Jun 25, 2007

Reagan Appointed Judge Rules Against Bush Domestic Surveillance Powers

Again, here is a Reagan-appointed Judge contradicting the anti-constitutional actions of the neoconservative Bush administration. (It was even a Bush appointed republican prosecutor who indicted "Scooter Libby" too.) Please republicans, its long past time to question the "new republican" party that was formed and hijacked by neoconservative radicals who are philosophical followers of Leon Trotsky and the tenants of radical revolution and Totalitarian government. As long as republicans circle the wagons blindly they will not be "defending freedom" but erecting tyranny under the guise of peace and security.

The republican party is increasingly being opposed by "paleoconservatives", traditional conservatives who have been disenfranchised, who reject socialist-based neoconservatism and anti-constitutional practices and policies. The propaganda-driven "left-right" paradigm, that conveniently divides Americans into two very murky camps (while distracted Americans do not read beyond headlines), needs to be broken to restore constitutional government, sane foreign policy, and Americans' lost liberties from an arbitrary and unrestrained government and an Executive Branch that claims to have absolute "unitary powers". This is why they want a perpetual "war on terrorism" that names no enemy to maintain "emergency war powers" as a ruse for Executive "war powers" (something that a democrat President could have as much as a republican) and a Homeland Security system that controls the population of "free Americans" like criminal suspects, and provokes their just resistance.

As James Madison ("father of the Constitution") warned,

"If tyranny and oppression ever comes to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"
--precisely what we have now under the "war on terrorism"!

Ex-Surveillance Judge Criticizes Warrantless Taps

By Michael J. Sniffen
Associated Press
Sunday, June 24, 2007; A07

A federal judge who used to authorize wiretaps in terrorism and espionage cases criticized yesterday President Bush's decision to order warrantless surveillance after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"We have to understand you can fight the war [on terrorism] and lose everything if you have no civil liberties left when you get through fighting the war," said Royce C. Lamberth, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington and a former presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, speaking at the American Library Association's annual convention.

Lamberth, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, expressed his opposition to letting the executive branch decide on its own which people to spy on in national security cases.

The judge said it is proper for executive branch agencies to conduct such surveillance. "But what we have found in the history of our country is that you can't trust the executive," he said.

"The executive has to fight and win the war at all costs. But judges understand the war has to be fought, but it can't be at all costs," Lamberth said at the Washington Convention Center. "We still have to preserve our civil liberties. Judges are the kinds of people you want to entrust that kind of judgment to more than the executive."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which Lamberth led from 1995 to 2002, meets in secret to review applications from the FBI, the National Security Agency and other agencies for warrants to wiretap or search the homes of people in the United States in connection with terrorism or espionage cases. Each application is signed by the attorney general. The court has approved more than 99 percent of such requests.

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to spy on calls between people in the United States and terrorism suspects abroad without warrants. The administration said that it needed to act more quickly than the surveillance court could and that the president has inherent authority under the Constitution to order warrantless domestic spying.

After the program became public and was challenged in court, Bush placed it under court supervision this year. The president still asserts the power to order warrantless spying.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush believes in the program, which is classified because its purpose is to stop terrorists' planning.

The program "is lawful, limited, safeguarded and -- most importantly -- effective in protecting American citizens from terrorist attacks," Fratto said. "It's specifically designed to be effective without infringing Americans' civil liberties."

Lamberth took issue with Bush's approach.

He said the special court, established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, met the challenge of reacting quickly to the Sept. 11 attacks. Lamberth was stuck in a carpool lane near the Pentagon when a hijacked jet slammed into it that day. With his car enveloped in smoke, he called marshals to help him get into the District.

By the time officers reached him, Lambert said, "I had approved five FISA coverages [warrants] on my cellphone." He also approved other warrants at his home at 3 a.m. and on Saturdays.

"In a time of national emergency like that, changes have to be made in procedures. We changed a number of FISA procedures," Lamberth said.

Normal FISA warrant applications run 40 to 50 pages, but in the days after Sept. 11, the judge said, he issued orders "based on the oral briefing by the director of the FBI to the chief judge of the FISA court."

Lamberth would not say whether he thought Bush's warrantless surveillance was constitutional. "Judges shouldn't give advisory opinions, and I was never asked to give an opinion in court," he said.

But, he said, when the NSA briefed him about the program, he advised the agency to keep good records so that, if any applications came to the FISA court based on information obtained from the warrantless surveillance, the court could rule on the legality.

He said he never got such an application.

The Powers that Be: "Free Ed and Elaine Brown!" - Is the Income Tax Lawful?

The headlines at Drudge Report within the last 24 hours included one that stated "Tax Dodgers Taunt Police from Hilltop Compound". This sensational headline, linked to a CNN article of the same rhetoric, talked about these "dangerous" tax evaders, as if they represent a militant threat to society. Thus the "powers that be" control the media story through contracted press and, like Waco, Ruby Ridge, and other infamous incidents, the demonization of principled persons begins through the national media to make an example of those who dare resist the questionable "powers that be".

