Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category

Advertisements

by Ann Telnaes

http://hubert.mycomicspage.com/anntelnaes/2008/04/14/

(Ed. If you think they are waiting to get permission then you are very naive. They are getting permission because they want to legalize their crimes of the past and present)

Senate Considers Adding Universal Wiretapping

Amendments to Telecom Act

 

Darren Pauli
Computerworld
April 19, 2008

Sweeping reforms will make it easier than ever for law enforcement to intercept communications if amendments to the Telecommunications (Interceptions) Act are agreed upon by a Senate standing committee.

The federal government is pushing a bill to force all telecommunications providers to facilitate lawful data interception across fixed and mobile telephone systems, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), Instant Messaging (IM) and chat room discussions.

The standing committee is meeting today to discuss the proposed changes to Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2008 (TIA).

The amendments build on previous reforms by the then Howard government which required Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to implement wiretapping provisions in VoIP services.

Private organisations will be handed “quasi-police” powers under separate government plans announced on Monday.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said business owners will be handed powers to intercept employee e-mails without notice in a bid to prevent cyber-terrorism.

Consumer advocacy groups are outraged by the reforms and have questioned the motives of the government, labelling the move as a blatant invasion of privacy.

NSW Council of Civil Liberties president, Cameron Murphy, said the changes are unnecessary and will inadvertently subject hundreds of people to privacy violations.

“These laws will massively increase the number of interception points available for techniques such as wiretapping,” Murphy said.

“Everything from online chatting, to Skype (VoIP) and mobile phone calls will be open to interception.”

He believes the changes are being driven by law enforcement which is effectively offloading its work on the private industry.

The reforms also violate the privacy of other parties involved in a monitored communication channel, according to the Council, the Australian Privacy Foundation (APF) and the Electronic Frontiers Association (EFA).

The organisations told Computerworld that NSW law, which allows businesses to intercept employee e-mails with consent, is a breach of the TIA and the Privacy Act. The problem arises from ambiguity in the law which does not stipulate rules for dealing with third party information, and what constitutes consent.

APF board member Roger Clarke called on the government to provide clarity and scope on the new proposals, including what the changes hope to ultimately achieve and who will be affected. “Any employer that acted on the powers of interception (under the NSW bill) are in breach of the TIA and the Privacy Act if they are accessing the information of non-employees,” Clarke said.

“The attempts of the Attorney-General’s Departments of successive governments to get some changes to the TIA have been torn apart by various agencies because they haven’t addressed scope.

“Every time ministers open their mouths on this type of policy, they keep saying something stupid.” He said the scope of the changes can be interpreted to apply to all employers, to private organisations with a responsibility to national infrastructure, or to investigators of serious threats against nation infrastructure.

“The last thing we want is private investigators running with enormous powers if an act of terrorism occurs,” Clarke said, speaking of McClelland’s reference that the employers powers is a counter-terrorism measure.

The APF has argued for years for workplace privacy protection law reform, and for interception to be solely in the hands of trained investigators under the public service framework.

Both Murphy, Clarke and EFA chair Dale Clapperton called for government to document what it sees as problems with the TIA.

 

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, April 16, 2008

A recent Austin-American Statesman review of Neo-Con Philip Bobbitt’s new book Terror and Consent features an image of a shredded Constitution under the words “Everything must go,” which acts as a suitable entrée to a disgusting diatribe which praises Bobbitt’s call for the end of America and its replacement with a de facto world government in the name of fighting terror. The words, “How to Fight Terrorism” are in place of a torn piece of the Bill of Rights.

Reviewer James E. McWilliams describes Bobbitt as “a distinguished lecturer and senior fellow at the University of Texas and a law professor at Columbia University,” but anyone with a basic grasp of what America’s founders envisioned and what Ronald Reagan later termed the “shining city on a hill” would be more apt to describe Bobbitt – nephew of Lyndon Baines Johnson and former State Department counselor – as an enemy of the Republic.

McWilliams’ fawning review of the book is intended to sucker in millionaire pseudo-intellectuals who think they are part of the elite by using mental gymnastics and brazenly contradictory statements in order to justifying the revolting underlying premise of the book.

As soon as we learn that the facade of Bobbitt’s argument is to provide a solution “for fighting the wars that are bound to plague the 21st century,” we’re already safe in the knowledge that Bobbitt represents another chicken-necked warhawk who has already claimed ownership of the next 10 decades for his Neo-Con ideological fetish of imperial bloodletting and brutal domination.

So what exactly is Bobbitt’s solution?

The complete obliteration of sovereignty and the nation state and its replacement with a new “order that takes its structural cues from multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations” that will have the power to pursue “more aggressive tactics of preclusionary warfare,” meaning more pre-emptive invasions of broken-backed third world countries to expand the creaking pax-Americana empire.

Despite terse and contradictory promises that we will still have some semblance of freedom in Bobbitt’s technocracy, he admits that there will be “no obvious answer to many of the human rights issues that are bound to arise,” as a result of his plan to completely eviscerate God-given freedoms enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The reviewer cites Bobbitt’s justification to impose world government as a means of combating,”The accessibility of weapons of mass destruction, the globalization of international capital and the “universalization of culture” have eroded the conventional borders that once legitimated national security,” all problems that were created by globalists’ drive to impose centralized systems of control in the first place by creating crises and then posing as the saviors.

This is another classic example of problem-reaction-solution. Use the pretext of the problems you have created to then offer a solution that befits your ultimate agenda – global government.

“Bobbitt believes that the UN Charter should be amended to allow the preemptive use of force without a Security Council authorization,” and “In cases in which the use of non-lethal chemical weapons could be used to prevent terror, be able to redefine such methods as “counterforce measures,” writes McWilliams.

The “use of chemical weapons,” where have we heard that one before?

It was Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Neo-Con collaborators that formed the Project For a New American Century – the ideological framework of the Bush administration, who proposed the use of “…advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes (which) may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

A leaked British Ministry of Defence report last year also envisioned a nightmare future society in which the population are forced to accept brain chips, immigration and urbanization ravages communities, class warfare ensues, and biological and neutron weapons are used to combat overpopulation.

(Ed. I’m tellin’ you folks-the people running our govts. are nut cases and probably demonically controled. Cheney, Wolfawitz, even Bush need to be carefully watched. They want to kill us off to have better control)

Since Bobbitt cites “non-lethal chemical weapons” as a means of “preventing terror” what exactly does he mean? Mass-medicating Americans’ drinking water with sodium fluoride to keep the population docile and subservient to the new international order, absent of traditional constitutional rights, that Bobbitt seeks to impose? The vagueness of the reference suggests Bobbitt and in turn the simpering reviewer McWilliams are attempting to carefully dance around the true scale of the horror that they are advocating.

Mandating a false choice between the acceptance of terrorism as a routine cancer upon society or the imposition of a brutal warmongering world government and the obliteration of sovereignty and the constitution, the book advises us to progress, “not by choosing good over bad, but — as is usually the case in war and politics — the lesser of evils.

