I am... Sock Puppet; The History and Right of the Non de Plume

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Big Tech Censorship / 1st Amendment / Internet Identification

 ___________________________________

A false identity adopted by trolls and other malcontents to support their own postings.

Your favorite authors do it. Singers and songwriters do it. Actresses and Actors do it. 

A sock puppet is more than creating a persona for political groups to terrorize online communities for paid jest. Anonymity is a time-honored tradition that has become a literary staple in human society. A pseudonym, or non de plume, is a tool for satire and criticism. 

In a world of social media where one post can send you to the unemployment line or even jail for an unpopular opinion, non de plumes are more important than ever. Unfortunately big tech like Facebook as well as lawmakers in Washington, D.C. would like to restrict freedom of speech by imposing another layer of internet identification onto the populace. 

That requirement would be to the disadvantage especially for women. Women have often used pen names in the writing world because female authors are discriminated against by readers and judged as their sex instead of their merits. So women like Joanne Rowling use their initials: J.K. Rowling as well as she used a male name Robert Galbraith. In centuries past, female authors like Jane Austen, The Bronte sisters, and Mary Ann Evans were in fact authored as "The Lady," Currer Bell, Ellis Bell, Acton Bell, and George Eliot respectively.

Non de Plumes are not just for women, but also male historical figures:

FIRDOUSI, Persian poet. Abu '1 Kasim Mansur (or Hasan), who took the nom de plume of Firdousi (Firdausi or Firdusi), author of the epic poem the Shdhndma, or "Book of Kings," a complete history of Persia in nearly 6o,000 verses, was born at Shadab, a suburb of Tus, about the year 329 of the Hegira (A.D. or earlier. Firdousi was profoundly versed in the Arabic language and literature and had also studied deeply the Pahlavi or Old Persian, and was conversant with the ancient historical records which existed in that tongue.

NĀSIR KHOSRAU (Nasiri Khusru), Abū Mu‘in-ed-din Nāsir b. Khosrau (1004-1088), whose nom de plume was Hujjat,

Clemens had become widely known in Virginia City — if not necessarily widely liked — by the time the pseudonym Mark Twain first appeared in the Enterprise on February 3, 1863.

In 1784 he [Arthur Young] began the publication of the Annals of Agriculture, which was continued for 45 volumes: contributors included King George III, writing under the nom de plume of "Ralph Robinson."

Is it no wonder that communication from print to online has seen its share of these anonymous sock puppets? But is the hysteria of election meddling really that relevant to require everyone to be bagged and tagged? Isn't the mere call for identification meddling in and of itself?

Americans already suffer the unlawful condition of using a cellular phone to use social media like Twitter and Facebook as a form of internet identification. Unlawful because why are Americans forced to buy another separate product and service when their home computer and internet service provider (ISP) already allows them to use social media, which is supposed to be free, as well as their ISP is a layer of forced governmental and intrusive identification?

Disabled people who cannot afford or are otherwise unable to use cellular phone service are restricted from access to social media because of this unwarranted and unnecessary bias that cellular phones equal identification when burner phones could be used in their sted.  The requirement makes no sense. To mandate additional internet identification and financial consumption of cellular phone service is discrimination akin to voter suppression when viewed through the lens of political philosophy and supposed election meddling.

What the political and tech elite fail to understand is that Americans have the right to be anonymous. Freedom of expression covers many areas of thought and creativity. A non de plume is a creative expression of one's native identity.

Richard Saunders
Anthony Afterwit
Silence Dogood
Celia Single
Miss Polly Baker
Busy Body
Margaret Aftercast
Patience

Bridget Saunders

All pseudonyms of one American Founding Father: Benjamin Franklin, so he could parody, criticize, and discuss gender topics as well as political conceptions in Puritan colonial America.

Other male writers who have used false identities are:  

In his satires, Jonathan Swift used seventeen pseudonyms including Isaac Bickerstaff and M. B. Drapier...  