The controversy centers on the Income Tax and IRS powers, whether the 16th amendment was lawfully ratified (something questionable of almost every amendment since the Civil War), and also why there is "no law" that tells Americans that a mandatory income tax must be filed or paid, something openly questioned and disputed by former IRS agents (video clip below), with an increasing movement toward investigatory and open resistance unless the government can prove its case, without coercion or intimidation, in a court of law. Aaron Russo's latest documentary, worth reviewing on this subject and more, is entitled "Freedom to Fascism", where such former IRS agents are interviewed on this very subject. QUESTION: IF FORMER IRS AGENTS QUESTION AND DENY THAT THERE IS "NO LAW" TO MAKE AMERICANS LAWFULLY REQUIRED TO FILE INCOME TAX, WHY WILL THE ISSUE NOT BE ADDRESSED, AND WHY SHOULD AMERICANS OBEY SOMETHING MERELY LEVELED BY COERCIVE PROCESS AND DEMAND?

Bear in mind, the same questions could pertain to Social(ist) Security taxation--a communist transfer of wealth by seizure and national welfare scheme--and that the Amish and other parties have disputed, and do not pay! There is a valid legal argument that it too cannot be enforced as "mandatory" and also is a violation of religious liberty of conscience. Why should anyone pay what the law does not actually demand?

Even Kanawha Country Commissioner, Kent Carper stated on local WCHS talk radio over a year ago, and quite accurately, that an Income Tax is a key plank of Communism! Why do most flag-waving West Virginians not know this? Indeed, an excerpt of the Communist Manifesto from a source on the subject reads thus:

"Once again, in their foolishness, the American public has believed the lies of their "leaders" who applaud "the fall of Communism", while they have sold out the country to anti-Christian, anti-American statutes and regulations on the federal, state, and local levels. Posted below is a comparison of the original ten planks of the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart of each of the planks, The American people have truly been "buried in Communism" by their own politicians of both the Republican and Democratic parties. One other thing to remember, Karl Marx was stating in the Communist Manifesto that these planks will test whether a country has become communist or not.

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management. (Consider who really owns your property, if you do not pay "property taxes", what the result will be, and just who will put a lien on it, or confiscate it! Thus property taxes have all the elements of land-lease from the government, as if the government owns the property. A key definition of freedom is the ability to possess private property freely, without intrusion or threat of confiscation).

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986);

Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

This subject is legitimate enough that Congressman Ron Paul, republican candidate for President, is openly calling for the abolishment of the IRS and Income Tax (see video clip), as something that is contrary to the founding fathers vision in the Constitution, and contrary to freedom in America, when the government operated quite well for 150 years without one! Of course the "powers that be", the private so-called Federal Reserve banks, and big government supporters would object! Ronald Reagan had taken a swipe at them too (see video clip above).

So inquiring minds want to know much more than the contracted news propaganda that brands the Brown's as virtual terrorists in "a compound" (i.e. their home) who "taunt" police (a deliberate lie). It is more than clear by this deceitful rhetoric that the Brown's are being made into "public enemies" to justify the use of armed and military force (something hidden and attempted already) simply because they refuse to pay what is legally questionable! Here is a mainstream article from World Net Daily on the subject (linked), which shows that illegal immigrants have more freedom than Americans:

WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary
Posted: June 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Every now and again, I hear people being interviewed who believe federal income taxes are constitutionally invalid, and, as a result, they refuse to pay them. My first thought is usually "have fun in prison," but recent statements and proposals from some of our politicians have led me to believe that this is a cause worth fighting for.

Enter Ed and Elaine Brown, New Hampshire residents who don't believe in paying income taxes. As a result, the Browns have been sentenced to five-and-a-half years in prison and ordered to pay more than $200,000 after being convicted of tax evasion and are now holed up in their home, complete with solar and wind power. So far, Al Gore has offered no defense of the carbon offset to his mansions and heated pools.

Federal authorities now have their property surrounded, and the standoff could last indefinitely – ending much sooner if the Clintons are elected and put Janet Reno back in the Attorney General's office.

CBS News reports that federal authorities have "cut phone, power and Internet service at the fortified compound" of the couple.

The terms "fortified compound" and "tax evasion" usually seem to go hand-in-hand in stories such as these. "Fortified compound" is a term applied by the government for psychological reasons that is repeated by the media out of psychiatric reflex.

The government has trillions of dollars, tanks and armies of heavily armed individuals at their disposal. Our politicians have access to around the clock protection and bunkers that can withstand a direct nuclear strike. Not only that, but try running into any mainstream media building in New York or Los Angeles without being tackled by armed guards and tasered until your nose gives off a 75-watt glow.

But a married couple who lives in a six-bedroom colonial that might have an extra bolt on the door are the ones who the government and media says have a "fortified compound."

The government and media parrot terms such as "fortress-like home" to imply paranoia, which implies mental illness, which implies there's a good reason for the government to move in and save the "fortified compound" dwellers from themselves and the rest of us.

What's gone wrong?

(Column continues below)

Taxes weren't always such a treacherous undertaking. For a long time, this country was run on very limited funds. Up until the early 1800s, the government was run purely on internal sales taxes and revenue from a gigantic powdered wig closeout sale. Then, in 1817, the government got rid of internal taxes and functioned completely on tariffs on imported goods.

Can you imagine running the bloated monster of a federal government we have today solely on the 4 percent we'd get from taxes imposed on imports of running shoes and plastic novelty poop?

We were created with the ability to create. All this is evidenced in the brilliance of many of our finest moments, from medicine to art to science – but that all came to an end with the adoption of the 16th Amendment in 1913. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations.