And the lesser of evils in this case is to allow Bobbitt and his salivating Neo-Con cronies to have their way with the 21st century while they posture and insist their global government is our savior against a terrorist threat that they created in the first place. As Bobbitt would no doubt agree with the CFR’s Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the globalists are “not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money,” and as H.G. Wells proclaimed, “Countless people… will hate the new world order… and will die protesting against it… When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents…” (Ed. They’ve been talking about this for a long time. The Plan is in place. Are you prepared-is your heart right? There may not be much time left, “now is the day of salvation”. It is time to repent)

We are those “malcontents” that the globalists fear so much, we are the representation of everything that is good about the human spirit – love, hope, the yearning for freedom and a kindred bond with our fellow man, along with the shared promise of a peaceful and prosperous future for our children.

Bobbitt and the rest of the Neo-Con turds who have already decided to condemn us to a century of warfare, tyranny, and centralized control may be surprised to learn that the resistance to their agenda is accelerating and that the true essence of humanity, the “malcontents,” will rise up and condemn them to the only place they belong – on the scrapheap of history.

Philip Bobbitt:

Phone: (512) 232-1376
Fax: (512) 471-6988
E-mail:
PBOBBITT@LAW.UTEXAS.EDU

If you contact Bobbitt, please be polite in your disagreement.

Always Question Authority-Do not be deceived by those who tell you to submit

to this stuff.

That Message is form the Pit of Hell. We were created to submit to only one. Not the Government.

Not some pastor or other spiritual leader

Submit to Yahushua Alone!

Think for yourselves!

The eletists depend on you acting like Robots or slaves.

Come out of her My Beloved”.

(Ed. E-mail recieved from a friend. I had thought about this myself and considered writing something. When one persons’ right are violated we all lose. The US Govt is intruding in our lives more and more. We need to wake up-Remember the Nazis and their gradual elimination of all groups they could not control)

Shalom Chaverim. I have been very dissappointed over the last 2 years in some of the things that Rabbi Moshe has come out with, but on this one, politically, humanistically, spiritually, and socially, he hit the mark 100 percent. Reply with comments for discussion if you like.

Bracha V’hazlaha
Bro. Gregory

Hebrew Malkhut Israel.
www.hmisrael.net , www.hmisrael.org

—– Original Message —–

From: YATI News

Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 1:09 PM
Subject: All Torah Believers Are Now In Grave Danger

Tyranny in Texas-DO NOT Ignore This!

!cid_00e301c89ff0$a3cdf390$2300a8c0@NEWHPDESKTOP !cid_00e401c89ff0$a3cdf390$2300a8c0@NEWHPDESKTOP

Right: An armed law enforcement official sits behind a series of rocks.

Left: An armored personnel carrier moves into position during a raid at a Texas polygamist compound.

These photos were taken by sect members, contradicting police lies of a non military exodus.

NEW

4/16/08

Editorial by Apostle Moshe Yoseph Koniuchowsky

The USA Constitution guarantees freedom of religion.

  • First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yet the recent illegal military style invasion of the polygamous sect in Lubbock Texas has violated their most basic freedom of religion, guaranteed under the first amendment.

While we may, or may not agree, with their lifestyle, the fact remains this practice is part of their religion based on Torah beliefs. The US government entered the compound illegally, without any evidence of child abuse. Period! They allegedly have only one witness, a 16 year old girl, who allegedly phoned in a telephone tip of abuse by a 50 year old man. Problem is that the man was not in Texas and hasn’t been for many years. So far they have not found the girl who allegedly alerted authorities.

Is it not interesting that the US gov’t does not enter gay bath houses, or illegal massage parlors, where all kinds of perversions and fornication including sodomy and other alternative lifestyles are practiced. All these behaviors are clearly against the word of YHWH. It seems like the only alternative lifestyle that the government despises is marriage, even if the marriage is polygamy. How come the gov’t does not seek to remove children from gay couples and gay marraiges, or those monogamous couples that raise children in an abusive home, or a home where there is open fornication or other vices going on? And when they do, do tanks show up?

This is nothing but an attack on all religious freedoms in the USA and an attack on marriage, regardless of whether polygamy is viewed as legitimate or not. The problem with this sickening gov’t “police state” action is that if one religion is outlawed, or persecuted by the state without any real evidence of illegalities, then ALL NON-TRADITIONAL, NON-PROTESTANT, OR NON-ROMAN CATHOLIC expressions of religion are in danger of a gov’t military invasion, or shut down.

We may not agree with the Jehovah Witness doctrine, but because they are free to express their religion apart from state interference, we and other non traditional sects are also free to express ourselves religiously. If we don’t stand with these victims in this polygamous sect, then our rights may one day be trampled upon by a state that sees our lack of willingness to confirm to Sun god/day worship and Easter celebrations as a threat.

If we don’t stand with these polygamous folks, even though we may, or may not agree with their lifestyle, one day very soon the US gov’t may well declare all Messianic and Nazarene Yisraelite believers an “abusive sect,” because we also practice Torah and also spank our children to discipline them when needed. The day may soon come when the gov’t police will rip your children out of your arms, homes, because you home school them, or because you don’t worship on Sun/god day. This case with over 430 innocent children ripped and pulled away from their homes and parents at gunpoint with firearms drawn, is nothing but a brutal police state action against all men and women of faith. They may soon be wards, or children of the state, subject to the cruelest forms of bureaucratic abuse and neglect.

Don’t believe what the media is telling you. Please! Where is the EVIDENCE OF THREE credible witnesses required by Torah that alleged child abuse is going on? It’s not there and all the media labeling and self righteous declarations will not change that underlying fact. Where is the evidence?

The USA Constitution in the 4th amendment guarantees that citizens shall not be subject to sudden, or unjust entry and seizure.

  • Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The State of Texas has SEIZED these children from their homes and from PRIVATE property, all because these folks practice a religion, or have a religious expression that society does not understand or approve.

There was no warrant against 430 MOTHERS TO SEIZE their precious babies. Only one warrant was issued for 1 individual adult, who allegedly abused an underage child. Yet when the State of Texas came looking for the under aged child, the child was missing, as was the adult. The State of Texas, not the polygamist sect is engaged in illegal and immoral criminal activity, as the Torah DOES forbid kid-napping, which is the seizure of “kids!” The Torah DOES NOT criminalize polygamy, as almost all of Yisrael’s patriarchs; our forefathers were in fact polygamous. It may not be your cup of tea, but it’s certainly not illegal in Scripture.

Furthermore, the second amendment to the USA Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to bear arms for self defense.

  • Second AmendmentA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Part of self defense, is protection against the illegal search and seizure of our properties and children by the USA, or state governments’. See, the founding fathers knew that if the US experiment in democracy was to succeed, the people needed to have and maintain a real and legitimate means of defending themselves, if and when Uncle Sam came knocking. They wanted to make 1 million % sure that the citizens were armed, so that the fear of YHWH could be put into the gov’t, should the gov’t ever step out of constitutional bounds.

