrest. Imagine, for a moment, the real precedent that is about to be set here.

If SCOTUS rules in favor or Texas, this means that from now on, the police will be able to use your refusal to speak with them, as evidence of a crime. Not only will this be allowed to be submitted to a jury as presumptuous, biased and prejudicial evidence of guilt, but also as grounds for a warrant. In other words, if you refuse to answer the door for police, that could be used as criminal evidence and grounds for a warrant to search your home! Not to mention, of course, many other miscarriages of justices such a ruling could make precedent for.

Where Texas says that their "error was harmless," they are admitting right up front that they did in fact screw up. If, based on the preponderance of other evidence the man still appears guilty to a jury of his peers, then so be it. Let him rot all the rest of his days in a penitentiary. But the Supreme Court must not allow this "harmless error" to set the precedent for all of American justice.

Shame on the Texas prosecutor for even jeopardizing this conviction with such a weak and unconstitutional bit of evidence.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape justice than one guilty person be condemned." ~Blackstone's Formulation

Also see:

Federal Evidence Review


No More Than 7 Rounds? We Got This Cuomo!

In light of NYS Governor Cuomo's retarded understanding of firearms and gun safety, we have decided to share some gun porn with you, both to inform the layman and amuse the better informed.

Most semi-automatic pistols today are constructed to hold a standard magazine which exceeds the deluded Governor's 7-round limit. Even a small .22-caliber pistol designed for shooting squirrels and pigeons will usually hold a magazine of 8, 12, even 16 rounds. I wonder, will BB guns now be illegal too, with their 200-round reservoirs of copper death, or my .177-caliber CO2 pistol with 18-shot clip? Technically, I believe so, ridiculously enough.

Essentially, what the Governor has done is shoved NYers back to old wild west technology from two centuries ago, and made NY revolver country once again. Even the trusty .45 semi-auto used by American servicemen in the trenches during World War One, and on up through the modern day as a standard sidearm for professional and personal protection, will now be illegal in New York State. The smaller caliber but ubiquitous 9mm semi-autos, now too, illegal in most models. These new laws have essentially banned all of the most popular models favored by CCW permit holders in New York State, as well as other non-police professionals such as security and bodyguards. (In his haste, the idiot governor has even made it illegal for police, but that is expected to be re-legislated soon.)

Okay Gov, so I can't have a little .22-caliber pea-shooter that holds an 8-round magazine? That's just fine with me. you can take your 7 rounds and even have 2 back. This bitch gets the job done in 5.

That monster is a .50 caliber custom built Super Red Hawk by Ruger. The pistol was re-worked by the customizer to fire special .500 Linebaugh rounds, considered to be the most powerful handgun ammunition in the world. The bullet is so big, that this pistol can only hold 5 rounds, instead of the typical "six-shooter" style common to revolvers.

To get an appreciation of the hitting power we are talking about here, let us do a rough ammo comparison. The AR-15 rifle, made notorious now by several recent murder sprees, uses a .223 caliber round. That is, a round that is less than a quarter-inch in diameter, as compared to the half-inch diameter monsters we are comparing to. In this image just below, is an ammunition magazine being loaded for a military grade version of the same rifle, designated the M-16 with NATO 5.56mm ammunition.

With extensive reworking, the military can also convert the M-16 rifle to fire the special .50-caliber Beowulf cartridge. That round, is roughly the same size as the cartridge fired from the revolver handgun shown above. Here is a comparison of the Beowulf round, as compared to standard "assault rifle" ammunition.

For another way to get an impression of the power we are talking about here in a .50-caliber round, here is a night time photo of a .500 Smith&Wesson Magnum round being fired.

So yeah, basically, fuck you Gubner.

Finally, to really bring the point home, here is a video which displays the hitting power of a 50-caliber round. This compilation video shows US military snipers operating in Afghanistan, hitting live targets, with a single 50-caliber round from distances of a mile or more.


Be sure to check out:

Bushmaster AR-15 Menace?