At that point, all the creative energy that would have gone into curing disease, designing grand buildings, creating art and music and exploring the farthest reaches of the universe now goes into trying to figure out a way to write off our lawnmower as a dependent or simply to hide out in a "fortified compound" in New Hampshire waiting for the tear gas to come flying through the window.

Here's what is really irksome about Ed and Elaine Brown's situation. They are legal American citizens surrounded by their own government. In the meantime, many members of Congress, along with President Bush, are pushing to legalize 12 million "undocumented workers" (the artist formerly known as "illegal aliens") while forgiving them any back taxes owed, along with any IRS fines.

Ed and Elaine Brown should renounce their citizenship, declare themselves "undocumented workers" and then push for the passage of an immigration "reform" bill. Their tax problem would be solved, and they'd be free. Maybe we should all do this.

Until American citizens are afforded at least the same rights and privileges that our politicians seek for illegal aliens, the government must free Ed and Elaine Brown!

Now if you don't mind, I have to run along and repair the screen door on my "fortified compound."

Related special offer:

"Tired of paying too many taxes for too much government? Take a stand. Revolt!"

Doug Powers' columns appear every Monday on WorldNetDaily and various newspapers around the country. Doug's first book, "Because That's the Way God Decided to Do It! – A Conservative Father Fields Confusing Questions From His Confused Kids About A Confusing World" is available at Amazon.com.

Also, be sure to check out Doug's blog for daily commentary and responses to select reader email.



Jun 22, 2007

Mayor Danny Jones wants to bring Big Brother to West Virginia

As WSAZ reported earlier this week:

Charleston Mayor Danny Jones wants to double the city user fee (the dollar a week fee charged to everyone who works inside city limits) and spend some of the money for surveillance cameras.

Jones believes putting cameras throughout Charleston will make the city safer.

"If criminals know they could be picked up on camera they might pick another city to prey on," Mayor Danny Jones said.

Actually, WSAZ's headline for the article on their website stated stated Major Jones "wants to blanket the city with surveillance cameras to deter crime". In other words, this republican "conservative" mayor wants to bring "Big Brother" to West Virginia via the capital city.

One could say that he wants to do to Charleston what Guliani did to New York City, make it a police-state city of the Orwellian mode (recall military-fitted police and arrests of lawful protesters at Republican Convention), under the "plea of safety and security". Is this what West Virginia really wants--to be a total surveillance grid like (disarmed) Great Britain, or New York or Chicago, "free citizens" being monitored 24/7? What will happen to "Mountaineers are always free", when the government increasingly claims exceptions of "necessity"!

Adding insult to injury (and ignoring thousands of vociferous complaints) this will all be paid for by doubling the infamous "user fee" (like a "privilege tax") to those who work in Charleston, even if they live outside it (i.e. "taxation without representation"). Truly there is nothing conservative about this taxing, pro-gambling Mayor! Have West Virginians really considered this issue carefully (for if permitted here it will expand to all cities), or will they listen to the security pundits on talk radio and bow to the claim of "necessity" for law enforcement?

A very different consequence other than the Mayor's design could occur to the detriment of the city:
"If criminals know they could be picked up on camera they might pick another city to prey on." Not so fast Mr. Mayor, one could also say this:

"If CONSUMERS know they could be picked up on camera they might pick another city to SHOP in!"
Given the unpopularity of the user fee, now proposing to be doubled, and some calling for boycotts of Charleston shopping, this could already be well under way. Has the Mayor considered the viewpoint of free Mountaineers as consumers who do not want to be recorded on camera for going about their own business? What exactly is a "high crime area" and what did the reporters mean by "blanket the city"? No doubt this would be expanded constantly until the cameras are common place.

Mayor Jones needs to know, and so do metro Charlestonians before he proceeds, that both his premise and conclusions about "deterrence" and "security" are presumptive and faulty, as well as it being a direct threat to both "freedom" and "privacy" from government intrusion that both West Virginia's and the U.S. Constitution have embedded in supreme law:

1. The promise of increased safety and security as a crime deterrent appears to be propagated by the "terrorist-security" merchandisers (who are aggressively lobbying governments, playing the fear card since 9/11, and making irresponsible claims as much as pharmaceutical companies on their products) making inflated promises while pushing their hi-tech toys for law enforcement. THE CLAIM THAT SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS IN CITIES DETERS CRIME SOUNDS GOOD, BUT STUDIES HAVE PROVEN IT TO BE FALSE. The United Kingdom is far ahead on the use of surveillance cameras and therefore should be a good judge of their effectiveness. Major London media reported the results over a year ago in no uncertain terms:

Closed circuit TV systems are of little use in the fight against crime, a surprise government report claims today.

Home Office researchers who studied 14 schemes across Britain found that only one had brought a clear fall in the local crime rate. [One in 14!]

While there was strong public support for CCTV before it was installed, opinion began to shift when people realised the cameras made little difference....

....The report's author, Professor Martin Gill of the University of Leicester, said: "For supporters these findings are disappointing. For the most part CCTV did not produce reductions in crime and did not make people feel safer."

The only one of the 14 schemes found to be a success was targeted at car parks, where it led to a significant drop in vehicle crime. Other schemes in city centres, residential areas and hospitals produced no clear benefits.

