Showing posts with label The Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Constitution. Show all posts
Monday, March 28, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Monday, December 6, 2010
Philly Cops Stop, Search People If They 'Look' Odd (VIDEO)
YouTube -- Federaljacktube3
RELATED ARTICLE:
10 Signs The U.S. is Becoming a Third World Country
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Live Superfoods
It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!
Print this page
RELATED ARTICLE:
10 Signs The U.S. is Becoming a Third World Country
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Live Superfoods
Print this page
Saturday, November 27, 2010
America's Misconception of Freedom
Activist Post
America was founded in an attempt to escape the oppression of not only religious expression, but also the misrepresentation from a monarchist system that cared only for the proliferation and interests of the elite class. After 250 years, we have found ourselves in the same position as those who left Europe for these shores so long ago: oppressed by a system that only wants to serve itself before the citizens that support it. They say history repeats itself, and nowhere is this more evident than in the case of modern America’s politicians, putting their corporate puppet masters and damaging agenda of faux patriotism before the needs of the people.
To understand how we have been led to the erroneous conclusion that America is somehow a free nation, one must come to an understanding of what type of political system exists in this country and how it adds to or detracts from our social system as set up by our forefathers. We also must recognize the erosion of our system under the watch of the overzealous quasi-patriotism which has served to initiate the current Police State in place and growing in America.
First and foremost, it is important to understand that we do not live in a democracy as most people have been led to believe; America is a republic where we are granted the opportunity to elect representatives to make decisions for us. Our forefathers were learned enough to understand that a pure democracy was not possible in a complex society, especially the one they were setting up. In a democracy, although touted as the ideal system for freedom of the people to decide all matters of State, the minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group, whereas in a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person.
The problem with a republic, though, is that the inherent rights of the people are surrendered upon the casting of a vote for representation. After this action has taken place, our fate lies in the hands of politicians who, with the innate human deficiency of sin, represent our interests. This type of system was set up because the idea of a complex society deciding all aspects of government and the minority becoming unrepresented was unrealistic. The thought that we the people could effectively be served by those who are concerned not with the continuation of our liberty but with the development and proliferation of self-service has been greatly discredited by the reality of this, our modern model of representation.
To understand our freedom, or lack thereof, it is important to recognize what type of political system exists within our social structure into which we put our faith each election period. This country is currently run and controlled by a two-party system that determines for us, the “free” voters, who we can vote for. The choice of candidates is determined by the parties themselves as the proper representatives of their interests, rather than the interests of the American people. Even the self-labeled “freedom party” or Tea Party, is just an extension of this old, two-sided coin. We can either vote for the lesser of the evils, or suffer the consequence of others doing the voting for us.
Regarding words by James Madison on the American political system, Jack N. Rakove of Stanford University writes:
Madison assumed politicians . . . would be able to command the allegiance of large numbers of voters. Once in office, they would act with a broadmindedness that would elevate the very quality of public life. They would think not in terms of the immediate interests of their constituents, but of the larger public good which was synonymous with the concept of the public itself. The virtue which could no longer be expected to reside in the populace might still be found, he hoped, in its rulers.It is clear from today’s system that this assumption was wrong. Our modern politicians are largely self-serving, and the quality of our lives is directly relative to our freedom to vote for true representation.
Madison obviously had great confidence that an elected official through the ages would think similarly as he and his colleagues with regard to intellectual consideration of the established hierarchy. The effects of this representation was, in theory, to contribute to the ongoing freedom of the people. With the issuing of the Constitution, he and others like him believed they had established a system that would endure the natural tendencies of corruption that had ended with the oppression of the masses in so many other social systems. The reality, as proven with our modern institutional malfeasance, is these representatives eventually become corrupt in the position of power they hold over the people.
The limited choice of representation has fostered a governmental system of insular thinking and the gradual erosion of our own national freedoms. The two-party system, with its inbred philosophy of elitism, has been taking our freedom from us bit by bit with innumerable laws and initiatives to foster control. The decay of our Constitutional freedom has been exacerbated by such legislative initiatives as the Patriot Act and its associated nullification of habeas corpus, while labeling some citizens concerned with the direction of our government as dissidents.
