Tag Archives: Obama

St. George the Anarchist? Adolf the Good Shepherd? St. George of Lydda was not a Good Shepherd, but on AH’s 124th birthday we might well reflect whether Der Fuhrer appealed to the sincere craving most people have for a Good Shepherd, a true leader: meditations at the Cusp of Aries & Taurus: April 20-23, 2013 in New Orleans, Louisiana

Today is St. George’s Day, the national day of England, Aragon & Portugal, Greece, and Russia (literally the Four Corners of Europe).  The real dragon that the historical St. George slew was not a scaly monster with wings but (in effect) the last gasp of Pagan imperialism and imperial taxation for the ancient Gods in Rome.  He was a nobleman who died a noble death for the highest of all causes: preservation of his own faith, morals, philosophy, and religion.  

George’s father, Gerontios, was a Greek, from Cappadocia, Asia Minor, a high officer in the Roman army of the Eastern Empire and his mother, Polychronia, was a Greek from the city Lydda, Palestine.  George’s parents were both pre-Nicene, pre-Imperial adoption Roman Christians and from noble families of Anici, so their child was raised with Christian beliefs, although it is probably fair to say that Christian beliefs of the late 3rd century might have included a lot of what we now consider “Gnostic” and other heresies.  His parents decided to call the future saint by a rather humble name: Georgios, which in Greek means “earth-worker” or “farmer”.  

No records attest or even suggest St. George’s birthdate or exact age, but “as a young man,” sometime in his early-to-mid twenties, before A.D. 302, George traveled to Nicomedia (now Turkish “Izmit” by the Sea of Marmara), the imperial city of the Eastern Roman Empire (from 284-324, just until the foundation of Constantinople).  There in what was then the Primary Center of the collapsing Roman Empire, George offered his services to the Eastern Roman Emperor Diocletian and applied for a commission in the Roman Army, specifically the late imperial version of the Praetorian Guard. Diocletian welcomed this young nobleman, apparently quite warmly, as the Imperator had known George’s father, Gerontius — one of his finest soldiers.  By his late 20s, George was promoted to the rank of Tribunus and stationed as an imperial guard of the Emperor at Nicomedia.

In the year AD 302, Diocletian (following his junior imperial co-regent Emperor Galerius) issued an edict that every Christian soldier in the army should be arrested and every other soldier should offer a sacrifice (tax or offering of some sort) to the ancient Roman gods still prominent at the time.  A Christian himself, George son of Gerontius objected and with the courage of his faith approached the Emperor and ruler.   Roman Emperors, presumably, did not much like their edicts to be questioned, since their edicts were law.  (The current President of the United States feels much the same way).  

George’s actions put Diocletian in a pickle, however.  George was either his best or one of his best tribunes and the son of either his best or one of his best officials, Gerontius.

In what can only be called an act of Anarchism and Defiance of Leadership, George loudly renounced the Emperor’s edict, and in front of his fellow soldiers and Tribunes he claimed himself to be a Christian and declared his worship of Jesus Christ.  Diocletian sought to convert George, to “save” him as it were for Apollo, Jupiter, Juno, and Zeus, even offering gifts of land, money and slaves if George would bow down and sacrifice to the Roman gods.  The Emperor essentially offered George massive and generous bribes and benefits, which the saintly young Christian never accepted.

Recognizing the futility of his efforts, Diocletian was left with no choice but to haveGeorge executed for his defiance.  But, just to make the Emperor’s situation worse, before his execution George gave all his not inconsiderable wealth to the poor and prepared himself. After various torture sessions, including laceration on a wheel of swords from which George survived three times, George was executed by decapitation before Nicomedia’s city wall, on April 23, 303.

A witness of his suffering convinced Empress Alexandra and Athanasius, a pagan priest, to become Christians as well, and so they joined George in martyrdom. George’s body was returned to Lydda in Palestine for burial, where Christians soon came to honour him as a martyr.  So the Dragon that George slew in fact was the dragon of obedience in violation of his faith, of his God and of his Truth.  St. George was a nobleman who followed no leader but Jesus Christ, although he might have been close in wealth to the Emperor had he consented to the bribery and pressure.   So let us feast today in memory of St. George the Anarchist, whose defiant death as an Imperial Tribune, so close to the emperor, brought the triumph of Christianity in Rome one major step closer.  

For all these reasons St. George was truly heroic and a model for our time, and his inheritance of the Ancient Indo-European mythic status as Dragon Slayer is altogether appropriate and fitting (see Calvert Watkins: How to Kill a Dragon Oxford University Press).  It seems particularly appropriate to celebrate St. George one week after April 15, in honor and memory of all who in adherence to their faith in freedom and the Constitution to defy the illegal taxes and sacrifices required of them in these United States today.  

In following Jesus Christ, St. George in fact died more as a Dragon himself than as a sheep—he died with full knowledge of the earthly riches and power he could have possessed, if only he had abandoned his Lord for his earthly leader.  

And all of this happened on the Cusp of Aries & Taurus (Does History Make Myth or does Myth Make History?): Does the following astrological characterization (“randomly” selected not by me but by Google as the first listed) seem at all appropriate for a week commemorating Adolf Hitler, Cannabis sativa L., Earth Day, Good Shepherd Sunday, and St. George’s Day?:

“Often times referred to as the as the “cusp of power”, the Aries/Taurus combination is one you do not want to fight against. I say this because you may never win; a fire/earth combination is never easy to beat. Aries is a fiery and impulsive sign.  They charge forward even where angels fear to tread and have no problem doing what needs to be done to obtain their objective. The Taurus part of this combination grounds the impulsiveness and provides an air of practicality and endurance. It is like a tug of war and the feel of both involved is set in concrete.
The Aries Taurus combination is truly dominant and capable of being a force you cannot control. Make no doubt, they will be a leader wherever they end up being and you will do their bidding. At home or even at work, they are the established principal and do not like submitting to someone else’s authority. At the same time, all of this ‘being the alpha’ of the group can also overwhelm them causing them to lose their drive or ambition. They begin to question if it is worth all their effort and skill. But for as strong as these two signs are, they are also very, very dangerous.
They are the first signs of the zodiac as well as their element and quality. Like many first signs you will always have a fight for lead position. They surround themselves with people who are not afraid to go toe to toe with them and don’t mind going that extra mile. They enjoy a challenge and love to be intellectually stimulated. As someone who loves an Aries Taurus cusp, you will need to be patient with them as they can be quarrelsome and changeable at the best of times, especially if you have their heart. You will get the brunt end of many aggressions because again, they expect you to be able to take it. If you can remember that they are likely to follow their instincts rather than rules, it might help you two get along better.  As a person living within this cusp, you are a bundle of energy at the best of times. The Aries in you is ready to take on the world while the Taurus in you thinks great idea but let’s sit down and plan strategy before you attack. If you are unable to find your own personal balance you are left restless and stressed. Finding the proper balance takes time, trial and error. You have to find your own path, one where you can let your aggressive nature out to play while keeping certain things in life stable and relaxed.”

(http://xstrologyscopes.com/articles/aries/aries-taurus-cusp)

We’ll see what happens today, but so far Sunday, April 21 has been the most dramatic day of this “Cusp” for me, mostly because of what happened at Church.  It was the Fourth Sunday of Easter and “Good Shepherd Sunday”—due to my own schedule and whereabouts on Sunday I ended up going to the evening service at the Trinity Church Chapel on Jackson Street instead of my usual trip to “Real Presence” at the Cathedral.  The 6:00 pm service at Trinity is much more conservative and traditional than the radically “avant guarde” event at the same time at Christ Church on St. Charles.  

The drama started immediately when the opening hymn was (Episcopal) 1982 Hymnal: 522 (Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken–http://www.hymnary.org/hymn/EH1982/522).  The words are almost irrelevant: the tune, the music, is Franz Joseph Haydn Opus 76, no. 3: the world knows this as Deutschland über Alles.  Interesting choice the day after Hitler’s birthday, don’t you think?  To aggravate the complexity of the thought, and the coincidence.  Father Henry Hudon’s sermon concerned “Leadership” concluding “the Good Shepherd is the one who leads his flock, whom his flock will follow willingly.”   The Psalm was 23 of course:

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: 
He leadeth me beside the still waters. 
He restoreth my soul: 
He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. 
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, 
I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; 
Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: 
Thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: 
And I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

Historically speaking, Adolf Hitler was not a “Good Shepherd” for Germany or the world.  He did not lead them to green pastures or still waters but led Germany into near total self-anihilation by fighting a war that should never have been fought.  Even if we consider that Hitler had been a Good Shepherd for Germany right up until September 1, 1939, the invasion of Poland ultimately led to the cancellation of any good thing he or his regime had ever done.  Hitler did indeed lead the world into the valley of the shadow of death where everyone, both Germans and non-Germans, had much to fear in those days.  Goodness and mercy were not notable features either of the Third Reich nor the World War, nor of the Allied Occupation of Germany which followed.   The War Crimes Trials held in 1946-49 (and sporadically thereafter) are among the greatest mockeries of justice in history.

But none of this changes the fact that Hitler operated as a remarkably “Good Shepherd” in the sense of a persuasive leader—a man whom his people followed.  Many in the Patriot movement criticize Americans for being “Sheeple”—and yet our religion, or symbolism, everything in Christianity teaches us that the Lamb of God should be the leader of all the sheep.  The Gospel on Sunday was John 10:22-30 “My sheep hear my voice.  I know them, and they follow me.  I give them eternal life and they will never perish.  No one will snatch them from out of my hand.  What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand.  The Father and I are one.”  

One of Hitler’s Harvard-educated followers Ernst Hanfstaengl once rhapsodized about the Nazi leader, “What Hitler was able to do to a crowd in 2½ hours will never be repeated in 10,000 years,” Hanfstaengl said. “Because of his miraculous throat construction, he was able to create a rhapsody of hysteria. In time, he became the living unknown soldier of Germany.”  Hitler’s sheep knew his voice, but perhaps he did not know them.  Hitler not only gave an early death rather than eternal life to a huge number of his people, especially a near generation and a half of the good-looking young German men pictured in film-clip after film-clip from the 1930s shouting “Sieg Heil.”  What could be more ironic?  Hitler’s personality followed very closely to the Aries-Taurus cusp described above.  Was it written with Hitler in mind?

And herein is the deep and troubling problem: people crave leadership.  They long for a “Good Shepherd.”  This is not merely a feature of the German people at all.  The Americans since at least 2000 have recently been led down several paths by two good and persuasive leaders whom they did not question.  The paths on which the United States of America has walked since 2000 are clearly paths to tyranny, despotic dictatorship, and one form or another of Socialism or Communism which will be utterly incompatible with the Constitution of 1787, or its ten 1791 Amendments known as “the Bill of Rights.”  

The comparisons between Bush, Hitler, and Obama may get tiresome, but they are not pointless.  Very few people in the world are actually capable of living as true leaderless “anarchists.”  I fancy that I am one of the few who can manage, in large part because I am my grandparents’ grandson, and I know a few other true “anarchists”, but most people long to be told what to do.  While teaching I learned this: most students hate a professor who encourages them to go their own way and be creative.  They want strict instructions and stricter guidelines.

