Skip to content

Globalists’ Tendency to Rape/Child Sex – Indiana Supreme Court: Citizens Can’t Resist Rogue Cops

May 16, 2011

Globalists Like To Rape Women, As Well As Nations

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 16, 2011

Given the fact that the likes of IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn and other top globalists are intent on raping the national and monetary sovereignty of countries in pursuit of their new world order, it’s no surprise that they also seem pre-occupied with raping women, amongst a host of other sordid and predatory perversions.

Strauss-Kahn was pulled off a jet at Kennedy Airport in New York by police Sunday after a hotel maid accused him of attacking and attempting to sodomize her. The fact that Strauss-Kahn left his mobile phone in the hotel room suggests he tried to make a quick getaway.

However, it’s not the first time the IMF chief has been accused of rape. French writer Tristane Banon is now considering legal action against Strauss-Kahn for an alleged sexual molestation that occurred in 2002. According to Banon, during the course of an interview Strauss-Kahn acted like a “rutting chimpanzee” as he violently attempted to tear off her clothes.

Strauss-Kahn’s alleged penchant for sexually assaulting women brings to mind the claims against his fellow globalist Al Gore which became public last year. Masseuse Molly Haggerty alleges that Gore invited her to his hotel room before pinning her down like a “crazed sex poodle” before groping her as she struggled to escape.

But Gore’s behavior is relatively tame compared to former President Bill Clinton. Juanita Broaddrick went public in 1998 to claim that Clinton raped her two decades earlier. Broaddrick alleged that Clinton forced her down on the bed in a hotel room, tore away her underwear and began aggressively raping her while biting her lips as she begged him to stop. Although Clinton denied the charges, he agreed to an $850,000 settlement to avoid the case going to court, “A lot of money from someone who claims he did nothing wrong,” as Larry Elder wrote.

Despite the fact that Clinton publicly lied to the American people during the Monica Lewinsky scandal when he said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” the numerous other women who alleged affairs or who claimed they had been raped or molested by Clinton were all dismissed as liars by the corporate media, just as Lewinsky was branded deceitful before she produced the semen-stained dress that proved her story to be true, and just as Gennifer Flowers was also savaged by the establishment before Clinton, during the Paula Jones deposition, was forced to admit the he did indeed have sex with Flowers.

However, sexual molestation of women only scratches the surface of the deep and sordid circles that the elite prefer to move in when it comes to acting out their forbidden perversions.

Politicians such as Larry Craig and Mark Foley are lightweights in comparison to the horrors of the underground child sex trafficking networks run exclusively for the pleasure of the elite.

As we have documented, almost every major pedophile network that has come to public knowledge has included tentacles that stretch high into the upper echelons of the global power structure.

On June 29 1989, the Washington Times’ Paul M. Rodriguez and George Archibald reported on a Washington D.C. prostitution ring that had intimate connections with the White House all the way up to President George H.W. Bush. Male prostitutes had been given access to the White House and the article also cited evidence of “abduction and use of minors for sexual perversion.”

In July 1990, a Nebraska Grand Jury was convened to hear allegations that Lawrence “Larry” King, then manager of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union and a rising Republican Party star, along with Washington lobbyists, had set up a child prostitution ring in which minors were transported around the country and forced to have sex with King, other top officials, and according to victims who some allege were later harassed into recanting, then-Vice-President Bush.

The Grand Jury dismissed the case as a hoax but former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp later investigated the claims and was horrified to learn that they were indeed legitimate.

Globalists Like To Rape Women, As Well As Nations 021006paper1 Globalists Like To Rape Women, As Well As Nations 021006paper2
Click for enlargements.

The video which you can watch in full below, Conspiracy of Silence, was produced by British Yorkshire Television and was scheduled to air nationwide in the U.S. on the Discovery Channel on May 3, 1994. Despite appearing in TV guides, the documentary was pulled at the last minute. Key politicians implicated in the scandal intimidated Discovery into canceling the program and it was never shown in the U.S.

The documentary team interviewed victims of the Franklin cover-up scandal and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Washington’s political elite had been involved in Larry King’s pedophile ring.

Connections between male prostitutes and the White House emerged again in early 2005, when James Dale Guckert, working under the pseudonym Jeff Gannon, was given privileged access to the White House despite his lack of suitable press credentials. Gannon first came under scrutiny when he repeatedly gave President Bush softball questions during press conferences – leading many to charge Gannon was a White House plant. Photos emerged of Bush embracing Gannon and appearing very affectionate towards him during meetings. It later came out that Gannon had previously placed ads on homosexual escort service websites.

In almost every case of human trafficking for child sex slavery, from Chile to Australia, to Bosnia, to Portugal, to Belgium, court proceedings get shut down or diverted when a clear connection to the elite arises.

In the mid 1990′s, convicted child rapist Marc Dutroux built a secret prison cell in his Charleroi basement where he kept abducted young girls hostage at the behest of what he called “a big crime ring,” which in the 2004 court case was thought by many to encompass some of Belgium’s top politicians, judges and policemen. The reason why it took so long to apprehend Dutroux was that he was being legally protected by these same individuals.

Material witnesses at the trial described “child sex parties involving judges, politicians, bankers and members of the royal family.” Victims that managed to survive (most were butchered snuff style after being raped) verified the claims.