Some would argue this action is necessary to protect the security of the nation, but it only stands as proof of the intrinsic dilemma of our current democratic representation. As stated by the Constitutional Society:
. . . governments must be vested with a certain degree of power. It is this power that can be most dangerous to the liberties of the people. To find out who committed a certain crime, police must be able to question suspects and witnesses, and be able to search for evidence. In a society where the government is omnipotent, the powers of the police to detain, question, and search are unlimited. In fact, the power to determine guilt would be unlimited.In the modern era of terrorist influence and the over reaction of associated governmental propaganda, a police state, initiated by our increasingly corrupt system, has expanded control and the violation of our rights to a writ of habeas corpus rather than allowing it to remain. It makes certain that any dissonance or suspicion of anti-patriotism is answered by restraint pending conviction. Guilt before proof of innocence has become the mantra of modern justice in the evolving decay of the American political system.
Ease of movement and civil rights are also largely questionable in this system. One only need look at the new TSA screening process, public face recognition programming and intelligence agency policy of Net watching to know these are not applicable freedoms in modern America. If we want to travel, we are forced to endure a violation of our rights and forced to endure molestation by security screeners. In an effort to protect our “democracy”, under the new American Police State, we are robbed of our innate, individual rights. These new, national security measures have only served to imprison us all within the realm of paranoia driven, political propaganda.
The U.S. Government, in the eternal quest of total control of the people, has led the charge in the deception and misconception of our freedom. In the ever increasing amplification of Al Qaeda’s desire to terrorize our country, America has expanded the control of the people through the Patriot Act, legislation that was pushed though Congress under false pretenses and nationalist plasticity. This Act was an orchestrated move in response to a false, immoral war begun and promulgated by the United States and has added a fascist element to our Republic.
It is vehemently argued from the creators of this control that steps must be taken to protect our borders and our citizens, but the American people are not the ones who started this war. It was begun by greedy politicians in an effort to obtain oil rights and control over an area that largely supplies the world’s fuel needs. The death of whatever freedom we may have previously enjoyed occurred with the initiation of this legislation and the paranoia associated with its inception.
The reality of it all is that our choices are limited, our politics contrived, and our country controlled by corporations fed by an American obsession with excess; America's political puppets no longer represent citizens, but rather their own interests. We are all slaves to a predetermined mentality of competition for monetary acquisition and zealot-controlled governmental fascism that provides us with 4,000 new laws per year. Our choice is to conform to these laws, or else be controlled by the bars of a real prison. We are coerced daily to live silently within a system that is corrupt, or we can pay the price for not following the rules of its deception.
This country is not the model of democratic individualism most of us were taught it was. From our schools to our media sources, the decay of our American rights has been continuously fed in the name of faux patriotism. Until we all wake up and see these truths of deception, the constant move to add to the growing state of total control will destroy not only the fabric of this nation but the last freedoms that we do possess.
There once was a dream that was America. With the ever increasing intrusion of Big Government and its media propaganda, we are slowly falling into the realm of fascist machination, the end result of which will spell the death of the dream of those settlers who first came here to establish a free society.
The time has come for Americans to realize how little control they have in daily choices and to awaken to the fact that we are now suffering from a very damaging misconception of our freedom. Until we collectively stand together and let our representatives know we will no longer allow their destruction of this wonderful country, the erosion will continue.
John Locke had once declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of its citizens and to replace the government with one that served the interests of those citizens. In the recent years, our governmental representatives have not acted in any interest save their own. It is time that the system is corrected and even more importantly, it is time for America to come to terms with its misconception of freedom else lose all that this great nation stands for. The revolution is near and unless the in-place system comes to realize its errant ways, they will find themselves thrown from the Ivory towers they have built upon the backs of America.
Many Americans also falsely believe the Constitution, set up to combat the decay of the system, guarantees certain freedoms such as speech. The argument is that we, as American citizens, have the right to speak our minds without consequence. This belief is so erroneous it physically pains me to think about how many believe it to be true. We can indeed say what we want, but the ramifications of our statements can result in condemnation by a system that believes in the proliferation of lies and propaganda over truth.
