By Ron Paul
08/19/08 "ICH"

We've heard how the value of the dollar affects gas prices – and indeed the price of everything.  I was pleased that my request for a hearing on such was granted by the Financial Services committee and we were able to hear some very informative testimony.  Certainly domestic policies, regarding off-shore oil drilling bans, ethanol mandates, refining capacity, and CAFE standards are interventionist and harmful enough in the energy market.

But how does foreign policy affect gas prices?  One important factor is that oil on the world market has been priced in dollars exclusively since 1973.  Only two leaders have gone against this arrangement - Saddam Hussein in 2000 and more recently Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with the recently opened Iranian Oil Bourse which trades in non-dollar currencies.  But since oil is otherwise exclusively traded in dollars, this means that oil producers have vast amounts of assets held in dollars.  Especially since the War on Terror and the PATRIOT Act, many oil-producing nations and banks are concerned the US government may freeze assets based on flimsy pretexts.  This fear contributes to dollar weakness, and therefore also high oil prices.

Recently I and other members of Congress spoke out against H Con Res 362 and exposed this seemingly innocuous bill for what it really is – a call for a blockade and a build up to war with Iran.  Thankfully it has not come to the floor for a vote as I had fully expected it would.  But to even propose legislation like this, and get an alarming 261 cosponsors, makes the oil markets jittery and encourages more capital flight from the dollar.  We only isolate ourselves on the world stage with actions and attitudes like this.  After all, how can it be wise for the rest of the world to bank on America, when we tend to freeze assets and blockade entire countries for no good reason?

Another major factor is our intervention in international military conflicts.  These conflicts are often much more complicated, and have more to do with oil than our own leaders are willing to acknowledge.  Too often the side we support points our weapons right back at us down the road.  The best policy is always free trade with all and entangling alliances with none, but instead we isolate ourselves by picking sides and making enemies out of our friends or potential friends.  In the recent conflict with Russia and Georgia, it appears that once again the administration is going to pick sides and send taxpayer money, when we are in a deep recession here at home.  There is no good reason for us to put a dog in every fight around the world.

The contributing factors in the price of oil are complicated and legion.  The fact is, it is an immensely valuable resource, and, as our demand for this resource is great, our relationships with world leaders who control it should be handled with reason and intelligence.  However, our interventionist mindset when it comes to foreign policy never ceases to get us into sticky situations, for which we pay a premium at the gas pump.

Ron Paul is a Republican United States Congressman from Lake Jackson, Texas, a physician, a bestselling author, and a former 2008 U.S. presidential candidate.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Stagflation is Here, and It is a Weapon of Mass Destruction by Richard C. Cook

Blockades: Acts of War by Stephen Lendman

U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: “Naval Blockade” or All Out War Against Iran?

A Vote For Military Force Against Iran? AIPAC’s House Resolution, H. Con. Res. 362

HR 362 and the Alarming Escalation of Hostility Towards Iran

Ron Paul: Something Big is Happening

Ron Paul on Iran Policy (videos)

The Economy Sucks and or Collapse

Iran

In these Great United States we have a unique situation, which leaves us almost nowhere to turn to seek advice and very limited, if any, examples from which to follow. We live in a (supposed) Representative Republic, which is unique in its application. Unlike a true Democracy where each vote counts and majority wins (that happens sometimes, but mostly in local elections and ordinances where it is better suited since every town or county can be vastly different then even their closest neighbors) we vote to elect a group of people who then vote on the major issues on our behalf and (supposedly) in the way that we would have voted. This system works well when the people who are elected are held to account for their actions within whatever office it is that they hold. This particular system does not, however, work well when the voters, as a majority, are uninformed, uninterested and lackluster in their following of the actual goings on of our elected officials. The latter is largely what I see as the current state of politics in the 50 states of the Union.

Examples abound, but let us take the two current Presidential nominees, since they are the easiest to single out. **Political Warning** Some people may be offended by the things I am about to say, just know that at this point, I support NEITHER of these candidates as they have both proven to be at best lax and at worst completely against what I believe to be the most important thing we have in this country… FREEDOM.

John McCain says that he supports freedom (who doesn’t at least say that) and yet he was the co-author of the McCain-Feingold legislation limiting the freedom of speech and he supports the Patriot Act which demonstrates a blatant disregard for our Bill of Rights as American Citizens. I will note that I have no problem with the articles that deal strictly with non-US Citizens, but many of the articles of the Patriot Act infringe on our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

While Barack Obama does not support the Patriot Act, he does speak out of both sides of his mouth on two issues that are extremely important to me, the Second Amendment and the sanctity of human life. He has routinely stated throughout this election that he supports the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment, and yet his version must be worded very differently than the one that I have read at the end of every podcast I do because within the structure of “his” second amendment the District of Columbia’s ban on functional firearms of any kind was, in his own words, “Constitutional” (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html) and yet that flies in the face of an individual right to “keep and bear arms,” as stated in the Second Amendment. He also has issues with parents being allowed to parent, especially when it concerns reproductive “rights”. I say “rights” because the “right” to have an abortion is not spelled out anywhere in the founding documents, and the reasoning behind the justification of it by the courts is, at best, a stretch if not an outright ludicrous use of our Constitution to promote a political agenda. See Obama’s beliefs on a woman’s “reproductive rights” here: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/12/21/sen-barack-obamas-reproductive-health-questionnaire.

What does this have to do with our unique situation as a stated Representative Republic? Somehow these two people ended up as our candidates for the highest office in the nation, even though most of us will be voting for “the lesser of two evils” come November since we don’t agree much with either but disagree with one more than the other. What has brought our country to this point? There are plenty of possibilities but one of the biggest problems we have as a nation is fear, and the immobility that accompanies it. We have been convinced to give up liberties for fear via The Patriot Act, and somehow were convinced that it was a good idea… Remember always what Benjamin Franklin said in 1775, one year before we declared our Independence from Britain: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Fear is used throughout our society to achieve the ends that any particular entity is attempting to achieve. Some of these are just fears and righteous causes, however, so many of them are intended only to serve those that profit (in monetary values or in terms of power) from its dissemination. Media outlets feed us a gagging amount of violence, corruption and evil every night. Sure they might sprinkle a little “sunny side” on top of the heap of garbage every now and then, but not more than one or two stories a day. Why? Because your are more likely to stay tuned when they say… “Coming up after the break, are you more likely to commit suicide if you own a gun? Stay tuned to find out.” Then if they said “After the break we talk to a man who raises puppies for a good cause.”

It is just human nature, and they prey upon it to make a dollar or retain (and increase) power. You write me and tell me if I am wrong on this, but in this next Presidential election pay close attention during the campaign and see how many times they use fear of what the other person will or will not do as the basis for their argument that they are better. I can guarantee it will be somewhere between 80 to 90% of the time. 80 to 90% of their arguments will be based on causing you to fear what Barack Obama is going to do for our freedoms or how you should be afraid concerning how John McCain will destroy the country and take us to war with every nation in the world including our allies. Please DO NOT misunderstand me, I know that some of the things that will be brought up will be valid issues (Obama really does want to take away liberties [so does McCain though… that’s another blog post though]). My point is that they will turn them into emotional rather than intellectual issues. It is easier to motivate someone out of fear than out of knowledge that something is right or wrong… that is simply our human nature.