Prior to the Sunday of the Good Shepherd, I had spent parts of Saturday meditating as I always do on the horrible incongruity of 420 being Adolf Hitler’s birthday and International Marijuana-Pot, “Cannabis sativa culture” day.  I don’t smoke pot anymore (never did very much) but almost everyone else in the world does or seems to.  I last smoked in July 1991, right here in New Orleans in fact at a party my wife Elena and I threw in the Mary Martin suite at the Pontchartrain Hotel, within a few blocks of where I’m sitting writing this in fact.   Elena’s little sister Alex and a bunch of Maya archaeological luminaries attending the International Congress of Americanists including Clemency Chase Coggins, Merle Greene Robertson, David H. Kelley, Edward B. Kurjack, Norman Hammond, and Harriot Topsey, were having a great time lighting up in one of the rooms while others were sitting “talking shop” in another.  Elena made a gigantic scene when she found her (underage) sister smoking in a room full of adults and told everyone the horrible study of her brother George and his decline due to drug addiction (he died nine years later in January 2010, at the ripe old age of 51).  It was the beginning of the end for me and Elena but it was absolutely the last time I ever touched Pot.  

Still, as an anarchist I believe in Freedom and the right of each individual to choose his way, and for that reason I support the 420 movement to the extent that it proposes an abolition of all government interference with both the production, sale, and distribution of whatever people really want, even if they are led to destructive habits by bad shepherds….. Yes, I do think part of freedom is the freedom to follow even Bush, even Hitler, even Obama, even Stalin, but it is the duty of every Anarchist to try to turn sheep into wolves…..

Earth Day has never been that “big” a day in my life.  I was President of the Environmental Law Society at the University of Chicago and have always fancied myself an environmentalist.  But in recent years, I have become extremely uncomfortable with the Environmental Movement largely because of its alliance with “Agenda 21″ and what Obama Czar “Cass Sunstein” (my former professor for both Environmental and Administrative Law at the University of Chicago) calls “Command and Control” state action.  ”Command and Control” over the economy under PRETEXT of environmentalism is to my mind, totally wrong.  

I submit that sound money is the best guarantor of sound economic policy.  But for ludicrously extravagant government expenditures in the 1920s-1930s, none of the gigantic dams could ever have been built along the Colorado River and, without that hideous diversion of water, the ecological fiasco known as Southern California suburbia could NEVER have come into existence.  Los Angeles might have remained a small railroad town.  Although, pushing the model back further, the great railways of the 1860s-1890s which created (among other things) Los Angeles and Pasadena, would likewise never have happened if government had stayed limited and constrained by sound monetary policy and the Constitution of 1787, limited by the Bill of Rights.  Dams are the greatest ecological and environmental curses known to the Planet, yet they provide short term comforts which people love.  As I have often written, Dams are just the latest manifestation of “Oriental Despotism” which is the original form of state-based welfare, the original basis for welfare-based “command and control” over large populations.  Ecologically speaking, NOTHING is more wasteful, destructive, and against nature than the water-redistributive policies which have transformed Southern California, Southern Nevada, and most of Central and Southern Arizona into suburban wastelands.  Abolish the free credit easy money economy, restore gold and silver as the only lawful currency, and the dams will soon cease to function, have to be torn down, and the Southwestern Deserts will reclaim the suburbs, slowly but surely.  That is MY dream for Earth Day.

But finally, will it take a real St. George to achieve such an ecological turn around?  A modern St. George might well be the man who dismantles the dams.   St. George, the Patron Saint of England, Greece, Aragon (Catalonia), Egypt, Lithuania, Serbia, Ukraine, and Russia.   St. George, by all accounts, was a leaderless Anarchist.  He was NOT a Good Shepherd.  He apparently did not lead people at all, but acted alone and set an example.  I think this is why St. George is such an appropriate Patron Saint for England, and Americans would do well to think more of his example as well.  

Is America More a “Communist” or “Fascist” State Today? In terms of understanding and historical analysis, it DOES matter…

An ongoing conversation, of several years in duration, with Malcolm Doney of “Hanging Together for Justice” Florida and Melinda Pillsbury-Foster of Santa Barbara, California…

Malcolm Doney wrote on the evening of Friday, April 19, 2013: “Some of us mistakenly identify Obama as a Communist (this is Corporate Fascism).”

Well, as you know, I suppose I am one of those who “identifies Obama as a Communist” (for one thing, Obama’s late parents, both his father and his mother would be so pleased, so would his grandparents and “Godfather” Frank Marshall).  What’s more I think that the difference between calling Obama a Communist and a Fascist is the difference between really understanding what’s going on and NOT understanding it at all…

The Mortgage Crisis is what brings us together in this discussion: the question is—is the Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis a Failure of Corporate Fascism or a Triumph of Communism?  I maintain that the Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis still ongoing around the world today is the TRIUMPH of a century and a half of careful communist positioning and planning to abolish private property in real estate once and for all.

The historical threads that connect Obama to his Communist roots are very clear.  ”Fascism” evolved in the 20th century ONLY as a reaction to Communism, and never had any real intellectual coherence or “platform” to stand on, Hitler’s wildly contradictory policies and behavior during his 12 year Reich being pretty much the key example of just what a “non-program” Fascism really was.  Mussolini “made the trains run on time”; here beginneth and endeth the lessons of Italian Fascism.  

But Malcolm Doney: you are without any doubt at all one of the smartest people I know and respect very highly in everything you do, but I have this argument repeatedly with you and (strange to say) another one of the smartest people I know whom I respect in everything she does, and that’s Melinda Pillsbury-Foster. Your command of finance, like hers of 20th century political and social history, is unparalleled.  But I think it is a non-trivial mistake you both make.  Barack Hussein Obama IS in every real sense of the word a Stalinist communist, and we live in a Stalinist Communist State today (or something close enough to a communist state that it is very, very scary).  

I think I have challenged both you and Melinda to this before, but I will challenge you again:  Attached here is a copy of the Communist Manifesto Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx & Frederick Engels 1848-1888, whose first programmatic platform plank is the abolition of private property in land by the means of leveraged lending and confiscation through central banking and easy credit.

I want you to tell me what parts of the Communist Manifesto HAVE NOT been implemented so far in America.  I can find almost nothing.  

There are some confusing semantic variants, to be sure: the Manifesto uses the phrase “Industrial Armies, especially in Agriculture.”  Since no such thing as an Industrial or Agricultural Army (NAMED as such) has ever existed in the history of the world, anywhere, you might think that this is one place where the Communist Manifesto has failed.

But I propose to you that precisely YOUR WORD “Corporate” is exactly what is meant by “Industrial Armies.”  ”Corporate” is merely a Latin-derived word for a group of people acting with one general mind and one general purpose.  Modern Mega-Corporations are the very Industrial Armies that Marx proposed, they have just chosen a more traditional label than Marx’ because “Armies” rarely create anything—they normally specialize in destruction.

“Fascism” by contrast, is a bogeyman, a non-existent chimera.  There are neither any “Fascist Constitutions” nor “Fascist Manifestos” which have the coherence or comprehensive coverage and organizational application either of the U.S. written Constitution, the unwritten Constitution of (pre-1930s) Great Britain, or the Communist Manifesto.  

The so-called Fascists of history were pretty much improvisers—not great thinkers or theoreticians at all—they mostly made it up as they went along.  That is part of the reason why they were all such catastrophic failures—the most amazing feature of Hitler’s regime was its capacity to make alliances and treaties and to immediately break them in a manner that doubly and triply made the world hate him.  Even Hitler’s anti-Semitism, at the very beginning of his Chancellorship, was aimed primarily at the formation of the State of Israel—how ironic is that?  

Little is remembered of those early days when Hitler was effectively a Zionist….. but the whole world remembers the Stalin-Hitler/Von Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact which treacherously, fiendishly, split Poland in 1939, which only lasted two years before Hitler broke it and invaded Russia, which he never would have done if he had ever read the history of Napoleon, who was a much greater military strategist than Hitler, to put it mildly.  And that is how Fascism was—it was opportunistic and “reactionary” in the most fundamental sense: “Fascism” came into existence ONLY as a pro-Elite alternative to Communism, and therein is the only consistent difference: whereas Lenin, Stalin, and Mao all wiped out not only the Elites but the Middle Class of their countries, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco in Spain, Petain in France, and Admiral Horthy in Hungary all sought to preserve the Elite and Middle Class.  And that is also, in my opinion, the only real similarity between Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt, and the British Prime Ministers from Lloyd George Forward—they implemented socialist programs while keeping the elite and (for the most part) the middle class in place, although the middle class was always easily dispensable.  

Other than this feature of Elite preservation, nothing unifies the West with the Fascist movements, but by Contrast the Communist Manifesto does explain it all….

So, seriously—read and study the Communist Manifesto attached and tell me how this is not the DE FACTO Constitution of the United States of America at the Present Time…

I will anxiously await your commentary..

Could Phillip Marshall and his Family be among the First to Die under Obama’s NDAA Program of Political Assassination? If the President believes he has a License to Kill without Trial—why not?

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/03/us-911-truther-phillip-marshall-dies-in-mysterious-murder/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheEuropeanUnionTimes+%28The+European+Union+Times%29

Posted by EU Times on Mar 11th, 2013 // http://www.eutimes.net/2013/03/us-911-truther-phillip-marshall-dies-in-mysterious-murder/#comments” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow”>1 Comment

A well-known author, who dedicated his work to the events of September 11, Phillip Marshall, was killed. His two children and even his dog were killed too. The first version said that the man killed his children and then himself. However, the Americans have strong doubts about this version. Recently, quite a number of strange murders have taken place in the U.S.

The bodies of Phillip Marshall, his two children and the dog were found only on the fourth day after the murder. This is very strange, given the fact that the man lived in a small elite town, predominantly with white population, where everyone knew each other well.

All victims were shot from the same gun, which was discovered on the crime scene. The finding allowed the police to put forward the version of the double murder, followed by suicide.

Phillip Marshall was well known in the States. He was a retired captain, a former helicopter pilot and a military veteran. He became known for a series of books, in which he set out the versions of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Marshall’s versions differed greatly from the official one.

According to Marshall, there was a secret deal between government officials and Saudi Arabian aristocracy to tighten the screws in the U.S. and fabricate a pretext for foreign military operations by American troops.

Recently, Marshall had been working on his fourth book. He promised that the book would be a bombshell. He also said that publishing the book, he signed his own death warrant.

It seems unlikely that the writer was serious when making such statements. It more looks like the promotion of a new book, which was the fourth one in a row under his authorship. The subject was thus a bit moth-eaten.

There are many other strange things in this murder… Let’s not forget that Marshall was closely linked to intelligence agencies. They know how to fix it all quietly.

It is an open secret that dead bodies “sell best” under the conditions of modern mass culture. After this terrible incident, there is no doubt left that Marshall’s fourth book, if published, will receive huge circulation. But if the author described a close version of events in his books, why would secret services make such an advertising campaign to his work by killing the writer?

This means that the book will be published with necessary editing. It can also be possible that Marshall’s version of 9/11 events was good to high-ranking organizers of the WTC attacks. Possibly, the sources and curators of Phillip Marshall need the controversy about this book, and his mission was considered to be fulfilled …

Continuing the theme of the mythical al-Qaeda, one can remember the “special operation” to destroy terrorist No.1, Osama bin Laden. The whole world was giggling about that.

The Americans have not provided one single proof of Osama’s death. They only released a photo of the man, who looked like Osama, in which experts easily found traces of montage. “The analysis showed that the picture was obviously a montage. They put the beard and the lower part of the face from Bin Laden’s old photographs to the disfigured face,” said Mladen Antonov, editor in chief of AFP’s photo department.

The participants of the operation, in which US SEALs allegedly killed Bin Laden, were killed afterwards too. A couple of months after the elimination of Bin Laden, on August 8, 2011, the helicopter that for some reason had all the participants of the operation on board, was downed. The crash killed 38 people, with 22 SEALs among them. Such one-time loss of the U.S. Army in Afghanistan have never occurred either before or after.

Proposed Super-Commission on Defining Domestic Terrorism: Former Representative Jane Harman (not CEO of the Woodrow Wilson Institute—a hotbed of Globalist conformity and universalist homogenization) authored and Obama (both as a Senator and now as President) Completely Endorsed her Plan? This story had been circulating on the European Media but little discussed in the US News until SB 1867 became a major issue….!

Rep. Jane Harman of California to resign
Democrat Jane Harman, who represents a Los Angeles-area district, is expected to leave Congress to lead the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a congressional source says.
February 07, 2011|By Richard Simon
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), a leading congressional voice on anti-terrorism issues, plans to resign from Congress to head up the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a senior congressional source confirmed Monday, setting up a special election to choose her successor in a coastal district that stretches from Venice into the South Bay.

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who ever called him or herself a “liberal Democrat” could participate in the 1984-inspired perpetual “War on Terrorism.”

New Law By Obama To Jail 500,000 American Citizens Or More For The Crime Of Opposing Their Government.
November 17, 2011 5:20

Foreign Ministry reports circulating in the Kremlin today are warning that an already explosive situation in the United States is about to get a whole lot worse as a new law put forth by President Obama is said capable of seeing up to 500,000 American citizens jailed for the crime of opposing their government.

Sparking the concern of Russian diplomats over the growing totalitarian bent of the Obama government is the planned reintroduction of what these reports call one of the most draconian laws ever introduced in a free society that is titled “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act”.

First introduced in the US Congress in 2007 by Democratic Representative Jane Harman, this new law passed the US House of Representatives by a secretive voice vote, but failed to pass the US Senate, after which it was believed dead until this past week when it was embraced by Obama who became the first American President to name his own citizens as a threat to his Nations security.

In what is called the National Security Strategy document, that is required of US Presidents by their Congress, that embraces the dictatorial ideals of the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act”, Obama has ordered his Federal police and intelligence forces to begin targeting Americans opposed to him and his radical socialist polices.

Obama’s top counter-terrorism advisor, John Brennan, in speaking to reporters about this new“strategy” says it makes the problem of home-grown terrorists a top priority because an increasing number of individuals in the US have become “captivated by extremist ideology or causes.”

The Times of London is further reporting that Obama’s new National Security Strategy “officially” ends America’s “War on Terror” in what they call “a sweeping repudiation of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes.”

And as Obama begins re-focusing his forces from fighting America’s foreign enemies, to those opposed to him in his own country, it is important to remember the warning about this new law given by the former CIA official, Philip Giraldi, who had previously warned of the Bush-Cheney plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, and who said:

“The mainstream media has made no effort to inform the public of the impending Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. The Act, which was sponsored by Congresswoman Jane Harman of California, was passed in the House by an overwhelming 405 to 6 vote on October 24th and is now awaiting approval by the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which is headed by Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

Harman’s bill contends that the United States will soon have to deal with home grown terrorists and that something must be done to anticipate and neutralize the problem. The act deals with the issue through the creation of a congressional commission that will be empowered to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and designate various groups as “homegrown terrorists.”

The commission will be tasked to propose new legislation that will enable the government to take punitive action against both the groups and the individuals who are affiliated with them. Like Joe McCarthy and HUAC in the past, the commission will travel around the United States and hold hearings to find the terrorists and root them out.

Unlike inquiries in the past where the activity was carried out collectively, the act establishing the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Commission will empower all the members on the commission to arrange hearings, obtain testimony, and even to administer oaths to witnesses, meaning that multiple hearings could be running simultaneously in various parts of the country.

The ten commission members will be selected for their “expertise,” though most will be appointed by Congress itself and will reflect the usual political interests. They will be paid for their duties at the senior executive pay scale level and will have staffs and consultants to assist them.

Harman’s bill does not spell out terrorist behavior and leaves it up to the Commission itself to identify what is terrorism and what isn’t.

Language inserted in the act does partially define “homegrown terrorism” as “planning” or “threatening” to use force to promote a political objective, meaning that just thinking about doing something could be enough to merit the terrorist label.

The act also describes “violent radicalization” as the promotion of an “extremist belief system” without attempting to define “extremist.”

As an example of those American’s Obama will be targeting, Giraldi further writes that The Simon Wiesenthal Center, in testifying before the US Congress in support of this new law, swore that an organization called “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth” was an example of a homegrown terrorist organization, leading one Russian diplomat in this report to state “If 1,200 of America’s top architectural and engineering professionals are deemed terrorists simply  because they question their governments propaganda than truly no one is safe in the United States anymore”.

As another example of how dictatorial the Obama regime has become, and as the Gulf of Mexico oil debacle has now become the worst ecological disaster our World has ever seen, the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, this past week slammed American reporters for “asking too many questions about BP”.  Leading one to ask that if Obama’s regime can’t be asked about this disaster, what can they be asked about?

The answer is apparently none, as Obama himself, just this past week, in announcing his signing of a new law called the Press Freedom Act refused to answer any reporters questions and abruptly left them standing in stupefaction over the irony an ordeal that shows how far America has fallen.

Another irony apparently lost upon the American people is that their President Obama, who has been dubbed “The Great Communicator”, now holds the dubious distinction of having held less press conferences than any American President in modern history.  And if yesterday’s press conference, his first in nearly a year, was any example one can see why as incredulous press corps was left astounded that Obama had no knowledge of the firing/resignation of one of his top officials.

In all of these events one fact, beyond all others, stands out….in what was once called “The Land of the Free, And the Home of the Brave”…..the United States today has become “The Land Of Slave, And the Home of the Coward”….and these Americans have only themselves to blame.

Source: www.eutimes.net/2010/05/new-obama-law-warned-will-jail-500000-americans/

Oct 24, 2007 – Referred in Senate. This is the text of the bill after moving from the House to the Senate before being considered by Senate committees. This is the latest version of the bill currently available on GovTrack.

 HR 1955 RFS                 110th CONGRESS, 1st Session

H. R. 1955

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

October 24, 2007Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs


AN ACT

To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007′.

SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.

(a) In General- Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new subtitle:

Subtitle J–Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism

SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this subtitle:

(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission’ means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

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

(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.

SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.

(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.

(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.

(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.

(6) Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.

(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.

(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.

SEC. 899C. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE.

(a) Establishment- There is established within the legislative branch of the Government the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.

(b) Purpose- The purposes of the Commission are the following:  (1) Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or `lone wolf’ violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important. (2) Build upon and bring together the work of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of–(A) the Center of Excellence established or designated under section 899D, and other academic work, as appropriate;  (B) Federal, State, local, or tribal studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence; and  (C) foreign government studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence.

 (c) Composition of Commission- The Commission shall be composed of 10 members appointed for the life of the Commission, of whom–(1) one member shall be appointed by the President from among officers or employees of the executive branch and private citizens of the United States; (2) one member shall be appointed by the Secretary; (3) one member shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate; (4) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate; (5) one member shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (6) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives; (7) one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives; (8) one member shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives; (9) one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and (10) one member shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.

(d) Chair and Vice Chair- The Commission shall elect a Chair and a Vice Chair from among its members.

(e) Qualifications- Individuals shall be selected for appointment to the Commission solely on the basis of their professional qualifications, achievements, public stature, experience, and expertise in relevant fields, including, but not limited to, behavioral science, constitutional law, corrections, counterterrorism, cultural anthropology, education, information technology, intelligence, juvenile justice, local law enforcement, organized crime, Islam and other world religions, sociology, or terrorism.

(f) Deadline for Appointment- All members of the Commission shall be appointed no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this subtitle.

(g) Quorum and Meetings- The Commission shall meet and begin the operations of the Commission not later than 30 days after the date on which all members have been appointed or, if such meeting cannot be mutually agreed upon, on a date designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Each subsequent meeting shall occur upon the call of the Chair or a majority of its members. A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold meetings.

 (h) Authority of Individuals to Act for Commission- Any member of the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any action that the Commission is authorized to take under this Act.

(i) Powers of Commission- The powers of the Commission shall be as follows:  (1) IN GENERAL- (A) HEARINGS AND EVIDENCE- The Commission or, on the authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this section, hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable to carry out its duties.  (B) CONTRACTING- The Commission may, to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its duties under this section.

(2) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES- (A) IN GENERAL- The Commission may request directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the Government, information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purposes of this section. The head of each such department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the extent practicable and authorized by law, furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon request made by the Chair of the Commission, by the chair of any subcommittee created by a majority of the Commission, or by any member designated by a majority of the Commission.

(B) RECEIPT, HANDLING, STORAGE, AND DISSEMINATION- The Committee and its staff shall receive, handle, store, and disseminate information in a manner consistent with the operative statutes, regulations, and Executive orders that govern the handling, storage, and dissemination of such information at the department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality that responds to the request.

(j) Assistance From Federal Agencies- (1) GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION- The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis administrative support and other services for the performance of the Commission’s functions.   (2) OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES- In addition to the assistance required under paragraph (1), departments and agencies of the United States may provide to the Commission such services, funds, facilities, and staff as they may determine advisable and as may be authorized by law.

(k) Postal Services- The Commission may use the United States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as departments and agencies of the United States.

(l) Nonapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act- The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Commission.

(m) Public Meetings- (1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall hold public hearings and meetings to the extent appropriate. (2) PROTECTION OF INFORMATION- Any public hearings of the Commission shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the protection of information provided to or developed for or by the Commission as required by any applicable statute, regulation, or Executive order including subsection (i)(2)(B).

(n) Staff of Commission-(1) APPOINTMENT AND COMPENSATION- The Chair of the Commission, in consultation with the Vice Chair and in accordance with rules adopted by the Commission, may appoint and fix the compensation of a staff director and such other personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its functions, without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no rate of pay fixed under this subsection may exceed the maximum rate of pay for GS-15 under the General Schedule.

