Americas Message to Her People: Are YOU Listening???

Americas Message to Her People by USADexter

URGENT: Nelson caves, Reid sets 1:00 am Senate vote for EARLY Monday Morning! Take Action!

Tyranny Reigns, The People Be Damned! URGENT: Nelson caves, Reid sets 1:00 am Senate vote for EARLY Monday Morning! Take Action!

This weekend, please call your two Senators at least once before the 1 am cloture vote which will occur very late Sunday night / [or as early as 1 AM] Monday morning! December 19, 2009

Harry Reid (D-NV) finally released his "secret deal" to the public this morning [Saturday, Dec. 19]. It will serve as a substitute for the decoy that was the 2,074-page bill the Senate has been debating for the past three weeks.

Reid also claimed that he has his necessary 60-vote minimum in light of Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) caving in to accept watered-down abortion funding language and announcing his support to end debate.

Harry Reid's Manager's Amendment makes only slight cosmetic changes to this overwhelmingly unpopular legislation, as it still:

* Costs almost $1 trillion - $871 billion (and that's CBO's modest estimate not factoring in the full ten years after it goes into effect), 

* Cuts Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars,

* Raises and imposes a vast array of new taxes on the American people, Allows for federal funding of abortion,

* Retains the CLASS Act (which the Democrat Chairman of the Budget Committee has described as nothing more than a "Ponzi Scheme"),

* Massively expands Medicaid, giving special treatment to a select few states so that taxpayers in VA, AR, and OH will have to pay higher taxes to subsidize the Medicaid program of a favored few, such as NE, MA, and VT.

TAKE ACTION!

Harry Reid has filed cloture on his substitute amendment, so the CLOTURE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO END DEBATE will occur very late Sunday night (12/20/09) night/or very early [Monday] morning--thus, weekend calls are imperative! If you wait until Monday morning when the sun rises, it will be too late!

This is a CALL-ONLY alert because less than 48 hours remain before the Senate votes, so calls are needed NOW! This will be our last action alert to pressure Senators on health care, so please take a few moments this weekend to call both of your Senators' district and Capitol Hill Offices. All phone numbers can be found here.

U.S. Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121/Toll-Free (866)220-0044 Ask for your Senators!

PLEASE BE AWARE: There will NOT be a conference committee to further drag out the deliberation process on this health care bill. If the Senate musters together the necessary 60 votes to invoke cloture to proceed to final passage, this will be the last significant vote on health care your Senators will make, so this is the vote that counts.

Final passage requires only a simple majority, so NO votes on final passage are next to irrelevant. CLOTURE is the vote that matters. If it passes, Reid will then take the Senate bill to Nancy Pelosi and say, "Here is the bill, vote on it now, do not allow any amendments." This will facilitate the bill reaching the President's desk before the New Year.

THIS IS IT!

http://wbx.me/l/?p=1&u=http://www.capwiz.com/eagleforum/callalert/index.tt?alertid=14481606 Call to Action: GOP Senators plead for help in new YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtYZDFxnpvc

Ben Nelson caves on abortion, announces support for health care bill

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/19/AR2009121900797_pf.html

TYRANNY'S TRAP

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
December 11, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

I find it very interesting and disturbing to see how a constitution can be used to trap and enslave the people of the states into a statically fixed and inflexible union, along with an alleged supremacy of federal laws over state sovereignty, when the meaning of that same document can allegedly change over time under the so-called “living constitution” theory. Let us apply first principles to find the truth of the matter. If a constitution’s meaning can change and thus its application and implementation, based upon current variable and assorted conditions, then the union itself must likewise be capable of change, based upon those same considerations.

Have you not noticed, when someone suggests that the sovereigns of a state have the natural and compactual right to peacefully withdraw themselves from the union (which was formed by the states’ ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1787), there are those self-proclaimed constitution-loving scholars and politicians who proudly protest, “No! You cannot do that! It is not allowed by our constitution! Once you voluntarily entered the union, you have waived your right to leave the union!” In the same breath, those same persons will gladly propose that the meaning and application of our constitution can change over time under a “living constitution” so that our laws may reflect the current conditions of society (of course, determined by those other than the affected sovereigns themselves). They admit too much, for this statement is based upon a principle that necessarily destroys the position that the states have no right to dissolve their compact, or alternatively, destroys the living constitution theory.

If a constitution’s meaning and application can change over time based upon current conditions, then that necessarily means the union itself is subject to the same fluctuations as determined by the sovereigns that unilaterally became a part of that union. If the goal of a constitution’s force is supposedly to secure freedom, and in the name of that goal, those living-constitutionalists propose that a constitution changes over time, then it necessarily follows by principle of constitutional construction that those states who originally bound themselves to its force can relieve themselves of that force where the circumstances justify its dissolution. Put differently, where the circumstances of their ratification have changed to the point that freedom is best protected by their removal from the union, then removal it is as they choose. But I guess living-constitutionalists would deny the states this right because it would deny ultimate power to the almighty union/federal government--their political god.

See, you cannot have it both ways: that is, the character and nature of the constitution changes over time, but the force holding those who voluntary entered the union never changes. The constitution provides both the meaning of government limitations and the terms of union. If the meaning can change, then so can the union. If you argue otherwise, please explain how a party to a compact (i.e. constitution) who entered the union upon certain guarantees, promises, protections and limitations is forever bound to that union (by force) when those guarantees, promises, protections and limitations are removed and replaced with meanings and applications contrary and different from those originally promised to be true. This is called “bait and switch” which is considered criminal and illegal in any contract scenario throughout the states in America. Do you think this principle applies less to the most fundamental law in society: that is, in constitutions?

George Washington did not think so: “The Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” George Washington and William T. Peck, ed., Washington’s Farewell Address and Webster’s Bunker Hill Orations, (New York: Macmillan Co., original from Harvard University, 1919), 12. Of course, tyranny’s way is to not to change a constitution by the explicit and authentic acts of the people who created the constitution (which of course requires debate, consent and ratification), but by oligarchic methods of court decisions, government precedent and fraud.

As I have noted before, the “living constitution” idea was the catalyst to America’s War for Independence. It is in fact the trap that would-be tyrants who creep up in republics use to trap and enslave unsuspecting (and of course, ignorant) people in what would otherwise be a free country based upon free principles in a constitution. It is in fact the snare that has been used against the states of America for generations and it is still used today as an extremely useful method for entrapment of sovereign states. The end result: governing the un-consented: tyranny.

Today marks a distinct point in America’s history where the sovereign states of America have to make a decision about what principles they will submit to: the principles of freedom or the principles of slavery. Decisions are being made in this arena today, and will continue to be made as tyranny’s grip squeezes tighter and firmer around our necks.

