Sunday, March 26, 2017

BLM Attempted Robbery of Bundy Cattle



BLM Attempted Robbery of Bundy Cattle 
The Tyranny of the Federal Government

By de Andréa,
Opinion Editorialist for
‘THE BOTTOM LINE’

Posted March 26, 2017



The “Battle of Bunkerville” Nevada lasted six days in April 2014, eventually ending without any gunfire. (Photo: Reuters)

An update on the BLM vs. Cliven Bundy…
Fraudulently misrepresenting themselves to be documentary filmmakers, FBI agents gathered footage played in court this week in the trial of six men who participated in a nearly weeklong standoff with federal agents in defense of Cliven Bundy’s Nevada cattle ranch in April 2014.
FBI Special Agent Charles Johnson gave detailed testimony this week about the footage, said to be shot for a production called “America Reloaded,” which effectively drew statements from at least three of the men on trial, according to reports.
In footage played Thursday, defendant Gregory Burleson told the undercover agents he was ready to kill federal agents, and was disappointed things ended without bloodshed, according to KLAS-TV.   Just the day before, a federal informant testified that Burleson was a paid FBI informant in 2012, though it’s unclear when or if he ever stopped working for the feds.
“What I was looking for was just a show of support,” defendant Scott Drexler told the fraudulent undercover filmmakers, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “It seems as if when there are armed people around a situation, then the authorities have to be a little more civil, have to treat you like a person. If nobody is facing any kind of consequences for their actions, they can just do whatever they want.”
The “Battle of Bunkerville” started after Bundy refused to pay more than two decades of illegally charged federal fees, which he racked up after allowing his cows to graze on American public lands which the BLM claims as its own. The Bureau of Land Management officials went to Bundy’s ranch to steal his cattle in lieu of the $1 million in fees. But Bundy, his sons, and dozens of others showed up to stop the BLM agents, in what prosecutors called “a massive armed assault against federal law enforcement officers.”  When what it really was, was a defense of Cliven Bundy’s property against an illegal warrantless confiscation of Bundy’s personal property, by an illegal department of the Federal Government which according to the U.S. Federal Constitution, isn’t allowed to own or control public land.
“We had the cowboys and Cliven all down below us, and BLM on the other side of the gate,” said Drexler in the footage, adding that when BLM “started moving to the gate with their military weapons and full combat gear, it started to get a little bit tense.”  It appeared that the FBI wanted another Waco or a Ruby Ridge altercation. Just itching for an excuse to blow somebody away. 
One of the undercover agents asked him what would happen if “somebody just farted.” Drexler said, “I don’t think a loud fart woulda put anyone off, but a gunshot sure would have.”
“I want to stand for the Constitution,” said Eric Parker in the video. “I don’t think you have to be in the militia for that.”
In the end no shots were fired, and the standoff ended peacefully when BLM officials finally backed off and abandoned their illegal theft efforts. A total of 19 people were eventually arrested and jailed in connection with the six-day standoff. The current trial is the first of three expected to happen this year.

THE BOTTOM LINE:  Well this my friend should be part of Trumps “Draining of the Swamp.”  The BLM is clearly part of the Federal tyranny that has evolved now for over two hundred years with the unconstitutional illegal land grab beginning around 1976.   

 Here is the text of the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, Congress was given exclusive authority over a ten square mile area to be designated the Seat of Government)
“The people of the United States empower the congress to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And, Congress has the power to set up a national capital of the United States that is outside the jurisdiction of any state. (Congress used this power to create Washington, DC, on swampland along the Potomac River that was originally part of Maryland.) Congress also has ultimate authority over all federal military facilities, even if they're located within particular states.”

    And yet the Federal BLM claims they own nearly 80 % of the western United States as seen on the BLM Map.   

It is time to overthrow the Dark State, the illegal shadow government that has taken over our country.  

Thanks for listening my friend!  Now go do the right thing and fight for freedom. 
- de Andréa
Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.
The Fine Print
Copyright © 2014 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved -  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.

Sunday, March 19, 2017



Kindergarten Teachers Receive Threats of Beheading From Muslim Students

By de Andréa,
Opinion Editorialist for
‘THE BOTTOM LINE’

Posted March 19, 2017


It would be hard to believe that students as young as five would threaten to behead their teacher unless one is a student of Islam.  This is the report coming from Sydney Australia. Teachers are reporting that they and other Infidel students are being threatened by Muslim boys as young as five.