Audio Leaked In Shooting of Anti-Cop Activist



Girls Beat Woman 'Just For Fun' at Bus Stop

In a chilling sign of the times, three young girls are accused of badly beating a woman just for the "fun" of it, as she was putting her own small child on a bus for school. With the "it's for the children" rhetoric being replayed like a broken record in the national gun debate, seeing something like this makes one wonder who will protect us from the children. It's a chilling reminder of just the sort of deranged and violent society we live in, but a fine example of why it is important to not get swept up in emotional appeal of propaganda designed to tug at our heartstrings.

Three young girls say they beat up a mom for fun as she put her child on a school bus 

NEW WINDSOR – Two 13-year-old girls and a 12-year-old girl have been charged with gang assault and endangering the welfare of a child after they beat up a woman as she was putting her young child on a school bus Tuesday morning at the corner of Route 9W and Ledyard Street in New Windsor.

When New Windsor Police investigated and located the three suspects, they told officers they were “mobbing” or “popping” on someone just for fun when they attacked the woman at 7:50 a.m. The 34-year-old mom was repeatedly kicked, punched and dragged by the hair by the girls as they walked in the area.

Two of the girls, who admitted their involvement to the police, were on their way to school and the third had been suspended when they attacked the woman repeatedly kicking and punching her and dragging her by her hair. She suffered head and internal injuries, cuts and bruises all over her body.

Police have charged the three girls with gang assault and endangering the welfare of a child.

Their names are being withheld because of their ages. They were processed and turned over to their parents pending a future appearance in Orange County Family Court.


Sandy Hook Shooting - Exposed (VIDEO)


Download a Machine Gun, Printable 30-Round Mag Now Reality


Riot Erupts As Elderly, Disabled Seek Housing Vouchers

"There was a lady with an oxygen tank. She was elderly. When they told everybody they had to go home and they weren't going to help, she was in tears."

Full article here


Welfare, 60 Reasons Why You're Next

It amazes me and sickens me that seemingly intelligent and level-headed people will become irrationally venomous and verifiably delusional at the mere mention of the word welfare. They roar the trumpet of old and tired stereotypes.  These same folks are not only willing to give up essential liberty, but openly demand the repeal of the Constitution in order to attack the poor. I honestly believe that it would take only a nudge, a properly placed TV ad campaign, to get these same folks to openly endorse the mass execution of people who are on welfare. That they would actually agree to having people on welfare shipped off to concentration camps and gas chambers.

The people on welfare, the poor of this nation are not the problem. They are the victims. Victims of a terminally flawed economic design. A lack of education is not the problem, a lack of motivation is not the problem. Drug testing the poor will not solve the problem any more than banning guns will keep our children safe. 

Today, there are millions of Americans on welfare, who never in a million years imagined they would ever have to ask for help. Who never even considered that they would have to go groveling to some government pencil-pusher in order to feed their family. Folks on welfare are not some sub-human class of people. They are not some distant inner-city aberration. They are no different than you and I. They are you and I.

(Please click the link below to view the original full article.)

The Middle Class In America Is Being Wiped Out – Here Are 60 Facts That Prove It

#1 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the middle class is taking home a smaller share of the overall income pie than has ever been recorded before.

#2 As the middle class shrinks, more Americans than ever have been forced to become dependent on the federal government.  Federal spending on welfare programs has reached nearly a trillion dollars a year, and that does not even count Social Security or Medicare.  Welfare spending is now 16 times larger than when the "war on poverty" began.

#3 Median household income in the U.S. has fallen for four consecutive years.  Overall, it has declined by over $4000 during that time span.

#4 The U.S. economy continues to trade good paying jobs for low paying jobs.  60 percent of the jobs lost during the last recession were mid-wage jobs, but 58 percent of the jobs created since then have been low wage jobs.

#5 The number of Americans living in poverty has increased by more than 15 million since the turn of the century.

#6 The number of Americans on food stamps has grown from 17 million in the year 2000 to more than 47 million today.