Some will choose freedom. Some will choose slavery. Some may be scared about what this may mean (not giving credibility to such feelings, but only observing them). It may mean economic struggles and political battles. It may mean inconvenience and more responsibility. It may mean political involvement and actually choosing a side. It may mean pains and labors and re-education. But I must ask: is the price of freedom too high? For our founders, they proved what Patrick Henry eloquently stated:

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

Indeed, America’s founders did not believe the price of freedom was too high--at least with the assumption that their posterity would contribute their minds, hearts and bodies to maintaining that freedom. After having experienced all the hardships of securing freedom for these states in America, John Adams says to his posterity:

“Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it.” John Adams, Abigail Adams, and Charles Francis Adams, Familiar Letters of John Adams and His Wife Abigail Adams, During the Revolution: With a Memoir of Mrs. Adams, (New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1876), 265.

Perhaps John Adams has already repented.

Ultimately, matters of political and societal freedom are determined by those sovereign body-politics that have the power to make and un-make constitutions. The ultimate matter of which states will live in freedom is determined by the body-politic of that state: the people, who comprise the sovereign element of the state. Where lines are crossed, the sovereigns must decide for itself the recourse it will take to redress the usurpation. This is no new concept. James Madison notes the dangers in political battles whereby the federal government usurps power from the states as perpetrated by Congress and the President and confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court decisions. He says in Federalist Paper 39:

“[The United States Supreme Court decisions are] to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution[, which] is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact.”

Madison recognized that when the federal government usurps its powers IN THE NAME OF the constitution, this puts the states in a natural position to defend their freedom and their powers. It forces the states to revert back to pre-U.S. Constitution status and to recall those powers once given. As a parenthetical note, Madison also recognized that an appeal to the sword is not necessarily the same thing as dissolution of the compact. It is only when union is forced by tyrants that an appeal to the sword is necessary in self-defense. Otherwise, dissolution of compacts should be peaceful.

We have been told for years that the meanings and applications of the constitution supposedly have changed over time and that this is in fact constitutionally correct. Well then, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. That is, principles of construction require this conclusion: the sovereigns of the states then most assuredly have the innate right and power to decide whether or not those changes shall apply to their body-politic, in the interest of preserving freedom.

Otherwise, if states are not allowed to choose their own political and societal fate after they entered into the union, then the federal government most certainly should not be given power which changes over time. One is static and the other is fluid. Yet both are governed by the same document. Moreover, do we see the chains of the constitution binding the federal government (as intended) to the same constraints that they insistently impose upon the people of the states?! Ha! It makes me laugh even to suggest it.

People of the states, it is time to wake up to our political realities. It is time that we know the traps that have been laid before us. We must be astute statesmen and stateswomen, who know the principles of freedom, who know the nature and character of our union, who know when we are being taken for the gullible servants we have become. It is time that we not fall victim to tyranny’s trap. The States of America must once again look to the principles of freedom and into our own borders and sovereignty for political and societal freedom!

Go to www.libertydefenseleague.com for articles, speeches and interviews of Timothy Baldwin.

© 2009 Timothy N. Baldwin, JD - All Rights Reserved

Timothy Baldwin is an attorney from Pensacola, FL, who received his bachelor of arts degree at the University of West Florida and who graduated from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, AL. After having received his Juris Doctorate degree from Cumberland School of Law, Baldwin became a Felony Prosecutor in the 1st District of Florida. In 2006, he started his own law practice, where he created specialized legal services entirely for property management companies.

Like his father, Chuck Baldwin, Timothy Baldwin is an astute writer of cutting-edge political articles, which he posts on his website, www.libertydefenseleague.com. Baldwin is also the author of the soon-to-be-released book entitled, Freedom For A Change, in which Baldwin expounds the fundamental principles of freedom believed by America’s forefathers and gives inspiring and intelligent application of those principles to our current political and cultural standing.

Baldwin is involved in important state sovereignty movement issues, including being co-counsel in the federal litigation in Montana involving the Firearms Freedom Act, the likes of which is undoubtedly a pivotal and essential ingredient to restoring freedom and federalism in the states of America. Baldwin is also a member of freedom organizations, such as The Oath-Keepers, and believes that the times require all freedom-loving Americans to educate, invigorate and activate the principles of freedom within the States of America for ourselves and our posterity.

Web site: LibertyDefenseLeague

E-Mail: tim@libertydefenseleague.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwin105.htm

Nonsensical Economy & Champion Greenbacks

 http://animacenter.org/   

I never gave much thought to money in my life, and usually vilified it in my mind when I did.  To this day, we live entirely on sporadic donations and a very few article sales, have no savings and prefer barter.  That said, money has never seemed plentiful enough to waste.  Yet looking at how our economy functions and what incentives our government offers, you’d think money was to burn.

Frankly, there’s something wrong with an economic system that depends on a constant increase in production, spending and debt just to avoid complete collapse.  Here’s how it works, just is case you didn’t fully understand: The economy suffers even if we spend and produce the same, exactly the same amount as the year before.  It requires not only that we buy ever more stuff, needed or not, but it also needs us to go into debt, the economy’s health depending increasingly on our purchasing things we cannot yet afford.  It’s sounds like something out of a bad science fiction movie, the ponderous creature that must constantly grow or die, needing to kill and eat ever more in order to remain on its feet.  All the frightened townsfolk need to do is figure out a way to slow it down and it will get sick and begin to die… but in the case of the ever expanding economy, if it sickens, we all suffer.  This is frankly nonsensical, and not a very promising model for doing business in a world that is of measurably limited size, created and then gifted to us with a finite amount of water for drinking, a specific number of acres suitable for farming, a still undetermined amount of minerals for industry, and at best only just so many salmon for sushi not matter how you shake your rod.

President George Bush said that spending was patriotic, and his mantra was to “buy, buy, buy.”  Current President Obama is mortgaging future generations by his monstrous swelling of the national debt, spending a mint in the emergency room trying to save the life a sick patient that had never done anything to contribute to its own long term health.  Such approaches stand in stark contrast to the sentiments and strategies of our national past, with frugality and savings being an aspect of the American spirit since the founding of the country and the sensible proclamations of cofounder Benjamin Franklin.  President Theodore Roosevelt came from a wealthy family and was militarily an unapologetic expansionist, but he was also a conservationist who wanted to see wildlife, coal and oil reserves conserved, and a conservative who believed in Americans saving their hard earned money so we would be well prepared in case of future hardships.  Even later President Franklin Roosevelt, who’s “New Deal” initiated the first Big-Brother management of social services in an attempt to crawl out of the economic depression of the 1930’s, still preached the importance of conserving and recycling precious materials like steel, and instead of being encouraged to dump their few dollars at the nearest strip mall, they were told that the most sensible and indeed American thing they could do was to grow a “Victory” garden and learn to generally make rich lives with less.