Question: What causes you to think that AMERICAN MUSLIMS are any different?  A Muslim is a Muslim, no matter where they are my friend. There is no such thing as a little bit Muslim, any more than one could be a little bit pregnant.

“Teachers at a primary school in Sydney, Australia have been threatened with beheading and other violence from young Islamic students, prompting one of them to quit her job.
Students as young as those in Year 5, according to the Daily Telegraph, are making the violent threats and pressuring others to read the Koran at Punchbowl Public School in Sydney.
Documents given to the newspaper allege that three staff members have taken a leave of absence owing to stress, received counselling and been awarded compensation after bullying from Islamic students.
One female teacher reportedly quit her job after it got too much for her. She claims she quit after receiving death threats to her family from her year 5 and 6 students, with some saying they would behead her.”
It would seem that no matter what, the so-called claimed “religion of peace” continues to produce the most violent young children already brainwashed as young as five. Islam young men clearly have no respect for the opposite sex, more importantly they have no respect for the opposite anything. They act as if the women, especially non-Muslim women are for their entertainment. Now, the children are showing what the religious ideology really practices.  Never forget, it is the young that practice most purely what their parents teach.

Estimates are that about 9 million Muslims of all ages are living in the United States in 2016, there are even more today and some of them are ISIS terrorists. This means that Muslims make up approximately 3% of the total U.S. population (which was a total of more than 322 million people in 2015), and I estimate that the Muslim share will double to 6% by 2035.  

Watch a Demographics report of 2016.  It will only take a Muslim population of about 4.5% to begin the slippery slope of no return to overthrow the Free Republic of America, turning it into a Muslim State. By then Europe and Australia will already be Muslim States  

THE BOTTOM LINE: Are you sure that you want your children and grandchildren subjected to this inevitability of beheading in public schools? Within the next 12 years, children killing children as well as teachers will be an everyday occurrence, as it is in many Muslim countries today.  

10 years ago I predicted that Europe would be on that slippery slope of no return to becoming an Islamic State and today that prediction is no longer a prediction, it’s now a reality.  We in the U.S. still have a couple of years to stop this inevitability, and even turn it around.  But only if “We The People” act by flooding Congress with emails now – here, by telling them to stop immigration from Islamic countries altogether.  And tell the autocratic over reaching Judges to go-suck-an egg!  The judicial has become unconstitutional, read it...

Like it or not we are at war for our very survival against the evil ideology of Islam.  You must convince your Representatives to actually read the complete Quran and  Hadith.  If the American Government would have read Hitler’s Nazi books ‘Mien Kampf’ and ‘The Third Reich’ in the early 1930s we could have headed off the Second World War in Europe.  And now we have made an even more serious mistake by not reading Mahammad’s books the Quran and the Hadith because Islam is Nazism on Metabolic Steroids.  

We cannot win this war if we fail to identify and eliminate the cause, because it will eat us from the inside like a killer parasite.     

Thanks for listening my friend!  Now go do the right thing and fight for freedom. 
- de Andréa
Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.
The Fine Print
Copyright © 2014 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved -  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.

Saturday, March 18, 2017

A German Nurse Tells It Like It Is



A German Nurse Tells It Like It Is

By de Andréa,
Opinion Editorialist for
‘THE BOTTOM LINE’

Posted March 18, 2017


The following email letter was sent to me by one of my subscribers.  The writer tells the story the German government won’t allow the media to print.  So she leaks illegal emails to people in the U.S.  Leaks have become one of the only ways we can hear the truth of what is going on in the world these days. Because the truth has been forced underground my friend.

Just in case you don't think President Trump is doing the right thing! Read it!

Then pass this on to everyone you know!

****************

The email is titled: NURSE IN GERMANY SENDS A MESSAGE TO THE WORLD

"Yesterday, at the hospital, we had a meeting about how the situation here and at the other Munich hospitals is unsustainable. Clinics cannot handle the number of migrant medical emergencies, so they are starting to send everything to the main hospitals.

Many Muslims are refusing treatment by female staff, and we women are now refusing to go among those migrants!

Relations between the staff and migrants are going from bad to worse. Since last weekend, migrants going to the hospitals must be accompanied by police with K-9units.
 
Many migrants have AIDS, syphilis, open TB and many exotic diseases that we in Europe do not know how to treat.