This is why those opposed to private firearms ownership to keep tyrannical government actions at bay are ignorant, or simply scared by misinformation, or personal fears. Sadly these folks in Texas were unarmed to defend their 2nd and 4th amendment rights and were no match for armed Texas gov’t kidnapers, coming to kidnap 430 children with military tanks and AK 47s.

Never forget, that it is the second amendment, the right to bear arms for self defense that keeps us free, and guarantees the first amendment, so that all Americans can enjoy religious freedom, with the US gov’t forbidden to make any laws for, or against any religious expression. Without the exercising of our second amendment rights, our first amendment rights will most certainly be lost. Most people still won’t get that however, as they have been spell bound and brainwashed by the media and by so called “cultural norm.” Gun control really means the gov’t ALONE controls the guns, so that only criminals and police state officials can have guns. The average law abiding innocent citizens are then at the mercy of the state. Only in gun control situations can the type of illegal human abduction and “kid”-napping police action that we have seen in Texas take place.

Now pershaps the most sensitive point; but we must confront the biblical truth regrdless where it leads us, and regardless of who may turn against us. All of these statuatory rape laws are simply bogus and purely manmade and have no basis in Scriputre. Most of our biological Yisraelite forefathers had young women/girls, say ages 14-19 as their wives. Some had more than one. Those are the facts folks. Even though we may not feel comortable with the facts.

YHWH never denocunced them, or condemned them. This may be a tad uncomfortable for most, but do you want the MSNBC, CNN lies that promote a secular anti-marriage society and agenda, or do you really want to know what YHWH has said all along on this matter? Moreover, Miriam the surrogate mother of Yahshua was no more than 15 when she carried and brought YHWH’s very own Son to term. Joseph was not arrested when he betrothed her either at age 14, or 15 and later slept with her, as he fathered several of Yahshua’s siblings.

Based on manmade statuatory (note statuatory, not biblicaltory) rape laws, YHWH The Father, the ANCIENT OF DAYS, certainly older than 50 years old, allowed an “underaged” girl to carry His seed. So based on these faulty manmade laws defining, or should we say redefining, what YHWH does and does not allow, men and women are being sent to jail, as innocent children are ripped away from their loving mothers with horrific machine like cruelty; all in the name of MANMADE statuatory rape laws. Our forefather Jacob fathered Yisrael through polygamy. Was he arrested?

So let’s recap here. Scriputre allows for marraige with younger women/girls and allows poylgamy, though it may not have been YHWH’s initial “Garden of Eden will.” Man has declared these practices abusive and repulsive. On the other hand, YHWH decalres sodomy and fornication as abominable. Yet these gay, lesbian, and transgender couples and families can legally rasie children and have government sanction, medical care and protection for their abominations and for the chldren victims in their care. What is wrong with this sick picture?

This is the true biblical view of the wrongdoing still unfolding right now in Texas, as this police state Gestaapo action unfolds before our eyes, while most of the American public is drunk with the lies of our secualr society and of the American media, that portrays these folks as some kind of threat to their own sick anti-Christ society.

These religious folks teach their children Torah, salvation thru Messiah, love, pacificism, mercy and covenant relationships, teaching them faithfulness and how to eschew fornication and pornography. Yet the very same government thugs, who proliferate pornography by looking the other way ($$$) and who continue to do nothing about its widespread availablity in society, are now guilty of the worst kind of illegal crimes against helpless people.

Who will restore the children to their families? Will they be returned to their homes? Where is the righteouss outcry and indignation from Americans with real discernement? Sadly, if we don’t speak the truth in love right now, hold on real tight to your children now being raised in Torah.

The day may not be too far off, where they also will be seized at gunpoint in the middle of the night, as you also are allegedly guilty of a religious faith and expression that is “not approved” by the US gov’t. If we don’t stand with the polygamists rights to practice their religion freely and without persecution and raise their children in the USA, we who practice monogamy, are also in danger, as our children are being raised based on the same Torah that allows both monogamy and polygamy as marriage lifestyles before YHWH.

If we remain withdrawn, unconcerned, duped and silenced by apathy, or by the media references to these folks as being some kind of a weird crazy religious cult, or sect, and if we don’t see our way out of their “Geobels type propoganda machine,” there is no doubt in my mind, that we are “tomorrows cult,” needing armed gov’t intervention and salvation to protcet our children from us and our Torah based faith and parenting methods.

Remember that the gov’t officials, media and news reports that are committed to ending this group represent a sick anti-YHWH society that has sanctioned gay marraiges and gay civil unions without marriage, along with open adultery and fornication, all the while decrying and belittiling all forms of covenant marriage, whose undergirding principle is love, commitment and faithfulness.

Final Thought-By the way, can you imagine the Associated Press ever calling a mosque a “polygamist temple? Why not? Double standard? How would Muslims react?

Please do your civic duty and pass this along to many others. Thank you so much. Please address all comments to: info@yourarmstoisrael.org Keep them brief please. Feel free to pass this on to news media organizations.

Listen to the YATI Radio Network, the only true Name 24/7 radio network.

www.yatiradionetwork.com

www fff.org

The Martial Law Act of 2006
by James Bovard, Posted April 9, 2008

Martial law is perhaps the ultimate stomping of freedom. And yet, on September 30, 2006, Congress passed a provision in a 591-page bill that will make it easy for President Bush to impose martial law in response to a terrorist “incident.” It also empowers him to effectively declare martial law in response to what he or other federal officials label a shortfall of “public order” — whatever that means.

It took only a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened those restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the United States without the express permission of Congress. (This act was passed after the depredations of the U.S. military throughout the Southern states during Reconstruction.)

But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

The Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act aim to deter dictatorship while permitting a narrow window for the president to temporarily use the military at home. But the 2006 reforms basically threw any concern about dictatorial abuses out the window.

Section 1076 of the Defense Authorization Act of 2006 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from “Insurrection Act” to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” The new law expands the list of pretexts to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition” — and such a “condition” is not defined or limited.

One might think that given the experience with the USA PATRIOT Act and many other abuses of power, Congress would be leery about giving this president his biggest blank check yet to suspend the Constitution. But that would be naive.

The new law was put in place in response to the debacle of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. There was no evidence that permitting a president far more power would avoid future debacles, but such a law provides a comfort blanket to politicians. The risk of tyranny is irrelevant compared with the reduction of risk of embarrassment to politicians. According to Washington, the correct response to Katrina is not to recognize the failure of relying on federal agencies a thousand miles away but rather to vastly increase the power of the president to dictate a solution, regardless of whether he knows what he is doing and regardless of whether local and state rights are trampled.

