thewashingtonstandard--2020-06-16--The President’s Authority & Duty To Suppress Insurrections

When it comes to the militia and the president ’ s authority in controlling them , I confess that I needed a bit of clarity and Dr. Edwin Vieira has provided quite a bit of clarity on the matter .
he has graciously allowed us to repost his latest on the president ’ s authority and duty to suppress insurrections in light of current events .
Recently , both the big “ mainstream ” media and hundreds of alternative sources on the Internet have overflowed with the opinions of commentators , pundits , bloggers , public officials at all levels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers , sports stars , and assorted “ celebrities ” , concerning the authority ( or lack thereof ) of the President of the United States to intervene in the rampage of riots , looting , arson , and even killings which have plagued American cities following the homicide of Mr. George Floyd .
The major lesson one learns from this palaver is that the writers and speakers generating it possess little to no real knowledge of the subject-matter , and apparently have no inclination to acquire any .
That is both amazing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the highest importance , the subject-matter is so clear cut that anyone who has obtained a secondary-school education of the quality generally available prior to ( say ) 1970 should be able to understand it with a minimum of mental strain .
The following points are intended to clarify the matter for anyone whose thinking needs clarification— FIRST .
Article II , Section 1 , Clause 7 of the Constitution of the United States mandates that “ [ b ] efore he enter on the Execution of his Office , [ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Affirmation : — ‘ I do solemnly swear ( or affirm ) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States , and will to the best of my Ability , preserve , protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
’ ” Everything which follows in this analysis comes within the purview of this “ Oath ” .
SECOND .
Article II , Section 1 , Clause 1 of the Constitution provides that “ [ t ] he executive Power shall be vested in a President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is , all “ executive Power ” , because the latter Clause recognizes no exceptions or exclusions .
THIRD .
Article II , Section 2 , Clause 1 of the Constitution provides that “ [ t ] he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States , and of the Militia of the several States , when called into the actual Service of the United States [ . ]
” The Constitution recognizes no one other than the President as the recipient of this status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Section 3 of the Constitution requires that the President “ shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ” .
This is not only a duty , but also a power and a right ( in the strict legal senses of those terms ) .
Self-evidently , one manner of fulfilling this duty , and exercising this right and power , is for the President to take appropriate actions as “ Commander in Chief ” of the forces the Constitution places within his control .
FIFTH .
Article I , Section @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Constitution delegate to Congress the power “ [ t ] o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union , [ and ] suppress Insurrections ” , whereupon “ such Part of the [ Militia ] ” as may be “ call [ ed ] forth ” is considered to “ be employed in the Service of the United States ” .
SIXTH .
Article I , Section 8 , Clause 18 of the Constitution delegates to Congress the power “ [ t ] o make all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for carrying into Execution ” not only its own “ Power [ ] ” “ [ t ] o provide for calling forth the Militia ” , but also “ all other Powers vested by th [ e ] Constitution in * * * any * * * Officer thereof ” , such as the “ Power [ ] ” of the President to “ take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ” .
SEVENTH .
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides ( in pertinent part ) that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ; nor shall any State deprive any person of life , liberty , or property , without due process of law ; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
” And Section 5 of that Amendment provides that “ [ t ] he Congress shall have power to enforce , by appropriate legislation , the provisions of this article.
” EIGHTH .
Pursuant to its powers recited above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Title 10 of the United States Code : Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions , combinations , or assemblages , or rebellion against the authority of the United States , make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings , he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State , and use such of the armed forces , as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion .
This is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ derives from the Act of 29 July 1861 , Chap .
XXV , An Act to provide for the Suppression of Rebellion and Resistance to the Laws of the United States , and to amend the Act entitled “ An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Law of the Union , ” & c. , passed February twenty-eight , seventeen hundred and ninety-five , 12 Stat .
281 , and from the Act of 28 February 1795 , Chap .
XXXVI , An Act to provide for calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Union , suppress insurrections , and repel invasions ; and to repeal the Act now in force for those purposes , § 2 , 1 Stat .
424 , 424 .
Section 252 , apparently , is what people who pontificate about the President ’ s authority are calling “ The Insurrection Act ” .
If so , the contention of critics that President Trump can not rely upon this statute is balderdash—inasmuch as Presidents before him have invoked it successfully , with no widespread ( or , really , any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their actions .
See Executive Order No .
10730 , 24 September 1957 , 22 Federal Register 7628 ( President Eisenhower ) ; Executive Order No .
11053 , 30 September 1962 , 27 Federal Register 9681 ( President Kennedy ) ; Executive Order No .
11111 , 11 July 1963 , 28 Federal Register 5709 ( President Kennedy ) ; Executive Order No .
11118 , 10 September 1963 , 28 Federal Register 9863 ( President Kennedy ) .
NINTH .
Although 10 U.S.C .
§ 252 could apply under some circumstances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occurred in various States in recent days , it is not the statute which President Trump—were he well advised—should invoke to deal with the generality of riots , looting , arson , and even killings which Americans in those places have suffered .
The statute which better fits the situation is the present Section 253 of Title 10 of the United States Code : The President , by using the militia * * * shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress , in a State , any insurrection , domestic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if it— ( 1 ) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State , and of the United States within the State , that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right , privilege , immunity , or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law , and the constituted authorities of that State are unable , fail , or refuse to protect that right , privilege , or immunity , or to give that protection ; or ( 2 ) opposes or obstructs the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States or impedes the course of justice under those laws .
In any situation covered by clause ( 1 ) , the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution .
This , too , is no novel contemporary piece of legislation , but derives from the Act of 20 April 1871 , chap .
XXII , An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States , and for other Purposes , § 3 , 17 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its terms exactly describe the situation in those States in which civil unrest has broken out in recent days—namely , that “ insurrection [ s ] , domestic violence , unlawful combination [ s ] , or conspirac [ ies ] ” have terrorized the peaceful inhabitants , and “ the constituted authorities of th [ ose ] State [ s ] are unable , fail , or refuse to protect th [ e ] right [ s ] , privilege [ s ] , immunit [ ies ] , or to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secured by law ” for some “ part [ s ] or class [ es ] of [ those States ’ ] people .
TENTH .
Section 253 imposes no limits on the legal , let alone the commonplace , definitions of “ insurrection , domestic violence , unlawful combination , or conspiracy ” to which it applies .
And the rioting , looting , arson , and killings which have taken place in various States surely fall within any acceptable definitions of those words .
ELEVENTH .
Section 253 imposes no limit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part thereof ) the President may “ us [ e ] ” , so long ( obviously ) as that “ militia ” is recognized as such ( i ) by the Constitution itself—namely , “ the Militia of the several States ” ( Article II , Section 2 , Clause 1 ) ; or ( ii ) by a law of Congress which refers to some “ Part of the [ Militia of the several States ] ” which “ may be employed in the Service of the United States ” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 16 ) .
And pursuant to Article I , Section 8 , Clauses 15 , 16 , and 18 of the Constitution , for “ employ [ ment ] in the Service of the United States ” in aid of “ execut [ ing ] the Laws of the Union , [ and ] suppress [ ing ] Insurrections ” ( among other responsibilities ) , Congress has defined “ [ t ] he militia of the United States ” as follows : ( a ) The militia of the United States consists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years of age and , [ with certain exceptions not relevant here ] , under 45 years of age who are , or who have made a declaration of intention to become , citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard .
( b ) The classes of the militia are— ( 1 ) the organized militia , which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia ; and ( 2 ) the unorganized militia , which consists of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia .
TWELFTH .
Section 253 imposes no limits on “ the measures ” that the President may “ consider [ ] necessary to suppress , in a State , any insurrection , domestic violence , unlawful combination , or conspiracy ” to which that statute is addressed .
So his statutory authority must include “ using the militia ” ( as defined in 10 U.S.C .
§ 246 ) “ to execute [ whatever ] Laws of the Union ” may apply to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution explicitly assigns to the Militia in Article I , Section 8 , Clause 15 of the Constitution ) , so as to fulfill his duty to “ take Care that th [ os ] e Laws be faithfully executed ” ( under Article II , Section 3 of the Constitution ) .
THIRTEENTH .
As Section 253 provides , should the President determine that “ any insurrection , domestic violence , unlawful combination , or conspiracy * * * so hinders the execution of the laws of [ a ] State , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ at ] State , that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right , privilege , immunity , or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law , and the constituted authorities of that State are unable , fail , or refuse to protect that right , privilege , or immunity , or to give that protection ” , he may “ consider ” that “ the State * * * ha [ s ] denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially “ appropriate legislation ” through which Congress has empowered the President to “ enforce ” in the first instance the requirement that no State shall “ deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws ” , perforce of Sections 1 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution .
See the origin of 10 U.S.C .
§ 253 in Act of 20 April 1871 , chap .
XXII , An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 , 17 Stat .
13 , 14 .
For instance , the President could determine that , in those States in which riots , looting , arson , and homicide have taken place with no adequate response from public officials—or , even worse , with their tacit acquiescence or approval— “ part [ s ] or class [ es ] of [ those States ’ ] people ” have been deprived of the rights to “ property ” and even “ life ” “ named in the Constitution ” , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” from , for example , riots ( 18 U.S.C .