If they receive a prescription to the pharmacy, they suddenly learn they have to pay cash. This leads to unbelievable outbursts, especially when it is about drugs for the children. They abandon the children with pharmacy staff with the words: So, cure them here yourselves!

So the police are not just guarding the clinics and hospitals, but also the large pharmacies.

We ask openly where are all those who welcomed the migrants in front of TV cameras with signs at train stations? Yes, for now, the border has been closed, but millions of them are already here and we will definitely not be able to get rid of them.

Until now, the number of unemployed in Germany was 2.2 million. Now it will be at least 3.5 million. Most of these people are completely unemployable. Only a small minimum of them have any education. What is more, their women usually do not work at all. I estimate that one in ten is pregnant. Hundreds of thousands of them have brought along infants and little kids under six, many emaciated and very needy.

If this continues and Germany re-opens its borders, I am going home to the Czech Republic. Nobody can keep me here in this situation, not even for double the salary back home, I came to Germany to work, not to Africa or the Middle East!

Even the professor who heads our department told us how sad it makes him to see the cleaning woman, who has cleaned every day for years for 800 euros and then meets crowds of young men in the hallways who just wait with their hands outstretched, wanting everything for free, and when they don't get it they throw a fit.

I really don't need this! But I am afraid that if I return home, at some point it will be the same in the Czech Republic. If the Germans, with their systems, cannot handle this, then, guaranteed, back home will be total chaos.

You - who have not come in contact with these people have absolutely no idea what kind of badly behaved desperados these people are, and how Muslims act superior to our staff, regarding their religious accommodation.

For now, the local hospital staff have not come down with the diseases these people brought here, but with so many hundreds of patients every day of this is just a question of time.

In a hospital near the Rhine, migrants attacked the staff with knives after they had handed over an 8-month-old on the brink of death, who they'd dragged across half of Europe for three months. The child died two days later, despite having received top care at one of the best pediatric clinics in Germany. The pediatric physician had to undergo surgery and the two nurses are recovering in the ICU. Nobody has been punished.

The local press is forbidden to write about it, so we can only inform you through email. What would have happened to a German if he had stabbed the doctor and nurses with a knife? Or if he had flung his own syphilis-infected urine into a nurses face and so threatened her with infection? At a minimum he would have gone straight to jail and later to court. With these people so far, nothing has happened,

And so I ask: Where are all those greeters and receivers from the train stations? Sitting pretty at home, enjoying their uncomplicated, safe lives. If it were up to me, I would round up all those greeters and bring them here first to our hospitals emergency ward as attendants! Then in to one of the buildings housing the migrants, so they can really look after them there themselves, without armed police and police dogs, who, sadly today, are in every hospital here in Bavaria."

Is this "situation" coming to your country?

"IF YOU DO NOT TAKE AN INTEREST IN THE AFFAIRS OF YOUR GOVERNMENT, THEN YOU ARE DOOMED TO LIVE UNDER THE RULE OF FOOLS”. – PLATO

(Emphasis is mine)

************

THE BOTTOM LINE:  This German Bavarian Nurse from the Czech Republic is telling you what I have been trying my best to tell the West was coming for the past 20 years.  And now… I am telling you that what has come to Europe is what is also coming to America within the next 10 years.  Moreover as the German nurse said “Yes, for now, the border has been closed, but millions of them are already here and we will definitely not be able to get rid of them.”  In addition she said, and I quote.  “If this continues and Germany re-opens its borders, I am going home to the Czech Republic.”

The question I have for you my friend is, where are ‘you’ going home to, when this comes to America.  And it will, unless you do something about it NOW!

Moreover if you think this is cruel or mean and that these poor people have a right to live too!  Then think again.  They have the same right that we do…to live in their own country and make it what they want it to be, just as our forefathers did in 1776 here in America.  The documented historical truth is that Muslims have destroyed every country they have lived in.  Because as you can see from the letter, Muslims are incompatible with any other society or culture in the world.   And they will destroy Europe, as well as America and they will make it their own. Because they do not, and cannot, and will not assimilate.

The proof is - that they have done this for more than 1400 years…moreover, they are not about to stop now.
   
Now go do the right thing and fight for freedom by sending this article to everyone you know and some you don’t know.  Then send it to your Representatives HERE! It’s the least you can do for your country. 