If there are any advantages to our system the way it works, it’s that it can fuel innovation and contribute to diversification.  And it’s great the way buying gives us a degree of individual and collective power.  We wouldn’t have to sign up for organized boycotts to start working in unison to influence the world we are in.  You don’t like a certain political leader?  Then refuse to give your business to any businesses associated with conglomerates that fund them.  Might take a little education on our parts, mercy sakes, but then we could start making every expenditure an informed decision.  Tired of work being contracted overseas?  Simple, pay a little more and buy American made.  Better yet, buy locally whenever possible, and be part of the solution for your own local economy.  If we want products that are made well and last long, instead of engineered to need regular replacement, then we need to research and buy the best made items we can afford.  Want to see less produced, then buy more used items, they’re often more cool anyway.  Can’t bear to see forests clearcut for pulp?  Pay for recycled or tree-free agri-waste paper instead.  We need to know what we truly need and most want, and then search out the best as well as the best priced, instead of going for the cheapest possible at WallyWorld, or making impulse purchases of crap that we’ll soon pitch in the closet or garage and never look at again.

I believe I’d really have enjoyed being alive at an earlier date when both words and money were spent carefully, when meaningful conversation was of more importance than accumulation, when free time for having fun was seen as more valuable than owning more toys, when a good friend was considered worth more than a thousand investors, love more precious than gold and one’s word more bankable than a lawyer-penned contract.  That said, if cash is to be “king” like the classified ads often claim, then we might ought to consider making every purchase a personal decree.

Whether we make conscious spending decisions or not, we verily decide the culture we are a part of, not only who will lead it but what it will look like.  We could be equipped by vehicles that run for years without repair, long lasting tools powered by wind generators or who knows what, stores stocked with hard goods from somewhere besides Chinese sweat shops, our homes furnished with real wood and lovely if sometimes pre-owned material, if we only we insisted upon it and spent our unreasonably powerful dollars accordingly.  The fact that our political leaders range from puppets to paternalists, that 2/3 of what’s on the variety store shelves could be considered disposable, that multinational corporations are expanding while small town businesses close, that new cars only last a few years and come with tacky plastic body parts, is all determined by the spending choices we together and separately make.

If I feel guilty and out of sorts going into that monolithic, many-tendriled discount store, saddened at the sight of the resigned blue-vested workers, shuddering under its flickering fluorescent lights and all-seeing cameras, it is not just because of the low wages paid its laborers, the jobs lost to the Orient when it orders its merchandise almost entirely from there, or the laid-off stateside workers now struggling to pay even the discount store prices for the food their family needs.  If I feel sickened, it is also because I know this particular monster – the same as our national economy – has to endlessly eat and expand its repulsive bulk if it is to survive… and I, in my haste to get a bargain on imported raspberries and an air cleaner for the Jeep, have helped to feed it.

As I learn more, I increasingly intend that my scarce but powerful dollars speak loudly in support of individual liberties and my own personal values, that they impact the world I am a part of, if not always to an evident degree.  I no longer see the few computer encoded greenbacks in my wallet in the same entirely unpleasant light I used to.  They are my weapons of justice, agents of love and good taste.  They are my champions, few but now purposeful, dedicated and directed for an intended good.

My response...

Jesse, I agree with much of what you say, BUT…

One must also take into consideration that U.S. dollars are not money, but debt instruments…fiat currency backed by nothing but debt, and as long as we consent to their use, we are part of the problem.

In 1913, through careful calculation and political manipulation, the international central bankers got their Federal Reserve Act passed late in the evening on December 23rd after most of Congress was dismissed for Christmas vacation and their puppet, Woodrow Wilson then signed it into law, changing our nation forever.

Later, Woodrow Wilson would go on to say…”I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

The only way to truly save our nation and our freedom is to get the Federal Reserve banks shut down, and remove the international central bankers behind them from having such power over our government and economy.

There are alternative sources of real money that can be used instead of using debt backed Federal Reserve notes, and the more people who use them, the better we will all be. http://www.libertydollar.org/

Other alternatives are bartering, as you mentioned, and setting up small community banks with your own money. 

We as a people MUST think beyond the paradigms set for us by criminal bankers and their fractional reserve Ponzi scheme banking systems that are unsustainable and destructive.

http://animacenter.org/blog/?p=773#comment-5815

This American Revolution: Thoughts on What’s Really American or UnAmerican!

On this Independence Day while most people are thinking of BBQ's and fireworks, I am asking you to think about what your personal freedom means to you. This an excellent assay, except the part about being a proud "Democracy". This nation was founded as a Constitutional REPUBLIC and NOT a democracy, but it was changed to a representative democracy under FDR leaving the power with politicians instead of the people.

A timely essay to forward and share with folks of all walks:

This American Revolution
Thoughts on What’s Really American or UnAmerican!

 

by Jesse Hardin
canyonfamily@gmail.com

Whether you love the spirit of it or hate its martial airs,  the 4th of July is one of the most meaningful of holidays, commemorating as it does a time when an empowered populous chose freedom and regional self determination over the rules and benefits of the British empire, when mostly good and brave hearted people opted to be outlaws rather than kowtow to what they saw as intrusive and unjust regulation from afar.  1776 was a time of revolutionary ideas, personal courage and individual liberty, a true high mark that we have slipped further away from every decade since.

This country was founded in the spirit of acting on one’s personal conscience.  Belief in oneself, taking care of the family, love of the land, loyalty to one’s place.  Personal initiative, willing risk, daring adventure, and attempting the seemingly impossible.  Regionalism, self sufficiency and home rule.  While I am distinctly a Libertarian not a nationalist, I must point out to every proud flag-waver that it is characteristically American and wholly patriotic to question, provoke and resist authority.  To stand out from the crowd, dare to look or act different from the prevailing trend or fads.  To listen and respond to the needs of our hearts.  To heed not rules and orders so much as what we instinctively know to be right and wrong.  To choose freedom and opportunity over “security” and regulation.  To mouth off and make waves.  To prefer disorganized, ineffectual and contending political interests over uni-body, uni-voice, all powerful, uncontested government.   To do whatever the hell we want, so long as it does not harm or impinge upon the freedoms of others.  To be compassionate but firm, peaceful by nature but fierce when defending what matters, deeply loving yet impressively strong.

And while I get sick and tired of hearing people, groups and ideas conveniently labeled “UnAmerican” all the time, I must say that if anything it is UnAmerican to conform, blend in or lay-back.  To acquiesce, surrender, or compromise our core personal beliefs.  To give up our dreams in order to make life easier for us, or change who we really are in order to be accepted by anybody or anything.  To believe everything we read or automatically assume the media or government know best.  To buckle under pressure, be blindly obedient or bow to vested authorities when when we know they have it wrong.  While we are a proud democracy, it is nonetheless patently UnAmerican for us to assume the opinions of the majority are necessarily correct, or that “going with the flow” is always the best way to go.  And while we honor the rule of law, we must still choose doing right even it means being labeled outlaws.

When Thomas Jefferson spoke about the need for a new revolution every generation, he was not talking about revolutionary technological leaps, “revolutionary legislation,” a “revolutionary new administration” or “revolutionary new prices.”  He was pointing to no less than the periodic overturning of established political interests, preventing the solidification of power in the hands of any special interest group, making sure that national or global interests never run roughshod over local communities and concerns, ensuring that conscience and not finance be the primary determining factor in deciding the direction this country goes.  He saw the benefits of fractious discourse and stalled regulation, disagreement and dissension.  And he was also aware of the danger of monolithic systems as well as elite amalgams such as the largest international corporations have become.