Would it not be wise to consider this expensive venture by predecessors who have made liberal use of it? Where is the "crime deterrent" in this case study of one of the largest western cities in the world, using hi-tech 24/7 surveillance on CCTV? Pray tell, Mr. Mayor and law enforcement officials, would you not be better off considering spending the money on other resources than this, real law enforcement instead of police voyeurism, which the (more thoughtful, constitutionally-minded) public will hate? How about considering this cost-benefit analysis, before increasing taxation on the people and violating their right to privacy, their enjoyment of freedom? Pondering minds want to know.

The premise and conclusion of the Mayor's argument (supported by talk radio proponents of excessive police powers) for installing surveillance cameras is then refuted through this effective case study. No doubt the security merchandisers and lobbyists will push others "studies" and "facts" before law enforcement's eyes, but can they be impartial or unbias?

2. The purpose of the Constitution is to regulate and restrain the powers of government (i.e. a good thing!), including police powers, which is why we fought the British in 1776. Since modern republicans (and democrats) seems to forget what freedom really means (more than waving a flag), here is the West Virginia Constitution, which repeats some of the Bill of Rights, yes the same Constitution they swear to "defend and protect", but seldom do:

3-1. Bill of rights.

All men are, by nature, equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely: The enjoyment of life and liberty...

3-6. Unreasonable searches and seizures prohibited.

The rights of the citizens to be secure in their houses, persons, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. No warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized.

Where will "freedom" and being "independent" and our "inherent rights" to the "enjoyment" of "liberty" go?

Surveillance cameras do not record criminals, they record EVERYONE, and they "search" EVERYONE constantly, 24/7, without "probable cause", without "warrant".
Specifically, these digital surveillance cameras have "facial mapping" technology (as the DMV also installed last year). That means that while they appear non-obtrusive they are taking a DIGITAL "FINGERPRINT" OF YOUR FACE, and this is being "seized", without "probable cause", and recorded for up to 30 or 60 days (as the proposal reported). YOU ARE BEING WATCHED, FILMED AND RECORDED AS A CRIMINAL SUSPECT (cameras have no human judgment) while engaging in lawful behavior (crimes are the exception), AND YOUR PRIVACY IS BEING VIOLATED CONTRARY TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS THAT EARLY AMERICANS FOUGHT AND DIED FOR. It is intrusive. It is not a mark of free society, but that of a Totalitarian government, contrary to the Constitution.

Before West Virginians get used to this by passivity or accident, without thorough thinking, without exerting their Constitutional rights, and continuity of government, they need to consider how it will be expanded. The video below shows a UK Mayor who is nicknamed "Robo Cop" (as could Mayor Jones as well if he continues this policy) and the extent to which the Surveillance Camera is expected to go, which is being pushed under the plea of "necessity", contrary to the evidence. West Virginians do not want to live in the UK or New York City, but wild and wonderful West Virginia, enjoying their liberty and still proclaiming "Mountaineers are always free".

Ron Paul condemns Propaganda Bill and Iran war Surge in Congress

Again, bear in mind the previous article "The Jews of Iran" as you read about this propaganda resolution which pre-emptively accuses Iran of "not preventing Genocide", overlooking the 25,000 Jews peacefully coexisting in Iran, without persecution, with complete freedom, and with representation in government--something Palestinians in Israel do not! Also, the "wipe off the map" translation of Ahmadinijad is also already refuted propaganda (bear in mind the need for accurate translations and impartial translators, for understanding) and hardly a "threat of genocide", but merely a quarrel about the true legality and justice of establishing the Zionist regime named "Israel", which has not been contained within the borders agreed upon either.

If Iran truly wanted to "wipe Israel off the map" by militarism they would have begun when Israel bombed the entire country and infrastructure, killing thousands of civilians of Lebanon, under the justification of defending a neighbor from hostile attack. In fact, Israel was trying to provoke war with Iran by this action, while the neoconservative Zionists, specifically James Woolsey and William Kristol were calling for the U.S. to strike both Syria and Iran (ramping up the provocation for Iran to enter the conflict) at that same time! Just who are the war-mongers and perpetrators but those who provoke and inflame unjust war! President Ahmadinejad of Iran, wisely did not fall for their craft, and maintained nothing but patience, as Israel bombed the civilians of Lebanon and their infrastructure into dust. But apparently Israel is entirely free to "wipe off the map" Lebanon, Syria, or whomever it pleases with entire impunity, and in fact the Project for New American Century neoconservative blueprint, from Sept. 2000, calls for "regime change" in all these countries for a "new middle east"! Just who has designs on "wiping" nations "off the map" in truth?

What kind of Christian morality or "conservative" principles do we see here by the neoconservative war-mongers except that of a gang mentality? Where are the Christian principles of "just war" here? Behind all this is the heresy and corrupt modern Christian doctrine of Zionism (new to the 20th century) which gives a superstitious reverence to the name, geography, peoples (despite less than half of Israel is Jewish) and corrupt government called "Israel"--a nation with questionable legal status, no legally defined borders (the UN however, who pretentiously granted the sovereignty does, define borders which Israel has violated and expanded), and not even a constitution (see CIA Factbook)! TALK ABOUT "ROGUE REGIMES", AND THEY POSSESS WMD, AND THREATEN TO USE THEM--EVEN PRE-EMPTIVELY!

