States vs Feds: Borders and the Constitution

by Robert Greenslade

The battle raging between the federal government and the State of Arizona over its so-called anti immigration law has raised some constitutional issues that will ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court.  It has been asserted by the federal government that the States are precluded from protecting their borders and controlling illegal aliens because the Constitution grants the federal government these powers.  This assertion is erroneous because the individual States, as sovereign political entities, have the absolute right to protect their borders from illegal aliens irrespective of the Constitution or any power granted to the federal government.

We are constantly told that people illegally entering the country are undocumented immigrants and the federal government has jurisdiction over all matters concerning immigration.  This is not the case.  In fact, the word immigration does not appear any where in the Constitution.  The only general power granted to the federal government concerning aliens, in times of peace, is the power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” This provision was inserted because there was, in the words of James Madison, “a dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization” among the States.  By vesting this power in the federal government, as opposed to the individual States, the Founders ensured that the qualifications for becoming a citizen would be uniform throughout the several States.  If the rule were not uniform, one State could impose a different standard than another State or discriminate against immigrants from certain nations.  No other power is granted to the federal government concerning this subject.

The federal government also claims the duty of securing the borders of these United States rests solely with the federal government.  The Constitution states: “[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion….” [See Article IV, Section 4]  If aliens entering into a State from a foreign country constitute an “invasion,” then the federal government is constitutionally mandated by this provision to intervene and protect the State.

The Constitution grants the federal government the power to fulfill this duty in one of two ways.  It can either use the military, or Congress can call forth the militias of the several States to repel the invasion.  [See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15]  Once Congress calls forth the militia, the President, as commander in chief, has the power to direct the movement of these forces.  Thus, the President could constitutionally send the State militias to any State to repel the “invasion” by illegal aliens.  However, if illegal aliens pouring into the States by the millions do not constitute an “invasion,” then the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to intervene and prevent the States from protecting their borders.

Note: The National Guard is a State military force and is referred to as the organized militia.  The so-called common folk who meet certain age requirements are referred to as the unorganized militia.  There is no federal militia.  In addition, there is no specific provision in the Constitution for the so-called Border Patrol to function within the several States.  Protecting the borders of the States from illegal aliens has nothing to do with the federal government’s power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” The regular military and the militia are the only entities designated in the Constitution to protect the States from invasion.

Even though the word immigration does not appear in the Constitution, the federal government claims that anything relating to immigration and the border is vested exclusively in that government.  In other words, the States are prohibited by the Constitution from exercising any power that touches on these issues.

During the debates in the Virginia State Convention of 1788, John Marshall made the following statement concerning the constitutional prohibitions on State power:

“The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislatures before, both shall exercise it, unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that of the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it…  All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to the Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article.”

Marshall stated that if the States possessed a power prior to the adoption of the Constitution and a like power was granted to the federal government, the States retained a concurrent power unless there was a conflict in the exercise of power or there was a clause that specifically prohibited the States from exercising that power.

Alexander Hamilton made this observation, several months prior to Marshall, in his writings in the Federalist Essays.  In Essay No. 32 he wrote:

“The necessity of a concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases results from the division of the sovereign power; and the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor, is not a theoretical consequences of that division, but is clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the instrument which contains the articles of the proposed Constitution.  We there find that, notwithstanding the affirmative grants of general authorities, there has been the most pointed care in those cases where it was deemed improper that the like authorities should reside in the States, to insert negative clauses prohibiting the exercise of them by the States.  The tenth section of the first article consists altogether of such provisions.  This circumstance is a clear indication of the sense of the convention, and furnishes a rule of interpretation out of the body of the act, which justifies the position I have advanced and refutes every hypothesis to the contrary.” [Bold added]

In Essay No. 82, Hamilton restated this principle and noted that there were only three instances where the “exclusively delegated” rule would apply:

“The principles established in a former paper teach us that the States will retain all preëxisting authorities which may not be exclusively delegated to the federal head; and that this exclusive delegation can only exist in one of three cases: where an exclusive authority is, in express terms, granted to the Union; or where a particular authority is granted to the Union, and the exercise of a like authority is prohibited to the States; or where an authority is granted to the Union, with which a similar authority in the States would be utterly incompatible.”  [Bold not added]

As stated by Marshall and Hamilton, the States retained every preexisting power that was not exclusively delegated to the federal government.  The exclusively delegated rule, as defined by Hamilton, has no application to the States concerning illegal aliens and their borders.

Marshall and Hamilton also noted that all of the constitutional prohibitions on State power are contained in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution.  A review of this section shows that it does not contain a single clause that places any restraint on State power concerning illegal aliens or protecting the borders of the several States.

In Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, the States have the power to engage war when “actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit delay.” How could the States have the power to engage in war, independent of the federal government, but not have the civil authority to protect their borders?