By Thomas’ measure, we are several generations late in doing the work of revolution: reconfiguring, re-evolving, reinventing, recreating, and making real again.  He knew this was not a matter of shifting trends so much as becoming new and honest over and over again, through the sacrifices and efforts of wild eyed patriots as we have always been called, and even if it means the shedding our American blood.  Resistance and rethinking are not simply tales of history that we wax nostalgic about, it is our patriotic calling.  While enjoying the festivities of July 4th, let us hear in the explosions of fireworks the thunder that awakens, and recognize in the colorful displays the infinite possibilities that await.

(share as you will… and always act on your conscience)

http://animacenter.org/blog/?p=703

EMERGENCY ALERT - Stop the NEW Real ID - S.1261 - The PASS Act

http://RestoreTheRepublic.com
http://StopRealIDCoalition.com

Dear friends and fellow American, I have an EMERGENCY ACTION ALERT for you Today that requires your immediate and direct attention.

This ALERT is regarding the MORPHING of REAL ID in to the PASS ACT. The REAL ID as you may or may not know was the failed law that snuck through congress in May of 2005 that would require all Americans to Carry a standardized FEDERAL ID card with an embedded trackable chip.

NOW please contact your senate committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs IMMEDIATELY to STOP THE PASS ACT - S.1261

Special interests groups are trying to force Democrats, Independents and Republicans to support this legislation. States have been and are working to ensure drivers licenses are secure documents and have document integrity. The federal government, in spite of the states, wants to set international standards that are not needed. The federal government wants control of your state drivers license. The federal government is bribing states to go along with its plans.

We spoke with Mark Lerner about the emerging PASS Act a few weeks ago.

Our freedom and our rights are not for sale!

Some governors want to take the bribe money.

The senate committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will be considering the legislation very soon.

The PASS Act does not repeal the Real ID Act. It does repeal provisions of the Real ID Act; those provisions that are included in Title II of the Real ID Act 2005. The Real ID Act is still intact and is federal law.

The PASS Act contains many of the most egregious aspects of the Real ID Act; including the requirement for a digital facial image/photograph that will be mandated to be internationally facial recognition compatible.

There is not a federal law that prohibits the simultaneous use of CCTV/surveillance cameras and facial recognition technology in real time.

The PASS Act will do nothing to provide a higher level of National security. Under the provisions of the PASS Act the documents used to obtain a drivers license are not authenticated. These documents are called breeder documents.

Although requirements for new databases and the linking of databases are not part of the PASS Act the fact remains through aamva.net and NLETS states can still have information contained in their state Department of Motor Vehicles made available to both federal and international law enforcement agencies without a court order.

Two international agencies (AAMVA and the ICAO, an agency of the United Nations) were involved in U.S. policy and law - the Real ID Act 2005 and the newly proposed PASS Act. DHS has called AAMVA the hub and backbone of the Real ID Act. On AAMVAs own web-site it proclaims it is an international organization that serves law enforcement and motor vehicle administrators.


Both the Real ID Act and the PASS Act result in Americans being enrolled into a single global biometric identification system that links a persons body to their ability to buy and sell.

WE ARE ASKING EVERY AMERICAN TO CALL EACH OF THE SENATORS in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee AND SAY:

We are opposed to the Real ID Act and the PASS Act

We are opposed to being enrolled into a biometric identification system

We do not want our social security numbers in state DMV databases

We do not want RFID chips in our drivers licenses

We are opposed to the federal government intervening in the issuance of state drivers licenses


TAKE ACTION RIGHT NOW AND CONTACT call these numbers:

Senator Lieberman (202) 224-4041 Chairman

Senator Collins (202) 224-2523

Senator Akaka (202) 224-6361

Senator Bennet (202) 224-5852

Senator Burris (202) 224-2854

Senator Carper (202) 224-2441

Senator Coburn (202) 224-5754

Senator Ensign (202) 224-6244

Senator Graham (202) 224-5972

Senator Landrieu (202) 224-5824

Senator Levin (202) 224-6221

Senator McCain (202) 224-2235

Senator McCaskill (202) 224-6154

Senator Pryor (202) 224-2353

Senator Tester (202) 224-2644

Senator Voinovich (202) 224-3353


The First, Fourth and Tenth Amendments are under attack. The Second Amendment will follow. This is not a partisan issue. All Americans must take action now. 16 calls per American, 16 minutes (one minute per call) for a Lifetime of Freedom.

This Alert has been provided by the STOP REAL ID COALITON and Restore the Republic.

Please forward this ALERT to all you know, embed it on your favorite blogs and forums, and take action now to preserve freedom in America!

I am Gary Franchi, and remember I am not here to make you a follower I am here to make you a leader among the people. Goodnight, and God bless America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kE8xDMokpM

RED ALERT: The Total Takeover Of America Enters Its Final Phase

Full frontal assault on every aspect of freedom kicks into high gear as the elite twist the knife into the rotting carcass of the United States

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, June 29, 2009

The wholesale looting of America and the transfer of wealth and power over to a private banking elite who are setting up a world government, along with the complete obliteration of any remaining freedom to protest, resist, or even speak out against this agenda, is now entering its final phase as numerous different pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fall into place and portray a clear picture of tyranny.

We are about to sound the death knell for the United States if every one of the following attacks on our liberty, free speech, sovereignty, and right to not be ruled over by an unelected banking dictatorship is not fiercely opposed and crushed.

RED ALERT 1

The passage of the “Climate Bill” by the House and its likely approval by the Senate represents the entrée for the complete and total subjugation of any freedoms we had left and the beginning of nightmare regulation and suffocating control over every aspect of our personal lives by millions of green stasi tasked with enforcing impossible to attain goals of 80% carbon dioxide reduction - all based on the manufactured threat of global warming.

This bill will also sink the economy and create a new great depression, effectively obliterating America’s first world status. It represents a transfer of power and wealth from both the U.S. government and the American taxpayer over to the system of world government and global regulation now being erected by means of the climate change hoax.

This is far worse than just a “new tax” as Republicans are complaining - this is the total takeover of the American economy by private banking interests through the carbon trading system.

As we have attempted to warn, the major beneficiaries of the climate bill will be the elitists who own the carbon trading systems that will be used to handle the ‘cap and trade’ program, namely Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.

We must rally now to lobby members of Congress who voted for the legislation and demand they change their vote before July 2nd. Failing that, we must demand that the Senate does not rubber stamp this nightmare legislation. Failing that, we must support and organize to craft more legislation based on the example of Arizona, who recently passed state Senate legislation refusing to comply with insane climate laws coming from the federal level.

RED ALERT 2

The seemingly endless economic “bailouts” represent the wholesale looting of the American taxpayer and the grand theft of trillions of dollars by private banking interests who refuse to even disclose where the money went.

Not satisfied with stealing tens of trillions, under the Obama administration’s new regulatory reform plan, the Federal Reserve is now trying to enrich itself with dictator powers that will give it complete control over the U.S. economy, handing them the authority to “regulate” and shut down any company whose activity it believes could threaten the economy and the markets.