I want to leave with this closing thought: Did we reach this conundrum with open eyes, or open emotions? How did we end up with two candidates that 50% of the people can’t stand in either direction in a Nation where the people are supposed to be represented at all levels of Government? Can we continue in freedom if we allow our emotions to rule rather than logic and a desire to maintain liberty? Remember:

How prone all human institutions have been to decay; how subject the best-formed and most wisely organized governments have been to lose their check and totally dissolve; how difficult it has been for mankind, in all ages and countries, to preserve their dearest rights and best privileges, impelled as it were by an irresistible fate of despotism.

James Monroe, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 10, 1788

If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.

John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772

"0.00-1.00 Uhr Jack fährt auf eigene Faust zu den Chinesen, um Audrey zu befreien.

1.00-2.00 Uhr Die Suche nach Cheng läuft auf Hochtouren

2.00-3.00 Uhr Dank Audres Hinweis findet man Chengs Stützpunkt"

Ich frage Sie: Was muss man denn NOCH mehr wissen?

The originators of this assignment asked us to conclude with answering two questions the first of those being; are the actions of the government legal, moral or ethical?

Well my initial answer was "duh!" but I'm sure that that would not have garnered such a positive response; especially in the area of grading. In reality, sometimes I wonder whether or not the government of the United States even considers these questions when decisions of this caliber are made. What the United States government has done is to give law enforcement officers, especially at the federal level, blanket authority to arbitrarily deprive individuals of their civil liberties. What makes matters worse is that it is only a small percentage of individuals that they are initially targeting but in the end, the rest of us will also pay the price for this choice. One could argue that this new law will expire in the year 2005 and have no weight after that. If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that our own government has a seriously hard time relinquishing power; especially when it was acquired under questionable circumstances. What happens after the threat has been eliminated? Is there a possibility that in the year 2005, somebody in the government is going to look back over the last four years and say, “Wow, that worked really well for us. Maybe we should just hang on to it." Theoretical? Yes. Possible? Also yes. (On March 9, 2006, President Bush signed into law a re-authorization bill.  This even after the bill had been criticized by Senators on both sides of party lines for ignoring civil liberties)

So let me now answer each question individually.

Was it legal?  Or defined further, was it permitted by law?  Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution clearly states that the Writ of Habeas Corpus can be suspended in cases of rebellion and invasion if public safety requires it.   On the surface, it seems as though this was a legal act.  If our government had operated the way it is supposed to, were it not a legal act, the U.S. Supreme Court would have said, "Nah ah, you can't do that." In hindsight, maybe they should have.  The legality of the decision really hinges on the answer to the question, "Were we invaded?"

Was it moral?  There are definitions of moral which can be used to justify both sides of this argument.   Since we are supposedly a government of the people, for the people and by the people, I think that this definition works really well.  Good by accepted standards: good or right, when judged by the standards of the average person or society at large. (Emphasis Mine).  In my estimation, this was not a moral decision.

Is it ethical?   Ethical is defined as: conforming to accepted standards: consistent with agreed principles of correct moral conduct.  It is my point of view that if the U.S. Constitution is the standard for consistency, then the decision was definitely not ethical.

A decision made that is not ethical, moral, depending on your definition and questionably legal is a decision that should be made in the negative.  If any of those questions can be answered with no, then the answer should be no.  The end does not justify the means.

The second question to answer was should the 5th Amendment be replaced with a system in which criminal defendants can be deposed and receive discovery, just as civil defendants can?

The text of the 5th Amendment is as follows:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It is my opinion that this doesn’t need to happen.  The right to receive discovery, be deposed and represented by counsel are guaranteed under the 5th and 6th amendments. Having said that, it is clear that the Federal Government is not leading the charge in respect to criminal discovery; this is a process that is being spearheaded by the individual states.  It appears that the government is holding on to the "time of war or public danger" aspect of the 5th amendment to curtail anyone of their choosing from having the right of due process. Discovery is a vital process within the criminal justice system because early disclosure of the strengths and weaknesses of the case facilitates negotiated settlement and, where appropriate, dismissal of baseless charges. Because discovery facilitates efficiency in litigation, it is believed to save resources. I have seen defendants walk away from charges for the lack of discovery in a criminal matter. I don't think that the system needs to be changed; it needs to be used as it was intended to be used.  Don't get the wrong idea.  I believe that the security of the citizens of the United States should, in the minds of the government, be of the utmost importance.   I simply disagree with how they feel that protection needs to be implemented.

I find no positive or negative outcomes from this type of change in the 5th Amendment in the day to day way that I do my job.  The cop on the street is going to go about doing his/her job the same way; the civil liberties of the citizens will not be violated. The new law is not going to change the way I conduct search and seizure, it is not going to change whether or not suspects are advised of their Miranda Rights, it is not going to change the fact that probable cause is a necessity for an arrest. Prosecution and defense alike will still be required to provide discovery. In a far reaching circumstance where I was actually dealing with a known or suspected terrorist, the situation will automatically be turned over to the FBI.

The best that I can do as an officer on the street is to keep informed, know what is going on and be able to maintain the trust of the citizens. To let the citizens know that with me, their civil rights are guaranteed, important and a crucial aspect of my decision making process.

Actually, the problem is that Browne is a jackass and McCain is an elephant.   The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee and outspoken Democrat is suing McCain and the Republican National Committee for copyright infringement, claiming that the use of Brown's hit, "Running on Empty," in an ad slamming Barack Obama was unauthorized.

Come on...doesn't the Patriot Act allow politicians to strip artists of their rights for the sake of national security?!?

By Kathy Sanborn
08/13/08 "ICH"

Sanborn: When I read your article, “Marching Off Into Tyranny,” I was impressed by how you were able to concisely sum up one of the most important issues that we face as Americans, namely, the erosion of our civil liberties, mostly due to fabricated terrorism such as the anthrax scare and the attacks on 9/11. You talk about the Florida university professor, Al-Arian, who continues to be victimized by the Feds although a jury has cleared him of any terrorism charges. [As of August 8, 2008, the Associated Press states, “U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema postponed the trial indefinitely, questioning whether the government was overeager in filing charges.” –KS]

What was your wake-up call, Dr. Roberts, to the fact that the current administration was determined to take away the civil liberties of Americans?

Roberts: When they responded to 9/11 with the Patriot Act. That document was thick, and it would have taken months and months to prepare it, yet it came out shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

Why does combating terrorism require an assault on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? It was clear to me that there was an undeclared agenda there.

On the day of 9/11, I knew right away that something was wrong. I had been an engineering student at Georgia Tech, and things just didn’t add up. As I watched the towers fall, I could see that the buildings were blowing up from the top, at least initially. The airplanes caused asymmetrical damage, and I don’t think the planes were large enough to cause the buildings to topple. When you chop a tree down, it doesn’t blow up, it falls.

