April 2011

Dear Friend of Radio Liberty,

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but which was which." George Orwell, Animal Farm

“… the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” Communist Manifesto

“The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing else but this: power without limit, resting directly upon force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules." Vladimir Lenin

“Despite the solemn promises of rights in the [Soviet-style Communist] Belarusian constitution, all that is not expressly permitted is forbidden. In order to do anything of a public nature, citizens must first announce what they are doing, and name the organization within which the action will take place. The action and the organization must be explicitly approved and registered by the state. When authorities wish for an organization to disappear, they threaten the owner of the building where it has its legal address until it is expelled, then prosecute its members for illegally participating in a group without a legal address. The bugbear of “registration” amounts to an attempt at total social control. Last holiday season fifteen Belarusian citizens, dressed in red and white and wearing false beards, announced that they planned to spread Christmas cheer `as an unregistered association of Santa Clauses.’ They were informed that if they did so they would be prosecuted.” Timothy Snyder, The New York Times Review of Books (1)

How fortunate we are as Americans not to live in a country in which silent dancing at a public monument can be treated as a form of criminal blasphemy!

In Muslim despotisms like Iran and Saudi Arabia, it wouldn’t be surprising to see heavily armed police body-slamming, choking, and otherwise brutalizing peaceful protesters whose only purported crime is to be seen in public silently swaying to music only they can hear. A similar spectacle might unfold at Lenin’s Mausoleum at Red Square, where the Soviet regime displayed the mummified mortal remains of its mass-murdering founder. That macabre shrine has been maintained by Russia “post-Soviet” government as well, and visitors are required to maintain a chastened, reverential silence in the presence of Lenin’s now-empty mortal coil. It’s not difficult to imagine how Russian security personnel would deal with someone who decided to disturb the solemnity by busting out a barely recognizable dance move or two.

Displays of heavy-handed official oppression are to be expected in Tehran, Riyadh, or Moscow, places ruled by Sharia law or the will of “ex”-Communist bureaucrats. Some Americans might be surprised to see such a display unfold in a public monument erected in the memory of Thomas Jefferson. Yet that is exactly what happened on May 28, when a small group of young people gathered at that memorial to stage a silent protest of a federal court ruling upholding a Park Service ban on silent dancing at the site. That ruling grew out of an incident that took place about three years ago.

Shortly before midnight on the evening of April 12, 2008, a small group of people gathered on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington. Armed with iPods and digital video recorders, this small group intended to hold a silent celebration of Jefferson’s 265th birthday.

The celebrants broke no laws, made no noise, and did nothing to offend anyone. Yet the National Park Police quickly descended on the group and ordered it to leave. One young lady quite reasonably asked what they had done wrong. She was promptly assaulted by a Park Policeman, handcuffed, sworn at, and eventually booked on a charge of “interfering with an agency function.” (2)

She was quickly released, and the charge against her was dropped – even though the violent assault on her person couldn’t be undone. This incident, which took place near a memorial to the most anti-authoritarian of our Founding Fathers, potently illustrated the dismal depths to which our once-free country has sunk. That lesson was compounded on May 28, when a scrum of police assaulted another group of demonstrators, displaying the penchant for aggressive overkill that has become a distinguishing trait of the Regime now ruling us.

One of them, Marine combat veteran and former congressional candidate, Adam Kokesh, was violently body-slammed, choked, and pinned to the floor by at least two officers. One of the protesters who recorded that outrage was threatened with arrest for videotaping it without a “permit” – as if the First Amendment weren’t sufficiently explicit on the question.(3)

Some might object that this protest was uncouth and off-putting, but the same criticism could be leveled at the antics of colonial-era activists who dressed up in Indian attire to dump crates of British tea into Boston Harbor. Samuel Adams would understand, and most likely approve of, a mildly ridiculous protest for the purpose of underscoring the casual brutality, senseless cruelty, and authoritarian absurdity that typify those who rule us, and the enforcement bodies that impose the will of that ruling elite on the rest of us.

Kokesh, the nominal ringleader of this harmless and creative protest, points out that it is almost impossible to define, for the purposes of law, what constitutes “dancing” -- and that if that term refers to coordinated rhythmic motion that is at least somewhat aesthetically pleasing, he doubts that his actions qualify. Having viewed the video evidence, I have to agree that if it is a crime to dance in public anywhere, Kokesh’s record remains clean.

