To Article V or not to Article V


US Map- Reagan on Convention of States

John R. Houk

© February 19, 2016

 

Article V

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. (Bold Text by Editor:  U.S. Constitution – Article V; National Archives, Federal Register)

 

When an Originalist talks about preserving the U.S. Constitution from the Leftist ideology of a “Living Constitution” you will rarely hear the subject of an Article V States originated Constitutional Convention. The reason for that is the interpretation of the parameters of an Article V Convention are a matter of controversial disagreement between the pros and the cons.

 

The pros from my perspective: Politics are too polarized for Congress to propose Amendments that shore up more completely the Rights of the Bill of Rights Amendments. Thus litigation and an Activist Court primarily of the Living Constitution interpretation has diluted what I believe is the Original Intent of America’s Founding Fathers’ vision for a limited Constitutional Republic. Such political gridlock thus can only be effective with a States called Constitutional Convention circumventing Leftist ideology and Special Interests money.

 

The cons as I understand them: There is a huge concern that a Constitutional Convention would rewrite a new Constitution rather than specific Amendments to the current Constitution that will eradicate America’s foundations that have made America an exceptional and great nation. Part of that concern is that Special Interest groups will vie for Left Wing change and Right Wing preservation or too far to the Right change that will still transform the American political process that will still be unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers’ original vision.

 

Now that Justice Antonin Scalia has died under what I consider to be mysterious circumstances, Obama’s seven years of Executive Order abuse that legislative processes have failed to challenge in a Constitutional manner and the Dems demonstrating a propensity to fix the election process to allow an obvious crooked politician as Hillary Clinton to win the Dem nomination via Superdelegates; it is my humble opinion that the only shot to save America as a Christian influenced nation under a limited government is by a Constitutional Convention. Otherwise, another bloody civil war is in America’s future between America’s Conservatives who wish to preserve the Founding Fathers’ vision with Christian morality as the foundation for the government standard AND Liberals-Leftists-Progressives who believe the eradication of Christian influences in favor a Living Constitution social and political transformation. The Leftist vision will lead to Big Brother top-to-bottom management of the lives of Americans.

 

The inspiration for these thoughts are based on an email I received from the Oklahoma State version of the National Council for Freedom and Enterprise (NCFE) called the Oklahoma Council for Freedom and Enterprise (OCFE). The OCFE email I received is definitely against an Article 5 Constitutional Convention fearing some of the “cons” I wrote above. I am cross posting the email below so you can take an honest look. But first let’s look at a cross post from the Convention of States website.

 

JRH 2/19/16

Please Support NCCR

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

THE CASE FOR A CONVENTION OF STATES

 

  1. The Problem

 

VIDEO: The Convention of States Project is Here!

 

Posted by Convention of States Project

Published on Oct 11, 2013

 

Michael Farris, head of the Convention of States Project, explains why the federal government is broken and how a Convention of States can fix it.

 

http://www.conventionofstates.com

 

We see four major abuses perpetrated by the federal government.

 

These abuses are not mere instances of bad policy. They are driving us towards an age of “soft tyranny” in which the government does not shatter men’s wills but “softens, bends, and guides” them. If we do nothing to halt these abuses, we run the risk of becoming nothing more than “a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1840)

 

  1. The Spending and Debt Crisis

 

The $17 trillion national debt is staggering, but it only tells a part of the story. Under standard accounting practices, the federal government owes around $100 trillion more in vested Social Security benefits and other programs. This is why the government cannot tax its way out of debt. Even if it confiscated everything, it would not cover the debt.

 

  1. The Regulatory Crisis

 

The federal bureaucracy has placed a regulatory burden upon businesses that is complex, conflicted, and crushing. Little accountability exists when agencies—rather than Congress—enact the real substance of the law. Research from the American Enterprise Institute shows that since 1949, federal regulations have lowered the real GDP growth by 2% and made America 72% poorer.

 

  1. Congressional Attacks on State Sovereignty

 

For years, Congress has been using federal grants to keep the states under its control. Combining these grants with federal mandates (which are rarely fully funded), Congress has turned state legislatures into their regional agencies rather than respecting them as truly independent republican governments.

 

A radical social agenda and an invasion of the rights of the people accompany all of this. While significant efforts have been made to combat this social erosion, these trends defy some of the most important principles.

 

  1. Federal Takeover of the Decision-Making Process

 

The Founders believed that the structures of a limited government would provide the greatest protection of liberty. Not only were there to be checks and balances between the branches of the federal government, power was to be shared between the states and federal government, with the latter only exercising those powers specifically granted in the Constitution.

 

Collusion among decision-makers in Washington, D.C., has replaced these checks and balances. The federal judiciary supports Congress and the White House in their ever-escalating attack upon the jurisdiction of the fifty states.

 

We need to realize that the structure of decision-making matters. Who decides what the law shall be is as important as what is decided. The protection of liberty requires a strict adherence to the principle that power is limited and delegated.

 

Washington, D.C., does not believe this principle, as evidenced by an unbroken practice of expanding the boundaries of federal power. In a remarkably frank admission, the Supreme Court rebuffed a challenge to the federal spending power despite acknowledging that power had grown far beyond the bounds envisioned by the Founders:

 

This framework has been sufficiently flexible over the past two centuries to allow for enormous changes in the nature of government. The Federal Government undertakes activities today that would have been unimaginable to the Framers in two senses; first, because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not have believed that the Federal Government, rather than the States, would assume such responsibilities. Yet the powers conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution were phrased in language broad enough to allow for the expansion of the Federal Government’s role.  –New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 157 (1992).

What Does this Mean?

 

This is not a partisan issue. Washington, D.C., will never voluntarily relinquish meaningful power—no matter who is elected. The only rational conclusion is this: unless some political force outside of Washington, D.C., intervenes, the federal government will continue to bankrupt this nation, embezzle the legitimate authority of the states, and destroy the liberty of the people. Rather than securing the blessings of liberty for future generations, Washington, D.C., is on a path that will enslave our children and grandchildren to the debts of the past.

 

The problem is big, but we have a solution.  Article V gives us a tool to fix the mess in D.C.

 

II. The Solution

We are approaching a crossroads.

 

One path leads to the escalating power of an irresponsible centralized government, ultimately resulting in the financial ruin of generations of Americans. The other path leads to the restoration of liberty and an American renaissance.

 

The correct path can be found within Article V of the United States Constitution.

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. –– Article V, U.S. Constitution

 

Watch the video below, created by our Convention of States team in Alabama, for an excellent overview of the Article V process.

 

VIDEO: Convention of States – Alabama

 

Posted by Convention of States Project

Published on Dec 31, 2013

 

Check out this awesome video from our COS team in Alabama! If you live in Alabama, check out their Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/COSProjectAL

 

Written by Amanda Read (www.amandaread.com)

Produced by Matthew Perdie (www.perdie.com)

 

Like Article V says, there are two methods to propose amendments to the Constitution.

 

  1. Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution at any time if 2/3 of both houses of Congress agree.

 

  1. A Convention of States can propose amendments if 2/3 of states submit applications for such a convention. These applications must all deal with the same issue (i.e., limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government).

The Founders knew the federal government might one day become drunk with the abuses of power. The most important check to this power is Article V. Article V gives states the power to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.

 

By calling a convention of the states, we can stop the federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other misuses of federal power. The current situation is precisely what the Founders feared, and they gave us a solution we have a duty to use.

 

After the states propose, debate, and vote upon the proposed amendments, they will be sent to the 50 states for ratification. Three-quarters of the states must agree for any of the proposed amendments to be ratified.

 

Congress has no authority to stop such a process. The Founders made sure of that.

 

We are approaching a crossroads.

 

Which path will we choose?

 

III. The Strategy

Two goals separate our plan from all other Article V organizations:

 

  1. We want to call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment. Instead of calling a convention for a balanced budget amendment (though we are entirely supportive of such an amendment), we want to call a convention for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.

 

  1. We believe the grassroots is the key to calling a successful convention. The goal is to build a political operation in a minimum of 40 states, getting 100 people to volunteer in at least 75% of the state’s legislative districts. We believe this is very doable. But only through the support of the American people will this project have a chance to succeed.
Our Solution is Big Enough to Solve the Problem

 

Rather than calling a convention for a specific amendment, Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) has launched the Convention of the States Project to urge state legislatures to properly use Article V to call a convention for a particular subject—reducing the power of Washington, D.C. It is important to note that a convention for an individual amendment (e.g. a Balanced Budget Amendment) would be limited to that single idea. Requiring a balanced budget is a great idea that CSG fully supports. Congress, however, could comply with a Balanced Budget Amendment by simply raising taxes. We need spending restraints as well. We need restraints on taxation. We need prohibitions against improper federal regulation. We need to stop unfunded mandates.

 

A convention of states needs to be called to ensure that we are able to debate and impose a complete package of restraints on the misuse of power by all branches of the federal government.