#7 Back in the 1970s, about one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps.  Today, about one out of every 6.5 Americans is on food stamps.

#8 According to the Pew Research Center, 61 percent of all American households were "middle class" back in 1971.  Today, that figure has fallen to 51 percent.

#9 In the United States today, 35 percent of all households live on $35,000 or less each year.

#10 One recent survey discovered that 85 percent of all middle class Americans believe that it is harder to maintain a middle class standard of living today than it was 10 years ago.

#11 62 percent of all middle class Americans say that they have had to reduce household spending over the past year.

#12 According to one survey, 77 percent of all Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck at least part of the time.

#13 In 1989, the debt to income ratio of the average American family was about 58 percent.  Today it is up to 154 percent.

#14 Total U.S. household debt grew from just 1.4 trillion dollars in 1980 to a whopping 13.7 trillion dollars in 2007.  This played a huge role in the financial crisis of 2008, and the problem has still not been solved.

#15 While debt loads for middle class families are going up, the net worth of those same families is going down.  According to the Federal Reserve, the median net worth of families in the United States declined "from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010".

#16 The percentage of working age Americans with a job has been below 59 percent for 40 months in a row.

#17 Today there are about 3.25 million Americans that say that they want a job but that have not searched for a job in more than a year because they believe that it is so hopeless.

#18 When you total up all working age Americans that do not have a job in America today, it comes to more than 100 million.

#19 The unemployment rate for African-Americans rose dramatically from 13.2 percent in November to 14.0 percent in December.

#20 The unemployment rate for Americans in the 18 to 29 year-old age bracket is 11.5 percent overall.  For African-Americans in that age group, the unemployment rate is now up to 22.1 percent.  Millions of young people believe that the system has totally failed them.

#21 Families that have a head of household under the age of 30 have a poverty rate of 37 percent.

#22 Last year, an astounding 53 percent of all U.S. college graduates under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed.

#23 Today, approximately 25 million American adults are living with their parents.

#24 According to the Tax Policy Center, the recent fiscal cliff deal will raise taxes more for those making between $30,000 and $200,000 a year than it will for those making between $200,000 and $500,000 a year.

#25 According to a Gallup survey, only 60 percent of all Americans say that they have enough money to live comfortably.

#26 One recent survey found that 63 percent of all Americans believe that the U.S. economic model is broken.

#27 Each year, the average American must work 107 days just to make enough money to pay local, state and federal taxes.

#28 Consumer debt in America has risen by a whopping 1700 percent since 1971.

#29 There are now 20.2 million Americans that spend more than half of their incomes on housing.  That represents a 46 percent increase from 2001.

#30 The average American household spent approximately $4,155 on gasoline during 2011, and electricity bills in the U.S. have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row.

#31 According to USA Today, many Americans have actually seen their water bills triple over the past 12 years.

#32 Health insurance costs have risen by 23 percent since Barack Obama became president. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, health care costs accounted for just 9.5% of all personal consumption back in 1980.  Today they account for approximately 16.3%.

#33 In 1999, 64.1 percent of all Americans were covered by employment-based health insurance.  Today, only 55.1 percent are covered by employment-based health insurance.

#34 According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 46 percent of all American workers have less than $10,000 saved for retirement, and 29 percent of all American workers have less than $1,000 saved for retirement.

#35 The United States has lost an average of approximately 50,000 manufacturing jobs a month since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

#36 The United States has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001.

#37 According to the Economic Policy Institute, America is losing half a million jobs to China every single year.

#38 In 2000, there were more than 17 million Americans working in manufacturing, but now there are less than 12 million.

#39 Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs.  Today, less than 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs.

#40 Since 2000, U.S. multinational corporations have eliminated 2.9 million jobs in the United States and have added 2.4 million jobs overseas.

#41 According to Professor Alan Blinder of Princeton University, 40 million more U.S. jobs could be sent offshore over the next two decades if current trends continue.

#42 According to one study, between 1969 and 2009 the median wages earned by American men between the ages of 30 and 50 declined by 27 percent after you account for inflation.