In the eighteenth century, Enlightenment figures became prolific users ofpseudonyms. Voltaire, whose real name was Francois Marie Arouet, used 173 pseudonyms (174 ifone includes "Voltaire").

Daniel Defoe, who holds the record of using 198 pseudonyms, had one called Miranda Meanwell.

Social media identification in any form is unwarranted. First internet service providers track and identify users. Cellular phone service serves that same function. If authorities need to investigate and seek a warrant for criminal activities, a person's identity is a foregone conclusion. 

However the history and usage of a non de plume (literary double) is not only an American right, but a human historical fact. From the far east and into the writings of our most beloved authors, the pseudonym helps society workout its social norms, mores, and taboos through criticism and satire.

If politicians and corporations cannot stand criticism, then stay out of the public arena, do not do anything wrong, and cease all activities associated with social engineering. 

Americans and the world have the right to speak freely and without persecution. It is a human right. It is the human condition. 

Expressing an honest, nonviolent opinion without corporate and governmental repercussions, that is also a fundamental civil liberty online, at home, and on the streets.  

Freedom of speech and expression are nonnegotiable.

Sources: Urban Dictionary, Mashable, NPR, Glued Ideas, Wikisource, Time, PraBook, Digital Commons, Wikipedia,   

Hate Speech, the First Amendment, and Big Tech Monopolies over the Public Square

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Bill of Rights / Due Process

____________________________

Hate speech. The made up terminology to create hysteria against certain groups in society. This phrase is leveled at objectionable people most individuals would disagree with so there is no one to stand up for the other people's rights. That is not very American of you. 

We are speaking of Big Tech monopolies who hire many foreign workers who do not know or care about Truth, Justice, and the American way. These foreign employees care about their paychecks, not their moral or ethical obligations to working in this country. 

So first they came for the NeoNazis, and we said nothing. Then they came for the White Nationalists, and we said nothing. Afterward, they came for the White Separatists, and we said nothing. 

All the while, the technological monopolies were going down their hit lists to censor people far and wide, and label them hate speakers. Laura Loomer. Owen Shroyer. Mike Cernovich. These journalists and commentators have felt the pinch. The biggest strike has been against Alex Jones. 

The Terms of Service states... Hate Speech to be banned and all those who spread it. 

One problem. There is no legal definition of Hate Speech because there is no Due Process of Law that covers the blatant disregard of the First Amendment and its protections of the Public Square, set forth by the Supreme Court. 

So where are the Big Tech monopolies getting their legal advice? Rice crispies treats?  

Terms of Service is a way for corporations to be your parent because to them you are too immature and untrustworthy to be free to express yourself. Is that really their call? Or is it an underlying negative attitude toward the public? Hate speech, shadow banning, and outright banning of people with ideological differences has no basis in legal precedent. None at all. 

So Terms of Service has become the gray area of corporate legalese to eradicate Due Process of Law. Someone threatens with the intent to harm or calls for violence against someone(s), legal action via due process can be initiated. Until someone crosses the line into criminal behavior there is little for corporations like Big Tech to do about free expression or speech on their platforms. 

These companies can offer unfriend, mute, and block. 

Anything else should be pursued by the individual, not the corporation until a legal judgement has been rendered. The legal way is not always the quickest, cleanest, or clearest way, but it is the path of our judicial system.

But, but Citizens United made corporations equal with their free speech, in addition, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins is outdated law and Big Tech monopolies are not shopping malls. 

The internet is the new public square and we have got to set some rules. 

First, the internet was created with American tax payer money. So whatever happens on the internet should be subject to our Bill of Rights, especially since most of the technology being used on the internet today including insular platforms was created with American tax payer money. 

See, DARPA, and maybe some IARPA too. 

So the Big Tech monopolies do not really have much legal legs to stand on. The internet is the public square. Your platform is open to the public. Big Tech monopolies have stated in the past that their platforms were public forums. 

Big Tech cannot have it both ways. 