What Sorts of Amendments Could be Passed?

 

The following are examples of amendment topics that could be discussed at a convention of states:

 

  • A balanced budget amendment

 

  • A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (the original view was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states)

 

  • A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (the original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines–not all the economic activity of the nation)

 

  • A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States

 

  • A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws)

 

  • Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court

 

  • Placing an upper limit on federal taxation

 

  • Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes

 

Of course, these are merely examples of what would be up for discussion. The convention of states itself would determine which ideas deserve serious consideration, and it will take a majority of votes from the states to formally propose any amendments.

 

The Founders gave us a legitimate path to save our liberty by using our state governments to impose binding restraints on the federal government. We must use the power granted to the states in the Constitution.

The Grassroots

 

The leadership of the COS Project believes the success of a convention of states depends to a large extent on the American citizens. Our plan is as follows:

 

  1. We seek to have a viable political operation that is active in a minimum of 40 states.

 

  1. Our goal is to have local leaders–District Captains–in at least 75% of the districts in these states.

 

  1. District captains will organize at least 100 people in each of these districts to contact their legislator to support a convention of the states, and turn out at least 25 people per district at legislative hearings.

 

Legislators must know that our grassroots team will have their backs if they support a convention of the states. A widespread grassroots organization has been missing from the Article V movement. CSG’s President, Mark Meckler, was the co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots—one of the largest tea party groups in the country. Michael Farris is the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. As such, he brings with him over 30 years of grassroots leadership and activism in all 50 states. We are rapidly building both a staff and a network of like-minded coalition members who will support this project once they see it up and running.

 

We believe that our unique application strategy combined with strong grassroots support will guarantee the success of this Project.

 

Only one question remains. Will you help us?

 

+++

Stop the MADNESS in Oklahoma

02/16/2016 04:09:51 GMT

Email Sent by: Oklahoma Council for Freedom and Enterprise

 

Dear Concerned American,

 

Several bills calling for a dangerous Article V Convention could soon come up for debate in the Oklahoma Legislature.

 

These bills put the Constitution at extreme risk and I need your help to stop them.

 

Some well-meaning Article V supporters think calling a constitutional convention will help create new “limits” on the federal government.

 

And many believe a constitutional convention can be limited to certain types or categories of changes.

 

But that simply is not true. Article V itself does not back up any assertions that a convention can be limited — and noted constitutional scholars agree.

 

It’s critically important you call your state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose ALL Article V Convention bills.

 

Did you know the various special interest groups pushing different Article V Convention measures have formed a coalition?

 

All of these special interest groups claim to be working toward a convention limited to their own issue, yet they are working together behind the scenes.

 

Groups like Convention of States — who claim to want a convention to limit the federal government — are working with groups like Wolf PAC — who want to limit YOU.

 

Lawrence Lessig — a friend to Wolf PAC and former advisor to the Obama campaign — is also on the list of people pushing hard for an Article V Convention.

 

Lawrence Lessig advocates for legislation forcing you to fund the campaigns of candidates you don’t support by making campaign financing a mandatory, taxpayer obligation.

 

Like Wolf PAC, he wants a constitutional convention to pass an amendment that would limit your political speech rights protected by the First Amendment.

 

The Congressional Research Service quoted Lawrence Lessig in a recent report on Article V:

 

“The beauty of a convention is that it would provide a forum of possibility for conservative Tea Party types… as well as progressives.

 

The only requirement is that two-thirds of the states apply, and then begins the drama of an unscripted national convention to debate questions of fundamental law. It would be a grand circus of democracy at its best.”

 

A “grand circus” indeed!

 

Concerned American, it’s critically important you take action to stop this train wreck before it’s too late.

 

Call your state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose ALL Article V Convention bills; then be sure to forward this email to your contacts in Oklahoma.

 

Elected governments at all levels are trampling on your rights every day and it’s up to you and me to stop them.

 

But an Article V Convention would only add fuel to the fire.

 

As pointed out above — a convention CANNOT be limited, so proposals from the likes of Lawrence Lessig would be fair game.

 

And once everything is said and done, every existing amendment could be utterly dismantled.

 

Even if “conservatives” managed to propose an idea or two, it would be open season on the Constitution — nothing would be off-limits.

 

And what “conservative” victory could possibly justify new restrictions on your First or Second Amendment rights?

 

You’d think with views like Lessig’s, conservatives wouldn’t even be caught in the same room with him.

 

But he’s spoken at multiple conferences alongside conservative “leaders” in the movement — all promoting an Article V Convention.

 

These “conservatives” are working with liberals like Lessig, who want to use an Article V Convention to restrict your rights, yet they claim there is no reason for you to oppose a convention!

 

Literally hundreds of progressive organizations, such as Sierra Club, Code Pink, Alliance for Progressive Values, MoveOn, and “Occupy,” have been pushing for a convention since 2009.

 

Do you trust THEM to fall in line and rein in the government?

 

It’s critically important you call your state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose ALL Article V Convention bills; then forward this email to your contacts in Oklahoma.

 

Some argue if a convention results in proposals to gut our Constitution, it would still take 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify.

 

We can’t even get 1/4 of the states to stand against Common Core.

 

Politicians involved in the convention process will be working double time behind the scenes to ensure their pet amendments get ratified.

 

And there’s no predetermined time limit for the states to ratify amendments unless the U.S. Congress proposes one, so politicians could have an untold number of legislative sessions to work toward their goal.

 

Don’t fall for it. Those holding power will stop at nothing to get what they want.

 

These bills simply MUST be stopped; please take action right away!

 

For Freedom,

 

Theodore A. Patterson

Executive Director

Oklahoma Council for Freedom and Enterprise

 

P.S. Several bills calling for a dangerous Article V Convention could soon come up for debate in the Oklahoma Legislature. These bills put the Constitution at extreme risk.

 

It’s critically important you call your state representative and state senator and tell them to oppose ALL Article V Convention bills; then forward this email to your contacts in Oklahoma.

 

And after you call your state legislators, please help us mobilize a rapid defense against these bills by chipping in an emergency donation of $10 or $25 right away.

 

__________________

To Article V or not to Article V

John R. Houk

© February 19, 2016

________________

THE CASE FOR A CONVENTION OF STATES

 

National Leadership

 

Michael P. Farris

 

Citizens for Self-GovernanceSenior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, head of Convention of the States Project

 

Michael Farris is the Chancellor of Patrick Henry College and Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He was the founding president of each organization. During his career as a constitutional appellate litigator, he has served as lead counsel in the United States Supreme Court, eight federal circuit courts, and the appellate courts of thirteen states.

 

Farris has been a leader on Capitol Hill for over thirty years and is widely respected for his leadership in the defense of homeschooling, religious freedom, and the preservation of American sovereignty. A prolific author, Farris has been recognized with numerous awards, including the Salvatori Prize for American Citizenship by the Heritage Foundation and as one of the “Top 100 Faces in Education for the 20th Century” by Education Week magazine.

 

Farris received his B.A. in Political Science from Western Washington University. He later went on to earn his J.D. from Gonzaga University School of Law, and his LL.M. in Public International Law, from the University of London.

 

Mike and his wife Vickie, have ten children and 17 grandchildren.

 

Mark Meckler

 

Citizens for Self-GovernancePresident

 

Mark is one of the nation’s most effective grassroots activists. After he co-founded and was the national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, he founded Citizens for Self-Governance to revolutionize American government. Founded in February 2012, this grassroots initiative expands and directs the ever-growing, bipartisan self-governance movement. Mark appears regularly on wide variety of television outlets, including MSNBC, ABC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, Bloomberg, Fox Business and the BBC. He is the co-author of “Tea Party Patriots: The Second American Revolution,” and writes regularly on Breitbart, the American Spectator, and SelfGovern.com. He also is an attorney who specializes in internet privacy law.

 

Mark and his wife live in Northern California with their two teenage children where they share their love of the outdoors, mountain-biking, soccer and horses.

______________________

Stop the MADNESS in Oklahoma

 

Please note: Oklahoma Council for Freedom and Enterprise (OkCFE), paid for this communication and is solely responsible for its content. OkCFE is a project of the National Council for Freedom and Enterprise (NCFE), an IRS 501(c)4 non-profit organization. Donations are not tax deductible as charitable contributions or as business deductions.

 

101 Washington Street Falmouth, VA 22405 | (540)693-0737

www.NationalCouncilforFreedom.org

 

Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.

 

About NCFE

 

The National Council for Freedom and Enterprise is a 501c(4) dedicated to preserving the American way of life through defending the Constitution and free market system.

 

Americans are frustrated with an out-of-control federal government that treats the Constitution as a suggestion, and acts as though our liberties and freedoms are privileges granted by government that can be revoked at any time for any reason.

 

The American public understands that a government that governs least, governs best. And a government that is restrained and limited in scope allows for the free market system to flourish, creating liberty and prosperity for all.

 

We are tired of a government that taxes too much, spends even more and threatens our liberty at every turn.