§ 2101 ) , insurrections ( 18 U.S.C .
§ 2383 ) , and sedition ( 18 U.S.C .
§ 2384 ) .
To this , no disgruntled State or Local official ( or anyone else , for that matter ) can offer a legal objection , whether under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise .
After all , Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment delegates to Congress a plenary supervisory power which it may wield in aid of Section @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perforce of Article VI , Clause 2 of the Constitution ( “ the Supremacy Clause ” ) .
Under the Supremacy Clause , Sections 1 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment , along with 10 U.S.C .
§ 253 , are “ the supreme Law of the Land ” by which “ the Judges in every State shall be bound * * * , any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
” And , as required by Article VI , Clause 3 of the Constitution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Legislatures , and all executive and judicial Officers * * * of the several States , shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation , to support th [ e ] Constitution ” in the foregoing regard , not to disregard let alone to defy it .
FOURTEENTH .
Inasmuch as Section 253 reaches every “ insurrection , domestic violence , unlawful combination , or conspiracy ” which comes within its terms , the President need not deal solely with the rioters , looters , arsonists , insurrectionists , and killers to be found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but may also search out organizers , agitators and propagandists , logisticians , intermediaries , financiers , and other accomplices of any sort who have escaped to or who have always performed their nefarious operations in distant places .
And the President ’ s authority in this regard embraces not only individuals , but also all ostensibly legitimate “ foundations ” , “ think tanks ” , and like institutions which fund , otherwise support , or encourage such criminal misbehavior .
FIFTEENTH .
As appears on its face , Section 253 does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive the approval of a State ’ s Legislature , Governor , or other official before he ( the President ) executes that statute in that State .
In this respect , Section 253 differs from 10 U.S.C .
§ 251 .
See the origin of § 251 in the Act of 28 February 1795 , Chap .
XXXVI , An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union , suppress insurrections , and repel invasions ; and to repeal the act in force for those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
424 , 424 .
SIXTEENTH .
Were the Constitution and 10 U.S.C .
§ 253 by themselves not enough to drive the point home , the Supreme Court has in principle already opined that the President ’ s determinations under that statute must be accepted as conclusive by everyone else , including the Judiciary .
Pursuant to its constitutional power “ [ t ] o provide for calling forth the Militia * * * to repel Invasions ” , in 1795 Congress enacted legislation which provided in pertinent part [ t ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invaded , or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe , it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state , or states , most convenient the place of danger , or scene of action , as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion , and to issue his orders for that purpose , to such officer or officers of the militia , as he shall think proper .
Act of 28 February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union , suppress insurrections , and repel invasions ; and to repeal the act in force for those purposes , § 1 , 1 Stat .
424 , 424 .
Referring to the power so delegated by Congress to the President , the Supreme Court described it as not a power which can be executed without a corresponding responsibility .
It is , in its terms , a limited power , confined to cases of actual invasion , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it be a limited power , * * * by whom is the exigency to be judged of and decided ?
Is the president the sole and exclusive judge whether the exigency has arisen , or is it to be considered as an open question * * * ?
We are all of opinion , that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen , belongs exclusively to the president , and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons .
If we look at the language of the act of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] he power itself is confided to the executive of the Union , to him who is , by the constitution , “ the commander in chief of the militia , when called into the actual service of the United States , ” whose duty it is to “ take care that the laws be faithfully executed , ” and whose responsibility for an honest discharge of his official obligations is secured by the highest sanctions .
He is necessarily constituted the judge of the existence of the exigency in the first instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his belief of the facts .
If he does so act , and decides to call forth the militia , his orders for this purpose are in strict conformity with the provisions of the law ; and it would seem to follow as a necessary consequence , that every act done by a subordinate officer , in obedience to such orders , is equally justifiable .
The law contemplates that , under such circumstances , orders shall be given to carry the power into effect ; and it can not , therefore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other person has a just right to disobey them .
The law does not provide for any appeal from the judgment of the president , or for any right in subordinate officers to review his decision , and in effect defeat it .
Whenever a statute gives a discretionary power to any person , to be exercised by him , upon his own opinion of certain facts , it is a sound rule of construction , that the statute constitutes him the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 12 Wheaton ) 19 , 29-32 ( 1827 ) ( Story , J. , for the Court ) .
This legal analysis applies directly , and with decisive effect , to 10 U.S.C .
§ 253— ( i ) Congress enacted the Act of 1795 pursuant to its power in Article I , Section 8 , Clause 15 “ [ to ] provide for calling forth the Militia to * * * repel Invasions ” .
That very same Clause also authorizes Congress “ [ t ] o provide for calling forth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Union , [ and ] suppress Insurrections ” .
Self-evidently , the principles Martin v. Mott invoked are equally applicable to all of the purposes for which the Militia may be called forth .
( ii ) The Act of 1795 empowered the President “ to call forth such number of the militia * * * as he may judge necessary ” , and “ to issue his orders for that purpose , to such officer or officers of the militia , as he shall think proper ” .
In like wise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the President the broad authority “ by using the militia * * * [ to ] take such measures as he considers necessary ” .
Thus , the latter statute is entitled to the same construction Martin v. Mott applied to the former one—namely , that “ the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen , belongs exclusively to the president , and * * * his decision is conclusive upon all other persons ” ; and “ that , under such circumstances , orders shall be given to carry the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ other person has a just right to disobey them.
” Indeed , as applied to 10 U.S.C .
§ 253 , the principles of Martin v. Mott should extend far beyond the facts of that case .
For there the President ’ s power could be directed only at actual members of the Militia ; whereas , under Section 253 , “ such measures as [ the President ] considers necessary ” are not confined to members of the Militia alone , but instead may reach essentially anyone and everyone whose behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good or for bad , in the “ insurrection [ s ] , domestic violence , unlawful combination [ s ] , or conspirac [ ies ] ” those “ measures ” are designed “ to suppress ” .
( iii ) Martin v. Mott held that the Act of 1795 “ d [ id ] not provide for any appeal from the judgment of the president , or for any right in subordinate officers to review his decision , and in effect defeat it ” —whether through their own unaided efforts or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the matter on their behalf ( which the Supreme Court refused to do in that case ) .
Neither does 10 U.S.C .
§ 253 “ provide for any [ such ] appeal ” or “ right * * * to review ” for a member of “ the militia of the United States ” called forth under the aegis of that statute .
The modern-day Supreme Court has recognized that the Judiciary may not interfere with the President ’ s enforcement of discipline within the Militia .
See Gilligan v. Morgan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1973 ) .
And other persons affected by the President ’ s “ measures ” are no better off .
For whereas under the Act of 1795 the President ’ s power extended only to actual members of the Militia , under 10 U.S.C .
§ 253 “ such measures as [ the President ] considers necessary ” are not confined to members of the Militia alone , but instead may reach essentially anyone and everyone whose behavior is in any way involved in the perpetration of “ insurrection [ s ] , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] , or conspirac [ ies ] ” .
( iv ) In reference to the Act of 1795 , Martin v. Mott observed that “ [ w ] henever a statute gives a discretionary power to any person , to be exercised by him , upon his own opinion of certain facts , * * * the statute constitutes him the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts.
” No less than that Act , 10 U.S.C .
§ 253 delegates an equally “ discretionary power ” to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he considers necessary ” .
That being so , the President ’ s exercise of that power can not be second-guessed by the Judiciary for any reason whatsoever .
For “ [ t ] he province of the court is , solely , to decide on the rights of individuals , not to enquire how the executive , or executive officers , perform duties in which they have a discretion .
Questions in their nature political , or which are , by the constitution and laws , submitted to the executive , can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. ( 1 Cranch ) 137 , 170 ( 1803 ) ( Marshall , C.J.
, for the Court ) .
( v ) And Martin v. Mott is not alone in this regard .
As the Supreme Court held in Nishimura Ekiu v. United States , the final determination of * * * facts may be entrusted by Congress to executive officers ; and in such a case , * * * in which a statute gives a discretionary power to an officer , to be exercised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain facts , he is made the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts , and no other tribunal , unless expressly authorized by law to do so , is at liberty to reëxamine or controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on which he acted .
142 U.S. 651 , 660 ( 1892 ) , citing inter alia Martin v. Mott , 25 U.S. ( 12 Wheaton ) 19 , 31 ( 1827 ) , and followed in Lem Moon Sing v. United States , 158 U.S. 538 , 544 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finally , no matter how deeply “ the Deep State ’ s ” friends on the Bench despise President Trump and how desperately they desire to thwart him at every turn , unless and until the Supreme Court overrules Martin v. Mott the lower courts are required to adhere to its reasoning “ no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be ” .
Hutto v. Davis , 454 U.S. 370 , 375 ( 1982 ) .
Within the Judiciary , only the Supreme Court can overrule its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Quijas v. Shearson/American Express , Inc. , 490 U.S. 477 , 484 ( 1989 ) ; Agostini v. Felton , 521 U.S. 203 , 237 ( 1997 ) ; State Oil Company v. Khan , 522 U.S. 3 , 20 ( 1997 ) .
IN SUM , those people who vociferously contend that the President has no authority to suppress the kinds of riots , looting , arson , and killings going on within the States these days know not whereof they speak .
And if plain ignorance is not the explanation for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vieira will be joining me later to discuss this issue on Sons of Liberty Radio .
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media