We must rally now and lobby more members of Congress to support Ron Paul’s H.R. 1207 bill to audit the Federal Reserve and highlight the fact that Bernanke is spewing financial terrorism when he threatens an economic collapse should the Fed be opened up to scrutiny.

RED ALERT 3

Federal hate crimes legislation, which in reality would criminalize “thought crimes,” has cleared the House and now faces the Senate as S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act).

S.909 is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It allows the federal government to prosecute people involved in “hate speech” transmitted over television, radio, and the internet. The House version of the bill states:

“Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)”

In other words, if a talk show host engages in “hostile” speech against a person or persons of the above mentioned federally protected group that talk show host will face federal prosecution and the prospect of a two year prison term.

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would similarly criminalize free speech on the Internet if it can be deemed in any way to have been “harmful” to an individual. This represents the end of political blogging and free speech on the world wide web.

If both bills are not opposed and thrown out then the First Amendment will become nothing more than a relic of a bygone age.

RED ALERT 4

The Senate bill S.787, otherwise known as the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA), would replace language in the regulatory act currently using “navigable waters” with “waters of the United States.”

What this means is that “the government would essentially be able to regulate everything from standing water in floodplains to creeks that run behind business and residences,” according to an Environmental Leader report.

This represents a complete takeover of private land and waterways by the federal government, a total assault on private property rights and a complete federalization of America’s land and water.

“In a letter to Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer and ranking member James Inhofe, the American Farm Bureau Federation said that the proposed law would “extend to all water — anywhere from farm ponds, to storm water retention basins, to roadside ditches, to desert washes, to streets and gutters, even to a puddle of rainwater,” stated the letter. “For the first time in the 36-year history of the act, activities that have no impact on actual rivers and lakes would be subject to full federal regulation.”

If this bill becomes law, it will empower the federal government to seize private property on a whim, using similar powers that Communist China employed during Chairman Mao’s “great leap forward,” where landowners had their property violently confiscated and stolen by the government.

If this bill passes the Senate, private property rights in the United States are effectively null and void and the federal government would legally have the power to bulldoze families from their homes as routinely happens in Communist China.

RED ALERT 5

Amongst the myriad of assaults on the Second Amendment rights of American citizens undertaken by the Obama administration during the course of its first year in office, the one that stands out as the most alarming is the attempt to ban people who appear on the terrorist watch list from buying guns.

But isn’t stopping terrorists from buying guns surely a sensible measure to take? The problem is that the terrorist watch list, sometimes called the no fly list, is not a list of likely terrorists, it is a sprawling database of of innocent people that contains the names of over one million Americans. This is a rise of 32% since 2007 alone.

Members of Congress, nuns, war heroes, reverends, the former assistant attorney general, toddlers and children, the ACLU administrator, people with difficult names and all American names like Robert Johnson and Gary Smith, have become caught in the vast tentacle of this list, documents the ACLU.

Moreover, once a person is included on the terrorist watch list it is virtually impossible to get off it.

The terrorist watch list is an ever-expanding tool with which to deny Americans basic rights as well as to strip them completely of the Fourth Amendment.

Now it is being used to prevent law-abiding citizens from purchasing firearms. Legislation sponsored by the The Government Accountability Office seeks to “close the gap” and prevent victims of the terrorist watch list from being able to purchase firearms.

This represents a new end run around the Second Amendment and a concerted effort on behalf of the federal government to classify millions of innocent Americans as potential terrorists, thus stripping them of their Constitutional right to own firearms.

RED ALERT 6

Our right to protest against any of the egregious assaults on the Constitution that are listed above is itself being removed by new law enforcement and Pentagon training manuals and guidelines that define protesting as domestic terrorism.

Current Department of Defense anti-terrorism training course material states that the exercise of First Amendment rights in the U.S. constitutes terrorist activity.

Over the last few years we have documented countless examples of security assessment reports from the likes of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, as well as police training manuals, which state that anti-war protesters, gun owners, veterans, Ron Paul supporters and those who merely cite the Constitution should be equated with extremists and domestic terrorists.

The fact that the government is now treating people who merely criticize its conduct as domestic terrorists is the clearest signal possible that the United States has entered a period in history similar to Germany in the early 1930’s and that it can only be a matter of time before the right “emergency” provides the justification for dissidents to be targeted for round-ups and mass imprisonment.

No one can claim now that this is merely a paranoid delusion - the government itself is training its law enforcement and military arms that protesters and people who use their First Amendment rights are domestic terrorists. The last time this happened was under King George shortly before the American Revolution.

ONE MINUTE TO MIDNIGHT

If we don’t stand up in unison and exercise our right to protest and free speech now more than ever before, while pointing out that the real terrorists are those who would seek to destroy the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, then we may find ourselves doing our protesting behind the barbed wires and the concrete blocks of an internment camp.

The hour is late, the clock stands at one minute to midnight, and the federal government, through all the examples documented above, is on the verge of implementing nothing less than a total environmental, financial and societal dictatorship and killing what once was the United States of America.

Almost identical programs of total enslavement are also being pushed through in almost every other major western country at the same time.

If we don’t stop obsessing about the minutia of life and actually concentrate on the imminent destruction of the very principles of our livelihoods, the bedrock freedoms that allow us to operate in relative comfort on a daily basis and be reasonably secure in our own homes, being able to pay our bills, put food on the table, earn money, and air our grievances when government threatens to impinge on those basic freedoms, then there will be nothing left but a rotten hollow carcass and a memory of what America once strived to be - land of the free, home of the brave - not land of the thief, home of the slave.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/red-alert-the-total-takeover-of-america-enters-its-final-phase.html

Obama contemplates Executive Order for detention without charges

Saturday June 27, 2009 05:28 EDT

updated below - Update II)

When Obama first unveiled his "preventive detention" policy, many defenders praised him (and claimed he was different than Bush) because of his vow that -- as he put it -- "my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime." But now, relying exclusively on three Obama officials speaking behind a veil of anonymity, Peter Finn and Dafner Linza of The Washington Post and ProPublica report that the White House is "crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely." TPM calls this "the latest installment in the Obama administration's tendency to mimic the Bushies on war on terror tactics." And the article itself points out the obvious: "Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war." Revealingly, the article quotes two Bush national security officials justifying the need for detention without charges.

Anonymous trial balloon articles like this one are difficult to comment on because it's obviously designed to announce that a certain policy is being considered before it's actually written, and so none of the key details is known. Would Obama's new detention powers apply only to current "War on Terror" prisoners at places like Guantanamo and Bagram, or would they also apply to future, not-yet-abducted detainees as well? Would these powers apply to detainees picked up anywhere in the world, far away from "war zones"? Would there be any judicial review or other meaningful oversight provisions so that -- even in theory -- this was something other than the unilateral, unchecked presidential power to detain indefinitely without charges? None of these important details is known (though the article notes that, under one White House proposal, "ongoing detention would be subject to annual presidential review"; the Emperor, sitting alone, will decree once a year whether they must remain in a cage).