The buildings were blowing up, not falling down.

Then when I saw pictures of the alleged terrorists, most of them looked just like kids. They were small, and airplane passengers wouldn’t have hesitated to try to take them down. The average American male should have been able to take care of the hijackers.

And how they could have fooled all of the intelligence agencies, outwit NORAD, and so on; it just didn’t make any sense.

They were really after our civil liberties. That was their undeclared agenda. The effect is that no one has any protection under the law.

Sanborn: In your article, you mention the anthrax scare as being a logical part of the 9/11 “false-flag” series of events. Now that we know the anthrax actually came from a US government lab and not from an alleged cave in Afghanistan, the theory seems to hold water. And you point out that recently scientist Bruce Ivins was implicated in the anthrax case after his apparent “suicide.”

You also discuss how the Bush administration lied to ABC reporter Brian Ross by telling him the anthrax was made in Iraq by none other than Saddam Hussein, thus clearing the way for the US to invade Iraq and to pass the Patriot Act. Dr. Roberts, are journalists these days in the habit of simply believing and accepting everything the administration tells them, or are some of them on the “company” (CIA) payroll?

Roberts: I suspect both. It’s a corporate-run media, especially since the Clinton administration days, and many of the journalists act as “disinfo” agents for the government.

Back in the 1970s when I was a Senate aide, I would turn on the TV in the evening and the news reports would bear no resemblance to what had actually happened that day. I noticed that there were no journalists in the gallery, so how had the stories gotten to them? It turned out that the aides were calling the press, and the journalists were taking the stories, virtually running them verbatim. Journalists are lazy.

When I was working in the Reagan administration, I noticed that Stockman, Darman, and Jim Baker had their own special spin on things in a way that served their own agendas, and not the President’s.

Sanborn: What is clearly shocking and “in your face” about this administration is the fact that, as you say, the administration officials wanted for questioning by Congress (such as Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers) simply refuse to comply, and that seems to be the end of the story. These officials demonstrate to us that they believe they are above the law. It brings to mind the recent flip comment by a shrugging Vice President Dick Cheney: “So?” That attitude says it all, doesn’t it, Dr. Roberts?

Roberts: They think they’re not accountable. They use the law against their enemies. The acquiescence of the Congress is hard to explain, though.

Sanborn: Sometimes I wonder if the Congress is being bribed or blackmailed. That could explain why they refuse to stop illegal wars and torture.

Roberts: The purpose of illegal spying is to get blackmail information on members of Congress, and it started well before 9/11.

Sanborn: You say that no amount of evidence would convince the American public that their government, or rogue elements therein, would ever have been involved in 9/11 or the anthrax scare. It almost sounds like Americans have been brainwashed to a certain extent. Dr. Roberts, why can’t the US populace get their minds around the fact that we are losing our rights by the day, and that this so-called “war on terror” is the root cause?

Roberts: Most of them think that because they aren’t doing anything wrong, they have nothing to fear. I would ask them this: Why did the founding fathers write the Constitution?

Americans believe that they are the salt of the earth, and that “Evil tries to get us because we are so good.” Bush says, “They hate us for our freedoms.” That’s a farce.

Sanborn: Let’s assume that the Bush administration hasn’t had their fill of power quite yet. Based on everything we’ve seen so far, it might not be a stretch to speculate that Bush and company might wish to contrive an “event” in order to suspend the upcoming elections and to remain in control of the White House. What say you, Dr. Roberts, to this possibility?

Roberts: I think it is a possibility. I warned of this back in ’06, I believe. The event would have to do with Iran. However, we’ve run out of allies to attack Iran, except for Israel. Attacking Iran would cause more blowback than we could manage, and we can’t get Russia or China to go along with our administration’s desire to attack Iran. We can’t push the Chinese or the Russians around in any way.

People may wake up to the truth yet. Ron Suskind’s new book, The Way of the World, is powerful. [He states that the Bush administration produced a fake letter claiming to demonstrate a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, in order to justify war with Iraq. There was no such link. –KS]

The frame-up of a dead man, Ivins, in the anthrax case isn’t working with knowledgeable people, either. Ivins couldn’t have done it because he worked in labs that made vaccines, and he didn’t have the special equipment necessary to make the anthrax.

Sanborn: By the way, Dr. Roberts, I wonder what your take is on the recent news that former astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell has, once again, stated that there have been, and still are, alien visitors to Earth. Could this “aliens are officially real” story magically evolve into a fake “alien invasion” to replace the faux -and failed- “war on terror” gambit?

Roberts: I don’t think they could fake an alien attack. No one would expect the Bush administration to be able to defeat an alien invasion.

Sanborn: Switching topics now, I wanted to ask you about the state of our rather perilous economy. Because you are an economic expert (the “Father of Reaganomics,” I’m told), what is your opinion on where the economy is headed?

Roberts: The US economy is in serious trouble. They need to keep interest rates low to bail out all those exotic securities and products, and, at the same time, the government can finance the budget only by foreign borrowing. The inflation rate is higher than our bond interest rate, so foreigners lose money when they sell the bonds. We’re probably engineering deals now with the United Arab Emirates and the Saudis to buy our bonds.

A higher interest rate will worsen the economy, but it’s already going down the drain even with low interest rates.

In addition, most of the good jobs are shipped out of the country, and the remaining good jobs are filled with foreigners on work visas. In the 21st century, no net new jobs were created except in non-tradable, low-paid, domestic services.

Sanborn: Is this all by design, or just pure ineptness?

Roberts: I think it’s hubris. They don’t realize the effects of what they’re doing. They want to plunder while they’re in office, and give to their rich friends.

Sanborn: You make it clear, Dr. Roberts, that you believe we are running out of time. At what point will it be too late to take action? How much time do we have left, in your opinion, before all of our rights are stripped away?

Roberts: One more Republican to the Supreme Court will mean the end of civil liberties, the end of separation of powers, and the end of constitutional government.

The neocons would love to attack Iran, and have Iran retaliate. They could use any retaliation as an excuse to nuke Iran. The neocons are dying to use nuclear weapons. They’d love it if our aircraft carriers in the Gulf were sunk, because we could turn around and nuke Iran. I think that’s the scenario of Dick Cheney, the Weekly Standard, Bill O’Reilly, and others.

I don’t know if Iran realizes its peril.

But, as I’ve said earlier, attacking Iran would cause more blowback than we could handle.

Sanborn: Americans in the know always ask, “What can we do?”

Roberts: It’s almost impossible for us to do anything. We can vote, but votes are decided at the beginning of the election by the programming of the Diebold electronic voting machines.

Some people have written off democracy, honesty, and integrity . . . When you have corruption in the people themselves, it’s hard to do something about corruption in government.

I can’t say I’m hopeful, but the administration’s way is not as clear as it was on 9/11.

Sanborn: Dr. Roberts, thank you for spending time with me today.

Kathy Sanborn is an author, journalist, and recording artist. Currently Kathy is working on a new recording project, slated for completion in 2008.