The new law also empowers the president to commandeer the National Guard of one state to send to another state for as many as 365 days. Bush could send the South Carolina National Guard to suppress anti-war protests in New Haven. Or the next president could send the Massachusetts National Guard to disarm the residents of Wyoming, if they resisted a federal law that prohibited private ownership of semi-automatic weapons. Governors’ control of the National Guard can be trumped with a simple presidential declaration.

Section 1076 had bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, including support from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Since the law would give the feds more power, it was very popular inside the Beltway.

On the other hand, every governor in the country opposed the changes. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on September 19, 2006, that “we certainly do not need to make it easier for presidents to declare martial law.” Leahy’s alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record, “Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy.”

A U.S. Enabling Act

The new law vastly increases the danger from the actions of government provocateurs. If there is an incident now like the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993, it would be far easier for the president to declare martial law — even if, as then, it was an FBI informant who taught the culprits how to make the bomb. Even if the FBI masterminds a protest that turns violent, the president could invoke the “incident” to suspend the Constitution.

“Martial law” is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. Perhaps some conservatives believe that the only change when martial law is declared is that people are no longer read their Miranda rights before they are locked away. “Martial law” means: Obey soldiers’ commands or be shot. The abuses of military rule in Southern states during Reconstruction were legendary, but they have been swept under the historical rug.

Section 1076 is an Enabling Act-type legislation — something which purports to preserve law and order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.

Bush can commandeer a state’s National Guard any time he declares a “state has refused to enforce applicable laws.” Does this refer to the laws as they are commonly understood — or to the “laws” after Bush “fixes” them with a signing statement? Unfortunately, it is not possible for Americans to commandeer the federal government even when Bush admits that he is breaking a law (such as the Anti-Torture Act).

Section 1076 is the type of “law” that would probably be denounced by the U.S. State Department’s Annual Report on Human Rights if enacted by a foreign government. But when the U.S. government does the same thing, it is merely another proof of benevolent foresight. The “comfort blanket” on Section 1076 is that the powers will not be abused because the president will show more concern with the Bill of Rights than Congress did when it rubberstamped this provision. This is the same “pass the buck on the Constitution” that worked so well with the PATRIOT Act, the McCain Feingold Campaign Reform Act, and the Military Commissions Act. As long as there is hypothetically some branch of the government that will object to oppression, no one has the right to fear losing his liberties.

The military on the home front

Section 1076 is more ominous in light of the Bush administration’s long record of Posse Comitatus violations. Since 2001, the Bush administration has accelerated a trend of using the military as a tool in the nation’s domestic affairs. From its support of the Total Information Awareness surveillance vacuum cleaner, to its use of Pentagon spy planes during the Washington-area sniper shootings in 2002, to the Pentagon’s seizures of Americans’ financial and other private information without a warrant, the Bush administration has not hesitated to use military force and intimidation at home whenever convenient. And Americans may have little or no idea of how far the military has actually gone on the home front, given the Bush team’s obsessive secrecy.

The Pentagon has sent U.S. military intelligence agents on domestic fishing expeditions. In 2004, two U.S. Army intelligence agents descended on the University of Texas’s law school in Austin. They entered the office of the Journal of Women and the Law and demanded that the editors turn over a roster of the people who attended a recent conference on Islam and women. The editors denied having a list; the behavior of one agent was described as intimidating. The agents then demanded contact information for the student who organized the conference, Sahar Aziz. University of Texas law professor Douglas Laycock commented,
We certainly hope that the Army doesn’t believe that attending a conference on Islamic law or Islam and women is itself ground for investigation.

Military officials later declared that U.S. Army intelligence agents had overstepped their bounds. But this did not stop the Bush administration from having a provision inserted in a bill passed in secret session by the Senate Intelligence Committee that would allow military intelligence agents to conduct surveillance and recruit informants in the United States. Wired.com reported,
Pentagon officials say the exemption would not affect civil liberties and is needed so that its agents can obtain information from sources who may be afraid of government agents.

The provision would authorize military agents to go undercover and never inform their targets that they were dealing with a G-man. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, denounced the provision:
This … is giving them the authority to spy on Americans. And it’s all been done with no public discussion, in the dark of night.

The controversy over the amendment scuttled its enactment, though it is unclear whether that has deterred the military from expanding its domestic spying.

There is no Honesty-in-Absolute-Power mandate in the federal statute books. The more power government seizes, the more easily it can suppress the truth. There is nothing to prevent a president from declaring martial law on false pretexts — any more than there is to prevent him from launching a foreign war on false pretenses. And when the lies become exposed years later, it could be far too late to resurrect lost liberties.

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy [2006] as well as The Bush Betrayal [2004], Lost Rights [1994] and Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil (Palgrave-Macmillan, September 2003) and serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

This article originally appeared in the January 2008 edition of Freedom Daily. Subscribe to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.

© 2001-2007 The Future of Freedom Foundation. All rights reserved.

Administration Set to Use New Spy Program in U.S.

Congressional Critics Want More Assurances of Legality

(Who do they think they are? Questioning King George about Legalities and all that other unimportant stuff-Don’t Question Authority Bow Down You Minions!!)

By Spencer S. Hsu

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 12, 2008; A03

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103655_pf.html

The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using the nation’s most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon, rebuffing challenges by House Democrats over the idea’s legal authority.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said his department will activate his department’s new domestic satellite surveillance office in stages, starting as soon as possible with traditional scientific and homeland security activities — such as tracking hurricane damage, monitoring climate change and creating terrain maps.

Sophisticated overhead sensor data will be used for law enforcement once privacy and civil rights concerns are resolved, he said. The department has previously said the program will not intercept communications.

“There is no basis to suggest that this process is in any way insufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans,” Chertoff wrote to Reps. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.), chairmen of the House Homeland Security Committee and its intelligence subcommittee, respectively, in letters released yesterday. (I am sure it will be passed over in any case since

King George wants it! Ed.)

“I think we’ve fully addressed anybody’s concerns,” Chertoff added in remarks last week to bloggers. “I think the way is now clear to stand it up and go warm on it.” (Gee, I feel so much better Ed.)

His statements marked a fresh determination to operate the department’s new National Applications Office as part of its counterterrorism efforts. The administration in May 2007 gave DHS authority to coordinate requests for satellite imagery, radar, electronic-signal information, chemical detection and other monitoring capabilities that have been used for decades within U.S. borders for mapping and disaster response.

But Congress delayed launch of the new office last October. Critics cited its potential to expand the role of military assets in domestic law enforcement, to turn new or as-yet-undeveloped technologies against Americans without adequate public debate, and to divert the existing civilian and scientific focus of some satellite work to security uses.

Democrats say Chertoff has not spelled out what federal laws govern the NAO, whose funding and size are classified. Congress barred Homeland Security from funding the office until its investigators could review the office’s operating procedures and safeguards. The department submitted answers on Thursday, but some lawmakers promptly said the response was inadequate. (I stand by my previous comments Ed.)