You are either a paid private platform you control, or you are a public forum where the Bill of Rights is enacted. 

No legal wrangling is going to give Big Tech free reign to abuse its already considerable power over the market shares. 

So what do Americans do? Call for the Ma' Bell Solution? Break up all the technology companies until free and fair competition can operate? That is probably the best option. 

Because Big Tech has become what they hate with the absolute power they wield: mean, useless bullies. 

The 1st Amendment protects someone's speech if we agree with it or not. Without adherence to the rule of law, we are virtue signalling permission for a corporation to be an information gatekeeper. As a gatekeeper, media, internet platforms, and politicians have allowed censorship into our public discourse. This censorship is a prime example why corporations especially media need to stop playing god. 

Instead of information and investigative journalism, mainstream media now promotes propaganda and conspiracy theories, yet media outlets feel it is their right to tell the public what they can and cannot read, do, or say... that is an eye opening illustration, is it not?

We have a huge problem in this country and it starts with the gatekeepers. Americans need to reject censorship in all forms. Hate speech isn't a legal term; it's a psychological and emotional trigger phrase to make people reactionary instead of thinking for themselves

Americans have to get back to the basics. The only way to censor is to take said offenders to court and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they have committed a criminal act. Corporations are not following due process of law. Internet platform monopolies believe they are the law. Big, huge, elephant in the room PROBLEM. 

Corporations have stepped over the line with the public. Corporations should never be in control of people's lives. Corporations should never parent the public. That is a breach of the public trust. 

In other words, take your supposed tolerance back to your safe space, it has no business in the adult room. The public square in a mall or internet forum is the adult room. The only ones acting like children are Big Tech monopolies hiding behind their Terms of Services to satisfy some immature need to control what the public says and thinks. 

That makes Big Tech censorship a form of hate speech. 

... and then they came for the technology monopolies, there was no one left to speak for them.

Study Finds Fake News Isn't Significant

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Fake News / Study
________________________________

Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election states:

Conclusion

In the aftermath of the 2016 US presidential election, it was alleged that fake news might have been pivotal in the election of President Trump. We do not provide an assessment of this claim one way or another. 

That said, the new evidence we present clarifies the level of overall exposure to fake news, and it can give some sense of how persuasive fake news would need to have been to have been pivotal. We estimate that the average US adult read and
remembered on the order of one or perhaps several fake news articles during the election period, with higher exposure to pro-Trump articles than pro-Clinton articles. How much this affected the election results depends on the effectiveness of fake news exposure in changing the way people vote. As one benchmark, Spenkuch and Toniatti (2016) show that exposing voters to one additional television campaign ad changes vote hares by approximately 0.02 percentage points. This suggests that if one fake news article were about as persuasive as one TV campaign ad, the fake news in our database would have changed vote shares by an amount on the order of hundredths of a percentage point. This is much smaller than Trump’s margin of victory in the pivotal states on which the outcome depended. 

Of course there are many reasons why a single fake news story could have been more effective than a television commercial. If it were true that the Pope endorsed Donald Trump, this fact would be significantly more surprising—and probably move a rational voter’s beliefs by more as a result—than the information contained in a typical campaign ad. Moreover, as we emphasize above, there are many ways in which our estimates could understate true exposure. We only measure the number of stories read and remembered, and the excluded stories seen on news feeds but not read, or read but not remembered, could have had a large impact. Our fake news database is incomplete, and the effect of the stories it omits could also be significant. 

We also note that there are several ways in which this back-of-the-envelope calculation is conservative, in the sense that it could overstate the importance of fake news. We consider the number of stories voters read regardless of whether they believed them. We do not account for diminishing returns, which could reduce fake news’ effect to the extent that a small number of voters see a large number of stories. Also, this rough calculation does not explicitly take into account the fact
that a large share of pro-Trump fake news is seen by voters who are already predisposed to vote for Trump—the larger this selective exposure, the smaller the impact we would expect of fake news on vote shares.  

To the extent that fake news imposes social costs, what can and should be done? In theory, a social planner should want to address the market failures that lead to distortions, which would take the form of increasing information about the state of the world and increasing incentives for news consumers to infer the true state of the world. In practice, social media platforms and advertising networks have faced some pressure from consumers and civil society to reduce the prevalence of fake news on their systems. For example, both Facebook and Google are removing fake news sites Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow 233 from their advertising platforms on the grounds that they violate policies against misleading content (Wingfield, Isaac, and Benner 2016). Furthermore, Facebook has taken steps to identify fake news articles, flag false articles as “disputed by 3rd party fact-checkers,” show fewer potentially false articles in users’ news feeds, and  help users avoid accidentally sharing false articles by notifying them that a story is “disputed by 3rd parties” before they share it (Mosseri 2016). In our theoretical framework, these actions may increase social welfare, but identifying fake news sites and articles also raises important questions about who becomes the arbiter of truth.

Source: Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 31, Number 2—Spring 2017—Pages 211–236

He Said; She Said... People Say the Damnest Things

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

News / Government

______________________________

Apparently someone is out to ruin Duck Dynasty. Phil Robertson's unconventional views were not enough to skew the conversation away from current events and government corruption so someone had to dig up an interview from 2009.

Would this be categorized as: Before They were Stars?

If you want to get mad about something said, perhaps you should get angry at the following statements:

David Rockefeller Admits "conspiring" in his 2002 Book entitled Memoirs:

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

In 1973, David Rockefeller formed the Trilateral Commission (TC), about which Sen. Barry Goldwater in WITH NO APOLOGIES (1979) wrote: "In my view the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power---political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical." News With Views

The year after the Trilateral Commission was formed, Rhodes scholar Richard Gardner in the April 1974 edition of FOREIGN AFFAIRS (published by the Council on Foreign Relations, with David Rockefeller as chairman, 1970-1985) described how "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault," and he went on to say how GATT would be part of that effort! News With Views

Leaders and role models (so-called anyway) carry on the mantra against humanity:

"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

If you think that is innocuous, then read the rest of the explanation:

In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

P = People
S = Services per person
E = Energy per service
C = CO2 per energy unit

Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, "probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero."

Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number -- P (for People) -- might be reduced. Natural News

Or how about these lies quoted from the UNFPA report by The Truth Wins?

*”The importance of the speed and magnitude of recent population growth in boosting future greenhouse-gas emissions is well recognized among scientists, including the authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports.”

*”Still, calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 per cent of emissions growth.”

*”Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendents. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time.”

*”No human is genuinely “carbon neutral,” especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way.”

*”Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns.”

Next are they going to blame cows for flatulence? Oh, yeah they already did and then had to retract that false accusation made to control red meat consumption as stipulated by Maurice Strong: ( Liberty News Online)

In 1992, Strong told a UN conference...:“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

View the entire article here: http://americanpolicy.org/?p=7649.

Or, Maurice Strong's other comments quoted on Good Quotes:

We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.

After all, sustainability means running the global environment - Earth Inc. - like a corporation: with depreciation, amortization and maintenance accounts. In other words, keeping the asset whole, rather than undermining your natural capital.

One of the things that I've always thought I would like to do is to develop an environmental index. Then people can measure their own environmental performance on an index as they do in other ways.

Licences to have babies incidentally is something that I got in trouble for some years ago for suggesting even in Canada that this might be necessary at some point, at least some restriction on the right to have a child.

What was that Mr. President?

“Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over — unless we find new ways of producing energy,” Obama said. The Blaze

You wonder why we have problems in the world? Perhaps we should be exercising our right to call people to the Hague for crimes against humanity. Least of all, we should be arresting people for treason in every country these people originate from.

Unless of course, you want to get a license to see your grandchild because their little lungs will expel CO2 and ruin the Earth. Then I wonder how these nutters are going to stop volcanoes from erupting? Are they going to carbon tax them too?

Of all the idiotic elitist statements found readily on the internet, the biggest crazy pants idea has to be the Georgia Guidestones:

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

What are the Georgia Guidestones? is the article on the Examiner. Erected in 1979, no one really knows who financed the project. If you read the inscription, in eight languages no less, the list sounds eerily familiar: global governance, sustainability, regionalism hidden in ideology... doesn't it?

It is not the fact that people and government / organizational reports are stating these fabrications. It is the fact that programs are being implemented to change society, destabilize global and national economies, cull and control the human population, weaponize weather, destroy national sovereignty, end individual property ownership, privatize and socialize every program that benefits the average person for dismantlement in the name of austerity, in addition to high taxes and corporate centralized power for monopolization and profiteering by an elite oligarchy.

It's time to grow up, discuss adult issues, and take the madmen out of power. Can we say: enough already?

Maybe that is what people should be mad at instead of a 67 year old duck hunter.


Sources: CNN 

And that's the Word, First Amendment Protected Speech

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

News / Government

_______________________________

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me!"

As children many of us were given this piece of advice as a shield against bullies and enemies. This advice safeguarded our self identity and esteem. Children may expose the truth, albeit sometimes painful truths, but we always managed to cope because we had these mechanisms of advice.

In all reality, it's not what you say that affects people; it's what you do. If someone says something you do not like then you have an opportunity to oppose them right then and there, or ignore them. It is your choice in what action you take.

See there, saying versus doing?

The great thing about the First Amendment is that it protects our daily speech: conformist rhetoric to controversial religious views to argumentative demagogue. You are covered! 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

Granted the Supreme Court does not believe yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded and dark movie theater as a First Amendment protection, but we can agree to disagree to make no law "abridging the freedom of speech."

That is unless you are a corporation.

Today if you speak your truth, you are admonished. You can't say this. You can't say that. Why not? Sticks and stones, remember? Words are not going to hurt you, but adults are not using this childhood self-defense mechanism. Instead adults are going for the juggler in response to mere words.

What is even more ridiculous is that we as a nation of adults are allowing corporations to deem what is speakable and what is not. "Hate speech" is another form of censorship. As an adult you can hate all you want as long as your actions do not take away the rights of another person.

Saying words does not keep someone else from expressing themselves, carrying out their lives, or going to work.

Actions do.

So a corporation says: you cannot work unless you stop your free speech! That should be sending a red flag to everyone in the United States. The First Amendment is not there to protect social graces but the social heredox.

In America if you have a difference of opinion or religion or whatever, you can have your freedoms abridged without due process of law. Someone can get suspended or fired from their job.

The next level of this outrage against opinion is happening in the courts. Now if you have a business, not giving service to someone you do not agree with, then you can get your business sued. Can anyone walk in off the streets without a shirt or shoes get service refused and sue the establishment? What happened to an owner's right to refuse service to anyone for any reason? That's gone.

It is beyond ridiculous that the United States has been reduced to a bunch of whiny, insolent, bratty children! People have the right to their opinion. That is what separates us from North Korea and China. So suck it up.

If you do not like someone's opinion, then do not talk to them, buy from them, or serve them. It is really a simple approach to protect people's rights for and against any topic. The adult way to handle the problem is just to agree to disagree.

If no one got harmed, then words are just words. Protected words. Freewill to express those words.

Words.

Words offend. Words defend. Words define.

Words should never be regulated by corporations at any time in any way.

And, that's the word.

Source: Cornell Law 

TPP: United States Pushes for More Exteme Measures

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Government / TPP
_____________________________________

The Toilet Paper Ponzi-scheme is back in the news thanks to Wikileaks. The pdf's below are from the Salt Lake city meeting held at the end of November 2013: 

TPP Salt Lake Extracts

TPP Salt Lake Positions

These documents show that the United States is pushing for extreme internet and copyright regulations.  If the corporate masters of our government had their way, even I could loose access to the internet or be fined or jailed by publishing documentation like the ones above.