Kathy welcomes your questions, comments, and suggestions for future articles. Write to her at sanbornkathy@yahoo.com

© 2008 Kathy Sanborn

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Roberts-Paul Craig

***

Donate to ICH

For those of you that follow me on facebook you'll know that I went to Lake Compounce in Connecticut with my Uncle Rick and Cousin Wesley.  It was mostly for Wesley, who recently broke his arm very badly, and has made a remarkable recovery so far.  He's already in an "air cast" and despite the metal plates in his arm, was eager to go on all the rides, and into the water park.

Uncle Rick did go on a few rides, despite his health issues -- and I went on many rides too.

We all got soaked....even though only Wesley actually did the water park thing.

It started out as a rainy day, a Monday, but ended up sunny.  Perfect day to visit an amusement park, because that means there are almost NO LINES to wait in.

Lake Compounce is one of the few smaller amusement parks that are fun for all, left here in New England.

I've been thinking about politics lately - I just hope that Obama wins.  I couldn't deal with another 4 years of ... well.... everything we've dealt with the past 7.75 years!

A week or so ago, I visited a place in Litchfield county that makes/sells cheeses, beef jerkey, etc all that type of stuff -- local farm stuff.  When she saw the name on my credit card, one of the women asked "are you the David Cappiello running for Congress".  I told her no, that I barely (if at all) know him, that he's a distant cousin and that we have different politics.  I told her I'm "more to the left" politically and "very much a democrat".  I guess that's not entirely true.... I believe in third party candidates also.  But I didn't have time to get into that.  I just wasn't in the mood.

One wonders if this name similarity (same first and last) had anything to do with the strange occurances we experienced over the past several years.  Or, maybe it's just plain old civil liberties violations, that hundreds of thousands of other Americans have experienced.

I once wrote a letter to the editor that was published in a nationally recognized gay publication.  I said that anyone who advocates for ANY cause, including gay rights and other so-called liberal causes, is being spied on to some degree.

We experienced this.  In the USA and in Canada.  We are on some sort of database - that much I am sure about.  For believing in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and in a peaceful manner, expressing those rights publicly.

It is also my belief that every journalist no matter how big or small, has been spied upon in the past 8 years.

Getting back to the woman, and my statement that "no, I'm not that guy, and I have different politics" (paraphrase) she said "That's what this country is all about".  I agreed.

It's great to have multiple voices, and opinions.  But the Republicans are the ones who tried to squelch that democracy stuff the past 8 years (especially).  Hopefully the democrats will do something to get some of our freedom back.

Very few Republicans have had the courage to speak out against what their own party has done, while it was in control.  Ron Paul is an exception.  Look him up.  Listen to him.  He has some good ideas.  I don't agree with him on everything, but safe to say if there were more Ron Paul clones in the Republican party, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

The Republicans have terrorized this nation - and attempted to bring in a one party system, based on ultra-right wing Christian fundamentalism.

The middle class is hurting.  The deficits are beyond all comprehension.  The economy is in the tank (one relative who designs houses hasn't had work in over 3 months!)  And war..... it never ends with Republicans.

I do worry however, that the Democrats are not as interested in "change" as they claim to be.  Do I trust them more than the current administration?  No doubt.  But do I totally trust them, to have the spirit, courage, and stamina needed to make long lasting change?  I'll wait for them to prove it to me, the little guy, the voter, the guy who isn't running for congress.  The guy who just speaks out a little here and there, stands up for minority rights, and tries to make use of the freedoms given in the Bill of Rights from time to time.

Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment recently.  I wish the democrats would take them up.  War crimes, crimes against humanity and worse have been committed -- and yet no one has tried to hold Bush and company accountible.

I do believe Bush (President) will one day be put on trial, and even punished for his crimes.  However, I also believe he may be a very very old man before that day comes to pass.

What hurts the world the most is the love of unjust war.

What hurts me, the voter, the most, is the disregard and contempt shown against our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  To me, these are sacred documents.  I believed what I was taught about the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and all the rest.

Over the last 8 years, I've been shown otherwise.  I want my (our) freedom back.  If we had it, and if Congress did the job it is supposed to do, the past 8 years, the war would never have happened.

Okay, enough said for today.  End of file.  (Here is where it gets sent to the secret database)  :(

Paranoid?

I think not.

You be the judge!

David B. Cappiello

Free (or not so free!) thinker.

Something is very wrong with a system that is so drunk on its own power that this kind of thing not only can happen, but does happen all too frequently.  Mr. Ng was an integrated member of society married to an American citizen.  Just imagine all those anonymous detainees who have no one to speak up for them.

The USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001."  (As soon as I stop laughing I can continue.)  One of its provisions is this:

[it] enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts

I'm not sure if Mr. Ng's arrest was justified literally by this provision, but I'll but the spirit of it played a part. Law enforcement people have always had a difficult time resisting power abuse, but now it's much worse.  What ever happened to America, the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Steven Vasquez is one of two Republicans running for congress in New York State's 21st Congressional District. The following is part two of a three part interview that Upstream conducted with Mr. Vasquez. In the portion of the interview we are publishing today, candidate Vasquez gives his views on how he will vote if elected, the unconstitutionality of some legislation that has been passed in the last decade, why he is a Republican and his analysis of the 2008 presidential race. Mr. Vasquez will participate in a forum with other candidates tonight, August 12, at the Unitarian-Universalist Society of Albany from 7-9p.m. The forum will focus on health care.

Click here to read part one of this interview.

Upstream: On your website, you list three principles you will abide by when casting a vote in the United States Congress. 1) Will this bill benefit the American taxpayer? 2) Can the American taxpayer afford this bill? 3) Does this bill uphold to the Constitution of the United States of America? Can you name some specific acts of legislation from the past decade that you believe are unconstitutional?

Mr. Vasquez: We have watched the death of the 4th Amendment and the legitimizing of vast warrant less wiretapping of Americans with the passing of the FISA bill, which was supported by both Obama and McCain. It also provided retroactive immunity to telecom companies and the administration who were breaking the law, which violates Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution where "no bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Similarly the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and the REAL-ID all violate and demolish the Bill of Rights.

Most Executive Orders issued by the executive branch are unconstitutional, including the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive which bypasses the Congressional 1976 National Emergency Act and gives the President full power to claim and emergency crisis and take full charge of the federal government, nationalize all manufacturing, utilities, and industries, confiscate all property of citizens, and place citizens in internment camps without any Congressional oversight.

In general any authority not specifically granted by the Constitution under Article 1, section 8 or the amendments, can not be used by the federal government and is reserved for the states or the people, as defined in the 10th Amendment. The Constitution is a living document that was created to change with the needs of the time through Amendments. Government has chosen to violate the Constitution and the rule of law, leading America away from a Constitutional Republic into economic and political disaster. The power of a Constitutional Republic comes from the people holding its representatives accountable. When the people ignore the actions of the government, tyranny follows. I have trust in the great American people to question authority and to ultimately make the right decisions. As Thomas Paine said, "the the role of a true patriot is to defend his country from its government."