“I have had a firsthand experience with the trust-me theory of law from this administration,” said Harman, citing the 2005 disclosure of the National Security Agency‘s domestic spying program, which included warrantless eavesdropping on calls and e-mails between people in the United States and overseas. “I won’t make the same mistake. . . . I want to see the legal underpinnings for the whole program.”

Thompson called DHS’s release Thursday of the office’s procedures and a civil liberties impact assessment “a good start.” But, he said, “We still don’t know whether the NAO will pass constitutional muster since no legal framework has been provided.”

DHS officials said the demands are unwarranted. “The legal framework that governs the National Applications Office . . . is reflected in the Constitution, the U.S. Code and all other U.S. laws,” said DHS spokeswoman Laura Keehner. She said its operations will be subject to “robust,” structured legal scrutiny by multiple agencies. (Of Course they will)


Zieg Heil Heil Bush

Question

Authority!

Oakland cops: Mind if we search your house for guns?

By Kelly Rayburn, Staff Writer

Article Created: 04/09/2008 05:58:57 PM PDT

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_8868701

OAKLAND_A six-month pilot program where Oakland police officers would knock on doors and ask permission to search homes for guns got the green light from the City Council’s public safety committee Tuesday night.

It goes to the full council Tuesday, when the council will meet at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza.

The consent-to-search program, as it is called, is based closely on a similar effort launched in St. Louis in 1994 and on ongoing programs in Boston and Washington, D.C. The idea is simple: To ask parents for permission to search their homes for weapons their children may be hiding.

Under the program, officers would request permission to search homes for guns. Guns would be taken away, but officers would not pursue prosecution unless the weapon was tied to a crime.

The St. Louis effort fizzled after initial success, but Oakland’s Deputy Police Chief David Kozicki said that in Washington, police officers say they cannot keep up with requests from parents to search their homes. Such is the interest in the program, he said.

Councilwoman Patricia Kernighan (Grand Lake-Chinatown), who is on the public safety committee, said she was surprised to hear that and hoped Oakland might see the same results.

“I think it’s worth trying and seeing what the community reaction is,” she said. “If it’s embraced as a way to get guns off the street, great. If people don’t want to cooperate, then we don’t continue the program.”

Kernighan and Councilwoman Desley Brooks (Eastmont-Seminary) asked the Police Department to look into the possibility of a consent-to-search program in February.

The police department is proposing a six-month trial period for the program beginning in either June or July, probably somewhere in West Oakland.

Lt. Kirt Mullnix said the program, which would be launched during summer break, would largely be operated by Campus Life and School Safety (CLASS) officers, who normally patrol in and around schools.

It also could involve department problem-solving officers as well. All told, six to 10 officers would be used in the effort, Mullnix said. He didn’t anticipate additional overtime being billed to the city.

Consent-to-search programs are not without controversy. Oakland civil-rights attorney John Burris criticized the idea when asked about it in February. And the American Civil Liberties Union has protested programs in other cities. Mark Schlosberg, police practices policy director for the ACLU of Northern California, said the organization would pay close attention to what happens in Oakland.

“There are a whole host of reasons why people might not want police to search their homes,” he said. “But people might not know they have a right not to consent.”

City and police officials stressed it would be important to educate community members about how the program works before implementing it and said providing education and outreach would be a priority.

Under the program, if guns were found, police would take them away, but not pursue prosecution unless the gun in question was tied to a shooting or homicide.

“The important thing is you’re looking at removing guns from the streets to prevent future violence,” Mullnix said. “You’re giving up arrest and prosecution for less violence in the future. It’s another tool we can use. There’s a lot of gun violence in Oakland and that’s why we’re trying it.”

Wednesday, April 09, 2008 by: David Gutierrez

http://www.naturalnews.com/022965.html

(NaturalNews) A former AT&T technician who retired in 2004 has told Congress that the telecommunications company cooperated with the National Security Agency (NSA) by building special routing rooms that would allow the agency to monitor all U.S. internet traffic.

Mark Klein, who worked for AT&T for 22 years with no special security clearance, told Congress that in 2003, he was transferred to an office that was responsible for building a “secret room” connected to the company’s Internet room in San Francisco. Another technician showed him wiring diagrams for the room.

“That was my ‘aha’ moment,” Klein said. “They’re sending the entire Internet to the secret room.” Klein realized that the room was set up to split all Internet traffic passing through the building in two, sending one signal along uninterrupted and the other signal into the NSA’s secret room.

“This splitter was sweeping up everything, vacuum-cleaner-style,” he said. “The NSA is getting everything. These are major pipes that carry not just AT&T’s customers but everybody’s.”

Similar secret rooms were set up in Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Jose, Calif. Klein said that AT&T also funneled phone-call data to the NSA.

The surveillance was carried out as part of the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretap program, which has come under increasing fire as the depth of the surveillance has been uncovered.

Klein decided to come forward when he heard that the government was claiming that surveillance was only carried out on terrorism-related communications that involved someone outside the United States.

“I flipped out,” he said. “They’re copying the whole Internet. There’s no selection going on here. Maybe they select out later, but at the point of handoff to the government, they get everything.”

The technician urged Congress to reject a bill to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the wiretap program. Immunity would lead to the dismissal of 38 pending lawsuits.

“If they’ve done something massively illegal and unconstitutional — well, they should suffer the consequences,” Klein said.

Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.Though some opponents claimed that the only controversial part of this legislation was its grant of immunity to telecommunications companies, there is much more to be wary of in the bill. In the House version, Title II, Section 801, extends immunity from prosecution of civil legal action to people and companies including any provider of an electronic communication service, any provider of a remote computing service, “any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications,” any “parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee” of such company, any “officer, employee, or agent” of any such company, and any “landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance.” The Senate version goes even further by granting retroactive immunity to such entities that may have broken the law in the past.The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities. There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant.We have been told that this power to listen in on communications is legal and only targets terrorists. But if what these companies are being compelled to do is legal, why is it necessary to grant them immunity? If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity?

In communist East Germany , one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi. They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends. When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind. Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications. This surveillance is un-American.

We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.

Shocking KSLA 12 news report confirms story we broke last year, Pastors to cite Romans 13 as reason for public to obey government orders, relinquish guns and be taken to camps during state of emergency

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Thursday, August 16, 2007

A shocking KSLA news report has confirmed the story we first broke last year, that Clergy Response Teams are being trained by the federal government to “quell dissent” and pacify citizens to obey the government in the event of a declaration of martial law.

In May 2006, we exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to “obey the government” in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation.

A whistleblower who was secretly enrolled into the program told us that the feds were clandestinely recruiting religious leaders to help implement Homeland Security directives in anticipation of a potential bio-terrorist attack, any natural disaster or a nationally declared emergency.

The first directive was for Pastors to preach to their congregations Romans 13, the often taken out of context bible passage that was used by Hitler to hoodwink Christians into supporting him, in order to teach them to “obey the government” when martial law is declared.

