Posted: February 05, 2009                                      
1:00 am Eastern by Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily

© 2009 

Seattle Indymedia Center
September 13, 2008

Homeland security has setup up 3 internal checkpoints on the Olympic Peninsula. These checkpoints are in addition to checkpoints at Washington Ferry docks and highway border crossings. According to the U.S. Border Patrol, it has a jurisdiction of about 100 miles from the border. This puts most of Washington state in an area where border checkpoints are authorized, including Seattle.

In August and again in the beginning of September, the Department of Homeland Security has set up suspicion-less checkpoints on the Washington peninsula. The checkpoints are in the town of Forks, at the west side of the Hood Canal bridge going east bound, and at the third near Discovery Bay on US 101. Forks is a timber town of 3,200 people that is 56 miles from the nearest ferry terminal connecting Washington to Canada. At the road checkpoints there and elsewhere, the border patrol ask drivers different types of questions to gauge their status in the U.S., including questions about citizenship. Please review this video to understand how to deal with this illegal check points:

You don’t have to answer Border Patrol’s questions. Ask if you are being detained.

At the end of August, about 60 people demonstrated against the Forks Border Patrol checkpoint. Edgar Ayala, a Forks High School athlete who graduated with honors in June, was arrested on August 20th at the Border Patrol checkpoint and deported to Mexico. Tanya Ward, one of the organizers of the protest, is a member of the Hoh tribe and told a reporter from the Penninsula Daily News that she felt that immigrants are treated with the same unfairness shown to Native Americans. She said, “I don’t think it’s right for them to be taken out of their homes when their children are here and they’re not doing anything wrong.”

If you are interested in protesting these illegal road blocks please contact me: ceakins at gmail dot com

I live in the Peninsula, in Kitsap county.

Courier Online
July 17, 2008

High tech gadget instantly reveals identities

Police officials are excited about a new high tech gadget that will make their jobs a little bit easier.

Through a Homeland Security grant, Los Angeles County purchased 500 mobile fingerprint scanning devices that can be used by officers in the field.

The device allows officers to identify people through their fingerprints who have previously been booked through the Los Angeles County penal system.

Roughly 200 scanners went to LAPD, and the rest were spread to agencies throughout the county. The Claremont Police Department only got one, but it has already been put to good use.

Police just picked up the machine last Thursday, and by Friday it helped them nab a potentially dangerous criminal. At a sobriety checkpoint on Indian Hill Boulevard, just south of the 10 Freeway, over 2000 vehicles were screened, resulting in 14 arrests. Two were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Among those stopped at the checkpoint was a man who told police that he did not have his driver license. His car was pulled off to the shoulder, where police asked his identity.

“He supplied a name that we ran a records check on that came back with no match,” Claremont Police Captain Jenkins said.

Claremont Police Corporal Chris Bradley then put the department’s new gadget to use for the first time. The man’s index fingers were scanned right at the scene and 5 minutes later, the police had the information they needed.

“We were able to pull up all his real information; his name, date of birth and all that,” Corp. Bradley said. “And then we saw that he had a no-bail parole hold.”

Albert Dominguez, 26, of Chino, was a parole violator out on murder charges. He is now in custody in Los Angeles.

“The nice thing about this is, we were able to identify him right there out in the field,” Corp. Bradley said.

Created by Cogent Systems, the device normally runs about $1000 each. Law enforcement officials hope to eventually have one in every patrol vehicle, Cpt. Jenkins said. In the meantime, Claremont police will have to share their scanner until more funding for additional devices is available.

Police believe they will be particularly useful at checkpoints where identifying unlicensed drivers is a constant challenge.

“There’s always a number of identification issues at the checkpoints so this will be a big help,” Cpt. Jenkins said.

Posted: February 01, 2009
7:19 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Posted: January 27, 2009
10:22 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

World Net Daily

Jose Farah

P osted: December 29, 2008
1:00 am Eastern 

© 2008 

You will probably never see it, again.

But it’s the truth.

With a new Congress and a new president taking office next month, you are bound to hear more calls for closing the so-called “gun-show loophole,” that permits American citizens in many states to buy guns without ridiculous and counterproductive waiting periods.

There will be an all-out effort to renew the slow, plodding, incremental, long-term goal of banning and restricting the sale of as many firearms as possible. It will likely start with gun shows – one of the easiest targets of the gun-grabbers.

They will cite all kinds of bogus statistics to support their claims that gun shows spell nothing but death and destruction.

What they won’t cite, however, is a groundbreaking study of the impact of gun shows on homicides. They can’t – because it shows just the opposite of what they claim to be true.

