The Most Powerful Military Force in the World is the American People
Posted by sakerfa on July 2, 2009
The Most Powerful Military Force in the World is the American People. It is the Last Jeffersonian Militia on the Planet, and the New World Order is Powerless Against it“Divine providence has given to every individual the means of self-defense.”
—George Mason, “Father of the Bill of Rights”
What is a Jeffersonian militia? It is a scenario where a large percentage of the population of a nation involves the average man or woman on the street (i.e., not a member of the government, military, or police) being armed, carrying a powerful gun. A Jeffersonian militia gains its character by the fact that it is not controlled by any government (unless government = citizenry), it involves potentially all citizens of a nation, and thus does not and cannot resemble a military in the way that most Americans are now accustomed to believing what a military is (which is not a Jeffersonian militia, and instead just a small fraction of the population of a nation: Army, Navy, UN “Peace-Keepers”, CIA secret forces, police forces, etc.). Also, a Jeffersonian militia cannot resemble, for example, a Third World dictator’s goon-squad-of-an-army.
Americans have been largely conditioned to believe that a Jeffersonian militia is something scary – even many in gun culture fall into this delusion. And some Americans even believe that they are safer if citizens are unarmed, and only militaries are armed, and armed to the teeth. That’s the message we get on television constantly, and in our schools and many churches. That idea can be called the anti-Jeffersonian state, or, more aptly put, a slave dictatorship.
But regardless of what Americans may or may not think, the very interesting issue here is that America currently is a Jeffersonian militia, since a huge percentage of ordinary American citizens
(a) are armed,
(b) know how to use their weapon, and
(c) are becoming increasingly distrustful with the government.
Those three characteristics are the rudimentary qualities of a Jeffersonian militia.
Now let’s move on to the central theme of this article:
The New World Order is actually powerless against America’s armed citizenry (militia), and if you don’t know that then you have been tricked (brainwashed) to think otherwise.
America is the only Jeffersonian militia in existence today, and the American public is the largest, most heavily armed military in the world. In actuality, the entire world is defenseless to it – even the New World Order. A four million person army could invade the Atlantic shore tomorrow, and that military would certainly cause some initial chaos, but soon after, it would find out that it is drastically outnumbered and doomed to total extinction, if the American militia simply got up off the couch chose that to be their fate.
We know that the New World Order knows these facts about a Jeffersonian militia, and is deeply threatened by this, due to the unprecedented attacks on the Second Amendment and on gun owners from all different angles that have ramped-up over the past year in America and which are escalating tremendously (see these stories: VFW Inventory of Guns, EPA Shutting Down Gun Range, Gun Confiscations for Law-Abiding Citizens, Gun Confiscations After Tornados, Corporate Media all in Unison on Gun Confiscations). Television, poor nutrition, pharmaceuticals, laziness, fake churches, public school education, and addictions have led the American Jeffersonian militia to currently fall into a zombified, drugged, and confused state – like a sullen, caged Kodiak bear in a zoo, softly sleeping in its prison, with its purpose, force, and identity put into a state of misunderstanding and hibernation. But nevertheless, we know the New World Order is scared of the American Jeffersonian militia – especially what the American Jeffersonian militia could quickly become in specific circumstances. This is mainly because he who has the gun has the power, and thus, as always in history, the world governing powers want the guns (the power) only for themselves.
Consider these two points:
1. We all know that the places in America that have the most gun ownership by ordinary (non-gang member) Americans has dramatically reduced crime,
2. We all know that illegal immigrants are coming across the border and doing horrific violent crimes to Americans, and
3. We all know that homicides from guns are just a fraction of how many are caused by the New World Order’s most cherished industries: Big Pharma, tobacco, alcohol, war, and heart disease and heart attack (which is caused more these days by eating genetically modified animals that have far higher fat content than just be meat consumption)
There are so many other examples that could be given, but just these points show that what is unquestionably in the best interest of the American people is to simply embrace the Second Amendment with maximum gusto, just as our Founders taught:
“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly, to property – together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.” —Samuel Adams (my itals)
This means that you should not be going to the gun shop to buy a .22, but rather an AR-15 or a .45 long barrel revolver, for example. Buy a cannon instead of a knife, and an AK-47 instead of a .32. Why do I say this? Because as the quote from Samuel Adams just given states: this is the law of the land, you are supposed to do this, as instructed by our Founding Fathers.
But moving back to points 1-3, the New World Order takes great measures to ignore points 1-3, and to even cause the opposite: less guns more crime, disempowering the American citizens so they are helpless against criminals, putting forth all sorts of measures that increase the power of Big Pharma, tobacco usage (including glamorizing it in Hollywood), and increasing other deadly industries that the New World Order gains profit and control of the world off of. Contemplate what I have just written in points 1-3, and how the New World Order attempts to do what hurts the people with respect to these. This is a “big picture” point of view! Does it get any clearer than this?
George Mason, seemingly precognitively, wrote: “when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great-Britain, the British parliament was advised… to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually.” This is where we are today. The lying corporate media has us all looking different directions while this is going on, focusing on other, meaningless stories (the gay marriage debate, stories about Madonna, Obama, and Brittany Spears, etc.). And much more importantly, our government-controlled education system in America has never given us the correct story of history that shows just how important the guns are, and which shows what the power of a Jeffersonian militia can do, as happened with the Revolutionary War. That is the point of this article: to show you what history really is, which is the struggle for who controls the weapons. That is what we need to discuss in this article, and this discussion will show us that we American citizens are by far the most powerful military force on the planet.
What is history? There are many ways to answer that question. Control of resources or corruption of the world’s religions are two popular ways to explain history in academia; and in the alternative media it is often more appropriately explained by who controls banking and money. Certainly these are all of the major forces in what history is at its core. But I believe there is a better explanation of what history really is at its core. There is a deeper force than resource monopolism, religion, and usury, and to get an idea of what I am getting at, answer this question: Who controls and guards the resources, the money, the banksters’ money empires, and the fortresses of the fraudulent religious leaders? The answer is simple: the group “with the bigger guns”, as the saying goes.
Let me state the issue more carefully here: history is a story of the controlling class perpetually taking extraordinary measures to disarm the class they control, and due to that ubiquitous endeavor, history has been a horror greater than any Hollywood horror film.
So, what I am saying in this italicized statement is that A causes B:
A = controlling class perpetually taking extraordinary measures to disarm the class they control
B = history has been a horror greater than any Hollywood horror film
A ==> B
A and B are not just coincidentally correlated (simultaneous) in time. No, I am saying something much stronger than that. I am saying that A causes B, and, in other words, if A did not exist, B would not exist.
I know that A causes B because of what I have written about in my previous Infowars.com article about Thomas Jefferson and the citizen militia, and because of the truth of what Founding Father Edmund Randolph said: “A people who mean to continue free must be prepared to meet danger in person, not to rely upon the fallacious protection of… armies.” (Edmund Randolph was Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Secretary of State under President George Washington, and a man many consider to be one of the Founding Fathers of the United States.) Did you read that right? Armies, militaries are lies! They do not give protection; they are used to attack the people. History teaches us this fact. They do not, and never have, offered protection to citizenries! Protection of the people is only very very rarely what militaries are intended for, and even in those cases where they were purported to be intended to help citizenries, they still ended up obliterating the people (a good example is the American military in World War II, which was supposed to liberate Japan and Europe in the pre-planned Rockefeller-Ford-IBM-created war, but what it mainly did was utterly annihilate innocent citizens (non-soldiers) by the millions all over Europe and Tokyo, and for verification of this fact, see Fog of War).
Rather, militaries are typically assembled by the bloodthirsty keepers of world government – no matter what social era we are considering – and they are turned on the unsuspecting, trusting, innocent, hardworking, and usually unarmed citizens for pre-planned divide-and-conquer scenarios. The stories in history when militaries defeated the oppressing governments were not militaries at all; they were Jeffersonian gun-militias! 1776 America! Vietnam! The factories of Argentina! The other wars of history were, to my knowledge, all one or more of the following: slaughter-fests, staged, bought-and-paid-for by the keepers of world governance, and thus they are not stories resembling the stories of the these Jeffersonian gun-militias. (Some readers might be wondering why we don’t consider non-violent revolution, in the MLK, Thoreau, and Gandhi tradition. The answer to that is: the New World Order is, at this time, using provocateurs seemingly continually, and frankly, in my opinion they are destroying all peaceful protests – and to my knowledge, they did not do this with any such frequency with MLK and Gandhi. Another reason that sort of revolution may not work now is that the corporate mass media won’t cover the a non-violent revolution, and MLK and Gandhi both utterly depended on mass media to focus on them and to act as their “billboard”, so to speak. That won’t work now, and if it did, I think people like Alex Jones, Cindy Sheehan, Luke Rudowski, and so many others, would have bought this country through a MLK-style non-violent revolution already.)
Also, I know that A causes B because it’s just simple logic: if ruthless terrorists get control of the money and resources of a land, they will seek to remove the power (guns) from those they control in a tireless, unrelenting manner. Without guns, ultimately you have no power to own (control) land, to farm, to participate in government, or to possess resources. In a Jeffersonian militia we exploit our inalienable right do any of these; without the guns, it’s just a matter of time before we are living on a plantation, as we are rapidly progressing toward in contemporary America. These words I have just written are, of course, just an echoing of the words of the Founders.
So, the story of history is about who controls the weapons, and in our age, that means who has the guns. This is what this article is about, and this is relevant because America is the one nation of the world where the citizens are armed more heavily than any military in the world. Do you really understand what this means? It means that the American citizenry is in control, and they have just been tricked into thinking otherwise! Let me put that in another way: the most powerful social force on the planet is the American citizenry, nothing can stop it, if they merely choose to execute their power!
As Alex Jones has also discussed, the guns are, I think, the only issue, in the end, and as I’ve shown in another article. The guns are simply the last hope for us, no exaggeration, and all the attempts from all different angles that the New World Order is now using to rid us of our guns and protection simply proves how powerful the guns are: since they were invented, they have been the shaper of history. So, really, the battle of the takeover of the American people by the New World Order will be won or lost before it fully starts (if a visible war ever commenced, rather than the current “quiet war” with “silent weapons”), since it will be decided by how Americans resist or give-in to the New World Order’s attempts to take our guns, kill gun culture, and disband the last significant Jeffersonian militia on the planet.
In the era of guns over the past several hundred years, there has never been a case where a government (banking elite and its military) could overtake an armed Jeffersonian militia of reasonable size. A good example is the Revolutionary War – which is that war for the independence of this nation that your government-controlled schools “forgot” to tell you about in any detail. (If you want a refresher, see: Alex Jones interview with Sam Damewood.) This is a pretty clear-cut issue: if citizens of a reasonably sized nation form a Jeffersonian gun-militia, they are free, and they are impervious to attack, and if they don’t, well, then you get Rwanda, Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Russia (20 million dead Christians!), Cambodia, Tibet, the American Indians, American slavery, the IMF-induced economic crash of Jamaica, the utter poverty, and government corruption and domination of present-day Africa, Mexico, and the concentration-camp-like-state of most of the current world that you never see on Fox News or on Oprah (they discuss Darfur, but that is going on all over the world, so why only discuss Darfur and ignore, for example, Mexico?). Most of the world currently looks like a concentration camp and/or a labor camp (since most of the world is a horrific Third World, which resembles a concentration or death camp, see War Against the Third World, Fourth World War), but the problem is that in our perfumed media that even many of the info-warriors are still all-too influenced by, we are not told about this. Our schools tell us that slavery and concentration camps existed in the past, in Germany during World War II, or on the plantations of America in the 1800s, but that means that our schools are blatantly lying to us, since concentration-camp-life is all around us, literally comprising most of the social world (think of our prisons, our “Constitution-free zones,” public schools, airports, hospitals, court houses, and militaries). I have a friend who works for Big Oil, and he frequently travels over to Africa to do work, and while there he must live in an armed compound (prison) so that the “local people” won’t try to kill him (that’s what he says), because they live in such incredible poverty and slavery that they don’t even have toilets or showers! Many don’t even have beds, and they sleep in the “village” center on the ground in the dirt at night. And what can those Africans do about it? Answer: nothing. Why? Because they don’t have power (guns). They don’t have farming or land skills anymore, they don’t have books and nutritious food, but most importantly, they do not form a Jeffersonian militia, and that means that, as my friend says, “it’s just amazing how little the ‘people in charge’ care about the people that work for them and make them rich.”
Now hear these words carefully: most of the world is in this sort of an unspeakably impoverished and even concentration-camp-like state, America is the last holdout, and all steps are currently being carried out by the New World Order to transform America into such a slave-state and Third World labor camp.
