Farewell Speech Of Judah P. Benjamin Of Louisana On The Occasion Of His WithDrawal From The United States Senate

Via Michael

"Mr. President, if we were engaged in the performance of our accustomed legislative duties, I might well rest content with the simple statement of my concurrence in the remarks just made by my colleague. Deeply impressed, however, with the solemnity of the occasion, I cannot remain insensible to the duty of recording, amongst the authentic reports of your proceedings, the expressions of my conviction that the State of Louisiana has judged and acted well and wisely in the crisis of her destiny. "Sir, it has been urged, on more than one occasion in the discussions here and elsewhere, that Louisiana stands on an exceptional footing. It has been said that whatever may be the rights of the States that were original parties to the Constitution—even granting their right to resume for sufficient cause, those restricted powers which they delegated to the General Government, in trust for their own use and benefit—still Louisiana can have no such right, because she was acquired by purchase. Gentlemen have not hestitated to speak of the sovereign States formed out of the territory ceded by France as property bought with the money of the United States, belonging to them as purchasers; and although they have not carried their doctrine to its legitimate results, I must conclude that they also mean to assert, on the same principle, the right of selling for a price that which for a price was bought. "A hundredfold, sir, has the Government of the United States been reimbursed by the sales of public property, of public lands, for the price of the acquisition; but not with the fidelity of the honest trustee has it discharged the obligations as regards the sovereignty. "If then, sir, the people of Louisiana had a right which Congress could not deny, of the admission into the Union with all the rights of all the citizens of the United States, it is in vain that the partisans of the rights of the majority to govern the minority with despotic control attempt to establish a distinction, to her prejudice between her rights and those of any other State. The only distinction which really exists is this—that she can point to a breach of treaty stipulations expressly guaranteeing her rights as a wrong superadded to those which have impelled a number of her sister States to the assertion of their independence. "The rights of Louisiana as a sovereign State are those of Virginia. No more, no less. Let those who deny her right to resume delegated powers, successfully refute the claim of Virginia to the same right, in spite of her express reservation made and notified to her sister States when she consented to enter the Union. And, sir, permit me to say that of all the causes which justify the action of the Southern States I know none of greater gravity and more alarming magnitude than that now developed of the denial of the right of secession. A pretension so monstrous as that which perverts a restricted agency, constituted by sovereign States for common purposes, into the unlimited despotism of the majority, and denies all legitimate escape from such despotism when powers not delegated are usurped, converts the whole constitutional fabric into the secure abode of lawless tyranny and degrades sovereign States into Provincial dependencies. "It is said that the right of secession, if conceded, makes of our Government a mere rope of sand; and to assert its existence imputes to the framers of the Constitution the folly of planting the seeds of death in that which was designed for perpetual existence. If this imputation was true, sir, it would merely prove that their offspring was not exempt from that mortality which is the common lot of all that is not created by higher than human power. But it is not so, sir, that facts answer theory. For two-thirds of a century this right has been known by many of the States to be at all times within their power. Yet, up to the present period, when its exercise has become indispensable to a people menaced with absolute extermination, there have been but two instances in which it has been even threatened seriously; the first, when Massachusetts led the New England States in an attempt to escape from the dangers of our last war with Great Britain; the second, when the same State proposed to secede on account of the admission of Texas as a new State into the Union. "Sir, in the language of our declaration of secession from Great Britain it is stated as an established truth that 'all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they have been accustomed.' And nothing can be more obvious to the calm and candid observer of passing events than that the disruption of the Confederacy has been due, in great measure, not to the existence but to the denial of this right. Few candid men would refuse to admit that the Republicans of the North would have been checked in their mad career, had they been convinced of the existence of this right and the intention to assert it. The very knowledge of its existence by preventing occurrences which alone could prompt its exercise would have rendered it a most efficient instrument in the preservation of the Union. But, sir, if the fact were otherwise—if all the teachings of experience were reserved—better, far better, a rope of sand, ay, the flimsiest gossamer that ever glistened in the morning dew, than chains of iron and shackles of steel; better the wildest anarchy, with the hope, the chance, of one hour's inspiration of the glorious breath of freedom that ages of the hopeless bondage and oppression to which our enemies would reduce us. "We are told that the laws must be enforced; that the revenues must be collected; that the South is in rebellion without cause and that her citizens are traitors. "Rebellion! The very word is a confession; an avowal of tyranny, outrage, and oppression. It is taken from the despot's code and has no terror for other than slavish souls. When, sir, did millions of people as a single man rise in organized, deliberate, unimpassioned rebellion against justice, truth and honor? Well did a great Englishman exclaim on a similar occasion: _ " 'You might as well tell me that they rebelled against the light of Heaven; that they rejected the fruits of the earth. Men do not war against their benefactors; they are not mad enough to repel the instincts of self-preservation. I pronounce fearlessly that no intelligent people ever rose or ever will rise against a sincere, rational, and benevolent authority. No people were ever born blind. Infatuation is not a law of human nature. When there is a revolt by a free people with the common consent of all classes of society there must be a criminal against whom that revolt is aimed.' "Traitors! Treason! Ay, sir, the people of the South imitate and glory in just such treason as glowed in the soul of Hampden; just such treason as leaped in living flame from the impassioned lips of Henry; just such treason as encircles with a sacred halo the undying name of Washington! You will enforce the laws. You want to know if we have a Government; if you have any authority to collect revenue; to wring tribute from an unwilling people? Sir, humanity desponds and all the inspiring hopes of her progressive improvement vanish into empty air at the reflections which crowd on the mind at hearing repeated with aggravated enormity the sentiments at which a Chatham launched his indignant thunders nearly a century ago. The very words of Lord North and his royal master are repeated here in debate not as quotations but as the spontaneous outpourings of a spirit the counterpart of theirs. In Lord North's speech, on the destruction of the tea in Boston Harbor, he said: "'We are no longer to dispute between legislation and taxation; we are now only to consider whether or not we have any authority there. It is very clear we have none, if we suffer the property of our subjects to be destroyed. We must punish, control, or yield to them.' "And thereupon he proposed to close the port of Boston, just as the representatives of Massachusetts now propose to close the port of Charleston in order to determine whether or not you have any authority there. It is thus that in 1861 Boston is to pay her debt of gratitude to Charleston, which in the days of her struggle proclaimed the generous sentiment that 'the cause of Boston was the cause of Charleston.' Who after this will say that Republics are ungrateful? Well, sir, the statesmen of Great Britain answered to Lord North's appeal, 'Yield.' The courtiers and the politicians said, 'Punish, control.' The result is known. History gives you the lesson. Profit by its teachings. "So, sir, in the address sent under the royal signmanual to Parliament it was invoked to take measures 'for better securing the execution of the laws' and acquiesced in the suggestion. Just as now the Executive under the sinister influence of insane counsels is proposing with your assent 'to secure the better execution of the laws' by blockading ports and turning upon the people of the States the artillery which they provided at their own expense for their own defense and entrusted to you and to him for that and for no other purpose. Nay, even in States that are now exercising the undoubted and most precious rights of a free people, where there is no secession, where the citizens are assembling to hold peaceful elections for considering what course of action is demanded in this dread crisis by a due regard for their own safety and their own liberty, ay, even in Virginia herself the people are to cast their suffrages beneath the undisguised menaces of a frowning fortress. Cannon are brought to bear on their homes and parricidal hands are preparing weapons for rending the bosom of the mother of Washington. "Sir, when Great Britain proposed to exact tribute from your fathers against their will Lord Chatham said: "'Whatever is a man's own is absolutely his own; no man has a right to take it from him without his consent. Whoever attempts to do it attempts an injury. Whoever does it commits a robbery. You have no right to tax America. I rejoice that America has resisted. Let the sovereign authority of this country over the Colonies be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every point of legislation whatever, so that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures and exercise every power except that of taking money out of their own pockets without their consent' "It was reserved for the latter half of the nineteenth century and for the Congress of a Republic of free men to witness the willing abnegation of all power save that of exacting tribute. What Imperial Britain with the haughtiest pretensions of unlimited power over dependent colonies could not even attempt without a vehement protest of her greatest statesmen, is to be enforced in aggravated form, if you can enforce it, against independent States. "Good God! Sir, since when has the necessity arisen of recalling to American legislators the lessons of freedom taught in lisping childhood by loving mothers; that pervade the atmosphere we have breathed from infancy; that so form part of our very being that in their absence we would lose the consciousness of our own identity? Heaven be praised that all have not forgotten them; and that when we shall have left these familiar halls, and when force bills, blockades, armies, navies and all the accustomed coercive appliances of despots shall be proposed and advocated, voices shall be heard from this side of the Chamber that will make its very roof resound with the indignant clamor of outraged freedom. Methinks I still hear ringing in my ears the appeal of the eloquent Representative [Hon. George H. Pendleton of Ohio] whose Northern home looks down on Kentucky's fertile borders. Armies, money, blood cannot maintain this Union; justice, reason, peace may. "And now to you, Mr. President, and to my brother Senators on all sides of this Chamber, I bid a respectful farewell; with many of those from whom I have been radically separated in political sentiment my personal relations had been kindly, and have -inspired me with a respect and esteem that I shall not willingly forget; with those around me from the Southern States, I part as men part from brothers on the eve of a temporary absence, with a cordial pressure of the hand and a smiling assurance of a speedy renewal of sweet intercourse around the family hearth. But to you noble and generous friends who, born beneath other skies, possess hearts that beat in sympathy with ours; to you who, solicited and assailed by motives the most powerful that could appeal to selfish natures, have nobly spurned them all; to you who in our behalf have bared your breasts to the fierce beatings of the storm and made willing sacrifice of life's most glittering prizes in your devotion to constitutional liberty; to you who ever made our cause your cause, and from many of whom I feel I part forever, what shall I, can I, say? Naught I know and feel, is needed for myself; but this I will say for the people in whose name I speak to-day;—whether prosperous or adverse fortunes await you, one priceless treasure is yours, the assurance that an entire people honor your names and hold them in grateful and affectionate memory. But with still sweeter and more touching return shall your unselfish devotion be rewarded. "When in after days the story of the present shall be written, when history shall have passed her stern sentence on the erring men who have driven their unoffending brethren from the shelter of their common home, your names will derive fresh luster from the contrast, and when your children shall hear repeated the familiar tale it will be with glowing cheek and kindling eye, their very souls will stand a tip-toe as their sires are named and they will glory in their lineage from men of spirit as generous and of patriotism as high-spirited as ever illustrated or adorned the American Senate." ======== Farewell Speech Of Judah P. Benjamin