(2) STAFF EXPERTISE- Individuals shall be selected for appointment as staff of the Commission on the basis of their expertise in one or more of the fields referred to in subsection (e).

(3) PERSONNEL AS FEDERAL EMPLOYEES- (A) IN GENERAL- The executive director and any employees of the Commission shall be employees under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.  (B) MEMBERS OF COMMISSION- Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to apply to members of the Commission.

(4) DETAILEES- Any Federal Government employee may be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement from the Commission, and during such detail shall retain the rights, status, and privileges of his or her regular employment without interruption.

(5) CONSULTANT SERVICES- The Commission may procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.

(6) EMPHASIS ON SECURITY CLEARANCES- The Commission shall make it a priority to hire as employees and retain as contractors and detailees individuals otherwise authorized by this section who have active security clearances.

(o) Commission Personnel Matters- (1) COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS- Each member of the Commission who is not an employee of the government shall be compensated at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day during which that member is engaged in the actual performance of the duties of the Commission.

(2) TRAVEL EXPENSES- While away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission.

(3) TRAVEL ON ARMED FORCES CONVEYANCES- Members and personnel of the Commission may travel on aircraft, vehicles, or other conveyances of the Armed Forces of the United States when such travel is necessary in the performance of a duty of the Commission, unless the cost of commercial transportation is less expensive.

(4) TREATMENT OF SERVICE FOR PURPOSES OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS- A member of the Commission who is an annuitant otherwise covered by section 8344 or 8468 of title 5, United States Code, by reason of membership on the Commission shall not be subject to the provisions of such section with respect to membership on the Commission.

(5) VACANCIES- A vacancy on the Commission shall not affect its powers and shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made. The appointment of the replacement member shall be made not later than 60 days after the date on which the vacancy occurs.

(p) Security Clearances- The heads of appropriate departments and agencies of the executive branch shall cooperate with the Commission to expeditiously provide Commission members and staff with appropriate security clearances to the extent possible under applicable procedures and requirements.

(q) Reports- (1) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 18 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, the Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a final report of its findings and conclusions, legislative recommendations for immediate and long-term countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and measures that can be taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence from developing and spreading within the United States, and any final recommendations for any additional grant programs to support these purposes. The report may also be accompanied by a classified annex.

(2) INTERIM REPORTS- The Commission shall submit to the President and Congress– (A) by not later than 6 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, a first interim report on–

(i) its findings and conclusions and legislative recommendations for the purposes described in paragraph (1); and (ii) its recommendations on the feasibility of a grant program established and administered by the Secretary for the purpose of preventing, disrupting, and mitigating the effects of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and, if such a program is feasible, recommendations on how grant funds should be used and administered; and

(B) by not later than 6 months after the date on which the Commission submits the interim report under subparagraph (A), a second interim report on such matters.

(3) INDIVIDUAL OR DISSENTING VIEWS- Each member of the Commission may include in each report under this subsection the individual additional or dissenting views of the member.

(4) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY- The Commission shall release a public version of each report required under this subsection.

(r) Availability of Funding- Amounts made available to the Commission to carry out this section shall remain available until the earlier of the expenditure of the amounts or the termination of the Commission.

(s) Termination of Commission- The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the date on which the Commission submits its final report.

SEC. 899D. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR THE STUDY OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Establishment- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States (hereinafter referred to as `Center’) following the merit-review processes and procedures and other limitations that have been previously established for selecting and supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence. The Center shall assist Federal, State, local and tribal homeland security officials through training, education, and research in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. In carrying out this section, the Secretary may choose to either create a new Center designed exclusively for the purpose stated herein or identify and expand an existing Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence so that a working group is exclusively designated within the existing Center of Excellence to achieve the purpose set forth in subsection (b).

(b) Purpose- It shall be the purpose of the Center to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States and methods that can be utilized by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

(c) Activities- In carrying out this section, the Center shall–

(1) contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;

(2) utilize theories, methods and data from the social and behavioral sciences to better understand the origins, dynamics, and social and psychological aspects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;

(3) conduct research on the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and

(4) coordinate with other academic institutions studying the effects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism where appropriate.

SEC. 899E. PREVENTING VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM THROUGH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE EFFORTS.

(a) International Effort- The Secretary shall, in cooperation with the Department of State, the Attorney General, and other Federal Government entities, as appropriate, conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in their respective nations.

(b) Implementation- To the extent that methodologies are permissible under the Constitution, the Secretary shall use the results of the survey as an aid in developing, in consultation with the Attorney General, a national policy in the United States on addressing radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

(c) Reports to Congress- The Secretary shall submit a report to Congress that provides–

(1) a brief description of the foreign partners participating in the survey; and

(2) a description of lessons learned from the results of the survey and recommendations implemented through this international outreach.

SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.

 (a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
 (b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security’s commitment to racial neutrality.

(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting at the end of the items relating to title VIII the following:

Subtitle J–Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism

Sec. 899A. Definitions.

Sec. 899B. Findings.

Sec. 899C. National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence.

Sec. 899D. Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States.

Sec. 899E. Preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism through international cooperative efforts.

Sec. 899F. Protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism.’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 23, 2007.

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, Clerk.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes to Senate Bill 1867 to cover up the grim reality—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.

Treason against the Constitution in the Senate, Treason by the Executive Branch, “Treason against the Constitution” as defined by the Courts: Our Government Hates Freedom and Subverts the Constitution Daily

Treason in the Senate, summarized in a newscast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv1O6goo7qE&feature=share

Senator Mark Kirk (Republican from Illinois) speaks in favor of the too weak and only belatedly offer “Feinstein Amendment”, which failed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBsaePlbLJk&feature=related

But Senators Feinstein and 92 others voted in FAVOR of the Unamended, Unlimited “indefinite detention” version of Senate 1867—Senator Kirk correctly says this bill is blatantly unconstitutional, that the bill unconstitutionally transfers the power to “indict” on charges of terrorism from the grand juries mandated by the Sixth Amendment to the President, and thereby gives dictatorial powers to the President.  Senator Kirk also correctly identifies this Bill as one of the greatest assaults on freedom ever to have taken place.  But the Senate, 93-7, bulled forward and apparently decided to “leave it to the Courts”, and the Courts have no will to overturn a statute approved by 93 Senators.  Scalia in particular seems to believe that every Constitutional provision is effectively subject to legislative limitation and abrogation.  Anthony Kennedy is the last even remotely “libertarian” justice on the Court.

If the prisons are overcrowded now, how many more prisons will be needed once all the Antiabortion Protesters, Tea Party Members, Occupy Wall Street and related movements, and Antiwar Protestors are gathered up and detained indefinitely?  THIS IS THE END OF AMERICA FOLKS: MAKE NO DECISION—DIANNE FEINSTEIN and BARBARA BOXER BOTH VOTED FOR IT!

Good time in the midst of this debate for us to remember what is the historical context of and evidence for terrorism in this country since 9/11:

http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/

and what has been done to people who question the facts of 9/11 just this year, PRIOR to the enactment of Senate Bill 1867 and the “National Defense Reauthorization Act.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIU9j_qwzOE&feature=player_embedded#!

and what former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil said was the truth about the planning of the war against Iraq, how it was planned from George W. Bush’s inauguration in January 2001 forward, with Iraqi oil and the removal of Saddam Hussein as the main purposes—despite Bush’s campaign promises to the contrary in 2000:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMCxheXPjtc&feature=related&mid=546

The Concept of “Treason against the Constitution” traces back to this March 5, 1821 Opinion rendered in the case of Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257.  Treason against the Constitution can, as a matter of fact, ONLY be committed inside the United States of America, not elsewhere, and the only people with real power to commit treason against the constitution are those who subvert it by infringing and violating its protections for the people.  A very interesting historical read, and if anyone asks you where the idea of “Treason against the Constitution” ever came from, well, this is it:

Cohens_v_Virginia_19_US_264_Judicial_Treason

That Cohens case has been cited quite recently, both in Justice Ginsburg’s opinion and Justice Stevens’ concurrence in Vicki Lynn Marshall v. E. Pierce Marshall,  547 U.S. 293; 126 S. Ct. 1735; 164 L. Ed. 2d 480 (2006), in trying to dispose of the Constitutionally Treasonous “Rooker-Feldman” Doctrine of Federal abstention from hearing collateral constitutional challenges to certain state court decisions (which Doctrine Justice Stevens pronounced “dead” at the end of his concurrence, although an “undead” Vampiric Rooker-Feldman perniciously continues to haunt the Federal Courts ever since then in spite  of his dictum—if elected to the U.S. Senate, I will submit legislation to outlaw and overturn the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and restore the balance of powers by review to State-Federal relations).

But seriously, the attached (sent to me by Montana State Senator Jerry O’Neil) is JUST an example of the people who will now be called and considered TERRORISTS (almost for sure) under Senate Bill 1867 if (once) Obama signs it into law.  You see, it appears some people are getting fed up with the fed, and these people are ALL going to be indefinitely detained as terrorists, you mark my word.  Yes, Gentle Reader, your Friends and Neighbors will Start Disappearing and they will soon be arrested without warrant or indictment and carted off with their heads in black bags to indefinite detention on President Obama’s (or President Newt Gingrich’s) orders, HAVE NO DOUBT!  Remember that Newt Gingrich was the chief sponsor of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which preceded the Patriot Act by Five Years, and the Patriot Act mainly served to enact into law those provisions which Congress was not yet ready to pass over the Constitution to promulgate prior to 9-11 (which just shows you why 9-11 was so completely necessary for the government, right?)

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/armed-and-ready-new-mexico-residents-defy-government

As of 3:23 AM on Monday, December 5, 2011, Charles Edward Lincoln, III is the ONLY announced candidate for U.S. Senator from California (including Dianne Feinstein and Orly Taitz) to have announced his opposition to Senate Bill 1867.  Orly Taitz continues to live in her dreamworld that it is sufficiently “Patriotic” to question Obama’s eligibility for President and ignore all other grave issues facing this Country.  Dianne Feinstein continues to believe that she is sufficiently well-esconced in the Bankers-Financial Club and Military-Industrial Complex Establishment that she cannot possibly lose her seat in the senate—if she chooses to run again—EVEN IF she voted for a bill to which she proposed an amendment which failed, and thus she failed to protect the people of the United States or California.  It amazes me that not even Rand Paul offered to filibuster this bill.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.  

Modern Child’s Play as Myth and Metaphor for our Times: the Gender Neuter Pokemon of Endless Nightmares

Physiology of DARKRAI—POKEMON OF ENDLESS NIGHTMARES

Darkrai’s legs

Darkrai is a black, shadow-like creature. It has a small head with a white fog-like ghostly substance billowing from its head covering one of its bright blue eyes, and also has a red spiky growth around its neck. It has skinny arms and long black tatters hanging from its shoulders. It also has black, claw-like hands. It has the slight appearance of an hourglass figure and appears to be wearing an old, ripped cloak. It normally doesn’t have any sort of legs, but it is able to extend stilt-like appendages in their place. In self-defense, Darkrai also appears capable of retracting its head and white “plume” into the pit atop its torso fringed by the aforementioned red growth.