Even if the federal government had been granted authority over foreigners in the several States, the States would not be precluded from exercising this power as well.

Since the Constitution prevents the States from maintaining a standing army, without the consent of Congress, in times of peace, the State force contemplated in Article 1, Section 10 is the State militia.  Thus, the States have the constitutional authority to use the militia to protect their borders.

It should be noted that the Constitution only grants the federal government limited powers concerning use of the militias.  Congress has no constitutional authority over these militias unless and until they are called into the actual service of the United States.  When not in federal service, the States have exclusive authority over their militias.

This principle was discussed during the debates on the Constitution.  In the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788, there was a lengthy debate concerning the militia.

Mr. HENRY wished to know what authority the state governments had over the militia.

Mr. MADISON answered, that the state governments might do what they thought proper with the militia, when they were not in the actual service of the United States.

Mr. JOHN MARSHALL The state governments do not derive their powers from the general government…  The state legislatures had the power to command and govern their militia before, and still have it, undeniably, unless there is something in this Constitution that takes it away…  But there are no negative words here…  To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the same manner as they could have done before its adoption…  All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to the Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article…  But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last part of it–that ‘no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.’  When invaded, they can engage in war, as also when in imminent danger.  This proves that the states can use the militia when they find it necessary.

Marshall, who would later become Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, went on to state:

“[T]he power of governing the militia was not vested in the states by implication, because, being possessed of it antecedent to the adoption of the government, and not being divested of it by any grant or restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as fully possessed of it as ever they had been.”

As stated by Marshall, since the States were not divested of the power to govern their militia they have the authority to use their militia in any manner they see fit.  Nowhere in the Constitution is there a single clause that places a prohibition on State power concerning the use of their militias.  If a State wants to send its militia to the border to stop intrusions by illegal aliens, it has the power to do so irrespective of the Constitution or the powers delegated to the federal government.

In California, Article 5, Section 7 of our Constitution states:

“The Governor is commander in chief of a militia that shall be provided by statute.  The Governor may call it forth to execute the law.”

Thus, a governor has the constitutional authority to call forth the militia independent of the California Legislature.

The conditions under which a governor can call forth the militia is spelled out in California’s Military and Veterans Code.  Section 146 grants a governor the authority to:

“[C]all into active service any portion of the active militia as may be necessary, and if the number available be insufficient, the Governor may call into active service any portion of the unorganized militia as may be necessary, in any of the following events:

a) In case of war, insurrection, rebellion, invasion, tumult, riot, breach of the peace, public calamity or catastrophe, including, but not limited to, catastrophic fires, or other emergency, or imminent danger thereof, or resistance to the laws of this state or the United States.” [Bold added]

Note: This provision grants the governor the statutory authority to use California’s militia to enforce so-called federal immigration laws within this State.

Hundreds of thousands of illegals pouring into California every year triggers several of these provisions and is nothing short of a human invasion.  Thus, a governor has the statutory authority to use the militia to protect California’s border and stop the flow of illegals.  Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have similar provisions in their laws.

If you have ever watched a documentary on legal immigrants entering the country through Ellis Island, you saw they were screened for any diseases.  Thus, the States could employ this same standard under their police powers to protect its citizens from any potential diseases.  Since the general power of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the people was reserved to the States, the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to prevent the States from performing this function.

In addition, a governor could send the State militia to the border to protect property.  Other than federal land, where the States have no jurisdiction, all the property belongs to private citizens or the individual States.  The federal government has no constitutional authority over this land.  It is well documented that illegals are trespassing and vandalizing property during their trip north.  Thus, a governor could mobilize the State militia to protect State land and private property.

California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have the power, unrestrained by the Constitution for the United States, to engage in war with Mexico to protect their citizens and borders from the human invasion.  One or all of these States should inform the clowns in Washington D.C. that we are mobilizing our militia for the trip south and we double dog dare you to try and stop us.

FYI If you read the Naturalization Acts of 1790 & 1795, which were the first two Naturalization Acts passed by Congress after the Constitution was ratified, you will note that they are not called Immigration Acts.  In fact, the word immigration does not appear in either Act.  These Acts negate the assertion that the Constitution made the so-called immigration process an exclusive federal function because individuals wishing to become citizens could do so through the States and their courts.

Bob Greenslade [send him email] has been writing for www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/10/04/states-vs-feds-borders-and-the-constitution/
noreply@blogger.com (Charleston Voice)
Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:07:10 GMT

James Madison: How the States Can Block Federal Gun Control

 

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

James Madison: How the States Can Block Federal Gun Control

Posted by Charleston Voice

What do we do when the federal government simply ignores the Second Amendment and acts in ways that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms? Well, James Madison laid out a blueprint in Federalist 46 before the Constitution was even ratified.