When it comes to the militia and the president’s authority in controlling them, I confess that I needed a bit of clarity and Dr. Edwin Vieira has provided quite a bit of clarity on the matter. he has graciously allowed us to repost his latest on the president’s authority and duty to suppress insurrections in light of current events.
Dr. Vieira writes:
Recently, both the big “mainstream” media and hundreds of alternative sources on the Internet have overflowed with the opinions of commentators, pundits, bloggers, public officials at all levels of the federal system, retired military officers, sports stars, and assorted “celebrities”, concerning the authority (or lack thereof) of the President of the United States to intervene in the rampage of riots, looting, arson, and even killings which have plagued American cities following the homicide of Mr. George Floyd. The major lesson one learns from this palaver is that the writers and speakers generating it possess little to no real knowledge of the subject-matter, and apparently have no inclination to acquire any. That is both amazing and frightening. For, besides being of the highest importance, the subject-matter is so clear cut that anyone who has obtained a secondary-school education of the quality generally available prior to (say) 1970 should be able to understand it with a minimum of mental strain. The following points are intended to clarify the matter for anyone whose thinking needs clarification—
FIRST. Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution of the United States mandates that “[b]efore he enter on the Execution of his Office, [the President] shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’” Everything which follows in this analysis comes within the purview of this “Oath”.
SECOND. Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution provides that “[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” That is, all “executive Power”, because the latter Clause recognizes no exceptions or exclusions.
THIRD. Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution provides that “[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States[.]” The Constitution recognizes no one other than the President as the recipient of this status and authority.
FOURTH. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. This is not only a duty, but also a power and a right (in the strict legal senses of those terms). Self-evidently, one manner of fulfilling this duty, and exercising this right and power, is for the President to take appropriate actions as “Commander in Chief” of the forces the Constitution places within his control.
FIFTH. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution delegate to Congress the power “[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress Insurrections”, whereupon “such Part of the[ Militia]” as may be “call[ed] forth” is considered to “be employed in the Service of the United States”.
SIXTH. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution delegates to Congress the power “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” not only its own “Power[ ]” “[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia”, but also “all other Powers vested by th[e] Constitution in * * * any * * * Officer thereof”, such as the “Power[ ]” of the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.
SEVENTH. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides (in pertinent part) that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And Section 5 of that Amendment provides that “[t]he Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
EIGHTH. Pursuant to its powers recited above, Congress enacted the present Section 252 of Title 10 of the United States Code:
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
This is no novel contemporary piece of legislation, but derives from the Act of 29 July 1861, Chap. XXV, An Act to provide for the Suppression of Rebellion and Resistance to the Laws of the United States, and to amend the Act entitled “An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Law of the Union,” &c., passed February twenty-eight, seventeen hundred and ninety-five, 12 Stat. 281, and from the Act of 28 February 1795, Chap. XXXVI, An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; and to repeal the Act now in force for those purposes, § 2, 1 Stat. 424, 424.
Section 252, apparently, is what people who pontificate about the President’s authority are calling “The Insurrection Act”. If so, the contention of critics that President Trump cannot rely upon this statute is balderdash—inasmuch as Presidents before him have invoked it successfully, with no widespread (or, really, any significant) outcry against the legality of their actions. See Executive Order No. 10730, 24 September 1957, 22 Federal Register 7628 (President Eisenhower); Executive Order No. 11053, 30 September 1962, 27 Federal Register 9681 (President Kennedy); Executive Order No. 11111, 11 July 1963, 28 Federal Register 5709 (President Kennedy); Executive Order No. 11118, 10 September 1963, 28 Federal Register 9863 (President Kennedy).
NINTH. Although 10 U.S.C. § 252 could apply under some circumstances to some of the disorders which have occurred in various States in recent days, it is not the statute which President Trump—were he well advised—should invoke to deal with the generality of riots, looting, arson, and even killings which Americans in those places have suffered. The statute which better fits the situation is the present Section 253 of Title 10 of the United States Code:
The President, by using the militia * * * shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
This, too, is no novel contemporary piece of legislation, but derives from the Act of 20 April 1871, chap. XXII, An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes, § 3, 17 Stat. 13, 14. And its terms exactly describe the situation in those States in which civil unrest has broken out in recent days—namely, that “insurrection[s], domestic violence, unlawful combination[s], or conspirac[ies]” have terrorized the peaceful inhabitants, and “the constituted authorities of th[ose] State[s] are unable, fail, or refuse to protect th[e] right[s], privilege[s], immunit[ies], or to give the protection named in the Constitution and secured by law” for some “part[s] or class[es] of [those States’] people.
TENTH. Section 253 imposes no limits on the legal, let alone the commonplace, definitions of “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” to which it applies. And the rioting, looting, arson, and killings which have taken place in various States surely fall within any acceptable definitions of those words.
ELEVENTH. Section 253 imposes no limit on what “militia” (or part thereof) the President may “us[e]”, so long (obviously) as that “militia” is recognized as such (i) by the Constitution itself—namely, “the Militia of the several States” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1); or (ii) by a law of Congress which refers to some “Part of the[ Militia of the several States]” which “may be employed in the Service of the United States” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16).
And pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15, 16, and 18 of the Constitution, for “employ[ment] in the Service of the United States” in aid of “execut[ing] the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress[ing] Insurrections” (among other responsibilities), Congress has defined “[t]he militia of the United States” as follows:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, [with certain exceptions not relevant here], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
10 U.S.C. § 246.
TWELFTH. Section 253 imposes no limits on “the measures” that the President may “consider[ ] necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” to which that statute is addressed. So his statutory authority must include “using the militia” (as defined in 10 U.S.C. § 246) “to execute [whatever] Laws of the Union” may apply to the situation (which authority and responsibility the Constitution explicitly assigns to the Militia in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution), so as to fulfill his duty to “take Care that th[os]e Laws be faithfully executed” (under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution).
THIRTEENTH. As Section 253 provides, should the President determine that “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy * * * so hinders the execution of the laws of [a] State, and of the United States within th[at] State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection”, he may “consider” that “the State * * * ha[s] denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.” In that regard, Section 253 is especially “appropriate legislation” through which Congress has empowered the President to “enforce” in the first instance the requirement that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, perforce of Sections 1 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. See the origin of 10 U.S.C. § 253 in Act of 20 April 1871, chap. XXII, An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes, § 3, 17 Stat. 13, 14.
For instance, the President could determine that, in those States in which riots, looting, arson, and homicide have taken place with no adequate response from public officials—or, even worse, with their tacit acquiescence or approval—“part[s] or class[es] of [those States’] people” have been deprived of the rights to “property” and even “life” “named in the Constitution”, as well as the immunities “secured by law” from, for example, riots (18 U.S.C. § 2101), insurrections (18 U.S.C. § 2383), and sedition (18 U.S.C. § 2384).
To this, no disgruntled State or Local official (or anyone else, for that matter) can offer a legal objection, whether under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise. After all, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment delegates to Congress a plenary supervisory power which it may wield in aid of Section 1 of that Amendment against the States perforce of Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution (“the Supremacy Clause”). Under the Supremacy Clause, Sections 1 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, along with 10 U.S.C. § 253, are “the supreme Law of the Land” by which “the Judges in every State shall be bound * * * , any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” And, as required by Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, “the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers * * * of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support th[e] Constitution” in the foregoing regard, not to disregard let alone to defy it.
FOURTEENTH. Inasmuch as Section 253 reaches every “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” which comes within its terms, the President need not deal solely with the rioters, looters, arsonists, insurrectionists, and killers to be found at the scenes of their crimes, but may also search out organizers, agitators and propagandists, logisticians, intermediaries, financiers, and other accomplices of any sort who have escaped to or who have always performed their nefarious operations in distant places. And the President’s authority in this regard embraces not only individuals, but also all ostensibly legitimate “foundations”, “think tanks”, and like institutions which fund, otherwise support, or encourage such criminal misbehavior.
FIFTEENTH. As appears on its face, Section 253 does not require the President to solicit or receive the approval of a State’s Legislature, Governor, or other official before he (the President) executes that statute in that State. In this respect, Section 253 differs from 10 U.S.C. § 251. See the origin of § 251 in the Act of 28 February 1795, Chap. XXXVI, An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; and to repeal the act in force for those purposes, § 1, 1 Stat. 424, 424.
SIXTEENTH. Were the Constitution and 10 U.S.C. § 253 by themselves not enough to drive the point home, the Supreme Court has in principle already opined that the President’s determinations under that statute must be accepted as conclusive by everyone else, including the Judiciary.
Pursuant to its constitutional power “[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia * * * to repel Invasions”, in 1795 Congress enacted legislation which provided in pertinent part
[t]hat whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state, or states, most convenient the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia, as he shall think proper.
Act of 28 February 1795, Chap. XXXVI, An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; and to repeal the act in force for those purposes, § 1, 1 Stat. 424, 424.
Referring to the power so delegated by Congress to the President, the Supreme Court described it as
not a power which can be executed without a corresponding responsibility. It is, in its terms, a limited power, confined to cases of actual invasion, or of imminent danger of invasion. If it be a limited power, * * * by whom is the exigency to be judged of and decided? Is the president the sole and exclusive judge whether the exigency has arisen, or is it to be considered as an open question * * * ? We are all of opinion, that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the president, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.
* * * * *
If we look at the language of the act of 1795, * * * [t]he power itself is confided to the executive of the Union, to him who is, by the constitution, “the commander in chief of the militia, when called into the actual service of the United States,” whose duty it is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and whose responsibility for an honest discharge of his official obligations is secured by the highest sanctions. He is necessarily constituted the judge of the existence of the exigency in the first instance, and is bound to act according to his belief of the facts. If he does so act, and decides to call forth the militia, his orders for this purpose are in strict conformity with the provisions of the law; and it would seem to follow as a necessary consequence, that every act done by a subordinate officer, in obedience to such orders, is equally justifiable. The law contemplates that, under such circumstances, orders shall be given to carry the power into effect; and it cannot, therefore, be a correct inference, that any other person has a just right to disobey them. The law does not provide for any appeal from the judgment of the president, or for any right in subordinate officers to review his decision, and in effect defeat it. Whenever a statute gives a discretionary power to any person, to be exercised by him, upon his own opinion of certain facts, it is a sound rule of construction, that the statute constitutes him the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts.
Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheaton) 19, 29-32 (1827) (Story, J., for the Court).
This legal analysis applies directly, and with decisive effect, to 10 U.S.C. § 253—
(i) Congress enacted the Act of 1795 pursuant to its power in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 “[to] provide for calling forth the Militia to * * * repel Invasions”. That very same Clause also authorizes Congress “[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress Insurrections”. Self-evidently, the principles Martin v. Mott invoked are equally applicable to all of the purposes for which the Militia may be called forth.
(ii) The Act of 1795 empowered the President “to call forth such number of the militia * * * as he may judge necessary”, and “to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia, as he shall think proper”. In like wise, 10 U.S.C. § 253 delegates to the President the broad authority “by using the militia * * * [to] take such measures as he considers necessary”. Thus, the latter statute is entitled to the same construction Martin v. Mott applied to the former one—namely, that “the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the president, and * * * his decision is conclusive upon all other persons”; and “that, under such circumstances, orders shall be given to carry the power into effect”, and no “other person has a just right to disobey them.” Indeed, as applied to 10 U.S.C. § 253, the principles of Martin v. Mott should extend far beyond the facts of that case. For there the President’s power could be directed only at actual members of the Militia; whereas, under Section 253, “such measures as [the President] considers necessary” are not confined to members of the Militia alone, but instead may reach essentially anyone and everyone whose behavior is in any way implicated, for good or for bad, in the “insurrection[s], domestic violence, unlawful combination[s], or conspirac[ies]” those “measures” are designed “to suppress”.
(iii) Martin v. Mott held that the Act of 1795 “d[id] not provide for any appeal from the judgment of the president, or for any right in subordinate officers to review his decision, and in effect defeat it”—whether through their own unaided efforts or by importuning the Judiciary to interject itself into the matter on their behalf (which the Supreme Court refused to do in that case). Neither does 10 U.S.C. § 253 “provide for any [such] appeal” or “right * * * to review” for a member of “the militia of the United States” called forth under the aegis of that statute. The modern-day Supreme Court has recognized that the Judiciary may not interfere with the President’s enforcement of discipline within the Militia. See Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 5-12 (1973). And other persons affected by the President’s “measures” are no better off. For whereas under the Act of 1795 the President’s power extended only to actual members of the Militia, under 10 U.S.C. § 253 “such measures as [the President] considers necessary” are not confined to members of the Militia alone, but instead may reach essentially anyone and everyone whose behavior is in any way involved in the perpetration of “insurrection[s], domestic violence, unlawful combination[s], or conspirac[ies]”.
(iv) In reference to the Act of 1795, Martin v. Mott observed that “[w]henever a statute gives a discretionary power to any person, to be exercised by him, upon his own opinion of certain facts, * * * the statute constitutes him the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts.” No less than that Act, 10 U.S.C. § 253 delegates an equally “discretionary power” to the President to “take such measures as he considers necessary”. That being so, the President’s exercise of that power cannot be second-guessed by the Judiciary for any reason whatsoever. For “[t]he province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to enquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 170 (1803) (Marshall, C.J., for the Court).
(v) And Martin v. Mott is not alone in this regard. As the Supreme Court held in Nishimura Ekiu v. United States,
the final determination of * * * facts may be entrusted by Congress to executive officers; and in such a case, * * * in which a statute gives a discretionary power to an officer, to be exercised by him upon his own judgment of certain facts, he is made the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts, and no other tribunal, unless expressly authorized by law to do so, is at liberty to reëxamine or controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on which he acted.
142 U.S. 651, 660 (1892), citing inter alia Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheaton) 19, 31 (1827), and followed in Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U.S. 538, 544 (1895).
(v) Finally, no matter how deeply “the Deep State’s” friends on the Bench despise President Trump and how desperately they desire to thwart him at every turn, unless and until the Supreme Court overrules Martin v. Mott the lower courts are required to adhere to its reasoning “no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be”. Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 375 (1982). Within the Judiciary, only the Supreme Court can overrule its own precedents. E.g., Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989); Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237 (1997); State Oil Company v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997).
IN SUM, those people who vociferously contend that the President has no authority to suppress the kinds of riots, looting, arson, and killings going on within the States these days know not whereof they speak. And if plain ignorance is not the explanation for their behavior, what is?
Dr. Vieira will be joining me later to discuss this issue on Sons of Liberty Radio.
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media