Journalists everywhere need to countermand these intrusive infringements of individual rights of public domain and the press. The United States government wants to subvert our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/amendment.html#sthash.OUFuoqbs.dpuf

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/amendment.html#sthash.OUFuoqbs.dpuf

"The security of the freedom of the press requires that it should be exempt, not only from previous restraint of the executive, as in Great Britain; but from legislative restraint also; and this exemption, not only from the previous inspection of licensers, but from the subsequent penalty of laws." James Madison was concerned that authors would be deterred from writing articles that assailed government activity if the government were permitted to prosecute them following release of their works to the public.

So much for the First Amendment if Congress passes the TPP. It's not like Congress isn't trying to license journalistic entities anyway, contrary to the beliefs of James Madison.

All you have to do is look at corporate media and the blockade against Wikileaks to know that the United States federal government is not being run by the People anymore.

Reading List:
myFDL
The Register 
Golden Age of Gaia
The Hard Road to World Order

Source: The Verge, Wikileaks,

Checkpoint Charlie: Militarization of Everyday Living

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Government / News / Martial Law

_____________________________________

Amber Lyon has a new book out: Peace, Love, and Pepperspray. It is a photographic look into protest. Even the protests here in the United States, not just overseas, does she document. What you will find will send chills up your spine.

In the interview on Buzzsaw (please go view now), we see how: Americans' rights to protest and freedom of speech are being eradicated, journalism through corporate intervention is destroying news, and Posse Comitatus is being eviscerated with the militarization of our police force.

The three time Emmy Award winner, Lyon, sees how America is becoming a third world nation via the policies and politics of the United States government against its own citizens. The agenda is not because of terrorism. The fundamental accusation is that you are the terrorist.

For a moment, let's digress and read about Posse Comitatus:

20 Stat. L., 145

June 18, 1878

CHAP. 263 - An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375

Sec. 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel:

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

18 U.S.C. 1385

Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Editor's Note: The only exemption has to do with nuclear materials (18 U.S.C. 831 (e)

However in America today thanks to laws like the (un)Patriot Act and NDAA, police forces that hire combat ready troops from recent military discharge, and military equipment given to local police exhibits in no uncertain terms that Posse Comitatus is a honor code of long past. 

No longer are Americans safe. Safe from their own government. Safe from their local police force. 

In California, police were out in riot gear to quell a protest by women, children, and unarmed men as Anaheim became Afghanaheim. Texas has forced checkpoints for breath, blood, and urine samples as well as the police attacked peaceful protestors at the recent JFK 50th Memorial. And if your protest is peaceful, police have been seen going undercover to start violence and create vandalism where there was none. All documented facts.

Police are the ones out of control. If a police officer has to engage a crowd unlawfully, then that officer needs to reassess his participation. The Bill of Rights is very clear on this matter.

Let's take a look at the First Amendment: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in the First Amendment does the right of the government supersede the rights of the individual citizens. No government intervention is allowed. No police force to intimidate or beat protestors is allowable either.

Where does this so-called right of police to harm peaceful Americans come from? This criminal behavior is not sanctioned by the highest law of the land. What is going on?

So the question becomes... is it more than unlawful treatment of the people or has it slid onto the scale of treason?

Yep, there the accusation is: Treason. So let's read the law:

18 USC § 2381 - Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

"Levies war against them..." sounds like what is happening now. A government using its peace officers to commit crimes against the people of the United States. According to the Nuremberg prinicples, just following orders does not relieve a person from their criminal behavior.

So the question is asked again: is attacking peaceful protestors against the Constitution for which peace officers are sworn to uphold constitute a form of treason?

Until Americans come to grips with the realities of the day and begin demanding reinstatement of their rights, then the common person will be subject to Checkpoint Charlie as martial law invades their communities a little by little until everyone is desensitized into their role of papers, please.

Source: Buzzsaw, dojgov, Muckraker, Cornell Law