Aiding and Abetting

With great freedom, such as the First Amendment, comes great responsibility.

A SECURITY ANALYSIS of the WOMEN’s MARCH              26 January 2017

Dr. Ross L. Riggs, Director of Security Consulting Investigations, LLC

What is meant by the phrase used in law enforcement and legal parlance, to aid and abet? Most often the term is attached to criminal charges levied at a person or organization who, although they did not take part in the actual crime, without their assistance in the planning or facilitation thereof, the crime could not have been committed. A similar terminology is linked with the crime of treason against the United States. In that statute, it is part of the crime of treason to give aid or comfort to an enemy of the United States. In both cases, it is an element of the crime that a person or organization provided aid to a specific person or entity who is (as for the crime of treason) an enemy of the United States. There could be, as we will see in this example, the need to show a cause and effect. Action A took place because there was an opportunity provided, which would not have been available otherwise, if Aid B was not given. That will become clearer in a moment.

It is important to be clear, here. SCI, its counterparts and individual personnel have the utmost regard for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We support, without reservation, the First Amendment which permits the exercise of free speech for individuals and the press. That free speech is not unlimited, however. Just as the adage explains, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins! The right to free speech is limited; not allowing persons to incite violence. It cannot be used to make a threat or to promote the overthrow of the government.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265558/soross-womens-march-hate-matthew-vadum

womens-march

Again, let’s be clear. SCI is not about to say that the Women’s March on Washington was advocating the overthrow of the government. However, there are multiple groups, both inside the U.S. and without, who would like nothing better than to see the United States government crumble to the ground. Is there a possibility that specific individuals, particularly George Soros, paid for the March to create an opportunity for America’s enemies? Could his financial support for the March have created such an opportunity even if he was acting unwittingly? Let’s look at the facts.

Ø  January 21 – Women’s March on Washington, estimated 500,000 protesters marched in the Nation’s Capital (with over 1.3 million estimated marched across the United States), and another 3,200,000 marched across the world to promote women’s rights, immigration reform, and LGBTQ rights, and to address racial inequities, worker’s issues, and environmental issues. This marks the protest as the largest combined protest across the United States…

Ø  In attendance: 485,000+ Participants according to news estimates in Washington D.C.

Ø  The website for the March stated, “we have over 1000 trained marshals in place to help maintain order and to provide direction to marchers.”

Ø  Regardless of such a plan, authorities from the U.S. Capital Police, the U.S. Park Police, and the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police all had thousands of extra officers working, as well as, regular units tied up unable to respond to other emergency calls for service.

Asra Q. Nomani writing for the NY Times gave background information on the nature of the March and on the role that George Soros played in orchestrating it. A review of her comments will make clear a possible motivation for Soros, besides just irritating President Trump.

“I sought input regarding the Women’s March on Washington, where no one seemed to have a clear objective about what specific women’s rights they were protesting for in the crowd that I interviewed…”

“It wasn’t clear what women were marching about, because there was no unified messaging. Lots of women were marching about lots of different things, so there was no clear call to action provided as a result of their efforts. ”

“The Soros people brought in protesters from all over the country to express their displeasure with Donald Trump on his first full day as president of the United States. These left-wingers don’t accept the votes of the 63 million Americans in 3,084 of the nation’s 3,141 counties or county equivalents who chose Trump as president. They keep telling themselves the lie over and over again that Trump is somehow not a legitimate president even though he received a majority of Electoral College votes, as the Constitution requires.”

Nomani concluded, “the march really isn’t a ‘women’s march.’ It’s a march for women who are anti-Trump.”   She found that Soros has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s ‘partners,’ including ‘key partners’ Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies…” (USA9)

womens-march-2

What if…  What if the March tied up so many security forces and law enforcement personnel that it was a perfect opportunity for a terrorist strike? According to a local news article in Washington D.C., the

mayor’s personal security for one year, one person, costs taxpayers $1M. What do you think the cost of the March was to tax payers? The numbers and the costs are still being crunched as of the writing of this brief, but I can tell you now, it waylaid thousands of cops who should have been doing something better and it cost you and me millions of dollars. Maybe George Soros will foot the bill for that too!

Thank God, nothing, as we have mentioned here, did happen as far as an attack against the U.S. In our thinking, the terrorists missed an amazing opportunity provided for them by Mr. Soros.

It is my belief that, if something would have happened and it could be shown that there was a proximate cause relationship between the terrorist attack and the opportunity provided by the March; then people who funded it, like Soros should be held criminally liable and serious consideration be given for charging those persons with the crime of treason for providing aid to our enemy.

That same expectation should also be applied to the media who spent such an inordinate amount of time covering the March. Not only did the media’s coverage overshadow the coverage they gave to the inauguration; it was very likely the cause for the spin-off marches in other cities and for enticing others to come to D.C. to take part in the March. Again, the airtime numbers are still be tabulated but it will certainly be an amazing amount.