#43 At this point, one out of every four American workers has a job that pays $10 an hour or less.  If that sounds like a high figure, that is because it is.  Today, the United States actually has a higher percentage of workers doing low wage work than any other major industrialized nation does.

#44 According to the Pew Research Center, only 23 percent of all American workers believe that they have enough money to get them through retirement.

#45 According to the Economic Policy Institute, the wealthiest one percent of all Americans households on average have 288 times the amount of wealth that the average middle class American family does.

#46 In the United States today, the wealthiest one percent of all Americans have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent combined.

#47 According to Forbes, the 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans combined.

#48 The six heirs of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton have a net worth that is roughly equal to the bottom 30 percent of all Americans combined.

#49 At this point, the poorest 50 percent of all Americans collectively own just 2.5% of all the wealth in the United States.

#50 The United States now ranks 93rd in the world in income inequality.

#51 The average CEO now makes approximately 350 times as much as the average American worker makes.

#52 Corporate profits as a percentage of GDP are at an all-time high.  Meanwhile, wages as a percentage of GDP are near an all-time low.

#53 Today, 40 percent of all Americans have $500 or less in savings.

#54 One recent survey found that 28 percent of all Americans do not have a single penny saved for emergencies.

#55 Shockingly, at this point 48 percent of all Americans are either considered to be "low income" or are living in poverty.

#56 According to one calculation, the number of Americans on food stamps now exceeds the combined populations of "Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming."

#57 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, an all-time record 49 percent of all Americans live in a home where at least one person receives financial assistance from the federal government.  Back in 1983, that number was less than 30 percent.

#58 According to U.S. Census data, 57 percent of all American children live in a home that is either considered to be "poor" or "low income".

#59 For the first time ever, more than a million public school students in the United States are homeless.

#60 According to a stunning new Gallup survey, 65 percent of all Americans believe that 2013 will be a year of "economic difficulty".


Martial Law Declared!

There is a lot of talk lately about our so-called rights, the Constitution, and in particular the Second Amendment. People are worried that the government is getting ready to come and take away our guns, which might actually be true. But it is important to understand that this isn't really something new. The government has never been your "friend" and has never been interested in protecting your rights. While some folks scream out that President Obama is some quasi-dictator-in-chief antichrist, those same folks seem to conveniently forget that everything he has done was based on the unprecedented destruction of liberty by his predecessor, through laws like the Patriot Act, in the wake of the 9/11 disaster. But the Bush presidency is not the beginning of the story either. The fight against tyranny is much older than any of us, and The People have been losing this battle for many, many years. The reality today is that the Constitution is no longer a legally valid document, and in the eyes of the government...you have no rights.

The following article was written by J. Marselus VanWagner, and is used here by permission.

U.S. Federal Authority Is Martial Law
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.

The Concept of Secession in Early America

The Declaration of Independence, by the thirteen colonies which went on to became the first, united, states of America , was more than a notice of secession. It was a rebuke of colonial title and subject status, with the formal dissolution of the recognition of such a relationship. While it could be argued that the colonies had no such right to do so, the founding fathers heralded the values of freedom, liberty, and self-determination as being the basis of such right.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that amongst these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter, or abolish it.” - Declaration of Independence 

Having just freed themselves from tyranny in a hard-won military contest, it is hard to imagine that the founding fathers would have done much to make such action illegal, or to restrict the recognition of sovereignty they had just achieved at so high a cost. Secession from the rule of monarchy was finally complete when King George III formally relinquished all authority over his former colonies by 1783.