Bing Crosby - Dixie Original Trailer(1943)

Via SHNV

Felonious Munk Presents: Stop It B! OBAMA PAY YOUR &*%$#% BILLS

Via The Bonnie Blue Blog

LANGUAGE! LANGUAGE! LANGUAGE!
(Of course if any liberal sees this post he will complain afterwards about having to listen to the language........)

===================================

Global Warming indoctrination for school kids

Dr. Robinson (Dixie's Homeschooler) Myth Of Global Warming

====================================================

Old Virginia Blog

Public Education - The Trust Factor

If you can't trust public schools to teach a balanced, apolitical approach to science, should you trust them to teach a balanced, apolitical approach to history? *No, you shouldn't. They have an agenda.

==========================================================

During a July event at the U.S. Department of Education, children from D.C. schools and day care centers were treated to free books, including two featuring Nickelodeon characters as part of the media organization’s “The Big Green Help” Series. One of the books promotes the idea that global warming is man made and the second book talks about what kids can do to save the Earth.

SpongeBob Goes Green! An Earth-Friendly Adventure! tells the story of SpongeBob’s friend, Krusty Krab, who builds a swimming pool. Mr. Krab is frustrated that it is not hot enough to attract paying customers to his new swimming pool and decides that the exhaust from boats and cars could solve his dilemma.

Mr. Krab says: “I’m just pumpin’ a wee bit of carbon dioxide into the air. It’ll warm up the temperature and bring on an endless summer! People will want to use my new pool all year long.”

To help with his cause, SpongeBob and his friend Patrick set stacks of tires on fire.

“More smoke floated up into the sky,” the book states.

The author does not explain how a pool is built underwater, how vehicles submerged in the ocean can produce exhaust, or how tires burn and send smoke into the air from the bottom of the sea.

MORE

Governors: Stop Partnering With Communist China’s State-Owned Corporations

Many U.S. governors are actively seeking to attract investment money from China’s state-owned corporations. In some cases they are using taxpayer-paid incentives to sweeten the deal. In order to expedite such investments, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed a Memorandum of Understanding with her counterpart from China on January 19, 2011 that established the U.S.-China Governors Forum. The first meeting of this forum was held July 15-17 in conjunction with the annual meeting of the National Governors Association in Salt Lake City. Some 20-30 U.S. governors took part in the forum. The next forum will be held in China in October.