With great freedom, such as the First Amendment, comes great responsibility.

For now, such thoughts are mere intellectual debate but… rue the day, dear citizens, rue the day.

Citizenship 101

Recent events and discussions with persons that one would think would have a reasonable education and thereby an awareness of how the Constitution is to be applied in a nation governed by law have led me to question whether such ideals are truly understood. What seems to be lacking is an understanding of the responsibility, better yet, the obligation or duty that every citizen has to uphold the laws of their nation. Citizens have a duty to change unjust laws by appropriate legislation and see to it that government officials who are alleged to have abused their office are charged in a court of law.  I would expect that reasonably educated people today would understand those principles of citizenship. Experience has shown me that is not necessarily the case. Persons of more than average intelligence and education seem to have become ignorant of the duties of a citizen in a nation that is established by laws. So, to do a small part to try to alleviate the ignorance that so easily besets us as a people here in the United States, I offer this primer on citizenship.

A good place to begin, I think, is the oath that someone who is becoming a citizen of the United States is required to take. Certainly, it is taken voluntarily.  Simply put, if they do not wish to take the oath or abide by the law of the land then, they are free to live somewhere else on the globe but not in the United States of America. That is a refreshing notion for those who have been born citizens of the USA and have little esteem for our Constitution or our laws. They should be free to, in fact encouraged to, find someplace else on the globe where they would like to live.

Here is the oath. It is simple yet, of great depth.

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

Since this is a primer, I won’t assume that the oath was completely clear to the reader. Here are the basic points. The citizen-to-be declares that they will:

  1. Support the Constitution;
  2. Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
  3. Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
  4. Bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
  5. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or
    B. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; or
    C. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.

For the sake of brevity in this primer, I will focus on only one point.

“I will support… the Constitution”

The Constitution is not a very long document, even so, let us look just at the Preamble, the introduction if you will, of the document a citizen of the United States has a duty to support. The Preamble reads:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The purposes:

  • to form a more perfect, a better union between the individual sovereign states
  • establish Justice
  • insure domestic Tranquility
  • provide for the common defence (old English spelling)
  • promote the general Welfare
  • secure the Blessing of Liberty
    • to ourselves and our posterity

Notice that certain words are capitalized, not by me but in the document: Justice, Tranquility, Welfare (that doesn’t mean a government check on the first of the month or food stamps) and Blessings of Liberty – One can assume that these are important to our Founding Fathers, of these, perhaps we should take special note.

Justice – everyone equal under the law – meaning that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Sometimes, in the defense of one’s own or another’s life, a person may be killed in the commission of a crime so the actions of the person taking his life will be judged before the court, even if it is a police officer, the court has jurisdiction… and what applies to the perpetrator of the crime also applies to the officer – ‘innocent until proven guilty’ EVERYONE equal under the law.

Tranquility – the ability to live our lives in peace, without fear of coercion from the government or threats of violence from those who do NOT follow the law. Who is to have a tranquil life – if the Constitution is ruling? The answer is EVERY citizen. Every citizen whether they be brown, black, white, gay, straight, Buddhist or Baptist. What may surprise those with whom I cannot apparently communicate well is that EVERY also includes COPS! Every person should be able to go to their work peacefully and expect to return to their homes at the end of their work, peaceably, to retire and live peacefully. Yes, certain professions such as cops have accepted risk but that does not mean to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Perhaps an example will make my point better than I can communicate it…

If I am living next to Joe, he and I should EXPECT that we can live in our neighborhood together, peacefully – in Tranquility. But, sometimes things happen. Perhaps Joe does not like the way I mow my grass in circles rather than in strips. So one day, Joe walks over to me and punches me in the nose. He has the right to swing his fist… I mean, it’s his fist! BUT, his right to swing his fist STOPS where my nose BEGINS! My nose has a right, as a part of me, to live my life in Tranquility and that does NOT include Joe’s fist to my nose!

Now, I have been assaulted. Under a nation of LAWS, I have a legal right to swear out a complaint and have Joe arrested. However, if Joe keeps pummeling me and I cannot get away, I have right to self-defense. But, in this case, Joe punches me once in the nose and then goes back home. I do NOT have the right to now walk over to Joe’s house and punch Joe in the nose. In a nation of laws, my DUTY to uphold the law is to follow the procedure and swear out a complaint.

ALSO, I do NOT have the right to go across the street from my house and punch Fred in the nose because Joe punched me in the nose. Fred has a right to his own domestic Tranquility and he doesn’t even mow his lawn so, he has nothing in this dispute between Joe and me. I cannot punch FRED for any reason but I particularly cannot punch FRED for something JOE did – EVEN IF Fred is Joe’s brother!