But the whole point here is that in Washington, the imperial capital of the purported free world, the operative principle of public order is exactly the same as it is in still-Communist Belarus: That which is not expressly permitted is forbidden.(4) In Belarus this means that people can be locked up for dressing as Santa Claus as part of a group Christmas celebration; in Washington it means that an Iraq war veteran can be body-slammed and choked for moving his legs and shoulders in the Jefferson Memorial.

This is a tiny but telling example of the fact that the padding is being removed from the “soft” totalitarianism that has long prevailed in America. The velvet glove has been removed, and the iron fist beneath it has been revealed in all of its malevolence.

Consider the extra-judicial murder of accused terrorist – and long-time CIA asset – Osama bin Laden, which purportedly took place in Pakistan in early May. If we accept the Regime’s official story at face value, bin Laden – an AARP-age dialysis patient who was unarmed and wearing his nightshirt – was summarily executed by a team of Navy Seals.

No evidence was ever produced to connect bin Laden to the 9-11 atrocities. A few weeks after he was killed, the Regime leaked a story claiming that Osama’s murder was a revenge killing for his alleged role in a 1998 bombing that killed two deep-cover CIA operatives. (5) This was treated as a monumental military and strategic victory. If, once again, that account is accurate, it is a snapshot of a government that has completely repudiated the rule of law – both abroad and at home.

Too many conservatives – including some who call themselves constitutionalists – reflexively applauded the reported death of Osama, and approved the criminal means described in that account. For instance, Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, co-founder of the Senate Tea Party Caucus(6), told reporters that "the United States was right to go into Pakistan without the country’s approval to find Osama bin Laden and that otherwise the al-Qaida leader may have escaped.”(7)

The son of former U.S. Solicitor General Rex E. Lee, Senator Mike Lee has served as general counsel to former Utah Governor (and aspiring Republican presidential candidate) Jon Huntsman, Jr., and been a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. He is a darling of the Federalist Society, which served as an incubator for the Bush administration's fascist policy prescriptions concerning presidential "war powers."

Like many Republicans who reverently invoke "the text and history of the Constitution," Lee subscribes to the maxim inter arma, silent leges -- in time of war, the laws fall silent. He has repeatedly called for putting the axe to the root of the Welfare State, while allowing the Warfare State to continue to grow unabated.

It is in domestic affairs that the Warfare State has displayed the most ominous growth, and engaged in the most horrifying acts of criminal violence. Regarding the reported death of Osama, this is the critical fact to remember: He was an unarmed criminal suspect who was killed while in custody. This approach to “justice” has become widespread in the United States, and its victims include citizens who not only haven’t been convicted of crimes, but who have never been accused of a crime. Indeed, in the case of Jose Guerena, the victim of a summary execution by a death squad, was an honorably discharged two-tour Marine veteran of the Iraq war, a husband and father of two, who had no criminal record of any kind.

Jose was slaughtered in the living room of his Tucson home by a SWAT team on the morning of May 5. The SWAT team supposedly was there to serve a search warrant as part of a raid on four homes allegedly involved in a home invasion robbery ring. The team rolled up to the Guerena home in a Bear Cat armored vehicle at about 9:30 in the morning. At the time, the oldest child, Jose Jr, was in school; Vanessa was doing the laundry; the younger child, four-year-old Joel, was watching a movie. Jose himself was sleeping after pulling a 12-hour graveyard shift at the local copper mine.

The SWAT troops sounded the siren for less than ten seconds, then knocked on the door for a few seconds more and “announced” themselves in a barely discernible voice. The entire “announcement” lasted less than twenty seconds. They then “breached” the door and went into the home with fingers on the triggers of their M16s.

Vanessa, who had seen armed men dressed like soldiers in the family’s yard, woke up Jose and told him that their home was under attack. He told Vanessa to take their child and hide in the closet, while he confronted the intruders. What happened next isn’t clear: By some accounts, Jose took an AR 15 rifle and prepared to defend his wife and child. Vanessa later said she had never seen that rifle before, and told a detective that it had been “thrown” on the living room floor. In either case, there is no dispute that Jose never fired at the invaders. They showed no similar restraint, flinging 71 rounds into the occupied house (some of which exited the rear of the building), at least twenty of which fatally perforated Jose’s body.