Other articles by S. Paul Forrest
Beware The Rising Ire of a Forgotten Generation
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Live Superfoods
Print this page
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Continuity of Government: Is the State of Emergency Superseding our Constitution?
Global Research
Is the State of Emergency Superseding our Constitution?
Address to Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, November 23, 2010)
In July 1987, during the Iran-Contra Hearings grilling of Oliver North, the American public got a glimpse of “highly sensitive” emergency planning North had been involved in. Ostensibly North had been handling plans for an emergency response to a nuclear attack (a legitimate concern). But press accounts alleged that the planning was for a more generalized suspension of the constitution at the president’s determination.
As part of its routine Iran-contra coverage, the following exchange was printed in the New York Times, but without journalistic comment or follow-up:
[Congressman Jack] Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?
Both North’s attorney and Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Democratic Chair of the Committee, responded in a way that showed they were aware of the issue:
Brendan Sullivan [North's counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?
[Senator Daniel] Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch upon that?
Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.
Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I'm certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.[1]
Brooks was responding to a story by Alfonzo Chardy in the Miami Herald. about Oliver North’s involvement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in planning for “Continuity of Government” (COG). According to Chardy, the plans envisaged “suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the government over to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, emergency appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law during a national crisis.”[2]
Reagan had installed at FEMA a counterinsurgency team that he had already assembled as governor of California. The team was headed by Army Col. Louis Giuffrida, who had attracted Reagan’s attention by a paper he had written while at the US Army War College, advocating the forcible warrantless detention of millions of black Americans in concentration camps.“ Reagan first installed Giuffrida as head of the California National Guard, and called on him “to design Operation Cable Splicer. … martial law plans to legitimize the arrest and detention of anti-Vietnam war activists and other political dissidents.”[3] These plans were refined with the assistance of British counterinsurgency expert Sir Robert Thompson, who had used massive detention and deportations to deal with the 1950s Communist insurgency in what is now Malaysia.
At the time few people (including myself) attached much importance to the Chardy story about COG. Chardy himself suggested that Reagan’s Attorney General, William French Smith, had intervened to stop the COG plan from being presented to the President, and in 1985 Giuffrida was forced out of office for having spent government money to build a private residence. But COG planning not only continued, it expanded.
Seven years later, in 1994, Tim Weiner reported in the New York Times that what he called “The Doomsday Project” – the search for “ways to keep the Government running after a sustained nuclear attack on Washington” –had “less than six months to live.”[4]
Weiner’s language was technically correct, but also very misleading. In fact COG planning now simply continued with a new target, terrorism. On the basis of Weiner’s article, the first two books to discuss COG planning, by James Bamford and James Mann, both reported that COG planning had been abandoned.[5] Recently Tim Shorrock in 2008 repeated that “the COG program was abandoned during the Clinton administration,” and Shirley Anne Warshaw in 2009 wrote that “the Clinton administration… shut down the super-secret Project.”[6] But on this narrow point, all these otherwise excellent and well-informed authors were wrong.
What Weiner and these authors did not report was that in the final months of Reagan’s presidency the purpose of COG planning had officially changed: it was no longer for arrangements “after a nuclear war,” but for any "national security emergency." This was defined in Executive Order 12656 of 1988 as: “any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.”[7] In this way a totally legitimate program dating back to Eisenhower, of planning extraordinary emergency measures for an America devastated in a nuclear attack, was now converted to confer equivalent secret powers on the White House, for anything it considered an emergency.
This expanded application of COG was apparently envisaged as early as 1984, when, according toBoston Globe reporter Ross Gelbspan,
Lt. Col. Oliver North was working with officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency . . . to draw up a secret contingency plan to surveil political dissenters and to arrange for the detention of hundreds of thousands of undocumented aliens in case of an unspecified national emergency. The plan, part of which was codenamed Rex 84, called for the suspension of the Constitution under a number of scenarios, including a U.S. invasion of Nicaragua.[8]
In other words, extreme measures, designed originally to deal with an externally directed and devastating nuclear attack, were being secretly modified by a non-governmental group to deal with domestic dissenters: a situation that still pertains today.[9]
The Implementation of COG on 9/11
Clearly 9/11 met the conditions for the implementation of COG measures, and we know for certain that COG plans were implemented on that day in 2001, before the last plane had crashed in Pennsylvania. The 9/11 Report confirms this twice, on pages 38 and 326.[10] It was under the auspices of COG that Bush stayed out of Washington on that day, and other government leaders like Paul Wolfowitz were swiftly evacuated to Site R, inside a hollowed out mountain near Camp David.[11]
But the implementation of COG went beyond short-term responses, to the installation of what Professor Shirley Anne Warshaw calls a ninety-day alternative “shadow government” outside Washington.
Cheney jumped into action in his bunker beneath the east Wing to ensure continuity in government. He immediately began to create his shadow government by ordering one hundred mid-level executive officials to move to specially designated underground bunkers and stay there twenty-four hours a day. They would not be rotated out, he informed them, for ninety days, since there was evidence, he hinted, that the terrorist organization al-Qa’ida, which had masterminded the attack, had nuclear weapons. The shadow government, as a result, needed to be ready to take over the government from the bunkers.[12]
These ninety days saw the swift implementation of the key features attributed to COG planning by Gelbspan and Chardy in the 1980s: warrantless detentions, warrantless deportations, and thewarrantless eavesdropping that is their logical counterpart. The clearest example was the administration’s Project Endgame -- a ten-year plan, initiated in September 2001, to expand detention camps, at a cost of $400 million in Fiscal Year 2007 alone.[13] This implemented the central feature of the massive detention exercise, Rex 84, conducted by Louis Giuffrida and Oliver North in 1984.[14]
RELATED ARTICLES:
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Live Superfoods
Print this page
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
You Have No Rights -- Welcome to the Portland Airport
YouTube -- george4title
RELATED VIDEO:
TSA Fondles Women and Children Refusing Airport Naked Body Scanner
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!
Print this page
RELATED VIDEO:
TSA Fondles Women and Children Refusing Airport Naked Body Scanner
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Live Superfoods
Print this page
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Debunking The DOJ's Hit Piece, Part 3: Assault on The Second Amendment
Activist Post
(NOTE: In light of recent events withCPS taking the newborn child awayfrom a couple merely because the father was affiliated with Oath Keepers, which the affidavit incorrectly labels amilitia, it is all the more clear that the Second Amendment is the target of the Ruling Class. It is important to understand why the Second Amendment was written, as this essay will discuss).
(NOTE: In light of recent events withCPS taking the newborn child awayfrom a couple merely because the father was affiliated with Oath Keepers, which the affidavit incorrectly labels amilitia, it is all the more clear that the Second Amendment is the target of the Ruling Class. It is important to understand why the Second Amendment was written, as this essay will discuss).
In part 1 and part 2 of this exploratory essay, we learned that the Federal Government's Department of Justice has issued a glossary to be distributed to law enforcement officers throughout the country -- a glossary called “Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism: Terms and Concepts," where we find definition after definition of terms used by people who they categorize as “Domestic Terrorists.”
We were not only shocked to find terms like “Constitution Party," “Precious Metals," “Council on Foreign Relations,” “Patriot Movement," “Gold and Silver,” and dozens more in this glossary of terrorist terminology, but that the definitions were misleading and ill-defined at best. In this last of three parts, we explore the Government's attempt at portraying gun owners and the “militia movement” as arms of domestic terrorism, and how we can peacefully return sanity to our Government.
Aside from the Constitution, the Constitution Party, and the Patriot Movement; the Department of Justice attacks members of militias (and militias in general) in their giant glossary of terms supposedly used by domestic terrorists. This is evident with the recent Child Protective Services abduction of a newborn because the father was affiliated with Oath Keepers, which the affidavit calls a “militia.” This sets the tyrannical precedent that if you are a militia member, your baby will taken from you.