Most all republican presidential candidates (owned by AIPAC and the Israeli lobby), except Ron Paul, have all agreed to the premise ("not off the table") of "preemptive nuclear attack" on Iran--like insane, psycopathic, genociders themselves! Again, the "just war theory of Christianity" (biblical strictures on when war becomes justified and moral) would PREVENT the present course of the neoconservative and Zionist war-mongers that incite the Congress to push these measures unjustly. That is what presidential candidate Ron Paul says is the "greatest moral problem" (i.e. the "shedding of innocent blood", like 655,000 Iraqi civilians, not "terrorists") that modern Christians turn a blind eye to while pretending to defend unborn fetuses (a clever political decoy scheme used to justify war policy by shifting the focus after Viet Nam)--ignoring that unjust war is murder as well, and the higher crime! Clearly, modern Christianity is corrupt and lacks Christian principles , being led by fake Christian leaders and very unconservative politicians who are liberal about what justifies war.

June 21, 2007
Have We Forgotten 2003 Already?
Statement on H Con Res 21 by Rep. Ron Paul

This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.

Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world "do as we say, not as we do."

I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. General William Odom, President Reagan's director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled "Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran." General Odom wrote: "Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the U.S. thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the U.S. from its predicament in Iraq." General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a "no" vote on this resolution.

[from article at Bovard linked]

Jun 14, 2007

Governors in the West Slam REAL ID and Homeland Security measures


A few quotes are very choice. What a breath of fresh air from these governors!

"It used to be that one of the greatest forms of dignity was air travel," Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said. "Now the biggest indignity is air travel. ... We're the most technologically advanced nation in the world. Why are we still shaking down our grandmothers?"

“The people of Montana get used to the feds coming up with half-baked ideas,” Mont. Gov. Brian Schweitzer told Stewart Baker, assistant secretary for policy at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “From time to time they have half-baked ideas with mandates....
“How will you handle the increasing number of states that are saying, no, no, no way and hell no?”

Govs slam federal ID program
Jackson Hole Star-Tribune - Casper,WY,USA
Real ID would require states to upgrade driver's licenses to also serve as passports. Baker said modifying driver's licenses is more palatable than creating ...
See all stories on this topic

Western governors are critical of new federal Real ID program
Gillette News Record - Gillette WY,USA
By PETER GARTRELL, News-Record Writer DEADWOOD, SD -- A federal program known as Real ID that would require states to upgrade their driver's licenses to ...
See all stories on this topic

Jun 9, 2007

The Jews of Iran--Contradiction to Conspiracy Theory of Islamo-Fascism and Demonization of Iran

This evidence of over 25,000 Jews in Iran, co-existing peacefully, refutes the insane notion that radical Islam wants to "kill all Jews and Christians". These Jews have representatives in the government of Iran too. But you will not hear any of this from those who tell the outrageous conspiracy theory of Islamo-fascism. This evidence must be pushed to the public view to dispel the lies and propaganda that holds Americans captive to Neoconservative "war on terror" (which terrorizes only American minds) fiction and foreign and domestic "security" policy, including the pre-emptive nuking of Iran (openly, unabashedly condoned by 9 of 10 "republican" presidential candidates, except Ron Paul) because it is a "threat" to Israel or the world. (Israel has nuclear weapons. Is the middle east safe with that?). There is a justifiable doctrine of "pre-emption" (contrary to the neoconservative Bush doctrine), but ONLY upon one of absolutely certain, immediate and imminent threat (i.e. self defense). Based upon this evidence, can every one be so certain about an immediate and imminent threat by "Islamo-fascsts" who "want to kill us all"?

It is impossible that the demonization of Iran and "radical Islam" based upon the propaganda constantly thrown in our face can be believed in the face of this evidence. If "militant Islam" cannot "kill Jews" (as they say they are "determined" to do) in Iran, how could they do it more easily in America or Israel? Where is the "militance"? Where is the "fascism"? Do these Jews lack freedom of religion? Is even Iran a "Caliphate"? If Iran is not, how could they establish a "caliphate" in the middle east or world? Is Iran really a "state sponsor" of radical Islamic terror--part of a world conspiracy? Then why the tolerance in their own country? Is their an Islamic "one world government" conspiracy, that kills all who do not believe in the Koran and Islam? Why is their no evidence of this in Iran, which has been labeled the "axis of evil"? What evil? (This writer rejects the erroneous teachings of doctrines of both Islam and Judaism). One can see that these Jews (unlike secular Zionists) have not changed their unique religious and cultural practice in order to obtain peace there either. Here they clearly have "freedom of religion", "freedom of speech", and even representation in government (unlike some Americans in our own)!

Facts are stubborn things. Let us here from the Islamo-Fascist propagandists, in the media and government, as to why their "facts" they dogmatically preach to us do not match this obvious contradiction. It is impossible that their claims can be true, but the deliberate work of planned propaganda to fuel the neoconservative agenda.

To the contrary, Palestinians are under Israeli occupation (within their own homeland), and ARE NOT treated well. "Purification" and genocide is alive and well in Israel. (Where are the cries against "racism" here?) Listen to the Israeli soldiers own testimony from their own cameras. Could it be that Muslims are resentful and fearful of the Zionist state, which occupies land by arbitrary powers, displacing, dispossessing, or oppressing them by military force? Consider as you watch how Americans might respond if Mexico were again granted the Southwestern states (Arizona, New Mexico, California), and occupied it by military power, setting up Walls and checkpoints, even under a "UN resolution"....consider just how Americans might respond, and you will have a sense for the scenario involved.