This is occurring in so many ways: removing manufacturing base of America, freezing minimum wage to ridiculously low (poverty) levels, poisoning of food and water in America, Sovietizing public education, attacking the Second Amendment, attacking farmers, leaving the borders open, government attempts to eliminate gardening in America (that’s a big one, since that is a main element in making people helpless — removing their abilities to work the land — that’s why American Indians were put on reservations and their kids were put in boarding camps/schools, sort of like an extreme family destruction, where our public school system is a softer form of that). That’s just a small list that could be given. This has been done over-and-over, the New World Order is quite good at it, and we’d better figure that out pretty quick, because we Americans sure are going down that path. The lying corporate news media (that same news media that told us from 1991-2003 that Iraq was a threat) now is telling us there’s nothing to worry about, the “recession is almost over”, just sit back and watch more “Must See TV.”
Americans, however, unfortunately do not have any idea of this real story of history, and thus they do not have any idea of the utter power they hold due to the fact that they currently form the loose skeleton of a Jeffersonian militia – which is literally a needle in the haystack of history: an armed populace, unlike the unarmed multitudes of the past who have been annihilated through the eons of history. One man with a gun can control a hundred without one. The gun is the ultimate instrument of power in our world. Remember how Hitler first instituted gun control because of so-called hunting accidents (which were probably staged), and look what happened. Remember how the 1800s US government made it illegal for slaves and American Indians to own rifles, and look what happened. Think of the medieval and Enlightenment kings of Europe making it illegal for those not of his armies to own swords. An armed citizenry is precisely what the world needs, and which only exists in America.
So, why is a Jeffersonian militia so powerful? For one simple reason, which can be stated in one sentence: the New World Order is nothing more than a big room full of ridiculous people who control the world by money. But as stated above, money is not as powerful as controlling the world by the gun. What this means is that if The New World Order tries, for example, mass roundups for throwing Americans into their FEMA concentration camps, as they certainly are gearing up to do, if the American Jeffersonian militia awakens to that agenda, the New World Order will not get that agenda very far off the ground (unless Americans succumb to fear and let them – this room full of ridiculous people – run over them). So, as you can see, and as I showed in my other article, the Jeffersonian militia is the single #1 most important thing for our freedom, the answer to all our problems, the death of any sort of tyranny, and what that translates to us that our guns are the #1 most important thing to our freedom, as Alex Jones has said so many times.
So, on that note, we can sum up our freedom and our destiny in one sentence: in America, we already have the armed Jeffersonian militia, now we just need proper education – nothing is more important than that. As far as the New World Order is concerned then, all the scary things they imply they are going to do to us (FEMA camps, etc.), well, they can’t in a Jeffersonian militia state, so what are so many of us afraid of? I will get into this in more detail below.
“What can I do about it all!?” How many of us have heard that one when we’ve tried to awaken others to the specific, documentable problems going on with America regarding the New World Order? We have all heard this, and we have all seen this “I-can’t-do-anything-about” mass-delusion epidemic that has sickened America. This is why the New World Order system works as it does. This attitude will change then the New World Order pushes their savagery enough. The American Jeffersonian militia will sit back and just want to be left alone until the New World Order chooses to push hard enough to start their pre-planned divide and conquer program. But as stated, the power does not exist with them. They are a room of ridiculous people with the power to create money and with a few armies at their disposal, but the American populace is the largest military force in the world. So, from that perspective, the New World Order is powerless. Yeah, that’s right, the power of the New World Order is an illusion. They are like the Nazis, who would send people into a town they intended to take over to talk up their Nazi-power, their military strength, wherein everyone one would roll-over and give up, but then when the Nazis came into the town, they’d be just a quite small force. The power is always with the mass of the human populace (in all ways, not just regarding guns), but they are just perpetually tricked into thinking they are powerless. It’s a psychological warfare technique, as Alex Jones has so often said. Here, let me illustrate…
If you have a corporation (of any size), and there is a “person in charge” on the one hand, and the workers who actually do the work on the other hand, who is really in control of the business here? Well, the average TV-and-hotdogs American, without even thinking about it, quickly and confidently belches out: “oh, of course the manager-controller is! There would be chaos without ‘somebody in charge.’” But that is only an idea. And is the idea right? Of course not; and here’s why. To paraphrase from my book, Corporatism: if the “person in charge” does not show up for work on some given day, work can go on that day; but if the workers do not and only the manager shows up, no work goes on that day. So that makes it appear that the workers are in charge, doesn’t it? So why do we believe the opposite, wrong idea here in corporatist America? Answer: we have been taught the wrong idea, and, well, who is questioning it?
Oh I can hear the confident comebacks out there from the ESPN-and-beer Americans, who probably all would snap back and confidently say something like this: “the workers working without a ‘person in charge’ is a nice idea, but it would just never really work in the real world, and it never has.” Really? Well, if that’s true, then how come if you watch the excellent documentary, The Take, which is about factory-workers all over South American who kicked “the bosses” out and created factories of the people, run by the people, for the people, you see that it certainly is not chaos that ensues when “the boss” are kicked out, and rather it is increased productivity, and thus increased profit-making for the workers! In fact, this has happened all over the world – Americans have just not heard about it because it was not on prime time cable TV. And let’s add to this a bit before we go on… Such factories-for-and-by-the-people are the ultimate expressions of actual capitalism: each worker earning the most money to therefore store up the most capital. This is the diametrical opposite of contemporary non-capitalist American monopolism/corporatism, where only very few have any meaningful capital and/or big-ticket items they actually own (and, of course, your mortgaged house is not owned by you, and if you doubt that, stop paying your mortgage payment [i.e., your interest payment] and see how long you can keep your house). Funny how the lying “conservative” cable-TV “news” shows call that capitalism. So why does the average TV-addicted American think that the “person in charge” controls things? Answer: because that’s merely an idea, based on nothing real (and so, a false idea: an illusion), implanted into their heads, but they believe it, so it works: they think the non-worker (“person in charge”) is responsible for the work, which is, I guess, sort of like saying the honeybee producing the honey does not work for any honey. You see, when people don’t question and use their minds, then all of human existence becomes contradiction, suffering, absurdity, and a waste of our lives. That’s why it’s and info-war: a war where the weapon is false ideas infecting minds (aka. brainwashing).
Now, let’s expand this idea that the human populace is actually in control of the world in order to discuss the New World Order. And let me get right to the point: just like the “person in charge” really has no control, as we just saw, analogously, the New World Order has no power at all whatsoever, period, end-of-story. The New World Order, and any “government authority” of any sort, only exists because we humans wrongly believe that humans need the them, and because we have been tricked into wrongly believing that the world is setup for you to be primarily dependent on people other than yourself (almost a “crazy notion” to many).
Ideas are just ideas, and they may or may not actually represent things that are real in the world. For example, you can think (have an idea about) a unicorn, but that does not mean unicorns are real. They are only ideas, existing only in our heads Also, you can think Iraq was a threat in 2003, but that does not mean that it really was. But interestingly, well over 200 million Americans thought the little desert nation of Iraq, which hardly even had a military, was a threat to the U.S. during the quite long time-span from 1991-2003, but that was of course just an idea, based on nothing real whatsoever! Iraq is/was a unicorn – just like the swine flu, vaccine “protection”, overpopulation, the CO2 “threat”, eco-crime, fluoride being a cure for osteoporosis, monkey-to-man evolutionary theory, and the idea that “The World Is Running Out of Water” (Scientific American): unicorns all! But, returning to discussion of Iraq… Nevertheless, Americans believed in unicorn-Iraq, and off they went, smilingly marching their children into DU-laced Iraq (and Afghanistan).
Let’s consider another example: billions of people on planet earth believed that cave-men brought down the WTC towers on 9/11. Nobody saw them do it, but they were told the cave-men did it, and thus billions believed this story. But nobody saw them do it, there is no evidence they did, and, well, what-do-you-know, it’s just an idea, again! Funny how this all works isn’t it. But in this case, it was billions, not millions, that believed in the unicorns (cave-men) they were merely told about (and not shown).
Another example: billions of people on planet earth believed that a large passenger jetliner hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Question: how many saw it, or at least were in position near the Pentagon to where they could have seen it? Answer: a room full of people (back to that figure-of-speech, again). So, um, why did billions believing that there was a jetliner (unicorn-jetliner, that is)? I think you know the answer. Odd how this all works, isn’t it.
How much of our reality that we think about each day is like this: just ideas? (Answer: perhaps most of it, but I don’t have time to discuss that here.) Who is giving us these ideas? (Well, that’s an easy one to answer.) Why do we believe them, when they don’t obey what our eyes tell us is real?
Now, here’s the point: this is the nature of the power of the New World Order: the New World Order is ultimately an idea, nothing more! The New World Order’s power only exists in abstract reality (i.e., unicorn reality, and fear-based reality), not in logical, concrete reality, as discussed above. The New World Order’s power is a unicorn in our minds because we have been tricked into believing it exists and has power over us by all the propaganda we Americans take-in on TV daily.
Lastly, in this article, I want to talk about something so many are fearing so greatly: mass roundups and FEMA camps. To start this, let me quote an interesting scholar in the alternative media, Clif High (this passage is paraphrased slightly):
The New World Order only has threats, not a means to enforce the threats. If they tried to round up even just a few million people in America, especially when so many people have guns and will start shooting, and when news of the roundups would travel fast underground among the people, they [the New World Order] simply could not get the manpower to do it: it’s an impossible task.
This passage echoes what Alex Jones has been telling us for years: you need many tens of thousands of troops to roundup a million or five million Americans, and it simply won’t work when the citizenry is armed. Do you see how correct Jefferson was? This is not Nazi Germany, where the people were first disarmed and then rounded-up. In Nazi Germany (like other places with disarmed populations), roundups were simple, I am sad to say. Here: a different story. Here’s why… If roundups started, when word of this got around – and it would – that roundups are happening here in America, people will get ready, and would start shooting, often with a passion and inner-fire of Jeffersonian freedom in their hearts and minds. And do you think roundup police are going to continue to march into that, when there is, frankly, huge risk to them? Answer: no. This is not like the scenario of a SWAT team, where people are unsuspecting, totally caught-off-guard and usually unarmed or Amish or something. This also is not like New Orleans after Katrina, where word of the activity of the Blackwater goons had not gotten around yet, where people were caught off-guard (like the SWAT scenario), and where so much of the city was a hoard of semi-entranced, disarmed, starving, often even half-dead people totally confused and dazed. No. This will be prepared America: the resistance (to anti-Constitutionalism and to black-as-hell-tyranny), to use Mark Dice’s phrase.
How many of you have been sitting there cowering because you are afraid of concentration camps, but you never stopped to notice that it’s quite likely a logical impossibility that it will ever happen here. Roundups would stop after a just a few significant shootouts, because the rounders-up will soon face many circumstances where they are decimated.
Remember that movie, Jurassic Park, where at the start of the movie, we saw the computer engineer of the Jurassic Park island run his jeep off the road, wherein he was face-to-face in the mud looking into the eyes of a little, almost cute, frilled lizard-dinosaur? What did that lizard do? It quickly made itself look big by fanning out its frills and screaming horrifically, immobilizing the man (by fear) in order to spray its poison on the man. The man actually had nothing to worry about; all he had to do was back away hastily before the fear-factor of the frills could be implemented by the lizard, or maybe even after that, when the frill and screaming had started (but before the poison flew). But the man did not know this, and did not know that there was therefore nothing to fear at all. The lizard making itself look bigger was not a real threat (it was a unicorn-threat, like the New World Order), but was merely used to put fear into the heart of the man, to get him to lose his rationality, to get him to freeze-up long enough so that the little lizard-dinosaur could spray the poison liquid onto him. But, again, the freeze-causing frilling of the lizard was just an illusion of threat, a display, not based on anything real (not based on actual danger to the man: it was a unicorn-threat). The lizard was really not that big, and the horrific roar, well, that was also just, um, sound waves – how much harm are those, really? The lizard masterfully, successfully put forth a false appearance, showing the lizard to be far larger and scarier than it really was.
The New World Order has only frills and horrific roars (threat-making), but no way to inflict it’s poison (mass roundups, gun confiscations, etc.) unless we have fear and then consequent irrationalism (like the man in Jurassic Park freezing and succumbing to fear). The problem is: this tactic has worked for the New World Order in the past (on unarmed citizenries). So, as stated above, since we already have the weapons and comprise a Jeffersonian militia here in the United States, we then need to realize that our most important tasks are resisting gun control and realizing that this is an info-, education, and deprogramming- war.
How many times have some of us heard somebody say, “oh, you can’t take on the New World Order! They have too many microwave guns, robot warriors, chemical and biological weapons,” and so forth.