The John Birch Society has taken a stand against the participation of American governors in the U.S.-China Governors Forum in particular and against our governors making business, educational, environmental, and energy agreements with state-owned and –controlled corporations in China in general.

To understand why the JBS has taken this position, read the open letter (PDF at right; text shown below) that JBS CEO Arthur R. Thompson sent to all 50 governors before the first U.S.-China Governors Forum held in Salt Lake City, July 15-17:

From the murder of John Birch, to the Cultural Revolution, to the Tiananmen Square Massacre, up to today when hundreds of thousands of Chinese all over China are in protest against the government and are being suppressed by the Peoples' Liberation Army, a reign of terror by the Chinese communist government has existed.

The official policy of the Peoples' Liberation Army is that America remains the enemy and it is their goal to defeat us.

Yet we see businessmen and politicians running to China for deals that, in the long run, hurt our economy and even threaten our freedom.

Money isn't everything.

Principle and truth are everything. They are the foundations of our nation and we have proven over and over again that when we do business with tyrants, they will take advantage of us and it often results in war.

We endorse the free exchange of people in a free atmosphere, but history has shown that such intercourse between governments leads to disaster for the more gullible and trusting.

Communism remains the style of government on mainland Asia. It is incompatible with truth and principle.

We prayerfully ask that you reject even the idea of meeting with the Chinese at the upcoming Governors' Conference in Salt Lake City.

You would not do business with people in your state who have connections with crime or are just plain dishonest. The same should hold true internationally.
Unsurprisingly, despite this open letter and thousands of emails with similar messages in opposition to the U.S.-China Governors Forum that were sent by grassroots Americans to all 50 governors, over thirty governors (according to China's press) and over twenty (according to our State Department) were reported to have participated in the forum in Salt Lake City, July 15-17.

Although there doesn’t appear to be an official list of governors that participated in the forum, here is a partial list of participants as revealed by news articles and official videos: Washington Governor Gregoire, Iowa Governor Branstad, Delaware Governor Markell, Utah Governor Herbert, Maryland Governor O'Malley, Connecticut Governor Malloy, Missouri Governor Nixon, Nebraska Governor Heineman, and Rhode Island Governor Chaffee.

For some of the details behind the JBS stand against U.S. governors forming partnerships and other cooperative initiatives with state-owned corporations in communist China, read “China: The New Investment Savior?” by William F. Jasper, TheNewAmerican.com, May 12, 2011.

For some specific examples of how the National Governors Association, the U.S. State Department, and individual governors have made a concerted effort to avoid the word “communist” when referring to the leading Chinese officials that participated in the U.S.-China Governors Forum, read “U.S.-China Governors Forum: Not All Sweetness & Harmony” by William F. Jasper, TheNewAmerican.com, June 25, 2011.

This issue is not going away. Many of our governors are already enthusiastic cheerleaders for partnering with communist China’s state-owned corporations as a growth strategy for their states. These governors are not sufficiently aware that “in China’s state-monopoly system of Leninist ‘capitalism,’ its corporations are instruments of national policy, fully integrated with, and subservient to, the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA).”

Already the National Governors Association has adopted an opaque press strategy reminiscent of communist regimes by denying press credentials for the National Governors Association (NGA) Annual Conference and the concurrent U.S.-China Governors Forum, July 15-17, to William F. Jasper, Senior Editor for The New American magazine, while freely providing press credentials to government-employed and -controlled journalists from China. The NGA’s reason for barring Jasper, a veteran journalist who has covered international conferences around the world, was that The New American does not produce “unbiased” and “objective” reporting. This is laughable when you realize how biased the articles are from China’s journalists. You can read the details about this infringement of the freedom of the press at the taxpayer-funded NGA meeting in Jasper’s July 25 article, “National Governors Conference: China Sellout Begins With First Amendment.”

If you agree that our U.S. governors should not be partnering with communist China’s state-owned corporations, contact your governor (copies will automatically be sent to your lieutenant governor, attorney general, state senator, and state representative) and personally give him or her this message:

Regarding state initiatives to attract investment money from communist China’s state-owned corporations -- Money isn't everything. Principle and truth are everything.