James Madison wrote in Federalist #46;

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

Here Madison says that the people of a whole possess the advantage of having arms and through their subordinate governments would be the greatest army on earth. It would be insurmountable odds for any standing army of any nation to conquer just by the vast numbers of the armed citizenry.

He further writes;

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

Madison illustrates that not only can an armed citizenry repel any outside foreign forces by large standing armies, but also, as the very last resort, can serve as a check on a tyrannical central government. It also illustrates that the natural right of self-defense and arms is indeed an individual right.

This, in its very essence, is why the founders restricted the authority of the central government when it come to arms though the Second Amendment.

But Madison goes on to provide a strategy that makes it possible to resist unconstitutional federal act without relying on arms – a moderate middle road between submission and revolution. He gave us a blueprint for stopping federal overreach before the Constitution was even ratified.

That tool is the non-cooperation, and he assured Americans that the power of the states could keep the general government in check.

The states simply do NOT have to cooperate with the enforcement of unconstitutional federal acts concerning the right to keep and bear arms. This strategy has even been affirmed by the courts under what is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

JAMES MADISON'S ADVICE

From Federalist #46:

"Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter."

Let's break down Madison's prescription.

"Should an unwarrantable measure…" What does Madison mean by "unwarrantable?" The word literally means "unjustifiable." Madison was clearly talking about federal acts with no constitutional justification. In other words, unconstitutional.

But notice something interesting, Madison implies that state governments can even resist a "warrantable" or justifiable federal act.

So what does Madison suggest states do when the feds overstep their authority? Oppose it!

"…the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand." Madison anticipated the possibility of federal usurpation and clearly believed the states would serve as a check on federal power. He believed the states should and would resist unconstitutional acts.

So, what are the "means of opposition?"

1. Disquietude of the people – This would include protests and petitions generated at the grassroots level. Madison expected the people would throw a fit when the feds usurped power – even using the word "repugnance" to describe their displeasure. That's a pretty strong word. And inevitably, disquietude leads to action – first at the local level, then bubbling up to the state level. That leads to the next step.

2. Refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union - Noncompliance. Madison apparently knew what we know today. The feds rely on cooperation from state and local governments, as well as individuals. When enough people refuse to comply, they simply can't enforce their so-called laws.

Noncompliance works and it should be happening at both the state and local level.

3, The frowns of the executive magistracy of the State - Here Madison envisions Governors formally protesting federal actions. This not only raises public awareness; executive leadership will also lead to the next step – legislative action. Prior to passage of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Gov. Garrard delivered a powerful message condemning the Alien and Sedition Acts and calling on legislative action.

4. Legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions -What exactly does Madison mean by "legislative devices?" He doesn't make that clear. But we know they include resolutions, because he and Thomas Jefferson penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in response to the draconian and unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Together, these Principles of '98 formalize the doctrine of nullification.

But do legislative devices stop at non-binding resolutions? Clearly not, because Madison said these measures would create "difficulties" and "impediments." 18th-century dictionaries list "obstruction" as a synonym for impediment. In other words, these legislative devices could serve to block the operation of unconstitutional power. This infers actions including formal, binding prohibitions of state or local cooperation, and outright interposition: "to intervene or place an agency between two positions."

So what do we have today? Do we not have a federal government that has long since usurped its powers enumerated to it by the US Constitution and disobeyed its further restrictions outlined in the Bill of Rights?

The clear course we have to take to once again have a resemblance of federalism and a constitutional republic is undoubtedly the non-cooperation/anti-commandeering doctrine of any and all federal gun restrictions, it is the rightful remedy

James Madison: How the States Can Block Federal Gun Control
noreply@blogger.com (Charleston Voice)
Thu, 11 Sep 2014 03:04:40 GMT

VIDEO: Sen. Mike Lee condemns Democrats for trying to alter the First Amendment | Ben Swann Truth In Media

VIDEO: Sen. Mike Lee condemns Democrats for trying to alter the First Amendment | Ben Swann Truth In Media

VIDEO: Sen. Mike Lee condemns Democrats for trying to alter the First Amendment

By: Michael Lotfi Sep 11, 2014







WASHINGTON D.C., September 10, 2014 – On Tuesday, Senator Mike Lee (R- Utah) gave an impassioned speech before Congress detailing the threat S.J. Res 19, a new proposed constitutional amendment, poses to the First Amendment.



If passed, the proposed amendment would grant Congress and states the power to regulate the raising and spending of money with respect to federal and state elections. Lee blasted the Democrats attempt to limit free speech and said our political system “keeps us free only to the extent that individuals rich and poor alike are able to say what they want and join together to form voluntary associations for the purpose of influencing the outcome of elections.” You can watch the full video here:

http://benswann.com/video-sen-mike-lee-condemns-democrats-for-trying-to-alter-the-first-amendment/

Feds Make Public Schools Enroll Unvaccinated Immigrant Kids | The Daily Caller | TERrafirmaUSA

FEDS MAKE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ENROLL UNVACCINATED IMMIGRANT KIDS | THE DAILY CALLER
Feds Make Public Schools Enroll Unvaccinated Immigrant Kids | The Daily Caller.