In light of what I have written in this article, does this many any sense? So now they want us to believe that an AK-47, a 12 gauge, or a .357 Magnum cannot do any damage to a stupid little robot on a cart? I guarantee you that my AK-47 would turn that thing into a beautiful shower of sparks – a humorous clump of tin! Are we supposed to believe that a microwave gun can’t be damaged by an AR pistol (and wow, if any of you have seen one of those microwave guns, they just look like big shooting-range targets!)? An AR pistol has a bullet that travels over well-over 3000 feet-per-second. So I don’t care what you have in the line of that thing, it’s going to get harmed in a big way! I don’t even care if Steve Quayle’s transdimensional entities pop out of a super-collider somewhere (as Quayle has discussed on the Alex Jones Show), those goolies still won’t like the sting of a .50 cal Desert Eagle or a .223 round of an AR-15. They might want to pop right back into that portal. Why do you think there’s a minister in Kentucky that is having “open carry church”? Answer: well, to fight evil, of course! How could any religious person (or not religious person) not know that? Even invisible New World Order soldiers are more bark than bite: firstly, they can be heard with your ears (and you can shoot in the direction of a sound, can’t you), and they sure will get a bit perturbed if you spray of bullets from poetic bump-firing a Calico 9mm, or if you give them the thunder of the glorious terror of a Saiga! “Turn the other cheek” is about getting along with your neighbor (i.e., other members of the Jeffersonian militia), as it says in that passage in the Bible, and it’s not about giving into criminal (New World Order) government. And I think we all know Jesus was no friend of big government! That’s why the Founders wrote about how guns were to protect us from government, and not for baseless attack of other Jeffersonian-militia-members (i.e., American citizens, who we are to “turn the other cheek” in brotherhood and Constitutional camaraderie). You know, this almost makes it appear that the sound of an AK-47 when fired by a Jeffersonian is like the sound of angels, watching over us. When I am at the shooting range, I can feel that sound so deeply within me, impacting in ever cell of my body; it feels good, like medicine. And anybody who has been to the range and fired an AK knows that the sound, affecting every cell in your body, actually and interestingly feels almost therapeutic (like sound therapy, I’d say). You can think what you want of these words, but to me, when I hear/feel my AK-47, it feels like angels’ wings! I have said, in another article, that the New World Order has many ways to get rid of as many of us as they want right now. But this article shows that they sure can’t do it by the means I think most of us are fearing more than anything: mass roundups and concentration camps. So, really, there is nothing to be afraid of. The New World Order is just a room full of grumpy old people – frilled lizards all!
Source: Restore the Republic
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Vaccine Expert Reveals What You Should Know Before You Roll Up Your Sleeve
Posted by sakerfa on July 2, 2009
(NaturalNews) – A study by the Harvard Medical School of Public Health confirmed that public health officials could convince most people in the U.S. to alter their daily lives, follow government mandates and do as they are told after only a small amount of hyping that a deadly global pandemic was eminent. It documented that people tend to look to the government as a sort of Big Daddy who has their best interests at heart. People think Big Daddy will take care of them and they don’t have to bother taking care of themselves. This mentality has led to an open season of government and government backed corporate abuse resulting in a decline in the standard of life and health in America. It suggests that people will willingly take vaccines they believe have been sponsored by the government without investigating these vaccines on their own. However, a new paper from leading vaccine authority Dr. Sherri Tenpenny shows this may be unwise. She reveals that flu shots merit close examination by those wanting to retain their health.
On June 11th, the decision was made by Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization to declare a Level 6 Pandemic. This is a pandemic alert of the highest order possible. Under Level 6 conditions, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HSS) is able to declare mandatory vaccination under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP). There is no criteria listed stating what constitutes a threat.
The HHS web site says the Secretary may “issue a declaration…that provides immunity from tort liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of (vaccine or other pharmaceutical) countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency…” This means that if you or your child is harmed by a vaccine during these conditions, there is nothing you can do about it.
With this declaration, Big Daddy has made it clear that it would rather protect corporate interests than your interests. This means it is time to stop giving the government your blind faith. It is time to become educated about flu vaccines.
Here are Dr. Tenpenny’s well documented findings in the form of questions everyone should be asking.
What is in the regular flu shot?
What we have come to know as the seasonal flu shot is made from:
Egg proteins: including avian contaminated viruses
Gelatin: known to cause allergic reactions and anaphylaxis usually associated with sensitivity to egg or gelatin (anaphylaxis is a rapidly progressing, life-threatening allergic reaction)
Polysorbate 80, (trademarked at Tween 80): a preservative that can cause severe allergic reactions including anaphylaxis.
Formaldehyde: a known carcinogen.
The shot also contains Triton X100 (a strong detergent), table sugar, resin that is known to cause allergic reactions, and an antibiotic (Gentamycin). Multi-dose vials also contain thimerosal, a preservative made with mercury, a known neurotoxin. Infants and children are most at risk for neurological damage from mercury because their nervous systems are still developing. Neurological dysfunctions are also common in adults who have ingested mercury.
Do flu shots work?
The flu shot does not work for babies. In a review of 51 studies involving more than 294,000 children, it was found there was “no evidence that injecting children 6 to 24 months of age with a flu shot was any more effective than a placebo. In children over the age of 2 years, it was effective only 33% of the time in preventing the flu. (”Vaccines for preventing influenza in health children”, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2008)
The flu shot does not work in children with asthma. In a study of 800 children with asthma in which one half were vaccinated and the other half were not, the two groups were compared with respect to clinic visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations for asthma. The researchers concluded that no evidence was provided that the influenza vaccine prevented pediatric asthma exacerbations (Christly, C. et al, “Effectiveness of influenza vaccine for the prevention of asthma exacerbations.” Arch Dis Child, August, 2004, 734-5)
“The inactivated flu vaccine, Flumist, does not prevent influenza-related hospitalizations in children, especially the ones with asthma…In fact, children who get the flu vaccine are more at risk for hospitalization than children who do not get the vaccine.” (The American Thoracic Society’s International Conference, May 15-20, 2009, San Diego)
Adults are also not protected by flu vaccine. In a review of 48 reports including more than 66,000 adults, “Vaccination of healthy adults only reduced risk of influenza by 6%, and reduced the number of missed work days by less than one day (0.16). It did not change the number of people needing to go to a hospital or take time off work.” (”Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults,” The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2006)
Although the hype is that the elderly must be protected, in a review of 64 studies in 98 flu seasons, for elderly living in nursing homes, flu shots were non-significant for preventing the flu. For elderly living in the community, vaccines were not significantly effective against influenza, ILI or pneumonia. (”Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly,” The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2006)
What about the new “Swine Flu” shot?
A new report from a World Health Organization advisory group predicts that global production of vaccine for the novel H1N1 influenza virus could be as much as 4.9 billion doses a year, far higher than previous estimates. The new H1N1 (”swine flu“) vaccine is being made by the pharmaceutical company Novartis. It will contain MF59, a potentially debilitating adjuvant.
MF-59 is oil-based and composed of squalene, Tween 80 and Span85. All oil adjuvants injected into rats were found to be toxic. All rats injected developed a disease similar to multiple sclerosis which left them crippled and dragging their paralyzed hindquarters across their cages. (Kenney, RT. Edleman, R. “Survey of human-use adjuvants,” Expert Review of Vaccines, 2003 p171)
Squalene causes severe arthritis (3 on a scale of 4). Squalene in humans at 10-20 parts per billion leads to severe immune responses, such as autoimmune arthritis and lupus. (Matsumoto, Gary. Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That’s Killing Our Soldiers and Why GI’s Are Only the First Victims of this Vaccine, New York: Basic Books. P54)
Federal health officials will probably recommend that most Americans get three flu shots this fall: one regular flu shot and two doses of any vaccine made against the new swine flu strain. (Washington Post, Wednesday, May 6)
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is talking to school superintendents around the country, urging them to spend the summer planning what to do if the government decides it needs their buildings for mass vaccinations and the vaccinations of children first. (CBS News, June 12)
Is mandatory vaccination possible?
In 1946, the U.S. Public Health Service was established and Executive Order 9708 was signed, listing the communicable diseases where quarantines could be used. Between 1946 and 2003, cholera, diphtheria, TB, typhoid, small pox, yellow fever, and viral hemorrhagic fevers were added to the list. In April, 2003, SARS was also added through Executive Order 13295.
In January, 2003, Project BioShield was introduced during Bush’s State of the Union Address. This created permanent and indefinite funding authority to develop “medical countermeasures”. The National Institute of Health was authorized to speed approval of drugs and vaccines. Emergency approval of a “fast tracked” drug and vaccine can be given without the regular course of safety testing.
In April, 2005, Executive Order 13295 added “Influenza caused by novel or re-emergent influenza viruses that are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic.” Under this order, the president gave the secretary of HHS the power to quarantine, at his or her discretion.
The secretary of HHS has the power to arrange for the “apprehension and examination of persons reasonably thought to be infected.” A cough or a fever could put a person at risk for being quarantined for an extended period of time without recourse.
December 17, 2006, Division E: The Public readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act was added as an addendum to Defense Appropriations Bill HR 2863 at 11:20 on Saturday night, long after House Committee members had signed off on the bill and gone home for the holidays. Section (b)(1) states that the secretary of HHS can make a determination that a “disease, health condition or threat” constitutes a public health emergency. He or she may then recommend “the manufacture, testing, development, administration, or use of one or more covered counter measures…” A covered countermeasure is defined as a “pandemic product, vaccine or drug.”
Division E also provides complete liability protection for all drugs, vaccines or biological products deemed a “covered counter measure” and used for an outbreak of any kind. Complete liability protection has been given to drug companies for any product used for any public health emergency declared by the secretary of HHS. This means that pharmaceutical companies are now protected from all accountability, unless “criminal intent to do harm” can be proven by the injured party. They are protected from liability even if they know the drug will be harmful.
What can I do about all this?
Here are a few of Dr. Tenpenny’s suggestions. You can add your own ideas to this list once you let your mind wrap itself around this issue.
Give this information to everyone you know and love. Contact local first responders (EMTs, paramedics, fireman, etc). Tell them what will be in the flu shots and that they will be the first ones to get them. Tell local police and discuss your concerns about mandatory vaccination. Contact local city council members about your desire to preserve your liberties. You will need their support to maintain your right to refuse vaccination.
Write an article for your local community newspapers. Samples will be posted soon on www.DrTenpenny.com. Go to www.oath-keepers.org. A PDF of their oath for easy printing will be posted on Dr. Tenpenny’s site. Connect with other activist organizations, such as those supporting 2nd amendment issues, the environment and animal rights. Help spread the word about their passion and get them involved with yours.
Sign the Universal Declaration of Resistance to Mandatory Vaccination at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/a-…
To learn more about Dr. Tenpenny and her stance on vaccines see http://www.naturalnews.com/025941_v…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d…
http://www.newswithviews.com/Tenpen…
Review the “Pandemic Influenza Survey” at
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/panflu/…
Source: Natural News
(NaturalNews) – A study by the Harvard Medical School of Public Health confirmed that public health officials could convince most people in the U.S. to alter their daily lives, follow government mandates and do as they are told after only a small amount of hyping that a deadly global pandemic was eminent. It documented that people tend to look to the government as a sort of Big Daddy who has their best interests at heart. People think Big Daddy will take care of them and they don’t have to bother taking care of themselves. This mentality has led to an open season of government and government backed corporate abuse resulting in a decline in the standard of life and health in America. It suggests that people will willingly take vaccines they believe have been sponsored by the government without investigating these vaccines on their own. However, a new paper from leading vaccine authority Dr. Sherri Tenpenny shows this may be unwise. She reveals that flu shots merit close examination by those wanting to retain their health.
On June 11th, the decision was made by Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization to declare a Level 6 Pandemic. This is a pandemic alert of the highest order possible. Under Level 6 conditions, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HSS) is able to declare mandatory vaccination under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP). There is no criteria listed stating what constitutes a threat.
The HHS web site says the Secretary may “issue a declaration…that provides immunity from tort liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of (vaccine or other pharmaceutical) countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency…” This means that if you or your child is harmed by a vaccine during these conditions, there is nothing you can do about it.
With this declaration, Big Daddy has made it clear that it would rather protect corporate interests than your interests. This means it is time to stop giving the government your blind faith. It is time to become educated about flu vaccines.
Here are Dr. Tenpenny’s well documented findings in the form of questions everyone should be asking.
What is in the regular flu shot?
What we have come to know as the seasonal flu shot is made from:
Egg proteins: including avian contaminated viruses
Gelatin: known to cause allergic reactions and anaphylaxis usually associated with sensitivity to egg or gelatin (anaphylaxis is a rapidly progressing, life-threatening allergic reaction)
Polysorbate 80, (trademarked at Tween 80): a preservative that can cause severe allergic reactions including anaphylaxis.
Formaldehyde: a known carcinogen.