 

Through educating every day Americans about the political process and the virtue of liberty and constitutional government, NCFE will affect real change.

 

Mind Control with Electromagnetic Frequency


Soleilmavis Liu

I discovered Soleilmavis Liu quite a few years ago. If my memory is accurate somehow we connected online while she was in the Philippines. I think she was a missionary. At first I thought she was an American Christian ministering the Gospel of Jesus Christ there. For quite some time I had no idea she had issues with being a victim of Mind Control. Way back in 2012 I posted my connection to Soleilmavis and links to three chapters to the eBook “Twelve Years in the Grave”. Unfortunately those peacepink links to the three chapters no longer work. If get the chance you should purchase Soleilmavis’ eBook. It is quite inexpensive at $5.99 with the full title, “Twelve Years in the Grave: Mind Control with Electromagnetic Spectrums, the Invisible Modern Concentration Camp”.

12 Years in the Grave” is essentially Soleilmavis’ biography pertaining to remote mind control. Now when you read things like “remote mind control” your first thoughts will probably be negative. You might think is she a nut case? A deluded Conspiracy Theorist? A con lady? And such thoughts that I’m sure you can come up with on your own. One thing is certain though. No matter what you believe on the possibility of remote mind control, Soleilmavis legitimately believes this has happened to her. In that sense that makes her a bit of an expert in my opinion. Other than reading the detail in her eBook you can get a decent snapshot of what Soleilmavis Liu is all about at the blog You Read it Here First. That website has posted an interview conducted by Christina Hamlett with Soleilmavis. Soleilmavis offers even more details of her experience at peacepink at the post ‘BOOK “TWELVE YEARS IN THE GRAVE” WWW.LULU.COM/SPOTLIGHT/SOLEILMAVIS’.

The lecture below is essentially what Soleilmavis spoke on in Communist China of all places on January 6, 2015. There were many speakers at this conference on various subjects all of which have PDF files of their lectures. The conference was sponsored by Chinese American Scholars Association (CASA).

JRH 8/2/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Mind Control with Electromagnetic Frequency

By Soleilmavis Liu

January 2015

Sponsor Activist of Peacepink

Original Lecture Location: Yantai, Shandong Province, China

CASA Link

Recent years, the words “mind control abuse and torture” and “target individual” appears frequently online. Thousands of people in groups or individually cries attention to the abuses and tortures with electromagnetic mind control technologies through internet and all other channels. The scale of the ongoing crimes is large, and hidden. People are asking for the worldwide attention and an international investigation of enormous human rights violations that are silently taking place worldwide at this moment.

Abstract:

One of the twenty-first century’s greatest violations of human rights is the proliferation of mind control technologies and their accompanying abuse and torture. Thousands of innocent victims across the globe have become activists for their freedom.

Electromagnetic mind control technologies are weapons which use electromagnetic waves to hijack a person’s brain and nervous system and subvert an individual’s sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making. This article is a brief introduction to mind control technologies, the grave situation of hidden mind control abuses and tortures, and victims, including Soleilmavis Liu, whose work is to expose mind control technologies and their torturous abuses, and to urge governments worldwide to investigate and halt these egregious violations of human rights.

Keywords: Mind control technology; voice-to-skull; victim, Human Rights; Torture; Abuse

Introduction

Thousands of people in groups or individually cries attention to the abuses and tortures with electromagnetic mind control technologies through internet and all other channels. The scale of the ongoing crimes is large, and hidden. People are asking for the worldwide attention and an international investigation of enormous human rights violations that are silently taking place worldwide at this moment.

This article will briefly introduce mind control technologies, current data of mind control victims, Soleilmavis’ case summary, and their work to expose mind control abuse and torture. Soleilmavis’ case summary and her work will hopefully bring more public awareness to the secret crimes of mind control abuses and tortures.

Brief introduction of mind control technologies

Mind control technologies are weapons which use electronic microchip implants, nanotechnologies, microwaves and/or electromagnetic waves to subvert an individual’s sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making by attacking the brain and nervous system. The development of these methods and technologies has a long history.

1. Nazi Wonder Drug

Nazi researchers used concentration camp inmates to test a cocaine-based “wonder drug” they hoped would enhance the performance of German troops. Hamburg-based criminologist Wolf Kemper believed that D-IX pills were Hitler’s last secret development. The so-called Experiment D-IX started in November of the year 1944 in Sachsenhausen concentration camp. The results of all those tests inspired their initiators to supply D-IX drug to the entire Nazi Army. However, they failed to launch the mass production of the substance. The allies’ victories at both fronts in winter and spring of in 1945 resulted in the collapse of the Nazi regime. The absurd dream of the wonder drug was crushed. [1]

According to the “Want to Know” information site, “After the end of World War II, German scientists were held in a variety of detainment camps by the allies. In 1946, President Truman authorized Project Paperclip to exploit German scientists for American research, and to deny these intellectual resources to the Soviet Union.” Some reports bluntly pointed out that they were “ardent Nazis.” They were considered so vital to the “Cold War” effort that they would be brought into the US and Canada. Some of these experts had participated in murderous medical experiments on human subjects at concentration camps. A 1999 report to the Senate and the House said “between 1945 and

1955; 765 scientists, engineers, and technicians were brought to the US under Paperclip and similar programs.” (Bluebird Report)

2. Mk-ultra, America’s Central Intelligence Agency mind control project.

The Central Intelligence Agency’s Fact Book states the NSC (National Security Council) and the CIA were established under the provisions of the National Security Act of 1947. In December 1947, the NSC held its first meeting. James Forrestal, the Secretary of Defense, pushed for the CIA to begin a “secret war” against the Soviets. Forrestal’s initiative led to the execution of psychological warfare operations (psy-ops) in Europe. CIA personnel were not opposed to working with Nazi doctors who had proven to be proficient in breaking the mind and rebuilding it. In some cases, military bases were used to hide these covert activities. It was decided that the communist threat was an issue that took priority over constitutional rights.

One of the areas to be investigated by the CIA was Mind Control. The CIA’s human behavior control program was chiefly motivated by perceived Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean use of mind control techniques. Under the protection of “national security,” many other branches of the government also took part in the study of this area. The CIA originated its first program in 1950 under the name BLUEBIRD, which in 1951, after Canada and Britain had been included, was changed to ARTICHOKE. MKULTRA officially began in 1953. Technically it was closed in 1964, but some of its programs remained active under MKSEARCH well into the seventies. In 1973, tipped off about forthcoming investigations, CIA Director Richard Helms ordered the destruction of any MKULTRA records. (MC 10, 17)

There is an overwhelming body of evidence that confirms the existence of Mk-ultra. More than 250 people who claim they were the victims of “brainwashing” by America’s Central Intelligence Agency were set to win a multimillion dollar legal battle for compensation. Nine already had each received $67,000 (£33,500) compensation from the spy agency, which had admitted to setting up an operation codenamed MK-Ultra during the Cold War. [Mike Parker, CIA’s Bourne Identity Plot (Mkultra), Express.co.uk, July 8, 2007] [2]

3. Implantable electronic chip mind control

Many researchers, using nanotechnologies had developed implantable electronic chips that established new nerve connections in parts of the brain that controlled movement or even altered emotion and thought. Researchers at the University of Washington (UW) had been working on an implantable electronic chip that might help establish new nerve connections in the part of the brain that controlled movement. Their study, to be published in the November 2, 2006, edition of Nature, showed such a device could induce brain changes in monkeys lasting more than a week (Leila Gray, Tiny Electronic Chip, Interacting with the Brain, Modifies Pathways for Controlling Movement, University of Washington News, October 24, 2006). [3]

On March 18, 2008, the Central Intelligence Agency responded in writing to a Larson Media Freedom of Information Act request. The document disclosed that the CIA’s use of biomedical intellectual property developed at the Alfred Mann Foundation, Second Sight LLC, Advanced Bionics, and under Naval Space Warfare (SPAWAR) contract #N6600106C8005, was “currently and properly classified pursuant to an executive order in the interest of national security,” and applied to the CIA Director’s “statutory obligation to protect from disclosure, intelligence sources and methods.” The technology, developed under the DARPA programs of Tony Tether, Col. Geoffrey Ling and N.I.H programs of William Heetderks, had been protected as a Defense “Special Access Program1” (SAP), which was the official terminology for a “black project.” The research had resulted in implantable devices that were millimeter and sub-millimeter in size, could be surreptitiously implanted (and had been fabricated in a manner that the devices could not be detected or localized by clinical medical or radiology techniques), and provided a shocking amount of surveillance capability regarding a subject’s activities, which might include visual and auditory biofeedback data.

Additionally, the devices were capable of delivering testosterone or any other biological agent.