Upstream: Besides being a Republican, how else would you characterize yourself politically? For example, do you consider yourself a Reagan conservative?

Mr. Vasquez: I do consider myself a classical Taft/Reagan conservative Republican. Conservatism has received a bad name due to extremist radicals in the Republican party who have expanded government to historical levels, attack and conquer sovereign nations, trample on American freedoms in a race towards a police state similar to Communist China, corporate welfare, and wasting taxpayers money. These radicals do not represent traditional Republican principles as outlined in the GOP mission statement.

I'm a Republican Because...

I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.

I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations, and that the best government is that which governs least.

I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.

I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

Upstream: You refer to yourself as a Republican and a conservative. Many of your answers are libertarian. Do you consider yourself a libertarian?

Mr. Vasquez: Yes, I am a libertarian. In fact, most Americans are libertarian and do not know it. If you believe in the freedom of speech and the freedom of doing anything you want to do as Americans as long as you are not hurting or imposing on the rights of others, you are Libertarian. If you believe that the government should stay out of our pocket books, and that the person who knows how to spend your money best on education, health care, charity, and investments is you, rather than a government who wastes it on lobbyists, wars, bankers, and themselves, then you are a libertarian. The core of the original Republican and Democrat parties originally were libertarian, and veered far to the right and left over time. The original founding fathers that fought the oppression and tyranny of big government, were libertarians. Today, I am a proud Republican returning the party to its original true goals.

Upstream: Is there a particular candidate you are supporting in the 2008 presidential election?

Mr. Vasquez: Looking at the two presumptive candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties, they both represent the continuation of current policies of bankrupting the country with bigger government, unending wars, and the trampling of the Constitution. McCain was the most liberal nominee from the Republican primaries and is a RINO, having supported bigger government, amnesty for illegals, taxes, and McCain-Feingold (which he violated). Obama supported the FISA bill and at the AIPAC speech stated he would do anything, which includes invasion, to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Obama has also started to back down on Iraq and is sounding more like McCain and Bush everyday. Both candidates consistently flip-flop and mislead the American people on a daily basis, which is foolish in the age of Youtube. Every four years, there is an argument to vote for the lesser of two evils, but ultimately we are just left with evil.

The primaries offered better choices, such as Congressman Ron Paul, who was the only one with enough economic and Constitutional knowledge and courage to lead the country to a better path. Currently there are more conservative candidates running on third parties such as Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

Ultimately voting is not a horse race, you do not win a gold star if the person you chose wins. You win when you vote for the candidate that best represents you. Win or lose, it gets noticed by others and changes the conversation of other candidates to start meeting your views.

Visit Steven Vasquez's website to learn more about his candidacy.

His birth certificate says he was delivered unto Weslaco 38 years ago, and church records say he was baptized here soon after. School files list him as a student in the local district from kindergarten through high school, and voter rolls show he votes for president here.

But to the U.S. State Department...isn't sure he's an American.

Miriam Jordan, 11-08-2008 Wall Street Journal

Not a big deal?  Think again:

...locals need a valid passport more than ever. A new law that goes into effect next year requires Americans to use a passport, rather than just a birth certificate or driver's license, to visit Mexico and Canada. The situation threatens to isolate thousands of people in the Rio Grande Valley who regularly travel back and forth to Mexico for work or family reasons.

At least one Border Patrol agent is among the people who need a passport for their job, but can't "prove" they are American citizens to the satisfaction of the passport office.

Not having a birth certificate isn't all that uncommon, though it's fairly rare now.  My father was either never issued a birth certificate in 1917, or it was never found (his home county courthouse burned down in the 1930s).  A baptismal certificate was enough to obtain his passport in the 1970s.  But he was born in Pennsylvania, not south Texas. And that was in the days when the United States was still a free country without government surveillance of its citizens.

South Texas, or at least south Texans with a year-round tan, are not the same as other American citizens, at least according to the Homeland Security regime. At Weslaco's Saint Joan of Arc Catholic Church:

Eva Gonzalez, the church secretary, says that she has been issuing baptism records at the rate of 30 a week for passport applicants. "I have people coming in here crying," she says. "Ladies are saying, 'I was born here and have lived here all my life, but the government doesn't believe me.' " Ms. Gonzalez's own mother, who was delivered by a midwife 75 years ago, is among those caught in the confusion. She says federal agents also visited recently to inspect church ledgers for fraud.

That's typical for what you get in the age of Patriot Acts ...  don't trust the people, don't trust the churches, don't trust nobody.

Etter terrorangrepene mot USA 11. september har musikkbransjen vært mest opptatt av patriotisme og hylling av hverdagshelter og ofre. Men det murrer i Hiphop-USA, og den som murrer høyest er California-rapperen Paris.

– Sensur av motstridende meninger i USA er høyere enn noen gang etter 11. september. Vi opplever en massiv propagandakampanje til støtte for regjeringens og næringslivets motiver og holdninger til krig og terrorbekjempelse, noe som gjør uenighet ikke bare vanskelig – men også farlig, sier Oscar Jackson Jr. alias rapperen Paris.

Dobbelt Bush-angrep
«Tolerance is getting thinner / Cause Iraq never called me «nigger» / So what I wanna go off and fight a war for?», rappet Paris på «Bush Killa» i 1993 – et flengende angrep på daværende president George Bush og krigen mot Irak. Nå har 11. september, og ikke minst politikken i kjølvannet av terrorangrepet, fått Paris til å bremse sin lovende karriere som aksjemekler for å ta opp mikrofonen igjen – for å angripe en ny president Bush.

I «What Would You Do», tilgjengelig for gratis nedlasting på nettet, rapper han om Bush junior: «Now ask yourself who's the one with the most to gain / Before 911 motherfuckas couldn't stand his name / Now even niggas waiving flags like they lost they mind». Paris er sint, og han er ikke alene.

For 11. september har ikke bare fått gamle ringrever som Paris, Chuck D og KRS-One på banen igjen med fornyet kraft. Også yngre artister som Eminem, OutKast, Nas, Mr. Lif, Sage Francis og Talib Kweli er ikke redde for å oppfordre til verdiendringer og kritikk av amerikansk politikk.

– Er det rom for dere i dagens politiske landskap?

– Det er alltid rom for stemmer som er uenige med det etablerte, og det er nettopp det USA skal handle om, sier Paris, som jobber med sitt femte album med den passe provoserende tittelen Sonic Jihad.

Samfunnsbevisst
Men kritikken og de musikalske stikkene mot president George W. Bush og krigen i Afghanistan er fortsatt klart i mindretall. «Mr. Bush sit down, we're in charge of the war», rappet Ghostface Killah i Wu-Tang Clan rett etter terrorangrepet mot World Trade Center og Pentagon 11. september 2001.

I den andre enden av det musikalske spekteret lovet den konservative country-stjernen Toby Keith hevn i låta «Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American)»: «You'll be sorry that you messed with the US of A / 'Cuz we'll put a boot in your ass/It's the American way».