The shot also contains Triton X100 (a strong detergent), table sugar, resin that is known to cause allergic reactions, and an antibiotic (Gentamycin). Multi-dose vials also contain thimerosal, a preservative made with mercury, a known neurotoxin. Infants and children are most at risk for neurological damage from mercury because their nervous systems are still developing. Neurological dysfunctions are also common in adults who have ingested mercury.
Do flu shots work?
The flu shot does not work for babies. In a review of 51 studies involving more than 294,000 children, it was found there was “no evidence that injecting children 6 to 24 months of age with a flu shot was any more effective than a placebo. In children over the age of 2 years, it was effective only 33% of the time in preventing the flu. (”Vaccines for preventing influenza in health children”, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2008)
The flu shot does not work in children with asthma. In a study of 800 children with asthma in which one half were vaccinated and the other half were not, the two groups were compared with respect to clinic visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations for asthma. The researchers concluded that no evidence was provided that the influenza vaccine prevented pediatric asthma exacerbations (Christly, C. et al, “Effectiveness of influenza vaccine for the prevention of asthma exacerbations.” Arch Dis Child, August, 2004, 734-5)
“The inactivated flu vaccine, Flumist, does not prevent influenza-related hospitalizations in children, especially the ones with asthma…In fact, children who get the flu vaccine are more at risk for hospitalization than children who do not get the vaccine.” (The American Thoracic Society’s International Conference, May 15-20, 2009, San Diego)
Adults are also not protected by flu vaccine. In a review of 48 reports including more than 66,000 adults, “Vaccination of healthy adults only reduced risk of influenza by 6%, and reduced the number of missed work days by less than one day (0.16). It did not change the number of people needing to go to a hospital or take time off work.” (”Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults,” The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2006)
Although the hype is that the elderly must be protected, in a review of 64 studies in 98 flu seasons, for elderly living in nursing homes, flu shots were non-significant for preventing the flu. For elderly living in the community, vaccines were not significantly effective against influenza, ILI or pneumonia. (”Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly,” The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2006)
What about the new “Swine Flu” shot?
A new report from a World Health Organization advisory group predicts that global production of vaccine for the novel H1N1 influenza virus could be as much as 4.9 billion doses a year, far higher than previous estimates. The new H1N1 (”swine flu“) vaccine is being made by the pharmaceutical company Novartis. It will contain MF59, a potentially debilitating adjuvant.
MF-59 is oil-based and composed of squalene, Tween 80 and Span85. All oil adjuvants injected into rats were found to be toxic. All rats injected developed a disease similar to multiple sclerosis which left them crippled and dragging their paralyzed hindquarters across their cages. (Kenney, RT. Edleman, R. “Survey of human-use adjuvants,” Expert Review of Vaccines, 2003 p171)
Squalene causes severe arthritis (3 on a scale of 4). Squalene in humans at 10-20 parts per billion leads to severe immune responses, such as autoimmune arthritis and lupus. (Matsumoto, Gary. Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That’s Killing Our Soldiers and Why GI’s Are Only the First Victims of this Vaccine, New York: Basic Books. P54)
Federal health officials will probably recommend that most Americans get three flu shots this fall: one regular flu shot and two doses of any vaccine made against the new swine flu strain. (Washington Post, Wednesday, May 6)
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is talking to school superintendents around the country, urging them to spend the summer planning what to do if the government decides it needs their buildings for mass vaccinations and the vaccinations of children first. (CBS News, June 12)
Is mandatory vaccination possible?
In 1946, the U.S. Public Health Service was established and Executive Order 9708 was signed, listing the communicable diseases where quarantines could be used. Between 1946 and 2003, cholera, diphtheria, TB, typhoid, small pox, yellow fever, and viral hemorrhagic fevers were added to the list. In April, 2003, SARS was also added through Executive Order 13295.
In January, 2003, Project BioShield was introduced during Bush’s State of the Union Address. This created permanent and indefinite funding authority to develop “medical countermeasures”. The National Institute of Health was authorized to speed approval of drugs and vaccines. Emergency approval of a “fast tracked” drug and vaccine can be given without the regular course of safety testing.
In April, 2005, Executive Order 13295 added “Influenza caused by novel or re-emergent influenza viruses that are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic.” Under this order, the president gave the secretary of HHS the power to quarantine, at his or her discretion.
The secretary of HHS has the power to arrange for the “apprehension and examination of persons reasonably thought to be infected.” A cough or a fever could put a person at risk for being quarantined for an extended period of time without recourse.
December 17, 2006, Division E: The Public readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act was added as an addendum to Defense Appropriations Bill HR 2863 at 11:20 on Saturday night, long after House Committee members had signed off on the bill and gone home for the holidays. Section (b)(1) states that the secretary of HHS can make a determination that a “disease, health condition or threat” constitutes a public health emergency. He or she may then recommend “the manufacture, testing, development, administration, or use of one or more covered counter measures…” A covered countermeasure is defined as a “pandemic product, vaccine or drug.”
Division E also provides complete liability protection for all drugs, vaccines or biological products deemed a “covered counter measure” and used for an outbreak of any kind. Complete liability protection has been given to drug companies for any product used for any public health emergency declared by the secretary of HHS. This means that pharmaceutical companies are now protected from all accountability, unless “criminal intent to do harm” can be proven by the injured party. They are protected from liability even if they know the drug will be harmful.
What can I do about all this?
Here are a few of Dr. Tenpenny’s suggestions. You can add your own ideas to this list once you let your mind wrap itself around this issue.
Give this information to everyone you know and love. Contact local first responders (EMTs, paramedics, fireman, etc). Tell them what will be in the flu shots and that they will be the first ones to get them. Tell local police and discuss your concerns about mandatory vaccination. Contact local city council members about your desire to preserve your liberties. You will need their support to maintain your right to refuse vaccination.
Write an article for your local community newspapers. Samples will be posted soon on www.DrTenpenny.com. Go to www.oath-keepers.org. A PDF of their oath for easy printing will be posted on Dr. Tenpenny’s site. Connect with other activist organizations, such as those supporting 2nd amendment issues, the environment and animal rights. Help spread the word about their passion and get them involved with yours.
Sign the Universal Declaration of Resistance to Mandatory Vaccination at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/a-…
To learn more about Dr. Tenpenny and her stance on vaccines see http://www.naturalnews.com/025941_v…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d…
http://www.newswithviews.com/Tenpen…
Review the “Pandemic Influenza Survey” at
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/panflu/…
Source: Natural News
RED ALERT: The Total Takeover Of America Enters Its Final Phase
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.
Source: PrisonPlanet.com
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.
Source: PrisonPlanet.com
WHY DOESN'T OBAMA CARE ABOUT FREEDOM?
By Cliff Kincaid
June 27, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
If you recognize that Obama failed to vigorously and immediately support the pro-freedom demonstrators in Iran, take a look at his attitude toward those suffering under the Castro dictatorship.
An extraordinary editorial ran in the liberal Washington Post on Thursday, June 25, about the indifference of the Obama White House to the plight of those who believe in freedom just 90 miles from our shores. The editorial, “A Dissident Deflected,” told the story of how the Obama Administration wouldn’t issue a statement recognizing the plight of five human rights activists in Cuba until the Post itself inquired about the matter.
The five leaders of Cuba’s pro-democracy movement were recipients of the National Endowment for Democracy’s 2009 Democracy Award. It was expected that they would not be allowed by the Castro regime to travel from Cuba to the U.S. to accept their award. But it wasn’t expected, at least by the Post, that the Obama White House would seem unconcerned about their struggle for freedom.
The Post explained, “None were able to travel to Washington. They have been represented here by Bertha Antúnez, sister of Jorge Luis GarcÃa Pérez. And Ms. Antúnez, an Afro-Cuban who was active in the Rosa Parks movement before she was forced into exile a year ago, has been snubbed by President Obama. Requests that he meet with her went unanswered. Only as the ceremony began did the White House issue a brief statement.”
The paper said that “Mr. Obama’s hastily drafted statement—issued after The Post inquired about his silence—said he wished ‘to acknowledge and commend’ the five dissidents ‘and all the brave men and women who are standing up for the right of the Cuban people to freely determine their country’s future.’”
The belated “Statement of President Obama on NED 2009 Democracy Award Recipients” consisted of one paragraph:
“I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and commend the National Endowment for Democracy's 2009 Democracy Award recipients Jorge Luis Garcia Perez, Jose Daniel Ferrer Garcia, Librado Linares, Ivan Hernandez Carrillo, and Iris Tamara Perez Aguilera and all the brave men and women who are standing up for the right of the Cuban people to freely determine their country’s future. Like too many of their fellow citizens, four of these individuals have been unjustly jailed for defending the basic freedoms we all hold dear in the Americas. It is my sincere hope that all political prisoners who remain jailed, including three of today’s award recipients, will be unconditionally released and allowed to fully participate in a democratic future in Cuba.”
As important as the Post editorial was, Jack Otero of the Committee for Free Trade Unionism wrote a letter to the paper noting that the Post failed to highlight a leader of the Cuban independent labor movement by the name of Iván Hernández Carrillo, who is serving a 25-year prison term since his arrest in 2003. Otero said that Hernández Carrillo is imprisoned for the “crime” of organizing unions not beholden to the communist-controlled Cuban Labor Confederation. “The Post should have acknowledged that labor activists in Cuba also risk their lives for freedom,” he said.
This takes on more interest because we recently discovered that a top official of the AFL-CIO, Karen Nussbaum, who spoke at a major “progressive” conference in Washington, D.C., is stonewalling questions about how she traveled to Cuba as a young radical and came away gushing about the Castro dictatorship. She went to Cuba on the Venceremos Brigades organized by Obama’s political associate Bernardine Dohrn, then a member of the communist terrorist Weather Underground.
But the Post editorial raised questions about Obama’s indifference toward Cuban freedom fighters in the context of his treatment of other Latin American Marxists.
The paper commented, “It’s not that the president is too busy to concern himself with Latin American politics. The White House arranged for a Spanish journalist to ask a question at Tuesday’s news conference; reporter Macarena Vidal pressed Mr. Obama on whether U.S. allies such as Chile and Colombia were doing enough to help with ‘less democratic countries.’ The president replied by heaping praise on visiting Chilean President Michele Bachelet, a socialist who has been promoting Cuba’s readmission into the Organization of American States and who has gone out of her way to avoid offending Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez. ‘Chile is leading by example,’ Mr. Obama said, adding that its good relationship with Washington despite political differences ‘points the way for other countries…where the democratic tradition is not as deeply embedded as we’d like it to be.’”
The Post said that the message from Obama to Chávez and the Castro brothers was that “We can work with you” while the message to Cuba’s democratic opposition was “We don’t have time for you.”
This is an extraordinary indictment of Obama from the viewpoint of a liberal newspaper that now recognizes the far-left nature of the President’s policies toward Latin America.
The paper then wondered if the brief Obama statement about the Cuban dissidents would be enough to satisfy the democratic forces opposed to the Communist dictatorship. “We suspect not,” said the paper. “They, like the beleaguered pro-democracy movements of Venezuela and Nicaragua, are hoping that the American president will focus his policy on supporting them. Yet for now, Mr. Obama’s diplomacy is clearly centered on their oppressors.”
The sub-headline for the Post editorial was, “Why doesn’t President Obama have time for Cuba’s pro-democracy opposition?” Considering his failure to immediately and actively express support for the brave freedom fighters in Iran, the answer should be obvious by now. He doesn’t believe in the freedom agenda.
Some of us knew this was coming and predicted it. Unlike most of the media, we had examined the influences behind Obama, such as Communist Frank Marshall Davis, his mentor and father-figure, and understood before the election that this was a candidate who viewed America and the American way of life as the main problems in the world. Obama is truly a revolutionary Marxist who sympathizes not with those being oppressed by anti-American governments but with the governments themselves.
Another example of this attitude can be seen in the U.N. conference that has been underway in New York, where the Obama Administration is facilitating the work of anti-American crackpot Miguel D’Escoto, the U.N. General Assembly President whose most notable distinctions include being suspended from his priestly duties because of his communist political activities and receiving the Lenin Peace Prize from the old Soviet Union.
Source: New With Veiws.com
June 27, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
If you recognize that Obama failed to vigorously and immediately support the pro-freedom demonstrators in Iran, take a look at his attitude toward those suffering under the Castro dictatorship.
An extraordinary editorial ran in the liberal Washington Post on Thursday, June 25, about the indifference of the Obama White House to the plight of those who believe in freedom just 90 miles from our shores. The editorial, “A Dissident Deflected,” told the story of how the Obama Administration wouldn’t issue a statement recognizing the plight of five human rights activists in Cuba until the Post itself inquired about the matter.