“His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.” -Article One, Paris Peace Treaty

Note that the King did not recognize a single State, or single sovereignty, but each one independently. Of course we know that the founding fathers did intend to bring unity to the thirteen former colonies with a federal form of government, but they were also quite wary of too much power being consolidated in some monolithic central government, too much akin to a monarchy. This is evident in the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, where measures to check the power of the federal government were adopted.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” -Second Amendment

Let us ignore the debate in modern times as to the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and focus on the right of the State. It seems clear enough by the wording here that at the very least, it is the right, if not the duty of a free state , to secure their freedom as a state, with arms. Not as a franchise of the federal system, but as a free state . Sovereignty of the State is clearly expressed here. Who might we reasonably expect would pose a threat to the freedom of one State? Another State perhaps, but it seems far more reasonable that the threat envisioned by the authors of the Second Amendment was that of an oppressive central government. While they may have also envisioned the need for States to maintain a militia to be used in cooperation against a common foreign enemy, such a meaning was neither explicitly stated, nor clearly implied. In fact, New England states refused to send their quota of militia to fight the British in the War of 1812, and even went so far as to threaten secession at the Hartford Convention, even creating a new flag. Also, there was then, the possibility of an outright Federal military, which we now have today, though this was frowned upon at the time, again out of fears of a strong central government.

As stated without ambiguity, the Second Amendment clearly was meant to protect the security and freedom of an individual and sovereign State. It truly does speak for itself, as does the Tenth Amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
-Tenth Amendment

There are those who may argue that by ratifying the Constitution, the States dissolved their right to secede from the federal union, as a part of their obligation to that union and to the other States. But if that union were to infringe upon the sovereign rights of any State, by availing itself of powers not delegated to it by the Constitution, would not the obligation by the State to the union then be dissolved, as the original agreement had been already violated? Would not the usurpation of power by any one district, or by the Federal government, be considered an act of aggression, and a clear affront to the liberty of the State?

Speaking on the outright banning of the right to secede, James Madison stated on May 31st in 1787:

“A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”


In an article published as a part of a compilation known as The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton concluded:

“When the sword is once drawn the passions of men observe no bounds of moderation. The suggestions of wounded pride, the instigations of resentment, would be apt to carry the States against which the arms of the Union were exerted, to any extreme to avenge the affront, or to avoid the disgrace of submission. The first war of this kind would probably terminate in a dissolution of the Union.”

Wikipedia-The Federalist

During debate at the New York State Convention in Poughkeespie, Hamilton stated:

“To coerce a State would be one of the maddest projects ever devised. No State would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another.”


New York State , along with Virginia and Rhode Island , explicitly stated in writing that they maintained a natural right of secession, when they finally submitted ratification of the Constitution. Because this was considered to be a natural right of states, and because it was understood and agreed upon at the Constitutional Convention (being presided over by one George Washington, a delegate of Virginia), this would be a right of all states. By accepting the ratifications of these three states, and thereby validating them, the other states were guaranteed this right as well, as a matter of course, knowing that a right held by one state must be held by all. (There are a very few specific exceptions.) But really, there was little need to explicitly declare this in writing anyway, because it was indeed the right of the sovereign States already.
Speaking before Congress in December of 1860, President James Buchanan stated:

“The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not necessary and proper for carrying into execution any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution.”

Full text at infoplease.com

At this point we have a clear overview of some of wealth of material which is available to support the right and the authority of any one State to secede from the union of the United States of America . It has been said, that before the Civil War one would say “these are the United States.” Since then, it is said, “this is the United States.”

Secession of the Confederate States of America

The clearest mark for the beginning of the Confederacy is with the secession of South Carolina on the 20th of December in 1860.

“AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled 'The Constitution of the United States of America.'
We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.
Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.” -Ordinances of Secession

Constitution.org-Ordinances of Secession

But this was not some sudden decision that was made lightly. In fact, it had been years in the making, as is apparent in the preamble of their “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.”