Gender differences

Darkrai is a genderless species.

Special abilities

Darkrai is know for its ability to put people and Pokémon in endless nightmares only stopped if close to a lunar wing from Cresselia. It can become a shadow and escape danger or contact of humans, but it is still capable to take damage by special attacks (eg: Thunderbolt,Flamethrower, Water Pulse, etc.) in this state. It is also capable of little human speech. In The Rise of Darkrai, it was shown its power was little of that of Dialga and Palkia.

Darkrai is the only known Pokémon that learns Dark Void.

Behavior

This Pokémon “inhabits” people’s dreams and causes them to have unending terrible nightmares. In Diamond, Pearl, and Platinum, it is stated that the only way a person can wake from one of these nightmares is to be exposed to the Lunar Wing of Cresselia. Contrary to popular belief, this “unleashing of nightmares” is in fact a defense mechanism, rather than something of malicious intent. Also, in the Anime at least, these nightmares are not never ending, as most victims are able to wake up normally, though it appears if Dark Void is used they cannot until the attack wears off.

Judge Michael Jergins of the 395th Judicial District of Williamson County once recommended that instead of trying to educate my son Charlie IV regarding the Bible, History, and the Constitution, and teach him some elementary ethics and self-respect, I should encourage him to play with “Yu-gi-oh” cards.

The hilarious irony of this advice was that, in happier times, in the late 1990s before all our troubles started in earnest, or during the earliest stages of them, my son and I had been avid collectors of Pokemon Cards, Videos, Tokens, everything.  I admit that I was suspicious of Pokemon’s as “mental conditioning” to make children think that Genetically Modified Organisms (especially plant-animal-hybrids, including even weird fungal-avian fish-and-tree crosses were both normal in the world and morally acceptable to think about).  But Pokemon cards were colorful and beautiful and mostly had good, heroic stories with them.  But that was in the late 1990s and first few years of the New Millenium.

Apparently, during the horrible years of George W. Bush and Obama, Pokemon, like everything else, turned dark.

This came home to me tonight at a mediation in Beverly Hills between Iranian Jews and Russian/Ashkenazic Jews.  It is widely recognized that Iranian Jews form a special kind of Elite in Beverly Hills.  I have previously written that there really aren’t many “Drysdales” or “Clampetts” left in Beverly Hills, even though I personally go to All Saints Episcopal Church in Beverly Hills where I was confirmed in April 1974.  I shan’t dwell on the details of this case or mediation except to say it was extremely disagreeable.

Sitting on the desk to which I and my client were assigned, however, was a Pokemon Pencil with an unfamiliar Icon.  During the endless lulls in the back-and-forth of mediation, I studied this Pokemon on my I-Phone (talk about a “Brave New World” way to pass the time) and discovered it was “Darkrai—first revealed in February 2007.”  I include the description of Darkrai above.

“Darkrai” was clearly the ideal Pokemon for both the setting of this mediation and the arguments carried on therein.  ENDLESS NIGHTMARES—the end of my America, the end of my parents’ America, the end of my Grandparents’ America.  All were so clearly delineated in this event.  Two Rabbis were the presiding mediators. The setting was a Rabbinical Library with a quite unpronounceable name.  It was quite unlike anything I had experienced before, and the result was still a referral of all financial awards to a Jewish Rabbinical Court, Beit Din.  The Rabbis involved had no binding authority, apparently, and very little persuasive authority.  Still, as an exercise in Legal Anthropology, it was very, very interesting.  

The origin of the “Darkrai” pencil on the table remains a mystery to me.  Perhaps it was placed there to remind me of the relationship between Brave New World of Genetically Modified Organisms and the “Shake-and-Bake” Ethnic Society of the Modern World.

Perhaps it was only there to make me acutely conscious of the “Endless Nightmare” into which I had stepped.  The earlier generation of Pokemons included some mildly “creepy” creatures, including “Psyduck” with his endless headaches and psychokinetic powers, Ghastly, and even “Golem” (and yes, as a matter of fact a “Golem” is a kind of Jewish Zombie or Vampire made of earth…as celebrated in the stories of the “Golem of Prague”, the “Krakow Golem”, one amazing episode of the “X-Files”, and even speculations that Superman might have been the structural and mythic derivative of a Golem….).  But a Pokemon of Endless Nightmares that was discovered in February 2007—that was a very interesting discovery on a very interesting night.

The Futility of Individualized Resistance to Collectivization: the Foreclosure Crisis is Government Policy in Action, Securitization is the Banks’ Communistic Mechanism for Confiscation

I want to deliver a very short and bitter message here: individual case litigation strategies have failed and are doomed to continued failure.  EVERY PERSON who wants to fight in court for his or her family home in Court in California must include a Constitutional Challenge to the Non-Judicial Foreclosure System and all the component statutes, but even this is not enough: the remedy is political action.  Until these statutes and the nation-wide socialistic policies which support them are obliterated, which can be reliably expected to happen ONLY through political rather than judicial action, the institutions of private property and the home-based family will continue to erode and disintegrate.  

Without MASSIVE LEGAL REFORM, there is no hope that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” will not be continually violated as it has been in millions of cases nationwide.  These mass foreclosure and eviction policies have been approved and strategies formulated by the government at the highest levels.  

(That was the short brief and very bitter message—all the rest that follows is an elaboration on these points).

I am writing today to announce firmly that I think that everyone involved in the “Anti-Foreclosure” guerilla resistance is and has been misguided, myself included.  We have to stop thinking, or even looking for ways, to succeed on an individual, case-by-case basis.  We have to organize as a community whose wealth and values are under siege.  Offering potential strategies or hypothetical solutions to individuals is just “wrong” and we’ve got to give it up.  We must organize like the abolitionists before 1861, like the labor unions from the 1880s-1920s, like the real civil rights activists of the 1950s-60s.  All our “gurus” and sources of individual advice regarding individual and isolated action, from the cosmically brilliant Neil Garfield on his wonderful “Living Lies” website, down the hierarchy through local geniuses like April Carrie Charney and Malcolm Doney in Florida, Charles Koppa and Catherine Bryan in Orange and San Diego Counties, California all the way down to Theresa Moore and Robert Garvin in Studio City and finally Peyton and me have just had it all wrong—–we have been doing more harm than good.  

We are all either engaging in false hopes or blindly misleading people to think that we can stop the seizure of homes and property in any sort of systematic way through litigation and the court system.  

Worse than that, by offering false hopes to people and engaging in one losing court-battle after another, we have been bolstering and shoring up the success of the corporate-banking enemies.

What I am writing today is that the individual case-litigation approach is a massive failure even to slowing the rates of foreclosure and eviction in California or anywhere else.  Even in Florida, at best “Anti-Foreclosure Guerillas” like April Carrie Charney, Malcolm Doney and Catherine Bryan can claim very if outright victories other than temporary delay in a small percentage, not even a statistically significant minority of foreclosures or evictions.  

The individual case strategy cannot be used to eradicate what is a society-wide systemic cancer created by the politically tempting bait of “easy credit” which was, after all, the original communist-socialist demand of the mid-to-late nineteenth century.

Because “easy credit” is by definition based on wants and desires rather than actual wealth or production, “easy credit” is the antithesis of capitalism or any sound economic system, but it sure is popular if you’re a politician….  When they said that Communism works through the ways and means of the devil, they weren’t kidding: the theory that temptation has been the path to sin and death since the Garden of Eden is not actually “just a theory” but a fairly demonstrable fact.

Even coordinated constitutional litigation cannot work because I do not think we can every achieve statewide in California, much less nationwide, anything like what I tried and failed to achieve in the family courts in Williamson County Texas in 2005-7.  What I tried in Georgetown, Texas, was to try to arouse and incite enough popular discontent and cooperative participant action among parents that we might close down the system.  I came close enough that Judge James F. Clawson commented on the fact that if he did not ban me from further litigation in the state of Texas, I would have closed down the Family Law Courts.  

But in fact we did not come anywhere close to permanently shutting down the courts by flooding them with protests and constitutionally demanding civil rights motions and litigation maneuvers.  We just got labelled “paper terrorists.”  Ok, Assistant Texas A.G. James Carlton Todd and his boss Mr. Greg Abbott actually called me “the most dangerous paper terrorist in Texas”—but that dubious distinction plus $5.00 is barely enough to buy you a coffee and pound cake at Starbucks these days.

Given the scale of the foreclosure crisis—Millions in California alone—tens of millions nationwide—1.5 million abandoned and empty homes in Florida—we have to recognize this as a problem much bigger than any of us as individuals.  

Slavery was not abolished by helping individual slaves escape through the “underground railroad” or even through individual plantation-owners granting manumission by will to hundreds or thousands of slaves upon their deaths by will.  

Decent wages in factories were never achieved by individualized negotiation for “modifications” of employment contracts—only by COLLECTIVE ACTION on the part of organized labor unions—and that is what we need in the foreclosure arena.  And in doing so we have to recognize that we face, just like the operators of the underground railway did, just as the early leaders of the labor movement did in the 1880s-1890s, the possibility of arrest and even armed suppression of our movement.  (Compare the “Haymarket Riot” in Chicago on May 4, 1886 and the much larger and more widespread Pullman Riots, also centered in Chicago but Nationwide, in the summer of 1894.)

So if we REALLY oppose collectivization of private property we cannot do so individually, we cannot oppose the government one-on-one, unless we do so as “We the People” acting politically and in concert.  To this end I would ask for contributions to take out full – page ads in the Los Angeles Times and advertise on television and radio as well as the internet.  ”CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL—TAKE BACK YOUR RIGHTS BEFORE THEY TAKE YOUR HOME, IF YOUR HOME HAS BEEN TAKEN, TAKE BACK YOUR RIGHTS AND YOUR HOME.

We must clearly articulate our position that: we know that the Foreclosure Crisis is Government Policy in Action, Securitization is the Banks’ Communistic Mechanism for Confiscation, and we demand an end to both the governmental policy and the (ironic as it might seem) banks’ confiscation of property by securitization.  

The outward trappings of capitalism have become the instruments of communistic confiscation and expropriation of homes and the destruction of families.  This will only end when the people demand it to end—and the Courts are not the proper arenas to do this. Courts in the United States and Europe, all known judicial systems, really, are designed at best to correct (or compensate) small variant problems and deviations from established norms.  

We who OPPOSE foreclosure and eviction, who DEMAND adherence to the common law and constitutional norms respecting contract and the right to own property according to contractual terms and rights, WE are the deviants now, and it is UP TO US to bring the law into conformity.  It is a tall order, but it is the only way we can reclaim our heritage and our RIGHTS to property—even when so much property has already been lost or destroyed.