Since October 2013, 50,303 “unaccompanied children” from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras have crossed America’s porous Southern border to claim green cards via the immigration courts.

The Obama administration has sent none of these children home. Instead, federal officials have chosen to set aside normal immigration practices and to allow this wave of young illegal immigrants to apply for green cards via asylum applications and to disperse across the country. (RELATED: Obama Hides Steady Inflow Of Central American Migrants)

With school now in session, these kids have enrolled in public schools nationwide.

In the event that any of these thousands of Central American children are carrying communicable diseases, experts claim, any subsequent health crisis will likely first manifest itself within a public school environment.

That’s alarming news. But wait! There’s more!

According to the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, the Obama administration has not subjected a large number of these children to proper medical screening processes.

Instead, the federal government has sent the unaccompanied minors to various U.S. locations to live with relatives or, in some cases, to live as foster wards. The children then enroll in local, taxpayer-funded public schools with no questions asked — by law.

Dr. Elaina George, a member of the national advisory council of the Project 21 black leadership network and a board-certified otolaryngologist, warned that this policy adds up to the possibility of a very serious disease outbreak.

“There’s no mechanism in place to ensure children are checked medically,” George told The Daily Caller. “It’s put everybody at risk. Anybody who comes into contact with a disease — tuberculosis, for example — is at risk.”

“This is not something that’s theoretical. This is not something that kind of happened. It’s happened,” she added.

“All you need is one person with tuberculosis to cough on somebody else. Share a cup. Other kids are at risk. Teachers are at risk. Parents are at risk. Grandparents are at risk.”

In Virginia, for example, the state Department of Education issued a July memo ordering local school districts to accept illegal immigrant children even if they have no home and no documentation concerning their health or immunization status.

The memo stated, in part, that local schools “cannot exclude from school attendance those homeless children who do not provide the requisite health or immunization information required of other students.”

School districts are supposed to refer students who don’t present immunization documentation to a local social worker who will assist with obtaining physical examinations and required vaccinations.

There’s no guarantee social workers will follow through with the assistance, though, and, as George notes, by the time sick kids rub shoulders with healthy kids, it could be entirely too late.

School districts have no choice but to enroll illegal immigrant children. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plyler v. Doe that a state law (in Texas) preventing the children of illegal immigrants from attending public schools was unconstitutional because denying the children basic education contributes to “the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries.”

Additionally, in May of this year, the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice sent a joint letter to school districts nationwide warning that they would “contravene Federal law” if they “chill or discourage the participation, or lead to the exclusion, of students based on their or their parents’ or guardians’ actual or perceived citizenship or immigration status.” (RELATED: White House Tells Public Schools To Enroll Illegals Despite Lack Of Age Or Address Evidence)

Another member of the Project 21 black leadership network, Michael Dozier, Ph.D., has noted that unchecked immigration is fraught with public health risks.

“Latin America is currently dealing with a mysterious epidemic reported to cause chronic renal failure and death that has killed more than 24,000 people in El Salvador and Nicaragua since 2000,” Dozier claimed. “It has spread as far north as southern Mexico and south into Panama. Diseases such as this could be carried across our border by illegal immigrants and could create a nationwide health crisis.”

The Obama administration is fully aware of the health risks presented by its policy of forcing potentially unvaccinated, diseased immigrants into public schools.

In a July 30 memo to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General, John Roth, warned that many of the illegal immigrants who have recently arrived from Central America “require treatment for communicable diseases, including respiratory illnesses, tuberculosis, chicken pox and scabies.” Some illegal immigrants transmitted some of those diseases to Border Patrol agents at a Del Rio, Texas holding facility.

To make bad matters worse, the DHS Inspector General released a report last week warning that the United States is “ill-prepared” for a pandemic. The agency noted that the federal government has failed to manage its stockpile of protective gear and antiviral medications. At the same time, the feds have an overabundance of some supplies which would be useless in the event of a severe outbreak, such as influenza. (RELATED: Audit: Homeland Security ‘Ill-Prepared’ For Pandemic)

Project 21, which is a conservative public policy group, observes that the Obama administration’s policy of placing illegal immigrant children in public schools around the country is likely to affect black children disproportionately because black children tend to live in urban areas and rural areas in the Southeast. Both have been popular destinations for illegal immigrant children.

“Will children of the elites and liberals enrolled in private schools who advocate for this de facto amnesty be subjected to the same health risks as public school students?” asked Project 21 member Christopher Arps.