Jun 8, 2007

Behind Bush's Immigration Bill: The Secret Plan for North American Union

The time is long overdue to look behind the curtain to see just why the almost 300 page Bush-Kennedy-McCain bill for immigration was so strongly supported, almost driven and coerced as much as the unread USA PATRIOT ACT(s), with the strongest rhetoric, by this so-called "republican" President. This issue of illegal immigration has puzzled many loyal Bush supporters because they do not see just who and what is behind a very clear inconsistency with both constitutional sovereignty and conservative policy for a rule of law. The answer can be found in an article last year published by World Net Daily, that received little publicity in main stream news, even by WCHS talk radio which had its author, Dr. Jerome Corsi, on the program for other purposes. WCHS or Hoppy's Voice of West Virginia morning talk radio program should interview Dr. Corsi now.)

We republish that article below for the reader to see just what is behind the Bush policy which directly explains just why such a loose policy of illegal immigration is desired, which, as usual, is tied directly to Economic Pragmatism toward a global economy. (Yes, this is what NAFTA is all about too, and Council of Americas, and even more quiet Organization of American States--where the "states" are other countries!) . There you will find the true nature of Bush government revealed (if somehow you have not yet heard), including the elements of the self-professed Neoconservatives (who "fixed intelligence--falsified evidence of WMD--around the policy to go to war" from the rogue Office of Special Plans), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and others of various other organizations whose commitment is toward a one world government, and gradual erasure of sovereignty and borders, toward a World Federation of Democracies, their Utopian ambition. (It is amazing how many republicans have not noticed the repetitious references toward furthering Democracy in the world, by force of arms, by George W. Bush--hardly a conservative agenda!) Here is that article that revealed the secret Bush government plan for a North American Union:

Bush sneaking North American super-state without oversight?
Mexico, Canada partnership underway with no authorization from Congress

Posted: June 13, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Despite having no authorization from Congress, the Bush administration has launched extensive working-group activity to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada.

The membership of the working groups has not been published, nor has their work product been disclosed, despite two years of massive effort within the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

The groups, working under the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the Department of Commerce, are to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005.

The trilateral agreement, signed as a joint declaration not submitted to Congress for review, led to the creation of the SPP office within the Department of Commerce.

The SPP report to the heads of state of the U.S., Mexico and Canada, -- released June 27, 2005, -- lists some 20 different working groups spanning a wide variety of issues ranging from e-commerce, to aviation policy, to borders and immigration, involving the activity of multiple U.S. government agencies.

The working groups have produced a number of memorandums of understanding and trilateral declarations of agreement.

The Canadian government and the Mexican government each have SPP offices comparable to the U.S. office.

Geri Word, who heads the SPP office within the NAFTA office of the U.S. Department of Commerce affirmed to WND last Friday in a telephone interview that the membership of the working groups, as well as their work products, have not been published anywhere, including on the Internet.

Why the secrecy?

"We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public," said Word.

She suggested to WND that the work products of the working groups was described on the SPP website, so publishing the actual documents did not seem required.

WND can find no specific congressional legislation authorizing the SPP working groups. The closest to enabling legislation was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., on April 20, 2005. Listed as S. 853, the bill was titled "North American Cooperative Security Act: A bill to direct the Secretary of State to establish a program to bolster the mutual security and safety of the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and for other purposes." The bill never emerged from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In the House of Representatives, the same bill was introduced by Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Fla., on May 26, 2005. Again, the bill languished in the House Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment.

WND cannot find any congressional committees taking charge for specific oversight of SPP activity.

WND has requested from Word in the U.S. Department of Commerce a complete listing of the contact persons and the participating membership for the working groups listed in the June 2005 SPP report to the trilateral leaders. In addition, WND asked to see all work products, such as memorandums of understanding, letters of intent, and trilateral agreements that are referenced in the report.

Many SPP working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American Union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.

Referring to the SPP joint declaration, the report, entitled "Building a North American Community," stated:

The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.

To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.

The CFR task force report called for establishment of a common security border perimeter around North America by 2010, along with free movement of people, commerce and capital within North America, facilitated by the development of a North American Border Pass that would replace a U.S. passport for travel between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

Also envisioned by the CFR task force report were a North American court, a North American inter-parliamentary group, a North American executive commission, a North American military defense command, a North American customs office and a North American development bank.

SPECIAL OFFER: For a limited time, get a FREE copy of the blockbuster Whistleblower edition that exposes the U.S. government plan to integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada into a North American super-state – guided by the powerful but secretive Council on Foreign Relations. Titled "ALIEN NATION: SECRETS OF THE INVASION," it exposes exactly why the U.S. government will not truly secure the border with Mexico – not now, and not ever.

Jerome R. Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including co-authoring with John O'Neill the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry." Dr. Corsi's most recent books include "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," which he co-authored with WND columnist Craig. R. Smith, and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians."

[Fair Use Notice. Published for Educational purposes only].

Video: Dick Cheney at CFR Meeting with David Rockefeller, discloses he hid that he was a former director of the CFR from republican supporters while in Wyoming. Now you know why:

Jun 7, 2007

JFK airport plot 'a US setup'; Daughter Claims Hoax to Boost Propaganda for Neocon Republicans

[Ed. Do recall, that Guliani made reference of these spurious events--which Ron Paul doubted could be prosecuted as claimed--as "evidence" of continous fear-mongering claims of terrorism, and that the "war on terror" is "not a bumpersticker".]