thewashingtonstandard--2020-06-16--A Narrow Conservative Court Won’t Protect the Constitution

The Supreme Court , post-Scalia , has two solid conservative justices , Thomas and Alito .
Gorsuch has proven himself to be another Roberts .
That shouldn ’ t be surprising .
Kavanaugh , despite how much conservatives bled for him , is , even less surprisingly , a disappointment .
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing of the court to affirm that the law does cover discrimination by sexual orientation .
Gorsuch , in fact , wrote the majority opinion .
Justices Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented .
Finally , Justice Brett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he agreed with Alito and Thomas on the merits but sympathized with the majority ’ s conclusion .
All five claimed their opinions adhered to a textualist reading of the law .
Textualist is better than simply inserting words into the Constitution .
But it revises the meaning of the words that are already in there to mean things that they never represented .
Or , in this case , the Civil Rights Act .
It ’ s legislating from the bench in a slightly more respectable way , but one that typified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now the moderate or even the conservative position is utterly disastrous .
President Trump may have one more SCOTUS appointment .
The next one should not be a whitebread smiling product of the system , but another feisty Italian-American or African-American judge with principles .
The underlying problem is that lefty judges maintain almost total fidelity to their political agenda , while conservative justices have “ philosophies ” and while they may be socially conservative in their own lives , allow the media to set their agenda and worldview .
These days , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues and on the Second Amendment , but are hopeless on socially conservative issues .
What SCOTUS needs are justices willing to stand athwart of history .
A narrow SCOTUS conservative majority will always offer swing votes making such courts , at best , a 50/50 proposition .
And the defections are invariably on the causes that conservatives have fought hardest for and that will hurt them the most down the road .