Police actually visited Dutroux’s home and heard the cries of help from children concealed in his basement yet believed Dutroux’s explanation that the sounds were coming from kids playing in the street.

Dutroux was eventually convicted for his role in the pedophile ring but the involvement of the elite of the country was never properly investigated.

After Dyncorp and Halliburton contractors were exposed as having operated child prostitution rackets in the Balkans from the late 1990′s onwards (and more recently in the case of Halliburton), Rep. Cynthia McKinney attempted to get answers as to why the U.S. government continued to do business with these corporations.

On March 11th 2005, McKinney grilled Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers on the Dyncorp scandal and its protection by the U.S. government.

“Mr. Secretary, I watched President Bush deliver a moving speech at the United Nations in September 2003, in which he mentioned the crisis of the sex trade. The President called for the punishment of those involved in this horrible business. But at the very moment of that speech, DynCorp was exposed for having been involved in the buying and selling of young women and children. While all of this was going on, DynCorp kept the Pentagon contract to administer the smallpox and anthrax vaccines, and is now working on a plague vaccine through the Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program. Mr. Secretary, is it [the] policy of the U.S. Government to reward companies that traffic in women and little girls?” asked McKinney.

In late 2005, Halliburton subsidiary KBR and Dyncorp lobbyists worked in tandem with the Pentagon to stall legislation that would specifically ban trafficking in humans for forced labor and prostitution by U.S. contractors.

Where were the investigations and convictions in other cases of establishment-orchestrated child slavery and prostitution? Like the NATO officials responsible for the mushrooming of child prostitution in Kosovo?

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

What happened to UN officials identified as using a ship charted for ‘peacekeepers’ to bring young girls from Thailand to East Timor as prostitutes? In every example, the case seems to get shut down when direct ties to people in positions of high power are established.

The behavior of Strauss-Kahn, Gore, Clinton, and every other globalist underscores how our planet is being seized by people who are predators in more than one sense, and whose conduct illustrates how they deserve to be behind bars more than they do accumulating more and more power in the move towards global governance.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

—————————————————————————

Indiana Supreme Court Says Citizens Can’t Resist Rogue Police

| Print |  E-mail
Written by Thomas R. Eddlem
Monday, 16 May 2011 00:00
My comment: People have a right to self defense regardless of what a foolish state court decides.  Many judges have difficulty discerning between right and wrong, anyway.  Don’t lose your humanity, don’t relinquish your right of self-defense. 

Citizens have “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry [to their homes] by police officers,” Indiana’s Supreme Court declared May 12 in a controversial 3-2 decision, Richard L. Barnes v. Indiana.

Justice Steven David wrote for the court in the decision that “this Court is faced for the first time with the question of whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We conclude that public policy disfavors any such right.”

Justice David acknowledged that he was overturning many centuries of common law precedent in favor of his “public policy” decision, admitting that “The English common-law right to resist unlawful police action existed for over three hundred years, and some scholars trace its origin to the Magna Carta in 1215.”

Fellow Indiana Supreme Court Justice Robert D. Rucker issued a blistering dissent, claiming:

The common law rule supporting a citizen’s right to resist unlawful entry into her home rests on a very different ground, namely, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Indeed, “the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585 (1980). In my view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations. There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home.

Rucker added that the “majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. And that their sole remedy is to seek refuge in the civil arena.”

The consequences of the Barnes decision, if citizens indeed have “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers,” are indeed frightening. If a policeman enters a man’s house to rob him or rape his wife or daughter, under this decision, a citizen cannot legally resist him. Indeed, even shouting at the police officer to stop could be considered a crime of interfering with a police officer. The court ruled in the Barnes decision that protesting illegal police conduct verbally — without any physical resistance — constituted a crime according to a majority of the judges in the decision: “Barnes’s speech in the present case is that of a person of interest refusing to cooperate with a police investigation and is not within the contours of political speech.”

Perhaps the egregious part of the Barnes decision is that it was made without any pretense of legislative or constitutional justification. To the contrary, every law and constitutional citation made by Justice Steven David reasserted the citizen’s right to resist unlawful entry, and the court justified its decision on “public policy” considerations and a few activist court decisions. “In the 1920s,” Justice David wrote, “legal scholarship began criticizing the right as valuing individual liberty over physical security of the officers.” What Justice David means by “legal scholarship” is activist judges who blatantly overturn long-held laws and centuries-old common law legal tradition without either constitutional or statutory authority from the legislature. Indeed, “public policy” considerations are an exclusively legislative responsibility, and are prohibited to the judicial bodies.

Justice David concluded: “We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action.” Specifically, Justice David found not that anyone had amended the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or that the legislature had passed any new laws, but rather that Americans are the beneficiaries of “modern developments” that include: “(1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies.”

But, of course, the 21st century has seen numerous examples of government denying bail, indefinite detention without a habeas corpus hearing, and use of secret evidence in “military commissions” courts that the federal government created during both the Bush administration and are now being created under the Obama administration. David’s argument that modern remedies are available fails not only because these “modern” remedies are not universal, but more importantly because they are not based upon changes in the constitutions or laws of the land.

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: