Ammunition Accountability Act

From Charleston Voice

Well the Liberal Gun Grabbers are at it again. Now they want to fingerprint your bullets. They will charge you more. They will make it a crime to possess bullets that do not bear a serial number. Your name and designated serial number ammo will be stored in a sweet ol' database, of course. Tricky bastards are running this game at the state level, trying to fly under the radar and avoid national outrage. Probably there is legislation pending in your state right now.The 2008 Legislative session has begun, and the Ammunition Accountability Act is being introduced across the country. Below is a summary of legislation that has been introduced throughout the United States. To view the bills' status click on the links to the individual bills. Sample Legislation:

The Ammunition Accountability Act-Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.

I am amazed but not surprised. Contrary to all the debates carried on for years that our gun rights would be stripped Janet Reno style in midnight raids (providing us the opportunity to shoot some of the criminals in the door jam, on the stairs and just outside the bedroom before they kill us) it is all going down by degrees- "sneaky-like". Notice if you will that a vast majority of the states considering this are southern states.....We have lost our minds and our way.

Stumble It!

Preamble to Social Mayhem

From a piece by Tim Case

Given also that the society that elected the president-in-waiting is dominated by blind nationalism, trendy savior-worship, an unending ignorance of history, economics and philosophy and devoid of a critical thought process, I fear history will say of this moment, "the civilization of the modern world suffered final collapse."

Stumble It!

Not With a Bang, But With a Whimper

This is How The World Ends - Part IV

If, as I have contented in the first three parts of this series of post, the following is true -

1. We Americans are woefully ignorant of our rights, our Constitution and political philosophy in general
2. Our Constitutional Republic from those nice stories in history books is long dead
3. Our election process is completely incapable of fixing any of this (or our other massive problems of wars, failed economies etc. etc.)

Then what does the future hold and what are the solutions (or coping mechanisms if no solution is apparent)?

Some talk of a revolution in our future - but revolutions are a complicated business. Middle classes do not start revolutions or even participate or support them until they are well under way and almost over. Sure the middle class often provide the intelligentsia of a revolution but that is a small part of the bigger requirement. The rich do not start violent revolutions - they buy what they want in influence and power. The true foot soldiers of any revolution are the dispossessed, the poor and down-trodden.

Therein lies the fix, the poor and downtrodden in the US are riding pretty fat and happy (by relative standards of poor and downtrodden) on a US government gravy train. There are enough people within government that are capable of reading that understand the key ingredients in civil discontent. So long as a willing and compliant middle-class exists to consume and pay taxes the government will be able to buy the happiness and contentment of the poor. It is as simple as that.

In any event, no sane man looks to revolution with glee. Anyone that believes the War of American Independence was a revolution simply does not understand what the term really means. It was a separatist, nah a secession movement, not a revolution.

The foot soldiers (those poor and down trodden) are apt to follow the banner of any fool with a plan and a promise once the shooting starts. Change for the sake of change is something rationale people fear, particularly considering the history of revolutions.

No, the government will keep the poor placated, and in the event they occasionally rise up in violent riots the government will put them down and the middle class will rejoice that their welfare was protected.

There are probably many in the middle class that would like the idea of change, even if it involved violence. They probably also have a solid idea of what they would do to put everything back the way it was meant to be. But, when the rubber hit the road as they say the mad middle class guy has a house, a mini van and he really does not have time to start a revolution because he has to be at work by 9am in the morning. Middle-classes almost always trade safety and security for rights and freedoms.

Secession then you say. Well as an strong advocate of the legality of secession and a proponent of states' rights you might think I would say this is the solution...I doubt it.

First, if we are honest about it there is but one government now. Our states have lost all of their rights and all of their will to attempt to assert any rights. Government down to the local level is intertwined via federal grants and regulations. In cases where the federal government has not overtly asserted some control or influence many of our state and local government officials deffer to the question of "what is the national standard".

Second, our states no longer have any semblance of a heterogeneous culture or common polity. A woman from Arkansas can be a Senator from New York for goodness sakes. People move, leave familial and cultural bonds in pursuit of paper money and trinkets. A secession movement would have a very hard time in any state with such a mix of people.

Third, the middle class is bought and paid for just as the poor - it is called social security. Until it fails people expect to get what is coming to them - secede and lose that...never. A soul sold for 30 pieces of silver.


Pretty grim stuff and I am simply not wise enough to see a way out of this. Early on in this series of post I used comparisons of the German people from 1933 on to relate to some of our traits. We talked about the coup attempts on Hitler's life and the fact that a real revolution was never a possibility in Germany. Hitler may have died in one of the coups but nothing essential would have changed. The undoing of the Germans had already occurred, they were powerless (I did not say blameless) to alter their fate. I fear we are in the same boat. We cannot vote our way out of this mess now (too may accommodations in the past), revolution is not a realistic possibility and neither is secession.

I like optimist, they inspire people. Doomsayers just scare the heck out of folks. Yet, I find it difficult to muster optimism about our future.

I will now do something I have never done in my life, quote Martin Luther King Jr.

I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God

This was from a speech called "It's A Dark Day In Our Nation" explaining why he opposed the Vietnam War but the words are applicable for any number of events in our recent and not so recent history.

We have done wrong. We have allowed greed, lust, gluttony, sloth, wrath, envy and pride to rule us. We have even turned those vices into virtues of sorts. We have abandoned the wise teachings, learned through history, of our forefathers in preference for our perceived enlightened wisdom of modernity. We have traded liberty and freedom for safety and security.

Commenting on the American experiment Alex de Tocqueville said, "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." and "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

Pretty astute for a Frenchman in the mid 19th century but correct nonetheless.

And thus the world we thought we always knew, in the final analysis, ended not with a bang but with a whimper.

Stumble It!

Elections Will Not Fix Things

This is the Way the World Ends - Part III

Say what you will about the Ron Paul supporters the fact is those loyal souls that got into the trenches and went to the Republican Convention as delegates to cast their votes appear to have received the ultimate rebuff.

...20 Ron Paul buttons and a handful of other things, he was stopped by security which called on upon an apparent supervisor, who directed all the materials to be confiscated. She told him, "You can't bring that in here, this is McCain territory. (Federal Jack)

This is but one small account of the hundreds reported during the primaries. The point here is that the two-party system is not receptive to any sort of real challenge or change. I would be curious to see the results of a future historians analysis of the "Ron Paul Revolution". At a casual glance it seems odd to me that the man was able to raise so much money from ordinary people and yet garner less than, at best, 10% of the primary vote count.

Many claim there was widespread hanky-panky afoot, I am not inclined to accept conspiracy theories but with the proven pattern of corruption prevalent in all areas of politics I would not be at all surprised if something nefarious occurred. The web is full of alleged evil-doing committed against the Paul campaign. Of course the Nader folks claim the same thing. My point in highlighting Ron Paul above is to demonstrate a perception (perhaps reality) that the major parties will simply not tolerate a real maverick.

Outside of the "for us or against us", intellectually dishonest two-party system Americans have become accustomed to all sorts of other frauds and perceived fraud within our electoral process. We simply cannot have an election without the taint of scandal.

Here again, it does not particularly matter if these perceptions are based wholly or partly on reality. Ours is essentially a system built upon trust. We the People delegated certain enumerated powers to the government in exchange for an expectation of, if not good government, at least tolerable government. Within the scope of tolerable I believe most reasonable men would include trustworthy. Without trust all the government has to retain legitimacy is propaganda, special interest payouts and coercion. Without the trust of the people government ceases to be tolerable or legitimate.

Americans know that elections and elected officials are frauds, yet 54% of us still pick a team and cast a ballot as if it were American Idol or some such trivial nonsense. A percentage of that group still hopes that a few good men of character and principle might change things yet even that voter block realizes that most of our representatives are influenced primarily by monied interest and their own desire to keep getting elected. We know DC corrupts all but the incorruptible.

I would be guessing but I would put the percentage of voters that believe that real change might be brought about by Mr. Smith going to Washington at below 25%, my observation of the rest is that they are mere party people (i.e. team supporters) that see politics as a duality.

What of the 46% that do not vote? These people have given up, either by ignorance or painfully informed knowledge. They do not trust that a difference can be had, by extrapolation they do not trust the system and have opted out.

In one way or another this 46% has come to realize something that the rest of us have yet to learn. That is the system is broken so completely that no element of the system itself can be used to fix it. It is akin to having a virus on your computer that has corrupted you anti-virus software - you will not fix the system without something new and external to the present system.

The sad commentary on all of this is that the 46 percenters have opted out without a plan of action. They have accepted taxation without representation and government not of their consent. To a government that has lost trust these are the perfect sorts of serfs - perfectly willing to work the plantation without getting uppity.

Considering that another 25% or so (might be a low number) are perfectly willing to play the game and cheer one of the establishment teams along the small minority of us that really see a need for change and want to do something about it are inconsequential.

If on the off chance that one of ours might get more than 1-2% of the votes in say a primary it is too easy to marginalize these "radical views" and perhaps (as suggested in some of the links listed above) outright lie, cheat and steal to keep the system under control.

Voting will not save us from out eventual end -- a few candidates of principle rising up occasionally serve to keep the truth out there and prove the futility of voting but that is about it.

We will happily vote ourselves into our ultimate destruction...as have so many other people that lived under tyranny since the practical application of democracy.

Stumble It!

This is the Way the World Ends - Part II

Have you ever stopped to consider that The Glorious Revolution was really not that glorious. I am serious, the last ruling Stuart monarch did his family name no service by running to France in the face of William III of Orange but the events that followed were certainly less impressive from a constitutional perspective. The end result, the monarchy replaced via methods completely outside of the scope of constitutional means - in effect establishing a de facto government in the Kingdom of Great Britain. Ok, it is all water under the bridge and perhaps does not matter, unless you are a stickler for the rule of law, then this little historical fact has some merit.

Have you ever considered deeply that The War For Southern Independence (or Second American War of Independence or even the American Civil War if you absolutely must) played a key role in fundamentally altering the nature of our republic - to the degree of perhaps eliminating legitimate government of law, de jure, and replacing it with a de facto government not of consent but of conquest?

Ok I see a few of you raised your hands on the last issue, but I would venture to bet that of the minority that understand that last point few think it matters much to our modern situation.

What about FDR and his New Deal? Are you like most Americans in the belief that he did what he had to do in hard times to set things right?

I could go on, the list could occupy my writing each day for many years on the examples and reasons why we have lost hold of the foundations of legitimate government and why it matters. It mattered in Britain in 1688 - pragmatist made decisions that they thought best in the short term with the result of involving Britain in continental wars that were not of their interest. These things matter here as well as our noble idea of Republic has deteriorated into something much less wholesome.

Most Americans are unwilling, or unable, to look at our past to see why these things might matter.

In my last post I talked about the crimes of the German people in relation to their enabling of Hitler. These were crimes born of pragmatism, i.e. we want someone to fix "this" now, and a fundamental ignorance of issues related to rights and constitutional law. The German people were educated beyond their European peers on most matters but woefully ignorant of key elements of western political philosophy. I say, without fear of contradiction, that the American people are today infinitely more ignorant of such ideas.

These things matter, yet the masses do not know. In the words of that evil Rumsfeld, they do not even "know what they do not know".

How is it that Americans accept, without riots, protest and yes even revolt The Patriot Act? How do we accept reinterpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act and allow troops to patrol our streets alongside increasingly belligerent and dangerous militarized police?

The same way we accepted the IRS, Social Security, federal police forces, a steady erosion of states rights and any number of of other clearly unconstitutional things that our Federal government took upon itself to do and in doing so added powers unto itself it was never given by us or our states. We accepted it, a few spoke out and then it passed into yesterday's news.

We have a pretty good track record of a few voices crying out, "hey that is not right" when government does these things and then moving on with life. I ask you, what is the point in having a contract, having laws and rules, if one party redefines the rules as it wishes and the other party never actually does anything to set things right?

Some say this is why we have elections but apparently the election process has done nothing to stem the tide of government, specifically the federal government, assuming any powers unto itself it desires.

These things matter, they matter when the population is too ignorant to know when wrong is done to them or too scared to do anything effective about it on the rare occasion that they do realize.

When the world as we know it finally passes from current knowledge into a fabled history it will be in large part because of the sloth, ignorance and avarice of the population.

Stumble It!

This is the Way the World Ends - Part I

With Valkyrie now in theaters the History Channel predictably aired a special feature on the historical events surrounding the story. One statement at the beginning of the show troubled me especially, just as it has every time I have ever heard it stated.

To paraphrase: "The German people did not generally support Hitler or the Nazi's and really had no choice but to go along with what occurred...they were innocent".

I disagree with this for many reasons. My views might have been in vogue 60 years ago but no more - everyone is a victim it seems, so too the German people.

Yes there were resistance movements - my favorite is that of the White Rose (die Weiße Rose). Much is now made of the resistance from the officers in the Army. As I discussed in my post When Is Disobediance a Moral Imperative General Ludwig Beck is perhaps the only senior officer that might really be considered to have actually resisted. Many of the other generals may have considered the Nazi's and Hitler dangerous but they still commanded their corps, divisions, air wings and armies in following Nazi orders. In reality the only time that senior officers seriously considered removing Hitler was after it became obvious that he was going to lose the war for Germany.

I do not believe the officers of the German army should receive any sort of pass - they did not resign en masse and more importantly they did not refuse to carry out Nazi orders. If all the senior officers had simply said "no" the Army would not have moved at all in 1939. A leader that nobody will follow is just taking a walk - they could have made Hitler invalid.

Of the numerous lieutenants, captains, majors and colonels that participated in various plots to kill Hitler we should remember and reflect - however, their actions and bravery does not exonerate the German officer corps as a whole.

What of the German people - is it as the History Channel and so many others have tried to portray over the years? Do they get a pass a mere victims?

We can say that Hitler was pretty clear in his ideology, writing it down and publishing in in 720 pages in 1925. Anyone that has attempted to navigate Mein Kampf has no doubt that Hitler did not hide his goals and objectives. The German people could have known if they looked.

It was the German people in 1928 acquiesced to the Law on Firearms and Ammunition under the Weimar Republic. This law was geared toward the Nazis and the Communist. Of course the Nazis were much better armed than the Communist by 1928 and neither group gave up any weapons - only the ordinary citizen complied with the law. With everyone disarmed SA was indeed a pretty scary force on the street.

So here we have the first crime of the German people. In the parlance of the modern American gun-rights movement the Germans were all prags (pragmatist), willing to give up their individual gun rights for some notion of a greater good or simply because the government said they should. After all they were allowed to keep that antique hunting rifle so they still had gun rights, what is the big deal.

The second crime of the German people is obviously their stupidity at the ballot box. In 1930 the Nazi's ran a media and entertainment campaign par with any modern US presidential campaign - all show with the substance below the surface. The Germans elected the Nazi's, and this must never be forgotten. They voted for change, they voted on emotion and for showmanship. (Is our election process any different?) The German people, during difficult times, gave the keys to the kingdom to Hitler, it is impossible to later claim innocence for his actions.

The third crime? They did not rise up and either passively or actively resist when it became apparent what Hitler intended to so with his power.

Is there modern relevance to all of this? Indeed there is - this is how our world ends, the world we grew up understanding. More in part II.

Stumble It!

Militarized Police

Rubicon in the Rear-View, Part I: Militarizing the Police I just read again a post by William Norman Grigg from last Oct. that meshed well with some things that have been on my mind lately.

First, if you go to YouTube and search for Katrina or Iowa floods and cop abuse you will find buried in there several examples of what I can best describe as - beefy, bald, junior college linebacker looking cops. Ignore for a minute the actions you may see on these videos that might upset your sense of right and wrong, just focus on the cops themselves.

Then consider this quote from Grigg's article -

"I served in the U.S. military and after I got out I ended up becoming a cop in 2002," recalls Bill, who was Battalion Soldier of the Year in 1999 and "Top Gun" in his police academy class. Bill shared his experiences in reaction to a podcast I recently did with Lew Rockwell examining the emergence of America's unitary, militarized Homeland Security state.

At the time he joined the force, many of the veterans "were old school, having started in law enforcement before I was born. They were tough but fair. They treated people with respect."

However, the "old school" officers "were forced out of the department [and it] took on a military feel," Bill continues. "You were expected to take [a] `just follow orders and obey the [department administration attitude], no matter what, regardless if it was constitutional or not. The amount of force used during arrests went through the roof."

Consider that for a minute...these "beefy, bald, juco linebackers" do not look anything like the "old school officers" we grew up being taught to call officer and sir. If we had only this quote from a guy that Grigg quoted we might say it was an isolated thing. It is not. It is real and happening everywhere.

Consider that the police operated for years by simply asking for compliance (which they likely received readily from law-abiding citizens). Do a search for Taser on YouTube or elsewhere. The grim reality is now cops do not ask you they tell you and then count to 2 or 3 in their head and if you have not complied with their demand to lay down in the street in your good clothes they torture you by shocking you until you comply. It does not matter if you are an 80 year old woman in a wheelchair either (yeah Google it).

And what of the growing propensity to kick first ask questions later. There are too many cases recorded by news outlets all across the land of SWAT teams kicking in doors to homes in the middle of the night for trivial matters or worse kicking in the wrong door entirely. A chaplain friend of mine had that happen to his family while stationed in DC. Cops do not even bother to knock during reasonable hours anymore - even for folks that would not present a threat. Kick door, shoot dog, terrorize family - that is standard now.

Here is an interesting piece by Paul Craig Roberts.

Perhaps it is a form of social justice. Black folks have half joked around me all my life that they do not trust the police - over the last several years I have come to not to trust the police. I have never had a run in that is "YouTube worthy" (I suspect if I had such a run in I would be dead now and not writing this) but whenever I am pulled over for a speeding ticket I wonder if the guy behind the lights will do something to me that will force out my fighting side. Maybe the black folks had it right all along - maybe we are all losing our civil liberties because we stood by and let some of us lose theirs. I sound way too liberal right there but perhaps there is some truth to that. A right denied to some is a right that all will eventually lose.


I tell you I would feel a lot safer in a town that did not have a SWAT team, where the police carried service revolvers instead of Glocks, had shotguns latched to the dash instead of SMG's and the police department never accepted Federal money for anything. Oh and by the way - I would much rather deal with Officer Bob, a 30 year veteran with a warm smile, than these young fat boys that seem to be so much in vogue for door kicking and civilian abuse. Anyone know of such a town?

One wonders what it will take to break this cycle? Would the thought that perhaps they might not go home safe and sound after kicking in the door of a family (without even checking to see if knocking would have worked) or tasering a motorist because said motorist had the audacity to ask why they were being told to lay down (a reasonable question if they knew they were not doing anything wrong). I suspect that might make a few thugs think twice, it would make the rest of them comfortable in the knowledge that their methods were "required" to compel compliance for our own safety.

After all, it is all about our safety...right?

I know there are still good cops out there worthy of being called officer - but they are a dying breed.

Stumble It!

A Very Good Read

En Route to Military Rule by William Norman Grigg is a must read. At first glance one might take the concepts of this article to be just a bit over the top. As I reflect upon my professional knowledge of the subject coupled with what I observe elsewhere I do not find it so implausible. Frightening that...

I found it interesting that a link within Grigg's post references a 1992 article by one GEN Dunlap, "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012," Interesting not only for the read but the date of 2012.... The "Homeland Security Brigade" will be operational by 2011, this guy writes in 1992 a fictional account of a coup that occurs in 2012...all the new agers are up in arms about some big event in 2012 (you know the Mayan calender and all that)...I am kidding really, no worries I do not buy into all that stuff- I just mentioned it as it is odd.

(I also found it interesting the Grigg was a Patton admirer in 1999 but has reconsidered, I can count myself in that small number)

Stumble It!

Ron Paul on Martial Law

Sigh

Stumble It!

I Promise I wrote mine first

I penned my last post before going to bed last night only to find this post ('Question 46,' Revisited) by Norman Grigg on the Lew Rockwell site this am. It might appear that my thoughts were spurred by his but that is not the case. In any event his is a good read and amplifies and corrects a misstatement I made about this 1994 survey (I actually thought more Marines said "yes" tot he most nefarious questions).

I am glad other people are saying these things, otherwise you might just think I am making it all up....

Stumble It!

When Is Disobediance a Moral Imperative

I mentioned previously that I have just completed reading a book titled "Patton and Rommel". I do not have it near by so I apologize for not knowing the author. I essentially skipped all the chapters about Patton as there is nothing about the man that I want to know that I do not know. He was, in my opinion, the lowest sort of man.

Rommel fascinates me. Not so much for his successes and failures on the field of battle but rather for the actual story of his life. Here is a man that counted himself lucky to have a job in the economic turmoil of the Weimar Republic during the 20's, a job that he loved no less.

I find it truly engaging to imagine the thoughts of a thoroughly professional German officer (professional in the real sense) as events unfolded and the Nazi's gained power. A middle-class family man that had spent his entire adult life in uniform probably did not see a lot of other options, resigning in disgust meant poverty. Principles are hard things to live up to and Rommel was no exception to the rule. He remained in uniform with the same hope many German officers held - "the Nazi's are just a phase".

My wife and I were discussing many matters today, most theoretical. We talked of the events in Greece and elsewhere and the predictions of greater gloom on the economic front here. We discussed the ugly "what-ifs". As a man that has spent his entire adult life in uniform with just a wee bit more to go before I am allowed to take it off I think deeply about the worst-case what-if's. I told my wife at one point "you know there have been many things I have done that I did not understand or agree with but there are others that I simply will not do". These are words I did not have to speak, she knows, but I uttered them all the same. I will never be part of any of the business we have done in Iraq in the US, never.

I recall a survey conducted among Marines back in the 1990's that asked something along the lines - "if ordered to disarm American citizens would you follow orders". A vast majority said yes. This was long before we had a precedent of the National Guard and the Coast Guard disarming citizens after Katrina. This was before our military had seven years experience as a constabulary force on foreign soil. Such a survey is not even required today, we know the answer.

In 1993 the Command and General Staff College highlighted a paper written by Major (General Staff) Dr. Ulrich F. Zwygart entitled "How Much Obedience Does an Officer Need?". It is discouraging that I cannot find an example, dirivative or offshoot of this topic written and published by any US Officer. I recommend this paper to anyone interested in what the professional officers in the German Army did and failed to do about the "constitutional crisis" in Germany in the 1930's. in Zxygart's words "Conscience, which regulates man's impulsive aggressive action, is diminished, however, when man enters a hierarchical structure".

Not so for Chief of the General Staff General Ludwig Beck --

Beck criticized Hitler's aggressive plans for territorial policy that could only lead to defeat and reduction of Germany. Beck renounced a brilliant career, preferring to resign in protest rather than serve a regime that did not act in favor of its people. His opposition was rooted in a firm Christian faith and in a conservative attitude that believed legality, integrity, ethics, and responsibility were crucial for the servant of a nation. When Beck resigned in 1938, he was motivated not only by "professional and political knowledge" but also by the "dictate of conscience" --believing that
"obedience ends where knowledge, conscience, and responsibility prohibit the execution of an order." Doubtless, the conspirators, civilian and military, held him in high esteem and looked to him as their true leader.