Although Oath Keepers is not a militia, this is another attempt to make the 2ndAmendment, along with rest of the Constitution, look like a manual for terrorists, and it is another attempt to make our Bill of Rights illegal. Not only does the Constitution state in the Second Amendment that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, but that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Members of the militia movement freely exercise their rights to keep and bear arms, which is perfectly legal.
Here's how the DOJ defines Militia Movement: “An extremist movement based on armed, paramilitary groups that emerged in the mid-1990s using the rationalization that the United States’ people needed armed force to help defend themselves against an increasingly tyrannical government that was becoming the puppet of the 'New World Order.'”
The term “Unorganized Militia” is also defined in this glossary The definition is entirely too long to reprint here, but interestingly, it ends with, “In the 1980s, Posse Comitatus leader William Potter Gale came across the obscure passage in U.S. Code that mentioned the unorganized militia and decided, incorrectly, that the 'unorganized militia' was a legal armed force which was not controllable by the government and indeed was designed to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government.”
What part of the U.S. Code is the DOJ referring to? Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, §311, which states, “(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia,” (emphasis added).
But the DOJ doesn't mention this because they don't want you or the law officers for whom this was written to know that the U.S. Code mentions “unorganized militias,” or that the unorganized militiaaccording to our own U.S. Code is defined as those not members of of the National Guard. This means that the Unorganized Militia is not controlled the Federal Government. Remember, the Second Amendment states that the militia is necessary for a “Free State." How can a State be free if its militia, which is necessary to preserve its freedom, is controlled by the Federal government? The militia is different than the Military, and the unorganized militia is a militia made up of non-Guard members according to our own U.S. Code!
And what's more is that it does not matter whether the Militia movement is training to defend themselves against anything; whether criminals, serial killers, terrorists, or, yes, a tyrannical military take-over, because preparing to defend oneself is not a crime. Training to defend oneself is not a crime, and yet the DOJ likes to pretend that it is, putting these people in a glossary full of terrorists and criminals.
As a matter of fact, our Founding Fathers did not write the Second Amendment only to allow people to defend themselves from foreign invasions -- they wrote it to ensure that people could protect themselves against any invasion, foreign and domestic.
While most people argue and bicker about the use of commas in the Second Amendment, one need look no further than Federalist 46, written by James Madison. Although this excerpt is long, it clearly indicates that the militia, as conceived of by the Father of the Constitution, is a defense mechanism against an encroaching Federal Government:
But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.(emphases added).
James Madison states clearly that the militia is separate from Federal Control and that the main purpose of a militia is to protect the States from Tyranny in Government. Madison aims to calm the worry that the Federal Government might militarily take over the States by reassuring those still weary of the proposed Constitution that the States and the People that make up the States will be able to defend themselves -- not attack, but defend themselves -- with the militia. He even goes on to say that the People should not be insulted by taking away their rights to defend themselves and have them be part of the experiment of not being able to protect themselves and their States. He then concludes by saying that if the Federal Government tries to usurp the powers of the States and infringe on the freedoms and liberties of the States and their respective citizens by militarily taking them over, then they will be defeated by the States. This, incidentally, is why the Feds have called the Founding Fathers the “first terrorists of the United States.”
For those of you that believe that this is all far-fetched, and that our Beloved Federal Government would never consider taking on the States with Federal military personnel, you're only fooling yourself. Remember what happened after Hurricane Katrina? The Feds went door to door and illegally disarmed the Public. How about when FEMA illegally confiscated weapons from peopleafter a tornado hit Kansas? How about when Big Sis Janet Napolitano said that “Domestic Terrorists” (that means you if you're still reading this) are “more dangerous than international terrorists! We see Boy Scouts of America being military trained to take on Terrorists! - meaning you! And now, with the Health Care Bill, we see a “ready reserve corps” under the direction of the Surgeon General with a ranking equal to a 4-Star General (that's NPR trying to debunk this, mind you) ready to “help” in an emergency, like a hurricane, or an epidemic -- just like every other time the Feds “helped” disarm the Public. Maybe they'll “help” round us all up so we can be forcibly vaccinated in case of another “swine flu hoax.”