This specific article is even worse than the usual one of its type, since it's particularly uncritical in passing along administration claims without any skepticism (I addressed each of the "justifications" for Obama's preventive detention proposal -- Obama has to do this because of what Bush did; we can't get convictions because of Bush's torture; it's common in War to do things like this, etc. etc. -- here). Worse, the article does not provide any information about the Obama officials whose mission the reporters are dutifully carrying out, so there's no way to assess their motives.

Those journalistic practices produce egregious sentences like this: "'Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order', the official said." I'd love to know which so-called "civil liberties groups" are pushing the White House for an Executive Order establishing the power of indefinite detention. It's certainly not the ACLU or Center for Constitutional Rights, both of which issued statements vehemently condemning the proposal (ACLU's Anthony Romero: "If President Obama issues an executive order authorizing indefinite detention, he’ll be repeating the same mistakes of George Bush").

All of that said, we already know that Obama wants a system of preventive detention without charges -- because he said so explicitly in last month's "civil liberties" speech ironically and cynically delivered in front of the U.S. Constitution at the National Archives. And it's hard to imagine how he won't get what he wants: Republicans are eager to grant the President this detention authority (Sens. Tom Coburn and Lindsey Graham have both gushingly praised Obama's proposal) and, as the Bush era proved, there are always more than enough Congressional Democrats to join with the GOP caucus to enact any new system of expanded detention and surveillance powers. Absent serious public opposition (and one recent poll shows overwhelming opposition), it seems highly likely that Barack Obama will wield the power to imprison people indefinitely without charges of any kind.

* * * * *

There is one point in particular I really want to highlight about all of this:

There has now emerged a very clear -- and very disturbing -- pattern whereby Obama is willing to use legal mechanisms and recognize the authority of other branches only if he's assured that he'll get the outcome he wants. If he can't get what he wants from those processes, he'll just assert Bush-like unilateral powers to bypass those processes and do what he wants anyway. In other words, what distinguishes Obama from the first-term Bush is that Obama is willing to indulge the charade that Congress, the courts and the rule of law have some role to play in political outcomes as long as they give him the power he wants. But where those processes impede Obama's will, he'll just bypass them and assert the unilateral power to do what he wants anyway (by contrast, the first-term Bush was unwilling to go to Congress to get expanded powers even where Congress was eager to give them to him; the second-term Bush, like Obama, was willing to allow Congress to endorse his radical proposals: hence, the Military Commissions Act, the Protect America Act, the FISA Amendments Act, etc.).

That, for instance, is the precise pattern that's driving his suppression of torture photos. Two federal courts ordered the President to release the photos under the 40-year-old Freedom of Information Act. Not wanting to abide by that decision, the White House (using Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman) tried to pressure Congress to enact new legislation vesting the administration with the power to override FOIA. When House progressives blocked that bill, the White House assured Lieberman and Graham that Obama would simply use an Executive Order to decree the photos "classified" (when they are plainly nothing of the sort) and thus block their release anyway. In other words:

We'll go to court and work with Congress so we can pretend that we're not like those bad people in the last administration, but if we don't get what we want by doing that, we'll just do it anyway through unilateral Presidential action, using the theories that the last administration so helpfully left behind and which we've been aggressively defending in court.

This was also the mentality that shaped Obama's "civil liberties" speech generally and his "prolonged detention" policy specifically. In that speech, Obama movingly assured us that some of the Guantanamo detainees will be tried in a real court -- i.e., only those the DOJ is certain ahead of time they can convict. For those about whom there's uncertainty, he's going to create new military commissions to make it easier to obtain convictions, and then try some of the detainees there -- i.e., only those they are certain ahead of time they can convict there. For the rest -- meaning those about whom Obama can't be certain he'll get the outcome he wants in a judicial proceeding or military commission -- he'll just keep them locked up anyway. In other words, he'll indulge the charade that people he wants to keep in a cage are entitled to some process (a real court or military commissions) only where he knows in advance he will get what he wants; where he doesn't know that, he'll bypass those pretty processes and assert the unilateral right to keep them imprisoned anyway.

A government that will give you a trial before imprisoning you only where it knows ahead of time it will win -- and, where it doesn't know that, will just imprison you without a trial -- isn't a government that believes in due process. It's one that believes in show trials.

And here again, with this Executive Order proposal, we see this same mentality at play. According to the Post article, one motive behind the Executive Order is that "White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible." In other words: we'll be happy to work with Congress as long as they give us what we want; if they don't, we'll just do it anyway using unilateral presidential powers. It's certainly possible -- in fact, I'd say it's likely -- that if Congress passes a preventive detention law, it will be even more Draconian than the one Obama wants. But a President who recognizes Congressional authority only when he likes the outcome -- and ignores it when he doesn't -- isn't a President who actually recognizes Congressional authority at all.

* * * * *

What ultimately matters here is that we not lose sight of the critical point: no matter the form it takes, and no matter which route is used to implement it (act of Congress or executive order), indefinite detention without charges is a repugnant and tyrannical power. Democrats and progressives had no trouble understanding that fact during the last eight years, so they should have no trouble understanding it now. As The New York Times columnist (and Obama supporter) Bob Herbert put it this week: "Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House." Herbert also wrote:

Americans should recoil as one against the idea of preventive detention , imprisoning people indefinitely, for years and perhaps for life, without charge and without giving them an opportunity to demonstrate their innocence.

And yet we’ve embraced it, asserting that there are people who are far too dangerous to even think about releasing but who cannot be put on trial because we have no real evidence that they have committed any crime, or because we’ve tortured them and therefore the evidence would not be admissible, or whatever. President Obama is O.K. with this (he calls it "prolonged detention"), but he wants to make sure it is carried out -- here comes the oxymoron -- fairly and nonabusively.

Proof of guilt? In 21st-century America, there is no longer any need for such annoyances.

Human rights? Ha-ha. That’s a good one.

Just look at the rationale being invoked by Obama officials to justify all of this, from the Post article:

Tawfiq bin Attash, who is accused of involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and who was held at a secret CIA prison, could be among those subject to long-term detention, according to one senior official.

Little information on bin Attash's case has been made public, but officials who have reviewed his file said the Justice Department has concluded that none of the three witnesses against him can be brought to testify in court. One witness, who was jailed in Yemen, escaped several years ago. A second witness remains incarcerated, but the government of Yemen will not allow him to testify.

Administration officials believe that testimony from the only witness in U.S. custody, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, may be inadmissible because he was subjected to harsh interrogation while in CIA custody.

I thought Democrats (and Obama himself) believe that information obtained via "harsh interrogation" is unreliable. Isn't that supposed to be a core Democratic belief? If so, why would we want to imprison someone as "dangerous" based on unreliable information obtained using those methods? If the accusations against someone were drowned or beaten out of another person, shouldn't we consider those coerced accusations too unreliable to justify keeping the accused in a cage for years with no trial? And if they're willing to repeat the accusations in court now that they're not being tortured -- and if we have independent, non-coerced evidence to prove the accusations -- why would past abuse bar the use of their testimony (as Marcy Wheeler suggests, the real reason why we'd want to prevent witnesses who were tortured from testifying in a court seems to be "because we're covering up our own torture")?