Vanessa had called the local paramedics, who arrived within minutes. However, they were prevented by the SWAT team from rendering aid to Jose. One member of the SWAT team was a medic, but he didn’t treat Jose’s wounds, either. In fact, the team didn’t even confirm the kill in person, choosing instead to cower near their armored vehicle while sending in a remote controlled robot to poke and prod Jose as he bled to death. About an hour later the SWAT team confirmed that Jose was dead.

Jose was supposedly a suspect in a criminal ring that trafficked in marijuana and carried out home invasions. He had no criminal record, and was not the subject of an arrest warrant. None of his family, co-workers, or Marine associates believes that he had time or energy to be a crime kingpin in addition to working 12-hour shifts at a mine and raising a young family. If there were legitimate concerns, police could have arrested him or called him in for questioning at their leisure, and conducted a conventional search of the home.

That’s not how things are done in proto-Soviet America. Instead, police now follow what will someday be called the “Jose Guerena Model”: Attack a home with a paramilitary death squad, murder the suspect, then interrogate his terrorized wife. We’re likely to see many more atrocities of this kind until and unless the police are brought to heel.

About two weeks after the murder of Jose Guerena, the Indiana State Supreme Court nullified the Fourth Amendment and the equivalent provision of that state’s constitution, in addition to "a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215," in the words of a wire service report. In a 3–2 decision, the court ruled that Indiana residents have no right to obstruct unlawful police incursions into their homes.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” wrote Justice Steven David. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

Actually, the "risks" to a government-licensed bully in such an encounter are vanishingly small. But we must remember that "officer safety" is the controlling priority in any conflict between a State-sanctified enforcer and a mere Mundane. This is why, as Professor Ivan Bodensteiner of Valparaiso University School of Law observes, "It's not surprising that [the court] would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer." No, that "right" belongs to the costumed thug; the Mundane has no choice but to submit to whatever invasion or injury his tax-sustained assailant sees fit to inflict at the time.

A victim of criminal police aggression "still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system" -- that is, the same court system that has conferred its unconditional benediction on criminal violence by the police. This assumes, of course, that the Mundane survives the initial encounter. As the Guerena family’s experience testifies, this is an increasingly unlikely outcome.

Just a few days later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (9) that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t prevent police pursuing a suspect to barge into the wrong home and arrest people on the basis of “evidence” seized there without either a warrant or probable cause.

As with most rulings of this kind, the case was a byproduct of the Regime’s ongoing Narcotics Price Support Program, or as it’s commonly known, the War on Drugs. Narcotics officers in Lexington, Kentucky went trolling for patsies in a poor neighborhood that is most likely a preferred fishing hole for police looking to fill their unofficial quotas. Using an undercover informant, the narcs set up a “controlled buy” of crack cocaine. Once the transaction was through, the merchant headed back to his apartment, which was one of two that were found at the end of a breezeway. The suspect was seen entering the apartment on the right, but the uniformed officers who arrived at the scene weren’t aware of this fact.

After discerning the aroma of marijuana emanating from the door on the left, the officers banged on it insistently and demanded to be let in. They later said that they “could hear people inside moving,” and what were taken to be the sounds of “things being moved inside the apartment.” Fearful that evidence would be destroyed, the officers kicked in the door, finding three terrified people inside. A “protective sweep” — “officer safety” überalles, you know — revealed a small amount of crack cocaine and marijuana.

A Kentucky Circuit Court ruled that the evidence seized in this warrantless search was admissible because its “consensual entry” was denied, and waiting to obtain a warrant would permit the destruction of evidence. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed that ruling, pointing out that audible noises behind a closed door did not constitute reliable evidence “that evidence was being destroyed.” The state Court noted as well that it is impermissible for police deliberately to create “the exigent circumstances with the bad faith intent to avoid the warrant requirement” found in the Fourth Amendment.