Mark Duggan and Randi Hjalmarsson of the University of Maryland and Brian A. Jacob of the University of Michigan teamed up to examine the evidence in a scientific study of the impact of gun shows on murder and suicide and accidental deaths.

What they found is shocking because it supports the headline above.

They looked at 3,417 gun shows in two very different states – Texas and California – during an 11-year period. And they examined vital statistics data on suicides, homicides and accidental gun deaths in the weeks following them.

What were the results?

“We find a sharp decline in the number of gun homicides in the weeks immediately following a gun show,” they concluded. Furthermore, in Texas they found “gun shows reduce the number of gun homicides by 16 in the average year.”

Once again, here’s hard evidence of the theory that more guns equals less crime. And it shouldn’t shock us. It only does because we’ve been so conditioned to accepting the illogic of the gun-grabbers that states the opposite as fact – without any evidence to support it.

Think about it.

If you are a criminal, are you more likely to target someone who is armed or unarmed?

The answer is as obvious as the .45 on my desk.

(Story continues below)

Criminals seek out victims who are not going to fight back or offer resistance, let alone shoot them.

Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens means they are less likely to become victims.

Anyone who disagrees with this simple, straightforward logic should be required to post a sign on the outside of their home or office that says: “Gun-free zone.”

So far, I have not seen even one private citizen invite criminals into their home with such a ridiculous sign. Instead, governments post them around schools!

But now you know the facts – as inconvenient as they might be to the incoming administration and the new Democrat-stacked Congress.

There’s only one thing that will prevent them from taking away your Second Amendment-guaranteed right to self-defense: the truth.

You will be hearing a lot of lies about firearms in the months ahead.

You need to be armed with the facts – as well as your trusty old firearms.

And you need to be prepared to fight back against attacks on what may well be your first freedom.

Remember, every totalitarian regime in the history of the world has succeeded in maintaining power by first disarming the citizenry.

Don’t let it happen in the USA. Don’t accede to any more efforts to ban classifications of firearms because they look like “assault weapons.” Don’t accept any more restrictions on gun shows, now that you know they actually reduce gun homicides. Don’t believe any statistics you hear from Barack Obama or the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate about the need to reduce the availability of firearms or to make them “safer.”

Get ready to protect your constitutional rights across the board, because they are about to come under fire from the worst assault weapon ever devised, a real weapon of Mass Destruction and Mass Distortion – Big Government.

By Brian K. Lutes

It is THE HARD TRUTH that most Americans have never heard of John Merryman, victim of martial law in the USA. But what happened to him means a great deal to all of us as it could happen again very soon.

John Merryman, a civilian, citizen of these United States of America, was a resident of Baltimore, MD. On May 25, 1861 he was in his home, asleep in his bed with his wife. His children were asleep in the next room. It was 2 A.M. when his home was forcibly entered by soldiers of the United States Army without any kind of warrant whatsoever. He was drug from his bed and taken against his will, basically kidnapped, to a United States Military installation, Fort McHenry, where he was imprisoned by the Fort’s Commanding Officer, George Cadwalader.

Merryman was not presented with a warrant of arrest of any kind. He was not accused of any crime in any court of law. He was not presented with any specific facts of what it is he had done causing his arrest. He was not presented with the names or statements of any witnesses who saw him do whatever it is he had done. He was simply arrested and imprisoned by the United States Army.

Merryman’s wife contacted an attorney on behalf of her husband and explained what had happened the night before. Mrs. Merryman did not know where her husband had been taken or even the names of those who had taken him. All she knew was that they were soldiers.

The attorney contacted local political officials, local law enforcement authorities, and even the Federal Marshal’s office in an effort to learn where Merryman had been taken, but everyone claimed ignorance. Finally through the attorney’s personal connections to a Congressman he learned that Merryman had been taken to Fort McHenry.

The attorney traveled to the Fort where the Commanding Officer confirmed that Merryman was there, but he would not permit the attorney to meet with Merryman nor would he provide any warrant or information as to what criminal offense Merryman was alleged to have committed.

The attorney then filed an application for a “Writ of Habeas Corpus”  to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Roger B. Taney, under the 14th Section of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Act allowed for each individual Justice of the Supreme Court the power to grant “Writs of Habeas Corpus” for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of a citizen’s imprisonment.

The “Writ of Habeas Corpus”  is commonly known as “The Great Writ”  and is considered to be one of the most basic tools of free people because it affords anyone that is taken hold of by government agents to question the legality of their arrest (see 488 F.2d 218, 221). Habeas Corpus, which means “you have the body” in Latin, was one of the biggest issues for our Founding Fathers in their decision to part form England and they described the citizens right to the “The Great Writ” as the determining factor as to whether individuals were citizens in a free country or subjects whose freedom could be taken at the whim of their rulers without just, legal cause.