Several officers junior to him made the same brave choice - others silently plotted, while most gave in and played along. I am not certain that we have many men of Beck's character serving in our military today. And while I do not find it conceivable that our government could become as overtly murderous as that of the Nazi's I do not find it inconceivable that it could radically and fundamentally change our very concept of freedom amidst some major crisis. One needs only look at the radical redefining of rights over the last few years to understand how that could go. One need only look at the evaporation of posse comitatus by degrees to understand the government's willingness and intention to use the military to retain control and power is said crisis "requires" it.

To resign amidst this economic turmoil and the much worse troubles that would precipitate a conclusion that "obedience ends where knowledge, conscience, and responsibility prohibit the execution of an order." That is harsh, forfeiting an earned retirement is harsh - but there are some orders I simply will never follow. I pray I never receive such orders and have to follow my conscience into personal ruin.

Stumble It!

Cops Gone Wild

Read this article and then pay special attention to the comments - Police Get The Wrong House In Galveston, Allegedly Assault 12-Year-Old Girl. It seems people are growing ever more tired of this nonesense.

This is of course not a new sort of story - there have been far too may, some heavily reported others not. The fact is our local police have become something of a clear and present threat to us, the regular people.

I am always amazed watching "cop" shows, Youtube videos and basically any other footage of cops reacting to someone they perceive has a gun. I recall seeing a Youtube video not long ago of an old woman that the New Orleans police had broken into her home to check on her "safety". She proceeded to show the 15 cops in her home all her food and explain the fact that her house had never been under water and had no structural damage. When they were unconvinced she showed one of them her unloaded pistol. She was gang tackled. An old woman in her home, not breaking any law - tackled, subdued and bruised by a gang of thugs in the name of "law and order"...in America.

No matter what you think of US Soldiers and Marines in the Middle East I can assure you they demonstrate a lot less fear and over reaction to the presence of a weapon in most cases. Everyone is armed, they are guaranteed a right to keep a gun. Much as I thought Americans were. Just pay attention the next time you see cops on video talking to someone, all is relatively calm, the cops outnumber the citizen but the second these fools think there is a gun present that is not on their hip - well just watch.

Do not give me any nonsense about the job being dangerous and they needing to protect themselves. I have done dangerous work, I know what it is all about. They are supposed to keep the peace, not rough people up in the name of protecting themselves.

Read these cases of folks using self-defense against cops out of control and walking away free. Perhaps more people ought to exercise the basic right to self-defense when assaulted by government thugs.

Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1
Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903
State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260

Stumble It!

Not in America You Say?

Little by little, step by step we are accepting the mechanisms of our own demise...

(From DUI Blog) The U.S. Marines have landed…and are apparently manning "sobriety checkpoints" in San Bernardino County in California. Yes, Marines. Yes, civilian DUI roadblocks.

From an official December 10th California Highway Patrol public relations release:

CHP to Conduct Sobriety/Driver’s License Checkpoint

"The Morongo office of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in conjunction with the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department and the USMC military police will conduct a joint sobriety/driver license checkpoint on Friday, December 12, 2008, somewhere in the unincorporated/incorporated area of San Bernardino County."

As an American citizen, not to mention a former Marine, I find this troubling — particularly in view of the clear wording of the Posse Comitatus act of 1878, described in Wikipedia.

A follow-up call to a Marine Corps public affairs sergeant resulted in assurances that the Marines would be there "as observers". Hmmmm…..military observers. Isn’t that how it all starts?

Stumble It!

Dystopia By Good Intentions

If a dystopian nightmare of the totalitarian state finally arrives in the United States, it will be the result of a compromise, and there will be people around until the very end who will insist that we should be grateful because it could be much worse...

There is only one sure way that you can know you are on the right side of history, and that is by saying what is true and defending what is right, without exception. It is not left to intellectuals to play political games. Intellectuals are supposed to tell the truth, regardless of the moment. That means, in these days, completely opposing all increases in state power under the cover of "countercyclical policy."

Let evil people take responsibility for their evil policies. Those who know better should stick to the right and true. (Lew says "Don't Cave")

There are indeed many existing and emerging justifications for the revolt Celente spoke about....to those of us in our 30's and 40's our grandparents fought fascism and tyranny - shame on us for allowing those evil ideologies to win via compromise.

Stumble It!

The Headlines Read "Nationalization"

WASHINGTON -- Congress and the White House inched toward a financial rescue of the Big Three auto makers, negotiating legislation that would give the U.S. government a substantial ownership stake in the industry and a central role in its restructuring.

This was predictable and yet I am still speechless.

Corporatism = Socialism (according to AnarchoCatholic)

perhaps more accurately

Corporatism + Socialism + Nationalism = Fascism (for clarity if I wrote that today I would replace "nationalism" with "statism", I believe misplaced nationalism is bad but statism sums up what I meant better)

Here is a wonderful term "Post–Constitutional America” or as Sorbran put it a condition in which the "U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government". (read the article)

Nationalization of significant portions of an entire industry must have been on one of the missing pages of my copy of the Constitution.

Stumble It!

Just Another Piece to The Puzzle

I have not commented on this for many reasons but make of it what you will...

20K US troops to be deployed domestically - Dreher has commentary and links to others with more commentary.

This is simply not a step in the right direction but instead a move forward down the road we have been traveling - one that will inevitably lead to a circumstance in which we today simply can not fathom what America in several years will look like.

And Joshua you are correct - it is no surprise.

Stumble It!

Beware of the Busybody

I was browsing the LewRockwell.com blog and I stumbled upon this. I am so greatful that we live in a "free" country.

Stumble It!

National Treasure 2

Last night I saw this film - again because the wife wanted to. It was what I expected; filled with odes to the Lincoln mythology. The villain of the film is a Southerner, a descendant of General Albert Pike. (creative huh).

It is not worth discussing the film other than to comment on a couple of points. First, there are several points where the characters state something to the effect, "imagine if the Confederates had got their hands on all that gold".

Imagine what? Would it really have been so terrible for a new nation to gain its freedom because that is what the people of that nation wanted? I failed to get it each time one of the characters in the movie made such a silly statement. I guess secession got in the way of manifest destiny and all that.

The plot of the film revolves around the fabled city of gold. It ends up being located in the Black Hills, almost under Mt. Rushmore (Six Grandfathers before the Federal Government took it over). Apparently the entire Rushmore project was conceived (according to the story) to hide the city of gold. At one point the dialogue in the movie talks about finding this piece of Indian culture (the use the non-preferred "native american" term).

It is interesting to note that once they find it I did not notice one single Indian there cataloguing and collecting all of the treasure. I suppose it was all headed off to the Smithsonian for "safe-keeping". All of that gold sure would set up the Lakotah Nation up nicely don't you think?

Which of course brings us to sic semper tyranus, the idea that tyrants always should get the (knife, gun, bomb etc.) the only problem with that is that killing a tyrant only allows a worse tyrant to replace them. Killing Lincoln (clearly a tyrant by any real definition) simply allowed the most radical Republicans to implement their policies. Killing tyrant did not even work in Rome, they tried it, over and over and simply kept finding new tyrants ready and wiling to fill the job.

*Lincoln deserved to die, he should have been impeached, tied and hanged for prosecuting unjust war, suppressing Constitutional rights and subverting due process - that is the fate tyrants should face; not to be revered on coins and monuments.

The real problem in the acceptance of the precepts of tyranny. It is those concepts that must be killed to actually "kill" tyrants, i.e. keep them in their place.

Stumble It!

That Lincoln Fellow

Anthony Gregory has penned a fabulous piece on the backlash from Russert's attempt to trip Ron Paul up with a question about Lincoln's War.

George W. Bush and the Republican establishment are, if nothing else, Lincolnian,
regardless of what anyone might say. The party of corporatism, imperialism,
centralism, economic fascism, dictatorship, aggressive war, militaristic duplicity, conscription, direct taxation, cronyism and police statism has never strayed much from its 1860s roots. And it has always advanced despotism in the name of liberty and national honor, from Lincoln to Teddy, from Nixon to Reagan, from the Bushes to Benito.

The fact that "conservatives" have flocked to and supported the GOP over the last half century is really more a result of the Democrat parties abandonment of its roots than any real redeeming conservative principles in the GOP itself. I have voted Republican in with the only excpetions a couple of votes for Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates when I had an option. The legacy of Lincoln is written all over the GOP and if it does not shake that legacy, renouncing it outright it deserves to fall and crumble.

But Ron Paul has done something that no presidential candidate of any prominence has done in many, many years — he has challenged the cult of Lincoln, the ideological godhead of the modern American regime. The Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Wilsonian empire and now the Lincolnian central state have all
become national issues of discourse again. Thanks, Ron Paul. Once again, you
have told the American people what they need to hear. If we want America to become a free country, we must go further than overturning the legacy of George
W. Bush. We must overturn much more, and replace it with liberty itself. We are
closer to that goal than ever, as the ideological basis for the modern American
system is crumbling at every moment of exposure to Dr. Paul's truth serum.

Indeed he has, but who really wants to listen? To listen to such truth requires a fundemental change in the way one sees the world. It is too comfortable to accept the status quo, not to ask the hard questions and not to hear real truth. No real conservative, no real lover of liberty could look at Lincoln as anything more than a murderous tyrant - a man that simply ignored the law off the land to force his idea of a perfect union upon the people via force.

Stumble It!

Another Strike at Freedom

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (HR 1955) passed through Congress in October without any MSM attention and very little real discussion on the blogshphere. However, this is yet another significant piece of legislation in terms of strengthening the government and stripping the freedom of the people.

Positive Universe summed up the danger within the text of this bill:

...it is important to read the actual bill because it is proposing to study thought not implement actions against persons, yet. The controversial aspects are 1) whether the government should study its citizens thoughts and beliefs as potential threats against itself; 2) the public and even the legislators themselves are not yet engaged in that debate; 3) a lack of clarity as to who wrote and wants the bill; and 4) what sets of actions might subsequently be implemented by such a study. The bill does use provocative terms, and it does make some dangerous assumptions, such as the finding that American citizens are susceptible and gullible to internet-based, terrorist propaganda.

The FBI has historically defined domestic terrorist by their criminal acts. Consider the circumstances surrounding the Aryan Republican Army. Sure these people had what could rightly be termed a radical ideology and they acted to in criminal ways to further that ideology. They key is they became criminals (bank robbers). They were thwarted based upon their criminal behavior - none of their efforts truly furthered their cause. The FBI's stance has been to treat such groups as criminals (when they break the law). They have never attacked the thought process of these groups, instead focusing on the criminal behavior itself.

As far as approach has gone it has worked. There have been no examples of domestic terrorist successfully acting out without a connection to criminal activity. Oh, but you say what about the Oklahoma City bombing. Well perhaps that was an anomaly of one or two ideologues. Then again there is strong evidence that can trace McVeigh to Elohim City.

In any event, just like almost every piece of legislation passed by our Federal masters, the cure is worse than the disease. Let us assume that the cost of true freedom is an occasional wacko in our midst, would we prefer to sacrifice that freedom for the hope of security? Surely we would gain neither in such a case. This bill is nothing more than an additional sacrifice of freedom at the alter of faith in the government - statism no less.

Consider the wording of the bill, read it. They intend to look at thought prior to action as a tool to stop the domestic terrorism that has yet to really materialize. That is enough, in and of itself, to make any freedom loving patriot cringe.

Here is another snippet of interest to anyone interested in States' Rights and the notion that our states can in fact at some point stand up to the Federal Government they created if that government goes too far in violating the compact and usurping too much power unto itself.:

The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Here we have it, an anti-secession bill in point of fact. The wording may be deceptive at first glance but consider the implications. This gives specific protection to the Federal government from any that would oppose it - that would include the duly elected members of a state government if there were ever to be a real disagreement over the precise meaning of the meaning of delegated and reserved powers.