4. Voice to Skull Technologies

Artificial microwave voice-to-skull transmission was successfully demonstrated by researcher Dr. Joseph Sharp in 1973, announced at a seminar at the University of Utah in 1974, and in the journal “American Psychologist” in the March 1975 issue, the article was titled “Microwaves and Behavior” by Dr. Don Justesen (1975). [4]

In 2002, the US Air Force Research Laboratory patented precisely such a device: “a nonlethal weapon which includes (1) a neuro-electromagnetic device, which broadcast sound into the skull of persons or animals by way of pulse-modulated microwave radiation; and (2) a silent sound device, which can transmit ultrasound (above human hearing) into the skull of mammals.” NOTE: The sound modulation might be voice or audio subliminal messages. One application of voice-to-skull uses was an electronic scarecrow to frighten birds in the vicinity of airports. [5]

5. Mind reading technologies

A team of world-leading neuroscientists has developed a powerful technique that allowed them to look deep inside a person’s brain, and to read their intentions before they act.

The research broke controversial new ground in scientists’ ability to probe people’s minds and eavesdrop on their thoughts, ethically to be condemned in its technology and applications.

“Using the scanner, we could look around the brain for this information and read out something that from the outside, there is no way you possibly could tell is in there. It is like shining a torch around, looking for writing on a wall,” said John Dylan Haynes at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Germany in 2007, who led the study with colleagues at University College London and Oxford University.

In 2011, neuroscientists at the University of California Berkeley put electrodes inside the skulls of brain surgery patients to monitor information from their temporal lobe, which was involved in the processing of speech and images. As the patient listened to someone speaking, a computer program analysed how the brain processed and reproduced the words they had heard.

The scientists believed the technique could also be used to read and report what they were thinking of saying next.

In the journal Plos Biology, they wrote that it took attempts at mind reading to “a whole new level.”

Harvard’s Buckner won the Alzheimer’s award for reading our minds in 2011. Researchers had shown a capability to read a subject’s mind by remotely measuring their brain activity. This technique could even extract information from individuals, who were unaware of themselves. [6]

Those mind reading technologies use EEC with decoding of neurological signals remotely with or without an implant through satellite or through TV Mobile transmission towers. The following data was from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, “The sensitivity of our deep-space tracking antennas located around the world is truly amazing. The antennas must capture Voyager information from a signal so weak that the power striking the antenna is only 10 exponent -16 watts (1 part in 10 quadrillion). A modern-day electronic digital watch operates at a power level 20 billion times greater than this feeble level.”

Scientists believed the weak radio emission of a cubic centimeter of brain matter was within the detectable limits of the satellite. It was technically possible for a satellite to detect your thoughts, emotions and perceptions, and pass that information to a computer for interpretation. [7]

6. Patents of Mind Control Technologies

Many patents had indicated the existence of mind control technologies, such as:

USP # 6,729,337 (May 4, 2004), Sony owned a patent “Sony Brain Waves Manipulation By Ultrasound” for an “ultrasound array” that supposedly stimulated your brain waves to simulate sensory experiences causing its users to experience smells, tastes and even touch without external stimuli. USP # 6,488,617 (December 3, 2002), Nervous System Manipulation by EM Fields from Monitors.

7. More evidence to prove the existence of mind control technologies.

There is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of mind control technologies. I will only give a few as example.

Microwave Irradiation of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, review of its history and studies to determine whether or not related health defects were experienced by employees assigned in the period, 1953-1977,prepared at the request of Howard W. Cannon, chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, published in 1979 by U.S. Government Printing Office in Washington, disclose that since 1952, the Soviet government began directing microwave beams at the U.S. embassy in Moscow.

A study funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, has perfected the art of using electrical signals to manipulate the color of a squid’s iridescent skin over the entire color spectrum. The Marine Biological Laboratory in Massachusetts carried out the research.[8] If they could manipulate animals, they could manipulate humans too.

A former KGB officer has divulged secrets of special mind control techniques that security services in developed nations used during and after the Cold War, a Russian government daily said in December 2006.

General Boris Ratnikov, who served in the KGB department for Moscow and the Moscow Region, told Rossiiskaya Gazeta that people in power had resorted to various methods of manipulating individuals’ thoughts since ancient times and that it was hardly surprising that secret services adopted the practice when it acquired a scientific foundation in the twentieth century.

In the mid-eighties, about fifty research institutes in the Soviet Union studied remote mind control techniques backed by substantial government funding, but all such research efforts were halted with the demise of the Soviet empire in the early nineties.

Ratnikov, who subsequently served as deputy head and then senior consultant at the Federal Guard Service from 1991 to 1997, said his department was in charge of safeguarding top officials in post-Soviet Russia against any external influence on their sub-conscious.

The general stated emphatically that he and his colleagues had never manipulated the minds of the then president, Boris Yeltsin, or of economic reformer Yegor Gaidar, but claimed to have used mind-reading to save Russia’s first president and the country from a war with China.

Yeltsin had planned to visit Japan in 1992, but Ratnikov’s department detected attempts to “program” the president’s mind, to make him give the Kuril Islands back to Japan. The move would have led to demands from China that it regains its disputed territories from Russia as well, a conflict that could have sparked a war between the two neighbors. Yeltsin, therefore, was forced to cancel the trip.

Another of the general’s revelations is that senior officials in Western Europe and the United States unwittingly provided information to his department, which was able to read their minds thanks to Soviet-era scientific achievements.

In the early nineties, Ratnikov and his colleagues “scanned” the mind of new U.S. Ambassador Robert Strauss to see that the embassy building contained equipment to exert psychotronic influence on Moscow residents but, according to the general, it had been deactivated. [9]

Research into electromagnetic spectrums weapons had been secretly carried out in the US and Russia since the fifties. Plans to introduce the super-weapons were announced quietly in March 2012 by Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, fulfilling a little-noticed election campaign pledge by president-elect Putin. Mr. Serdyukov said, “The development of weaponry based on new physics principles – Direct Energy weapons, Geophysical weapons, Wave-energy weapons, Genetic weapons, Psychotronic weapons, and so on – is part of the state arms procurement programme for

2011-2020.”[10]

There was no doubt that, notwithstanding that governments still covered-up the development and research of mind control technologies, the government owned advanced technologies, which could read mankind thoughts remotely and subvert an individual’s sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making by attacking the brain and nervous system with electromagnetic frequencies.

As early as 1998, scientists had warned that the control and manipulation of a human brain was a terrifying possibility. Lieutenant Colonel Timothy L. Thomas, US Army (ret), published an article in the military journal Parameters which likened the mind to a new battlefield. He quoted a Russian army major in relation to weapons that affected the mind, “It is completely clear that the state, which is first to create such weapons, will achieve incomparable superiority.” Thomas expressed concern about “information dominance,” though he stopped short of the moral implications. (Timothy L. Thomas, The Mind Has No Firewall, Parameters, Spring 1998, pp. 84-92) [11]

Mr. Peter Phillips, Lew Brown and Bridget Thornton raised high concerns of human rights violations implemented with electromagnetic spectrums weapons in the article “US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights.” (Peter Phillips, Lew Brown and Bridget Thornton, US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights, December 2006) [12]

Carole Smith, a British psychoanalyst, in recent years has been openly critical of government use of intrusive technology on non-consenting citizens, in the article “Diagnosis Psychosis in Light of Mind Invasive Technology – On the Need for New Criteria of Diagnosis of Psychosis in the Light of Mind Invasive Technology.”

The European Parliament A4-0005/1999 Paragraph 27 called for a worldwide ban on weapons that might enable “any form” of the “manipulation of human beings.” [13]

USA Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced bill H.R. 2977 (2001), which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

H.R. 2977 (2001) preserved the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and required the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

In this bill, the terms “weapon” and “weapons system” included a device capable of the following: “directing a source of energy, including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultralow frequency (ULF) energy radiation, against that object,” “through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations.”

The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) formally listed a special category of psychotronic (psycho = “mind” &tronic= “electronic”) mind control and other electromagnetic resonance weapons in their 2002 Media Guide to Disarmament. [14]

Reported stories about people who claimed that they were mind control victims

There are many reported stories about people who have claimed that they were tortured and harassed by remote voice-to-skull and electromagnetic mind control technologies. Most of the public including media labeled them as conspiracy theorists, or mentally ill persons. Their stories were regarded as conspiracy work.

In the days and weeks before authorities say he shot three people at the Florida State University library and was then gunned down by Tallahassee police, Myron May posted a video about mind control to Facebook, and earlier an image of a Google business card with the words “Targeted individual.” He also posted a video of former professional wrestler and Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura interviewing a man who claims to have created technology that allows the federal government to control people’s minds.

Jimmy Shao of Sacramento, California, was arrested for calling 911 more than one hundred times in one month in May 2013. Shao said he would not stop until Congress investigates the shadow government who use satellites to control his mind and body.

Jared Loughner, 23, who accused of shooting a US congresswoman in Arizona and killing six others on January 8, 2011, claimed that he was being mind-controlled. Fayette woman Angela Modispaw claimed she heard voices telling her to kill her mother in 2009.