The five leaders of Cuba’s pro-democracy movement were recipients of the National Endowment for Democracy’s 2009 Democracy Award. It was expected that they would not be allowed by the Castro regime to travel from Cuba to the U.S. to accept their award. But it wasn’t expected, at least by the Post, that the Obama White House would seem unconcerned about their struggle for freedom.
The Post explained, “None were able to travel to Washington. They have been represented here by Bertha Antúnez, sister of Jorge Luis GarcÃa Pérez. And Ms. Antúnez, an Afro-Cuban who was active in the Rosa Parks movement before she was forced into exile a year ago, has been snubbed by President Obama. Requests that he meet with her went unanswered. Only as the ceremony began did the White House issue a brief statement.”
The paper said that “Mr. Obama’s hastily drafted statement—issued after The Post inquired about his silence—said he wished ‘to acknowledge and commend’ the five dissidents ‘and all the brave men and women who are standing up for the right of the Cuban people to freely determine their country’s future.’”
The belated “Statement of President Obama on NED 2009 Democracy Award Recipients” consisted of one paragraph:
“I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and commend the National Endowment for Democracy's 2009 Democracy Award recipients Jorge Luis Garcia Perez, Jose Daniel Ferrer Garcia, Librado Linares, Ivan Hernandez Carrillo, and Iris Tamara Perez Aguilera and all the brave men and women who are standing up for the right of the Cuban people to freely determine their country’s future. Like too many of their fellow citizens, four of these individuals have been unjustly jailed for defending the basic freedoms we all hold dear in the Americas. It is my sincere hope that all political prisoners who remain jailed, including three of today’s award recipients, will be unconditionally released and allowed to fully participate in a democratic future in Cuba.”
As important as the Post editorial was, Jack Otero of the Committee for Free Trade Unionism wrote a letter to the paper noting that the Post failed to highlight a leader of the Cuban independent labor movement by the name of Iván Hernández Carrillo, who is serving a 25-year prison term since his arrest in 2003. Otero said that Hernández Carrillo is imprisoned for the “crime” of organizing unions not beholden to the communist-controlled Cuban Labor Confederation. “The Post should have acknowledged that labor activists in Cuba also risk their lives for freedom,” he said.
This takes on more interest because we recently discovered that a top official of the AFL-CIO, Karen Nussbaum, who spoke at a major “progressive” conference in Washington, D.C., is stonewalling questions about how she traveled to Cuba as a young radical and came away gushing about the Castro dictatorship. She went to Cuba on the Venceremos Brigades organized by Obama’s political associate Bernardine Dohrn, then a member of the communist terrorist Weather Underground.
But the Post editorial raised questions about Obama’s indifference toward Cuban freedom fighters in the context of his treatment of other Latin American Marxists.
The paper commented, “It’s not that the president is too busy to concern himself with Latin American politics. The White House arranged for a Spanish journalist to ask a question at Tuesday’s news conference; reporter Macarena Vidal pressed Mr. Obama on whether U.S. allies such as Chile and Colombia were doing enough to help with ‘less democratic countries.’ The president replied by heaping praise on visiting Chilean President Michele Bachelet, a socialist who has been promoting Cuba’s readmission into the Organization of American States and who has gone out of her way to avoid offending Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez. ‘Chile is leading by example,’ Mr. Obama said, adding that its good relationship with Washington despite political differences ‘points the way for other countries…where the democratic tradition is not as deeply embedded as we’d like it to be.’”
The Post said that the message from Obama to Chávez and the Castro brothers was that “We can work with you” while the message to Cuba’s democratic opposition was “We don’t have time for you.”
This is an extraordinary indictment of Obama from the viewpoint of a liberal newspaper that now recognizes the far-left nature of the President’s policies toward Latin America.
The paper then wondered if the brief Obama statement about the Cuban dissidents would be enough to satisfy the democratic forces opposed to the Communist dictatorship. “We suspect not,” said the paper. “They, like the beleaguered pro-democracy movements of Venezuela and Nicaragua, are hoping that the American president will focus his policy on supporting them. Yet for now, Mr. Obama’s diplomacy is clearly centered on their oppressors.”
The sub-headline for the Post editorial was, “Why doesn’t President Obama have time for Cuba’s pro-democracy opposition?” Considering his failure to immediately and actively express support for the brave freedom fighters in Iran, the answer should be obvious by now. He doesn’t believe in the freedom agenda.
Some of us knew this was coming and predicted it. Unlike most of the media, we had examined the influences behind Obama, such as Communist Frank Marshall Davis, his mentor and father-figure, and understood before the election that this was a candidate who viewed America and the American way of life as the main problems in the world. Obama is truly a revolutionary Marxist who sympathizes not with those being oppressed by anti-American governments but with the governments themselves.
Another example of this attitude can be seen in the U.N. conference that has been underway in New York, where the Obama Administration is facilitating the work of anti-American crackpot Miguel D’Escoto, the U.N. General Assembly President whose most notable distinctions include being suspended from his priestly duties because of his communist political activities and receiving the Lenin Peace Prize from the old Soviet Union.
Source: New With Veiws.com
HOMELAND SECURITY AND US ARMY PLAN INVASION OF STATES
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
by NWV News, Jim Kouri
June 26, 2009
© 2008 NewsWithViews.com
The Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security recently hosted a teleconference for law enforcement agencies and associations such as the National Association of Chiefs of Police to discuss the Obama Administration's interest in using the military during "emergencies."
Fortunately, NewsWithViews.com had exclusive access to the discussion and the explanations by Homeland Security and Defense Departments officials.
Officials announced during the teleconference that the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator W. Craig Fugate met with the Commander, US Northern Command, General Gene Renuart, to discuss "pre-disaster planning, response and recovery in support of the federal response to the 2009 hurricane season as well as wild fires, floods and other potential disasters."
The meeting reinforced the important relationship between the two organizations and focused on the operational role of US Northern Command and what resources and skills they bring to any major Federal effort related to all-hazards preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation. It was also an opportunity to meet operational leaders who would fill key positions in those support efforts.
"NORTHCOM plays a vital role in disaster response in support of state and local officials," Fugate said. "I am impressed by their commitment to teamwork and interoperability. They are leaning forward and are solutions-oriented partners among the nation's emergency response team."
"We are committed to teaming with and supporting our civilian partners," added Renuart. "If our federal partners, state and local officials are successful in responding to contingency operations, then ultimately we are successful. We look forward to our continued collaboration and cooperation."
However, many law enforcement executives and organizations went on the record saying they did not appreciate the prospect of federal troops usurping the authority of local and state law enforcement agencies or the role of the National Guard unit currently under the control of governors.
"My initial reaction is: why are we allowing federal troops to basically invade the sovereignty of individual states when each state has its own law enforcement agencies and each state possesses an armed and trained National Guard and, in the case of some states such as New York, a trained militia?" according to New York police officer Edna Aquino.
"We have not used armed federal troops in New York since the Civil War when Union troops and Navy battleships attacked dissenters who opposed conscription by the Union Army," she added.
According to officials from the Homeland Security Department, FEMA and Northern Command share a common interest and a unified approach to disaster response and recovery.
"Both organizations also understand that the most effective plans to save lives and protect property begins with preparedness. This meeting was an important stepping stone to ensure mutual preparedness and effective planning in support of state and local officials," said one official.
Homeland Security Department officials offered these two rationales for their joint ventures with the Department of Defense:
"Emergency preparedness is everyone's responsibility. Everyone should have a personal response plan for a disaster, everyone should know who their first responders are at the local and state level, and everyone should be prepared to be self-sufficient for at least the first 72 hours.
"FEMA's mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards."
Political strategist Mike Baker is disturbed over this latest "emergency plan" designed to allow federal troops to operate freely within US borders.
"This is a constitutionally unsound development for our nation. While President Barack Obama and his ilk worry about how America's military is perceived by other nations and are concerned with how we treat enemies, they seem to be willing to use extreme measures against their own citizens.
Will we witness another Branch Davidian massacre in the name of 'emergency response' or other rationale? It's not a positive development for this nation," said Baker.
Northcom was established about a year after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and is responsible for an area of operations that includes the United States, Canada and Mexico. It serves as a "one-stop-shopping" point for military support in case of an attack on American soil. However, according to officials speaking during the teleconference, the Obama Administration is expanding that role to include natural disasters or emergencies that were once the domain of state and local authorities.
Over the years, according to Baker, the federal government has expanded its role and even included other nations in operational plans within the US. For example NORAD is a joint US-Canadian command established 51 years ago to defend against nuclear-armed Soviet aircraft entering North American airspace. Decades later, the command's mission has expanded to include early detection of threats via air, space, land and sea.
The sheer number of participants speaks to NORAD's level of preparation and coordination to operate within US borders. Teaming up to deal with emergencies are American and Canadian NORAD agents, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Transportation Security Administration, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, NAV Canada, the White House, U.S. Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.
Source: News with Views.com
by NWV News, Jim Kouri
June 26, 2009
© 2008 NewsWithViews.com
The Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security recently hosted a teleconference for law enforcement agencies and associations such as the National Association of Chiefs of Police to discuss the Obama Administration's interest in using the military during "emergencies."
Fortunately, NewsWithViews.com had exclusive access to the discussion and the explanations by Homeland Security and Defense Departments officials.
Officials announced during the teleconference that the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator W. Craig Fugate met with the Commander, US Northern Command, General Gene Renuart, to discuss "pre-disaster planning, response and recovery in support of the federal response to the 2009 hurricane season as well as wild fires, floods and other potential disasters."
The meeting reinforced the important relationship between the two organizations and focused on the operational role of US Northern Command and what resources and skills they bring to any major Federal effort related to all-hazards preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation. It was also an opportunity to meet operational leaders who would fill key positions in those support efforts.
"NORTHCOM plays a vital role in disaster response in support of state and local officials," Fugate said. "I am impressed by their commitment to teamwork and interoperability. They are leaning forward and are solutions-oriented partners among the nation's emergency response team."
"We are committed to teaming with and supporting our civilian partners," added Renuart. "If our federal partners, state and local officials are successful in responding to contingency operations, then ultimately we are successful. We look forward to our continued collaboration and cooperation."
However, many law enforcement executives and organizations went on the record saying they did not appreciate the prospect of federal troops usurping the authority of local and state law enforcement agencies or the role of the National Guard unit currently under the control of governors.
"My initial reaction is: why are we allowing federal troops to basically invade the sovereignty of individual states when each state has its own law enforcement agencies and each state possesses an armed and trained National Guard and, in the case of some states such as New York, a trained militia?" according to New York police officer Edna Aquino.
"We have not used armed federal troops in New York since the Civil War when Union troops and Navy battleships attacked dissenters who opposed conscription by the Union Army," she added.
According to officials from the Homeland Security Department, FEMA and Northern Command share a common interest and a unified approach to disaster response and recovery.
"Both organizations also understand that the most effective plans to save lives and protect property begins with preparedness. This meeting was an important stepping stone to ensure mutual preparedness and effective planning in support of state and local officials," said one official.
Homeland Security Department officials offered these two rationales for their joint ventures with the Department of Defense:
"Emergency preparedness is everyone's responsibility. Everyone should have a personal response plan for a disaster, everyone should know who their first responders are at the local and state level, and everyone should be prepared to be self-sufficient for at least the first 72 hours.
"FEMA's mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards."
Political strategist Mike Baker is disturbed over this latest "emergency plan" designed to allow federal troops to operate freely within US borders.
"This is a constitutionally unsound development for our nation. While President Barack Obama and his ilk worry about how America's military is perceived by other nations and are concerned with how we treat enemies, they seem to be willing to use extreme measures against their own citizens.
Will we witness another Branch Davidian massacre in the name of 'emergency response' or other rationale? It's not a positive development for this nation," said Baker.
Northcom was established about a year after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and is responsible for an area of operations that includes the United States, Canada and Mexico. It serves as a "one-stop-shopping" point for military support in case of an attack on American soil. However, according to officials speaking during the teleconference, the Obama Administration is expanding that role to include natural disasters or emergencies that were once the domain of state and local authorities.
Over the years, according to Baker, the federal government has expanded its role and even included other nations in operational plans within the US. For example NORAD is a joint US-Canadian command established 51 years ago to defend against nuclear-armed Soviet aircraft entering North American airspace. Decades later, the command's mission has expanded to include early detection of threats via air, space, land and sea.
The sheer number of participants speaks to NORAD's level of preparation and coordination to operate within US borders. Teaming up to deal with emergencies are American and Canadian NORAD agents, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Transportation Security Administration, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, NAV Canada, the White House, U.S. Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.
Source: News with Views.com
Gun Control: What Is the Agenda?
Paul Craig Roberts
Infowars
June 26, 2009
Some years or decades ago I researched and reported on the Sullivan Act, one of America’s first gun control laws.