If for instance Vermont of Hawaii were to actually secede (in Hawaii's case merely reestablish independence) and subsequently restrict the action of Federal agents within their borders the elected officials of the state and the agents of that state could be deemed terrorist.

Perhaps you say a nation should have the right to protect its own existence - but from its own people or from the states that gave it birth? We could look at the example of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the peril they faced for that act. That is a pretty sad example for the Federal Government to follow - Britain was an Empire jealously clinging to power despite the wishes of the people. Is that what our Republic has become - an empire fearful of the thoughts of its own people? Apparently so.

This bill is less interesting because of the freedoms it threatens (we have plenty of those to rail against). No this is significant because it truly represents an act of an empire in self-protection mode. This is what we have become, this is what drunken hubris has wrought.

Here is what some others have said of this bill (via Positive Universe)

OpEdNews, PA: Telling the Truth Is About To Be Criminalized 2007-12-01 If you are trying to change this messed-up world with your radical educational actions (even if they are pacifist in nature) you will be guilty of facilitating ideologically-based violence, for which you can be prosecuted. If you share your unapproved thoughts with other people and make them think like you do, then all of you are liable to be hauled-off for thought-crimes. Passage of this legislation to control the thoughts and communications of dissident Americans makes clear why our government needed to build all those FEMA camps.

GovExec.com, DC: Rights advocates target domestic terrorism bill in Senate Nov 29, 2007 The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers also issued a joint statement Tuesday, saying they strongly oppose this legislation because it will likely lead to the criminalization of beliefs, dissent and protest, and invite more draconian surveillance of Internet communications.

Columbus Free Press, OH: S 1959 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007? must be stopped 2007-12-01 If this bill is passed, and becomes law, your words and actions could be considered terrorism. Bill S 1959 EVISCERATES FREE SPEECH, and empowers the govt. to declare ANYTHING they deem an extremist belief system, instantly makes you a terrorist, resulting in stripping of US citizenship, torture, and/or execution, with no habeas corpus rights, no ability to challenge, even in the US Supreme Court.

Northwest Progressive Institute Official Blog, WA: McCarthy would have loved SB 1959 2007-12-01 The bill would establish a commission similar to Joseph McCarthys House Un-American Activities Committee and could potentially make any sort of political dissent or controversial religious display illegal. Even thinking about such things could get you in trouble.

Stumble It!

Tyranny via Paranoia

I do not read the Huffington Post but I ran across a well written piece on the The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
. He nails all of the key points.

Harman's bill contends that the United States will soon have to deal with home grown terrorists and that something must be done to anticipate and neutralize the problem. The act deals with the issue through the creation of a congressional commission that will be empowered to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and designate various groups as "homegrown terrorists." The commission will be tasked to propose new legislation that will enable the government to take punitive action against both the groups and the individuals who are affiliated with them. Like Joe McCarthy and HUAC in the past, the commission will travel around the United States and hold hearings to find the terrorists and root them out. Unlike inquiries in the past where the activity was carried out collectively, the act establishing the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Commission will empower all the members on the commission to arrange hearings, obtain testimony, and even to administer oaths to witnesses, meaning that multiple hearings could be running simultaneously in various parts of the country. The ten commission members will be selected for their "expertise," though most will be appointed by Congress itself and will reflect the usual political interests. They will be paid for their duties at the senior executive pay scale level and will have staffs and consultants to assist them. Harman's bill does not spell out terrorist behavior and leaves it up to the Commission itself to identify what is terrorism and what isn't. Language inserted in the act does partially define "homegrown terrorism" as "planning" or "threatening" to use force to promote a political objective, meaning that just thinking about doing something could be enough to merit the terrorist label. The act also describes "violent radicalization" as the promotion of an "extremist belief system" without attempting to define "extremist."

That nails it, a commission (remember Joe McCarthy?) to anticipate and root out bad thoughts among the American populace. I still have to ask - where and who is the threat that we are rooting out? When and where has this threat reared its ugly head?

It has not, else all of us regular and mundane citizens would know about it. After all it is impossible to live in a country rife with real sedition, rebellion and terrorism and not actually know about it. Perhaps folks that question the validity of conducting preemptive war (contrary to proper Constitutional controls) are the ones the supporters of this bill are afraid of. Perhaps it is those that actually believe that the Constitution means what it says. It could be anyone that seriously disagrees with the "truths" our masters feed us.

Giraldi continues...

As should be clear from the vagueness of the definitions, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act could easily be abused to define any group that is pressuring the political system as "terrorist," ranging from polygamists, to second amendment rights supporters, anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, and peace demonstrators. In reality, of course, it will be primarily directed against Muslims and Muslim organizations. Given that, there is the question of who will select which groups will be investigated by the roving commissions. There is no evidence to suggest that there will be any transparent or objective screening process. Through their proven access both to the media and to Congress, the agenda will undoubtedly be shaped by the usual players including David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, and Frank Gaffney who see a terrorist hiding under every rock, particularly if the rock is concealing a Muslim. They and their associates will undoubtedly find plenty of terrorists and radical groups to investigate. Many of the suspects will inevitably be "anti-American" professors at various universities and also groups of Palestinians organized against the Israeli occupation, but it will be easily to use the commission formula to sweep them all in for examination.

Of course the focus will initially focus on the "usual suspects" but if you read the bill closely you see that the paychecks of the commission are tied directly to their findings. The longer they find bogey men to investigate the longer the commission exists and the longer the paychecks keep rolling in. It is thus with much that the government does - "results oriented" longevity is the thing that has kept many useless programs alive in our system. You can bet you bottom dollar that the targets of this commission's investigations will indeed turn toward many non-terrorist but righteously indignant groups.

The view that 9/11 has "changed everything" is unfortunately all too true. It has unleashed American paranoia, institutionalized mistrust of foreigners, and created a fantasy universe in which a US beset by enemies must do anything and everything to counter the alien threat. If it were a sane world, it would be difficult to imagine why anyone would believe that a Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act is even necessary. The United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in strengthening law enforcement and intelligence capabilities against terrorists and has every tool imaginable to investigate and make arrests. It has created a whole new bloated and dysfunctional branch of government in the Department of Homeland Security. What is not needed is groups of congressionally empowered vigilantes roaming the country at will looking for "homegrown terrorism."

The only thing that 9/11 really changed was the pace of evolution from Republic to Empire started by Adams, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson etc. Bush is merely an heir to this bad ideology. Paranoia, blind faith in a defunct system, and general ignorance of basic civic responsibility and history among the population are the factors that have combined to make this all possible at this point in time. There is no reason for bills like this unless those in power actually realize that something is terribly wrong with the system and they truly fear that one day the mass of zombies occupying the land might just wake up and want to change things (with our without the consent of the rulers).

Stumble It!

Firemen Being Trained to Report Citizens Unhappy with the US Government

Why firemen? Because they can enter your property without a warrant, for inspections, etc... // Next up: Firemen will be trained to carry flamethrowers, find banned books... // Note to any firemen: _thank_you_ for doing your real job, saving lives. Being discontent with creeping fascism doesn't threaten society, but it does threaten the fascists...

read more | digg story

Stumble It!

Feds Raid Liberty Dollar

This is all over the blogsphere and I decided to copy what I posted on my personal blog here.

The FBI and Secret Service conducted a raid on the Liberty Dollar office in Evansville, Indiana. It appears that that gold, silver, and records were seized. The following is taken directly from their website:

I sincerely regret to inform you that about 8:00 this morning a dozen FBI and Secret Service agents raided the Liberty Dollar office in Evansville.

For approximately six hours they took all the gold, all the silver, all the platinum and almost two tons of Ron Paul Dollars that where just delivered last Friday. They also took all the files, all the computers and froze our bank accounts.

We have no money. We have no products. We have no records to even know what was ordered or what you are owed. We have nothing but the will to push forward and overcome this massive assault on our liberty and our right to have real money as defined by the US Constitution. We should not to be defrauded by the fake government money.

But to make matters worse, all the gold and silver that backs up the paper certificates and digital currency held in the vault at Sunshine Mint has also been confiscated. Even the dies for mint the Gold and Silver Libertys have been taken.

I surmise that Ron Paul's candidacy might have something to do with this insofar as he has finally brought monetary policy into the debates. I think that there are more of us "kooks" who demand sound money than anticipated. After all, why raid them now? They have been around since 1998. I guess they don't want any competition against the declining dollar and the forthcomming Amero.

Stumble It!

Corporatism = Socialism

AnarchoCatholic reminds us that "[a] potentially undying legal entity which separates ownership from control, is created by, sustained by, and subject to the state, and removes liability from human beings conducting affairs which affect all of society doesn't seem to jive with anything resembling a free market"─Corporations Aren't Capitalism. (via Western Confucian)

Of course I would add that Corporatism + Socialism + Nationalism + Militarism = Fascism

Stumble It!

Re: Remember the 5th of November

Stumble It!

Trade in the Americas: The Conspiratorial Urban Legend of the Evil NAFTA Superhighway

Harvesting the Enemies of America Series

*** DISINFORMATION HIT PIECE *** from: World Trade Magazine

[snippet]
Trade in the Americas: The Conspiratorial Urban Legend of the Evil NAFTA Superhighway, by Clay Risen The questions surprised even a presidential candidate as poised as Mitt Romney. A bespectacled, matronly woman at the back of the audience in Story City, Iowa, had heard news about an enormous highway being built between across the Midwest, linking Mexico and Canada.“You can find it on the Internet, a Security and Prosperity Partnership that’s been working for a while to join the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and part of it is a NAFTA superhighway,” she explained.She rejected Romney’s dismissal that the story was make-believe. “I don’t think they’re talking about it,” she retorted. Rather than argue, he offered a vague promise—“if they are building it, I’ll stop it”—and quickly took another question.The “superhighway question” recurred often on the GOP campaign trail. Rudy Giuliani got it in Concord, New Hampshire.

In Cedar Falls, Iowa, John McCain was asked what he knew about secret plans for a highway “to unite the three nations together.” According to libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, a conservative Republican Congressman from Texas running for president (and a firm opponent of the superhighway), the plans to link Mexico, the United States and Canada by a monster highway will be the sleeper issue of the 2008 election. The Concord Monitor (New Hampshire) agrees: “The road comes up at town meetings second only to immigration policy.”Reality is there’s no such highway in the works. “The U.S. government is not planning a NAFTA Super Highway,” reads a Commerce Department web page. “The U.S. government does not have the authority to designate any highway as a NAFTA Superhighway, nor has it sought such authority, nor is it planning to seek such authority.”But that inconvenient fact hasn’t quelled populist unrest.Riding well below the mainstream media’s radar, the highway is just one of the many real and imagined cross-border programs—the Security and Prosperity Partnership (real), the North American Union (imagined), the “amero” currency (also imagined)—to draw the attention of conspiracy-theory mongers over the past year. It is all over the right-wing blogosphere. And, it is the reigning issue in newsletters put out by fringe groups like the John Birch Society. Asserted CNN host Lou Dobbs last year, “The Bush White House, supported by corporate America and special interests, [is] building a
superhighway dividing this country, a superhighway that will run between Mexico and Canada.”Politicians are stoking the flames. In January, Virginia GOP Rep. Virgil Goode introduced a bill—which quickly gained 27 co-sponsors—“expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.”