Mens den musikalske kritikken var massiv under Vietnamkrigen, virker det som støtten til regjeringen var like massiv etter 11. september. Men du skal ikke løfte mange steiner før kritikken strømmer fram, og de fleste kritiske røstene finnes i hip hop – en musikkform som i årevis har vært undertrykt av mer materialistiske og hedonistiske verdier.

– Jeg vil ikke si at samfunnsbevisst hip hop forsvant, det var heller snakk om plateselskap som valgte å fremme rappere med negative eller ufarlige budskap framfor det tankevekkende, mener Paris.

Hans glødende politiske engasjement vekker minner om den politiske hip hop'ens gullalder på tampen av 80-tallet – med artister som Public Enemy og Boogie Down Productions i spissen. På 90-tallet tok gangsta-rap over, og verdiene gikk mer i retning dop, damer, våpen og biler enn Malcolm X, afro-sentrisme og islam. Tendensen har gått fra samfunnsbevisst hip hop til ignorant hip hop; eller som det heter i verset på «So Ignorant» av gangsta-rapperen Yukmouth: «We drink beer and smoke cigarettes/Cause we niggaz so ignorant, ignorant».

– Folk velger sine favoritter ut fra en «pool» med tilgjengelige valg, og når det samfunnsbevisste ekskluderes fra denne «poolen» virker det som vi har forsvunnet helt. Men avgjørelsen om å markedsføre de negative elementene av svart kultur gjennom hip hop var bevisst, og ble tatt på vegne av oss – av dem som eier plateselskapene.

- MTV fordummer
Public Enemy, Paris' samtidige politiske travere, ble ifølge rapperen Chuck D nektet på MTV fordi gruppa fremmet sakene til de drapsdømte borgerrettighetsforkjemperne H. Rap Brown og Mumia Abu-Jamal i videoen til «Gotta Give The Peeps What They Want». Chuck D beskylder MTV for å forme og fordumme dagens «designer-generasjon», og Paris er enig.

– MTV og tv-kanalen Black Entertainment Television har stor innflytelse, og er på mange måter ansvarlig for å fordumme oss. Samfunnsbevisste artister slipper sjelden til på MTV, noe avvisningen av Public Enemy viser. Populære artister beskyldes ofte for sitt negative innhold, men det er først og fremst MTVs ukritiske aksept og promotering av disse artistene som gjør de store. Dersom MTV endret sine standarder ville folks forventninger også endre seg.

En politistat
Tidlig på 1990-tallet oppdaterte Paris The Black Panthers-filosofien til et USA i bølgene etter Rodney King-saken – og gikk knallhardt ut mot presidenten, politivold, rasisme, kvinnefiendtlighet og hjerneløse gangsta-rappere. Nå mener han terrorangrepene 11. september har gjort amerikanerne blinde for presidentens påfølgende innenrikspolitikk.

– Det er viktig at vi sier fra om sannheten, og sannheten er at USA i dag er blitt en totalitær politistat. De fleste har bare ikke oppdaget det ennå.

Paris peker på den ferske USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism), som ble godkjent i all hast av Kongressen – og som Paris mener bryter mot en lang rekke konstitusjonelle rettigheter som ytringsfrihet, rettssikkerhet, privatliv og straff uten dom.

– Flere av våre friheter blir tatt fra oss, mens kong George erklærer krig mot, invaderer og bomber alle som anses som en trussel mot vår nasjonale sikkerhet. Men dette handler i virkeligheten om penger og maktposisjonering. De fleste musikere skjønner ikke dette, eller så er de skremt fra å si fra. Folk flest vet ikke dette, fordi de er ofre for propaganda, krigshissing og «Bushit».

Opprinnelig publisert i Dagsavisen 24. november 2002.

Said Lessig:

READ MORE ON THIS

I just finished watching the movie, "Hancock" with Will Smith. In case you've been living in a cave, Hancock is a super-hero played by Smith. In the beginning he plays an alcoholic, foul-mouthed, jerk whom everyone despises. He does save people, but does millions of dollars in damage every time because, again, he's an alcoholic. He ends up befriended by an image consultant who turns his fortunes around and Hancock learns how to be the super-hero everyone expects and loves, big ears and all.

Along comes the love interest, played by Charleze Theron. She is the wife of the image consultant who turned Hancock's life around. She, too, is a super-hero. Now I am going to ruin the movie for those of you who haven't seen it. Sorry! When the two super-hero's get close to each other they become mortal...together... so they can love, live, and grow old together, blah, blah, blah.

The point is, Smith's character is described though out the movie as a "Gift from the gods" to the world. A saviour, if you will. Big ears and all. Didn't Obama admit to boozing and pot-smoking when he was younger? Just like Hancock? Wasn't Obama's image muddied up a little with his former pastor? Didn't he and his wife Michelle need a little image consulting? Just like Hancock? Obama is currently down in the polls, just as Hancock was down and almost out, but he managed to be resurrected and rose to a glorious finish. Will Obama do the same? Will he rise from the ashes and be saviour of the world? The messiah? Will he follow the script?

If you put the images of both Smith and Obama side by side, what do you see? Very similar people, right? Big ears and all.

The Bildeberg group was founded by two people. David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger. Their publicly stated goal is to use their enormous financial clout to choose who they will back in world politics. In an interview, David Rockefeller was quoted saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "The business elite should be the ones who decide who runs the world, not the common people". This is not secret information. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a mainstream media member,  was all over this story years ago when the Bildeberg Group held their annual meeting in Ottawa, Canada. They also released the guest list which included none other that Dalton McGuinty, Premier of the province of Ontario who, not coincidentally, won his following election and is a Liberal.

Aaron Russo, well known Hollywood producer, told the story on national radio of being befriended by Nickolas Rockefeller. After gaining his confidence, Rockefeller approached Russo about producing some movies to further the goals of the Bildeberg Group. He refused to acquiesce to their request. He is now deceased. I do not know if the two events are linked. I'm just saying.

It looks to be a sure thing that Obama will be the next President of the U.S. The forces that pre-determine elections have spoken. There are forces combatting this, however. Rush Limbaugh being chief among them.

There are two words of advice I give all my friends. Two words that will change your life if you let them. Those words are: "PAY ATTENTION". Turn off the Simpsons and the Days Of Our Lives and the porn and simply... pay... attention.

How do I know all of this? I watched a couple of movies for more than their nudity content and listened to the news. That's all. Now, pay attention.

Genährt wird die Einstellung, dass für den Fall eines Ereignisses, das im Internet ähnliche Auswirkungen hätte wie die Anschläge des 11. September 2001, das amerikanische Justizministerium längst ein Gesetzespaket vorbereitet habe, das die Rechte und Freiheiten im Netz ähnlich einschränken könnte, wie der "Patriot Act". In den realen USA ist das Szenario, durch ein von Rechtswissenschaftler und Vordenker der Urheberrechtsdebatte, Lawrence Lessig, und dem ehemaligen Staatssekretär für Terrorabwehr, Richard Clarke, in wenigen Sätzen vorgetragen worden. Richard Clarke, der die Regierung Bush vergeblich davor warnte, dass al-Qaida Anschläge auf die USA plane. 2003 trat er von seinen Ämtern zurück und profiliert sich seither als scharfer Kritiker des Kriegs gegen den Terror.