The Supreme Court, post-Scalia, has two solid conservative justices, Thomas and Alito. Gorsuch has proven himself to be another Roberts. That shouldn’t be surprising. Kavanaugh, despite how much conservatives bled for him, is, even less surprisingly, a disappointment.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing of the court to affirm that the law does cover discrimination by sexual orientation. Gorsuch, in fact, wrote the majority opinion. Justices Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. Finally, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate dissent stating that he agreed with Alito and Thomas on the merits but sympathized with the majority’s conclusion. All five claimed their opinions adhered to a textualist reading of the law.
Textualist is better than simply inserting words into the Constitution. But it revises the meaning of the words that are already in there to mean things that they never represented. Or, in this case, the Civil Rights Act. It’s legislating from the bench in a slightly more respectable way, but one that typified the Warren Court. That this is now the moderate or even the conservative position is utterly disastrous.
President Trump may have one more SCOTUS appointment. The next one should not be a whitebread smiling product of the system, but another feisty Italian-American or African-American judge with principles.
The underlying problem is that lefty judges maintain almost total fidelity to their political agenda, while conservative justices have “philosophies” and while they may be socially conservative in their own lives, allow the media to set their agenda and worldview.
These days, they’re sympathetic on some structural issues and on the Second Amendment, but are hopeless on socially conservative issues.
What SCOTUS needs are justices willing to stand athwart of history.
A narrow SCOTUS conservative majority will always offer swing votes making such courts, at best, a 50/50 proposition. And the defections are invariably on the causes that conservatives have fought hardest for and that will hurt them the most down the road.
Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield


thewashingtonstandard--2020-06-16--Trump Rips up Decades-Old WMD Treaty in Order to Sell Drones to Saudi Arabia

The Trump administration has decided to break the 33-year-old Missile Technology Control Regime ( MTCR ) treaty in order to sell high-tech American drones to whomever it wants .
First on that list , Reuters reports , are Saudi Arabia , the United Arab Emirates , Jordan , and Romania , with sales to begin almost immediately .
The move will doubtless signal the end of the MTCR , a longstanding international agreement with 34 signatories designed to stop the spread of nuclear missiles and other weapons of mass destruction .
Most of the developed world , including Russia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , the Trump administration ’ s abrupt shift is another example of the policy of escalating the likelihood of international conflicts .
Last year , Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces ( INF ) treaty , an accord signed between President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev , stating that he would “ move forward with developing our own military response options.
” In April , the White House also destroyed the Open Skies Treaty , an agreement that allowed the world ’ s major players @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air , increasing knowledge and understanding of everyone ’ s capabilities , thereby limiting the risk of accidental nuclear war between the East and West .
And last month Trump indicated that he would let the New Strategic Arms Reduction ( START ) Treaty expire in January , allowing the U.S. to rapidly increase its supply of atomic weaponry .
This has already begun , as the first batch of low-yield nuclear warheads was delivered to the military in January .
Novel weapons like these were specifically mentioned in the Pentagon ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new weaponry to confront China and Russia .
Part of the move appears to be an attempt to force enemy states like Russia and China to react by developing their own nuclear arsenals , thereby crippling their economies through a costly military buildup .
“ We know how to win these races and we know how to spend the adversary into oblivion .
If we have to , we will , ” Marshall Billingslea , the president ’ s Special Envoy , told a think tank in Washington , D.C. last month .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scientists moved their famous “ Doomsday Clock ” – a measure of how close we are to the end of the world – to 100 seconds to midnight , the most perilous moment in human history , citing the “ dangerous rivalry and hostility among the superpowers increases the likelihood of nuclear blunder.
” The fact that world experts believe that we are closer to annihilation than even during the Cuban Missile Crisis gained only moderate public attention .
However , those in the know are deathly afraid .
An example of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy journal Foreign Affairs , co-written by the ( American ) ex-Deputy Secretary-General of NATO , Rose Gottemoeller , describing Trump ’ s recklessness as “ a chilling sign of how dangerous the world has become.
” Things have become so serious that Gottemoeller even portrayed Vladimir Putin as a man of peace and one of the only adults in the room , not something NATO leaders are often prone to do .
On the decision to sell drones to Saudi Arabia , Heidi Grant , the Pentagon ’ s Director of Defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ machines would help the Kingdom fight terrorism and help stop threats reaching the United States .
However , others argue that Saudi Arabia is itself one of the leading terrorist states in the world .
Since 2015 , a Saudi-led coalition has been attacking nearby Yemen , creating what the United Nations has called the world ’ s worst humanitarian crisis , where 24 million people desperately need aid and nearly 10 million are suffering from “ extreme levels of hunger ” .
Yemen , the UN laments , has “ all but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The country ’ s Ministry of Agriculture estimates that there have been at least 10,000 airstrikes against farms , 800 against local food markets and 450 against food storage facilities in the last four years , meaning that much of its soil is now so toxic it can not sustain life .
The United States has supplied , trained , aided , and defended the Saudi attack , yet it has not been able to destroy the Houthi rebels , partially due to a lack of commitment from their forces .
Unmanned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In addition to pulling out of treaties , Trump has also threatened both Iran and North Korea with nuclear annihilation while also increasing its aggression in Latin America , supporting a successful coup in Bolivia and many unsuccessful ones against Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela .
“ The novel coronavirus pandemic should serve as a powerful reminder of the fragility of the international system .
This is exactly the wrong moment to undermine or weaken other key components of that system , especially in the nuclear realm , ” Gottemoeller concluded .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase the scope for U.S. arms manufacturers , regardless of the cost to the rest of the world .

The Trump administration has decided to break the 33-year-old Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) treaty in order to sell high-tech American drones to whomever it wants. First on that list, Reuters reports, are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Romania, with sales to begin almost immediately.
The move will doubtless signal the end of the MTCR, a longstanding international agreement with 34 signatories designed to stop the spread of nuclear missiles and other weapons of mass destruction. Most of the developed world, including Russia, has signed up to its principles. However, the Trump administration’s abrupt shift is another example of the policy of escalating the likelihood of international conflicts.
Last year, Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, an accord signed between President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, stating that he would “move forward with developing our own military response options.” In April, the White House also destroyed the Open Skies Treaty, an agreement that allowed the world’s major players to freely observe each other from the air, increasing knowledge and understanding of everyone’s capabilities, thereby limiting the risk of accidental nuclear war between the East and West. And last month Trump indicated that he would let the New Strategic Arms Reduction (START) Treaty expire in January, allowing the U.S. to rapidly increase its supply of atomic weaponry. This has already begun, as the first batch of low-yield nuclear warheads was delivered to the military in January. Novel weapons like these were specifically mentioned in the Pentagon’s latest budget report for the need for new weaponry to confront China and Russia.
Part of the move appears to be an attempt to force enemy states like Russia and China to react by developing their own nuclear arsenals, thereby crippling their economies through a costly military buildup. “We know how to win these races and we know how to spend the adversary into oblivion. If we have to, we will,” Marshall Billingslea, the president’s Special Envoy, told a think tank in Washington, D.C. last month.
In January, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved their famous “Doomsday Clock” – a measure of how close we are to the end of the world – to 100 seconds to midnight, the most perilous moment in human history, citing the “dangerous rivalry and hostility among the superpowers increases the likelihood of nuclear blunder.” The fact that world experts believe that we are closer to annihilation than even during the Cuban Missile Crisis gained only moderate public attention.
However, those in the know are deathly afraid. An example of this is an article in the U.S. foreign policy journal Foreign Affairs, co-written by the (American) ex-Deputy Secretary-General of NATO, Rose Gottemoeller, describing Trump’s recklessness as “a chilling sign of how dangerous the world has become.” Things have become so serious that Gottemoeller even portrayed Vladimir Putin as a man of peace and one of the only adults in the room, not something NATO leaders are often prone to do.
On the decision to sell drones to Saudi Arabia, Heidi Grant, the Pentagon’s Director of Defense Technology Security Administration, argued that the machines would help the Kingdom fight terrorism and help stop threats reaching the United States. However, others argue that Saudi Arabia is itself one of the leading terrorist states in the world.
Since 2015, a Saudi-led coalition has been attacking nearby Yemen, creating what the United Nations has called the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, where 24 million people desperately need aid and nearly 10 million are suffering from “extreme levels of hunger”. Yemen, the UN laments, has “all but ceased to exist” as a state. The country’s Ministry of Agriculture estimates that there have been at least 10,000 airstrikes against farms, 800 against local food markets and 450 against food storage facilities in the last four years, meaning that much of its soil is now so toxic it cannot sustain life. The United States has supplied, trained, aided, and defended the Saudi attack, yet it has not been able to destroy the Houthi rebels, partially due to a lack of commitment from their forces. Unmanned drones would likely significantly help the coalition.
In addition to pulling out of treaties, Trump has also threatened both Iran and North Korea with nuclear annihilation while also increasing its aggression in Latin America, supporting a successful coup in Bolivia and many unsuccessful ones against Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.
“The novel coronavirus pandemic should serve as a powerful reminder of the fragility of the international system. This is exactly the wrong moment to undermine or weaken other key components of that system, especially in the nuclear realm,” Gottemoeller concluded. Trump, however, appears keen to greatly increase the scope for U.S. arms manufacturers, regardless of the cost to the rest of the world.
Article posted with permission from MintPress News


thewashingtonstandard--2020-06-16--Abortion Murder Mills & CPS Gang Together To Intimidate Christian Pro-Life Women