The great Legal Scholar Justice Joseph Story, in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States“, (see 3 Story’s Com. on the Constitution, Section 1336) had this to say about the Writ of Habeas Corpus: it is “A very just and wholesome restraint, which cuts down at a blow a fruitful means of oppression, capable of being abused in bad times to the worst of purposes”. In other words it is the thing that prevents a tyrannical dictatorship in which anyone can be arrested and locked up at the whim of those in power.

Upon receiving the application for the Writ of Habeas Corpus for Merryman, Justice Taney sent an inquiry to General Cadwalader, the Commanding Officer at Fort McHenry, to learn the reason(s) for Merryman’s confinement and instructed him to produce any warrant issued for his arrest and any and all charges facing Merryman as well as his (Cadwalader’s) authority to arrest a civilian who is in no way tied to the military.

In his return to Justice Taney, General Cadwalader could not specify any act committed by Merryman that constituted any offense against the laws of the United States or that any witness had given oath describing criminal conduct by Merryman, but that Merryman was arrested upon “General charges of treason and rebellion”  without specifying proof and without giving the names of witnesses or specifying the acts which Merryman supposedly committed  causing his arrest. Furthermore, Cadwalader stated Merryman was arrested by the authority of the President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, and that “The President had suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus”  and as such he (Cadwalader) was not bound by, nor would he obey, instructions of the Court.

In response to General Cadwalader’sreturn to the Court, Chief Justice Taney issued his opinion in the matter with an official Court Order granting the Writ of Habeas Corpus to Merryman in which he instructed the President and General Cadwalader to release Merryman as his arrest and imprisonment were Unconstitutional & illegal because the President had not only exercised a power he does not possess (suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus), but that he claims to be able to delegate that power to others.

In his meticulous opinion Justice Taney wrote: “…The clause of the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus is in the 9th section of the first article…which is devoted to the Legislative Department (Congress) and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department (the President)…And even if the Writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended by Act of Congress, and a party not subject to the Rules and Articles of war was afterwards arrested and imprisoned by regular Judicial Process, he could not be detained in prison or brought to trial before a military tribunal,…for the 6th Article (in the Constitution) provides that ‘In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,…to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with witnesses against him;…to have the assistance of counsel for his defense’”.

” And that the only power the President possesses, where ‘life, liberty or property’ of a private citizen is concerned, is the power and duty prescribed in the 3d Section of the 2d Article, which requires him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed…

No official notice has been given to the Courts of Justice, or to the public, by proclamation or otherwise, that the President claimed this power, and had exercised it in the manner stated in the return. And I certainly listened to it with some surprise, for I had supposed it to be one of those points of Constitutional law upon which there was no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands that the Writ of HabeasCorpus could not be suspended, except by Act of Congress…But being thus officially notified that the Writ has been suspended under the orders, and by the authority, of the President, and believing, as I do, that the President has exercised a power he does not possess under the Constitution…I can only say, that if the Judicial Department may thus, upon any circumstance be usurped by the military power at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a Government of Laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the Army officer in whose Military District he may happen to be found…I have exercised all the power to which the Constitution and Laws confer upon me and order that all the proceedings in this case, with my opinion to be filed and recorded in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland and direct the Clerk to transmit a copy, under seal, to the President of the United States. It will then remain for him, in fulfillment of his Constitutional obligation, to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’”, to release Merryman.

A United States Marshal served the opinion and order of the Court that Merryman be released upon President Lincoln and General Cadwalader. President Lincoln upon being served with a copy of the opinion and order of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a “Presidential Warrant of Arrest”for the Chief Justice, but the Marshal refused to serve it.

Why is what happened to Merryman in 1861 important to us today?

There is nothing preventing this from happening today as our Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, have all issued Executive Orders, in which they claim the authority to do just what Lincoln did, declaring that “emergencies” exist that require “extra-constitutional measures” to be dealt with.

However, as Chief Justice Taney pointed out so many years ago, these are powers Presidents do not possess, but that will not stop Bush, McCain, or Obama now, just as it did not stop Lincoln then.

By Brian K. Lutes

It is THE HARD TRUTH that In my 6 years of working as a law enforcement officer I never ceased to be amazed at how stupid the average criminal suspect was and how ignorant they were of their Constitutionally protected rights.

Naturally with a background in law enforcement I am drawn to television shows such as COPS and one of the absolute best real life police programs I have ever watched, The First 48 on the A&E network. The program airs on Tuesday & Thursday evenings.