Follow Eric on Twitter and on Facebook, and send education-related story tips to erico@dailycaller.com.

Tags: Immigration, Vaccination

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/10/feds-force-public-schools-to-enroll-illegal-immigrant-children-with-no-medical-screening/2/#ixzz3Cych56eR

Guess who's coming to dinner? The Council on Foreign Relations

 

THE BLOG

Obama Dines With Man Caught Stealing, Destroying Classified Documents

8:46 AM, SEP 9, 2014 • BY DANIEL HALPER

President Obama hosted "a private dinner with a group of foreign policy experts," the White House announced last night. Among them: Sandy Berger, who was caught stealing and destroying classified documents that related to President Clinton's record on terrorism issues.

"Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was sentenced Thursday to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them," CNN reported in 2005.

"Berger must perform 100 hours of community service and pay the fine as well as $6,905 for the administrative costs of his two-year probation, a district court judge ruled."

Ronald A. Cass, in 2007, noted that Berger took extraordinary steps to cover up his crime:

On May 17th, Sandy Berger, President Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, voluntarily gave up his law license and with it the right to practice law. That is a stunning move for an accomplished lawyer, one of the nation's most influential public officials. Someone should take note. In fact, everyone should.

Berger previously entered a deal with the Department of Justice after he was caught stealing and destroying highly sensitive classified material regarding the Clinton Administration's handling of terrorism issues. That deal allowed him to avoid jail time, pay a modest fine, and keep his law license. It also allowed him to avoid full explanation of what he had taken and why he had taken it.

What information was worth risking his reputation, his career, and his freedom to keep hidden? And who was he risking that for?

Guess who's coming to dinner? The Coucil on Foreign Relations
Tue, 09 Sep 2014 05:00:00 GMT

Obama’s Speech to America: Stop ISIL by Funding ISIL

 

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
As many had expected as soon as the announcement was made that Barack Obama would make a speech on September 10 regarding his strategy against ISIS, the U.S. President has confirmed that he reserves the right to engage in airstrikes inside Syria.
The President outlined a four-point strategy that would, according to him, "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS. Obama stated that, "if left unchecked, ISIS could prove a threat across the middle eastern region" and possibly the American "homeland." Obama warned that ISIS terrorists originating from the United States and Europe could return home and engage in terrorist attacks on both American and European soil.
The President also announced his desire to create a "broad coalition" to "roll back the terrorist threat."
The four-point strategy is allegedly 1) "a systematic campaign of airstrikes" against terrorists in Iraq as well as a plan to work with the Iraqi government and the Iraqi military forces. 2) To increase support to forces fighting ISIL on the ground. This will take the form of 475 additional U.S. service members. Obama claims that these troops will not have a combat mission, but instead an advisory role. Obama also stated his intention to increase assistance to Syrian death squad fighters fighting against Bashar Al Assad. 3) Increase counter-terrorism efforts, cut off funding to terrorist groups and improve intelligence on the ground. Obama stated that he intends to convene a meeting of the UN Security Council in two weeks to discuss these matters. 4) Increase humanitarian assistance to the victims of the crisis in Iraq and Syria.

Obama made clear that he will "not hesitate to take action against ISIL" and that he has "the authority to combat ISIL" but he believes that the country is stronger when the President consults Congress in these decisions. Toward the end of his speech, Obama stated that he intends to "take out ISIL wherever they exist."
All in all, Barack Obama's speech to the nation was nothing more than an exercise in the live broadcasting of utter insanity. Obama's four-point plan is entirely full of deceit and contradictions.
Obama's statement regarding ISIS in Iraq and Syria is a thinly masked lie covering up the ultimate goal of launching air strikes against the secular government of Assad in Syria. Despite all of the air strikes taking place in Iraq and those to take place in the future, ISIS/ISIL is entirely a creation of the United States and NATO.
In the same speech, Obama professed a desire to cut off funding for ISIL while he simultaneously announced his intention to increase financial and military assistance to ISIL in Syria.
If Obama were truly serious about ending terrorism in Iraq and Syria, he would immediately cease funding it. He would also call on his NATO allies and his allies of the Gulf State feudal monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar to cease their funding and assistance.
Aside from comments that have no basis in reality, such as his statement that "America's manufacturing industries are thriving" and that American businesses are experiencing the "biggest streak of job creation in our history," Obama also took the opportunity to take a jab at what he called "Russian aggression." Taken with the statement that he reserves the right to "use force against anyone that threatens core American interests," one can only surmise that the western provocation in Ukraine will continue as planned.
While echoing the Brzezinski-esque [1] cry for "dignity" Obama also proceeded to take credit for the rescue of the trapped Yazidis on Mount Sinjar despite the fact that it was the Syrian Kurds who rescued the Iraqi victims.
In the end, Barack Obama's statements of aggression and duplicity came as no surprise to informed observers. The Western-backed terrorist organization known as ISIS will be used as an excuse to continue American Imperialism in the Middle East and to justify a military strike on Syria.
Notes:
[1] Tarpley, Webster Griffin, Obama the Postmodern Coup, Progressive Press, 2008
Recently from Brandon Turbeville:

• The Roots of ISIS
• Does Obama Plan To Announce Bombing Of Syria On Eve Of 9/11 Anniversary?
• Talk Of Nuclear War Over Ukraine Beginning To Surface In Mainstream Media

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 300 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Obama's Speech to America: Stop ISIL by Funding ISIL
Activist
Thu, 11 Sep 2014 01:56:00 GMT

LAPD Blames Predictive Software For Misconduct And Abuse, Rather Than Its Own Disinterest In Holding Officers Accountable

from the it's-never-a-cop's-fault dept

As long as we're heading into an age of predictive policing, it's good to know that some police departments are willing to turn the ThoughtCrime scanner on their own employees.

Police departments across the U.S. are using technology to try to identify problem officers before their misbehavior harms innocent people, embarrasses their employer, or invites a costly lawsuit — from citizens or the federal government.

Of course, some of this is just "insider threat" detection that ousts whistleblowers before they can blow the whistle and punishes employees for not adhering to the prevailing mindset. Nothing about this software is anywhere close to perfect, but it's still being used to (hopefully) head off police misconduct before it occurs. But what the system flags doesn't seem to be stopping cops before they do something regrettable.

The systems track factors such as how often officers are involved in shootings, get complaints, use sick days and get into car accidents. When officers hit a specific threshold, they're supposed to be flagged and supervisors notified so appropriate training or counseling can be assigned.

Proponents of the system point out that its largest value is as a deterrent. Even so, it's still relatively worthless.

The Los Angeles Police Department agreed to set up their $33 million early warning systems after the so-called Rampart scandal in which an elite anti-gang unit was found to have beaten and framed suspected gang members. The system was then implemented in 2007.
The LAPD's inspector general found in a recent review that the system was seemingly ineffective in identifying officers who ultimately were fired. The report looked at 748 "alerts" over a four-month period and found the agency took little action in the majority of cases and only required training for 1.3 percent, or 10 alerts, of them.

The LAPD presents this as a software failure -- and some of it is. What's being flagged isn't necessarily indicative of potential misconduct. But beyond the algorithm, there's this integral part which is being ignored.

Experts say the early warning system can be another powerful tool to help officers do their jobs and improve relations, but it is only as good as the people and departments using it… "These systems are designed to give you a forewarning of problems and then you have to do something."

Even the IG's report notices nothing's being done. 748 "alerts" only resulted in action on 10 of them. The LAPD is trying to portray this as a software failure, most likely in hopes of ditching the system that was forced on it by its own bad behavior. (The irony here is that police departments will argue that predictive policing software doesn't work on cops but does work on citizens.)
But it's not just the software. It's the LAPD. Long before the Rampart Scandal of the late 90s uncovered massive corruption in the force, the LAPD's Internal Affairs department was doing absolutely nothing to hold officers accountable for misconduct.

The Christopher Commission (1991) in Los Angeles found that the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) of the LAPD had sustained only 2 percent of the excessive force complaints and stated: "Our study indicates that there are significant problems with the initiation, investigation, and classification of complaints." It called the IAD investigations "unfairly skewed against the complainant."

More recent reports [pdf] still show that public complaints are almost never sustained (3.5%). Even factoring in the much higher rate given to complaints from other officials and officers (45%), the overall rate still routinely sits near 10%.
This isn't just Los Angeles. Overall, the nation's law enforcement agencies are only sustaining 8% of complaints. Officers have seemingly unlimited "strikes" before misconduct costs them their jobs. Combine that with the low sustain rate and officers know they can get away with a lot before they receive any discipline.
And if that isn't enough, these flagging systems create their own perverse incentives:

A 2011 Justice Department report found the New Orleans Police Department's system, adopted roughly two decades ago, was "outdated and essentially exists in name only." Investigators said information was included haphazardly and flagged officers were put into essentially "bad boy school," a one-size-fits-all class seen by some as a badge of honor.

No doubt more than a few New Orleans residents received a few extra nightstick swings/Taser shots just so Officer X could hang with the big boys. Fun stuff.
But on the other side of the coin lies the LA Sheriff's Department -- at least in terms of predictive software.

The sheriff's department has an early warning system. "Our diagnostic systems were fine," said the department's Chief of Detectives, Bill McSweeney, who advised his agency on creation of the warning system. "Our managerial and supervision response was not fine. It's that simple."