We clearly can see that this was the reason that the Second Amendment was written. And, again, with the writings of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, we are told about the true intention of the militia:
The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people (emphases added).
Joseph Story is clearly explaining that our Second Amendment rights (owning weapons and having a well-regulated militia) are more than just protecting ourselves from foreign invasions. It is about protecting us from any and all abuses of power in which our very lives and safety are threatened.
This is not to say that the militia movement is a movement made of people preparing to attack the government, nor am I advocating such actions. On the contrary -- I have advocated nothing but peace in all of my writings. The militia movement is merely exercising their right to keep and bear arms, honoring our Founding Fathers' suggestions, which for some reason makes the Department of Justice look at these people as though they are terrorists.
The DOJ's response to this would simply be to look at the Hutaree militia, which was arrested for “conspiring to attack the government.” Expounding upon this, let us read what libertarian Chuck Baldwin has to say:
If Hutaree members were indeed planning AGGRESSIVE violence against anyone–in the government or without–they deserved to be stopped. If, however, they were simply preparing to DEFEND THEMSELVES against government overreach or abuse–and would only resort to violence in an act of lawful self-defense–they committed no crime and are but the most recent victims of federal abuse of power. This is a question that will doubtless be determined in a court of law.
And this is being determined in a court of law, as we speak. If they were truly breaking the law and conspiring to carry out illegal acts of violence, they were rightfully stopped, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But, as Chuck Baldwin points out, if they were simply preparing to defend themselves, then they committed no crime -- unless preparedness is a crime.
But wait! Apparently those that want to prepare are terrorists according to the DOJ. Preparedness is somehow a terrorist act! Let us look at the DOJ's definition of Survivalist: “The survivalist movement feared a coming collapse of civilization, generally as the result of nuclear war, and tried to prepare themselves to survive it. Survivalists typically stockpiled food, water, and weapons, especially the latter, and instructed themselves on topics ranging from first aid to childbirth to edible plants.” (emphasis added)
One can't help but wonder what in God's name this word is doing on a list of terrorist terminology. All the talk from the Pentagon about Iran preparing for nuclear war, or manufactured computer viruses that can wipe out “the grid” -- but if you happen to prepare for what might come, you're a terrorist . . . people who are interested in becoming self-sufficient, mainly regarding wild edible and storable food, storable and purified water, weapons for protection or hunting -- that for some reason is equivalent to domestic terrorism! Folks, you can't make this up! How many of you have grandparents that lived through the Great Depression? And how many of them have the motto of, “Pray for the best, prepare for the worst” to this day? If you have an Italian grandmother, I guarantee there is a ten-foot-tall closet in her basement filled with jars of preserved food. But for some reason, if you prepare, you're a potential terrorist in the eyes of the Department of Justice.
Is this far-fetched? The term “Genetically Altered Crops” is on the list too, defined as, “One target of environmental terrorists who believe that any effort to alter the genes of a crop is wrong and potentially damaging to the environment.” Of course they leave out the fact that independent studies have linked GMO food to cancer! And yes, genetically tampering with nature's food supply is wrong not just morally, but because it results in unhealthy food that has also been linked to sterility! But, again, if you're against GMO food, and are stockpiling healthy and normal food, or non-GMO non-hybrid heirloom seeds, just like the Global Elite are doing, then apparently you're a terrorist.
Does this upset you like it does me? Are you a little uneasy about the fact the the Federal Government defines you as a domestic terrorist merely because you happen to disagree with certain Unconstitutional acts that have taken place over the past century, or because you're angry that we have not legitimately declared war with a foreign country since World War II, or because you see your taxes raised day by day while tax cheats get promoted to Treasury Secretary? Or that everything our Founding Fathers warned us about is happening, and if you talk about them, you get labeled as a “domestic terrorist?" Does it bother you that the Feds are hiring Mossad (Israeli Intelligence Agencies) to spy on the Tea Parties--- illegally, I might add? Does it bother you that the Federal Government has bought 500 vans with X-rays to illegally search your cars and homes to look for weapons without you even knowing it? Or that “Conservative” FOX News tries to legitimize this violation of your 4th Amendment rights? Does it bother you that Supreme Court decisions regarding your monetary compensation for your hard-earned physical labor are being ignored by the IRS, which according to the Federal Government in the case “Diversified Metal Products Inc. v T-Bow Co. Trust, IRS, and Steve Morgan” is NOT an agency of the Federal Government? Oh, and if you try to visit that website, Google will tell you that the site “might harm your computer,” and interestingly, it is the only website online that actually has a PDF of the National Archives and Records document that has the signed copies of the admission on behalf of the Feds that the IRS is not a Government Agency.