The cameras go along with real Homicide Detectives as they investigate murders. There are no actors, no reenactments, no scripts. Just plenty of stupid, most often guilty, suspects.

The First 48 is so entitled because most murders are solved within the first 48 hours of their commission. If a murder is not solved within that time frame the chances that the culprit will be caught are cut in half. That is a fact.

One of the things that strikes me in watching the Detectives go about trying to solve the case is how often the police have absolutely no hard evidence against their suspects. By hard evidence I mean fingerprints, DNA, gun shot residue on hands, eyewitness identifications, etc.

Most often the police get “tips” from acquaintances of the victim that the victim had an argument with someone recently or they recently broke up with a boyfriend or some other small piece of information that the detectives use to go talk with the suspects.

Most often the Detectives ask the suspects to come to the police station to “talk” with them and answer a few simple questions. By the time the Detectives get to their “suspects” they have formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the person, but do not have enough evidence to arrest, let alone convict, them and need the “suspect” to talk (confess).

This is where the stupidity steps up front & center. Almost every time the “suspect” voluntarily shows up at the police station to “talk” with the police. Now keep in mind that the “suspect” knows they committed the crime. The police think the guy did it, but they don’t know for sure. But the “suspect” knows for sure they did it and yet they show up voluntarily. This is just plain stupid!

The detectives get their suspect in the office, offer them coffee or soda and make small talk to make the guy comfortable. They will then begin talking about the case and say what a shame it is that this crime happened and how the victim didn’t deserve what happened to them. Now remember that the police most often have no actual evidence against the guy at this point, but they tell him they do and that they know he committed the crime. They will then tell the suspect that they want to help him get this off his chest and “things will go easier on you if you confess”. All of which are lies and the part about things going easier on them may be illegal under the PA cases of Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 520 Pa. 151, 553 A.2d 409 (1989) & Commonwealth v. Purnell, 412 Pa. Super. 462, 603 A.2d 1028 (1992).

However, the police are legally allowed to lie about the evidence they have against a suspect in their efforts to get a suspect to confess according to a ruling by the US Supreme Court in the case of Oregon v. Mathiason,  429 U.S. 492, 97 S. Ct. 711 (1977) and lie they will.

Most often the suspect will begin crying and that is when the Detective will move closer to the suspect and tell them “I know this is hard” and put his hand on the suspects shoulder so it seems that he cares.

Now, this is the very important part because the suspect is not under arrest at this point and the Detective has NOT ASKED HIM ANY QUESTIONS DESIGNED TO ILLICIT AN INCRIMINATING RESPONSE. Therefore the police do not have to tell the suspect that he has a right to remain silent, does not have to talk to them, has the right to an attorney as laid out in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966) and in fact can get up and walk out of the police station.

But, does the idiot “suspect” ask the Detective if he is under arrest? Does he ask for a lawyer? NO! The idiot spills his guts and admits to everything because he believed the Detective when he said he had evidence against him. The idiot “suspect” would never have been tricked if he had not talked to the police, which he did not have to do.

My point with this is: Our freedoms as Americans are protected to a tremendous degree thanks to our Founding Fathers writing our Constitutions with a healthy fear of an overbearing government that did not recognize some of the rights we enjoy such as the right against self incrimination (5th Amd .of the US Constitution & Article 1, Section 9 of the PA Constitution), the right against unreasonable search & seizure (4th Amd. of the US Constitution & Article 1, Section 8 of the PA Constitution), and many others. And, as a result we do not have to talk to the police so DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE! Especially if you committed the crime.

Now, please understand that I have no desire to see criminals, especially murderers, go free in any way. But it pains me greatly to see my fellow Americans, good, bad , or ugly, totally ignorant of the protections and rights that our Founding Fathers handed down to us and thousands of our soldiers have died for.

There is a reason it is very hard for our law enforcement agencies to deprive us of our freedoms and hard earned money. That reason is because we are a free people blessed by God to live in a Constitutional Republic where our government can exercise only the very few and well defined powers that we the people have delegated to it. This cannot continue if we are ignorant of our rights and too stupid to know that we do not have to talk to the police.

A Charlotte, NC man has been arrested & jailed for supposedly threatening to kill Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

According to the federal criminal complaint (case # 3:08-mj-164) filed on August 12, 2008 at the US Federal Courthouse for the Western District of North Carolina in Charlotte by US Secret Service Special Agent Sean Leddy, Jerry Michael Blanchard, 48, of 1227 Flat Rock Road in Charlotte was charged with violating  Section 879 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 USC 879) which makes it illegal to make “Threats Against Former Presidents & Certain Other Persons.”