Thanks for listening my friend!    
- de Andréa
Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.
The Fine Print
Copyright © 2014 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved -  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.


Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Gingrich, On The Deep State


“Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self.”- Cyril Connolly (1903 - 1974)

Gingrich, On The Deep State


By de Andréa,
Opinion Editorialist for
‘THE BOTTOM LINE’

Posted March 15, 2017


If you are a regular reader of mine, you will know that this is not the first time I have written about the existence of a powerful Shadow Government in America.  And sometimes resulting in a lot of conspiracy theory flack in return.

But now…finally someone from the Beltway with the guts to admit that there is in fact a Coup de tat. A Shadow Government that actually runs the country and maybe the world.

Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich discussed the Deep State with White House Staffer Bannon.
The White House and its allies are stepping up their attacks on a foe typically associated with fragile third world regimes, military coups and a Tom Clancy spy thriller.
The "deep state," a shadowy network of powerful Communists and their “Useful Idiots” entrenched in Federal, and state governments, as well as in banking, independent regulatory agencies and military interests, has increasingly become the focus of Conservative Republicans who accuse such well-placed forces of trying to undermine the newly elected president.  Moreover I suggest that this is also due to the influence of the infiltration of Islam in government posts during the Islamic Obama Regime.
Though senior White House staff members don't use the exact label of the “Deep State” for fear of personal attack as I have had to endure, the notion behind it has taken hold. President Donald Trump claims his predecessor tapped his phone and America's intelligence agencies have conspired to leak harmful information to embarrass him. His chief strategist has vowed to dismantle the permanent Washington "administrative state." (Code for Deep State)  White House spokesman Sean Spicer says "people that burrowed into government are trying to sabotage the president.”
To Trump's critics, these assertions come off as paranoid fear of a non-existent shadow government and an effort to create a scapegoat for the White House's struggles. It’s called the demonization of truth.  But to Trump's supporters, this represents an overdue challenge to an elite ruling class concerned only with maintaining its own grasp on power.
"Of course, the deep state exists. There's a permanent state of massive bureaucracies that do whatever they want and set up deliberate leaks to attack the president," said Newt Gingrich, a Trump confidant. "This is what the deep state does: They create a lie, spread a lie, fail to check the lie and then deny that they were behind the lie."
Historians believe the concept of the "deep state" comes from Turkey, where the term "derin devlet" meant a clandestine network, a “State within a State,” including intelligence and military officers, which protected the ruling class in the 1920’s and the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Similar ideas have taken hold in Egypt where the revived Ottoman Empire in 1928 is now headquartered called the Muslim Brotherhood, and the military has allied itself with powerful business interests, in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, with its robust intelligence service.
In its current use, the concept has been twisted, broadened, and infiltrated encompassing a quiet resistant bureaucracy and a regulatory regime - rather than the foreshadowing of some sort of in your face violent Coup of military intervention. Chief Trump strategist Steve Bannon has offered the loudest warnings about the opposition the president is facing from the deep state.
In his only public speech since the election, Bannon told a conservative group that the White House's goal was the "deconstruction of the administrative state," (code for Shadow Government) a reflection of his belief that the massive federal government, with its burdensome regulations, does more to hinder than uplift citizens. It also echoes Bannon's oft-stated worldview, frequently on display at his former news site Breitbart, that a global power structure — including government institutions — has rigged the economy, referring to the Federal Reserve and the International Central Banking System controlled by the eight families of banking and the Rothschild’s.
Gingrich, who says he has discussed the deep state with Bannon, likens its dangers to the plotline of the new season of "Homeland," in which a conspiracy that includes career intelligence officers tries to subvert a president-elect. It seems that Hollywood may actually be way ahead of politics.
"They are fighting to keep hold of their power," said the former House speaker, who asked a reporter not to spoil the two Homeland episodes of the season he has not yet seen.
The sprawling federal government, including its intelligence agencies, has thousands of employees who predate Trump by decades, a mix of career staffers and those appointed by President Barack Obama whose replacements have yet to be named or approved. Some have offered leaks, including sensitive documents, to reporters that provide a critical take on the president.
Trump has rightly insinuated that those holdovers are working against him — even suggesting that leaks from intelligences agencies were reminiscent of smear tactics utilized by Nazi Germany. Moreover it is now becoming quite clear that he is absolutely correct.
Asked if the White House believes there is "a deep state that's actively working to undermine the president," Spicer guardedly said recently, "I don't think it should come as any surprise that there are people that burrowed into government during eight years of the last administration and, you know, may have believed in that agenda and want to continue to seek it."
Sean Hannity, a Fox News host who has close to ties to Trump, opened a show last week by claiming there are "deep state Obama holdover government bureaucrats who are hell-bent on destroying this president. It's time for the Trump administration to begin to purge these saboteurs before it's too late," Said Hannity.
Trump allies note that is customary for presidents to install loyalists and point to Abraham Lincoln's move to push out Southerners from the federal bureaucracy on the eve of the Civil War. The government has also gone through previous spasms of internal suspicion, most notably in the 1950s when Sen. Joseph McCarthy led a witch hunt to root out what he claimed were communist sympathizers supposedly trying to undermine Washington from within. It turns out that he was correct.
Experts ignorantly warn that Trump's attacks could lead to faster erosion of faith in government institutions.
"The more he talks about a deep state cabal against him, the less trust people will have in government," said Matthew Hale, a political science professor at Seton Hall University. "It's damaging to democracy."  Well it just supports my stand on education. It too is corrupt, professor’. To blindly trust the government is what has led to this Coup. Furthermore this country was never meant to be a democracy. Read the real history book, the one that records that America was meant to be a ‘Constitutional Free Representative Republic’, not a democracy.
Some of Trump's allies have, without evidence, the opposition says, seized upon Obama's decision to remain in Washington after leaving office as evidence that he is leading the resistance. The former president has said he is staying in the nation's capital until his youngest daughter finishes school, time will tell.
"He's only there for one purpose and one purpose only and that is to run a shadow government that is totally going to upset the new agenda," said Rep. Mark Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican, at an event in his home district last week. His office later walked back the remarks, he too’, is afraid for his life.
THE BOTTOM LINE:  Several years ago I introduced this discovery of a Shadow Government and was yet again demonized by some of you as a conspiracy nut.  Many Presidents as well as other elected officials have been assassinated in the last 200 years by this very Shadow Government now referred to as the “DEEP STATE.”  Moreover, I don’t know what you think about the credibility of Newt Gingrich but he’, like myself is a student as well as a teacher of history.  And it’s been my experience that anyone who knows the truth of roads well-traveled, also can see what is down the road ahead.  
As I said at the beginning, finally someone credible from the Beltway with guts enough to admit that there is in fact a Coup de tat. A Shadow Government called “Deep State” that actually runs the country and by indirect means, the entire world.