Another suspected victim, Honduras’ fallen leader told The Miami Herald, he was being subjected to mind-altering gas and radiation – and that “Israeli mercenaries” are planning to assassinate him.

Ronald Morgan, 18, a teenage high school dropout who told investigators he was acting on God’s orders confessed to beating his father to death with a baseball bat on May 27, 2001. Morgan said God had told him in a dream to kill his parents. Michael Robert Lawrence, accused of murdering a vacuum cleaner salesman in Waialua, said he was on a “mission” to kill people and chop up their bodies after voices commanded him to do so, a psychiatrist testified on April 3, 2001. T.J.

Richard Scott Baumhammers, 34, was arrested Friday, April 28, 2000, following a shooting rampage that left five dead and one seriously injured in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area. Baumhammers told a psychiatrist that he could hear people talking about him, and it interfered with his work.

Solomon, 15, allegedly opened fire on other students at Heritage High School on August 10, 1999. He heard voices telling him to do strange things, but they were robotic voices, not human voices.

Tami Stainfield is a woman with evidence that proves she and others are victims of predictive analytics robotics and human logistics. She claimed that “we are tortured, hostages, and slaves to a network of technology void from identification and protection.” She had filed as a “no party” candidate in 2012 for the Presidency of the United States.

On February 28, 2011, many mind control victims provided statements to Presidential

Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues on a meeting in Washington, DC.

These were only a very few reported stories from many victims all over the world. The majority of victims’ stories had been ignored by the media and the public.

Current data about mind control victims

Since 2006, many people who claimed to be mind control victims started connecting through the Internet, working together to write countless letters to government departments, social communities, human rights organizations, the media and the general public. Some victims organized some demonstrations in their countries and filed their lawsuits. Some victims organized meetings to meet together to discuss how to fight well. Some victims placed advertisements in major newspapers. Victims also launched worldwide conference calls.

Mind Control abuse and torture is becoming a larger issue worldwide. So far, USA, Europe, and China are the most impacted areas. At least more than 2,000 victims in each of these areas have complained about being attacked by voice-to-skull and electromagnetic mind control technologies. There are also many victims in other countries, including over 200 in Russia, over 100 in India, and over 100 in Japan.

According to an anonymous survey (result on December 19, 2009) for 296 mind control victims all over the world, including 130 females and 166 males, 71.29% of all victims had completed a college degree, with 13.86% of all victims attaining a Master or a Doctor degree. [15]

Their Ages were: 10-20: 13 (4.39%); 21-30: 64 (21.62%); 31-40: 87 (29.39%); 41-50: 70 (23.65%); 51-60: 42 (14.19%); 61-70: 15 (5.07%); above 70: 5 (1.69%).

Year Torture Began: 1970-1980: 29 (9.80%); 1981-1990: 40 (13.51%); 1991-1995: 34 (11.49%); 1996: 18 (6.08%); 1997: 5 (1.69%); 1998: 11 (3.72%); 1999: 6 (2.03%); 2000: 16 (5.41%); 2001: 17 (5.74%); 2002: 15 (5.07%);

2003: 12 (4.05%); 2004: 21 (7.09%); 2005: 15 (5.07%); 2006: 17 (5.74%); 2007: 11 (3.72%); 2008: 23 (7.77%).

Ages when they were aware of being a target: 10-20: 69 (23.31%); 21-30: 92 (31.08%); 31-40: 49 (16.55%); 41-50: 59 (19.93%); 51-60: 21 (7.09%); 61-70: 5 (1.69%); above 70: 1 (0.34%).

The possible reasons victims believed they became a target were:

(1) Government Secret Human Experiments or Scientists Performing Secret Human Experiments supported by Government (58.11%);

(2) Scientists Performing Secret Human Experiment (36.82%);

(3) Government Secret War (33.45%);

(4) Secret Political persecution (32.77%);

(5) Terrorist violence (22.97%);

(6) Misuse of weapons by government corruption (45.27%).

The symptoms victims experienced as a possible result of this technology:

(1) Hot and Cold Flashes 148 50.00%

(2) Nausea 151 51.01%

(3) Severe sweating 119 40.20%

(4) Induced Sleep 193 65.20%

(5) Sleep deprivation 233 78.72%

(6) Extreme Fatigue 203 68.58%

(7) Blurred Vision 170 57.43%

(8) Sensations of pain in internal organs 183 61.82%

(9) Sensations of pain in backbone, arms, legs, and muscles 174 58.78%

(10) Numbness and tingling, Paresthesias, Loss of sensation 144 48.65%

(11) Muscle Cramps /Spasms/tension 167 56.42%

(12) Sudden Headaches 189 63.85%

(13) Irregular Heartbeat 180 60.81%

(14) False Heart Attacks 115 38.85%

(15) Tooth Pain 149 50.34%

(16) Diarrhea. 131 44.26%

(17) Acute inflammation/autoimmunity reactions 75 25.34%

(18) Autoimmune disorders like Fibromyalgia 50 16.89%

(19) Urinary tract infections 53 17.91%

(20) Skin problems and skin irritations 149 50.34%

(21) Change in growing of hair and nails 95 32.09%

(22) Female problems which eventually lead to hysterectomy 24 8.11%

(23) Cancer 13 4.39%

(24) Fevers 68 22.97%

(25) Flulike Symptoms /Sneezing 126 42.57%

(26) Dizziness or Loss of Balance 164 55.41%

(27) Sudden loss of consciousness 91 30.74%

(28) Benign or Malignant Tumors 24 8.11%

(29) Sensation of Electric Current Running through the Body 161 54.39%

(30) Induced Thoughts/ telepathic communication,

(31) Hearing “voices” (reception of auditory acoustic weapon transmissions or similar) 201 67.91%

(32) Seeing “Holograms” 124 41.89%

(33) Dream Manipulation 211 71.28%

(34) Artificial Emotions (induced fear, anger, shame, joy, hate, sadness) 201 67.91%

(35) Sudden “unexpected” Sexual Arousal 159 53.72%

(36) Genital manipulation 163 55.07%

(37) Induced Smells 154 52.03

(38) Sudden extreme moodswings (depression – euphoria) 142 47.97%

(39) Induced pleasure-aversion reactions towards people or objects 133 44.93%

(40) Making you say things (forced speech) 135 45.61%

(41) General behaviour control in some situations 147 49.66%

(42) Manipulation of Memory (forgetting/remembering/screen memories) 199 67.23%

(43) Remote steering of eye movements 114 38.51%

(44) Remote steering of body movements/motor control 126 42.57%

(45) Virtual reality experiences while awake 104 35.14%

50.34% of all victims have been forced to accept psychiatric treatment, the length of being forced to accept psychiatric treatment were:

(1) 1-3 months 66 22.30%

(2) 4-6 months 12 4.05%

(3) 7-12 months 4 1.35%

(4) 1 year 10 3.38%

(5) 2-3 years 17 5.74%

(6) 4-5 years 11 3.72%

(7) 6-8 years 9 3.04%

(8) 9-10 years 1 0.34%

(9) above 10 years 20 6.76%

All victims claimed that the psychiatric treatment did not have any therapeutic effect.

Soleilmavis’ Case summary of Mind Control abuse and torture

Soleilmavis is a Chinese citizen, born and raised in China, who was first attacked in December, 2001 when she was studying for a Master’s Degree in Australia. At the time she was unfamiliar with remote electromagnetic weapons which can control thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making by attacking the brain and nervous system. Eventually, she would come to learn of these technologies that are being secretly used or covered by governments worldwide to control and harass the populace.

Noticeable effects started with some noises (whispering voices) which she heard from the floor below her or from the neighbors’ houses. The other people who lived in the same house could not hear them. Soon she started to experience a wide variety of symptoms.

Majority of the symptoms were: pain all over the body, stomach pain, toothaches, headaches, involuntary hand tremors, inability to stand firmly on her legs, alternation of cold and hot sensations, excessive perspiration, high fevers, constipation, faece and piss incontinence, sexual harassment, sleep deprivation, dream manipulation, artificial emotions (induced fear, anger, shame, joy, hate, sadness), and manipulation of memory (forgetting/remembering/screen memories). Torturers also can make her say things (forced speech).All those symptoms would disappear without any medical treatment, or sometimes, a pain would persist, even if she had strong medication.

She was like a little trapped marionette being controlled by invisible strings. Some unknown people held the strings and controlled her actions: speaking, walking, eating, sleeping, and even her thoughts and emotions.

On April 5, 2002, she left Australia, and went to Hong Kong, Thailand, Shanghai and New Zealand, but could not escape the harassment and torture. When she was in Hong Kong, her brain was controlled by voice-to-skull and remote electromagnetic mind control technologies, and she was taken into the US Embassy in Hong Kong. It was strange that there were so many Security Guards outside the US Embassy, but nobody stopped her or asked her anything.