The LASD is finally acknowledging that it let its officers (and prison guards) act with impunity for far too many years. The system could have worked -- at least in its limited capabilities -- but no one wanted to follow up on flagged officers. The situation there has deteriorated to the point that the LASD is looking at a few years of federal supervision.
Predictive policing is still a bad idea, even for policing police. While data may help pinpoint problem areas, the flagging systems are far too inaccurate to guarantee hits. But the problem within law enforcement agencies is the lack of accountability, not faulty software. Unless the first problem is addressed, it won't matter how much the software improves in the future.

LAPD Blames Predictive Software For Misconduct And Abuse, Rather Than Its Own Disinterest In Holding Officers Accountable
Wed, 10 Sep 2014 05:00:00 GMT

Dozens of Indiana residents arrested for harvesting ginseng plants too early

Natural medicine is considered contraband without a state-issued license; can only be harvested legally during certain months.

Posted on September 7, 2014 by Site Staff in News

Dried ginseng roots. (Source: Fotalia / Stephanie Fray)

INDIANA — A number of Hoosiers are facing charges and potential jail-time for merely possessing ginseng plants without government permission.

According to media reports, a total of 25 residents were caught up in a government crackdown to ensure compliance with the state’s onerous regulations on the natural plant, desired for its roots.

Indiana dictates every aspect of ginseng cultivation, including the issuance of a state license to “deal” ginseng; prescribing the dates of permissible harvesting; specifying the required plant characteristics before harvesting; controlling where and how it can be grown; controlling when and how it can be harvested; and controlling when, where and how it can be sold.

Ginseng plants ready to harvest. (Source: itmonline.org)

“It is ILLEGAL to buy, sell, or possess any ginseng out of season without written authorization from the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Law Enforcement,” states an official brochurefrom the Indiana DNR.

Individuals are only allowed to harvest ginseng between September 1st and December 31st each year (some restrictions apply).  Selling ginseng is only permitted by licensed individuals between September 1st of the current year through March 31st of the following year (some restrictions apply).

Penalties for violating the various prohibitions on ginseng range between Class A and Class B misdemeanors, with maximum penalties of 1 year and 180 days in jail, respectively.  Indiana Code 14-31-3 covers ginseng regulation and enforcement.

The recent police crackdown involved state conservation officers “acting on tips” regarding unlicensed ginseng growers, and with search warrants they shook down citizens for contraband plants.  Officers arrested or cited individuals in Clark, Harrison, Martin, Orange, Scott, and Washington Counties.  Names of those facing charges, as so far released, includes:

• Derek Durden, 40, Hardinsburg, possession of ginseng during closed season.
• Kyle Sneed, 34, Paoli, possession of ginseng during closed season.
• David Pittman, 56, Paoli, possession of ginseng during closed season, theft.
• Dustin Walton, 33, Hardinsburg, possession of ginseng during closed season, theft.
• Parker Mullins Jr. 18, Hardinsburg, possession of ginseng during closed season.
• William Yockey, 37, Eckerty, possession of ginseng during closed season, resisting law enforcement.
• Michele Reitz, 43, French Lick, possession of ginseng during closed season.
• Starla Enlow, 32, Shoals, possession of ginseng during closed season.
• Randy A. Stidham, 44, Austin, possession of ginseng during closed season.
• Randy L. Stidham, 26, Austin, possession of ginseng during closed season.
• George Stidham, 68, Austin, possession of ginseng during closed season.
• James McCurry, 43, Hardinsburg, possession of ginseng during closed season, theft.
• Devon McCurry, 19, Hardinsburg, possession of ginseng during closed season, theft.
• Daniel Arnold, 30, Salem, possession of ginseng during closed season, theft.

The plant is desired around the world and has a number of professed medicinal benefits, including stress relief, immunity support, blood sugar control, among other things.  Its rarity, usefulness, and black market restrictions enable ginseng to fetch prices between $500 and $1000 per pound.

The black market has also driven people to commit property crimes such as stealing ginseng and secretly growing/harvesting ginseng on land belonging to someone else (to obscure blame for unlicensed cultivation).  Of the listed charges this week, theft was a minority — most people were charged just for possessing ginseng out-of-season.

Setting aside the property violations, would people in a free society be imprisoned for merely possessing a naturally-occurring plant?