More important, look at the mentality being expressed -- and about to be implemented -- here: there may be instances where we cannot get convictions because of witness unavailability or other logistical problems, so we'll just imprison them anyway. Does it really require any effort to demonstrate how dangerous that mentality is -- that the President will have the power to order people imprisoned wherever there are some logistical barriers to obtaining convictions? If there's one principle that can be described as fundamental to the American founding, it's that the state -- and certainly the President -- do not have the power to order people imprisoned without charges. Thomas Jefferson said that trials by jury is "the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Why is this painfully obvious proposition still necessary to defend after the November election?

UPDATE: I posted this before, but Rachel Maddow's 7-minute commentary on Obama's preventive detention proposal was really superb and well worth watching:

On a related note: as I've written many times, the area in which Obama is replicating Bush abuses most egregiously is his embrace of Bush's secrecy obsessions. Jon Stewart last night had much to say on that topic. That Obama is adopting approaches similar to Bush's in these areas is a view that is obviously spreading -- even among Obama supporters -- and is becoming increasingly difficult to deny.

UPDATE II: Digby, today:

The irony, of course, is that the man who ran on transparency is actually turning out to be less transparent than the president he excoriated on the campaign trail for his secrecy. Bush and Cheney were pretty upfront about the fact that they believed they had the constitutional right to act in any way they saw fit, regardless of the accepted understanding of the constitution or congressional and judicial prerogatives. Bush declared "I'm the decider" and he meant it. This administration obviously believes it has that right as well --- it just pretends otherwise.

I suspect they understand that keeping the folks from losing that freedom loving, patriotic illusion of American exceptionalism is an important part of exercising American political power. And they're probably right. Bush and Cheney's biggest mistakes were in being honest about something nobody wants to know.

Relatedly, Booman -- a very enthusiastic Obama supporter -- documents multiple reasons to be suspicious of the claim that the DOJ cannot prosecute Tawfiq bin Attash (the example Obama officials cited in the Post article). That's why excessive secrecy is the linchpin of abuse of power -- it allows government officials to make dubious and misleading claims without any ability to verify them, all while they operate in the dark.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/27/preventive_detention/

Proud to be an extremist in defense of liberty!!

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue". ~ Barry Goldwater

Conspiracy Theorists Were Right All Along!

by Gary D. Barnett

As I opened up an e-copy of the Washington Times today, the headline read: "Federal agency warns of radicals on right." Many have talked about this and Karen DeCoster in today’s LRC blog here mentioned this report. Fox News, Drudge and many other "conservative" commentators are up in arms claiming that this is a direct attack against conservatives. I beg to differ. It is an attack against Americans!

The Department of Homeland Security is warning "law enforcement officials" (jackbooted criminal types) about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," but a footnote in this report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines rightwing extremism as "including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that (don’t miss this part) reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority." If I’m interpreting this correctly, this report is going after anyone who dares to question federal authority. This would put libertarians directly in the government’s crosshairs. In fact, I have been against federal authority my entire life, so am I a prime target? In addition, this report was sent to police and sheriff’s departments all over the country. This is after thousands of combat troops have taken up permanent residence as domestic police, with thousands more on the way. This sounds like nothing more than a recipe for tyranny.

The government’s destruction of liberty has been with us for generations, but due to the incremental nature of this assault on freedom in the past most paid little attention. But now our liberty is being pushed aside like a bulldozer mowing over anthills. Is anyone other than LRC readers and small (l) libertarians watching?

In the past I have talked about illegal wiretapping, illegal spying, government/private spying partnerships (Infragard), thought crime legislation, financial transaction monitoring, anti-money laundering legislation, immoral taxation policies and privacy invasions among many other government indiscretions, and many thought that I was too negative or too cynical. I even wrote an article about pending legislation that would allow government to round us all up and put us in federal camps. Now, after just recently seeing the leaked Missouri MIAC Strategic Report, The Department of Homeland Security is informing police to be on the lookout for any who would not be in favor of federal authority. Orwell as prognosticator has been well vindicated; more so than even he probably could have imagined.

I write this today after just learning this morning that in Billings, Montana (population 100,000) the Yellowstone County Sheriff's Department rolled out its new 13-foot tall, 35,000-pound Ballistic Engineered Armored Response vehicle (BEAR) purchased with, you guessed it, a Homeland Security grant. It is to be used by not only the sheriff’s department but also by the Billings Police Department. They got this war machine just in time to tame those who are not in favor of federal authority. It is bullet-proof, has 2-inch shatterproof glass and gun ports on both sides. This idiocy is going on all over the country, and why more aren’t fearful of the danger of this military arming of local police I don’t know. In order for the normal citizenry to defend themselves from this onslaught of military weaponry, rifles and shotguns will need to be traded in for bazookas and hand-held rocket launchers. Unfortunately, these are still illegal.

All the federal government’s offensive and defensive mechanisms are being put in place while the lowly sheep await the slaughter. More economic tensions with more unemployment along with over-zealous police thugs bent on revenue creation; what will be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back? What will it take before civil unrest is not just discussed on talk shows, but is evident in the streets of America? How much unrest will be tolerated by the now fully armed military-type police before they become physical?

If you want to continue to hide your head in the sand, don’t dare connect these dots! We now have militarized police, combat soldiers on our streets, war-zone materials and weaponry in the hands of domestic government agents, FEMA camps, and a neutered rule of law. These atrocious changes have happened quickly, and at a time of civil restlessness. Is this a coincidence? I think not. Everything happens for a reason, and this time that reason is easy to spot. Are you looking? If not, you had better open your eyes soon!

Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Lewistown, Montana.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/barnett7.html

To Whine or Resist?

Well, today is April 15th, though I suspect that there aren't many of you who haven't already noticed that. Both the federal extortion racket and its opponents try pretty hard to make sure that everyone is well aware of National Enslavement Day. And I'm quite pleased that there has been a lot of coverage of the protests and demonstrations, "tea parties" and others, planned across the country for this day of national shame. (Land of the free? Nice joke.)

I'm also pleased that today I finally have a web site up which has the 2007 version of my "Taxable Income" report (a free download): http://www.larkenrose.com/pdf/TaxableIncome2007.pdf

And I'm pleased that the old "861 Evidence" presentation is now alive and well on that new site: http://www.larkenrose.com/the-861-evidence.html

(But don't be surprised if lots of people try to view the presentation all at once today, and slow down the servers.)

But today I have a question--a question which the American people will answer, though we probably won't know the answer for a long time. The question is, are the American people content to merely COMPLAIN about what is being done to them, or are they about ready to finally RESIST?

For example, how many people at today's protests will be sending the message, "Please, master, stop taking so much of our money!"? And how many will be sending the message, "You won't be getting my money anymore!"? In other words, who will be BEGGING for freedom, and who will be TAKING freedom for themselves?