During the past years, Soleilmavis worked hard to expose mind control technologies and their torturous abuses, and urge governments worldwide to investigate and halt these egregious violations of human rights. She wrote her book “Twelve Years in the Grave – Mind Control with Electromagnetic Spectrums, the Invisible Modern Concentration Camp” to let the public know details of her story. She and other victims in her network have started a concerted campaign against secret mind control weapons abuse and torture. They are demanding an international investigation into these crimes which constitute immense violations of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Provided the fact that her brain was remotely controlled by voice-to-skull and electromagnetic mind control technologies, and she was taken into the US Embassy in Hong Kong, she urges the US government to investigate her case. She also requires the cooperation and support of the governments of Australia and China, and requests assistance from the United Nations and other governments in investigating her case. She wishes the public help her to urge governments to take immediate actions.

Conclusions

It can be seen that mind control weapons are well developed and they are being used secretly to torture and harass innocent citizens. Many victims are currently working in conjunction with Soleilmavis to start a worldwide campaign against secret mind control weapons abuse and torture.

In this research, the following conclusions were reached:

1) Many countries have developed various types of mind control methods: drugs, microchips, nanotechnologies and electromagnetic waves. Could these governments also introduce legislation to regulate the use of such weapons?

2) Effective laws and other measures from our governments need to be enacted to prevent the misuse of such weapons.

3) In the event of misuse of such weapons, government intervention is required to protect the victims’ and prosecute torturers to the fullest extent of the law.

It is hoped that this paper will bring about public awareness and solutions to mind control weapons abuse and torture.

References:

[1] Nazi Wonder Drug, http://www.amphetamines.com/nazidrug.html, 9/11/2002, accessed August 19, 2013

[2] Mike Parker, CIA’S BOURNE IDENTITY PLOT (Mkultra), Express.co.uk, July 8, 2007, http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12781/CIA accessed August 19, 2013

[3] Leila Gray, Tiny electronic chip, interacting with the brain, modifies pathways for controlling movement, University of Washington News, October 24, 2006 http://www.washington.edu/news/archive/27624 accessed August 19, 2013

[4] Dr. Don Justesen, Microwaves and Behavior, American Psychologist, March 1975, http://www.randomcollection.info/ampsychv2s.pdf accessed August 19, 2013

[5] Voice-to-skull devices http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/vts.htm accessed August 19, 2013

[6] Harvard’s Buckner wins Alzheimer’s award for reading our minds, February 24, 2011, http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/goodage/2011/02/24/harvards-buckner-wins-alzheimers-award-for-reading-our-minds/#axz z1U2ENzowU [Blog Editor: Link Dead – Here’s link talking of Dr. Randy Buckner’s award] accessed August 19, 2013

[7] Can A Satellite Read Your Thoughts http://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/satellite-surveillance accessed August 19, 2013

[8] T. J. Wardill, P. T. Gonzalez-Bellido, R. J. Crook, R. T. Hanlon. Neural control of tuneable skin iridescence in squid. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2012; DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1374

[9] Ex-agent reveals KGB Mind Control techniques – paper 22/12/2006 http://www.en.rian.ru/russia/20061222/57596889.html accessed August 19, 2013

[10] Christopher Leake and Will Stewart, Putin targets foes with ‘zombie’ gun which attack victims’ central nervous system Could be used against Russia’s enemies and perhaps its own dissidents, March 31, 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2123415/Putin-targets-foes-zombie-gun-attack-victims-central-nervous-system.html accessed August 19, 2013

[11] Timothy L. Thomas, The Mind Has No Firewall, Parameters, Spring 1998, pp. 84-92.

[12] Peter Phillips, Lew Brown and Bridget Thornton, US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights, December 2006, http://www.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/MindControlHumanRights.pdf?/ accessed August 19, 2013

[13] Environment, security and foreign affairs, A4-0005/1999, The European Parliament http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A4-1999-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0//E N#Contentd14937e476 [Blog Editor: Link is fractured – After Googling the title I found this LINK] accessed August 19, 2013

[14] 2002 Media Guide to Disarmament in Geneva,

A Joint Initiative of: Quaker United Nations Office, Geneva

United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research

Programme for Strategic and International Security Studies, IUHEI http://www.unidir.ch/pdf/activites/pdf2-act201.pdf accessed August 19, 2013

[15] An anonymous Survey for Mind Control Victims (result on 19 Dec 2009) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Peacepink/message/2569

January 2015

__________________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

This post was adopted from a PDF file which I did converting software to change it to a Word document. This post was reformatted from the converted Word document.

 

© Soleilmavis Liu

Mind Control is used by U.S. Government


Mind Control Mechanics

 

John R. Houk

© December 4, 2013

 

On November 10, 2013 I posted some miniscule research in relation to some information sent to me by my friend Soleilmavis Liu pertaining to mind control. I combined the small amount of research I glazed over with Soleilmavis promotion of her eBook “Twelve Years in the Grave – Mind Control with Electromagnetic Spectrums, the Invisible Modern Concentration Camp”. I titled my portion of the post “Is Remote Mind Control Causing Gunman Massacres?

 

The whole post is about the U.S. government utilizing Mind Control experimentation on foreign and domestic subjects. In Soleilmavis’ case the Mind Control began as a foreign test subject. The experimentation is not on a voluntary basis. The person’s mind is experimented on clandestinely. Now just be clear was not posting this as a denigration of the USA. In spite of Obama’s attempts to dilute the personal Liberties embedded in our Constitution, the USA is still the freest nation on earth and to date in history. You do realize at the very least that nations that are very powerful and anti-American are also involved with nefarious experimentation (cough like China and Russia). The difference being domestically is that U.S. citizens are Constitutionally protected from such invasions at least on an unwilling basis. So my concern is will the U.S. government utilize the exploitation of our Intelligence networks to ignore the Constitution?

 

President Obamasiah’s Administration has been caught with his hands in the cookie jar of Constitutional Privacy utilizing the NSA on all Americans and the IRS to intimidate Conservative organizations that do not like the President’s concept of transforming America. AND the multiple other scandals (long list) coming to light and being denied as scandalous by the Obama Administration has to make Americans question what Barack Hussein Obama is up to, right?

 

Do you know what DARPA is? You should find out if you do not know.

 

DARPA – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is:

 

… an independent agency of the United States Department of Defense (DOD) that focuses on developing cutting edge technology to ensure that the United States remains ahead of its enemies. The organization has contributed a number of technologies to the United States military and the world in general, including the groundwork for the Internet. Many of the workings of this agency are kept concealed from the public, in the interests of keeping its technology under wraps so that it is not exploited by other nations.

 

The agency was founded in 1958, after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first satellite. The United States government realized that it needed a small, mobile, independent research organization if it wanted to meet threats to American security quickly and decisively. Initially, the agency was called the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), and it focused on aerospace research and threats to national security such as nuclear testing by other nations.

 

By 1972, the organization’s mission had evolved, and the government had added “Defense” to the title, turning it into DARPA. It began to focus on looking forward into the future, working on highly experimental technology in small, focused groups. This system continues to be used by the agency today, with it focusing on goal-oriented projects that are intended to improve America’s military and defense systems.

 

DARPA has a number of divisions that are divided into smaller teams focusing on a variety of issues. Information technology is an important part of its research, for example, as are tools that are used on the battlefield, such as drones, armored vehicles, and communications jamming equipment. The agency also focuses on the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and it counters emerging threats to American security and information awareness. It has many small but very dedicated groups of active researchers and experiments, who may work together for up to five years developing a project and delivering a prototype.

 

Because DARPA technology is used to protect national security and make the United States more effective militarily, it is largely classified. It is also extremely advanced, since the organization focuses on technological superiority. Periodically, information about agency projects does reach the public, but the details are usually deliberately obscured. Civilians, for example, might be aware that it is working on a cloaking device for camouflaging soldiers, but they will not be aware of the mechanics of the system. (What is DARPA? wiseGEEK)

 

DARPA is so secretive that Conspiracy Theories abound which are on the fantastic side of belief. So when a Conspiracy Theory is true about DARPA, it is so muddled with the fantastic that incredulity reigns supreme.

 

There is a DARPA invention that Christians should be aware of. Former DARPA Director now working for Google does an interview talking about electronic tattoos being placed on the human skin in which data and fiscal information is embedded for scanning like for the doctor, purchasing, Regina Duganbanking and so on. On the Oath Keepers website an interview was posted with Regina Dugan explaining how the tattoo would work. Here is a small intro just before the video:

 

Regina Dugan, the former Director of DARPA, and current executive at Google describes, with confidence, the coming Beast Tech smart tattoos and ingestible biochips that are ALREADY FDA APPROVED, that people will want to receive (and then be required to receive) by 2017.

 

Note, if you will, the audience applauding this new technology.

 

VIDEO: Former DARPA director on research into Beast Tech

 

(Former DARPA Director On Research Into Beast Tech; Oath Keepers;

December 3rd, 2013)

 

My fellow Christians, can you say Mark of the Beast? I don’t care how convenient it is made out to be, I’m staying old school against that piece of technology.