Back in February , Heather Hobbs joined us to give voice to a story that Planned Parenthood was extorting pregnant women by calling in CPS on women who had come to their clinics for free pregnancy tests who had children .
When the women refused an abortion , Planned Parenthood called CPS on the women and their children were taken , and they were told the only way to get their children back was to get an abortion .
Now , the two organized crime syndicates , along with other abortion murder mills , are going after pro-life women who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murder mills .
Heather joins me in this episode to talk about what ’ s going on with one mother in Louisiana and how it ’ s taking place around the country .
Partner with us as a Son or Daughter of Liberty : https : //thesonsofliberty.squarespace.com/membership/ Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media SonsOfLibertyMedia.com , Minds , MeWe , Spreely , Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com .
He is husband to his `` more precious than rubies '' wife , father of 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all trades , Christian and lover of liberty .
He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina .
.
Follow Tim on Twitter .
Also check him out on Gab Mumbl It and Steemit

Back in February, Heather Hobbs joined us to give voice to a story that Planned Parenthood was extorting pregnant women by calling in CPS on women who had come to their clinics for free pregnancy tests who had children. When the women refused an abortion, Planned Parenthood called CPS on the women and their children were taken, and they were told the only way to get their children back was to get an abortion. Now, the two organized crime syndicates, along with other abortion murder mills, are going after pro-life women who are to call abortion murder outside abortion murder mills. Heather joins me in this episode to talk about what’s going on with one mother in Louisiana and how it’s taking place around the country.
Previous interview with Heather.
https://sonsoflibertyradio.com
https://sonsoflibertymedia.com
Sons of Liberty Store: https://thesonsofliberty.squarespace.com/
Support us through a donation: https://thesonsofliberty.squarespace.com/donate
Partner with us as a Son or Daughter of Liberty: https://thesonsofliberty.squarespace.com/membership/
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media


thewashingtonstandard--2020-06-16--S3398:  Lindsey Graham’s Poser Bill Expands Government To “Protect” Children While Leaving Them Vuln

S3398:  Lindsey Graham’s Poser Bill Expands Government To “Protect” Children While Leaving Them Vulnerable To Unconstitutional Sex Education Pimps

My fellow Anti Fed Ed Warriors , it ’ s been a few days since I ’ ve been able to write .
Research has had me busy !
Have you heard of the Bill titled “ The EARN IT Act ” ?
The main sponsor is Sen. Lindsey Graham from SC .
However , on this particular Bill , he has several co-sponsors .
This Act is supposed to set up a protective data system for children , especially when it comes to sexual abuse and the sexual exploitation of children .
S 3398 sets up a comprehensive data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spell out the EARN IT , you ’ ll better understand why researching this is so important .
‘ EARN IT ’ stands for “ Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies ” Before we move on , here are a few questions… 1 ) Why “ EARN ” ?
Who ’ s earning what ?
Are the criminals or offenders D.C. wishes to target with S 3398 going to ‘ earn ’ their punishment ?
2 ) Could it be the ‘ EARN ’ stands for all the profits the technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national system will gain ?
3 ) Why now ?
Is it a desperate voter attention move ?
Sen. Graham and the bipartisan co-sponsors have sponsored or co-sponsored many other Bills which turn education into workforce prep !
Now , ‘ suddenly ’ they all give a fig about children ’ s safety ?
!
( *Note : Sen. Graham skipped voting on the ESSA ( Every Student Succeeds Act ) , back in 2015 .
Of the 10 co-sponsors , 4 weren ’ t in office in 2015 , the others ALL @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The BIGGEST question we should have about S 3398 is : Will it address the Comprehensive Sexuality Education overloads we are seeing in education ?
!
Warriors , here ’ s the link to the Bill , itself .
* Expanded government is included via a new National Committee on Child Sexual Explotation Prevention .
As usual , the Committee will be appointed by Congress .
* Interactive computer services are defined by a 1934 law called the Communications Act .
This sounds a bit odd , doesn ’ t it ?
Did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1930s ?
No , but this particular Act has been amended several times , including the 1990s version ( The Communication Decency Act ) where the Internet operates under to this day .
Look below to see the write up the most recent Communication Act has ‘ protected ’ : Warriors , you may be interested in the ‘ infograph ’ for the Communication Decency Act .
You can access that here .
Then , consider how on-line education isn ’ t really discussed at all .
Could it be the school-related CSE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposure ’ to fly under the radar ?
How will S 3398 STOP the CSE exposure ?
What else is in S 3398 ’ s language ?
* Besides an appointed Commission , each member will serve 5 years .
The power the Commission will have is reserved for hearings , testimonies , and evidence gathering .
The evidence INCLUDES data from ANY federal agency or program that the Commission deems vital .
The Commission will then use ‘ best practices ’ to implement the prevention , reduction , or , response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes : enticement , grooming , trafficking , or , proliferation of sexually abusive materials .
* EARN IT will update and modernize the cyber tip line currently in use to report sexually abusive citizens .
( See page 62 for the name change . )
* Of the ‘ best practices ’ to be implemented , the Commission decides what ’ s abusive .
Whichever technological service ( and there ’ s room for many ) is charged with overseeing the national activities , the Commission will decide which to choose based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ products/services the technology company ( ies ) provide to monitor and block sexually abusive materials , the company ( ies ) business plan , and , will these products/services be available to the public .
The tech company ( ies ) chosen will be primarily responsible for the data storage and transfer of all data from ALL data/internet endpoints !
So , Warriors , will these chosen companies really find the kinks in the system currently allowing abusive CSE programs/services and school resources ?
Will the CSE somehow be the exception because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ education ’ ?
!
If you think that in-school CSE is not sexually suggestive or enticing , I urge you to watch this 8-minute video by the National Center on Sexual Explotation .
It shows graphic examples of CURRENT elementary , middle school , and community-based educational related services where this content is not only accessible but encouraged to view .
( *Note , if you look at the screen behind the lady speaking , notice the statement about HOW the explicit materials are getting into schools : internet system which bypass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) If you ’ ve not heard about the book , “ Red : A Crayon ’ s Story ” , it ’ s being used for the early ages in gender confusion .
From the HRC ( Human Rights Campaign ) , this lesson plan ( similar to the image below ) for little learners .
This lesson plan on Red , is from Scotland ’ s LGBTQ+ community .
Warriors , in researching for this article , I found a young man from PA , KC Miller , who ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You should listen to his 12 minute TEDx Talk .
The image below is from that talk .
To access the SEICUS interview , go here .
If you missed the 2019 NBC article detailing different networks using cartoons for little learners to advance the LGBTQ+ agenda , go here .
Mr. Health Ed ’ s website has a list of activist type groups from across the US promoting the CSE agenda .
From CA , the PPP ( Positive Prevention PLUS ) Comprehensive Sexuality Education ’ s guide for special needs students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 , teachers are encouraged to get as creative as possible in explaining and detailing sexual skills .
You can also learn that parents may OPT children out of this program ONLY if they agree to continue to teach their children with the PPP resources .
The PPP also has an ‘ independent CSE study course ’ , totally on-line .
Videos for this can be found on Vimeo .
( *Note : the Independent study is only for high schoolers , but the videos are for elementary through high school .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so it ’ s not only our public schools we need to be concerned about . )
Another note about PPP , it ’ s aligned to the national standards .
To date , CA , OR , and , WA ( begins 2022-23 ) are ‘ on board ’ for this same type of CSE .
If you want to see more resources , go to StopCSE ’ s website .
They have international , national , and federally funded CSE links .
PPP is a federally funded CSE .
Which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3398 : Congress has CSE bills which INCREASE the amount of sexuality enticements !
In fact , it ’ s where the ‘ superman ’ image I used near the beginning came from .
So , which is it ?
We either STOP the increase of CSE by NOT passing either of the Real Education for Healthy Youth Acts ( one from the House/one from the Senate ) OR we use S 3398 to STOP using federal funds to have explotive materials in schools .
If we do both , something ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t pass a bill to punish child sex abusive behavior and totally bypass education !
Of the sponsor/co-sponsors for S 3398 , only one is behind BOTH sides of this issue , Sen. Blumenthal .
Warriors , Sen. Graham missed the vote on ESSA , but he ’ s far from innocent when it comes to technology .
Much of S 3398 depends on MASSIVE amounts of technology .
Much of the CSE depends on SEL ( social emotional learning ) .
Part of SEL in schools is prescription drug based .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ among others in Congress ) has benefitted from campaign contributions from Big Pharma ?
Did you know that Mylan NV has been a previous donor ?
( Mylan NV is undergoing a massive merger in the global health care/pharmaceutical field . )
Sen. Graham ’ s also willing to open the State of SC up to Elon Musk ( a technocratic agenda-driven wealthy business owner ) in the name of jobs for the economy ’ s sake while making friends with China in the name of COVID-19 ‘ safety ’ .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WLTX ) news .
Open Secrets shows that Sen. Graham has many business-related industries that would stand to benefit IF S3398 is made into law .
One thing stands out , Warriors , in the battle for who gets to help your children navigate the ‘ birds and the bees ’ , it looks like it will be either Big Biz or Congress .
Family values , once again , are being sacrified .
Closing/Action : Join the Child Protection League , Saturday , June 20 , 2020 for an on-line presentation about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Included ( hopefully ) will be the EBSCO hardcore pornography in schools .
Warriors , lastly , did you know that Erin ’ s Law requires all public schools to teach about preventing children ’ s sexual abuse ?
It ’ s been passed in over half the States .
This will also play into S 3398 .
But how ?
Will it be hard on this type of criminal activity , yet excuse the in our faces indoctrination and desensitizing of our children in schools and communities ?
From 2002 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ featured speaker at small meetings and large conferences .
Since 2009 , she has served as a frequent guest on nationwide radio and multimedia shows .
Lynne also co-established PIE NC ( Preserving Integrity and Excellence in Education ) .
She is a retired private ( homeschool ) teacher and regionally recognized support group leader .
She has also been a business owner , worked with children 's ministry and currently is an education liaison for Protecting Innocence Campaign ( based in OH ) , wife and mom .
Lynne is also an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Child Abuse in the Classroom '' , where it is the campaign 's belief that `` Repealing ESSA and Restoring FERPA '' are the best ways to help restore our nation 's education system .
She was also awarded the 2011 Distinguished Educator from the National Society of High School Scholars , as well as the 2016 L & B Network 's Torchbearer Award for educational advocacy .
She has been recognized by her peers as an expert in Common Core , Career Tech Education , Career Pathways , workforce and competency-based education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our families .