Lawrence Lessig Zitat: "Ich war bei einem Abendessen und Richard Clarke saß an meinem Tisch. Da habe ich zu ihm gesagt: "Gibt es etwas Ähnliches wie den Patriot Act, einen i-Patriot Act, der irgendwo herumliegt und nur auf ein einschneidendes Ereignis wartet, damit Sie eine Ausrede dafür haben, die Struktur des Internet grundlegend zu verändern?" Und er sagte: "Natürlich gibt es so etwas."

Der als „i-9/11“ bezeichnete Supergau des Internets ist zwar anhand der Dezentralisierung durch sogenannte „Backbones“ die an vielen Stellen der Welt verteilt sind eher unwahrscheinlich. Die Möglichkeit des Einflusses auf die Inhalte, wie zur Zeit in China mächtig demonstriert, werden dadurch diese Knotenpunkte aber auch möglich.

Versuche, das Netz im Rahmen der Kämpfe gegen Terror, Kinderpornos und Raubkopien zu regulieren, scheiterten zwar bisher. Sollte das Netz durch „technische Terroranschläge“, wie in Estland komplett lahmgelegt werden, könnten die Begehrlichkeiten auch demokratischer Regierungen, die Freiheiten des Internet zu kontrollieren, eintreten. Ob und was für Gesetze für den Ernstfall schon vorbereitet sind, wird sich allerdings erst zeigen, wenn ein Cyber-GAU auch eintritt.

Lawrence Lessig spricht über ein Internet-9/11 und einen Internet-Patriot Act. (Englisch)

Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig speaks at the launch of InternetforEveryone.org at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York City (June 24, 2008).

Lesen Sie dazu den Artikel: Der Internet Terrorismus

gr1m1b

Congress no longer chooses to read new legislation before voting it into law

Bills are switched at the last minute for unread, substitute legislation

New laws say ANYONE can now be followed and surveilled - for ANY reason... or for NO reason

and the list goes on...

Take charge of change!
http://www.WashingtonYoureFired.com

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1459738&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

h/t: ICH

see

Senate Approves HR6304: 4th Amendment Abolished (updated)

The Bush administration has released a directive called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron Paul and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a "Catastrophic Emergency", the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.

The directive defines a "Catastrophic Emergency" as the following.

"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective and doesn't provide any real concrete definition of what such an emergency would entail. Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or Katrina, there is no question that the United States at some point in time will experience an emergency on par with either of those events. When one of those events takes place, the President will be a dictator in charge of ensuring a working constitutional government.

The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn't say that the President will work with the other branches of government equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three branches but than it says that the President is in charge of the cooperative effort.

The directive defines Enduring Constitutional Government as the following.

"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

Further on in the document it states the following.

The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.

This directive on its face is unconstitutional because each branch of government the executive, legislative and judicial are supposed to be equal in power. By putting the President in charge of coordinating such an effort to ensure constitutional government over all three branches is effectively making the President a dictator allowing him to tell all branches of government what to do.

Even worse is the fact that the directive states that the Secretary of Homeland Security will serve as the lead for coordinating overall continuity operations. We already know that the Homeland Security department is not really working to secure the homeland. Instead the Homeland Security department is really working to enslave the homeland just like the Home Office over in the United Kingdom has made that country an Orwellian hell of closed-circuit TV spy cameras. If such an emergency is declared, we can only guess what sort of surprises the Homeland Enslavement department will have for us.

The directive itself recognizes that each branch is already responsible for directing their own continuity of government procedures. If that's the case than why does the President need to coordinate these procedures for all of the branches? This is nothing more than a power grab that centralizes power and will make the President a dictator in the case of a so called "Catastrophic Emergency".

It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of constitutional separation of powers and there should be angry protests from our legislators about this anti-American garbage that came from the President.

Source

Lawrence Lessig (Stanford Law professor), Joichi Ito (venture capitalist and CEO of Creative Commons) and Phillip Rosedale (founder of Second Life), talk about the internet and where it's going in the next couple of years.

Even if you aren't too much of a techie, the speakers make several really good points about government, capitalism, creative rights, and business. Just one of  the profound points in the video is... the observation is of how the United States government responds to every heinous crime, or in this case, act of terrorism with vague blanket policy.

Lessig says:

"If you remember after 9/11, the government (passed) the Patriot Act within about 20 days. I remember someone asked a federal official how they wrote such a large stack of paper so quickly. His response was 'It's been sitting in drawers at the Justice Department for 20 years' effectively waiting for the event that would allow them to pass it."

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4631871144083884704&hl=en]

See more here.

Fortune.

Lessig said [former federal counter-terrorism adviser Richard] Clarke told him that the Justice Department had already written up much of the Patriot Act before the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, and that there is a similar proposal on the shelf in case of an Internet catastrophe.

Video of Lessig’s comment:

Transcript below:

There’s going to be an i-9/11 event. Which doesn’t mean an Al Qaeda event. What it means is an event where the instability or the insecurity of the internet becomes manifest — some major malicious event which then inspires the government into a response. If you remember, after 9/11 the government dropped the Patriot Act within about 20 days and it was passed. I mean, the Patriot Act is huge. I remember someone asking a Justice Department official, how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it’s been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event that would allow them to drop it.

Of course, the Patriot Act is filled with all sorts of insanity about changing the way civil rights are not protected anymore in the United States. So I was having dinner once and Richard Clarke was sitting at the table and I said to him, “Is an equivalent, is there a Patriot Act — an i-Patriot Act — just sitting waiting for some substantial event for them to come and have an excuse to radically change the way the internet works?”

And he said, “Of course there is.” And I swear this is what he said, and quote, "Vint Cerf is not gonna like it very much."

So this is the big terror. They’re just sitting there waiting for the inevitable to happen, and then ‘Slam!’

Reported by http://www.campaignforliberty.org

Marching Off Into Tyranny

05/08/08 "ICH" -- - In last weekend’s edition of CounterPunch, Alexander Cockburn updates the ongoing persecution of Sami Al-Arian by federal prosecutors. Al-Arian was a Florida university professor of computer science who was ensnared by the Bush Regime’s need to produce “terrorists” in order to keep Americans fearful and, thereby, amenable to the Bush Regime’s assault on US civil liberties.

The charges against Al-Arian were rejected by a jury, but the Bush Regime could not accept the obvious defeat. If Al-Arian was not a terrorist, then other of the Bush Regime’s fabricated cases might fall apart, too.

In open view, the US Department of Justice (sic) proceeded to trash every known ethical rule of prosecution. I don’t need to repeat the facts, as they are covered by Cockburn’s articles and in The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Instead, I want to point out another meaning of the Al-Arian case. The Justice (sic) Department itself knows that it is persecuting a totally innocent person for reasons of a political agenda--the need to convince gullible Americans of an ongoing terrorist threat. The existence of this threat is used to justify the Bush Regime’s adoption of police state measures, such as spying on Americans without warrants, arresting them without charges, and refusing to let go of them when they are cleared by juries.