“The further back one looks, the further forward one can see”- Sir Winston Churchill. 

Thanks for listening my friend!  Now go do the right thing and fight for freedom. 
- de Andréa
Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.
The Fine Print
Copyright © 2014 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved -  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Who Delineates Your Rights?

"The preservation of a free government requires, not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained, but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are TYRANTS. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves..." -James Madison

Who Delineates Your Rights?

By de Andréa,
Opinion Editorialist for
‘THE BOTTOM LINE’

Posted February, 2017

 
The latest Wiki-leak reminds us: "If you don't step up, then you're doomed to be stepped on."

If the governments or its courts don't respect your rights, does that mean that you don't have them? Or is it within the purview of the government or its courts to decide what rights you have, and therefore to authoritatively determine whether yours are being respected or not?

If the governments or its courts refuse to obey the Constitution, does that mean the Constitution is not the law? Or are the government and its courts the proper authorities to decide what the Constitution requires of them, and therefore to determine whether they are going to obey it or not?

If the governments or its courts treat words of the law as meaning something they don't say and demonstrably didn't mean when they were written (or as not meaning what they DO say), do those words then actually not mean what they say? Is everyone supposed to respectfully say, "Gee, I would have thought...? Oh, well… Guess I was mistaken..." No you weren’t.

I could ask these questions on a daily basis in regard to news from Washington and various state capitals with equal relevance. Today it is the latest Wikileaks whistleblowing that prompts these reflections.

Last week the heroic exposé organization revealed that the CIA has been engaged in an utterly despotic and downright psychopathic-creepy spying program involving invasions and data-seizures--or efforts to become capable of invading and plundering-- of and from every smart-phone in America (as well as other places.  The program even goes so far as to involve hidden remote switch-on-s of "smart"-TV microphones for the purpose of surreptitiously recording conversations in the homes of anyone with a susceptible device.
Understand that these are not tools needed for conducting legitimate, warranted surveillance on U.S. Citizens. Any legitimate, warranted surveillance has no need of broad, indiscriminate capabilities. These are tools to be used on our enemy. Are we, the citizens the enemy of this State? 