My fellow Anti Fed Ed Warriors, it’s been a few days since I’ve been able to write. Research has had me busy!
Have you heard of the Bill titled “The EARN IT Act”? The main sponsor is Sen. Lindsey Graham from SC. However, on this particular Bill, he has several co-sponsors. This Act is supposed to set up a protective data system for children, especially when it comes to sexual abuse and the sexual exploitation of children.
S 3398 sets up a comprehensive data tracking system. Warriors, if you spell out the EARN IT, you’ll better understand why researching this is so important.
‘EARN IT’ stands for “Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies”
Before we move on, here are a few questions…
1) Why “EARN”? Who’s earning what? Are the criminals or offenders D.C. wishes to target with S 3398 going to ‘earn’ their punishment?
2) Could it be the ‘EARN’ stands for all the profits the technology companies setting up and handling this new national system will gain?
3) Why now? Is it a desperate voter attention move? Sen. Graham and the bipartisan co-sponsors have sponsored or co-sponsored many other Bills which turn education into workforce prep! Now, ‘suddenly’ they all give a fig about children’s safety?! (*Note: Sen. Graham skipped voting on the ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act), back in 2015. Of the 10 co-sponsors, 4 weren’t in office in 2015, the others ALL voted in favor of ESSA.)
The BIGGEST question we should have about S 3398 is: Will it address the Comprehensive Sexuality Education overloads we are seeing in education?!
S 3398’s Language:
Warriors, here’s the link to the Bill, itself.
* Expanded government is included via a new National Committee on Child Sexual Explotation Prevention. As usual, the Committee will be appointed by Congress.
* Interactive computer services are defined by a 1934 law called the Communications Act. This sounds a bit odd, doesn’t it? Did we have computers and internet in the 1930s? No, but this particular Act has been amended several times, including the 1990s version (The Communication Decency Act) where the Internet operates under to this day. Look below to see the write up the most recent Communication Act has ‘protected’:
(Article source)
Warriors, you may be interested in the ‘infograph’ for the Communication Decency Act. You can access that here. Then, consider how on-line education isn’t really discussed at all. Could it be the school-related CSE exposure could fall under the ‘timed exposure’ to fly under the radar?
How will S 3398 STOP the CSE exposure?
What else is in S 3398’s language?
* Besides an appointed Commission, each member will serve 5 years. The power the Commission will have is reserved for hearings, testimonies, and evidence gathering. The evidence INCLUDES data from ANY federal agency or program that the Commission deems vital. The Commission will then use ‘best practices’ to implement the prevention, reduction, or, response to online sexual exploitation of children, WHICH includes: enticement, grooming, trafficking, or, proliferation of sexually abusive materials.
* EARN IT will update and modernize the cyber tip line currently in use to report sexually abusive citizens. (See page 62 for the name change.)
* Of the ‘best practices’ to be implemented, the Commission decides what’s abusive. Whichever technological service (and there’s room for many) is charged with overseeing the national activities, the Commission will decide which to choose based on their size, the type of products/services the technology company(ies) provide to monitor and block sexually abusive materials, the company(ies) business plan, and, will these products/services be available to the public. The tech company(ies) chosen will be primarily responsible for the data storage and transfer of all data from ALL data/internet endpoints!
So, Warriors, will these chosen companies really find the kinks in the system currently allowing abusive CSE programs/services and school resources? Will the CSE somehow be the exception because it’s flying under the guise of ‘education’?!
If you think that in-school CSE is not sexually suggestive or enticing, I urge you to watch this 8-minute video by the National Center on Sexual Explotation. It shows graphic examples of CURRENT elementary, middle school, and community-based educational related services where this content is not only accessible but encouraged to view. (*Note, if you look at the screen behind the lady speaking, notice the statement about HOW the explicit materials are getting into schools: internet system which bypass the school’s internet!!)
If you’ve not heard about the book, “Red: A Crayon’s Story”, it’s being used for the early ages in gender confusion. From the HRC (Human Rights Campaign), this lesson plan (similar to the image below) for little learners.
This lesson plan on Red, is from Scotland’s LGBTQ+ community.
Helping Promote CSE:
Warriors, in researching for this article, I found a young man from PA, KC Miller, who’s become a media darling for CSE. You should listen to his 12 minute TEDx Talk. The image below is from that talk.
To access the SEICUS interview, go here.
If you missed the 2019 NBC article detailing different networks using cartoons for little learners to advance the LGBTQ+ agenda, go here.
Mr. Health Ed’s website has a list of activist type groups from across the US promoting the CSE agenda.
From CA, the PPP (Positive Prevention PLUS) Comprehensive Sexuality Education’s guide for special needs students has some alarming parameters. On page 6, teachers are encouraged to get as creative as possible in explaining and detailing sexual skills. You can also learn that parents may OPT children out of this program ONLY if they agree to continue to teach their children with the PPP resources.
The PPP also has an ‘independent CSE study course’, totally on-line. Videos for this can be found on Vimeo. (*Note: the Independent study is only for high schoolers, but the videos are for elementary through high school. These studies are available to anyone who subscribes, so it’s not only our public schools we need to be concerned about.)
Another note about PPP, it’s aligned to the national standards. To date, CA, OR, and, WA (begins 2022-23) are ‘on board’ for this same type of CSE.
If you want to see more resources, go to StopCSE’s website. They have international, national, and federally funded CSE links. PPP is a federally funded CSE.
Which brings me to another point about S 3398:
Congress has CSE bills which INCREASE the amount of sexuality enticements! In fact, it’s where the ‘superman’ image I used near the beginning came from. So, which is it?
We either STOP the increase of CSE by NOT passing either of the Real Education for Healthy Youth Acts (one from the House/one from the Senate) OR we use S 3398 to STOP using federal funds to have explotive materials in schools.
If we do both, something’s very wrong with Congress. You shouldn’t pass a bill to punish child sex abusive behavior and totally bypass education! Of the sponsor/co-sponsors for S 3398, only one is behind BOTH sides of this issue, Sen. Blumenthal.
Sen. Graham’s Trail:
Warriors, Sen. Graham missed the vote on ESSA, but he’s far from innocent when it comes to technology. Much of S 3398 depends on MASSIVE amounts of technology. Much of the CSE depends on SEL (social emotional learning). Part of SEL in schools is prescription drug based. Did you know that Sen. Graham (among others in Congress) has benefitted from campaign contributions from Big Pharma? Did you know that Mylan NV has been a previous donor? (Mylan NV is undergoing a massive merger in the global health care/pharmaceutical field.)
Sen. Graham’s also willing to open the State of SC up to Elon Musk (a technocratic agenda-driven wealthy business owner) in the name of jobs for the economy’s sake while making friends with China in the name of COVID-19 ‘safety’. This is according to Channel 19’s (WLTX) news.
Open Secrets shows that Sen. Graham has many business-related industries that would stand to benefit IF S3398 is made into law. One thing stands out, Warriors, in the battle for who gets to help your children navigate the ‘birds and the bees’, it looks like it will be either Big Biz or Congress. Family values, once again, are being sacrified.
Closing/Action:
Join the Child Protection League, Saturday, June 20, 2020 for an on-line presentation about CSE and SEL (Social Emotional Learning). Included (hopefully) will be the EBSCO hardcore pornography in schools.
Warriors, lastly, did you know that Erin’s Law requires all public schools to teach about preventing children’s sexual abuse? It’s been passed in over half the States. This will also play into S 3398. But how? Will it be hard on this type of criminal activity, yet excuse the in our faces indoctrination and desensitizing of our children in schools and communities?
Article posted with permission from Lynne Taylor