Writing on behalf of the majority, Justice Samuel Alito insisted that the fault resided entirely with defendant Hollis King, who supposedly could have refused to respond to the police (presumably by remaining perfectly silent), or could have come to the door and demanded that the police return with a warrant. “Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame,” sniffed Alito.

“How `secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?” replied Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who – ironically enough – is probably the most radical left-wing member of the Court. “The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”

For several years, many conservatives of a statist bent have insisted that the Regime should be permitted to torture people identified as “terrorists,” since such people aren’t entitled to the protection of legal guarantees such as those found in the Eighth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions. After all, we already know that they’re terrorists, and so they shouldn’t be permitted to withhold evidence. After all, the Constitution “isn’t a suicide pact.” Obviously, the same reasoning applies to the Fourth Amendment’s purported guarantees against warrantless searches.

We really have reached a point at which it is literally impossible to exaggerate the all-encompassing authoritarianism of the government ruling us. It’s enough to make an informed individual long for the relatively innocent days of 1993, when massacres like those that occurred at Ruby Ridge and Waco were anomalies, rather than particularly vigorous exercises of the heavy-handed military tactics that are commonplace in law enforcement. In that bygone time, reports of "black helicopter" sightings were generally dismissed as symptoms of mass derangement. Today, they’re just one of many illustrations of the fact that our society has become a garrison state.

Last April 19 – of all the ironically appropriate dates -- residents of Miami's Brickell neighborhood "saw and heard several military-style, `pitch-black' helicopters flying around and hovering on top of [various] buildings" for several hours, reported the Miami Herald.(10) At least three of the vehicles, described as Black Hawk-style choppers, landed in a parking lot and "then charged over the Brickell and Miami river area. Men who appeared to be SWAT team members were also seen" taking part in the operation.

"Turns out that it was a training exercise by the Southeast Regional Domestic Security Task Force," continued the report. "In other words, a Homeland Security operation, that few other authorities apparently knew about, including the U.S. Coast Guard."

A spokesman for the Miami-Dade Police Department told the Herald that the military helicopters were involved in "an `operational' training drill" but insisted that he "was not allowed to comment on details of the drill." The story dutifully quotes a properly subservient local Mundane named Neilson Paty, who "said he is understanding of the city having its reasons to not inform residents about the drill and that he is not upset for not getting any alerts of the commotion."

With black helicopters plying the skies above American cities, “stealth choppers” reportedly being used by presidential assassination teams, and Third World-style death squads gunning Marine veterans down – not only in Tucson, but, lest we forget, in Wilmington, Delaware as well [11]– it appears that reality has caught up with the most emancipated fever dreams of people once dismissed as paranoid.

Vladimir Lenin defined his theory of totalitarian rule as “power without limit, resting directly on force, restrained by no laws…” Communism exists wherever government exercises power of that kind. Is that not a perfect description of the system afflicting us today, in post-Christian, post-Constitution America?

In the vile system Lenin and his comrades (acting on behalf of the semi-submerged Brotherhood of Darkness) imposed on Russia, the Nomenklatura. or ruling elite. was insulated from the law, and the common people were deprived of all legal protections. That is exactly our situation as Americans today.

Writing of the question “Is it legal?” commentator Tom Englehardt observes: “When it comes to any act of the National Security Complex, it’s obviously inapplicable in a land where the rule of law no longer applies to everyone. If you are an ordinary citizen, of course, it applies to you, but not if you are part of the state apparatus that officially protects you. The institutional momentum behind this development is simple enough to demonstrate: it hardly mattered that, after George W. Bush took off those gloves, the next president elected was a former constitutional law professor.”

“Theoretically, the National Security Complex exists only to protect you,” continues Englehardt. to post-legal America. It's time to stop wondering whether its acts are illegal and start asking: Do you really want to be this `safe’?”(12)

Our Creator intended for us to be free, not “safe.” Supplanting Him, his law, and the freedom He ordained are part of the Babylonian view of government. In creating the Babylonian state – the template from which every other terrestrial government has been struck -- Nimrod “gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power.”(13) (Emphasis added)

For several generations, Americans have been seduced into accepting the Babylonian bargain – comfort, protection, and “safety” in exchange for freedom and individual responsibility. Rather than standing as free men, they were content to curl up in the State’s “sheltering” hand, reveling in the velvety softness of the glove that cushioned the unyielding iron beneath, and tranquilized by the misplaced confidence that the iron hand would ever and always be used only against our “enemies” abroad.