New York state senator Timothy Sullivan, a corrupt Tammany Hall politician, represented New York’s Red Hook district. Commercial travelers passing through the district would be relieved of their valuables by armed robbers. In order to protect themselves and their property, travelers armed themselves. This raised the risk of, and reduced the profit from, robbery. Sullivan’s outlaw constituents demanded that Sullivan introduce a law that would prohibit concealed carry of pistols, blackjacks, and daggers, thus reducing the risk to robbers from armed victims.
The criminals, of course, were already breaking the law and had no intention of being deterred by the Sullivan Act from their business activity of armed robbery. Thus, the effect of the Sullivan Act was precisely what the criminals intended. It made their life of crime easier.
As the first successful gun control advocates were criminals, I have often wondered what agenda lies behind the well-organized and propagandistic gun control organizations and their donors and sponsors in the US today. The propaganda issued by these organizations consists of transparent lies.
Consider the propagandistic term, “gun violence,” popularized by gun control advocates. This is a form of reification by which inanimate objects are imbued with the ability to act and to commit violence. Guns, of course, cannot be violent in themselves. Violence comes from people who use guns and a variety of other weapons, including fists, to commit violence.
Nevertheless, we hear incessantly the Orwellian Newspeak term, “gun violence.”
Very few children are killed by firearm accidents compared to other causes of child deaths. Yet, gun control advocates have created the false impression that there is a national epidemic in accidental firearm deaths of children. In fact, the National MCH Center for Child Death Review, an organization that monitors causes of child deaths, reports that seven times more children die from drowning and five times more from suffocation than from firearm accidents. Yet we don’t hear of “drowning violence,” “swimming pool violence,” “bathtub violence,” or “suffocation violence.”
The National MCH Center for Child Death Review reports that 174 children eighteen years old and under died from firearm accidents in 2000. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control reports that 125 children eighteen years old and under died from firearm accidents in 2006. In 2006 there were 77,845,285 youths in that age bracket.
In 2006 violence-related firearm deaths of eighteen year olds and under totaled 2,191. A large percentage of these deaths appear to be teenagers fighting over drug turf.
According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, drugs are “one of the main factors leading to the total number of all homicides. . . . murders related to narcotics still rank as the fourth most documented murder circumstance out of 24 possible categories.”
According to the National Drug Control Policy, trafficking in illicit drugs is associated with the commission of violent crimes for the following reasons: “competition for drug markets and customers, disputes and rip-offs among individuals involved in the illegal drug market, [and] the tendency toward violence of individuals who participate in drug trafficking.” Another dimension of drug-related crime is “committing an offense to obtain money (or goods to sell to get money) to support drug use.”
Obviously, decriminalizing drugs would be the greatest single factor in reducing incarceration rates, the crime rate, and the homicide rate. Yet, gun control advocates do not support this obvious solution to “gun violence.”
Those who want to outlaw guns have not explained why it would be any more effective than outlawing drugs, alcohol, robbery, rape, and murder. All the crimes for which guns are used are already illegal, and they keep on occurring, just as they did before guns existed.
So what is the real agenda? Why do gun control advocates want to override the Second Amendment. Why do they not acknowledge that if the Second Amendment can be over-ridden, so can every other protection of civil liberty?
There are careful studies that conclude that armed citizens prevent one to two million crimes every year. Other studies show that in-home robberies, rapes, and assaults occur more frequently in jurisdictions that suffer from gun control ordinances. Other studies show that most states with right-to-carry laws have experienced a drop in crimes against persons.
Why do gun control advocates want to increase the crime rate in the US?
Why is the gun control agenda a propagandistic one draped in lies?
The NRA is the largest and best-known organization among the defenders of the Second Amendment. Yet, a case might be made that manufacturers’ gun advertisements in the NRA’s magazines stoke the hysteria of gun control advocates.
Full page ads offering civilian versions of weapons used by “America’s elite warriors” in US Special Operations Command, SWAT, and by covert agents “who work in a dark world most of us can’t even understand,” are likely to scare the pants off people who are afraid of guns.
Many of the modern weapons are ugly as sin. Their appearance is threatening, unlike the beautiful lines of a Winchester lever action or single shot rifle, or a Colt single action revolver, or the WW II 45 caliber semi-automatic pistol, guns that do not have menacing appearances. Everyone knows that they are guns, but they are also works of art.
A little advertising discretion might go a long way in quieting fears that are manipulated by gun control advocates.
The same goes for hunters. Recent news reports of “hunters” slaughtering wolves from airplanes in Alaska and of a hunter, indeed, a poacher, who shot a protected rare wolf in the US Southwest and left the dead animal in the road, enrage people who have empathy with animals and wildlife. Many Americans have had such bad experiences with their fellow citizens that they regard their dogs and cats, and wildlife, as more intelligent and noble life forms than humans. Wild animals can be dangerous, but they are not evil.
Americans with empathy for animals are horrified by the television program that depicts hunters killing beautiful animals and the joy hunters experience in “harvesting” their prey. Many believe that a person who enjoys killing a deer because he has a marvelous rack of antlers might enjoy killing a person.
This is not a screed against hunters. There are many families with the tradition of bringing in the venison once or twice a year. With the near extermination by man of deer predators, deer are so abundant in many localities as to have become a nuisance and a danger to motorists. Nevertheless, the defense of gun rights has little to gain from TV programs depicting the fun of killing Bambi’s mother.
In the US, shooting is a hand-eye coordination sport. It is likely that 99% of all ammunition is fired at paper targets, metal silhouettes, or clay and plastic discs. It is a sport for amateur physicists who are interested in ballistics and who experiment with different combinations of powder and bullet seeking the most accurate for their rifle or pistol. Few of these shooters hunt as their interest in shooting is unrelated to killing.
Shooting is a sport that offers comradeship and competition in which even old people can participate, people who do not or cannot play golf or tennis or bowl. There is a vast variety of events from black powder muskets to antique military and frontier weapons to distance shooting.
Sports shooters punching holes in paper targets comprise the vast majority of active gun owners. They are a threat to no one. Accidents are extremely rare at gun clubs. A large network of small businesses provide the parts and supplies necessary for shooting. There is no reason to strip gun owners of their hobby and possessions and family businesses of their livelihood, as has been done in Great Britain and as the gun control lobby intends to do in the US.
The NRA is correct to insist that “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” We have known this since the Sullivan Act.
Source: Paul Craig Roberts
Infowars
June 26, 2009
Some years or decades ago I researched and reported on the Sullivan Act, one of America’s first gun control laws.
New York state senator Timothy Sullivan, a corrupt Tammany Hall politician, represented New York’s Red Hook district. Commercial travelers passing through the district would be relieved of their valuables by armed robbers. In order to protect themselves and their property, travelers armed themselves. This raised the risk of, and reduced the profit from, robbery. Sullivan’s outlaw constituents demanded that Sullivan introduce a law that would prohibit concealed carry of pistols, blackjacks, and daggers, thus reducing the risk to robbers from armed victims.
The criminals, of course, were already breaking the law and had no intention of being deterred by the Sullivan Act from their business activity of armed robbery. Thus, the effect of the Sullivan Act was precisely what the criminals intended. It made their life of crime easier.
As the first successful gun control advocates were criminals, I have often wondered what agenda lies behind the well-organized and propagandistic gun control organizations and their donors and sponsors in the US today. The propaganda issued by these organizations consists of transparent lies.
Consider the propagandistic term, “gun violence,” popularized by gun control advocates. This is a form of reification by which inanimate objects are imbued with the ability to act and to commit violence. Guns, of course, cannot be violent in themselves. Violence comes from people who use guns and a variety of other weapons, including fists, to commit violence.
Nevertheless, we hear incessantly the Orwellian Newspeak term, “gun violence.”
Very few children are killed by firearm accidents compared to other causes of child deaths. Yet, gun control advocates have created the false impression that there is a national epidemic in accidental firearm deaths of children. In fact, the National MCH Center for Child Death Review, an organization that monitors causes of child deaths, reports that seven times more children die from drowning and five times more from suffocation than from firearm accidents. Yet we don’t hear of “drowning violence,” “swimming pool violence,” “bathtub violence,” or “suffocation violence.”
The National MCH Center for Child Death Review reports that 174 children eighteen years old and under died from firearm accidents in 2000. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control reports that 125 children eighteen years old and under died from firearm accidents in 2006. In 2006 there were 77,845,285 youths in that age bracket.
In 2006 violence-related firearm deaths of eighteen year olds and under totaled 2,191. A large percentage of these deaths appear to be teenagers fighting over drug turf.
According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, drugs are “one of the main factors leading to the total number of all homicides. . . . murders related to narcotics still rank as the fourth most documented murder circumstance out of 24 possible categories.”
According to the National Drug Control Policy, trafficking in illicit drugs is associated with the commission of violent crimes for the following reasons: “competition for drug markets and customers, disputes and rip-offs among individuals involved in the illegal drug market, [and] the tendency toward violence of individuals who participate in drug trafficking.” Another dimension of drug-related crime is “committing an offense to obtain money (or goods to sell to get money) to support drug use.”
Obviously, decriminalizing drugs would be the greatest single factor in reducing incarceration rates, the crime rate, and the homicide rate. Yet, gun control advocates do not support this obvious solution to “gun violence.”
Those who want to outlaw guns have not explained why it would be any more effective than outlawing drugs, alcohol, robbery, rape, and murder. All the crimes for which guns are used are already illegal, and they keep on occurring, just as they did before guns existed.
So what is the real agenda? Why do gun control advocates want to override the Second Amendment. Why do they not acknowledge that if the Second Amendment can be over-ridden, so can every other protection of civil liberty?
There are careful studies that conclude that armed citizens prevent one to two million crimes every year. Other studies show that in-home robberies, rapes, and assaults occur more frequently in jurisdictions that suffer from gun control ordinances. Other studies show that most states with right-to-carry laws have experienced a drop in crimes against persons.
Why do gun control advocates want to increase the crime rate in the US?
Why is the gun control agenda a propagandistic one draped in lies?
The NRA is the largest and best-known organization among the defenders of the Second Amendment. Yet, a case might be made that manufacturers’ gun advertisements in the NRA’s magazines stoke the hysteria of gun control advocates.
Full page ads offering civilian versions of weapons used by “America’s elite warriors” in US Special Operations Command, SWAT, and by covert agents “who work in a dark world most of us can’t even understand,” are likely to scare the pants off people who are afraid of guns.
Many of the modern weapons are ugly as sin. Their appearance is threatening, unlike the beautiful lines of a Winchester lever action or single shot rifle, or a Colt single action revolver, or the WW II 45 caliber semi-automatic pistol, guns that do not have menacing appearances. Everyone knows that they are guns, but they are also works of art.
A little advertising discretion might go a long way in quieting fears that are manipulated by gun control advocates.
The same goes for hunters. Recent news reports of “hunters” slaughtering wolves from airplanes in Alaska and of a hunter, indeed, a poacher, who shot a protected rare wolf in the US Southwest and left the dead animal in the road, enrage people who have empathy with animals and wildlife. Many Americans have had such bad experiences with their fellow citizens that they regard their dogs and cats, and wildlife, as more intelligent and noble life forms than humans. Wild animals can be dangerous, but they are not evil.
Americans with empathy for animals are horrified by the television program that depicts hunters killing beautiful animals and the joy hunters experience in “harvesting” their prey. Many believe that a person who enjoys killing a deer because he has a marvelous rack of antlers might enjoy killing a person.
This is not a screed against hunters. There are many families with the tradition of bringing in the venison once or twice a year. With the near extermination by man of deer predators, deer are so abundant in many localities as to have become a nuisance and a danger to motorists. Nevertheless, the defense of gun rights has little to gain from TV programs depicting the fun of killing Bambi’s mother.
In the US, shooting is a hand-eye coordination sport. It is likely that 99% of all ammunition is fired at paper targets, metal silhouettes, or clay and plastic discs. It is a sport for amateur physicists who are interested in ballistics and who experiment with different combinations of powder and bullet seeking the most accurate for their rifle or pistol. Few of these shooters hunt as their interest in shooting is unrelated to killing.
Shooting is a sport that offers comradeship and competition in which even old people can participate, people who do not or cannot play golf or tennis or bowl. There is a vast variety of events from black powder muskets to antique military and frontier weapons to distance shooting.
Sports shooters punching holes in paper targets comprise the vast majority of active gun owners. They are a threat to no one. Accidents are extremely rare at gun clubs. A large network of small businesses provide the parts and supplies necessary for shooting. There is no reason to strip gun owners of their hobby and possessions and family businesses of their livelihood, as has been done in Great Britain and as the gun control lobby intends to do in the US.
The NRA is correct to insist that “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” We have known this since the Sullivan Act.
Source: Paul Craig Roberts
Are You A Terrorist?