Courts can only act as mechanisms for the imposition of widespread social and cultural change when they are expressly delegated this purpose by the political branches, as they have been during the racial civil rights movements 1948-1972 and the less well-publicized but even more historically significant family and domestic relations “reformulations” involving no fault divorce, abortion, and “sexual liberation” generally during the period starting not later than 1962 and continuing until the present time.  

Ironically, for all its internal contradictions, for all that it was an incomplete movement which only raised up one part of society by dragging down another, upgraded some statements of rights while degrading others, some of the best pro freedom statements and constitutional formulations of the law as written today owe their origins to the American Civil Rights movement.  

The civil rights movements of both the 1860s-70s (though mostly constitutional and statutory) and 1950s-60s (mostly judicial) had many positive components and results which were actually pro-freedom and anti-communist (although the movement itself was widely labelled as “communistic” by many opponents during the twentieth century—I often retell the story that among my earliest memories of highway driving in Texas and Louisiana were the “Impeach Earl Warren” signs all throughout the South and Southwest in the late 1960s).  

Again ironically, the “sexual liberation” movement and now the mortgage foreclosure crisis have undone many of the positive, pro freedom, effects of the civil rights movement by creating new forms of oppression (as indeed have some statutory civil rights programs—as distinct from a strong majority of the judicial decisions of the civil rights quarter century noted, 1948-1972).  

But the mortgage foreclosure crisis appears to be completing what was worst in both the civil rights and sexual liberation movements: the final destruction of the home-based family and stable neighborhood community.  In fact, it is fair to say that, on the populist activist level, it would now be impossible to have a civil rights movement analogous to the one that started after World War II, because NO COHERENT COMMUNITIES OF ANY POLITICALLY SIGNIFICANT SIZE REMAIN IN AMERICA TODAY—we are truly a nation of transients).

For fifteen years now, since 1996, I have been involved almost continuously in Civil Rights litigation of one species or another against State and Corporate abuses of individual rights and personal autonomy, against takings of liberty & property without due process of law.  I started off fighting the Sheriffs and Police Departments in Central Texas, disputing their claims of “qualified immunity” to abuse the rights and autonomy of people on a random and unsystematic basis, almost like criminals or terrorists.  I then graduated to believing the problem took a more systematic form with a plan to destroy the individual and family regularly and predictably, and that the root of problem lay with judicial immunity and the Court system, especially the Family or Domestic Relations Courts.  I still believe that at both levels, our local, state, and national institutions have betrayed their birthright in liberty.

Since 2006, my focus has been primarily against the mortgage finance and credit systems.  During these five years’ time I have researched and experimented with many varieties of theories or approaches to common-law (and commercial code) holder-in-due-course doctrine, privity of contract, quiet title, securities fraud, and other pro-consumer, pro-buyer, theories.  I have tried and tested such theories at the very least in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Colorado, Idaho, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, and (most intensely of all since 2008) California.   I know that, logically and rationally, all these theories are either correct in some absolute or historical or logical sense, but they do not work in Court in ANY SORT OF PREDICTABLE WAY. What this means is that, as a matter of any individual’s “reasonable expectation”, there is no adequate remedy at law or in equity, there is only the occasional, seemingly almost random, single decision in a thousand or so that goes the way of the owner consumer.  This is not a matter of “legal victory”, this is a matter of “playing the odds” at Roulette or Blackjack, much worse than betting on racecars, ponies, thoroughbreads, or greyhounds whose mechanical design and/or natural and innate skills can be rated and assessed objectively.

In the past five years, no two cases or situations have ever been exactly alike, but the pattern is always the same: the decks in the courthouses across the nation are stacked against the homeowner/consumer/buyer/ “borrower” or “credit applicant/credit user.”   I feel I fairly competently understand the law in only five states at the present time: California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and Texas (although all the Ninth Circuit States—Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Washington—are by conscious historical design pretty close in design and execution of statutory scheme to California).   In Florida and New Jersey, the law is EXCELLENT, in that foreclosure and eviction are both by the clear requirement of the law judicial in nature, and common law modified by the commercial code is all that counts.  Yet the rate of foreclosure is astronomical in both states.  In Florida, they are dragging judges out of retirement to preside over the foreclosure epidemic in the state with the flimsiest houses (owing to both construction and lack of regular winter weather) and the nation’s longest tradition of continuous real estate fraud.  In New Jersey, there is a moratorium on foreclosure proceedings until the system “can catch up with itself” whatever that means.  

In California, the worst laws in the country are fueling the worst foreclosure epidemic anywhere in history.  I have written extensively about California Civil Code §§2924 et seq., especially 2924a, 2924i, and the related “attorney conspiracy” limitations of §1714.10.  Michigan and Texas are both “mixed” systems where judicial and non-judicial foreclosure are authorized by law, but non-judicial foreclosure has become the norm in the past decade.

It was only when I came to California in 2008 that I began to realize for certain what was really going on, and what is really going on is that the United States Government, and State Governments with more-or-less enthusiasm, are cooperating with banks and finance companies to abolish private property and turn ownership of all private interests to a state-controlled governmental-corporate conglomerate along the lines originally suggested in Karl Marx’ and Frederick Engels’ Communist Manifesto of 1848.  

      In some very real ways, the most disturbing results come from Massachusetts.  To the same degree that I believe that the Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loan case (121 CalRptr3d 819 OPINION Gomes v Countrywide Home Loans Inc Feb_18_2011) illustrates the utter futility of fighting within the law of California—(when the law itself is the enemy and unconstitutional wall-to-wall), I had thought that the Ibanez case in Massachusetts showed a glimmer of sanity and light on the East Coast US Bank Nat Ass’n v Ibanez 458 Mass 637 941 NE2d 40 (Massachusetts 2011).  Peyton’s research in Massachusetts last month (May 2011) has brought evidence to my attention that Ibanez in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with securitization and that Massachusetts law appears to expressly permit the separation of ownership of the note and ability to collect on the mortgage, and has done so for approximately 100 years.  In particular, two sections of its general laws make Massachusetts appear as bad or even worse than California in terms of its statutory scheme, although Massachusetts generally has a much “kinder and gentler” set of consumer protection laws § 9-609 Secured Party’s Right to Take Possession After Default UCC 106 Art 9 GENERAL LAWS of MASSACHUSETTS and § 9-607 Collection and Enforcement by Secured Party (these are all part of the “gentle, gradual” transition to socialism which deceptively gives the—entirely false— appearance of respect for individual rights).  The “Uniform Commercial Code Comment” for 1999 Main Volume appears to confirm that the note and mortgage may be separated in Massachusetts by stating: 

“6. Relationship to Rights and Duties of Persons Obligated on Collateral. This section permits a secured party to collect and enforce obligations included in collateral in its capacity as a secured party. It is not necessary for a secured party first to become the owner of the collateral pursuant to a disposition or acceptance.”

In other words, Massachusetts Law addresses by editing the Uniform Commercial Code what would otherwise is and should remain one of the strongest common law (and in fact, “normal” commercial code) explanations for why securitized mortgages are (everywhere else) facially illegal. It is widely known that Massachusetts and California are two of the most “socialist-tending” states in the Union—so the Ibanez case as originally (apparently, COMPLETELY misinterpreted) was a major surprise.  See also the Boston Bar Journal Comment on the case: Boston Bar Journal US BANK v IBANEZ THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY’S DOCUMENTATION PRACTICES IN FOCUS, and for the disconnection between Massachusetts law and the rest of the United States Concerning the necessary that “note and mortgage travel together” see the Westlaw Journal Article published on Valentine’s Day: 02-14-2011 IBANEZ A 19TH-CENTURY DECISION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY.  

Now, regardless of whether California or Massachusetts has the WORST foreclosure law “on the books” the simple truth is that the law, and the way that the law is consistently applied by the courts—is the primary problem—NOT “robo signing” by the banks, NOT any of the faults or practices of the banks at all in fact—because if the Courts would enforce the common law and constitution against the financial industry, criminal and civil violations would be recognized and dealt with as such.  The problem is that the law and the Courts have effectively IMMUNIZED the Banks and financial institutions pursuant to an express government policy—very succinctly and clearly, and unambiguously identified, articulated, and described in the California Gomes opinion attached above, from February 18, 2011, that California public policy favors quick and easy foreclosure.  Foreclosure has thus become a kind of “kindly manner” of execution in this “Brave New World” in which we now live.  (Compare G.B. Shaw’s Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism” which explains: 

…under Socialism…..you would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not.  If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.”)

One repeating mantra of the “easy credit” society is that “living well is the best revenge” but appears that in a Socialist Society—others (namely the Corporate/Governmental Intelligencia) has the power to decide on our behalf what constitutes good living.  Obviously, the choice to live austerely in the desert and contemplate truth, like the early Christian monastics known as “The Desert Fathers” would be off limits/impermissible.  I suppose “living well” means buying at shopping malls, living in government/corporate allocated housing which will be awarded based on the degree of your conformity with government/corporate policy—whatever that is—which determines whether you have or have not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble.”

Getting to these conclusions and understanding what’s going on has been a long and fairly painful process…..

       It is still less than ten years since, on my son Charlie’s tenth birthday, California Attorney Deborah S. Gershon, then Vice-President and General Counsel of AAMES Home Loan, Inc., informed me that AAMES could not modify any Home Loans because the notes at all been pooled and securitized.  Following up, I now find that Deborah S. Gershon (according to her profile with the California State Bar) is employed by and affiliated with another subprime lender: “Signature Group Holdings, Inc.” (owner of “Signature Capital Advisers, LLC, Fremont Credit Corporation and Fremont Investment & Loan Bank of California).  This is very interesting because Fremont Investment & Loan went through bankruptcy reorganization a couple of years ago as a direct result of some early “foreclosure crisis” litigation in Massachusetts relating to predatory lending in the sub-prime field.  See, e.g., http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/452/452mass733.html (452 Mass. 733, 2008) and also, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s press release on her $10MM settlment http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagopressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Cago&b=pressrelease&f=2009_06_09_fremont_agreement&csid=Cago   In short, Deborah S. Gershon has dedicated her life to the securitization of mortgages and related financial and legal endeavors.  It is apparently a very good business, and a very good line of work.  Those who had the foresight to join in that movement deserve the same respect as those who saw that the Bolsheviks were destined to rule Russia after the 1917 Revolution, that Mao Tse-Tung would triumph over Chiang Kai-shek (aka Jiǎng Jièshí or Jiǎng Zhōngzhèng in Mandarin), and that Saigon would ultimately fall to Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam (for the Vietnamese aftermath, seehttp://www.eng.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/eng/news/default.aspx?cat_id=513&news_id=12053#content “Scientific seminar on President Ho Chi Minh and the road to national salvation”).

AAMES was a pioneer in home equity loans, starting an advertising program in the late 1970s (Carter Administration) which included some fairly interesting and or amusing ads, see for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjTzEzNT7_M&NR=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJgB335zLfc&NR=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp5STpiAwt0.  AAMES is thus one of the earliest criminal enterprises which insinuated the concept of Easy Home Credit through the Yellow Pages into the American Consciousness as a vehicle of expanding credit regardless of productivity and wealth or REAL need—and AAMES’ was a mover in reshaping Federal and State laws to allow for the extension of such loans and the consequent expropriation of homes without due process of law.  