Someone brings the argument that because Joe goes around punching people in the nose (even though he only did it once to me) that Fred DESERVES to be hit because he is Joe’s brother. In fact, Fred has hundreds of brothers, maybe thousands. Fred and Joe’s father was a very well-liked guy and they have lots and lots of brothers. A few of the brothers are just like Joe. Every once-in-awhile, they punch someone in the nose – at least that’s what someone said to somebody who reported it to a news outlet… We don’t really know for sure how many of Joes’ brothers ever really did punch somebody and we don’t know if it might have been self-defense but, in today’s thinking, that doesn’t matter.

So – according to today’s reasoning, ANYONE at all, even if they never met me or do not know me at all and never met anyone else who happened to have been punched by another brother of Joe’s – ANYONE has the “right” to not respect ANY of the brothers! In fact, if the brothers who do punch people would stop, then maybe, ANYONE might respect the other brothers too… but since they don’t respect them, even though the other brothers have never punched anything but a timeclock in their whole lives – ANYONE can go out and punch any of the brothers in the nose anytime they want to – it is all the brother’s fault because Joe and some of the others have punched somebody somewhere at some time – we think – at least that is what the media told us, we don’t have any real facts – but we don’t need them –

One of the other things ANYONE who is punching the other brothers’ noses seems to forget is that UNDER A NATION of LAW: 1. Even if Joe is accused of punching me in the nose, he is still innocent until proven guilty and 2. All the other brothers (the non-hitting ones) they have a RIGHT under the LAW to live in domestic Tranquility. They might be Joe’s brother but they are CITIZENS too and THEY HAVE RIGHTS TOO! 3. By punching people’s noses ANYONE is breaking the law! EVERY citizen has a DUTY to NOT break the law. When they do THEY are the criminals.

For the sake of time, let’s look lastly at: secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity. What does that mean? It means, simply, that EVERY citizen of the United States has a right to work hard, strive to learn, achieve some reward for your labor, to be able to travel wherever and whenever one desires (as long as one has the means – that is the money, a car and the privilege to drive that car – without being harassed or abused, to work to save money and retire peacefully – if health permits to enjoy a quiet Tranquil life and that we will pass these same benefits of living in a Nation of Laws to our children and to their children…

Are some people harassed when they drive? – that likely happens though I do not have facts and figures to substantiate it, some things are true in common knowledge even if they aren’t – Accepting that it likely happens, what may be surprising is that it happens not just to people of color but it happens to young people – because of their age, it happens to older people – because of their age; it happens to people of certain sexual inclinations or even religious affiliations – Bad things happen, sadly, all the time; but they can happen to just about ANY citizen. Do some have it happen to them disproportionately? I’m certain they do; but I don’t have numbers to prove it. Here is the point though about being a nation of LAWS.

Those who are harassed in any way whatsoever have a legitimate LEGAL recourse for the settlement of their grievances. In an open court with a trier of the FACTS and with appellate courts to oversee them – their grievances can be redressed. That is a Blessing of Liberty.

The excuses come – the courts are crooked… it costs too much… no one will believe me … Well, in part its true, the system isn’t perfect; but, it is still the LAW and without the LAW there is anarchy. Remember ANYONE from our example? In anarchy, ANYONE who feels that they have been grieved (or even just someone else they don’t even know has been grieved and they somehow feel a kinship to those folks) – can go out in a public street and murder persons who are COPS, LEGAL representatives of the GOVERNMENT that ANYONE has sworn to support. ANYONE is murdering these INDIVIDUALS who are CITIZENS themselves with RIGHTS of their own and HUMAN BEINGS with people who love, need and will greatly miss them.

The Thin Blue Line is the symbol of law enforcement. It’s meaning is very appropriate today. The Thin Blue Line represents that very thin line between civilization and anarchy. Those who are flaunting the law are doing so by trying to destroy the only line that is preventing anarchy from reining in our streets. If injustice is perceived as widespread today just wait until anarchy erases the Thin Blue Line. Who will you call for help then?

For a person who is a citizen of the United States of America to say that another citizen need not obey the law against murder of a fellow human being only because other human beings of a similar job title may have offended, hurt or even killed someone illegally RATHER THAN saying that the citizen who is the aggrieved has a legal remedy and that remedy is the only appropriate avenue for the redress of grievances in a civilized society is, in effect, speaking treason because the ultimate result of such anarchist thinking is the demise of the United States.

In the first century A.D., Rome ruled the known world that is today most of Europe, the Mediterranean, Balkans, through the Middle East. The rulers were cruel and unjust. Local representatives of the government did whatever they pleased to whomever they pleased, including killing anyone who got in their way. A particularly fond target for harassment, threats, assaults, rapes, robberies and murder were Christians. Those who claimed the Name of Christ may as well as hung a target on their back with a death warrant in their pocket. Paul, a missionary and Apostle of the church was an outspoken, driven man. He faced the Roman persecution head-on and was beaten and jailed many times because of it. Paul wrote to the churches, specifically to the church in Rome and rallied them with how they should respond to the ‘open season’ that had been declared against them. Here are his words:

“Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality.

 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.

Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Therefore, If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.  Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:9-21 NKJV)