Are you beginning to get this now? The lies? The disinformation? The spying? The blatant disrespect for our Constitution, our Founding Fathers, and our freedoms? The Government hates you! Otherwise they wouldn't pass legislation that legally defines you as a terrorist in Section 802of the PATRIOT ACT, and they wouldn't have Google spy, censor, or block websites that provide information -- information, by the way, that shows even more of an attempt to pull the wool over your eyes! If they didn't hate you, they wouldn't be spying on American citizens through their e-mails, social networking sites, and phone calls to ensure that they don't have “resentment toward government.” If they didn't hate you, then they wouldn't be patrolling the streets in vans that x-ray you, spray you with radiation, and violate your 4th Amendment Rights! If they didn't hate you, they wouldn't have CPS take your children away for visiting the Oath Keepers website! If they didn't hate you, they wouldn't be openly trying to introduce legislation like the “Enemy Belligerent Act," where the Congress is allowed to secretly arrest you, detain you indefinitely, classifying you as a Terrorist Suspect! The government hates you!
But it is important to remember: this is not an American Government -- the term “American” is vague when talking about our Government. The Federal Government is American only in the sense that they legally live and reside in this country, but that's about it. They are working against the best interest of the American citizens, as admitted by David Rockefeller in his autobiographyMemoirs
. The true power structure -- those that do not relinquish power when presidents and congressmen leave -- they are the true Government, because they are the ones that Govern us from behind-the-scenes even after our politicians' terms expire. They remain from term to term, and so there is a “continuity of agenda” from year to year -- decade to decade -- and the agenda is one that lies to you, destroys your freedoms, and then lies to you about your destroying your freedoms, and then labels you a terrorist for pointing out the lies about the freedoms being destroyed.
. The true power structure -- those that do not relinquish power when presidents and congressmen leave -- they are the true Government, because they are the ones that Govern us from behind-the-scenes even after our politicians' terms expire. They remain from term to term, and so there is a “continuity of agenda” from year to year -- decade to decade -- and the agenda is one that lies to you, destroys your freedoms, and then lies to you about your destroying your freedoms, and then labels you a terrorist for pointing out the lies about the freedoms being destroyed.The only way to fix this is to join the anti-establishment movement -- the true anti-establishment movement (i.e. the movement not endorsed by a political party or a Cable News channel) -- and toelect ourselves into office. We are not outnumbered -- we can peacefully Take Our Country Back (and that term, of course, is capitalized because it is a term listed in the DOJ Glossary as a term used by terrorists). Join the movement. Speak out, and be louder than ever. Attend meetings. Talk to your neighbors, don't spy on them. Listen patiently to those who you know disagree with you, and try to find common ground -- you'll be surprised. Hang up fliers. Call talk radio stations, and bring up your own issues. Get involved. And of course, run for office -- run for office, run for office, run for office. It does not matter what office: town council, State Rep, sheriff, school board -- any office. As I said in my previous work, it has taken these monsters almost 100 years to infiltrate our government, destroy our dollar, and centralize everything that should be local -- education, police departments, energy, environment -- now we must elect ourselves and take the power back. Once we elect ourselves into our cities, towns, and States, we can finally nullify these illegal actions taken by the Feds, and Take Our Country Back, as well as our States.
In the meantime, don't you dare even consider waiving an American Flag upside down to show that you feel that the country is headed in the wrong direction -- because the term “Flag of Distress” is also on the Department of Justice's glossary for Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism.
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Live Superfoods
Print this page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)