Nor is this a partisan issue: In July the House approved, by an overwhelming 362-63 vote, a ban on funding for a “NAFTA superhighway.” Most recently, Goode joined 21 fellow representatives in a letter to President George W. Bush warning of “serious and growing concern in the U.S. Congress about the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership.”Bush, speaking at a meeting with his Canadian and Mexican counterparts, laughed it off. “I’m amused by the difference between what
actually takes place in the meetings and by what some are trying to say takes place,” he said. “It’s quite comical actually, to realize the difference between reality and what some people on TV are talking about.”Such talk would be comical—superstates, evil corporations, a continental currency—if it weren’t also a potential threat to trade and economic growth. Tri-national trade has reached $700 billion annually, with the value of goods moving through the Laredo, Texas border crossing alone exceeding that of all goods coming from Great Britain. Economists predict those numbers will increase dramatically as U.S.-bound shipping moves from overburdened American ports to new and upgraded destinations along the Mexican and Canadian Pacific coasts. Indeed, tri-national trade has tripled since the signing of NAFTA, but cross-border infrastructure spending has been nearly flat. “The entire U.S. economy is going to be more and more dependent on the strength of its multimodal system,” says Frank Conde, spokesman for the North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO), an infrastructure advocacy group. That means more efficient border crossings, regulatory harmonization, and bigger and better infrastructure projects, which will take significant political and fiscal commitment at all levels of government.So while it’s one thing for blogs and newsletters to hype the latest conspiracy theory, it’s a serious concern when politicians start listening, and advocate legislation to block needed government investments. “Everything they say about an NAU, the SPP, and a NAFTA superhighway are falsehoods,” says Conde. “The confusion caused by organizations like that harms our ability to improve trade links.” At the precise moment when we need to be moving forward as quickly as possible on international infrastructure, the conspiracy theorists are threatening to push us backward.

This latest surge in conspiracy theorizing draws on a long-running thread in American culture.“Historically, there has always been a feeling among some in the United States that we could be more secure and prosperous if we separated ourselves from the world,” notes Robert Pastor, director of the Center for North American Studies at American University. Conspiracy theory mongering around NAFTA has been churning since President Bill Clinton signed the treaty in 1993, with the John Birch Society and other far-right groups declaring it a threat to American sovereignty and jobs. But a variety of trends have combined to both ramp up the volume and spread it closer to the mainstream.The most obvious factor is a general turning away from free trade on both the right and the left. Populist politicians in both parties have lashed out at international trade deals as the product of undemocratic plutocrats and their allies in the federal government. After her anti-superhighway bill passed in July, Ohio’s Mary Kaptur declared “a victory for openness in trade negotiations, highway safety, good wages, and fair trade policies. The grip of global corporations was loosened last night.”As conservative commentator Phyllis Schlafly wrote in a recent syndicated column, “Now that the game plan is laid out, we can connect the dots: the North American Free Trade Agreement; the admission of Mexican trucks onto U.S. highways; the contract to build the TransTexas Corridor and the plans to extend it into a NAFTA Superhighway; making Kansas City an international ‘port’; the ‘totalization’ of illegal immigrants into the U.S. Social Security system; and the recently defeated Senate amnesty bill.”Ironically, many free trade advocates say that when you look at the actual state of cross-border cooperation, the problem is not that we’re doing too much. It’s that we’re not doing enough. Take the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), an ongoing dialogue begun in 2005 and designed to coordinate cross-border regulatory and security policies. While conspiracy theorists depict the SPP as a way to weaken American laws, in fact it has no authority to make any changes one way or another to the regulatory regime. “The SPP conforms with existing laws,” says David Bohigan, assistant secretary of commerce for market access and compliance. Instead, he says, the goal is to harmonize existing laws and regulations between countries. Think of it as a matter of translation: Far from forcing everyone to learn Spanish, the SPP is like a Spanish-to-English dictionary, allowing English speakers to understand their neighbors without ditching their own language. A typical initiative under the framework calls for the three nations to “develop a common approach to standardize the regulatory measures taken in response to Phakopsora pachyrizi (soybean rust).”

If this is a conspiracy theory, it’s hardly the stuff of aliens and x-files. The SPP actually has a number of critics on the other side, people who say it does not go far enough in establishing a framework for discussion. “If there is anything wrong with the SPP, it is not secrecy, but the fact that it is a mishmash of disconnected and mostly trivial initiatives, lacking any organizing vision or direction,” wrote Roland Paris, a former Canadian foreign policy adviser, in the Toronto Globe and Mail.“The SPP is an important initiative,” says Pastor. “My fear is that it is too timid and too fearful of criticism from the right.”Wholly separate from the SPP are efforts to expand the transportation infrastructure that carries goods into and around the country. Rather than links in a conspiratorial plot, in fact they are uncoordinated, unrealized, and in most cases unlikely to be built. First, there is North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition, a Dallas-based nonprofit. Despite its imposing name, NASCO is nothing more than an advocacy group for better use of current trade corridors, in particular the routes running from Mexico to Canada. “What we’re trying to do is push both the private sector and the public sector to maximize the efficiency and security of the existing transportation infrastructure,” says NASCO’s Conde.Even NASCO admits that improving the efficiency of existing corridors is hardly a solution for the long term. Between now and 2025, Texas alone will see a 132 percent increase in traffic, with 260,465 trucks using its highways every day. In response, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been pushing for what comes closest to an actual NAFTA superhighway: a new, 1,200-foot-wide toll road running from the Mexican border to Oklahoma, the centerpiece in a collection of projects known as the TransTexas Corridor (TTC).

Because the highway, estimated to take $180 billion and 50 years to build, would cut through numerous Texas communities and displace up to one million residents, the plan has drawn a fusillade of public criticism, particularly from farmers who stand to lose valuable land to the project.Handing over infrastructure management to the foreign private sector is nothing new—French firms run numerous American water districts, and an Australian-Spanish joint venture manages the Chicago Skyway. Nevertheless, the possible role of foreign business in the TTC’s construction and operation has given an added twist to fears of a NAFTA superhighway. Such opposition has already throttled Perry’s momentum toward approving the TTC, and observers say it looks increasingly unlikely that the project will get built. The controversy over the “superhighway,” the SPP, the TTC and other efforts exposes a harsh truth about the future of the American economy. While free trade agreements and World Trade Organization negotiations are vital, the means by which trade actually occurs—or, increasingly, is impeded—are the everyday pieces of the continental transportation infrastructure: highways, rails, port terminals, and regulations. And, while the United States has maintained a global leadership on writing and expanding trade deals, it has done a poor job of expanding its infrastructure to meet the demands of the resulting increases in cross-border trade.All of which means that the more the conspiracy theorists on the Internet, in the media, and in government frame the issue on their terms, the less the country will be able to make the sorts of investments necessary to assure its long-term growth—and therefore the long-term prosperity of the continent, and the world. [end snippet]

Stumble It!

Fascist Pigs

I hate to fly; I enjoyed traveling years ago. I enjoyed the whole process of packing up all the things I might need and feeling really prepared. Not so anymore - almost anything and everything I might want to place in my backpack are now forboden. A decent person cannot even carry a bottle of water - although everyone knows that proper hydration is key to avoiding "jet lag".

Every time I fly within the United States I get - well pissed off. Foreign carriers with destinations in other lands are not so offensive. I remember one time, way back in 1997, when I was flying from Kuwait to Germany and I purchased a sword in the duty free area of the Kuwait City airport - I had no choice but to take it on the plane with me. Nobody questioned me, nobody thought twice about it. Air travel back then was fun and adventurous. I amused myself that if I were ever to become a character on a show like "Lost" I would be prepared with the things I carried in my pockets. I still try to live the Boy Scout creed of being prepared. (the show did not exist back then but you get what I mean).

You know the drill now, just try to exercise your God given right to travel freely within your own country - you find yourself subjected to the most ridiculous sorts of nonsense. It always seems to take me 20 minutes to get through the screening. I am almost always singled out for "random" questioning. I was even pulled aside and questioned on my last return flight from Iraq. The little imp informed me that I had set off their explosives detector - "well of course you moron", I am sure that there was residue from a lot of nasty things lingering in my clothes and equipment. That did not matter to them - they don't look at people and apply common sense - they use a big fly swatter and in the process offend the rights of a lot of good people.

Two days ago I sat in the international terminal at Inchon, South Korea - waiting to board a Korean Airlines flight to Hawaii. Over the loud speaker a friendly voice informed us that "per a request from the Transportation Security Agency we would have to undergo a second security screening". This was for everyone on the flight, we had all passed though an initial screening - the full Monty in fact - prior to entering the international concourse. I had undergone one previous to that before boarding a domestic flight within Korea enroute to Inchon.

I thought to myself, as I prepared to subject myself to another unnecessary intrusion into my personal space - "what nerve". Why would the Korean government subvert its own sovereignty to the "requests" of the TSA? Why would they allow their own citizens as well as guest in their country to be subjected to the paranoid delusions of a two bit bunch of wanna be tyrants? I don't know the answer to this - I have theories but those are not important.

It seems that America truly is leading the world - into fear, overreaction and bad judgment. You may say that these little "inconveniences" are necessary; I say that they are just part of conditioning people to accept that the government has the "right" to stick its hands in our pockets whenever and wherever it pleases. This is a dangerous precedent to allow to stand and a tragic course for a "free people" to follow.

I don't think terming the people that think these things up as "fascist pigs" is too harsh or hyperbole - I think it is a description that hits the nail right on the head.

I am done venting and plan to enjoy the rest of my vacation in Hawaii - today was grand, we went snorkeling, I got back on a board for the first time in years and I enjoyed cuisine I have been deprived of for two years.

Stumble It!

Waterboardin' USA

Side Note: I'll have photos posted of the Ron Paul rally here in Columbia soon. My camera was misbehaving but at least my favorite picture turned out ok.

Stumble It!

Amerika 2007

Ahhh, freedom. This crosses the line between not only educational freedom but issues related to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

By the way, I believe that social workers in general are really agents of Satan himself. Combine this busybody social worker (who apparently has nothing better to do than to "strip search" children) with the police (who think there is no end to their power) and one has a recipe for disaster.

Stumble It!

Columbia, SC: Un-Safe for Americanism!

South Carolina GOP Scalawags have brought the federal fascist police state to SC. To be sure, there are some patriots in our legislature,but Senate President Glenn McConnell is not one of them.


"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." ~ Winston Churchill

Stumble It!

FEMA's Softball Team

WASHINGTON — No one had any hard questions for the deputy administrator of FEMA, an agency deeply tarnished by its delayed action after Hurricane Katrina, when he held a news conference Tuesday to talk about the California wildfires.

"Are you happy with FEMA's response so far?" someone asked.

Indeed, the deputy administrator was. "I am very happy with FEMA's response so far," responded Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson Jr.

The news conference looked like a success in the Bush administration's effort this week to demonstrate it could respond competently to a disaster.

On Friday, however, the agency admitted that the softball questions were posed by FEMA employees, not reporters.

My goodness talk about propaganda and dishonesty. Surely these bureaucrats knew that there was something morally wrong with conducting a news conference, answering questions and such sans real reporters. Then again probably not - they thought this a good way to "get out their message" tot he American people - who needs anyone asking hard questions? This idiots just don't understand how hard it is to squander millions of taxpayers dollars. "We are the government and we are here to help."

Stumble It!

Delarey Song

About This Video

The popular and controversial song about the An...

The popular and controversial song about the Anglo-Boer War, that has caused a public outcry in South Africa.

As the British tried to do a hundred years ago, the black majority government is now trying to suppress the Afrikaner nation's culture - and in fact all traces of their history.

Public funding is being withdrawn from Afrikaner monuments, even though Afrikaners contribute more than their share to tax income. Millions are being spent on changing the names of towns, streets etc. while little is done to maintain infrastructure.

The new generation of Afrikaners had nothing to do with Apartheid, yet they are faced with a bleak future, suffering under racial discrimination in the form of affirmative action.

Although this excludes them from jobs and promotion beyond a certain level, it also stimulates entrepreneurship and innovative thinking.