 

NONETHELESS, there is one story about DARPA inventiveness that seems to be getting traction for the reason a whistleblower has released classified documents and has given interviews that talk about the super-secret organization is actively experimenting with the kind of Mind Control that Soleilmavis has written about concerning her personal experiences.

 

The whistleblower claims (if his documents are true) that DARPA has granted Arizona State University’s (ASU) classified research program called Center for Strategic Communication (CSC) a grant of 6.1 MILLION DOLLARS to use Remote Mind Control against enemy soldiers. A friend of mine sent a Youtube interview between Ben Swann and the Whistleblower. I am going to cross page 1 and page 2 of the text of interview followed by the video itself. On the Swann’s website he places the video first, but I think if you read the text first it will sink in about what is going on. You should note that this story broke in October 2013 and many other blogs and websites picked up Ben Swann’s original story in which they provided links to the leaked documents. As of today anyway, those documents have been removed because Arizona State University complained of copyright infringement. That leads me to suspect the leaked documents are real and not faked. If you are lucky maybe you can find another website or blog that has not been intimidated by a government agency about posting the leaked documents.

 

In the Swann interview you will hear such things as Narrative Theory and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. The later term first got my attention from Soleilmavis Liu.

 

JRH 12/4/13 (Hat Tip: Judge Bob)

Please Support NCCR

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

Ben Swann showing the ASU - CSC mind control plan

 

Exclusive: Government Program to Control Religious Thought?

 

By Ben Swann

October 16, 2013

BenSwann.com

 

Truth in Media: Government Program to Control Religious Thought?

 

Is the U.S. Government working on a program to…well…program the way you view religion?

 

A whistleblower who has worked on that program says yes and he wants you to know exactly what has been going on.

 

The first step towards truth is to be informed.

 

If I told you that the Defense Department was using taxpayer dollars to learn how to influence people with religious beliefs in order to control those beliefs, would it really surprise you?

 

Would you think that I am a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist?

 

Would you care if I told you that the program was aimed at controlling fundamentalist Muslims?

 

How about fundamentalist Christians?

 

Here’s the backstory. In 2012, Arizona State Universitys Center for Strategic Communication or CSC was awarded a $6.1 million dollar research grant by DARPA or the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

 

The goal of the project according to ASUʼs website is to study the neurobiology of narrative comprehension, validate narrative theories and explore the connection between narrative and persuasion.”

 

A lot of technical talk there, so lets (sic) dig into the details.

 

The CSC program is actually about creating narratives. Using effective communication, largely video, to control the thought process of groups of people. And ultimately to be able to trigger narratives through magnetic stimulation. At its core, the program is focused on how to win the narrative against Muslim extremism. It’s a fairly interesting concept.

 

According to documents leaked to us, this project integrates insights from three mutually-informing theoretical terrains.

In short, the goal of the program is to combat and change religious narratives because of their role in “extremist behavior.” The whistleblower who revealed this program to us, worked for several years on the program. They asked not to be identified.

 

Ben: What were you told about the proposal as you began working through it?

 

Whistleblower: Yeah, I thought that it was benign. They told me it was about trying to figure outwhat (sic) parts of the brain are affected by narrative persuasion. Just to figure it out just for academic reasons. So we looked at narrative transportation which is basically how an individual is transported into a narrative, how they understand it…kind of like when you read a good book you get really enthralled with it.

 

At its core, the program attempts to map the brain to determine which portions of the brain allow you to accept a narrative presented to you. It’s called narrative theory.

 

Mapping this network will lead to a fuller understanding of the influence narrative has on memory, emotion, theory of mind, identity and persuasion, which in turn influence the decision to engage in political violence or join violent groups or support groups ideologically or financially.

 

You see, the project is focused on the belief that the reason Muslims in the Middle East are swayed to religious violence is not because of the reality of what is going on around them per se, but because they are believing a local or a regional narrative.

 

Ben: The local and regional narrative then is that the brain automatically assumes things because of a narrative we’ve been taught since our childhood, is that it?

 

Whistleblower: Right yeah that’s true. We call those master narratives. So in America we have this “rags to riches” master narrative where if you work really hard you can become successful and make a ton of money. So in the Middle East, they always use the example of the Pharaoh. That’s the master narrative that’s in the Qur’an, where there’s this corrupt leader that, you know, is really bad for society. And they use the example of Sadat who was assassinated. When the assassin killed him, he said, “I have killed the Pharaoh, I have killed the Pharaoh.” So they assume that he was relying upon this Islamic master narrative to fuel his actions.

 

So how does the program change this? Again a lot of technical speak here so stay with me. But it’s broken into three phases.

 

PAGE 2

 

Phase I is to map the Narrative Comprehension Network using a set of stimuli designed from the point of view of two different religious cultures.

 

Phase II will test hypotheses generated in Phase I, adding two additional manipulations of narrative validity and narrative transportation.

 

Phase III, it investigates possibilities for literally disrupting the activity of the NCN through Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.

 

Ben: Phase III is fairly interesting. I noticed in the documentation it says lets (sic) not talk too much about this because who knows if we’ll ever get there. But when you do read what Phase III is it is a little surprising, it’s called Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. This is not something that’s science fiction, it’s not something they’ve cooked up. This is a real technique that’s already been used in the past, correct?

 

Whistleblower: Yes, it started out in the psychiatry field when people were depressed and when you’re depressed certain parts of your brain are not functioning correctly. So they created this technology, which is basically a big magnet, and you put it on their brain and it turns off that part of the brain that’s bad or wrong and it would help them with their depression for several weeks to a month and they’d go back and do it again. So this technology has been around for ten or fifteen years.

 

Ben: So it’s very high tech propaganda, what we’re talking about.

 

Whistleblower: High tech and validated propaganda, yes. So if they’re able to turn off a part of the brain and get rid of that master narrative that will make you not believe in a particular statement, they would have validated this propaganda. So if they turn off portion X, they know that the propaganda is going to work and the individual is going to believe whatever is being told to them.

 

So why do all this? Because the project is based on the idea that despite the good work of the U.S. in the Middle East, the message of the work is not being received.

 

“The frequent rejection of US messaging by local populations in the Middle East, despite US insistence on the objective truth of the US message, illustrates the narrative paradigm at work. The well documented ‘say-do gap’ between US messages and US actions is seen by some as contributing to a lack of narrative validity in stories produced by the US. Similarly, stories of US aid do not ring true in a culture wherein Christian foreigners, since the 11th Century, have been invaders and sought to destroy and rule.”

 

So how to fix this?

 

Ben: How do you move someone from simply watching a video or seeing a video all the way down that line to behavior? It’s a pretty powerful tool if you’re able to do that.

 

Whistleblower: Right, so they think that maybe an extremist statements or a video like Al Qaeda puts out will lead to some individuals doing a suicide bombing, for example. So they’re trying to look at this video or the statements and take away a part of your brain that will think that it fits in with your culture or master narrative and that will hopefully lead you to not do these extremist, violent acts.

So what you need to know is that this program boils down to one central idea. If people aren’t reaching the conclusions the U.S. government would like them to reach, there must be a way to force them to accept these narratives.

 

Remember that the claim is that the U.S. despite giving aid is viewed in the Middle East as invaders. That, according to the program research is the product of embedded narrative, not a result of action.

 

So the view of the U.S. as invaders in countries where we have standing armies, dozens of military bases, the U.S. paying off drug lords in Afghanistan or regional warlords in Iraq or where we consistently bomb via drone strike in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia or where we fund dictators until those dictators are overthrown and then attempt to fund the rebels, who end up becoming dictators.

 

All of that has nothing to do with the U.S. view of Muslims in the Middle East because clearly they are missing the fact that the U.S. gives aid.

 

The next step, control the narrative and if necessary, use magnetic stimulation to force people to accept the view of the U.S. that we desire them to have.

 

After all, aren’t extremist Muslims dangerous? Extremist Christians? See the problem with the question is who gets to define extremist? Who decides if religious beliefs are inherently dangerous?

 

And if we believe that government should have the power to control how the extremist thinks… wouldn’t they have the authority to decide how and what we all think?

 

Sources:

We cannot post the leaked documents from program here because ASU has claimed intellectual property infringement.

 

Note: I contacted Arizona State University’s CSC Department requesting an interview about this program.  A spokesperson told me that the University would not comment on the program. That all inquires (sic) should be sent to DARPA.

 

VIDEO: Government Program To Control Religious Thought?

 

__________________________________

Mind Control is used by U.S. Government

John R. Houk

© December 4, 2013

___________________________________

Exclusive: Government Program to Control Religious Thought?