Sami Al-Arian is a fabricated terrorist created by federal prosecutors and judges in behalf of an undeclared agenda. The Al-Arian case proves that terrorists are in short supply and that the Bush Regime has had to create them out of total innocents. The “war on terror” is a hoax used to justify war crimes and the overthrow of America’s civil liberties.

The anthrax scare is one more example of the Bush Regime’s use of disinformation to advance an undeclared political agenda. As Glenn Greenwald reminded us last week in Salon, the Bush Regime used Brian Ross at ABC News to spread the lie far and wide that US government tests proved that the anthrax mailed to various Americans, including prominent US Senators, was made in Iraq by Saddam Hussein. This lie was essential for scaring Congress into passing the Bush Regime’s Gestapo laws, such as the PATRIOT Act, and for overcoming opposition to invading Iraq.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/print.html

When it leaked out that the anthrax actually came from a US government lab, the Bush Regime tried to frame a US scientist, Steven J. Hatfill, but failed. On June 28th, the Los Angeles Times reported that Hatfill, “The former Army scientist who was the prime suspect in the deadly 2001 anthrax mailings agreed Friday to take $5.82 million from the government to settle his claim that the Justice Department and the FBI invaded his privacy and ruined his career.” Indeed, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton allowed Hatfill’s attorneys two years to review all news reports and FBI evidence. Judge Walton stated: “there is not a scintilla of evidence that would indicate that Dr. Hatfill had anything to do with this.” http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-anthrax28-2008jun28,0,5742061.story

The anthrax matter was again news last week when another US government scientist, Bruce E. Ivins, “committed suicide.” Instantly, the deceased Ivins was fingered as the culprit. Overnight a man, liked and respected by his colleagues, who had worked on American biological warfare weapons for years, became a deranged homicidal maniac who decided to murder Americans at random in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 by sending them letters containing anthrax.

I don’t believe a word of it. But assume that it is true. Blaming the anthrax letters on Ivins does not resolve the issue of why the Bush Regime lied to Brian Ross and used ABC to put the blame on Saddam Hussein in order to invade an innocent country.

Wouldn’t a government that would lie about something this serious lie about other serious matters?

The Bush Regime stands against against the truth. That is why it pretends to have the power to prevent executive branch officials wanted for questioning by Congress from appearing before the people’s representatives. Nothing could make clearer the contempt that the Bush Regime has for the American people and their elected representatives than its arrogant claim that it is unanswerable to them.

Obviously, neither the President nor the Vice President respect their oaths of office. If they will betray such a serious oath, won’t they lie about everything, even 9/11 itself?

According to the discredited 9/11 Commission Report, a few Muslims hatched a multi-year plot that went undetected by the vast security agencies of the United States and its allies, and within one hour on one morning at four different locations defeated airport security, NORAD, the US Air Force, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, the Pentagon’s defenses and crashed three hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center towers and the heart of the US military. Muslims were able to achieve this fantastic feat operating out of caves in Afghanistan.

We now know for a fact that the “terrorist anthrax attack” had nothing whatsoever to do with Muslim terrorists. Even the US Government now blames white American citizens, employees of the federal government, for the anthrax letters that, at the time, were blamed on the “Osama bin Laden al Qaeda plot against America.”

We now know for a fact that this was intentional disinformation planted by the Bush Regime on a gullible and incompetent ABC News reporter, who is a disgrace to journalism. No one denies this.

We also know for a fact that ABC News will not say who planted on ABC the lies that committed the United States to the dishonor of an illegal invasion, war crimes, and executive branch attack on the US Constitution. How can anyone anywhere in the world rely on ABC News when it serves as a disinformation agency for a criminal regime?

One logical conclusion is that the anthrax attack was part of the same false flag operation that pulled off 9/11. The anthrax letters made the “terrorist attack” seem wider and more general. This increased the sense of peril and Americans’ fear and anger, thereby opening wider the door for the Bush Regime’s attack on Iraq and US civil liberty.

Now that the dead Ivins can be conveniently blamed for the anthrax mailings, the Bush Regime can declare the case closed, thus protecting the false flag operation from further risk of exposure.

Many Americans lack the mental and emotional strength to confront the facts. The facts are too unsettling and many are relieved when the “mainstream media” spins the facts away. Many Americans find it too appalling that any part of “their” government, even a rogue operation, could possibly have been involved in any way in the 9/11 or anthrax attacks. No evidence--not even full confessions--could convince them otherwise. Many Americans have welcomed their brainwashing by the neoconservatives: America is pure; her shining virtue causes evil men to attack her; they hate us because we are good and they are evil.

For the sake of argument, let’s accept this make-believe. It does not explain why, in order to protect us from evil men, the US Constitution needs to be dismantled and civil liberties set aside. Our Founding Fathers said that dismantling the Constitution and setting aside civil liberties are precisely what would make us unsafe in the extreme. The Bush Regime has never explained how the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution interfere with any legitimate response to terrorism.

The fact still remains that the Bush Regime responded to 9/11 and anthrax letters with a comprehensive assault on US civil liberty. The Bush Regime’s assault on America has been much more successful than its assault on “terrorism.” Who remembers the promise of a “six weeks war”? Americans have been mired for 6 years in two wars without end which the neoconned Bush Regime, in alliance with Israeli zionists, seeks to expand to Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Republican candidate for president has given his commitment to a 100-year “war against terrorism.” Many Americans will vote for this candidate who wants to fight against a hoax for 100 years.

In The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America, Jennifer Van Bergen explains the constitutional and legal principles on which American liberty is based and the Bush Regime’s intense assault on these principles. Part I of her book sets out the Constitutional principles that are under attack. Part II details the systematic attack on the US Constitution that is the heart and soul of the Republican neoconservative Bush Regime--and a Regime it is as it asserts that it is above the law and unanswerable to law, Congress, the federal courts, and the Constitution that it is sworn to uphold

Jennifer Van Bergan likens Bush and his brownshirt supporters to Julius Caesar in motives, though not in courage. She cites the poet Lucan who in his work Pharsalia described Caesar as he flouted the law of the Roman Republic and crossed the Rubicon with his army: “When Caesar crossed and trod beneath his feet the soil of Italy’s forbidden fields, ‘here,’ spake he, ‘peace, here broken laws be left; Farewell to treaties. Fortune, lead me on; War is our judge.’”

Anyone who believes that the Bush Regime’s “war on terror” is about terrorism, oil, getting even with those who attacked us, bringing freedom and democracy to Muslims--whatever rationale makes the gratuitous war crimes committed by the Bush Regime acceptable to gullible Americans--needs to read Jennifer Van Bergan’s Bush Plan for America. Nothing less than American liberty is at stake.

The hour is late. Gullible Americans are being marched off into tyranny as the promised land of safety.

Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is a former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, a 16-year columnist for Business Week, and a columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service and Creator’s Syndicate in Los Angeles. He has held numerous university professorships, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by the President of France and the US Treasury’s Silver Medal for “outstanding contributions to the formulation of US economic policy.”