According to the criminal complaint Blanchard was arrested after the Secret Service conducted two seperate investigations into threats allegedly made against Obama by Blanchard.

In the first alleged instance of threats made by Blanchard, Special Agent Leddy states that his office was contacted by a male who is identified in the criminal complaint only as “CW-2″, this term usually means confidential witness #2, on July 15, 2008 after “CW-2″ and an associate were eating breakfast at a Waffle House restaurant on Pineville-Matthews Road in Charlotte when they were approached by a man later identified as Blanchard who asked “CW-2″ if they had met before because “CW-2″ looked familiar to him.

“CW-2″ states that a conversation between the three individuals ensued and Blanchard stated “I’m worth $50 million dollars, I have a plane and can get a jet…Obama and his wife are never going to make it into the White House… he needs to be taken out and I can do it in a heartbeat and I might anyway…that man will never know what hit him…I hate that man with a passion…I just may do that, I’ve got the money and the clout to do that…”

The other individual in the conversation, identified only as “CW-1″ claims to have heard Blanchard state that it was his intention to purchase a .40 caliber Ruger pistol from Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte.

Both the “CWs” stated, according to the complaint, that Blanchard told them he was a Certified Public Accountant and that “CW-1″ asked Blanchard for his name & telephone # prior to his leaving the Waffle House ‘under the guise’ that “CW-1″ was looking for a new accountant and might want to hire Blanchard and Blanchard provided “CW-1″ with his name & cell phone #.

Special Agent Leddy goes on to state that he later showed both “CW-1 & 2″ a photograph of Jerry M. Blanchard and both individuals positively identified Blanchard as the man who made the threatening statements about Obama to them. Leddy does not say in the complaint where he obtained photographs of Blanchard, but Blanchard does have several arrests in Mecklenburg County, NC for drunk driving and driving without a license and the photographs could have been uncovered through public records searches.

Leddy states that he located and interviewed Blanchard, the complaint does not state where or when,  and Blanchard denied making any threats toward Obama, but that Blanchard did tell him that he was considering purchasing a .40 caliber Ruger for self-defense purposes,  and that he (Blanchard) stated that he believed Obama to be the “Anti-Christ” as prophesied in the Bible’s Book of Revelation.

Leddy also states that he informed Blanchard that it was a violation of federal law to threaten Obama and that Blanchard acknowledged that he understood and again denied making any threats to Obama.

In the second alleged instance of threats made by Blanchard, Leddy states in the complaint that on July 28, 2008 his office was contacted by an employee of the Crown Plaza Hotel, identified only as “CW-3″, in Charlotte who reported that he went into the lobby restroom of the hotel around 8:45 AM and overheard a man talking on a cell phone who said: “I’ll get a .40 cal Ruger and a .50 cal sniper rifle and take care of it myself. I can get a $3,000 laser scope that will let me take the center out of a quarter from 2 miles away. Somebody has got to do it” and “we both know that Obama is the Anti-Christ.”

“CW-3″ told Leddy, according to the complaint, that after overhearing the man on the cell phone he went into the hotel lobby and waited for the man to exit the restroom and observed the man stay in the lobby, still on the phone, for 15 to 20 minutes. ”CW-3″ said that another hotel employee told him that the man on the phone had been “thrown out” of the hotel due to intoxication at a July 4, 2008 party and that the employee remembered the man’s name as Blanchard.

“CW-3″ stated that he approached the man and asked if he could help him prompting the man to leave the hotel. “CW-3″ said that a short time later the man approached him outside the hotel and asked if he could speak with him. During the conversation the man, according to “CW-3″, said: “I have an application for a .40 caliber Ruger and a .50 caliber sniper rifle. I will get a $3,000 laser scope for that rifle and I can take the center out of a quarter from 2 miles away” and “I believe Obama is planning to outlaw the ownership of firearms and said he had filed a $50 million lawsuit against the federal government.”

Leddy stated in the complaint that “CW-3″ identified a photograph of Blanchard as the man he heard make the threatening statements against Obama.

Leddy states that he has interviewed several former colleagues and “other individuals with personal connections to Blanchard” that have confirmed Blanchard has developed a serious alcohol abuse problem and that he has demonstrated unusual behavior since recently sustaining serious head injuries and that he finds the information provided by witnesses and “other individuals” to be accurate and that he has corroborated “much of the information by reviewing various documents including criminal background checks and ‘open source databases.”

Mr. Blanchard was incarcerated in the Mecklenburg County jail on August 4, 2008 at 7:48 PM and released into Federal custody on September 23, 2008 at 9:20 AM. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons web-site Blanchard was “in transit” as of this writing.

Please see my additional articles on this subject.