Emily Spence
Smirking Chimp
June 26, 2009
Despite that DoD officials removed the offensive section from their educational resources at the urging of ACLU members, the DoD stance is still troubling since a longstanding practice to designate peaceful, law abiding activists as dangerous and treasonable still exists in many government departments and agencies. Indeed the participants of the first antiwar protest against the Vietnam incursion, put together in the mid-1960’s by peaceable Quakers and FOR members after having discussed Gandhi’s Salt March as a model for a nonviolent demonstration, faced government operatives filming them face by face from rooftops as they moved en masse down Broadway to the UN Plaza. (My mother, a pacifist married to a World War II Conscientious Objector, and I, a child at the time of the march, both were in attendance. When the film crew focused on us, she stood tall, faced the agents with their telephoto lens, glared in disdainful defiance and, simultaneously, throw the corner of her coat over my face. Afterwards, she muttered, “How dare they try to intimidate us!”)
This sort of happening in mind, the treatment of Nobel Peace Award winner Aung San Sui Kyi in Myanmar is not necessarily all that different than the response that she’d receive in the USA and, while it’s commendable that American spokespersons publicly object to her most recent arrest, they, certainly, might seem to be a bunch of hypocrites. This is due to the fact that a number of Nobel Peace Award recipients, such as American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), have had difficulties of their own on American soil.
For example, “AFSC’s work, always open and resolutely nonviolent, has been under government surveillance for decades. The Service Committee secured nearly 1,700 pages of files from the FBI under a Freedom of Information request in 1976. These files show that the FBI kept files on AFSC that dated back to 1921. Ten other federal agencies kept files on AFSC, including the CIA, Air Force, Navy, Internal Revenue Service, Secret Service, and the State Department. The CIA has intercepted overseas mail and cables in the 1950s, and some AFSC offices (and even its staff’s homes) have been infiltrated and burglarized in the late 1960s into the 1970s.” [2]
In relation, AFSC associate general secretary for justice and human rights, Joyce Miller, asked, “How can we speak of spreading democracy in Iraq while dismantling it here at home?” She further remarked, “Political dissent is fundamental to a free and democratic society. It should not be equated with crime.”
Add to the AFSC problems, those pertaining to Nobel Peace Award recipient Nelson Mandela, who only a year ago had the designation “terrorist” removed from his name, under protest by the State Department, so that he no longer suffered travel restrictions from the US government. Yet his travel curtailment was not nearly as awful as was Ramzy Baroud’s blockage. He, the editor of Palestine Chronicle, had his US passport seized by a consular officer at an overseas American Embassy [3]. Similarly, Senator Edward Kennedy was, also, flagged by the U.S. no-fly list.
Then again, Ted Kennedy received much less harassment than did Nobel Peace Award winner Mairead Corrigan Maguire after her flight from Guatemala had been directed to Ireland through Houston:
“She was probably tired and ready to get back to Belfast, where her attempts to bring about an end to The Troubles in 1976 made her at 32 the youngest Nobel Peace Prize-winner ever. Since then, she’s been given the Pacem in Terris Award by Pope John Paul II, and the United Nations selected her (along with the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, Jordan’s Queen Noor and a dozen or so other fellow Nobel Laureates) as an honorary board member of the International Coalition for the Decade.
“Unfortunately for Maguire, her flight back home to Northern Ireland was routed through Houston, where none of that meant diddly. Federal Customs officials were far less interested in any of that than they were in a box on the back of the transit form she filled out on her flight.
“‘They questioned me about my nonviolent protests in USA against the Afghanistan invasion and Iraqi war,’ Maguire said later in a statement. ‘They insisted I must tick the box in the Immigration form admitting to criminal activities.’
“Maguire was detained for two hours — grilled once, fingerprinted, photographed, and grilled again. She missed her flight home. She was only released after an organization she helped found — the Nobel Women’s Initiative — started kicking up a fuss.” [4]
On can add to her troubles countless other ones wherein human rights and environmental supporters have been repeatedly hassled for no other reason than that they’re holding views that don’t jive with positions at any number of U.S. government institutions. One needn’t return in time to the McCarthy Era to find many individuals who have been investigated and persecuted for holding vilified opinions. For example, Stephen Lendman, a peace advocate and writer in his seventies with a permanent knee injury that delimits travel, has been repeatedly investigated by the FBI.
At the same time, he is joined by myriad others such as assorted activists in Maryland whose names were put on federal terrorist lists by state police who infiltrated their groups. [5] As such, their perfectly legal activities, freedom of speech and right to unhindered assembly have been criminalized.
Simultaneously, there’s a certain inescapable irony and disingenuous quality presented by the Western government heads who are harshly critical of the Iran crackdown on dissenting citizens while they, themselves, condone similar ironfisted policies in their own lands. Their two-faced position is barely hidden beneath the surface of their mock concern for the well-being of Iranian protesters as they urge their own and allied troops into battle, show little (if any) sincere remorse over the slaughter of masses of civilians that happen in the process and make sure that demonstrators at home are disregarded, denigrated or preemptively rounded up as happened at the 2008 Republican National Convention.
Then again, one might find himself in pretty good company if he were singled out as unpatriotic and treacherous for holding viewpoints or undertaking actions that go contrary to the perspectives that a certain hawkish and totalitarian segment of society holds. All the same, every method conceivable might be used to hunt down the offenders and, when taken to the extreme, render their seemingly provocative positions ineffectual by any means possible, including imprisonment and murder.
Anyone who doubts this to be the case needs only to remember about what happened to people like Howard Fast; the slain Freedom Riders Andy Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner; the thirteen shot students at Kent State University at which Ohio National Guardsman fired sixty-seven rounds over a thirteen second period, and scores of others who have stood against mainstream policies.
Meanwhile, stigmatizing dissidents is a fairly common practice. As such, “There are 1.1 million people on the [U.S.] Terrorist Watch List and there is a 35 per cent error rate, minimum, for that list,” according to ACLU’s Michael German. [6] Furthermore, the overzealous and aggressive surveillance tactics used by the National Security Agency (NSA) to check the public’s e-mails, telephone calls and other communications are the same ones as were in use during George W. Bush’s administration. Likewise, the amount of spying on personal exchanges is as high as it ever was.
In relation to recent claims by Justice Department and national security officials that the overcollection was unintentional, House representative, Rush Holt, a Democrat from New Jersey and Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, commented “Some actions are so flagrant that they can’t be accidental.” Additionally, the act of tracking e-mailed transmissions and other interactions has seemed in violation of federal law according to lawyers at the Justice Department. Regardless, the practice continues.
At the same time, the decision to designate social activists as troublemakers, while singling them out for intimidation, threats and investigations, carries serious legal and political implications in democratic societies.The further measure of subjecting them to the sorts of difficulties that Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Ramzy Baroud, AFSC members and innumerable others have endured is clearly based in xenophobic, paranoid and despotic thinking. It embodies the kind of authoritarian mentality and oppressive activities that one finds in the worst types of tyrannical regimes.
As Harry S. Truman suggested, “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” Due to this fear, are we, then, to all conform with lock-step in perverse obedience to the State’s dictates, outlooks and agendas in an increasingly Orwellian milieu? If not, then we must constantly remind ourselves and each other of US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas’s vision: “Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”
References
[1] Pentagon Rebrands Protest as “Low-Level Terrorism” (http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/06/pentagon-rebrands-protest-as-low-level-terrorism/).
[2] American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) (http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0201-03.htm).
[3] “Punishing activists or pursuing terrorists?” by Maggie Mitchell Salem in Asia Times Online :: Asian News, Business and Economy. (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GL10Aa01.html).
[4] Nobel Prize Winner Gets Hassled At Bush Intercontinental … (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/29-8).
[5] Police Spied on Activists In Md. - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071701287.html) and Md. Police Put Activists’ Names On Terror Lists - … (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100703245.html).
[6] One third of FBI Terror Watch List are innocent people | Top … (http://www.russiatoday.ru/Top_News/2009-06-17/One_third_of_FBI_Terror_Watch_List_are_innocent_people.html).
Source: Smirking Chimp
Smirking Chimp
June 26, 2009
Despite that DoD officials removed the offensive section from their educational resources at the urging of ACLU members, the DoD stance is still troubling since a longstanding practice to designate peaceful, law abiding activists as dangerous and treasonable still exists in many government departments and agencies. Indeed the participants of the first antiwar protest against the Vietnam incursion, put together in the mid-1960’s by peaceable Quakers and FOR members after having discussed Gandhi’s Salt March as a model for a nonviolent demonstration, faced government operatives filming them face by face from rooftops as they moved en masse down Broadway to the UN Plaza. (My mother, a pacifist married to a World War II Conscientious Objector, and I, a child at the time of the march, both were in attendance. When the film crew focused on us, she stood tall, faced the agents with their telephoto lens, glared in disdainful defiance and, simultaneously, throw the corner of her coat over my face. Afterwards, she muttered, “How dare they try to intimidate us!”)
This sort of happening in mind, the treatment of Nobel Peace Award winner Aung San Sui Kyi in Myanmar is not necessarily all that different than the response that she’d receive in the USA and, while it’s commendable that American spokespersons publicly object to her most recent arrest, they, certainly, might seem to be a bunch of hypocrites. This is due to the fact that a number of Nobel Peace Award recipients, such as American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), have had difficulties of their own on American soil.
For example, “AFSC’s work, always open and resolutely nonviolent, has been under government surveillance for decades. The Service Committee secured nearly 1,700 pages of files from the FBI under a Freedom of Information request in 1976. These files show that the FBI kept files on AFSC that dated back to 1921. Ten other federal agencies kept files on AFSC, including the CIA, Air Force, Navy, Internal Revenue Service, Secret Service, and the State Department. The CIA has intercepted overseas mail and cables in the 1950s, and some AFSC offices (and even its staff’s homes) have been infiltrated and burglarized in the late 1960s into the 1970s.” [2]
In relation, AFSC associate general secretary for justice and human rights, Joyce Miller, asked, “How can we speak of spreading democracy in Iraq while dismantling it here at home?” She further remarked, “Political dissent is fundamental to a free and democratic society. It should not be equated with crime.”
Add to the AFSC problems, those pertaining to Nobel Peace Award recipient Nelson Mandela, who only a year ago had the designation “terrorist” removed from his name, under protest by the State Department, so that he no longer suffered travel restrictions from the US government. Yet his travel curtailment was not nearly as awful as was Ramzy Baroud’s blockage. He, the editor of Palestine Chronicle, had his US passport seized by a consular officer at an overseas American Embassy [3]. Similarly, Senator Edward Kennedy was, also, flagged by the U.S. no-fly list.
Then again, Ted Kennedy received much less harassment than did Nobel Peace Award winner Mairead Corrigan Maguire after her flight from Guatemala had been directed to Ireland through Houston:
“She was probably tired and ready to get back to Belfast, where her attempts to bring about an end to The Troubles in 1976 made her at 32 the youngest Nobel Peace Prize-winner ever. Since then, she’s been given the Pacem in Terris Award by Pope John Paul II, and the United Nations selected her (along with the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, Jordan’s Queen Noor and a dozen or so other fellow Nobel Laureates) as an honorary board member of the International Coalition for the Decade.
“Unfortunately for Maguire, her flight back home to Northern Ireland was routed through Houston, where none of that meant diddly. Federal Customs officials were far less interested in any of that than they were in a box on the back of the transit form she filled out on her flight.
“‘They questioned me about my nonviolent protests in USA against the Afghanistan invasion and Iraqi war,’ Maguire said later in a statement. ‘They insisted I must tick the box in the Immigration form admitting to criminal activities.’
“Maguire was detained for two hours — grilled once, fingerprinted, photographed, and grilled again. She missed her flight home. She was only released after an organization she helped found — the Nobel Women’s Initiative — started kicking up a fuss.” [4]
On can add to her troubles countless other ones wherein human rights and environmental supporters have been repeatedly hassled for no other reason than that they’re holding views that don’t jive with positions at any number of U.S. government institutions. One needn’t return in time to the McCarthy Era to find many individuals who have been investigated and persecuted for holding vilified opinions. For example, Stephen Lendman, a peace advocate and writer in his seventies with a permanent knee injury that delimits travel, has been repeatedly investigated by the FBI.
At the same time, he is joined by myriad others such as assorted activists in Maryland whose names were put on federal terrorist lists by state police who infiltrated their groups. [5] As such, their perfectly legal activities, freedom of speech and right to unhindered assembly have been criminalized.
Simultaneously, there’s a certain inescapable irony and disingenuous quality presented by the Western government heads who are harshly critical of the Iran crackdown on dissenting citizens while they, themselves, condone similar ironfisted policies in their own lands. Their two-faced position is barely hidden beneath the surface of their mock concern for the well-being of Iranian protesters as they urge their own and allied troops into battle, show little (if any) sincere remorse over the slaughter of masses of civilians that happen in the process and make sure that demonstrators at home are disregarded, denigrated or preemptively rounded up as happened at the 2008 Republican National Convention.