thewashingtonstandard--2020-06-16--Not Just Brutality – Cops Still Being Arrested For Trafficking, Raping, & Exploiting Children

Frequent readers of the Free Thought Project know that police officers throughout the United States are arrested regularly for sex crimes .
According to multiple studies , the majority of these crimes are against children .
Proving the above point is the fact that cops are still getting arrested frequently for alleged sex crimes against children — despite many of them being in the streets attacking protesters .
Over the past few weeks , there has been no shortage of police officers getting caught on camera savagely abusing peaceful protesters .
While a handful of the perpetrators were actually arrested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were not .
In the background , however , as protest headlines garner most of the attention , police officers are continuing to get arrested for sex abuse against children .
In the last week alone , there have been nearly a half dozen cops arrested for sex crimes against children .
One of those cops was Collier County deputy Rashaad A. Smith , 41 , who was fired after his arrest Saturday night where he was hit with a whopping 100 counts of possession of child pornography .
According to WINK , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saturday after a search warrant was served and evidence was seized .
The CCSO arrest report states that the agency received “ three cybertips from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children from Microsoft about the transmission of child pornography on Skype.
” “ The justice system will determine the outcome of this case but due to the heinous nature of these allegations , I ordered the immediate withdrawal of this person ’ s appointment as a member of the Collier County Sheriff ’ s Office , ” Sheriff Kevin Rambosk said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and appreciate that our community expects that when a deputy is charged with crimes like these , they are immediately fired from their position of authority and they do not continue to receive compensation from our tax dollars.
” Officer Nicholas Schafer , 36 , with the Kansas City , Kansas , Police Department was also arrested in the last week for sex crimes against a child .
Schafer was booked into Wyandotte County Jail last week and is being held on a $ 250,000 bond on charges of aggravated indecent liberties with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kansas City , Kansas , Police Chief Michael York released the following canned statement , claiming that their employees are held to the “ highest standards.
” Sure they are… Before both of these two officers were arrested for preying on children , last Tuesday , Fontana Police officer Nicholas Stark , 28 , was arrested for allegedly drugging and raping a child .
Unlike the other two officers , Stark is on paid leave thanks to ridiculous police union rules .
Fontana Police Chief William Green said he is unable to fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Stark is on paid leave .
“ He is on paid leave and that is disgusting , ” Green said in a statement .
“ However , I will endeavor to terminate him in the most expeditious manner possible.
” In March , a Toronto police officer was charged in connection with the sexual exploitation of a 16-year-old girl .
On top of sexual exploitation charges , he had faced for the past three months , on Friday , Constable Peter Roberts , 49 , was charged with sex trafficking the child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also arrested for sex crimes last week .
Though his crimes were not against children , we figured we should mention him because he used his authority as a cop to prey on his victims .
Rutherford Jean , age 29 of West Palm Beach , Florida was arrested June 11 , 2020 at approximately 11:45 a.m. for two counts of sexual battery , according to the Pinellas County Sheriff ’ s Office .
He is accused of raping women in exchange for leniency — a crime by police that happens all too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show no signs of slowing as sexual misconduct among police officers is an unfortunately common crime .
Multiple studies have shown that hundreds of cops a year are arrested or accused of sexual misconduct .
In fact , the second largest complaint against officers — second only to excessive force — is that of sexual abuse .
More startling — as the above cases illustrate — is the fact that over half of the sexual abuse instances involve children .

Frequent readers of the Free Thought Project know that police officers throughout the United States are arrested regularly for sex crimes. According to multiple studies, the majority of these crimes are against children. Proving the above point is the fact that cops are still getting arrested frequently for alleged sex crimes against children — despite many of them being in the streets attacking protesters.
Over the past few weeks, there has been no shortage of police officers getting caught on camera savagely abusing peaceful protesters. While a handful of the perpetrators were actually arrested, the overwhelming majority of offending officers were not. In the background, however, as protest headlines garner most of the attention, police officers are continuing to get arrested for sex abuse against children.
In the last week alone, there have been nearly a half dozen cops arrested for sex crimes against children.
One of those cops was Collier County deputy Rashaad A. Smith, 41, who was fired after his arrest Saturday night where he was hit with a whopping 100 counts of possession of child pornography.
According to WINK, Smith was arrested at his home late Saturday after a search warrant was served and evidence was seized. The CCSO arrest report states that the agency received “three cybertips from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children from Microsoft about the transmission of child pornography on Skype.”
“The justice system will determine the outcome of this case but due to the heinous nature of these allegations, I ordered the immediate withdrawal of this person’s appointment as a member of the Collier County Sheriff’s Office,” Sheriff Kevin Rambosk said in a statement. “I know and appreciate that our community expects that when a deputy is charged with crimes like these, they are immediately fired from their position of authority and they do not continue to receive compensation from our tax dollars.”
Officer Nicholas Schafer, 36, with the Kansas City, Kansas, Police Department was also arrested in the last week for sex crimes against a child. Schafer was booked into Wyandotte County Jail last week and is being held on a $250,000 bond on charges of aggravated indecent liberties with a child.
After his arrest, Kansas City, Kansas, Police Chief Michael York released the following canned statement, claiming that their employees are held to the “highest standards.” Sure they are…
“The officer has been placed on un-paid administrative leave. As Chief of Police, I hold myself and my employees to the highest standards. All complaints against members of our Department are investigated thoroughly. Complaints about police conduct can be made by calling the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department at 911 or 913-596-3000; or directly to the Internal Affairs Hotline at 913-5736373.”
Before both of these two officers were arrested for preying on children, last Tuesday, Fontana Police officer Nicholas Stark, 28, was arrested for allegedly drugging and raping a child. Unlike the other two officers, Stark is on paid leave thanks to ridiculous police union rules.
Fontana Police Chief William Green said he is unable to fire Stark immediately due to California laws, and Stark is on paid leave.
“He is on paid leave and that is disgusting,” Green said in a statement. “However, I will endeavor to terminate him in the most expeditious manner possible.”
In March, a Toronto police officer was charged in connection with the sexual exploitation of a 16-year-old girl. On top of sexual exploitation charges, he had faced for the past three months, on Friday, Constable Peter Roberts, 49, was charged with sex trafficking the child.
Another cop in Pinellas County was also arrested for sex crimes last week. Though his crimes were not against children, we figured we should mention him because he used his authority as a cop to prey on his victims.
Rutherford Jean, age 29 of West Palm Beach, Florida was arrested June 11, 2020 at approximately 11:45 a.m. for two counts of sexual battery, according to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. He is accused of raping women in exchange for leniency — a crime by police that happens all too often.
Sadly these crimes against children show no signs of slowing as sexual misconduct among police officers is an unfortunately common crime. Multiple studies have shown that hundreds of cops a year are arrested or accused of sexual misconduct. In fact, the second largest complaint against officers — second only to excessive force — is that of sexual abuse. More startling — as the above cases illustrate — is the fact that over half of the sexual abuse instances involve children.
Article posted with permission from Matt Agorist