Please do not participate in future U.S.-China Governors Forums and please do not pursue any cooperative initiatives with communist China’s state-owned corporations.
Thanks,

Your friends at The John Birch Society

Freedom Fighting Terrorists

VERBATIM POST
THOUGHTS ALOUD
==================

On a social networking site I frequent, a young lady posted a lament that the media were not referring to the perpetrator of the recent atrocity in Norway as a terrorist. She allowed that she had never heard of a terrorist before 9/11, and wondered why only Muslims are called such. I suspect that was probably about the time in her youth, when she first became the slightest bit interested in the news. Anyway, she punched one of my buttons, and this was my reply:

There is nothing new about the term ‘terrorism.’ We were fighting what we called terrorists when I was living in Rhodesia almost 40 years ago. They were Chinese communist inspired insurgents, from training camps in Zambia and Mozambique. Rather than confront our national security forces directly, they used hit & run tactics to attack white farmers, native villages, missionary outposts, etc. in the farming country.

They were armed with AK47s, RPGs, and land mines, which were easy to bury in all the dirt roads in the farming communities. It was a common sight to see the fender from a land rover 30 ft. up in a tree, where some innocent farmer’s wife had been blown up by one, while on her way to town for supplies. All farm houses were surrounded by 12 ft. high security fences beyond RPG range of the house, and had sandbags under the windows so the farmer could return fire if attacked in the middle of the night.

The term is also subjective and depends on one’s perspective, not one’s religion. There was a common expression at the time, that one man’s terrorist was another man’s freedom fighter. Americans had a romanticized notion that these animals were fighting for their freedom from the evil colonizers, who had no right to be in Africa with a white face. So, in the American press, they were called freedom fighters, even though the local natives hated them as much as the whites did.

They had every reason to. They were very satisfied with their lives as they were. While there were some cultural barriers to total integration of the races, such as white only private clubs, they were no worse than our Southern culture in the ’60s. There were plenty of native doctors, lawyers, and members of parliament, who were as welcome in a typical nightclub, movie theater, or restaurant as anyone else. There was universal medical care for everyone, and universal education for all children.

The simpler natives, who happily worked as farmhands, were paid well and lived in traditional native villages right on the farms, governing themselves with their native traditions. Alas, these villages were favorite targets for the terrorists, who could not get local support without terror. I have personally witnessed atrocities committed against the leaders of these villages, to terrorize them into hiding and feeding them, which you would not want to hear me describe.

There were more black natives in Rhodesia’s security forces than whites, but that was an inconvenient fact that was left out of American news stories. That and the fact that whites had been living in southern Africa for 400 years. The amusing mantra from America, was that the whites ought to ‘go home’ and give their land back to the natives they stole it from.

A Rhodesian farmer put it to me this way, “Dave, my great-great-grandfather cleared this land. My grandfather was born on this farm. So was my father, and so was I. Now I have two sons that were born here. I AM home; I AM an African; and I have no place else to go.” It would be akin to the world saying to Americans, “Your ancestors had no right to steal America from the Indians, we want you to home and give it back to them.”

They lost the battle with communism in the end, of course, because of the UN sanctions and the ignorance of the Western world being stacked against them. You may have heard of their leader, Robert Mugabe, who is now dictator for life in the country now named Zimbabwe. He murdered all the white farmers and gave their land to his ‘freedom fighters,’ Rhodesia was once the bread basket of Africa, exporting food, cotton, and tobacco all over the world. Now it cannot afford to import enough food to feed its starving population. Forgive the rant, it utterly disgusts me when I think about it.

◄Dave►

Is Super Congress Constitutional?

Via PUMABydesign

The Truth Hurts

Via The Feral Irishman

The Black Flag, Sir

Via Rebellion

"At 1:20 in, Stonewall Jackson shares With Jeb Stuart his view of the consequences of a Northern victory, and what Southerners had to steel themselves for to prevent it:"

The black flag, sir.

If the North triumphs, it is not alone the destruction of our property. It is the prelude to anarchy, infidelity...the loss of free and responsible government. It is the triumph of commerce. The banks, factories.

We should meet the Federal invader on the verge of just defense...and raise the black flag. No quarter to the violators of our homes and firesides. Our political leadership is too timid to face the reality of this coming war.

They should look to the Bible. It is full of such wars.

75 Years for Recording Public Officials On Duty!?

COPBLOCK
VERBATIM POST
==================================

Do you know about Michael Allison? You should.