The Afrikaner nation will rise again to take its place in the country their forefathers helped to build and develop.

Amazing and inspiring - a testament to the work of Empires and the destruction they leave in their wake.

Stumble It!

Who is Next?

Stumble It!

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners

Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really" (The Independent)

It is dangerous, probably, to blog about this. After all, the mere mention of an issue like this is likely to result in someone calling you a racist. However, there are a couple of important issues here worthy of discussion.

I read The Bell Curve back when everyone made such a fuss over the book. I also recall Jimmy "The Greek" being fired from CBS sports for commenting that Blacks were more successful at sports because of selective breeding during slavery.

The Bell Curve was of course much criticized even though the bulk of the book did not deal at all with racial differences in intelligence. It was an amazing and eye-opening experience to one have read the book and two talk to people that had not but were certain it was a racist tome. I carried a copy on a flight and a colleague berated me for even considering that as reading material. However, the book did make numerous valid points supported by data.

Jimmy "The Greek" was another issue entirely. He had only anecdotal evidence, just his own observations and an opinion based upon those observations. However, a logical examination of his theory essentially stands up. Africans and African-Americans certainly are vastly different physically. I am not certain this is all a matter of environment and nutrition. There are many well nourished Africans that compete and win long distance running events, very few African- Americans compete in these events. It also has to be more than the geographical separation. Four hundred years is not enough time to manifest the physical differences that are so apparent in these two groups. Jimmy must have been correct, it has to have something to do with the experience of slavery.

So back to James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner associated with mapping human DNA (not that a Nobel Prize means a lot, a la Gore). Here is a scientist with accomplishments and expert knowledge in the area he is speaking about. For sure he is positing a theory that cannot be backed up with hard evidence, after all there is still much we do not know about genetics. The history of science is filled with experts positing theories that are later proven to be true.

Alas, this is no ordinary theory. Those see the world through certain glasses never want such a theory explored. What if Watson's theory was proven true? What would that mean to egalitarians around the world? I certainly believe that all men are created equal in the eyes of God but we all know that we do not each have the exact same skills and abilities. Why is it so preposterous to examine the possibility that thousands of years of geographic separation produced more differences than just skin color? Perhaps honest scientific evaluation will answer these questions for us - but then again probably not.

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

There you have it. This is the European Union at its finest. If academics are not allowed freedom to pursue their own ideas, subjected to honest peer-review, then the world of ideas and real learning will fall into the shadows. Watson may be all wrong, but we may never really know if victims are able to use political correctness to silence his thoughts and punish him for actually having thoughts they dislike.

Stumble It!

Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America

This is long but worth it - for most of us this is Civics 101 (simple stuff) but true all the same. She speaks simply and says "like" too often but her message is on target.

Stumble It!

Verizon Says It Turned Over Data Without Court Orders

Verizon Communications, the nation's second-largest telecom company, told congressional investigators that it has provided customers' telephone records to federal authorities in emergency cases without court orders hundreds of times since 2005.

read more | digg story

Talk about corporate complicity in the continuing trampling of the rights of The People. If I were aVerizon customer I would consider voting with my checkbook and finding another service provider.

Stumble It!

America is being shocked into fascism

"But you're talking about our government and corporations as if they're two different things," quips Maher. "Now, we all know that communism is when the government takes over private business. But, when corporations take over the government, that is what has been defined as fascism."

read more | digg story

Shocked and misled to say the least.....

Corporatism + Militarism + Nationalism = Fascism

Sometimes people use the term fascist in a knee-jerk reaction but this is not a far-cry from where we are indeed headed - perhaps a kindler, gentler sort of fascism (for now, for most people) but fascism for sure.

From the Chattanooga Declaration

2. The privileges, monopolies, and powers that private corporations have won from government threaten everyone’s health, prosperity, and liberty, and have already killed American self-government by the people.

3. The power of corporations endangers liberty as much as government power, especially when they are combined as in the American Empire.

See also: Socialist Democrats and Fascist Republicans

Stumble It!

Re: America's First Terrorist

I wrote an article entitled John Brown: Prototerrorist a few months ago in which I establish, I believe, that John Brown certainly was a terrorist by any standard by which we measure the term today.

A more realistic and honest assessment of the man paints him as an individual driven by religiously inspired ideology. A man that distrusted the government to do that which he thought was right; a person willing to do violence, commit crimes, and foment terror to achieve his aims, all for what he believed to be a greater good. In this sense he is really no different than any terrorist we might compare him to.

[...]

The question of whether Brown and was a terrorist or not is best answered by analyzing his actions. For this purpose his raid on Harper’s Ferry is sufficient. Suppose that today a group of armed men raided a government arms depot, killed innocent civilians, took hostages and engaged the police and military all with the intent of using the arms they hoped to steal to start an open insurrection. Would the media not term this group as terrorist? (Jenkins, 1996) These actions and the actors that perpetrated them would certainly be labeled as terrorist, no matter which side of the right-left divide their ideology rest.

The assertion that John Brown was a terrorist is supported by analyzing three factors; advocacy of terror to achieve political objectives, ideology-based action, violent acts and intentions.

[...]

Laying subjective ethics aside and ignoring the socio-economic realities of 19^th century slavery, and the potential reality that slavery would and was slowly disappearing via a natural death based solely on economics we can clearly establish that Brown was in fact a terrorist. His actions in Kansas were akin to many other terrorist groups we might compare his group to. Brown himself declared that the express purpose of his work in Kansas was to influence the political process and it is undeniable that that “work” involved terror and violence. His grand plan for a massive slave insurrection began with an event that if it occurred today, by any group right or left, with similarly stated objectives would certainly be deemed as that of terrorist.

The matter is simple, whether Brown was the spark that lit the fire of secession and war and eventual abolition of slavery is debatable. Other potential outcomes and ways the institution of slavery might have ended are debatable. What is not really debatable is the application of the term terrorist to John Brown, right or wrong, vindicated by history or not, his actions were that of a terrorist.

Stumble It!

America's First Terrorist

I should point out that John Brown is an ancestor of mine having the common Mayflower ancestry of Peter Browne. Fortunately, I have more significant others to more than compensate for this Brown's atrocities and crimes. Although not mentioned in the article below, John Brown was captured by Robert E. Lee, tried for treason and hung by the Commonwealth of Virginia. You see, back then states were sovereign unto themselves. Our opinion-molders have always given us a choice between 'good' evil and 'bad' evil. In 1859, John Brown was a 'good' terrorist just as the Red Chinese are 'good' communists while Chavez, along with growing resentment of Putin are bad' communists. Cuba's Battista was a 'bad' dictator, but Castro is a 'good' one. Nicaragua's Somoza was a "bad" dictator, but the Communist Ortega is a 'good' one. Nelson Mandela is another example of a terrorist becoming a 'good' communist. Not too far removed from Brown's terrorism is the state terrorism we inflict upon other nations today. It's 'good' evil because we know what's better for them and offer them our form of democracy in our caring for their common good. The American people are only offered policies of "relativity", 'the lesser of two evils' theory, and we lose every time. We should be grateful we only have 40 million illegals, and not 100 million?

Another not forgotten historical example of state 'good' terrorism was the abolitionists-inspired invasion of the American South and killing hundreds of thousands of Americans for the common 'good' as determined by these same New Englanders. The South has had nearly 145 years of "reconstruction", and still Yankees are resented. How long do you think it'll take the Middle East and the world to Love us again?

For more on the Unitarian subversion, see my: http://www.knology.net/~bilrum/unitwhig.htm

I further recommend Otto Scott's The Secret Six for more on the supporters and financiers of Brown's activities

by Philocrites

Okay Unitarian-Universalist and American literary history buffs, be sure to read Adam Gopnik's essay about the brilliant, violent abolitionist John Brown. I'd like to call your attention especially to the way the Transcendentalists — our most famous Unitarians — embraced Brown after he and four of his sons slaughtered five pro-slavery men in Pottawatomie Creek, Kansas. That's right, after. Reviewing David S. Reynolds's new biography, Gopnik writes:

"Brown was never arrested or tried for the Kansas killings, and when he came back East he found himself a hero—though not with the members of Garrison’s abolitionist “establishment,” who were firmly pacifist and consumed by their own sectarian squabbling. Instead, it was the high Transcendentalists, Thoreau and Emerson and Alcott first among them, who became Brown’s fervent admirers and propagandists. Some of Reynolds’s most illuminating pages are devoted to Brown’s relationship to the Transcendentalists. The historical cliché has been that the Transcendentalists had their heads too far up in the clouds to see what was happening on the bloody earth below. Reynolds, however, following Stauffer, establishes that they were Brown’s most important intellectual allies..."

Stumble It!

Treasury claims power to seize gold and silver -- and everything else

Stumble It!

Enemies of Liberty Love Lincoln

Caution: May be offensive & not recommended viewing by neo-cons, GOP Party hacks, government teachers, intolerants, rent-seekers, or numb-numbs of any persuasion.

Fence sitters welcome.

---

Enemies of Liberty Love Lincoln
Thomas DiLorenzo explains why (video).

Stumble It!

Democide by Government

We must now construct a scorecard for the Neo-Conservatives' record of imposing "democracies" with pre-emptive undeclared warring in the interest of "national security" and "common good". A good place to start is with the works of RJ Rummel. A page of democide images from his site is here. The only presidential candidate who would end these unlawful wars is Ron Paul.

(I don't see Stalin's victims mentioned here, i.e.,

Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania)

murder of German POWs by Allied soldiers

---

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF

CV

Stumble It!

Don't Put Your Hands On Me

MORRISVILLE - When Morrisville police officer Chris Gill handed him a ticket, Kent Kauffman coughed. Next thing Kauffman knew, Gill was charging him with assault on a government official.

I suppose having lived in South Korea for the last two years I have become accustomed to a much kinder and gentler sort of police force. Just the other weekend I witnessed a site that humored and saddened me. A man stood in front of a police station yelling and screaming at three police officers - he threw papers that the police had given him, kicked a tree, pointed his finger in one of the officer's face.

What was the reaction of the police? Did they have their hands on their weapons? Did they circle around the man, call for their "friends" and pull out their mace and tasers? Did they throw the man to the ground and rough him up a bit? No, none of these.

I was humored by the minor spectacle and saddened to realize how differently the scene would have played out in the States.

You see in Korea there are no road side killings of civilians by police during traffic stops. There are no traffic stops. The police in general are very "hands-off", I have never once looked at one of them and thought to myself "that guy thinks he is Dirty Harry, he could be trouble". I cannot say the same for police in the states. I am a law abiding citizen, serving in the military and yet I have at times in the states wondered about my own safety in the hands of the police. Don't take me wrong, I have never had any sort of difficulty thus far but I can certainly envision how one of these events you often read about could go badly with me. I for one would not be pulled out of my car for merely coughing if I truly did not mean to cough on the guy. I have never sought trouble but I will not be laid a hand upon if I am in the right.

Perhaps the Koreans could teach some of our goose-stepping Nazis a few lessons - I have been spoiled in this environment.

Stumble It!

We Promise We Will Be Good

I mentioned the initial reports of this audit yesterday, and have spoken out continuously against the Patriot Act. Now we know - some of the terrible truth.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's top two law enforcement officials acknowledged Friday the FBI broke the law to secretly pry out personal information about Americans. They apologized and vowed to prevent further illegal intrusions.

Of course they "vowed" to stop this, meaning they vow not to get caught in the future. Do you really believe that law enforcement folks in the US would actually give up such a powerful tool?

I recall Joshua commenting on how unique an experience it is to live in Korea and experience their style of policing. It is not the in your face sort you find in the state. In fact, you can be confident that the friendly police you see about will not accidentally shoot you during a traffic stop- they generally do not make traffic stops at all. The roads here are free-market in action and rely heavily on good human nature to function. Our entire theory of police operation in the US is very much "in your face", from traffic stops to high-tech covert spying.