That glove is now gone, and the iron hand is pitilessly tightening its grip.

Written by William Grigg.

What does the future hold? I believe the economy will continue to contract because the 6 major (BOD) banks, and the major (BOD) corporations that control the U.S. economy, are sitting on $5 trillion, and won’t invest that money. Why are the BOD banks and corporations withholding the investment funds? I believe they are following the long-term timetable they call “the Plan.” I believe they want to destroy the current economic system, and install a world government.

What is the next major event? I believe the U.S. will be drawn into a major war in the Middle East, but the timing is uncertain. What is the basis of that belief? Lindsey Williams called me in mid-October 2010, and told me a high-ranking member of the BOD (Ken Fromm) told him there would be a major conflict in the Middle East in 4-6 months, and the price of oil would increase to $150-200 a barrel. The conflict has broken out, but the price of oil hasn’t increased. How will the BOD raise the price of oil to $150-200 a barrel? I fear the BOD is going to incite a major war in the Middle East, and disrupt the supply of oil from that region. Will that happen? Only time will tell.

How will you sustain your faith and your sanity during the difficult times that lie ahead? I suggest you remember James Russell Lowell’s prophetic assurance that:

Barbara and I appreciate your faithful prayers and your loyal support.

Yours in Christ, Stanley Monteith www.radioliberty.com

REFERENCES

[1] “In Darkest Belarus,” by Timothy Snyder, The New York Times Review of Books, October 28, 2010.
[2] Oberwetter v. Hillard, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, case no. 10-5078; published May 17, 2011
[3] “Jefferson Memorial Dancing a No-No,” Tom Sherwood, NBC Washington News, May 18, 2011; see also the video of this incident at YouTube – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jUU3yCy3uI
[4] Belarus has been ruled by “Europe’s last dictator,” Communist thug Alexandr Lukashenko, since 1994; it still uses the red hammer and sickle banner as its flag. See the BBC country profile at -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1102180.stm
[5] “Secret Until Now: Osama Raid Avenged CIA Deaths,” AP, May 29, 2011
[6] “Sen. Mike Lee Champions new Tea Party Caucus,” Deseret News, January 27, 2011
[7] “Senator Mike Lee Responds to Criticism over Mission to Kill Osama bin Laden,” Noah Bond, ABC4.com News, May 4, 2011
[8] For a detailed and developing account of the Jose Guerena murder (with links to key documents on the case0, see the series of essays on the subject at Pro Libertate (freedominourtime.blogspot.com): “Why Did Police Kill My Dad?” (May 13 edition) – http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-did-police-kill-my-dad.html; “Death Squad Damage Control in Tucson” (May 23 edition) -- http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-squad-damage-control-in- tucson.html; and “What Were You Guys Thinking? Why Did You Kill Him?” (May 27 edition) -- http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-were-you-guys-thinking- why-did-you.html
[9] U.S. Supreme Court, Kentucky v. King, case no. 09-1272
[10] “Military Choppers Startle Downtown Miami,” Lidia Dinkova, Miami Herald, April 20, 2011.
[11] Marine veteran Derek Hale was murdered by a paramilitary police tactical team in Wilmington, Delaware in November 2000-.Derek Hale, who was not the subject of an arrest warrant or criminal investigation, was unarmed and sitting on the front porch of a friend’s home. He was hit with no fewer than seven Taser strikes, then shot at point-blank range while writhing on the ground in a puddle of his own vomit. Nobody was ever held accountable for the crime. For details please see the essay “Coda to a Killing: No Justice for Derek Hale,” Pro Libertate, December 15, 2010, at – http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/12/coda-to-killing-no-justice-for-derek.html
[12] Tom Englehardt, “Welcome to `Post-Legal America,’” LewRockwell.com, May 31, 2011 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt423.html)
[13] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. I Chapter 4:2 – “Concerning the Tower of Babylon, and the Confusio, OD) corporations that control the U.S. economy of Tongues.”

Return to Radio Liberty home page