It was related to the Pastors that quarantines, martial law and forced relocation were a problem for state authorities when enforcing federal mandates due to the “cowboy mentality” of citizens standing up for their property and second amendment rights as well as farmers defending their crops and livestock from seizure.

It was stressed that the Pastors needed to preach subservience to the authorities ahead of time in preparation for the round-ups and to make it clear to the congregation that “this is for their own good.”

Pastors were told that they would be backed up by law enforcement in controlling uncooperative individuals and that they would even lead SWAT teams in attempting to quell resistance.

Though some doubted the accuracy of this report at the time due to its fundamentally disturbing implications, the story has now been confirmed by a KSLA 12 news report, in which participating clergy and officials admit to the existence of the program.

Watch the video.

The report entertains the scenario of martial law as depicted in the movie The Siege and states that “quelling dissent would be critical.”

Dr. Durell Tuberville serves as chaplain for the Shreveport Fire Department and the Caddo Sheriff’s Office. Tuberville said of the clergy team’s mission, “the primary thing that we say to anybody is, ‘let’s cooperate and get this thing over with and then we’ll settle the differences once the crisis is over.'”

Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. “In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they’re helping to diffuse that situation,” assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.

For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13. Dr. Tuberville elaborated, “because the government’s established by the Lord, you know. And, that’s what we believe in the Christian faith. That’s what’s stated in the scripture.”

So there you have it – Homeland Security are working with local police departments and religious leaders to prepare for the declaration of martial law and in particular developing techniques they will employ during the crisis to “quell dissent.”

Phony Christian leaders are brainwashing their congregations to accept the premise that the totalitarian police state is “of the Lord” and that they should get on their knees and lick jackboots while the round-ups take place as citizens are processed into quarantine zones and detention camps by the National Guard and U.S. troops returning from Iraq.

The precedent for mass gun confiscation and martial law in times of a real or manufactured emergency was set during Hurricane Katrina, when police and National Guard patrols forced home owners – even in areas unaffected by the hurricane – to hand over their legally owned firearms at gunpoint.

This is a clear precursor for the imminent declaration of a state of emergency, a scenario that President Bush codified in his recent Presidential Decision Directive of May 9th, which states in the event of a “catastrophic event” the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.

The scope of the program is so secretive that even Homeland Security Committee member and Congressman Peter DeFazio was denied access to view the classified portion of the documents.

New Documents Detail FBI Eavesdropping On Americans’

Emails, IMs and Phone Calls

More revelations of government spying in the panopticon society

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Fresh documents reveal that the FBI is actively engaged in the monitoring of electronic communications and cell phone calls of American citizens without the prior approval of a court.

The latest documents were released under the Freedom of Information Act to the advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation, and obtained by the Washington Post.

“Different versions of the system are used for criminal wiretaps and for foreign intelligence investigations inside the United States. But each allows authorized FBI agents and analysts, with point-and-click ease, to receive e-mails, instant messages, cellphone calls and other communications that tell them not only what a suspect is saying, but where he is and where he has been, depending on the wording of a court order or a government directive.” The Post reports.

The protections of the Fourth Amendment dictate that wiretaps to obtain the content of a phone call or an e-mail must be authorized by a court upon a showing of probable cause.

However, the FBI gets around this by classing the information it intercepts as “transactional data” about a communication, that is from whom the communication originated, to whom it was sent, how long it lasted and the like.

The bureau can collect this information under current law by asserting that it is relevant to an official investigation. It can administer a subpoena known as a national security letter (NSL).

As the Post reports, according to the Justice Department’s inspector general, the number of NSLs issued by the FBI soared from 8,500 in 2000 to 47,000 in 2005.

Last week separate Pentagon documents, obtained by the ACLU, revealed that the military is using the FBI as a go between in order to “skirt legal restrictions” on domestic surveillance and obtain private records of Americans’ Internet service providers, financial institutions and telephone companies.

The DoD is not authorized to obtain e-mail and phone records or lists of web sites that people have visited as it is illegal for the military to engage in domestic investigations, so it has been using the FBI to obtain the information via national security letters, hence the more than 500% increase in NSLs in recent years.

These revelations indicate that the FBI is as fully immersed within the program to spy on the communications of American citizens as its military counterpart, the NSA, and should demand more immediate and decisive action on behalf of those in Congress who continue to dither and debate over possible modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs federal surveillance.

Late last year, reports circulated that the NSA, has increasing control over SSL, now called Transport Layer Security, the cryptographic protocol that provides secure communications on the internet for web browsing, e-mail, instant messaging, and other data transfers.

In other words the agency is capable of intercepting and reading your emails and instant messages in real time. It is now beyond doubt that the NSA’s “terrorist surveillance program” now extends to this.

Last week the ACLU also uncovered details pertaining to a secret Justice Department memo from October 2001 that reveals the Bush administration effectively suspended the Fourth Amendment where domestic counter terrorism operations are concerned.

It is almost certain that the memo was written to provide a legal basis for the NSA to begin its warrantless wiretapping program, which was initiated in the same month.

Another set of documents obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) last June showed that US telco AT&T allowed the NSA to set up a ‘secret room’ in its offices to monitor internet traffic.

Recently, the lawyer for an AT&T engineer alleged that “within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans” That is BEFORE 9/11, before the nation was embroiled in the freedom stripping exercise commonly known as the “war on terror” had even begun.

In the wake of the allegations, CNET reported that both Google and Microsoft refused to say if they have provided users private data to the federal government under the warrantless wiretapping program.

However, it is clear where Google’s interests lie given that the company is supplying the software, hardware and tech support to US intelligence agencies in the process of creating a vast closed source database for global spy networks to share information.

Earlier this year came the announcement that US National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell is drawing up plans for cyberspace spying that would make the current debate on warrantless wiretaps look like a “walk in the park”.

The plan would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search.

In addition, late last year, new programs of internet monitoring were announced by a freshly created department branch of Homeland Security called the National Applications Office

“Mr. Chertoff also plans soon to unveil a cyber-security strategy, part of an estimated $15 billion, multiyear program designed to protect the nation’s Internet infrastructure. The program has been shrouded in secrecy for months and has also prompted privacy concerns on Capitol Hill because it involves government protection of domestic computer networks.” The Wall Street Journal wrote.

Essentially the program allows the DHS to regulate and control access to the internet in the name of “protecting” national security.

With further revelations last week of state run “fusion centers” collecting information and working in conjunction with NORTHCOM under the DHS, it is becoming clear that the panopticon program extends its tentacles across agencies and between branches of government.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2008/080408FBI.htm

by Chuck Baldwin

March 11, 2008

Over the past several months, I have been privileged to attend (and sometimes endure) several significant gatherings of a variety of conservatives. Some of the meetings were large; others were small. The meetings sometimes featured mostly grassroots activists and sometimes very high-profile and notable conservative icons. In some of these meetings, I was allowed a platform to speak; in others, I was merely a spectator. In most of the meetings, there was a large percentage of Christian conservatives present. The meetings occurred in locations all over the country.