JFK airport plot 'a US setup'

06/06/2007 08:17 - (SA)

[see original via link on title above at news24.com--South Africa news media]

Port Of Spain - The four suspects in an alleged terror plot to bomb a New York airport were set up in an elaborate plan by the US Republican party to retain hold of the White House, the daughter of an arrested suspect claimed on Tuesday.

Huda Ibrahiim, daughter of Amir Kareem Ibrahiim, one of four men accused of plotting acts of terrorism against the United States, said US justice officials had engaged in entrapment in breaking up the alleged plot.

Huda, 20, speaking on behalf of the Trinidad and Tobago and the Guyanese Shi'ite Muslim community, read from a prepared statement in a press conference at a hotel in Port Of Spain.

She said the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) informant key to breaking up the alleged plot had presented himself as an Islamic missionary from the United States while visiting the homes of Abdul Kadir and Amir Ibrahiim.

The FBI's informant [ed. provocateur], whom she called "the source", "is the only person culpable of any of the activities mentioned in the complaint.

Intent to entrap

"The source visited our brothers with the specific intent to entrap them in activities they know nothing about, never agreed to and did not participate in," said Huda.

Her 62-year-old father, 56-year-old former Guyanese parliamentarian Abdul Kadir, along with Russell De Freitas and Abdel Nur, both of Guyanese heritage, allegedly plotted to blow up fuel-tank pipelines at New York City's John F Kennedy International Airport.

Ibrahiim, a Trinidadian, and Kadir appeared in Trinidad court on Monday while Nur gave himself up to local authorities on Tuesday. All three men are facing extradition to the US where De Frietas has already been arraigned.

"We believe that the persons responsible for the arrest of our brothers are doing it for a purpose other than the protection of the people and interests of the USA," Huda said.

"They have apparently done so in the interest of shoring up a lame duck presidency and increasing the lame chances of the Republican party being returned to power in November 2008", said Huda, whose father is a retired government accounts clerk.

'Sure of their innocence'

She also said her father was afraid to fly, was not computer literate and does not use the internet.

"We are absolutely sure of their innocence. Neither of these men and we believe no one in our community participates in activities as those alleged in the public statements or in the filed complaint of the Department of Justice", she said.

As believers in Islamic Sharia, they followed the cardinal principles of the Koran, she said, including the principle that the blood of civilians is sacred.

"To our Muslim brothers and sisters we swear by Allah, the Lord of Muhammad, that we have not participated in any terrorist plot against the United States," she added.

[Fair Use Notice. For educational purposes only]



More.....Three stories worth reading. The JFK airport "terror plot" has the typical suspicious and contradictory evidence, while the "suspects" had no explosives in their possession, and the usual FBI "informant" (i.e. provocateur) again is present. (Again, doubtful a conviction to prove "intent" for conspiracy will be found in court, unless they plea out in fear of torture). The news articles Sunday had contradictory elements, claiming that the explosions and fire could have devastated neighborhood under which the pipelines run, then experts state in same articles there is no way fire could travel said pipelines. Coincidentally this always seems to pick up the closer to primary campaigning (two more Presidential debates this week) or when indictments of the Bush administration fly. Britains distrust their government and the official story of 7/7 as much as Americans do 9/11, because the evidence does not fit the stories, and these events both took place during "war games" and/or "terrorist drills", that just happened to go live. So much propaganda to debunk, so little time. People need to read the details to find the "devil" in them. Sensational headlines are never later retracted when the case falls apart. In 6 years there have been ZERO TERRORIST ATTACKS in the U.S., while borders and ports are open wide, and we are told "jihadists want to kill us all". Any teenager could do better and we would have witnessed numerous real events if that lie were true.

GOP chief: We need more terror attacks on US soil 'to appreciate' President Bush

03 Jun 2007

The Republican Party of Arkansas, which was beaten decisively in last year's election, needs to dedicate itself to running next time on an anti-tax, pro-highway and pro-education agenda, its new chairman [Bryant businessman Dennis Milligan] said... Milligan said he's "150 percent" behind Bush on the war in Iraq. "At the end of the day, I believe fully the president [sic] is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country," Milligan said.

Survey: 'government hasn't told truth about 7/7' 04 Jun 2007 A quarter of Muslims polled think the authorities involved with staging the 7/7 London bombings. A Channel 4 News survey of 500 British Muslims, carried out by GFK NOP, has found that nearly a quarter don't believe the four men identified as the London bombers were responsible for the attacks. And a similar number say the government or the security services were involved. Nearly six in ten of those polled believe the government hasn't told the whole truth about the July the 7th bombings - and more than half say the intelligence services have made up evidence to convict terrorist suspects.

JFK Airport Plot Has All the Hallmarks of Staged Terror --Near-retarded "ringleader", paid government provocateur mirrors legion of previous cases

By Paul Joseph Watson 04 Jun 2007

An alleged plot to blow up fuel tanks, terminal buildings and fuel lines running beneath Kennedy International Airport has all the hallmarks of being another staged terror alert, having never advanced beyond a rudimentary planning stage while being prodded and provocateured by a paid government informant. In every single major terror sting we have researched in the west since 9/11, not one single plot has been absent the ingredient of a government provocateur, save the cases that were outright manufactured by imaginative government propagandists in alliance with the corporate media.

