~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G ~WAKE UP AMERICA.1984.+ IS HERE!: POLICE AS A STANDING ARMY, Right To Be Left Alone, Etc………?
It is largely forgotten that the war for American independence was initiated in large part by the British Crown‘s practice of using troops to police civilians in Boston and other cities.244 Professional soldiers used in the same ways as modern police were among the primary grievances enunciated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. (“[George III] has kept among us standing armies”;
“He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power”; “protecting them, by a mock trial….”).245 The duties of such troops were in no way military but involved the keeping of order and the suppression of crime (especially customs and tax violations).
Constitutional arguments quite similar to the thesis of this article were made by America’s Founders while fomenting the overthrow of their government. Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that although Parliament was supreme in its jurisdiction to make laws, “his majesty has no right to land a single armed man on our shores” to enforce unpopular laws.246 James Warren said that the troops in Boston were there on an unconstitutional mission because their role was not military but rather to enforce “obedience to Acts which, upon fair examination, appeared to be unjust and unconstitutional.”247 Colonial pamphleteer Nicholas Ray charged that Americans did not have “an Enemy worth Notice within 3000 Miles of them.”248 “[T]he troops of George the III have cross’d the wide atlantick, not to engage an enemy,” charged John Hancock, but to assist constitutional traitors “in trampling on the rights and liberties of [the King’s] most loyal subjects …”249
The use of soldiers to enforce law had a long and sullied history in England and by the mid-1700s were considered a violation of the fundamental rights of Englishmen.250 The Crown’s response to London’s Gordon Riots of 1780 — roughly contemporary to the cultural backdrop of America’s Revolution — brought on an immense popular backlash at the use of guards to maintain public order.251 “[D]eep, uncompromising opposition to the maintenance of a semimilitary professional force in civilian life” remained integral to Anglo-Saxon legal culture for another half century.252
Englishmen of the Founding era, both in England and its colonies, regarded professional police as an “alien, continental device for maintaining a tyrannical form of Government.”253 Professor John Phillip Reid has pointed out that few of the rights of Englishmen “were better known to the general public than the right to be free of standing armies.”254 “Standing armies,” according to one New Hampshire correspondent, “have ever proved destructive to the Liberties of a People, and where they are suffered, neither Life nor Property are secure.”255
If pressed, modern police defenders would have difficulty demonstrating a single material difference between the standing armies the Founders saw as so abhorrent and America’s modern police forces. Indeed, even the distinctions between modern police and actual military troops have blurred in the wake of America’s modern crime war.256 Ninety percent of American cities now have active special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams, using such commando-style forces to do “high……..
From: Saint Dick !!!!!!!!!!
AMERICA’s LAST CHANCE TO CONTROL WASHINGTON?
THE ONE AND ONLY SHOT IN THE @$$ FOR AMERICA’s STOCKHOLM SYNDROME !!!!!
James Madison is commonly referred to as the Father of the Constitution in large measure because, in the secrecy of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, he kept the most complete set of notes.
He also had a very keen mind and a modest demeanor and an uncanny ability to solidify consensus around basic principles that are woven into the Constitution.
Fox News.com ^ | September 11, 2014 |
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Posted on 9/11/2014, 1:21:43 PM by KaslinJames Madison is commonly referred to as the Father of the Constitution in large measure because, in the secrecy of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, he kept the most complete set of notes.
He also had a very keen mind and a modest demeanor and an uncanny ability to solidify consensus around basic principles that are woven into the Constitution.After he wrote the Constitution and before he became Thomas Jefferson’s secretary of state and eventually a two-term president, he was a congressman from Virginia.
There Are No Virgins In Virginia
There Are No Virgins In Virginia 30 Jun, 2014 by Dave Hodges Print this article Font size -16+MONIKA AND DYLAN
The term “virgin” is a term which refers to being of, or in a pristine and undisturbed state. There is nothing pristine or undisturbed about the conduct of many of Virginia’s public servants. After reading these representative accounts of the conduct of various Virginia’s officials, you will quickly conclude that there are no virgins left in Virginia.
Today at 4pm CT Virginia Farver & Smart Meters, Electronic Harassment, Induced Passivity | Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show
Today at 4pm CT Virginia Farver & Smart Meters, Electronic Harassment, Induced PassivityToday at 4pm CT Virginia Farver & Smart Meters, Electronic Harassment, Induced Passivity 19 Jun, 2014 by Dave Hodges Print this article Font size -16+The Common Sense ShowJune 19, 2014 Once again, Dave Hodges fills in for John Stadtmiller on The National Intel Report from 4-6 pm CT today. Dave will be interviewing Virginia Farver who will be discussing the dangers of Smart Meters, cell phone towers and Wi-fi.
CONGRESSMAN: HOUSE WOULD VOTE TO IMPEACH
WND ^ | 6-17-14 | BOB UNRUHPosted on 6/18/2014, 10:31:12 PM by kingattaxAnother member of the U.S. House has joined the conversation about the possibility of impeaching President Obama for illegal activities, confirming his colleagues probably would vote for the move.
And it’s put us in a real … position where he’s just absolutely ignoring the Constitution, ignoring the laws, ignoring the checks and balances,” he said.“The problem is, what do you do? … For those who say impeach him for breaking the laws or not enforcing the laws, you know. Could that pass, in the House? It probably, it probably could.