As I've said before, I expect a tax revolt in this country, starting today but growing as the economy continues to crumble and the socialist federal leviathan continues to grow. But it won't be the way I wished it would happen. It would be fun if a few million Americans found out that they don't even OWE federal "income taxes," based on the extortionists' own laws (see the links above).

On the other hand, it would be good if people resisted on philosophical grounds, realizing that we each own ourselves, and that no one has the moral right ("law" or no "law") to forcibly take a percentage of the fruits of our labor without our consent.

Instead, the tax revolt will most likely be the result of what usually causes such things: desperation. Rather than a legal or moral motivation, the average "taxpayer" (or "fraud victim," to be more accurate) may simply find that he doesn't have any money*. And given the choice between feeding the IRS beast and feeding his own family, he will choose the latter.

I guess if we can't have a principled revolt, a revolt out of necessity will have to do. But it remains to be seen at what point Americans will grow a spine and actually start resisting a perceived "authority." Will they wait until they're starving and living in tent cities, or will they do it a little earlier? The fact that they haven't done it already--like, in 1913, for example-- is pretty discouraging, but judging by the current grumblings across the country, there may be some spine left in the American people yet. Time will tell. Today will be a good first hint. What will the IRS "compliance" numbers look like when they've counted all the forced confessions this year? We shall see.

Sincerely,

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

(* For the sake of brevity, at the moment I won't get into the fact that what passes for "money" these days is a giant fraud in itself.)

It's Time to Join the Resistance

"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?"-- Thomas Jefferson

Over the past few months, I've heard from many Americans who feel they've lost the power to be heard by their government. From the repeated assaults on our civil liberties to the financial ruin brought about by irresponsible corporations and government officials, Americans feel helpless and beaten down.

Faced with a government that is not heeding their demands, many are simply giving up. But we are far from helpless, and this is not the time to surrender our rights.

Too often, we forget that America began with a revolution. America was born out of the sheer grit and determination of a rebellious group of colonists. These freedom fighters stood their ground. They knew they had rights. And when those rights were systematically violated, they resisted.

Thankfully, there are a growing number of Americans--what I like to refer to as "teaspoons of resistance"--who have not given up the fight and are choosing to exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There are many examples. Let me cite a few. In more than 40 cities across the country, growing numbers of Americans have been taking to the streets and staging "tea party protests" to voice their objections to the government's out-of-control spending and its bailout of mega-corporations and bad mortgages. Although no tea is being tossed at these protests, they are gaining in popularity as a way for citizens to express their discontent with government spending gone haywire. In fact, organizers are planning a nationwide Tax-Day Tea Party protest.

Mindy McAlindon of Franklin, Tennessee, is taking a slightly different approach in voicing her discontent about the economy. She plans to bombard the White House with actual tea bags and protest notes. Protesters in other cities are planning to do the same for members of Congress.

More than 10,000 demonstrators in 100 locations across the country recently gathered at the offices of major banks whose behavior both before and since the government bailout "epitomize an era of CEO and corporate excess at the expense of broader prosperity that has weakened the economy."

Thousands will soon travel to Washington, DC, to protest the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The rally, which will take place the day after the sixth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, will reportedly be the first national antiwar demonstration in the United States since President Barack Obama took office.

And then there is Concepcion Picciotto, a small woman in her late 60s who has carried on the longest continuous act of protest in the United States. Since 1981, Picciotto has staged a round-the-clock peace vigil across from the White House in Lafayette Park in the hopes of ending U.S. interventionist wars and banning nuclear weapons. She has thus far managed to outlast four presidents--Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush--and she's planning to outlast Barack Obama.

To fellow activists, Picciotto is a living symbol of resistance and an amazing example of grassroots democracy who understands that power is with the people. Unfortunately, her vigil has not been without its trials. Over the course of the past 28 years, Picciotto says she has been cursed at, spat on and beaten up, arrested and issued $50 citations for illegal "camping" in the park. Nevertheless, she persists in her solitary vigil.

We could use more tireless freedom fighters such as Concepcion Picciotto today. Yet she is merely one of a long and historic line of Americans to stage populist protests in the form of sleep-ins, sit-ins and marches to oppose government policies, counter injustice and bring about change.

For example, in May of 1932, more than 43,000 people--World War I veterans and their families-- marched on Washington. Out of work, destitute and with families to feed, the veterans set up tent cities in the nation's capital and refused to leave until the government agreed to pay the bonuses they had been promised as a reward for their services. The Senate voted against paying them immediately, but the protesters didn't budge. Congress adjourned for the summer, and still the protesters remained encamped. Finally, on July 28, under orders from President Herbert Hoover, the Army descended with tanks and cavalry and drove them out, setting their makeshift camps on fire. Still, the protesters returned the following year, and eventually their efforts not only succeeded in securing payment of the bonuses but contributed to the passage of the G.I. Bill of Rights.

Thus, while protests and acts of resistance may not always achieve immediate results, they're a good place to start. Time and again throughout our nation's history, real change has come at the urging of the people. After all, governments aren't proactive, they're reactive. They only move when you urge them to move. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s is a perfect example. Just imagine how much longer it would have taken to gain equality for African-Americans without the efforts of Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and so many other fearless black Americans.

Clearly, this is no time to stand silently on the sidelines. It's a time for anger and reform. Most importantly, it's a time for making ourselves heard. And there is no better time to act than the present. As Robert F. Kennedy reminded his listeners in a speech delivered at the University of Cape Town in 1966, "Hand in hand with freedom of speech goes the power to be heard, to share in the decisions of government which shape men's lives. Everything that makes man's life worthwhile--family, work, education, a place to rear one's children and a place to rest one's head--all this depends on decisions of government; all can be swept away by a government which does not heed the demands of its people."

What can ordinary citizens do? Instead of sitting around and waiting for someone else to change things, take charge. Never discount the part that everyday citizens play in our nation's future. You can change things, but there can be no action without education. Get educated about your rights and exercise them. Start by reading the Bill of Rights. You can do so online at www.rutherford.org. Or, if you want a copy to keep with you, email me at johnw@rutherford.org and I'll send you a free one.

Most important of all, just get out there and do your part to make sure that your government officials hear you. The best way to ensure that happens is by never giving up, never backing down, and never remaining silent. To quote Dr. King, "If you can't fly, run; if you can't run, walk; if you can't walk, crawl, but by all means keep moving."

It doesn't matter whether you're protesting the economy, the war, the environment or something else altogether. What matters is that you do your part. As that great revolutionary firebrand Samuel Adams pointed out, "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in people's minds."

Take some time right now and start your own brushfire for freedom. In the words of one Tea Party organizer, become "10-minute citizens. Take 10 minutes, six days a week and learn about the issues, and then call politicians, or email them, or call talk radio, or write letters to the editor and make your voice heard."

It's midnight in America right now. But the real question is, will there be a dawn? That's up to you and me. The future is in our hands.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/its-time-to-join-the-resi_b_176270.html