Based upon the obvious and not so obvious mode of operations exercised by police in the US it is hard to imagine that the FBI is really ready to give up all the power of the Patriot Act. In fact, it is reasonable to assume, that this is exactly the sort of legal power they have sought since the days of Hoover.

Stumble It!

All Hail the Nanny-State

A strange culture of emergency has taken over this country, and the slightest provocation triggers it. It could be an expected terrorist or just an old-fashioned weather warning. The officials are quick to swing into action, and tell you what to do.

The problem is that these demands are often based on nothing other than government plans that are not in your best interest. It behooves all of us to think carefully about genuine preparedness, which might often involve bucking the system and telling the emergency nazis to mind their own business. (Lew Rockwell)

Joshua pointed this article out, I have not had a lot of time to read much on the Net so I am happy that he did. A month or so ago he and I contemporaneously discussed the concept of survivalist and preparedness. It is an interesting topic for me, Blackfive covered the topic recently, it was overall a good read.

I suppose as a country boy/former boy scout/life time soldier I take this survival/preparedness stuff for granted. I am never without a "bug-out" bag no matter where I am and no matter what I am doing.

The notion that only the government can possibly know best is fundamentally flawed in almost every conceivable circumstance. I recall the last time my children were enrolled in a government run school receiving a memorandum one day laying out the school's plan for emergency situations.

This plan included shuttling the children to an undisclosed location, refusing to allow them to call home and not allowing parents to come to the school and pick their children up once an "emergency" was declared but before the government workers took them into hiding.

I was irate that night. My wife was upset but not to the extent I was. That was the seminal event that essentially pushed me over the edge and helped me convince my wife that there were many reasons that our children should be educated elsewhere (there were of course many other good reasons but this act of insanity was a big motivator for me).

This is but a small example of the very dangerous mindset that has overtaken our government and has been meekly accepted by most docile Americans.

Stumble It!

The Fear of Ideas

(ZDNet) The FBI appears to have adopted an invasive Internet surveillance technique that collects far more data on innocent Americans than previously has been disclosed.

Instead of recording only what a particular suspect is doing, agents conducting investigations appear to be assembling the activities of thousands of Internet users at a time into massive databases, according to current and former officials. That database can subsequently be queried for names, e-mail addresses or keywords.

Such a technique is broader and potentially more intrusive than the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system, later renamed DCS1000. It raises concerns similar to those stirred by widespread Internet monitoring that the National Security Agency is said to have done, according to documents that have surfaced in one federal lawsuit, and may stretch the bounds of what's legally permissible.

I am relatively convinced that someday, possibly someday soon, my online activities will come back to haunt me. How amazing is that? I have never done anything other than express opinions, opinions based upon principles I hold dear. My ideas are not widely read, and certainly have not influenced many - but I am still certain all the same that my name is inside of this massive database.

Bill suggests that perhaps he needs a new hobby....

Afterall, when your hobby is considered an enemy weapon system…. geez. Stalin once said, “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We don’t let the people have guns, why should we let them have ideas?” Well, it’s become quite apparent for those who can face reality that TPTB in the US have adopted Uncle Joe’s trite little outlook on the spread of ideas.

I fail to understand why anyone would fear ideas and words, no matter how much one might disagree with those words or ideas. Perhaps the fear itself speaks volumes about the moral rightiousness of those that express this fear with things like massive databases.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell

Stumble It!

The South Was Right

About most things prior to 1861. This assertion often becomes bogged down in straw-man arguments over slavery. Slavery was not the only cause of the war - there were in fact issues of profound importance at play in that conflict.

It is relatively safe to say now that the south was indeed right in terms of her view of the federal compact, the role and power of the Federal government and the importance of the local versus the centralized and distant.

As such it is important to mark significant days for remembrance. We mark July Fourth as the day that thirteen sovereign colonies declared their independence from Great Britain - seceding in effect.

It is important to remember the anniversary of Secession Day as well.

Wise men have described true conservatism as taking from the past and applying that to the present to preserve what is good for the future. The good folks in Alabama seem to understand that.

This year Alabama will celebrate their Secession Day (11 January) with speeches and a viewing of Aaron Russo's film "America: Freedom to Fascism".

I cannot imagine a more appropriate way to remember the stand that our forefathers took than to look hard at where we are now and where we ought to go and what we ought to do. Remembering history is worthless if we are unwilling to learn from it and keep true to the principles we find there.

If you are in Montgomery on 27 January 2007, go to the State Capital Auditorium at 9:30 am and support this effort - you just may learn something. If you have already seen the film, go there to show your support.

Keynote speakers for the event include: Dr. John Eidsmoe, Professor of Constitutional Law and Philip Davis (Ret) Attorney in Alabama State Attorney General's Office.

Stumble It!

Thin Blue Line

To steal and then paraphase the opening line to each "Law and Order" episode -

Our system of rights consists of three separate but equal entities, those that make the laws, those that enforce them and those that empower the first two.

This is essentially a macro view, not an analysis of our federalist republic but essentially a step or two above that. Obviously, taking my analogy to ground, the first group consists essentially of the the three branches of government (legislative, executive and judicial) as each has a demonstrated propensity to make law from time to time. The second group is the police and lastly and most importantly the people. In that sense, ultimately the people are more than equal to the first two groups.

Three is a good number for most everything, perhaps the perfect number. In our system, two of the elements could be completely out of whack and the third ought to be able to check it.

Ideally, just as in our federal system of government where the three are supposed to be kept in check by a fourth - the states - if the system is looked at from a macro point of view we should expect that help from another source, i.e. the military, would be forthcoming if all three systems failed.

Well, the system is broken, the safety valves have been compromised at both the micro and macro level.

The three branches of the Federal government do not check each other, they may disagree at times on insignificant matters, but essentially all of their momentum is in the same direction.

The check on the federal government is non-existent - states' rights died long ago. The bitter reality is that no state government really desires to reclaim their rights, for doing so would cost the state money. Without statesmen at the state level there is no check or balance.

The people are no viable check, for the most part they are either too apathetic or too absorbed in material gain to truly care. We as a whole are too willing to buy temporary security and prosperity for long-term well-being.

In the macro view this leaves us with the police to guarantee our rights. The very people that are right now potentially collecting information on The People, these are our last defenders of our inalienable rights.

As I have said before, there is no further check or balance - you certainly cannot depend upon your military to defend you against "domestic" threats.

So what of the laws that our Congress passes, or our President merely signs via fiat that our Judiciary turns a blind eye to, our States choose not to resist and the majority of the American people say nothing about? Who will stand for us?

Greg Evensen, a former Kansas State Trooper writes:

Police officers will be given the ultimate responsibility to see that each one of us is carrying out the dictates of the government. They will do so because they have sworn to uphold the “law.” Ultimately, law will be what politicians and corrupted courts say that it is. Not what our constitution clearly states it actually is or is not. The due process protections will be gone as will be our dwindling Bill of Rights. Officers who have survived extreme background checks for compatibility with authority dictates and those who have proven that they will carry out ANY order given, will use this new definition of “character” to justify the investigation, arrest, detention, prosecution and imprisonment of “enemies of the state.” The same will be true of military forces. The failed Nuremburg defense (“I was just carrying out orders”) will be long forgotten or overlooked entirely. The only thing that will matter to the vast majority of American police forces will be that: 1) they obeyed their orders-and- 2) they obeyed their orders.

It is a frightening prospect to consider that after all other safety valves have been breached, all hope comes down to our police resisting. They will not resist - they will suit-up in their storm-trooper garb and kick in your door at 4am if you are deemed in violation of one of the government's laws - no matter how un-Constitutional that law may be.

There are still good men wearing blue, brown and gray and a badge - don't take me wrong in that regard. It is very important to elect good Sheriff's of character that understand their common law role as the high sheriff. But this is just not enough. If we simply allow all of our hopes for liberty to rest on the last line of defense we do not deserve liberty.

Stumble It!

At it Again

President Bush has "quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant," the New York Daily News writes this morning.

When he put his signature on a postal reform bill on Dec. 20, the newspaper notes, the president added a "signing statement" that "declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions."

The key phrase in that statement:

"The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection." (USA Today)

Never mind - "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

It seems "secure" and "papers" and "rights" are simply redefined pragmatically to meet the "needs" of the government in their effort to protect us all.

Folks say I am over the top when I claim that Bush and his crowd are fascist. I hardly think that simply because people are averse to use the term changes the fact that Bush meets all of the qualifications of a fascist - he clearly does (coporatism+nationalism+militarism+socialism).

Almost weekly now we receive yet another report of some aspect of another right either redefined or stripped away. And with each new usurpation there is a deafening silence from the public.

Stumble It!

Jose Padilla

In 1997, as the government listened in on their phone call, Adham Hassoun, a computer programmer in Broward County, Fla., proposed a road trip to Jose Padilla, a low-wage worker there. The excursion to Tampa would be his treat, Mr. Hassoun said, and a chance to meet “some nice, uh, brothers.”

Mr. Padilla, 36, a Brooklyn-born Puerto Rican who had converted to Islam a few years earlier, knew Mr. Hassoun, an outspoken Palestinian, from his mosque. Still, according to a transcript of the conversation obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Padilla equivocated as Mr. Hassoun exhorted.

“We take the whole family and have a blast,” Mr. Hassoun said. “We go to, uh, our Busch Gardens, you know ... You won’t regret it. Money-back guarantee.”

Mr. Padilla, laughing, suggested that they not discuss the matter over the phone.

“Why?” Mr. Hassoun said. “We’re going to Busch Gardens. What’s the big deal!”

That conversation took place five years before Mr. Padilla, a United States citizen accused of plotting a “dirty bomb” attack against this country, was declared an enemy combatant. Given that Mr. Padilla and Mr. Hassoun are now criminal defendants in a terrorism conspiracy case in Miami, it sounds suspicious, as if Mr. Hassoun were proposing something more sinister than a weekend at the amusement park. He well may have been — but maybe, too, he was sincere or joking about a Muslim retreat. (NY Times)

Apparently our gestapo was keeping tabs on Padilla four years before the 9/11 attacks. They locked him up in 2002 (without charges) and have kept him locked up ever since.

We should not forget that Padilla is an AMERICAN CITIZEN. He has the absolute right to several things, including being charged when he is arrested and a speedy trial.

I do not know whether this man is guilty of anything or not - none of us ever really will at this point, no matter the outcome of the current criminal prosecution he faces.

We should all grieve because of this treatment of a fellow citizen by our own government. The goons' treatment of this man has not in any way protected any of us - it has merely established that the government truly is the master of all.

Lest we never forget the way our government treated another less than perfect group of citizens:

Seeing his dog, Striker, shot to death by masked intruders clad in camouflage, Sammy Weaver, 14, fired back in fear for his life. The 4 ft., 11" tall youngster was hit in the arm, then shot in the back as he turned to run for home. He died instantly, killed by an agent of the federal government.

Cradling her 10-month-old daughter in her arms, Vicki Weaver stood in the doorway of her home, mourning her slain son, unaware that she herself had only seconds to live. In an instant a bullet tore into Vicki Weaver's face, blew through her jaw and severed her carotid artery. The bullet was fired from 200 yds. away by an agent of the federal government.

What had the Weaver family done to bring FBI snipers and submachine- gun-toting U.S. marshals to the woods around their cabin on Ruby Ridge in northern Idaho? Why did the government act as though the Weavers had forfeited the protections guaranteed all Americans by the United States Constitution?

Stumble It!