In one sense, the American people bear full responsibility for and complicity in this crisis up to the present time.  More certainly even than that the Germans voted Hitler and the Nazi Party into power in not one fluke but two successive national elections in 1932 and 1933, the Americans have repeated voted the supporters of easy credit and punitive and confiscatory policies leading to the expropriation of property into power.  The destruction of Germany under Hitler and during World War II, then was guaranteed by only two elections.  

The Americans have been voting soft-sell corporate socialists into power continuously for 76 years since 1932, with increasingly express enthusiasm since at least 1970 (the last “real” anti-communists to receive any electoral votes for the Presidency were Barry Goldwater in 1964 and George Wallace in 1968).  The election of 2008 saw the first election of the first avowedly, admittedly socialist President in U.S. History, and major magazine articles discussed his commitment to socialism with fanfare as “Cover” articles, but little actual controversy.  And the greatest irony was that there was not one IOTA of difference between the “avowedly socialist” policies of President Barack Hussein Obama and the “Conservative Republican” policies of George Walker Bush—Obama has yet to introduce a single policy without precedent in his predecessor’s administration more significant than his “cash for clunkers” program.  (“Obamacare” has actually been “in the works” since 1993 during Hillary’s first term in the White House….. yes, if Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky made anything clear about Bill Clinton, it was that if anyone was wearing the pants in the White House during the first term, it certainly was NOT him….and in fact Hillary’s support for health care reform back then was well-known and publicized).  

The highly controversial “individual mandate” for healthcare has been a socialist threat since the 1920s.  Samuel Gompers, an early American union leader, founder of the American Federation of Labor (A.F.L.) and contemporary of Eugene Debbs, argued against the individual mandate as early as January 22, 1917:

“Compulsory social insurance is in its essence undemocratic and it cannot prevent or remove poverty.  The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems, which are held to be not only impractical, but a menace to their rights, welfare, and their liberty.  Compulsory sickness insurance for workers is based on the theory that they are unable to look after their own interests and the state must use its authority and wisdom and assume the relation of parent and guardian.”

If Gompers could see the “individual mandate” coming in January of 1917, it is not so surprising that we now HAVE IT as enacted law today, in June 2011, despite considerable resistance in the courts and public mind.

And the general proposition that socialism would be imposed by stealth on the United States people without their realizing it has been around since at least 1947, when Harvard’s famed professor of history (and CUNY “Albert Schweitzer Professor of the Humanities”) wrote in an oft-quoted essay:

IF SOCIALISM (i.e. OWNERSHIP BY THE STATE OF ALL SIGNIFICANT MEANS OF PRODUCTION) is to preserve democracy, it must be brought about step by step in a way which will not disrupt the fabric of custom, law, and mutual confidence upon which personal rights depend.

         That is, the transition must be piecemeal; it must be parliamentary; it must respect civil liberties and due process of law Socialism by such means used to seem fantastic to the hardeyed melodramatists of the Leninist persuasion; but even Stalin is reported to have told Harold Laski recently [remember this was written in 1947] that it might be possible.  . . . There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals.  

        Socialism, then, appears quite practical within this frame of reference, as a longtime proposition.  Its graduate advance might well preserve law and order…. the active agents in effecting the transition will probably be, not the working classes, but some combination of lawyers, business and labor managers, politicians, and intellectuals, in the manner of the first New Deal.  

Quoted in John A. Stormer’s 1964 None Dare Call it Treason, Ch. XIII, Economics & Government: 199.

I submit to you that we find ourselves in a critical moment of history.  I oppose collectivism because I want to own my home and all its contents.  If people steal my home and all its contents under any pretext which violates my common law contractual and constitutional rights, I want them to be held liable as thieves and compelled either to restore my property to me or to compensate me very richly for the loss of the same.  I have in fact lost two homes and their valuable movable content to such “predatory lending practices”, once in Texas and once in California, both times in 2009.       I don’t think it is a coincidence that these criminal acts happened during the first full year of the first term of the first openly socialist President of the United States.  Expropriation and confiscation and destruction of private property are, in essence, a core part of the socialist way of life, mandated by the express terms of the Communist Manifesto of 1848.  

      How do you feel about your homes and property, if you still have them OR if you’ve already lost them?  Do you believe that those who oppose collectivism are routinely discredited by smears as I and so many others have been?  Do you believe that we should all accept that we “can’t fight city hall” as our philosophy and settle down to “exist” within the framework of a completely-controlled, federally dominated economy and culturally decimated way of life?  Do you feel that politicians should avoid genuine controversy, and focus on emotionally “hot” issues which are tangential to the choices we have to make that will define our own and our children’s way of life for hundreds of years to come?  

Should we all just look to our own individual interests or should we band together and fight until the laws which permit Collectivisation of our Society and the Confiscation and/or Expropriation of all that we own are repealed and or overturned?

NONE OF THESE THINGS WILL EVER OCCUR THROUGH INDIVIDUAL CASE-BY-CASE LITIGATION.  NONE OF US WILL EVER REALLY OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY AGAIN UNTIL ALL OF US CAN OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY and, within the words of the Fourth Amendment, know for sure that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” either by the Federal Government, the State Government, Local Sheriffs, or Privateering Real Estate Pirates Like Steven D. Silverstein and all the other marauders like him who operate “under color of law” in California and nationwide.

Rethinking the American Dream (CNN): is renting government owned foreclosed property the real future?

The bailout will permit the government sponsored gang of “Banksters” to keep control of all foreclosed property and rent it out to “we the people.”  Obamacare will provide mandatory health insurance, and if you don’t buy it, they will insure you go to jail.

So here, in brief summary, is the new America: (1) we rent and do not own our living places, (2) the government will provide food, shelter, and medicine from cradle to grave, (3) you can go to jail if you do not agree to participate in governmentally socialized medicine, (4) you must carry “real ID” at all times to move around the country and to prove your welfare compliance and the exact address your current government-sponsored housing, (5) you will not be allowed to own guns or express yourself in any way, shape, or form without governmental scrutiny.  Is this Freedom? God Bless America!

Renting: The new American dream?

By Paul R. La Monica, editor at large, CNNMoney.com

Apr 15th, 2010

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The American dream of home ownership has turned out to be the American nightmare for those who could never really afford a home in the first place.

Many borrowers are now in deep trouble as home prices have plummeted and the payments on bubble-era adjustable rate mortgages have shot up. Foreclosures are still continuing at an alarming pace.
rent or buy?

If the so-called Great Recession has taught us anything, it’s that buying a house is not a divine right. It’s a privilege to be earned only after you’ve saved up a nice chunk of cash for a down payment and are in a healthy enough financial position to keep making those monthly mortgage payments.

MORE AT CNNMONEY.COM

So for many consumers, renting is not necessarily the worst thing in the world. That’s worth keeping in mind now that some experts think home prices are close to bottoming and fixed mortgage rates are still fairly low.

Sure, we’ve all been taught that buying real estate is the smartest thing you can do in order to build wealth. That’s probably still true for the long haul.

But like with any investment, you should only make a purchase if you can afford the near-term hit that comes from doling out all that money now. Plus, you have to be able to stomach the possibility that the value of the house may actually fall over a short period.

And guess what? It seems many people are in fact coming to the realization that, for now at least, it makes more sense to rent instead of buy.

Jerry Davis, senior vice president of property operations for UDR (UDR), a Denver-basedreal estate investment trust (REIT) that owns and manages apartments, said that before the housing market collapsed, about 25% of the company’s renters that moved out of apartments did so because they were buying a home.

Now, only about 12% are moving out to purchase a home, and in some of the harder hit real estate markets, such as California, Davis said that fewer than 10% of movers are buying a house of their own.

“Even though prices have come down, you’re not seeing a big exodus of renters to buy homes,” Davis said. “Buying a house used to be the way to get rich, but people are afraid to jump back in.”

In addition, banks also appear to have learned lessons from the housing crash. Many remain reluctant to give mortgages to even the most credit-worthy consumers.

“It was Shakespeare who wrote that when home prices are declining, neither a borrower nor a lender be,” joked Edward Leamer, chief economist for the Ceridian-UCLA Pulse of Commerce Index and professor at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management.

Simply put, many consumers just aren’t buying the notion that the economy is getting better. For many, the stock market rally does not make their daily lives any easier. Consumers are more interested in the job market improving than the Dow or S&P 500 hitting highs.

“This is a frugal recovery. People are more reluctant to buy homes as they would in a normal recovery,” Leamer said. “If you don’t have a job or are worrying about your job, you’re not going to buy a home. That’s the ultimate statement of optimism about the future.”

Add that up and it’s reasonable to expect a rental boom that could last for some time. That’s not lost on Wall Street. Shares of UDR, for example, are up 20% this year.

Other apartment REITs have also surged this year and an analyst at RBC Capital Markets upgraded UDR, BRE Properties (BRE), Camden Properties Trust (CPT) and Apartment Investment and Management (AIV) last week, citing their growth potential.

Thomas Toomey, CEO of UDR, said that favorable demographics will also probably drive more people to rent than buy. He pointed to the increasing number of retiring Baby Boomers who may look to downgrade from bigger houses to apartments.

He also said that record-high college enrollment levels are a boon for UDR and other apartment owners. Most recent college graduates, particularly those finding work in cities, are not in a position to buy a home.

Toomey added that cities are also interested in building more apartments closer to where people work for environmental reasons.

“So if you look toward the future, it’s not just demographics and people making a conscious decision of whether they can afford a home that will lead to more renters. Cities want more apartments for younger and older generations,” he said.

Of course, that’s exactly what you’d expect the head of a company that owns apartments to say. But I also agree with him. And I’m curious to hear what you think.

Neal Sankey speaks out against the Obamanation of the United States of America

At one time voters elected men of proven reputation. Above, Chief Justice Frederick Vinson administers the oath of office to Dwight Eisenhower as President Harry Truman (far left) looks on, 1953 – United Press. (c/o. Library of Congress)

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/19/and-they-always-told-us-to-question-authority/

Dec. 19, 2009) — For the past year and a half, I have worked endlessly for answers to questions that should have been voluntarily answered. Questions to which we, still, do not know the answers.

Just like this very day, we Americans seem, some reluctantly, to allow our Government to pass into law a Bill which no one has read and few have even seen, if in fact it even exists! —  Even though the Healthcare Reform Bill will control everyone’s ability to provide healthcare for themselves and even their loved ones — Unbelievable!

I also found it unbelievable that, back then (in 2008), we were about to elect a man to the Office of President of The United States who was actively concealing from us who he really was!  I still find that incredible!, and we still have not learned. The hypnotized masses remain at least partially hypnotized, although there may yet be signs of intelligent life.

It was so apparent that we were being very badly misguided by our mainstream Media, It was so obvious they were not going to do their job. It even became obvious that there were certain eligibility subjects that even the rightwing talk radio would not discuss, AND STILL WILL NOT!