{ Support Police State USA }

Dozens of Indiana residents arrested for harvesting ginseng plants too early
Tue, 09 Sep 2014 05:00:00 GMT

Starting today: Massive Times Square Billboard to Show Video of WTC 7 Destruction During 9/11 Anniversary

 

September 9, 2014
Starting today through October 5, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is sponsoring a massive billboard in the heart of Times Square that will show video of 7 World Trade Center’s destruction to millions of viewers and refer them to the campaign website,ReThink911.org.
Towering above the intersection of West 42^nd Street and 8^th Avenue, the two-sided 90 ft. x 45 ft. billboard will display the 15-second ad once every two minutes for four weeks, reaching an estimated 105,000 adults each day, and approximately 3 million during the four-week campaign.
The goal of the ReThink911 campaign is to spark public dialogue around the little-known destruction of WTC 7, which polls in recent years have found nearly half of all Americans and one-third of all New Yorkers do not even know occurred.
However, when people see the collapse, most immediately suspect that it was a controlled demolition because of the unmistakable smooth, symmetrical downward motion. A YouGov poll sponsored by the ReThink911 campaign last year found that 46% of Americans, when shown video of WTC 7’s collapse, are sure or suspect that it was caused by a controlled demolition, compared to only 28% who are sure or suspect it was caused by fires, while 27% are unsure.
“The poll shows quite clearly what we already knew,” observes Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. “Most people who see WTC 7’s collapse have trouble believing that fires brought it down. It simply doesn’t look like a natural building collapse, and that’s because all the columns have been removed at once to allow it to come down symmetrically in free-fall. When every American sees this footage, there will be a widespread outcry for a new investigation, and a new investigation will find that the evidence of controlled demolition is overwhelming.”

Starting today: Massive Times Square Billboard to Show Video of WTC 7 Destruction During 9/11 Anniversary
Tue, 09 Sep 2014 05:00:00 GMT

BRICS keep supporting Russia in bid to rebalance world power

While Western nations beef up economic sanctions and Nato discusses what stance to take toward Russia, the BRICS are maintaining tacit support for Moscow despite the Ukraine crisis.

This is not entirely unexpected. Yet, it suggests that the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) grouping’s commitment to the reform of the international system is to be taken seriously. And the Ukraine crisis has provided the group with a powerful opportunity to voice its shared opposition to Western powers’ self-assigned role as the custodians of the international community.

Shows of support

Last March, the BRICS abstained from a vote at the UN General Assembly condemning Russia’s annexation of Crimea. The group also reacted angrily to comments made by the Australian foreign minister, Julie Bishop, that Russia should be banned from the next November meeting of the G20 group of developed and emerging economies. The group reminded Australia about the equal status of the G20 members:

The custodianship of the G20 belongs to all member states equally and no one member state can unilaterally determine its nature and character.

Moscow was much more easily excluded from this year’s G8(now G7) summit of Western industrialised nations.

Challenging the status quo

The current crisis has exposed the increasingly limited capacity the West has to bring emerging powers in line with their positions. As the West tries to economically punish and politically ostracise Russia over its involvement in Ukraine, Moscow is forging a new economic and financial architecture with what is expected will be the economic powerhouses of the future.

The recent creation of a US$100 billion BRICS development bank and a reserve currency fund worth another US$100 billion, as an alternative to the Western dominated IMF and Wold Bank, are concrete examples of these countries’ intentions and capabilities.

The BRICS have also shown their anti-Western stance by opposing Western attempts to review the international norm of the inviolability of sovereignty. They fiercely criticised the ousting of the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi by a NATO-led intervention in 2011, perceiving it as a violation of the UN Security Council’s resolution 1973, which only authorised intervention in order to protect civilians. But the military operation quickly shifted to full-blown regime change and the assassination of the Libyan leader. They then more vehemently resistedattempts by Western powers to assist rebels in overthrowing Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Brothers in arms. EPA/Jarbas Oliveira

In Ukraine, though, it was Russia that breached the non-intervention principle. By invading and annexing Crimea, Moscow also violated the international norm of not claiming territory by force. Yet, the BRICS maintained their support for Russia.

India and China – which face separatist movements in their own countries – in particular are turning a blind eye to Moscow’s association with pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine.

For them, the exclusion of Russia from the BRICS is not an option. It would be akin to conceding defeat at a time when the group has managed to place itself as a viable political platform to promote meaningful institutional change in international relations.

Final blow

The current dynamic of Western economic sanctions followed by Russia’s counter sanctions, the escalation of hostile language and the growing threat of a wider military conflict involving NATO may well represent the final blow to an already dilapidated international order. This is clearly not good for the West, which has many overlapping interests with Russia from nuclear proliferation to fighting Islamic radicalism. Then there are the economic anxieties brought by imposing sanctions on the Russian economy.

In the long run, the policy of isolating Russia will prove highly disruptive to the international system. It will push Putin towards China, further consolidating a growing, and rather unhelpful, East-West divide in international politics.

Russia’s fellow BRICS may have sufficient leverage to restrain Russia’s aggressive anti-liberal nationalism, at the same time as opening new channels of negotiation with the Western powers. This could be done in the context of the G20 where the BRICS group has made efforts to advance these emerging powers’ agenda of reforms.

The danger, however, is that Russia will remain uncompromising in its opposition to the West and will enjoy full support from the BRICS. And the potential for the two blocs going head to head could well lead to a reform of the international system.