After witnessing the philosophizing, postulating, and pontificating of the various conservative speakers (or those to whom I spoke in private conversation), I am left with the very profound and distinct impression that the so-called conservative movement is dead. It is not dying: it is dead. Totally and thoroughly dead.

Oh, the spokesmen (and women) of the various conservative organizations will strongly argue that the conservative movement is as alive and vibrant as ever. They are either delusional or in denial. The truth is, there is no conservative movement in America today.

Most conservatives–even Christian conservatives–have embraced philosophies and ideals that are antithetical to genuine conservatism. In fact, my experience with these people leads me to the conclusion that today’s conservatives do not even know what true conservatism is–or was.

For example, I could not tell you how many times I have listened as speaker after speaker praised and promoted the candidacy of the “conservative” John McCain. These are the same people, mind you, that in 2004 properly identified McCain as the conservative phony that he was–and still is. Many of the same conservative organizations that rejected and repudiated McCain’s 2004 candidacy now boldly extol its virtues. But it is not John McCain that has changed: it is today’s conservatives.

The reason for this reversal of “convictions” is that this time John McCain is the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee. And if today’s conservatives believe in anything, they believe in the Republican Party. They might turn their backs on their best friends; they might forsake their pastor and church; they might even divorce their wife or husband; but, one thing they will not do is forsake the Republican Party. This rabid devotion to the GOP has made mincemeat out of a once-great movement.

Of course, there are modern-day prophets. Men such as Alan Keyes, Judge Roy Moore, and Ron Paul, for example. For the most part, however, America’s conservatives–including Christian conservatives–have dismissed these “voices in the wilderness” with either utter contempt or wholesale indifference. These prophets are about as welcome as an outbreak of influenza.

Even as a pastor, I am not immune to the odious attitudes and actions of Christian brethren. I have seen people I thought were my closest friends–people I have helped in untold ways–turn and walk away, without so much as a goodbye. I have watched as my own dear wife and children have been subjected to insults, tongue-lashings, and even obscene gestures by these “loving” Christian brothers and sisters. I have witnessed my preacher brethren refuse to even “reason together” over the omnipresent threats to our liberty and independence.

The beginning of the end came when Christian conservatives began idolizing President George W. Bush. They have done this to the point that they have come to accept just about any and all abuses against the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration principles, and even our very way of life. Furthermore, they have become robotic foot soldiers for universal and everlasting war. At the same time, however, they see no harm in the decimation of individual liberties, as long as it is a Republican who is stealing them. But these same Christians will cry and wail–to the point of almost cutting themselves–against the thought of a Democrat doing the same thing. But, pray tell me, since when does it matter what the brand name is on the tyrant’s sword? Are not our liberties just as dead?

But look at how our modern prophets have been treated. Alan Keyes has been forcibly removed from debate platforms, only to be released in remote, crime infested neighborhoods at night by Republican Party operatives. Roy Moore was lampooned and utterly destroyed by Republican Party operatives (including those within George W. Bush’s White House) in his attempt to become Alabama’s governor. And, in his recent Presidential campaign, Ron Paul has been subjected to the most insidious attacks by Republican Party operatives that I have ever witnessed.

Regardless of how the Republican Party has compromised, capitulated, and castrated genuine conservative principles, conservatives–including Christian conservatives–continue to refer to the GOP as “God’s Own Party,” and other such nonsense. In fact, the current lapdog performance of modern conservatives to the candidacy of John McCain demonstrates just how far down the road of destruction they will go in order to grovel before the Republican Party.

National Right to Life even had the gall to say that it is “grateful” for John McCain’s “strong pro-life” record. What balderdash! McCain has repeatedly voted to spend Title X tax dollars to underwrite the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. He publicly supports killing unborn babies conceived via rape or incest. And he continues to lie to the American people about killing babies “to save the life of the mother,” which almost any OB/GYN doctor will tell you almost NEVER occurs. According to the OB/GYN physicians that I have spoken to, the only pregnancies that pose a legitimate health risk to the mother are those where the unborn baby has already perished.

How can National Right to Life–an organization that once vociferously opposed Senator McCain–now compromise the life issue in such an egregious manner and support the corrupt candidacy of John McCain? I’ll tell you how: NRL is bought and paid for by Republican donors. And that is the problem with the vast majority of our “conservative” organizations today. As the old saying goes, “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”

In fact, I will say it straight out: there is no hope for America within today’s conservative–even Christian conservative–movement. None. Zero. Zilch.

The closest movement to reclaiming America’s freedom and independence was the recent Presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul. With Congressman Paul effectively neutered and neutralized (by a hostile media and mercenary Republican hierarchy), the only hope is in America’s churches and a burgeoning independent movement.

I only wish I could expect today’s pastors and churches to stand in the gap for our nation. They have the power to thwart the forces of globalism, corporatism, elitism, and liberalism that are destroying America. So far, however, this has been nothing but wishful fantasy. Most of our beloved Christian leaders are as beholden to the same Republican donors as are the previously mentioned conservative organizations. And just as impotent.

That leaves The Constitution Party as the only political party with the courage and convictions to set the ship of state aright. With someone such as Judge Roy Moore at the helm, true Christians and constitutionalists would at least have an opportunity to vote for someone in November without being forced to hold their noses and surrender their principles.

After attending numerous meetings of conservative activists, I am more convinced than ever that, ultimately, the survival of liberty in America does not depend upon political parties, special interest groups, or corporations. In these United States of America, God has put the destiny of the country squarely in the hands of “We the people.” It will not be conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats, Christians or unbelievers that restore America. It will be individuals from all walks of life, all backgrounds, and all political persuasions who love liberty enough to fight to maintain it. Ultimately, of course, all nations–just like all individuals–must give an account to our Creator for how we protected the freedoms and liberties that He gave us. Right now, we are not doing a very good job.

*If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived ashttp://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080311.html

Nothing could be better for the country that cancelling the 2008 election. Leave the office of the presidency empty.

I can see only one possible justification for having a president of the United States: to preside over the dismantling of the federal government. If you think this is a radical idea, think again. This is, in part, what people have long voted for, even if they never actually get it. I can hardly remember a time when a president has been elected who didn’t promise to get the government off our backs.

In one way, this agenda makes no sense, of course. You don’t hire a CEO to drive a company into bankruptcy. You don’t appoint a pastor to shrink a congregation. Why should we expect a president to dismantle the thing that gives him power and fame, and his allies huge wealth? Well, realistically, you can’t. But it’s the best hope we have within the framework of conventional politics.

The irony is that most presidents get elected on the prospect that they will curb power. It’s true of George Bush, who promised domestic cuts and a humble foreign policy. Clinton was also elected on the promise of middle-class tax cuts. We can go back and back and see it was true for the first Bush, for Reagan, for Carter, for Nixon, and so on.