Legitimate, warranted surveillance is accomplished by the narrow application of court-approved, target-specific equipment or other tools. Broad, indiscriminate capability is only necessary for conducting broad, indiscriminate surveillance without authorization.

Further, the CIA's program pre-emptively-- and without the knowledge or approval of any court or any cause whatsoever-- puts its ears in everyone's house. This is done through a deliberate deception practiced upon every consumer, not one of whom would knowingly purchase the compromised device (or one capable of being compromised).

The program pre-emptively imposes nakedness upon a broad swath of people on the proposition that no one will look. We are to imagine that the saintly and law-respecting folks who work at the spy agency will forbear looking and listening through these pre-installed peepholes without gaining probable cause to do so in some other way, and then seeking and getting permission from an institutionally-skeptical higher authority.

The rationale and the mythology supporting it are B.S on steroids. There is no valid purpose for a program like this; the program's offense is complete before and without regard to whether anyone is actually spied upon. In its malicious essence, this program is indistinguishable from treating everyone worse than a dog.

BUT HEY! It's the government doing it, so must mean it's legal, right? At least necessary for National security.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

What's more, this panopticon program is of the same character as the broad, Hooveristic NSA surveillance that has been approved in its indiscriminate darkness by the Illegal unconstitutional FISA courts and a couple of select congressional committees and the last several presidents, too. So, again, it must be what the law allows, right?

Well, that's actually going to be the unspoken functional conclusion, or underpinning, of most of the discourse concerning the illegal CIA peep-hole program. Some talk of the Fourth Amendment will take place but it won't amount to much, because too many Americans relinquish their power and responsibility and answer "Yes" to those six questions with which I began this commentary. I hope you won't do that.

I also urge you all to understand that what you read there is utterly unknown by pretty-much 100% of the lawyers who take on Fourth Amendment violations. More to the point, what you read there is utterly unknown by pretty-much 100% of the lawyers who don't take on Fourth Amendment violations, even when they have happened, because they don't know this material and therefore don't know that a violation has occurred.

The reason for that latter problem is that lawyers, more than any others, are conditioned to the rule-of-law-crushing habit of submissiveness to government and its courts as the determiners of what is and isn't the law. Lawyers are trained to answer "Yes" to each of the questions with which I began this commentary.

So, being victims of bad habits and deep conditioning, lawyers don't generally look past what the government and its courts have said when forming their own opinions of what is and is not actually the law. It's up to the rest of us to know the truth and set these folks straight.

The exposé of the CIA's malicious panopticon program offers a great chance for accomplishing that virtuous educational task. Send this material to everyone that you know, especially "public interest" and "Constitutional" law firms.
Remind these folks of a truth Thomas Jefferson articulated on all our behalf:

"A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."

THE BOTTOM LINE: Moreover, there isn't likely to be a judge in the country who knows the truth about the Fourth Amendment any more than the lawyers do. Don’t forget they all went to the same Communist Universities. Nor are there any journalists who know it, even though the Fourth Amendment and the government's various illegal search and seizure practices will be the subjects of much scribbling for a while now, as it has been many times before.  And then if you let it, it will disappear into the deep shadow government archives and die.

The judges may not be very accessible for education except when cases begin being brought before them by lawyers who have become able to knowledgeably brief the subject. But some journalists can be able to be made aware just from having an ear to the ground, if the ground has a bit of a knowing buzz going on. You can make that happen, if you'll do some buzzing.

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”- John Jay, First chief justice US Supreme Court.

AND…

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”- John Jay, First Chief Justice US Supreme Court.

Let’s face it, without knowing and understanding the history behind the law, one can’t know the law.  One can only use the law for one’s own agenda.

Thanks for listening my friend!  Now go do the right thing and fight for freedom. 
- de Andréa
Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.
The Fine Print
Copyright © 2014 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved -  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.

Monday, March 13, 2017

The Fourth Amendment


The Fourth Amendment
Warrantless Searches Are Always Illegal

By de Andréa,
Opinion Editorialist for
‘THE BOTTOM LINE’

Posted 2015 as a reverence


The historical record of the Fourth Amendment makes it clear that there are never any exceptions.