Then again, one might find himself in pretty good company if he were singled out as unpatriotic and treacherous for holding viewpoints or undertaking actions that go contrary to the perspectives that a certain hawkish and totalitarian segment of society holds. All the same, every method conceivable might be used to hunt down the offenders and, when taken to the extreme, render their seemingly provocative positions ineffectual by any means possible, including imprisonment and murder.
Anyone who doubts this to be the case needs only to remember about what happened to people like Howard Fast; the slain Freedom Riders Andy Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner; the thirteen shot students at Kent State University at which Ohio National Guardsman fired sixty-seven rounds over a thirteen second period, and scores of others who have stood against mainstream policies.
Meanwhile, stigmatizing dissidents is a fairly common practice. As such, “There are 1.1 million people on the [U.S.] Terrorist Watch List and there is a 35 per cent error rate, minimum, for that list,” according to ACLU’s Michael German. [6] Furthermore, the overzealous and aggressive surveillance tactics used by the National Security Agency (NSA) to check the public’s e-mails, telephone calls and other communications are the same ones as were in use during George W. Bush’s administration. Likewise, the amount of spying on personal exchanges is as high as it ever was.
In relation to recent claims by Justice Department and national security officials that the overcollection was unintentional, House representative, Rush Holt, a Democrat from New Jersey and Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, commented “Some actions are so flagrant that they can’t be accidental.” Additionally, the act of tracking e-mailed transmissions and other interactions has seemed in violation of federal law according to lawyers at the Justice Department. Regardless, the practice continues.
At the same time, the decision to designate social activists as troublemakers, while singling them out for intimidation, threats and investigations, carries serious legal and political implications in democratic societies.The further measure of subjecting them to the sorts of difficulties that Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Ramzy Baroud, AFSC members and innumerable others have endured is clearly based in xenophobic, paranoid and despotic thinking. It embodies the kind of authoritarian mentality and oppressive activities that one finds in the worst types of tyrannical regimes.
As Harry S. Truman suggested, “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” Due to this fear, are we, then, to all conform with lock-step in perverse obedience to the State’s dictates, outlooks and agendas in an increasingly Orwellian milieu? If not, then we must constantly remind ourselves and each other of US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas’s vision: “Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”
References
[1] Pentagon Rebrands Protest as “Low-Level Terrorism” (http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/06/pentagon-rebrands-protest-as-low-level-terrorism/).
[2] American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) (http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0201-03.htm).
[3] “Punishing activists or pursuing terrorists?” by Maggie Mitchell Salem in Asia Times Online :: Asian News, Business and Economy. (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GL10Aa01.html).
[4] Nobel Prize Winner Gets Hassled At Bush Intercontinental … (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/29-8).
[5] Police Spied on Activists In Md. - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071701287.html) and Md. Police Put Activists’ Names On Terror Lists - … (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100703245.html).
[6] One third of FBI Terror Watch List are innocent people | Top … (http://www.russiatoday.ru/Top_News/2009-06-17/One_third_of_FBI_Terror_Watch_List_are_innocent_people.html).
Source: Smirking Chimp
Know Your Rights or You Will Lose Them
Posted by sakerfa on June 26, 2009
“Most citizens,” writes columnist Nat Hentoff, “are largely uneducated about their own constitutional rights and liberties.”“It astonishes me to find… [that so many] of our countrymen… should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty… which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries.”
–Thomas Jefferson, 1788
The following true incident is a case in point for Hentoff’s claim. A young attorney, preparing to address a small gathering about the need to protect freedom, especially in the schools, wrote the text of the First Amendment on a blackboard. After carefully reading the text, a woman in the audience approached the attorney, pointed to the First Amendment on the board and remarked, “My, the law is really changing. Is this new?” The woman was a retired schoolteacher.
For more than 200 years, Americans have enjoyed the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, among others, without ever really studying the source of those liberties, found in the Bill of Rights–the first ten amendments to our U. S. Constitution.
Yet never has there been a time when knowing our rights has been more critical and safeguarding them more necessary. Particularly telling is the fact that even under the Obama presidency, most of the Bush administration policies and laws that curtailed our freedoms have remained intact–all of which have drastically altered the landscape of our liberties.
Thus, it is vital that we gain a better understanding of what Thomas Jefferson described as “fetters against doing evil.” If not, I fear that with each passing day, what Jefferson called the “degeneracy” of “the principles of liberty” will grow worse until, half asleep, Americans will lose what our forefathers fought and died for.
A short summary of the first ten amendments shows how vital these freedoms are.
The First Amendment protects the freedom to speak your mind and protest in peace without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans cannot be silenced by the government.
The Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” This is one of the most controversial provisions of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, there are those who claim that gun ownership in America should be restricted solely to the police and other government officials.
In many countries, owning a firearm is a mere privilege, reserved for the rich and powerful. Self-protection, however, is not a privilege in America. It is an individual citizen right which the U.S. Supreme Court has now recognized.
America was born during a time of martial law. British troops stationed themselves in homes and entered property without regard to the rights of the owners. That is why the Third Amendment prohibits the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” Even though today’s military does not threaten private property, this amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military. But increasingly, even under the Obama presidency, the threat of martial law being imposed is a clear and present danger.
There’s a knock at the door. The police charge in and begin searching your home. They invade your privacy, rummaging through your belongings. You may think you’re powerless to stop them, but you’re not. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from searching your home without a warrant approved by a judge. But what about other kinds of invasions? Your telephone, mail, computer and medical records are now subject to governmental search.
Even though they’re all personal and private, they are increasingly at risk for unwarranted intrusion by government agents. The ominous rise of the surveillance state threatens the protections given us by this amendment.
You cannot be tried again after having been found innocent. The government cannot try you repeatedly for the same crime, hoping to get the result they want. It’s one of the legal protections of the Fifth Amendment. Moreover, you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. You can “plead the Fifth.”
This means that if you are accused of committing a crime, it is up to the state to prove its case against you. You are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without following strict legal codes of conduct.
The Sixth Amendment spells out the right to a “speedy and public trial.” An accused person can confront the witnesses against him and demand to know the nature of the charge. The government cannot legally keep someone in jail for unspecified offenses.
Moreover, unlike many other countries, Americans also have the right to be tried by a jury of ordinary citizens and to be represented by an attorney. Our fates in criminal proceedings are not decided by panels of judges or unaccountable politicians.
Property ownership is a fundamental right of free people. In a legal dispute over property, the Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial.
Like any other American citizen, those accused of being criminals have rights under the Constitution as well. In some countries, the government abuses what they see as disloyal or troublesome citizens by keeping them in jail indefinitely on trumped-up charges. If they cannot pay their bail, then they’re not released. The Eighth Amendment is, thus, similar to the Sixth–it protects the rights of the accused. These are often the people most susceptible to abuse and who have the least resources to defend themselves. This amendment also forbids the use of cruel and unusual punishment.
The framers of our Constitution were so concerned about civil liberties that they wished to do everything conceivable to protect our future freedom. Some of the framers opposed a bill of rights because it might appear that these were the only rights the people possessed. The Ninth Amendment remedied that by providing that other rights not listed were nonetheless retained by the people.
Our rights are inherently ours, and our government was created to protect them. The government does not, nor did it ever, have the power to grant us our rights. Popular sovereignty–the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers–is clearly evident in this amendment and is a landmark of American freedom.
Ours is a federal system of government. This means that power is divided among local, state and national entities. The Tenth Amendment reminds the national government that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution.
Congress and the President have increasingly assumed more power than the Constitution grants them. However, it’s up to the people and the state governments to make sure that they obey the law of the land.
Having stood the test of time, there is little doubt that the Bill of Rights is the greatest statement for freedom ever drafted and put into effect. In the end, however, it is the vigilance of “we the people” that will keep the freedoms we hold so dear alive. Therefore, know your rights, exercise them freely or you’re going to lose them.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His latest book The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks) is now available.
Source: Tenth Amendment Center
“Most citizens,” writes columnist Nat Hentoff, “are largely uneducated about their own constitutional rights and liberties.”“It astonishes me to find… [that so many] of our countrymen… should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty… which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries.”
–Thomas Jefferson, 1788
The following true incident is a case in point for Hentoff’s claim. A young attorney, preparing to address a small gathering about the need to protect freedom, especially in the schools, wrote the text of the First Amendment on a blackboard. After carefully reading the text, a woman in the audience approached the attorney, pointed to the First Amendment on the board and remarked, “My, the law is really changing. Is this new?” The woman was a retired schoolteacher.
For more than 200 years, Americans have enjoyed the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, among others, without ever really studying the source of those liberties, found in the Bill of Rights–the first ten amendments to our U. S. Constitution.
Yet never has there been a time when knowing our rights has been more critical and safeguarding them more necessary. Particularly telling is the fact that even under the Obama presidency, most of the Bush administration policies and laws that curtailed our freedoms have remained intact–all of which have drastically altered the landscape of our liberties.
Thus, it is vital that we gain a better understanding of what Thomas Jefferson described as “fetters against doing evil.” If not, I fear that with each passing day, what Jefferson called the “degeneracy” of “the principles of liberty” will grow worse until, half asleep, Americans will lose what our forefathers fought and died for.
A short summary of the first ten amendments shows how vital these freedoms are.
The First Amendment protects the freedom to speak your mind and protest in peace without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans cannot be silenced by the government.
The Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” This is one of the most controversial provisions of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, there are those who claim that gun ownership in America should be restricted solely to the police and other government officials.
In many countries, owning a firearm is a mere privilege, reserved for the rich and powerful. Self-protection, however, is not a privilege in America. It is an individual citizen right which the U.S. Supreme Court has now recognized.
America was born during a time of martial law. British troops stationed themselves in homes and entered property without regard to the rights of the owners. That is why the Third Amendment prohibits the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” Even though today’s military does not threaten private property, this amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military. But increasingly, even under the Obama presidency, the threat of martial law being imposed is a clear and present danger.
There’s a knock at the door. The police charge in and begin searching your home. They invade your privacy, rummaging through your belongings. You may think you’re powerless to stop them, but you’re not. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from searching your home without a warrant approved by a judge. But what about other kinds of invasions? Your telephone, mail, computer and medical records are now subject to governmental search.
Even though they’re all personal and private, they are increasingly at risk for unwarranted intrusion by government agents. The ominous rise of the surveillance state threatens the protections given us by this amendment.
You cannot be tried again after having been found innocent. The government cannot try you repeatedly for the same crime, hoping to get the result they want. It’s one of the legal protections of the Fifth Amendment. Moreover, you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. You can “plead the Fifth.”
This means that if you are accused of committing a crime, it is up to the state to prove its case against you. You are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without following strict legal codes of conduct.
The Sixth Amendment spells out the right to a “speedy and public trial.” An accused person can confront the witnesses against him and demand to know the nature of the charge. The government cannot legally keep someone in jail for unspecified offenses.
Moreover, unlike many other countries, Americans also have the right to be tried by a jury of ordinary citizens and to be represented by an attorney. Our fates in criminal proceedings are not decided by panels of judges or unaccountable politicians.
Property ownership is a fundamental right of free people. In a legal dispute over property, the Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial.
Like any other American citizen, those accused of being criminals have rights under the Constitution as well. In some countries, the government abuses what they see as disloyal or troublesome citizens by keeping them in jail indefinitely on trumped-up charges. If they cannot pay their bail, then they’re not released. The Eighth Amendment is, thus, similar to the Sixth–it protects the rights of the accused. These are often the people most susceptible to abuse and who have the least resources to defend themselves. This amendment also forbids the use of cruel and unusual punishment.
The framers of our Constitution were so concerned about civil liberties that they wished to do everything conceivable to protect our future freedom. Some of the framers opposed a bill of rights because it might appear that these were the only rights the people possessed. The Ninth Amendment remedied that by providing that other rights not listed were nonetheless retained by the people.
Our rights are inherently ours, and our government was created to protect them. The government does not, nor did it ever, have the power to grant us our rights. Popular sovereignty–the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers–is clearly evident in this amendment and is a landmark of American freedom.
Ours is a federal system of government. This means that power is divided among local, state and national entities. The Tenth Amendment reminds the national government that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution.
Congress and the President have increasingly assumed more power than the Constitution grants them. However, it’s up to the people and the state governments to make sure that they obey the law of the land.
Having stood the test of time, there is little doubt that the Bill of Rights is the greatest statement for freedom ever drafted and put into effect. In the end, however, it is the vigilance of “we the people” that will keep the freedoms we hold so dear alive. Therefore, know your rights, exercise them freely or you’re going to lose them.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His latest book The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks) is now available.
Source: Tenth Amendment Center
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