 

Copyright 2013 Ben Swann

 

Ben Swann Bio

 

I have spent 14 years working as a journalist in broadcast news.  I won’t bore you with all the details but suffice to say I began my career as a news photographer and moved up the ladder to reporter, morning anchor/reporter, prime time anchor/reporter.  Along the way I won two Emmy Awards and two Edward R. Murrow awards.  For a number of years I covered Mexico’s drug war.  At that time, I realized that national media was not interested in the truth of what was happening in Mexico or the problems associated with the failed “war on drugs” in the United States.

 

In 2010, I moved north to Cincinnati, Ohio to take a prime time anchor job with WXIX and there I became the producer/writer/anchor of a segment called “Reality Check”.  It was while covering the 2012 Republican Presidential primary that I began to confront the problems in the American electoral process, the stranglehold of America’s two party system and …

 

 

Why BenSwann.com?

 

1. Our culture is truth deficient. The historical centers of truth have broken down.

2. The average U.S. citizen has lost their voice to the affluent with money and power.

3. Voters are disenfranchised from the party system. The rise of “independents” has simply defined what people are not, but has struggled to bring clarity to who they are.

 

We are building solutions to these problems.

 

We are speaking truth to power through media, culture, and READ ENTIRETY

Reawaken 4th Amendment Due Govt. Corruption


Unnecessary Const Rights Prohibited

John R. Houk

© October 30, 2013

 

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. (Amendment IV – U.S. Constitution)

 

I have been a huge supporter of the Patriot Act (Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) due to the reason that this law came into existence; viz. an Islamic terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 (911) on American soil that resulted in the deaths of about 5,000 people. To the extent that the Patriot Act is a tool to examine foreign activity that results in the nefarious acts of terrorism or is a supply line monetarily to foreign terrorism is something I still support. The key is the term “foreign.”

 

Since 911 the Islamic terrorist paradigm has an adaptive agenda to circumvent the nature of “foreign” as related to the American Homeland. Foreign Radical Islamic global Caliphate-minded Muslims have been working for years to plant their theopolitical ideology as a homegrown paradigm. The more homegrown a Radical Islamic organization or Mosque the less the claim of ties to foreign terrorism. Currently most Islamic organizations in the USA can be traced to a foreign Saudi or Muslim Brotherhood hand in a large degree. There are actually lesser known Radical Islamic organizations associated with foreign Islamic terrorism that are not Saudi or Muslim Brotherhood; however it is less likely that those organization will separate from their parent foreign Radical Islamic connection. Inevitably the Radical Islamic homegrown planted organizations will attain a self-sufficient operation independent of foreign ties. When that happens use of the Patriot Act laws would legally be ineffective to monitor domestic criminality and will be subject to the traditional ingrained Constitutional framework of the Fourth Amendment that protects Americans from unwarranted searches of private property including snail-mail, email, telephone, Internet and so on. A Radical Muslim network divorced from their foreign founders will essentially operate mafia-style to Islamize America using the U.S. Constitution to terminate Constitutional Law in favor of Sharia Law.

 

I am certain the Patriot Act has been abused by stretching the reach of its mandate in protecting Americans from foreign terrorism. The Patriot Act must be updated to better accommodate the Fourth Amendment especially on a domestic level. For one thing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) needs more precise language so that relating information, broad undefined information or just plain no defined information cannot be used to acquire a FISA Court Search Warrant. The lack of specificity in legal language has made the marriage of the Patriot Act and the FISA Courts a Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies, a paradigm of an abuse-of-power waiting to happen. Such abuse is in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. If Congress fails to add specificity in the Patriot Act and the Courts based on FISA, then those tools need to be scraped OR just plain be ruled unconstitutional due to the Fourth Amendment.

 

The ability of the devotees of Radical Islam to use the Constitution to undermine the Constitution is a reason for some kind of Surveillance Act on a foreign and domestic level to exist. In the past I have favored Security to trump Civil Rights directly in the aftermath of 911; however it has become evident the truism of ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ has swayed me back to emphasize Civil Rights. Again, I am still a supporter of the Patriot Act, BUT not as it is codified today. There must be a balance in the use of security and Civil Rights with any erring to come down on the side of constitutionally mandated Civil Rights. Check out Judge Andrew Napolitano:

 

VIDEO: Is the FISA Court constitutional?

 

Here is an excerpt from the article by Judge Napolitano in which the above video was located:

 

The case or controversy requirement demands that there be real adversity between two or more distinct entities each of which has a stake in the outcome of a dispute before a federal court can exercise any jurisdiction. Federal courts can only resolve disputes; they cannot rule with finality in the abstract or when approached by only one party. They can grant preliminary temporary relief to one party — in order to freeze the status quo and in anticipation of an adversarial contest on the merits — but they cannot rule when only one party is noticed and shows up.

 

This is precisely how the FISA court functions, and yet we have no merit-based ruling by the Supreme Court on its constitutionality. …

 

But this is just what Congress did with FISA. In the FISA court, only the government appears, seeking a generalized search warrant without regard to the facts of any specific case. There is no case or controversy in the constitutional sense as there is no adversariness: No plaintiff is suing a defendant, and no defendant is being prosecuted by the government. Absent adversariness, the federal courts have no jurisdiction to do anything.

 

This flawed system is complicated even further by the fact that should the FISA court deny an application for a general warrant because it believes the government’s procedures to be illegal or unconstitutional, those court orders are non-binding and the government has ignored them. Unenforceable rulings that may be disregarded by another branch of the government are not judicial decisions at all, but impermissible advisory opinions prohibited by the Framers.

 

When a FISA court judge rules that the NSA has the constitutional power to spy on Americans about whom it has no evidence of wrongdoing, as one judge did two weeks ago, because that ruling did not emanate out of a case or controversy — no one was in court to dispute it — the court is without authority to hear the matter, and thus the ruling is meaningless.

 

By altering the constitutionally mandated requirement of the existence of a case or controversy before the jurisdiction of the federal courts may be invoked, Congress has lessened the protection of the right to be left alone that the Framers intentionally sought to enshrine. But don’t expect the government to wake up to this threat to our freedom. Its consistent behavior has demonstrated that it doesn’t care whether it violates the Constitution. Instead, expect the president’s secret agents and the politicians who support them to hide their wrongdoing behind more layers of secrecy. (Is the FISA Court constitutional? By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano; FoxNews.com; 9/26/13)

 

Marxist principles as espoused by Russia’s Lenin and Stalin and China’s Mao Zedong (or Mao Tse Tung) is a Communism that overthrows the government by means of a transforming ideological revolution. Early American Communists were enamored by Lenin’s revolution that overthrew Czarist Russia that transformed Russia into the illusory delusion of a utopia. The reality is Russia was transformed from an elitist oligarchy of nobles in which huge amounts of citizens were regarded in low estate into a Leninist-Communist oligarchy of top-down transformist police state. In Russia’s case the removal of a royal oligarchic autocracy to a Communist dictatorship did not produce individual Civil Rights. Conformity was the centrality of Russian culture under the Czars and the new Communist government. That Russian Revolution which affected American Constitutional government was the desire of Russian/Soviet Marxists to export their transformational revolution to the entire world. In America’s case too many closet Communists became a part of positions of influence in both government and culture.

 

Senator Joseph McCarthy in the beginnings of the Cold War went from a hero exposing Communists and/or Soviet-Communist sympathizers in these places of influence to being painted as a nut-job witch-hunter that ruined lives more than protecting the government and Americans from Marxist transformationism. History has shown that Joe McCarthy was closer to being correct than being a witch hunter that destroyed innocent lives. Bipartisan powerful politicians and Executive Branch Establishment-minded leadership began to fear the stigma of hiring Communist sympathizing functionaries. A Left oriented Mainstream Media sympathetic to a Socialist paradigm also began assaulting McCarthy. A better a truism might drove McCarthy to alcoholism thus ruining a patriot’s life.

 

There are bad people who desire to destroy America and our way of life initiated in the great experiment of a Constitutional Republic initiated by our Founding Fathers. The primary assault on America in the 20th and 21st centuries has been interpretations of Marxism and Caliphate-minded Muslims. We as Americans need to get behind some kind of balance between National Security and Constitutional protections we call our Civil Rights. Since 911 the government has evolved from a protective nature to ignoring the Rights ingrained in the U.S. Constitution. I believe government abuse caused by a misplaced enthusiasm to hunt down Islamic Terrorists (I guess our fearless leader would call them Enemy Combatants). That government abuse has filtered into policing domestic criminals such as thieves, bank robbers, various levels illicit drug distribution, murderers and so on.

 

Domestic policing ALSO has led to ignoring the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment pertaining warranting search, seizure and attacking personal property. Yesterday I managed to get to an old email from the Rutherford Institute written by John W. Whitehead. The email begins by relating true incidents in which police have erroneously invaded homes of innocent citizens which resulted in deaths. I am not talking about police officer deaths. I am talking about police officers shooting to death citizens who believed their home was being invaded by criminals.

 

And this is how I am going to end my thoughts on the Fourth Amendment. Read Whitehead’s article and be prepared to be outraged by the abuse of power.

 

JRH 10/30/13

Please Support NCCR