AMERICANS HAVE BEEN SIMMERING WITH ANGER IN RECENT YEARS over revelations about the NSA and FBI taping into everyone's phone-calls, email, "social media" posts and so on, along with other systematic, institutionalized privacy assaults. This widespread ire has been met with predictable political-class nonsense: lies about the extent of the violations, efforts to downplay the significance of the violations, and arguments that it's all for a good cause anyway, so everyone should just get over it.

All of these evasions and smokescreens are bad enough, just for the insult thereby offered to an angry America: "We're not only mugging you, but we also believe you're too stupid to stay incensed about it if we throw some eyewash your way..."

But the apologias and efforts to pacify us aren't the worst offenses. Far more malicious is the real assault on our sensibilities and the frayed sinews of our Constitutional structure in the form of repeated assertions by the perps that these privacy violations are "lawful".
They are not.

There is no such thing as an unwarranted but "reasonable" search
I am going to go Antonin Gregory Scalia on you here, (who was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1986 until his assassination by the Deep State in 2016). Because it seems that Scalia and I both went to the University of Hillsdale Michigan and studied the History of the U.S. Constitution, which lawyers by the way are never taught.

THE RATIONALE FOR ASSERTING THE "LAWFULNESS" of warrantless extra-domicile and electronic searches and seizures [of physical property and data] has rested on reading the Fourth Amendment as allowing for "reasonable" searches and seizures without the need for warrants. But this is a distorted construction of the amendment's prescriptions and proscriptions; a "constortion", if I may be allowed make up a word or to coin a term.

Under the constortion, the word "unreasonable" in the amendment is read as isolated from the remainder of the amendment, or as a qualifier of the warrant specifications that follow. Under the constortion, "unreasonable" is seen as included in order to distinguish an imagined "reasonable" search-- which, because "reasonable", needs no warrant-- from an "unreasonable" search, which, because unreasonable, does need a warrant.

But in fact, the historical record makes clear that this is in no way the Framers' intent-- rather, "unreasonable" appears in the amendment solely as an expression of the Framers' view that ANY search or seizure unauthorized by a warrant secured under stringent standards of testimony and cause is thereby inherently UN-reasonable, and a violation of the amendment.

In the amendment, "unreasonable" means "without reason" (an illuminating synonym of which is "unwarranted"). What follows after that term is not a proscription for how "unreasonable" searches or seizures are to be conducted. Instead, what follows are the requirements for the establishment of an amendment-satisfying reason for a search or seizure.

FRANKLY, THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT ALONE makes its real meaning plain enough to anyone reading it fairly, and without a wish to constort in service to a government desire to be let off its Constitutional chain. We'll go to the historical original-intent records in a moment, but first, let's just look at that current language:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Fairly read without an intent to misunderstand, there is no way this language can be honestly construed as a Constitutional statement (or even mere implication) that certain searches and seizures can be lawfully conducted without warrants. On the contrary, this language plainly says that right of the people to be secure against searches and seizures without a valid reason shall not be violated, and establishment of a valid reason requires an allegation of probable cause under oath, with particularity, considered by an appropriate officer authorized to issue warrants.

That is, "unreasonable" in the amendment doesn't mean "out of the ordinary", "excessive" or "in violation of reasonable expectations of privacy" as federal courts have variously constorted the amendment over recent decades. Rather, "unreasonable" means just what is says: "conducted without a properly-established reason," and is followed by the requirements by which a valid reason must be established.

However, my perceptions and arguments of the proper reading of the amendment's language needn't be relied upon to make my case. The writings the Founders and Framers provide all the clarification needed against even the most willfully obtuse reading.
The historical records are clear and definitive

LETS LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE of some contemporaneous alternative versions of the Fourth Amendment. Keep in mind that these measures reflect the fact that at the time it was understood that some kind of warrant was required for any search or seizure, which was why the colonial-era British went to the trouble of issuing "general warrants" even when intending to conduct searches unsupported by sworn allegations and particularity.
Here, as a first example, is the Fourth Amendment counterpart from the Declaration of Rights in the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776:

“That the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers, and possessions free from search and seizure, and therefore warrants without oaths or affirmations first made, affording a sufficient foundation for them, and whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or persons, his or their property, not particularly described, are contrary to that right, and ought not to be granted.”