I had to find out what was so taboo, and why.

They are all quick enough to tell us that we have “The Finest” Security Agencies…… “The Finest” FBI, CIA, POLICE, etc in the WORLD, yet here we were laying ourselves open to the ultimate subterfuge, and NO ONE WAS INVESTIGATING.

When I first started out on this quest in the last half of last year, there was much information out there to be found and plenty of places to look. Now, unfortunately, it is all scrubbed and corrupted beyond recognition. It is amazing what they have achieved, although certainly nothing to be proud of. Public records pages have been destroyed, articles hacked and erased, miles of blogs and even Public Record information has disappeared.  Bogus replacement pages have been inserted, diverters, root kits and viruses etc, it is horrendous. All in the cause of disrupting, confusing, or totally concealing THE TRUTH! Well I hope they are proud of what they have wrought upon us, it is getting worse daily!.

Hawaii is a good example, had experienced investigators gone there early on they would have been able to lay hands on those records without much effort, and there would have been lots of corroborative evidence available from other, independent sources around the Island. Municipal records and documents would still have been findable and so would people willing to talk. Not so now, the “Goons” have been there and done an excellent job.

What I really cannot understand, and what causes me personally so much pain, is the total lack of, what’s the FBI motto? “FIDELITY, BRAVERY and INTEGRITY”??  Well where has that gone?

Amongst Government, State, Federal and even City “OFFICIALS”……….. Almost NO-ONE, has stood up and fought for the side of INTEGRITY. Those few that are brave enough to stand up have been ridiculed and derided mercilessly.

I just do not understand this, where is the “guts” of the CIA, FBI, all the Police Agencies, don’t they CARE about the People, the Constitution, the Country?

There ARE, UNDOUBTEDLY, many “OFFICIALS” out there who know the answers to our many questions, so why do they not come forward? Don’t they recall who really employs them?  There are many who could find the answers and use evidence properly for the purpose of prosecution of those guilty in this horrific charade. WHY DON’T THEY, no guts?…. I cannot believe that but it sure looks that way at the moment. They, our previously entrusted “Officials”, can hear, see and feel, daily, the harm being caused by this gang of Chicago Thugs and their Marxist cronies, the UNELECTED Czars!

WHY ARE WE / THEY ALLOWING THIS TO CONTINUE??…..are we really backing away from their thuggery? We shall all be very sorry if that is the case.

I am quite sure that there IS, or certainly should be, sufficient material in the past “Confidential Files” of that crowd to bring this all out in the open.

WHATS UP WITH YOU GUYS?  From the Chief Justice on down, maybe you should all take a half day and re-read the CONSTITUTION, then re-read your Oaths of Office that you respectively took, think about why you are there. Maybe look directly at your children as you do it.

It is NOT to protect Mr. Obama and his cronies personally that you are in a position of Authority.  YOU are there to protect THE CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES and the OFFICE of the (lawful) PRESIDENCY. Don’t you really want to know whether your President is at least ELIGIBLE to do the job, now that you have seen what he can do, don’t you at least think his eligibility and his motivation are relevant factors.

If there still exist doubts as to where loyalties should lie, I would recommend an article,  “WHAT OATHS MEANT TO THE FRAMERS’ GENERATION:” A Preliminary Sketch by Judge William Enfield Professor of Law in the University of Arkansas. (See a review online.)

It is very clear to me that it is well past time some of these “elevated officials” did their job, lowered their haughty countenances and listened to “We the People,” READ what we have sent you and ASK some questions without derisively dismissing us as ignorant peasants.  — WE ARE NOT! as you will, perhaps, find.

It’s Not Just Obama, It’s the System (from the Tenth Amendment Center)

It’s Not Just Obama, It’s the System
by Timothy Baldwin

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/04/its-not-just-obama-its-the-system/

Let us assume for the moment that it became revealed that Barak Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States, proving that he was ineligible to be President of the United States. Ok, now what? Would Obama be removed from office? Perhaps. Then what? Joseph Biden would be our next President. Ok, then what? Would the United States be freer? Would the States and the people regain their sovereignty stolen by the federal government? Would America’s form of government revert back to its original nature and character of 1787? Would self-government, the consent of the governed, limited government and federalism once again become the guiding principles throughout these states united? Would the ideals and principles of freedom once again become popular, accepted and advanced by the people and their agents in government?

Since the Confederate States of America lost the war in 1865 against the union-destroying aggressions of Abraham Lincoln and his military, the federal government has egregiously encroached upon the powers and sovereignty of the people and the states respectively. Regulations, controls, taxation, deception, falsehoods, subterfuge, “bait and switch” have all been the norm. Thievery under “color of law” has been their modus operandi. Through myriad usurpations, all three branches of the federal government have suppressed and oppressed true freedom throughout these states. It has, through masquerade and fraud, turned our original federal form of government into a national, seemingly-all-powerful empire. It has overtaken virtually every major element of society. It has bribed (and in some cases, forced) corporations, churches, states and citizens into giving the federal government our own powers and resources, with the promise of giving them back, of course, at our expense and with their demands. The federal government has unjustifiably entangled itself in the affairs of foreign nations, corporate elites and bankster mobs. It owns major media, education institutions and religious minds across America. In essence, it has created a seemingly impenetrable matrix of fraud, deceit and corruption, Republic or Democrat in the White House notwithstanding.

Despite the well-intentioned efforts and thoughts of many in America who feel that removing Obama from the Presidency, based upon constitutional grounds (i.e. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4), will somehow restore freedom to America, this simply is not the case and entirely misses the true crux of the problem. Do not misunderstand what I am saying: most certainly the constitution should be followed, and we the people of the states and the state governments should insist on it. No one believes that more than I. However, this fact must be realized before freedom will ever show its face again in America: the federal government (and those who control it) is not salvageable; its usurpations and encroachments are treasonous; its blatant unconstitutional actions have put the people of these states in a state of war; and without true revolution, freedom will never be restored in America.

The federal government–and by current default, the states–operates under a system and form contrary to freedom as expressed in America’s Declaration of Independence. It operates under the form of government which history proves is the enemy of a free republic. It operates under the very form of government that our founders rejected in September 1787 and that the ratifiers of the constitution rejected thereafter. It operates under a top-down structure, whereby the states and the people are mere subjects and corporations of the centralized head–the very form our founding generation seceded from in 1776. Freedom’s current plight in America has little to do with Obama being illegitimate as the President and has everything to do with the people of the states being controlled by a governmental system we never created or approved.

Even a brief look at recent history will reveal the numerous examples where the people have attempted to hold the federal government accountable to the constitution. Yet, that same government is more powerful and corrupt than ever, and the people and states are weaker and more oppressed than ever. It would not matter in the slightest if Obama were removed and replaced with Biden, Pelosi, McCain, Bush, Clinton, Gingrich, Palin, Scarborough, or any other eligible President. A new President would no more change the form and system of the federal government than would pumping trillions of dollars of tax payer monies create a stable and sound economic system in America. Just as America’s paper currency (the dollar) is not backed by a solid foundation (e.g. gold-silver standard), so too the executive branch of the federal government is not backed by substantive principles of freedom.

Make no mistake about this: there has not been a United States President elected since 1861 that has advocated for the true principles of federalism and freedom, and both major political parties have only cemented and built upon the previous President’s legacy of federal power at the expense of the states and people. If you think that freedom will be restored because a Republican who claims to be pro-life, pro-family, or pro-business sits in the White House, you are mistaken. If you think that Obama’s true birth place being revealed will restore all that we have lost for over 100 years and will somehow decapitate the head of the beast (thereby granting victory to “conservative America”), think again.

Those who have controlled the federal system have shown their intent of ignoring, demeaning and contradicting the United States Constitution. They care nothing of it, and only lead us to believe they do just to get elected. As Nancy Pelosi laughed when recently being asked the question, “Does the constitution grant Congress the power to pass the national health care bill?”, she only illustrated both the latent and patent practice and philosophy the federal government has possessed for generations. Do we need any more evidence at this point to conclude that our federal government is unconstitutional in its actions, powers and intentions? I think not. The only question is, what do we do about it?

In 1776, the delegates from the colonies met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in attempts to rectify the unconstitutional political actions of their national government. Like many of us today, they knew the designs of their government to reduce them to submissive slaves; they knew their government overstepped the authority given them by the consent of the governed; they knew that their government had committed acts of “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” So, what did they decide to do? Replace their king with a new king? Use the court system to invalidate the illegal actions of the king? Use parliament to address their grievances to the king? Try to establish that the king was not of the hereditary lineage legally capable of being king? Wait until a new king would assume the throne to accomplish freedom? None of the above.

Instead, our founding generation secured the blessings of liberty by doing what all free peoples decided to do throughout history when confronted with the evident intents of tyrannical government: they became independent from the source of tyranny. They declared their natural right to govern themselves. They formed and constituted government by and on the consent of the governed. They ridded themselves of the entire system of the “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object [which evinced] a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.” They became independent and sovereign states!

You claim to love freedom: you do well. But freedom will never be restored by replacing Obama with Biden, nor will it be restored by establishing that Obama is not legally eligible to hold the executive office. You claim to love the constitution: you do well. But the constitution will never be restored until the principles, form and system it created are restored. You claim that Obama’s birth certificate is crucial in restoring freedom? Your thoughts are likely pure, but your focus is misplaced. There have been open and notorious unconstitutional actions forced upon us by the federal government over the past 140 years. What makes this particular issue the winning contestant in restoring freedom?

Moreover, where are those in the federal government also demanding what you claim is so crucial to restoring the constitution? Where are those in the federal government demanding that the federal government give the states and the people back their money and power? Where are those in the federal government demanding that the tenth amendment be adhered to? Where are those even considering running for a federal position who preach and practice concepts of federalism? Where is the federal judicial system that even understands what federalism is and is willing to contradict ninety years of court opinions and rulings that have virtually stripped states of their retained rights under the tenth amendment? Where are the federal political statesmen who proclaim that the federal government be resisted by the voice and the arm of the states, as Alexander Hamilton explained? The answer is, no where!

The questions that should be asked are the ones whose answers provide real solutions to restoring our Confederate Republic. The solutions sought should not be ones whose only end simply replaces one quarterback for another; yet all the while, their team continues to control us by insisting that we play their game by their rules in their (home) stadium with their referees, all of which are controlled by those sitting in the glass boxes overhead who smoke their cigars, drink their wine, play with their whores and laugh at us as we drudge through the game thinking that we are gaining ground when we lose only ten yards instead of twenty. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

Our methods of change are proven ineffectual, the expressed terms of the constitution notwithstanding. It is time for a different course of action–a course that has already been given to us by principle and practice. It is time that we the people of the states think in the pure political and philosophical terms that formed our country and secured our freedom in 1776. It is time that the states of this country reclaim what has been taken from us and to reignite the flames of independence and federalism which will cause freedom to burn brightly for us and our posterity for years to come.

Tim Baldwin is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also one of America’s foremost defenders of State sovereignty.  See his website.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,