In August, 2009, in the city of Paterson, New Jersey, as an attempt to curb the violence, it was suggested that adults be given a curfew for the night. As part of this unprecedented situation, adults would not be allowed to leave their homes and stay in public places between 00.00 and 7.00 hours, with the threat of a fine of up to 2 thousand dollars and 90 days in prison. This decree was completely unconstitutional, especially given the introduction of it in the absence of an emergency.
NIA (National Infation Association; note mixednews) found that violence in the city had decreased that year and continued to decline over the previous years. We were absolutely sure that stories there was something else that the mainstream media did not report, and when they arrived in Paterson, they tried to interview the then mayor Joey Torres on camera. The mayor refused to be interviewed, and refused to answer our questions even without a camera.
When we left the mayor’s office, we met a city government employee who heard our conversation and introduced us to the then city council president, Jeffrey Jones, who agreed to be interviewed and invited us to his office. Jones explained to us that he was the president of the city council, and first heard about the proposal from the Associated Press, after Torres had already announced him from the steps of the police department, saying, “we are trying to think outside the box” to solve the problem of crime. Jones expressed his distrust of the mayor, who wanted to castle the whole city, including people who had not committed any crimes. He was also surprised to learn that AP had a list of 30 gunfights that had occurred in the city during the previous year, although this was classified information, which even he did not have at that time.
Jones was amazed that such a proposal was being considered at all, although it was devoid of any logic. He said that in the past, before any announcement by the mayor to the public, there was always a debate between city officials. This time there was not only a discussion, but Torres hastily added a proposal to the city council’s agenda for voting at the next meeting. Jones was puzzled not only by the complete lack of discussion of the proposal and the rush to accept it, but also by the complete lack of details in the decree on the role of ministries, departments and the police’s ability to perform such work. Jones said that if the police had the power to enforce the ruling, the proposal would not even need to be discussed.
NIA agrees with Jones that if the police cannot suppress 30 gunfights in the city, they will certainly not be able to enforce the order, forcing more 146 thousands of people to sit in their homes. Torres should have known this, and also should have known that the proposal of such a measure would be a political suicide. Thus, we see no logical explanation for why this measure was proposed by Torres at a time when crime in the city was in decline, and he was preparing to be reelected for the next term. Even a child in such conditions would begin to attribute the reduction of crime to his credit, instead of creating the impression that the city cannot provide protection to its inhabitants, except by putting them under lock and key.
The city of Paterson per capita is one of the main recipients of federal funding in the United States. It seems that Torres was forced to offer this measure under pressure from the federal government. The government most likely wanted to evaluate the public reaction, and see what kind of outrage this proposal would have caused. The government wanted to know how many residents would be ready so easily to give up their freedom in the name of security. It also wanted to find out how difficult it would be to push through such an order, and if it succeeds, then how much force will be needed to ensure its implementation. When martial law was introduced in real life in a large metropolis like New York, the military would be much more aware of how to cope with various situations when martial law would be declared nationwide during hyperinflation.
The reason why we believe that the ruling was so vague, and without any details regarding its enactment is simple - the police department did not intend to introduce it. If the ruling were made, thousands of crimes would immediately be committed in the city, which would force Torres to ask the federal government to bring troops into the city to detain thousands of criminals who violate the law. The federal government, in fact, would have created a fake conflict in the city to justify the use of military force inside the country (special Posse-Komitatus law had previously prohibited the use of troops to suppress popular riots; note mixednews).
Last year, President Obama signed a decree “On the establishment of a council of governors,” which he claims is a further strengthening of the partnership between the federal government and the state governments to “protect” the country, its property and its citizens. This is a decree on the creation of a council of 10 governors appointed by the president who will share information with the minister of defense, the minister of internal security, and many other government officials associated with the military. Their meetings will cover issues related to the National Guard, national defense, civilian support, synchronization and integration of military activities at the state and federal levels; as well as other issues of mutual interest.
From our experience, we know that the words “partnership” and “protection” are used in such a way as to deceive the public into believing that the executive order serves noble purposes. “Civic support” in an executive order probably means nothing more than the introduction of a curfew within the city, when riots begin. This executive decree is an attempt to repeal the Pos Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, and to make possible the use of military force in cities like Paterson. One would have thought that such an alarming and outrageous decree would have forced citizens to take up weaponHowever, the mainstream media completely ignored this most recent Obama’s attempt to transfer the power that the state and local governments have to the federal government, and no one has written anything about it.
The city of Paterson has recently been seriously affected by flooding after Hurricane Irene, but this is nothing compared to the devastation and destruction that will be caused by another flood from President Obama and Fed Chairman Bernanke. They flooded the whole world with trillions of American dollars in the false belief that with a drop in debt bond yields to record lows, Obama could manage a budget with trillion deficits, and Bernanke could keep the rate close to zero forever. Their actions lead to the maturing of the next major financial crisis, the result of which will be a powerful price inflation, which will result in hyperinflation and will force the government to control prices.
Today, in the once industrial Paterson, unemployment is almost twice as high as the national average. With its 30 percentage of poor people, Paterson is one of the cities most affected by monetary inflation. Most residents of the city depend on government programs, and do not have the financial capacity to accumulate physical gold and silver.
NIA believes that US states have the legal right to secede. American courts have proven time and time again that they misinterpret the American Constitution, trying to protect the illegal and destructive actions of the government, while at the same time selectively ignoring provisions that protect civil rights. The United States is addicted to illegal wars against countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and soon Syria. Also, the United States "hooked" on the printing of money mainly to finance their illegal wars. These dangerous addictions are illegal because the constitution states that wars must be approved by Congress, and only gold and silver should be used as legal tender. The act of separation is a very powerful tool that should be used only when the actions of the federal government threaten the freedom of citizens, which it has sworn to protect. The separation is legal and constitutional, since apart from it nothing can keep the government under control and force it to curb the out-of-control expenses due to the deficit that threaten our very existence as a sovereign state.