Forced Consent

Telegraph - Britons flying to America could have their credit card and email accounts inspected by the United States authorities following a deal struck by Brussels and Washington.

By using a credit card to book a flight, passengers face having other transactions on the card inspected by the American authorities. Providing an email address to an airline could also lead to scrutiny of other messages sent or received on that account.

The extent of the demands were disclosed in "undertakings" given by the US Department of Homeland Security to the European Union and published by the Department for Transport after a Freedom of Information request.

If you have not figured it out already, the way this works is we do things like this to "them" first and then we do it to ourselves.

Despite what I may believe about the rights of citizens versus non-citizens our legal precedence is such that the Bill of Rights applies equally to all persons within the United States. A program such as this is a clear violation of those rights - and the kicker is that if we can so easily violate the rights of non-citizens it is an easy step to trample the rights of citizens as well. The goons at the Department of Homeland Insecurity Security know this full well.

Our federal gestapo would love nothing more than to be able to dig, unfettered, through the lives and affairs of anyone and everyone they please.

The military has long practiced the notion that a person consents to the abridgement of certain rights simply by deciding to enter a military base. This is of course all in the name of "security". So now the concept is applied to folks wishing to enter the country - take this to its natural conclusion, living and doing business might be defined as "consent" and eventually we all may have to give up all of our rights just to operate in society. All in the name of security.

Stumble It!

No Need to Worry - The Smart Folks Have This

From WhatDoesitmean via The Charleston Voice)

To the second part of the USANORTH plan for the unsuspecting American people, Conduct the Army-to-Army portion of the theater cooperation mission with Canada and Mexico”, we can read from the Council on Foreign Relations report that first outlined the merger of the independent Nations of the United States, Canada and Mexico into a North American Union, and which says:

"Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.

North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a trinational, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.

When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it." (read entire CFR document)

You can look at this a couple of ways.

First it seems that there is already a dozen multi-letter organizations dedicated to "homeland security". Adding yet another layer of functionality is classic bureaucratic waste.

More nefariously - who in their right mind really wants Mexican troops in the United States doing anything other than a handful or so attending professional courses? I can't find the article but I am certain I read that Mexico sent troops to "help out" with Katrina. No matter how badly the Federal government botched that entire thing, the inclusion of Mexican troops served a much broader purpose - it set a precedence, a dangerous precedence.

I am convinced that all of this is related to the very serious efforts of many folks to make a North American Union a reality. Robert Pastor - the primary intellectual force behind union - has essentially said as much. He admits that union is a good thing and the only factor standing in the way is misplaced nationalism. He concedes that union cannot become a reality until Americans, specifically, accept greater cooperation.

It is not conspiracy theory nonsense to state that items like the mission statement of USANORTH is part of the incremental plan to bring Americans on-line. The Federal government has been pretty successful in incrementally luring the American sheeple into accepting things that they ought not accept - why would folks like Pastor think the same strategies will not work with union also?

One of the lessons tyrannical empires learned long ago is that it is best to suppress dissent with troops that are not local. A rational mind would say that the National Guard is the best military choice for "homeland security". Long before 9/11 the National Guard sold the idea that they were the rightful place for this mission. I suppose that local troops just do not fit the bill for all the potential missions people like Robert Pastor have in mind.

Y'all go back to sleep now - go read the hundreds of "cutting edge" bloggers that talk of nothing of importance, busy your mind with whatever Oprah has to say, worry about nonsense such as majorities in the Senate etc. Just ignore ideas such as the North American Union - smart people like Robert Pastor will think about that for you.

Here is an article by D.L. Cuddy, Ph.D. that lays out the chronology of this thought process.

Stumble It!

What is Really Going On?

From Freedom In Our Time -

One difference between a genuinely totalitarian ruling elite and criminal cliques of the sort that run more ordinary governments is this: Totalitarians display a thoroughgoing ignorance of basic human nature coupled with a demented belief in the State's ability to re-arrange reality by decree.

On this basis it's clear that the people who rule us fall squarely into the totalitarian camp...

William Grigg goes on in a lengthy post to explain exactly what he means by the above statement.

I have received several emails as of late discussing many "goings on" related to the dollar, the elusive Amero, the recent interim ban on exportation of pennies and nickels and the crack-down on the liberty dollar crowd.

There just may be something to all of this, particularly as it relates to the impending Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (as a precursor of the North American Union).

These issues seem to be more than mere conspiracy theories - they seem to hold real merit and deserve analysis.

Stumble It!

It Will Never Happen Here!

I have noticed that since I have been saying more and more of what I really believe that our readership has dropped 75%....so be it.

Here is a bit from Chuck Baldwin (a man I do not always agree with) quoting Ron Paul (a man a usually agree with).

In an interview with nationally syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas recently discussed President Bush's support for the Military Commissions Act. During the interview, Paul said that "the law officially allows for citizen concentration camp facilities."

Paul also warned that "the Military Commissions Act and the Defense Authorization Act . . . essentially wipes out Habeas Corpus."

Paul continued by noting, "Right now we don't have concentration camps, but . . . the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus." He then said, "If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun?"

Ok I will admit, I pay some attention to Alex Jones, he has the general problem right even if sometimes he might go down rabbit holes in search of facts that probably aren't there. All the same, Alex is looking in the right direction - even when he gets distracted.

Folks generally dismiss anything a person says when they mention the idea of concentration/detention camps. I know a lot of sites on the net dedicate a lot of space to supposed FEMA camps built in places like Alabama and Montana by Haliburton. Who knows, if such things exist or not is not the point at all. It is easy enough to build such places when and if a government decided they needed them.

What is more significant is the tremendous power the various acts passed since 2001 give the Federal Government. When you combine these acts with the gradual increase in Federal power since say - well you really have to go way back to mark the beginning of the death of the Republic and of state/individual rights.

Ron Paul has it pretty much right on though - habeas corpus is the bedrock of all other rights. Without it no other right articulated in the first ten amendments or retained via common law has any weight at all.

Chuck Baldwin warns -

Ladies and gentlemen, please wake up! Under the leadership of President George W. Bush, rights and freedoms that have been lost to you include your right to an attorney, your right to know the charges being levied against you, the right to a speedy trial, the right to trial by a jury of your peers, the right to not be subjected to torture, the right to not have your home and personal items searched and seized without warrant, the right to not have your personal conversations (including letters and email) intercepted without court order, and the right to not incriminate yourself, just to name a few. And now we learn that our government has authorized and is planning to build "concentration camp facilities."

Furthermore, just because you or I have not yet been personally subjected to this tyranny, does not mean that we won't be! The seeds are already planted; the die is already cast. The time to act is not when you are being carted off to an "undisclosed location." By then, it is too late.

It is fascinating how quickly people dismiss this sort of talk as unreasonable and claim that such a thing "could never happen here." History has proven that such things do occur in places where people would not believe it and would not accept it until it was already occurring. For those people it is always too late once they wake up.

Just do the math, the other day I read an article that claimed that 1 out of every 11 Americans is in a jail of some sort. Beyond notable cases such as that of Jose Padilla, few of these are there for political reasons. My point is already a large (relatively) portion of our citizenry is in government custody (many deservingly obviously). We say it is incomprehensible that the government would ever make enemies of the people and lock up dissenters. I say that we could easily raise the number of "prisoners" from 1 in 11 to 2 in 11 without really noticing.

We already have so many laws and so much law enforcement, it would not be difficult to raise the incarceration count in fairly short order. The government could make criminals of dissenters without resorting to overt tyranny. For the hard cases, they could follow Newt Gingrich's advice -

According to the (Manchester, NH) Union Leader, "Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday [Monday, Nov. 27] in Manchester said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.

"Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a 'different set of rules' may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message."

Free speech means nothing without habeas corpus but imagine for a moment - such a thought process as expressed by the fat little man from GA is wide open to interpretation. The folks they say they want to snarl in their net are not terrorist in a foreign land but folks within the US. Who is to say that at some point in the future their net is not widened to include say - folks like Johnnie and I and all the folks we link to and email and maybe you for just reading what we have to say?

Stumble It!

Support Your Local Sheriff?

This from a mailing list entitled "The Charleston Voice" (I am not certain how I got on the list or who the writer is but I do enjoy the emails)

From a recent message:

"Fear the government that fears your guns...". Note the "culprit" had no prior police record. What a waste of precious law enforcement funds. Washington County taxpayers should work to cut the budget of Sheriff Tim Helder. State legislators should prohibit a federal agency, the BATF, from meddling in state affairs under the 10th Amendment. This was never a power delegated by the people of Arkansas to the federal government. Similar exigencies could await gold and silver "hoarders".

From the incident mentioned:

FAYETTEVILLE — A Fayetteville militia member was arrested Wednesday by teams of special agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and other federal and state agencies and local police in connection with illegal firearms

Problem number one, I see no justification in the Constitution for the Federal Government to maintain a police force (nor several of them as is the case).

“We assisted ATF and several other agencies in arresting Fincher. I don’t believe he has a criminal history with us. That’s all I can tell you,” Reynolds said.

Reynolds is the county sheriff - supposedly the highest ranking law man in the county if we are to trust tradition and common law but here we have yet another example of a county sheriff "dutifully" assisting the federal goons when they come knocking.

A machine gun that can fire 550 rounds a minute and assorted 9 mm Sten submachine guns are stored in the Washington County militia’s concrete and steel vault, according to information gathered from an interview conducted by The Morning News in March. Each weapon is stamped with the word “non-commercial” to prove the group holds the arms for militia purchases only and not for trade or sale.

Now before you say, "see they were breaking the law" consider again the words of Congressman Ron Paul that I discussed in a recent post:

The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.

If we concede that law-abiding citizens - like Mr.Fincher (see the sheriff's statement above about the man's criminal history) cannot own modern-day muskets we are conceding the right of the people to force change on a government that cannot be persuaded with reason.

Fincher said in [a] March interview he believes Americans should proudly uphold the right to bear arms, stand up for land rights and not always accept the federal government as the supreme law of the land.

“What we’ve got to do today is hold our ground,” Fincher said in March.

For Mr. Fincher and the 13 other members of his group raided in their homes 8 November standing their ground was an expensive proposition - a sacrifice the rest of us should remember and honor.

Stumble It!

Remember Remember the 5th of November

Remember remember the 5th of November,

The Gunpowder, Treason and Plot,

I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason

should ever be forgot.

Stumble It!

Don't Say That to Fearless Leader

Rocky Mountain News

A Denver-area man filed a lawsuit today against a member of the Secret Service for causing him to be arrested after he approached Vice President Dick Cheney in Beaver Creek this summer and criticized him for his policies concerning Iraq....

According to the lawsuit filed at U.S. District Court in Denver, Howards and his son walked to about two-to-three feet from where Cheney was standing, and said to the vice president, "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible," or words to that effect, then walked on.

Ten minutes later, according to Howards' lawsuit, he and his son were walking back through the same area, when they were approached by Secret Service agent Virgil D. "Gus" Reichle Jr., who asked Howards if he had "assaulted" the vice president. Howards denied doing so, but was nonetheless placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County Jail.

Imagine that, it is harassment - illegal even - to challenge the competency of Fearless Leader and his minions. This "Gus" fellow seems to be a complete fool, I mean if a fellow were to actually "assault" Cheney it is pretty reasonable to believe he would have been shot immediately (or at least placed face down in the dirt with a boot in the back of his neck). It is unreasonable to think a man would "assault" the VP, walk away and then walk casually back to the scene.

But of course this was not about "assault", it was all about dissent and citizens exercising their right to challenge, disagree and communicate with their elected officials.

Blogged at: Suburban Guerrilla, Safety Rule 4001, The Carpetbagger Report, Make The World a Better Place

Technorati tags: Cheney, free+speech, gestapo, lawsuit

Stumble It!