“The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right.. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America , and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act…” -Declarations of Causes of Seceding States


Of course, all of these words all came down to the actual withdrawal of their delegates from the Congress for the United States , which was reported as follows:

“Resignation of the South Carolina Delegation

The Speaker laid before the House on the 24th, a letter signed by Messrs. M'Queen, Bonham, Boyce, and Ashmore, of South Carolina , as follows:

SIR,- We avail ourselves of the earliest opportunity since the official communication of the intelligence, of making known to your honorable body that the people of the State of South Carolina, in their sovereign capacity, have resumed the powers heretofore delegated by them to the Federal Government of the United States, and have thereby dissolved our connection with the House of Representatives.. In taking leave of those with whom we have been associated in a common agency, we, as well as the people of our Commonwealth, desire to do so with a feeling of mutual regard and respect for each other- cherishing the hope that, in our future relations, we may better enjoy that peace and harmony essential to the happiness of a free and enlightened people.


To the Speaker of the House of Representatives. “-Harper’s Weekly (January 5, 1861) 


We know that other states quickly followed suit, with their seemingly rightful reclamation of outright sovereignty, and dissolution of their ties to the federal government of the United States. Mississippi declared their ordinance on the 9th of January 1861, followed then by Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, and finally then by a group of Kentuckians calling themselves “Convention of the People of Kentucky,” by November of 1861. It should be noted here, that the break from the Union was not entirely clear or precise in many areas. The legitimacy of the Confederate ordinance in Kentucky , for example, is greatly disputed, despite the state being represented as the center star of the Confederate Battle Flag. In another example, forty-eight northwestern counties of Virginia decided to secede from that state, and form their own West Virginia in 1863. It should also be noted here, that secession, up this point in American history, had never been declared illegal, nor ruled un-Constitutional by any body of government.

The End of Constitutional Government, and the Declaration of Martial Law 

On the 27th of March in 1861 Congress adjourned “sin die,” or “without day,” no longer having the required quorum under the Constitution. In other words, having lost the delegates of the seceding states, Congress no longer had the minimum number of required persons to lawfully conduct any official business, except to set a date to reconvene, under Article One of the Constitution. They did not set a date to reconvene, and as a result many have argued that the Congress of the United States of America was thereby dissolved. There are also those who argue that only Congress itself would have the authority to dissolve the body permanently. I find the argument to be moot. The fact is, that the Congress of the United States of America has never reconvened “de jure,” or “by law.” Instead, they have operated by Proclamation of the President of the United States , as shown here, in what is often referred to as Executive Order One:


Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,

Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.

I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12 o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July, next, then and there to consider and determine, such measures, as, in their wisdom, the public safety, and interest may seem to demand.

In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of April in the year of our Lord One thousand, Eight hundred and Sixtyone, and of the Independence the United States the Eightyfifth.


By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.”

The American Presidency Project

As stated in this document, both houses of Congress were ordered to reconvene, by President Lincoln, without the quorum required by the Constitution. The order is dated two days after the surrender of Fort Sumter by Union forces, in South Carolina , and remains in effect to this day.

(The attack on Fort Sumter is often viewed as evidence of aggression on the part of the southerners, but there are a few points to consider here. Union forces had manned the Fort clandestinely, infuriating the Confederates. Nevertheless, they were politely asked now to abandon the Fort which was the key to control of Charleston Harbor . The Union Commander refused. Attempts to re-supply the Union garrison incensed the southerners even further. After all, these Union forces were now viewed as foreign occupiers of sovereign territory, and furthermore, as a threat to trade in the region. They certainly were not welcome there, and eventually, General P.G.T. Beauregard was authorized to forcefully remove the garrison operating under the command of his former artillery instructor, Major Robert Anderson, whom he had also served as an assistant after graduating from West Point . Though it is a little known fact, there were a number of forts that the Union was forced to relinquish to the Confederacy before this notorious battle that is seen as the official start of the Civil War.)

But there is more here, than just the nullification of the Constitution. There is the establishment of a new authority under the Commander-in-Chief, the establishment of martial law, which has replaced the Constitution as the legitimate authority in America.

Washington , April 24, 1863.

The following "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field," prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., and revised by a board of officers, of which Maj. Gen. E. A. Hitchcock is president, having been approved by the President of the United States , he commands that they be published for the information of all concerned.

By order of the Secretary of War:
Assistant Adjutant-General.” 

Here are the first three standing orders under Section I, “Martial law-Military jurisdiction-Military necessity-Retaliation.

“1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the martial law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring martial law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest.

The presence of a hostile army proclaims its martial law.

2. Martial law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander-in-chief, or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same.

3. Martial law in a hostile country consists in the suspension by the occupying military authority of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.

The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority.” -General Orders No. 100 


Here is a link to another source for the document, which is also known as The Lieber Code of 1863:


So we see here, that martial law does not even have to be declared, to be in effect as the legal authority. Furthermore, we see that only the commander-in-chief has the authority to issue a “special proclamation” which would end the condition of martial law. It is certainly interesting that President Lincoln was assassinated before any such proclamation could be made, or Constitutional authority restored.

We also see that an end to martial law might be brought about by “special mention” in the conclusion of a peace treaty. Here it is also interesting to note that, despite the surrender of General Lee at the Appomattox Courthouse, and the surrender of other top commanders of Confederate forces in the months that followed, no peace treaty was ever signed with the Confederacy. Therefore, though the Confederates were beaten militarily, the war has never ended for the Secessionists. At the same time, the Union never officially recognized that the Confederacy even existed, that the fight had merely been to put down a domestic insurrection, and in a sense, that war with a Confederacy had never really happened at all. Some have argued that with the fall of Richmond , the Confederacy no longer existed and therefore had not the means to surrender, with the leadership dispersed, but the truth is that the Union never recognized the existence of the Confederacy to begin with and therefore could not accept surrender from that which they had never recognized. If they had accepted surrender, then they would have recognized the Confederacy as a legitimate entity to be negotiated with, thereby dooming the legitimacy of Union action against the Confederacy.
The third order, which I have listed here above, would come to be reflected in official acts in the years which followed the Civil War.


With the surrender of General Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia, the Confederacy was effectively defeated militarily on April 9, 1865. It wasn’t a week later that President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. The assassin made certain that Lincoln would have no part of cleaning up the mess that had been made by the war, no part of the period known as “Reconstruction,” and no chance to reverse the dictatorial assaults he had made against the Constitution, sovereignty, and liberty. Given the gravity of the situation, I dare say that there was far more behind the assassination than we are generally led to believe. It is more than likely, that there were those who desired that this consolidation of power remain in place long after the fighting had ceased. Was this assassination some cunning maneuver by a hidden cabal already in position to seize upon such new powers, or had this really been the root cause of the entire Civil War all along? Was the assassination the coup de grâce of the evident coup d’état? It seems quite likely that it had all been deliberately and clandestinely orchestrated, especially given all that has followed.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly:

"Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

"A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.

The Reconstruction Acts that came after the war are a clear example of the continuation of martial law, and not Constitutional law. When Congress convened after a long recess in December 1865, they would not seat the representatives of the Southern states, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of their governments. Eventually, the Acts turned the former Confederate States of Virginia , North Carolina , South Carolina , Georgia , Mississippi , Alabama , Louisiana , Florida , Texas and Arkansas into five military districts to be commanded by Army Generals. Republican governments were eventually forced upon the defeated Confederacy, made up of “carpetbaggers,” “scalawags,” and of course “freedmen” instead of the traditional Democrats. While the eventual goal was indeed to restore States’ legislatures and representation in Congress, the Army was given unprecedented authority over all aspects of administration in the rebel states, including politics. An excellent example is found in Section 2 of a supplementary to "An Act to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States."

“And be it further enacted, That the commander of any district named in said act shall have power, subject to the disapproval of the General of the army of the United States, and to have effect till disapproved, whenever in the opinion of such commander the proper administration of said act shall require it, to suspend or remove from office, or from the performance of official duties and the exercise of official powers, any officer or person holding or exercising, or professing to hold or exercise, any civil or military office or duty in such district under any power, election, appointment or authority derived from, or granted by, or claimed under, any so-called State or the government thereof, or any municipal or other division thereof, and upon such suspension or removal such commander, subject to the disapproval of the General as aforesaid, shall have power to provide from time to time for the performance of the said duties of such officer or person so suspended or removed, by the detail of some competent officer or soldier of the army, or by the appointment of some other person, to perform the same, and to fill vacancies occasioned by death, resignation, or otherwise.” -Reconstruction Acts


The rebels would have to submit to much to earn their “entitlement” to be represented in Congress once again. One such concession would be to submit to oaths under certain conditions, with one poignant example being made clear in Section 6 of one supplementary act.