Consolidated, this reads: "[T]he people have a right to be free from search and seizure [of any kind-- houses, papers and possessions, with no limiting specifications provided], and therefore warrants [again, the only mechanism recognized at the time by which any kind of search was permitted] ought not be granted without sworn allegations providing a sufficient foundation, and without particularity."

Similarly, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, another early version of the Fourth upon which the federal Constitutional amendment was modeled, reads in pertinent part:

“That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offence is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.”

That is, "[S]earch[es]...without evidence [which is to say, testimony, which is to say, sworn]...are grievous and oppressive, and ought not be granted."

Both of these contemporaneous alternative versions of the Fourth Amendment plainly declare that searches and seizures without sworn allegations and particularity are unreasonable and prohibited. In fact, the Pennsylvania version expressly declares that any search and seizure unsupported by sworn allegations of cause and/or lacking particularity is contrary to the right constitutionally asserted and secured therein.
James Madison, in arguing before Congress for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights (and, again, speaking in the context of ALL searches and seizures requiring a warrant), described his intent for the Fourth thusly:
“The rights of the people to be secured in their persons; their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.”

Massachusetts, in its Constitution of 1780, put it this way:
“Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws.”

Plainly, the Framers adopted the Fourth Amendment to ensure that all searches conducted anywhere, at any time and under any circumstances other than arrest for conduct just committed are based on prior establishment of probable cause by sworn testimony, with particularity as to what is to be sought and seized. There JUST IS no "reasonable search" exception that can be construed from the amendment.

The "unreasonable" in the Fourth's language doesn't distinguish one kind of search which needs a warrant from another kind that does not. Instead, it serves to label all non-conforming searches as thereby unreasonable and thus barred by the amendment.
The law hasn't changed, and modern unwarranted searches in fact are illegal
WHAT WAS UNCONSTUTIONAL YESTERDAY is still unconstitutional today, absent a properly executed intervening amendment? Searches or seizures of any kind-- anyplace, anytime and of anything-- without a warrant based on a sworn, credible and specific allegation that evidence of a crime will be found are Fourth Amendment violations. There are no exceptions my friend.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never passed."  -16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
***
I MENTIONED EARLIER that law-defying courts have constorted a "reasonable expectation" rationale for warrantless searches. This concept merits a little special attention.
The "reasonable expectation" dodge is based on the idea that the government is not restrained by the principle of the Fourth Amendment insofar as it looks at things (or people) who have (as the courts see it) waived their privacy expectations by setting foot outside their shades-drawn, windows-closed homes.

If, the courts reason, you step outside (or send data by means or processes not entirely within your exclusive control), you must or should expect that you or your data will be photographed, followed, eavesdropped-upon or intercepted by government spies. Therefore (goes the argument) such searches are "reasonable" and the government can freely do these things.

This view turns the principle behind the Fourth Amendment on its head. As noted above, there can be no reasonable (and thus permissible) searches or seizures not supported by the requirements specified for a warrant.

However, this "reasonable expectation" argument is also corrupt nonsense on roller skates on its own terms alone. Here's why:

It is true that you may not have a reasonable expectation that NO ONE ANYWHERE will see anything personal and otherwise private when you step outside or create, send, receive or store data outside your house. But you sure as Hell have a reasonable expectation that the government won't be looking at it without oath-supported probable cause and particularity.

In fact, that you can go about your business in public or in private unmolested by prying eyes and that only your service provider will see your transmitted data absent a proper warrant being issued is the only reasonable expectation. Any alternative expectation would require a patently UN-reasonable belief that the courts have actual authority to eliminate the Fourth Amendment, and we all know better than that. At least I hope that we do!

THE TRUTH IS SIMPLE, and requires no nonsense about "expectations" (a concept-- that the measure of someone's rights or of the restrictions placed by the Constitution on the state could rest on "expectations"-- which is on its face nauseatingly demented).
What's been going on with the NSA, CIA and FBI and who knows what other perps has been a serial felony, apparently committed over and over against each and every American. Don't let creative, self-serving nonsense from the criminals or their co-conspirators fool you into quietly accepting lies that let them off the hook and destroy the rule of law at the same time.

Thanks for listening my friend!  Now go do the right thing and fight for freedom. 
- de Andréa
Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.
The Fine Print
Copyright © 2014 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved -  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.