For that matter, FDR himself denounced government spending during this first campaign. “I accuse the present administration [Hoover’s] of being the greatest spending administration in peace times in all our history,” and added, “On my part, I ask you very simply to assign to me the task of reducing the annual operating expenses of your national government.” He further denounced the government for “fostering regimentation without stint or limit.”

It was even true with George Washington, who had made innumerable speeches on the evil of tyranny only to take power and use it to the benefit of the powerful. Even Jefferson succumbed with his mistaken Louisiana Purchase, though he later entertained the possibility of a salutary breakup of the United States into many different countries.

And so on it goes. And it will happen again, despite all promises.

Folks, there is something wrong with this model of governance, not just current policy but the whole structure. We might even argue that the error goes back to the Constitution, a document that created new government powers unprecedented in Colonial history, and put the government in charge of restraining itself. It set up competitive divisions within government under the presumption that they would keep each other in check. Instead, they cooperated toward mutual expansion, especially after the federal power seizure called the Civil War.

Part of the problem dates to a core error within liberal theory: the belief that it was possible to create a government that was an extension of society, thanks to the relentless input of the people via democratic institutions. What this model did instead is enlist the public as part of their own destruction. And it created confusion about who precisely is to blame when things don’t work out. Under democracy, aren’t we the government? Aren’t we doing this to ourselves?

Let’s draw on another aspect of old-time liberal theory as a means of finding a way out of this mess. There are two additional contributions that liberalism made. It taught that society is capable of self-management, and that government is not the reason for order in society. Summing up the old liberal position, Patrick Henry said:

A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has in man and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to government.

 If we would be true to this line of thought, we should propose the unthinkable: cancel the election. This has never before been so urgent. Neither party will cut government in a way that is desperately needed. Instead, they offer a left- or right-tinged Americanized socialism or fascism. One promises domestic expansion and foreign reduction; the other promises foreign expansion and domestic reduction. The inevitable compromise: expand both domestically and internationally.

In addition, whatever the new president does will make our growing economic problems worse. The economic interventions they propose will add to our troubles, whether that means expanding inflation, taxes, controls, or debt. Another war is unthinkable, but probably inevitable. You can already detect it in the aggressive trajectory towards Iran. More business regulation can only dampen the fires of free enterprise, which are our saving grace today.

The best solution would be a government that would destroy itself. The second best solution would be a government that does nothing at all – then, at least, matters will not get worse. This is what canceling the election would do. It would introduce enough confusion and chaos to keep government from acting either domestically or internationally, which would be a wonderful thing.

There is also the matter of public will. We pretend as if the person who is elected enjoys the support of a majority. Nonsense. Most people who can vote do not vote, and who can blame them? Those who do vote are most likely voting against the other guy and not for a positive program. The person elected will enjoy a mandate of perhaps 5–10% of the population that actively supports the agenda. I say: make the new president their president but not our president.

It’s true that what I’m proposing constitutes a purely negative agenda. So let’s look to a positive goal. This country is too large to be governed from the center. It is long past time that it be broken into ever smaller pieces, even to the size of the world’s smallest nations. In that way, the US government will cease to be a menace to its citizens and to the world. Prosperity will be assured in the same way it always has: through peace and free trade with all.

But what about the Constitution? Let Jefferson speak: “We have not yet so far perfected our constitutions as to venture to make them unchangeable…. But can they be made unchangeable?… I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to person, not to things.”

It is highly significant that Jefferson, when he wrote his own epitaph, wanted to be remembered for the Declaration of Independence, for the Virginia statute on religious freedom, and for founding the University of Virginia. That he was a two-term president is not listed.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

Lew Rockwell Archives

Judi McLeod

Canada Free Press
February 25, 2008

Will historians one day record that “It happened on Valentine’s Day” when chronicling the timetable of the North American Union (NAU)?

With no warning, a significant military agreement was signed by the chief Armed Forces commanders of both the U.S.A. and Canada on Feb. 14. The agreement allows the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency.

And as Jerome R. Corsi writes of the range of domestic civil emergencies, in WorldNetDaily, “even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.”

The Valentine’s Day pact got zero coverage in the mainstream media whose investigative reporters must have been out hunting down chocolate and posies.

Were it not for a USNORTHCOM photo that surfaced depicting a beaming U.S. air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, USNORTHCOM commander and Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, the public the media serve would have been left in the dark.

Perhaps the generals won’t get to tell North American Union suspecting citizens that the NAU is the province of only the conspiracy theorist.

Paperwork always comes in handy when bureaucrats cry “Conspiracy Theory”.

Defined by its architects as a “Civil Assistance Plan”, the agreement was never submitted to Congress for approval.

“Nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to heal epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.” (WorldNetDaily, Feb. 24, 2008).

Mind you, reporter David Pugliese, had the story published by CanWest News Service on Friday.

Imagine an agreement that paves the way for the militaries of the U.S. and Canada to cross each other’s borders to fight domestic emergencies not being announced by either the Harper government or the Canadian military.

“It’s kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration,” Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians told the CanWest News Service. “We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites.”

“This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation’s requests for military support of civil authorities,” Renuart said in a statement published on the USNORTHCom website.

“The signing of this plan is an important symbol of the already strong working relationship between Canada Command and the U.S. Northern Command,” said Lt. Gen. Dumais.

“Our commands were created by our respective governments to respond to the defense and security challenges of the twenty-first century,” he stressed, “and we both realize that these and other challenges are best met through cooperation between friends.”

While Canadian citizens opened their homes to Americans stranded on September 11, 2001, there was no military aid sent to the U.S. from Canada, whose then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien remained silent.

In a program on the first anniversary of the deadly hijackings, Chrétien told CBC TV that a clear signal had been sent to all Western countries: do not abuse your strength or wealth.

“You cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliation for the others,” Chrétien said. “And that is what the western world—not only the Americans, the Western world—has to realize. Because they are human beings, too.”

Truth is the Chrétien crony Liberals haven’t gone away. They are merely waiting in the wings to bring down the Harper minority government.

The same Liberals who join the Canadian New Democrat Party (NDP) whose mantra is to bring the troops home from Afghanistan.

Some Liberal and NDP MPs continue to hold anti-American sentiments.

That’s a strange environment from which to forge a plan whose “challenges are best met through cooperation between friends”, Lieutenant General Dumais.

U.S. Northern Command was established on Oct. 1, 2002, as a military command tasked with anticipating and conducting homeland defense and civil support operations where U.S. armed forces are used in domestic emergencies.

Canada Command was established on Feb. 1, 2006, to focus on domestic operations and offer a single point of contact for all domestic and continental defense and securities partners.

Meanwhile, since the North American Union is a three-nation initiative, when will the Mexican Army be brought in during a domestic civil emergency?