A mechanic and construction worker by profession, 41-year-old Allison just wanted to work on cars he owned that were parked on private property (his mom’s) in southeast Illinois, yet area bureaucrats, citing a local zoning ordinance, demanded that he register or garage each vehicle. Seeing such measures as nothing more than revenue generators, Allison filed suit against the city. They responded not with open conversation but with harassment from their enforcers – those wearing badges.

In a recent phone conversation, Allison noted that though he was caught off-guard the first time they showed-up, he was “ready and documented” their second visit via a digital recorder. He added that at the time his unwelcome guests were fully aware of the recording and didn’t lodge any objections.

Eventually Allison was charged with violating the ordinance and ordered to appear in court. An advocate of transparency, he inquired whether the proceedings would be recorded. Upon learning that it would not be, Allison informed court personnel that he intended to record the proceedings himself.

As he entered the Robinson, IL courtroom on January 13th, 2009, he was immediately approached by the judge who asked if he had a recording device. He replied in the affirmative. The judge then asked if it was turned on. He noted that it was. The judge claimed he had violated her right to privacy and, pointing to an already-opened law book with the statute she claims he violated, informed him that he was under arrest (his first ever) for eavesdropping.

Allison’s recorder was seized. He was held for one hour then released. He was told he’d be re-arrested a week later after a warrant was issued. No elaboration was given despite Allison’s questions. A week passed and he was left unmolested.

Then, five months later, when buying potatoes for his mom at a local grocery store, a man with a badge arrested him on what he claimed was an outstanding warrant stemming from the incident with the judge. When he challenged the arrest (since he hadn’t received the required speedy preliminary hearing within 60days of his first arrest) he was told the first arrest “didn’t count.”

If that’s the case then the seizure of his recorder violated the law since it was done without a warrant, and the content which it contained – Allison’s conversation with the judge and men wearing badges – are what his five charges of eavesdropping are based upon, each of which threatens up to 15-years in a cage.

Allison now faces 75-years in a cage thanks to Tom Wiseman, Crawford Co. state attorney.

As Mark McCoy correctly noted: “That’s up to 75 years in prison for breaking a law Allison did not know existed, and which he violated in the name of protecting himself from what he saw as an injustice.”

On January 13th, 2011 Allison filed a civil suit against the City of Robinson for false arrest and imprisonment. A week before his trial was set to kick-off this past May a pro bono lawyer stepped-up and filed a number of motions, including one that challenged the constitutionality of the eavesdropping statute. The jury was sent home and the judge ordered a continuance to allow for Lisa Madigan, Illinois attorney general, to respond. A hearing date is now scheduled for August 18th.

Along with Maryland, where similar charges against Anthony Graber were dropped and Massachusetts, where a jury recently returned a “not guilty” verdict for myself and Ademo, Illinois has the most-draconian legislation used to target individuals from documenting their interactions with those who work for the government. This clear double-standard caused this quote by Max Stirner to come to mind: “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.”

Let’s work to make sure the real criminals are held accountable.

Help Allison on the ground:

• For those in/around St. Louis: get a copy of his case and share it online (Allison admits he’s not too tech-savvy and specifically requested this). The 112-page document can be obtained at the U.S. District Court – Southern District of Illinois Division – East St. Louis. Copies are $0.08/page, for $8.96 total. The first person to upload the document (and let us know) will be reimbursed by CopBlock.
• Join him on the ground on Aug 18th. 2nd Judicial Circuit Court, Crawford County, 1 Court St., Robinson, IL. Allison noted that the Copwatch crew from nearby Charlestown, IL have been present at previous proceedings with signs. Just imagine the message it’d send were they to be reinforced with activists from nearby Louisville, Indianapolis, St. Louis, or Chicago!

Help Allison from afar:

• Share his story (this post or any related content) with others. Help win in the court of public opinion. The last thing those responsible for Allison’s harassment want is for their actions to become more well-known.
• Find an attorney to take on his civil case. His case, if you or your lead has access to Pacer, is 11-CV-43-MJR-PMF. Did the judge violate Allison’s right against self-incrimination when she acted in an executive capacity rather than judicial?
• Contact Tom Wiseman, Crawford Co. state attorney, and tell him to drop the five felonies he’s levied against Allison:
  Crawford County Courthouse
  105 Douglas St.
  Robinson, IL 62454
  phone: 618.546.1505
  fax: 618.544.4912
  email: twiseman@crawfordcountrycentral.com