“And be it further enacted, That the true intent and meaning of the oath prescribed in said supplementary act is, (among other things,) that no person who has been a member of the legislature of any State, or who has held any executive or judicial office in any State, whether he has taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United Sates or not, and whether he was holding such office at the commencement of the rebellion, or had held it before, and who has afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, is entitled to be registered or to vote; and the words "executive or judicial office in any State" in said oath mentioned shall be construed to include all civil offices created by law for the administration of any general law of a State, or for the administration of justice.” -Reconstruction Acts

This effectively barred anyone who had any significant affiliation with the Confederacy or the Democrats from participating in government.

The states would have to write new constitutions in accordance with that which was prescribed in the initial Reconstruction Act. That constitution would then have to be submitted for the approval of Congress. But even here the imposition of federal authority does not end. Another clause, in the initial Act, which dictates the path back to representation in Congress, is stated in part in Section 5:

“…and when said State, by a vote of its legislature elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen, and when such article shall have become a part of the Constitution of the United States, said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and senators and representatives shall be admitted there from on their taking the oath prescribed by law…”-Reconstruction Acts 

Entitlement, though admittedly of slightly different meaning perhaps, had been expressly forbidden by the original 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which has now been left out of all modern renderings, and all but forgotten being another casualty of this new imposed order. How can one be “entitled” to rights that were once deemed to be “self-evident” by the founders? And what good is a vote, when you are given but one choice?


With what today is known as the 13th and 14th Amendments, and the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, the United States was well on its way to fully establishing itself as a corporation acting under an Executive dictatorship enforced by martial law. The establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, the bankruptcy of the United States in 1933, and the Patriot Act, are all milestones, among others, in the road to absolute dictatorship, and the end of the dream laid out by our forefathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.. The United States today is a corporation, not the sovereign republic that it is imagined to be. According to the US Code Collection, sourced here from the Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute:

“(15) “ United States ” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States ; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States .”


It might be argued that President Lincoln was within his Constitutional rights to do whatever he deemed necessary, as the Executive and Commander-in-Chief during a time of national emergency. No such power is stated in the Constitution however, and again I would refer to the Tenth Amendment. Regardless, it is clear that the Constitution has been effectively suspended and superseded since the Civil War, having never been restored to its natural state since that time. All that has followed could only truthfully be thought of, at best, as a Constitutional Dictatorship, with the Constitution cited merely as a reference and not acting as a binding or effective force of legitimate governance. Martial law, is the law.

*   *   *

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself (paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone; while, on the other hand, I hold it to be equally clear, that we should never knowingly lend ourselves directly or indirectly, to prevent that slavery from dying a natural death---to find new places for it to live in, when it can no longer exist in the old." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Letter to Williamson Durley" (October 3, 1845), p. 348.

SWAT Get Medals After Shooting At Innocent Family in Botched Raid (VIDEO)

This video goes back a number of years now, but it is still as relevant today as ever. Specifically, because these botched raids still continue, innocent people continue to be assaulted and killed by our so-called protectors, and because the fascist police-state has only gotten worse each year. I have included this video in several articles, but I think it deserves it's own entry here to make it easier to share.

Latest Headlines

Which Mythical Creature Are You?                         Sexy Out of This World Aliens                         Is That a Ghost or Just a Dirty Lens                         Can You Survive the Zombie Apocalypse?                          Do You Know Vampires?                          Preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse                          Ten Amazing Urban Legends That Are Actually True                          Unbelievable UFO Sightings                          Is Your Dealer a Cop?

Search This Blog