Jun 5, 2007

Updated: NHPR Interviews Ron Paul; Paul says U.S. abandoned "just war theory of Christianity" is Greatest Moral Problem

By Laura Knoy on Tuesday, June 5, 2007.
listen to interview here: Listen with Windows Media PlayerListen with an MP3 Player

The longtime Texas Congressman is low in the polls, but has made a name for himself as THE anti-war candidate on the Republican side. Paul’s also known as a libertarian, espousing limited government and a free market and who has long advocated a return to the gold standard. He joins us in studio to talk about his presidential aspirations. We'll talk with him about the issues, including Iraq, and get his thoughts in advance of the Republican debate later this evening.




Congressman Ron Paul (Protestant, strict constitutionalist) defends Christian doctrine of "just war" (i.e. self defense, last resort, etc.) against what "Neocons preach"

GULIANI (Roman Catholic imperialist and fascist) SAYS U.S. Military Role is for "NATION BUILDING" (see video below).

Jun 3, 2007

NEOCONS and Radical Republicans Fight to Save REAL ID

Note the first article below "A REAL Problem" is from the National Review (aka Neocon propagandists incorporated) whose chief editor is William (PNAC) Kristol, in an effort to spin REAL ID into an "immigration reform" issue, a current hot button. It is essential that REAL ID does NOT get mixed up with immigration reform, for it is a CITIZENS NATIONAL ID act, having NOTHING to do with immigration! See Congressman (and Republican Presidential candidate) Ron Paul's landmark argument against the very claim: A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform for a refutation of the National Review's article.

The second article is a "family values" attack, using the ACLU as a political flash-point (as if the ACLU is alone in this opposition) to impugn resistance to REAL ID as contrary to family values. Their erroneous and illogical argument is typical: ergo, the ACLU breathes air, therefore you should not. Again, both republicans and democrats are resisting this tyrannical legislation being implemented by the states on constitutional grounds. Bill Clinton wanted a National ID card too, that would have come in with Universal Health Care. (Both programs incorporate the Social(ist) Security number as the key data-mining device, contrary to the original Social Security Act which promised it would "not be for identification purposes").

Thus we see the counter-propaganda is back in full gear to save REAL ID, led by the radical revolutionary neocon Trotskyites who hate the Constitution while claiming to "defend freedom". (But why did they say the States could "opt out"? What of the neocons claim of "states rights" now?). What they don't want you to read are the next two articles. These tactics and their sources are important to refute, as they play to the conservative base by distorting all the arguments about REAL ID and turn them into partisan "circle the wagons" conflict.

THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE...AS THEY WOULD HAVE IT....AS BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATS IN MANY STATES HAVE PUBLICLY OPPOSED IT. Congress had no authority to pass such anti-constitutional legislation which was rammed through in stealth by attaching it to a "emergency military funding" bill. (Any such legislation passed by craft and stealth, as was the USA PATRIOT ACT(s) as well, should be viewed as highly suspicious).

One of the leading Republicans against REAL ID said this:
‘We must not lose what this nation was founded upon. ‘The Real ID Act is a direct frontal assault on our freedoms.’’
"We're supposed to be a government of, by and for the people. Government's role is to protect citizens' freedom. In this case, they're not doing that. It is a direct frontal assault on the freedom of citizens when [the federal government] wants us to carry a national ID."

-- Rep. Jim Guest, Republican Missouri
He also warned about anything less than a full repeal of REAL ID to prevent federal despotism from the rogue anti-constitutional agency called "Homeland Security":

"My concern is that even if [DHS] waters [the Act] down a bit they will try and accomplish what they want with some other legislation... Homeland Security has total control, with no judicial or legislative control over this. Once they issue this, there is no way of stopping them."

In West Virginia legislation is already pending from both House and Senate that is bi-partisan declaring that West Virginia will not participate (i.e. per constitutional doctrine of Nullification) in REAL ID and instructing the DMV to report any attempts by the Feds or DHS to bring conformity. (See our previous articles on REAL ID for the detailed legislation). This is excellent legislation, and consistent with West Virginia's Constitutional articles of Continuity of Government and Internal Government and Police.




A REAL Problem
National Review Online Blogs - New York,NY,USA
The attitude senior congressional leaders have taken towards implementation of the REAL ID Act offers a lesson for those who actually believe that this ...
See all stories on this topic

The Real Deal On Real ID
Family Security Matters - Ridgewood,NJ,USA
The ACLU is waging a legal war against Real ID legislation designed to create a safety barrier protecting all law-abiding Americans. ...
See all stories on this topic

4 States Defy Federal 'Real ID' Law
Free Market News Network - Pompano Beach,FL,USA
... casting further doubt on the future of the 2005 Real ID Act. Although it is rare for states to reject an act of Congress, New Hampshire and Oklahoma in ...
See all stories on this topic

Two more states reject Real ID
United Press International - USA
WASHINGTON, June 1 (UPI) -- New Hampshire and Oklahoma have joined Montana and Washington in rejecting the US government's 2005 Real ID Act. ...
See all stories on this topic

See the MSNBC interview with Jim Harper of CATO Institute.