It looks as though they have no problem using violence and unlawful arrest to make that point clear.

Over two times as many people were killed by their own government in the twentieth century than by war!

In other words, these people were victims of their own military and therefore there is more than twice the chance you will be killed by your own military than an enemies military. Yet there seems to be an irrational fear of an external enemy being promoted to the practical exclusion of fear from one's own government. Has no one taken the time to do the math? Are these numbers hidden in plain sight?

While our attention today is directed to external enemies, foreign nations who 'might' someday threaten us, we are now, in reality, subjects of real criminal activity here at home, having our pockets picked by the Federal Reserve in cahoots with our own Treasury to the point of having the House committee subpoenas Federal Reserve. Along with the government taking over General Motors, and a cap and trade law in the works that Charles Homans of Washington Monthly says, "If it passes, it will mark the beginning of the most dramatic transformation of the domestic policy landscape since the passage of Social Security."

Consider the numbers produced by those who turn against and kill their own people:

".......both World Wars cost twenty-four million battle deaths. But from 1918 to 1953, the Soviet government executed, slaughtered, starved, beat or tortured to death, or otherwise killed 39,500,000 of its own people (my best estimate among figures ranging from a minimum of twenty million killed by Stalin to a total over the whole communist period of eighty-three million). For China under Mao Tse-tung, the communist government eliminated, as an average figure between estimates, 45,000,000 Chinese. The number killed for just these two nations is about 84,500,000 human beings, or a lethality of 252 percent more than both World Wars together." http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WSJ.ART.HTM

Deaths in War in the twentieth century. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
(War is defined liberally here and includes civilians. And in some cases include death by one's own governments in the process.)

First World War (1914-18): 15 000 000
Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9 000 000
Second World War (1937-45): 55 000 000
Chinese Civil War (1945-49): 2 500 000
Congo Free State (1886-1908): 8 000 000
Mexican Revolution (1910-20): 1 000 000
Armenian Massacres (1915-23): 1 500 000
China, Warlord Era (1917-28): 800 000
China, Nationalist Era (1928-37): 3 100 000
Korean War (1950-53): 2 800 000
Second Indochina War (1960-75): 3 500 000
Ethiopia (1962-92): 1 400 000
Nigeria (1966-70): 1 000 000
Afghanistan (1979-2001): 1 800 000
Iran-Iraq War (1980-88): 1 000 000
Sudan (1983 et seq.): 1 900 000
Kinshasa Congo (1998 et seq.): 3 800 000

Deaths by one's own government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
Cambodia 1975–1979 2,035,000
China (KMT) 1928–1949 10,075,000
China (PRC) 1949–1987 77,277,000
China (Mao Soviets) 1923–1949 3,465,000
Colonialism 1900–Independence 50,000,000
Congo Free State 1885–1908 est C20th 3,480,000
total of 10,000,000
Germany 1933–1945 20,946,000
Japan 1936–1945 5,964,000
Pakistan 1958–1987 1,503,000
Poland 1945–1948 1,585,000
Mexico 1900–1920 1,417,000
North Korea 1948–1987 1,563,000
Russia 1900–1917 1,066,000
Turkey 1909–1918 1,883,000
Vietnam 1945–1987 1,670,000
Yugoslavia (Tito) 1944–1987 1,072,000
U.S.S.R. 1917–1987 61,911,000

----
Jay Mock
248 Flume Creek
Sandpoint, Idaho 83864
208.263.1270

Yup, you can do it. In fact before we were indoctrinated into our current form of learned helplessness it was how most legal actions were initiated. Citizens brought criminals before the courts! The law is still on the books here is a link to the relevant section of the Provincial Offences Act of Ontario http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p33_e...

This is what the Ontario Attorney General has to say about Private Prosecutions

Generally, allegations of criminal activity are reported to the police. After the police investigate, they may lay criminal charges. However, anyone who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a Justice of the Peace.

When the information is presented to the court by a private citizen, it is then referred to either a provincial court judge or a designated justice of the peace, who holds a special hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether a summons or warrant should be issued to compel the person to attend court and answer to the charge.

This hearing, held under s. 507.1 of the Criminal Code, takes place in private, without notice to the accused person. At the hearing, the judge or justice of the peace must hear and consider all of the allegations and available evidence.

The Crown must also receive a copy of the information, get notice of the hearing, and have an opportunity to attend. The Crown may attend at the hearing without being deemed to intervene in the proceedings.

If the judge or justice of the peace decides not to issue a summons or a warrant, then the information is deemed never to have been laid.

If the judge or justice of the peace issues a summons, the person will be served with a copy of the summons, which notifies them of the charge and compels them to attend court. If the judge or justice of the peace issues a warrant, the person will be arrested and brought before a justice.

To avoid any abuse of the private prosecution process, the Criminal Code and the Crown Attorneys Act authorize Crown Counsel to supervise privately laid charges to ensure that such prosecutions are in the best interest of the administration of justice. If a summons or warrant is issued and the case involves an indictable offence, the Crown is required to take over the prosecution. So, a private citizen's right to swear an information is always subject to the Crown's right to intervene and take over the prosecution.

If the Crown intervenes, the Crown will review the matter, as it does in every other criminal case, to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution is in the public interest. If so, the Crown will proceed with the prosecution. If not, the Crown is duty-bound to withdraw the charge.

It took a while to find a copy of the "lay an information" form but here it is:

The source of this image is http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-200/latest/rro-1990-r...

A blog entry deals with this topic:
"Today's Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Alrifai, 2008 ONCA 564 deals with the issuance of process by a Justice of the Peace under the Provincial Offences Act. The issuance of process follows the same basic approach as the laying of a private information under the Criminal Code."
... (for complete entry see http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.com/2008/07/issuance-of-process-under-pro... this section was particularly important though)
"[17] Section 23(1) of the POA entitles anyone who has the required state of belief to lay an information in the prescribed form and under oath before a justice. The section imposes a correlative duty on the justice to receive the information compliant with the section. In other words, s. 23(1) creates a right (for the informant) and a duty (for the justice)."

This means the justice of the peace MUST receive the 'information'. It does not mean that charges will be laid; the justice of the peace does have some discretion in laying charges resulting from an 'information'.

Here's what the law says about this discreationsry decision the Justice of the Peace may make:
Procedure on laying of information

24. (1) A justice who receives an information laid under section 23 shall consider the information and, where he or she considers it desirable to do so, hear and consider in the absence of the defendant the allegations of the informant and the evidence of witnesses and,

(a) where he or she considers that a case for so doing is made out,

(i) confirm the summons served under section 22, if any,

(ii) issue a summons in the prescribed form, or

(iii) where the arrest is authorized by statute and where the allegations of the informant or the evidence satisfy the justice on reasonable and probable grounds that it is necessary in the public interest to do so, issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant; or

(b) where he or she considers that a case for issuing process is not made out,

(i) so endorse the information, and

(ii) where a summons was served under section 22, cancel it and cause the defendant to be so notified.

This is his web site http://www.randpaul2010.com/

Looks like the R3VOLUTION will carry on!

Even though the suspect assumed a prone position, the police officers in this case kicked the suspect in the head, used excessive force when applying restraints and hit the suspect a club.

Time to start renegotiating policing service contracts or perhaps it's time to start up a new police force specifically mandated to arrest and prosecute police officers for violating our rights.

When a dog stops listening and develops a taste for human blood, it's time to put the dog down.

Find out more about the US religious fanatics.