Obama Repeals 5th Amendment
*please go to page 7 if this is not new to you.*
Government calls for inventory of all weopans at V.F.W. Posts including old muskets swords tanks and everything from WWII and Vietnam.
Link to source. www.infowars.com check front page to link to article
0
-
APF: License? We Don't Need No Stinking License!
Felix Barbour
Prison Planet.com
Friday, October 2, 2009
When the scene started to unfold in Hardin, Montana, my first reaction could best be described as an overwhelming feeling of despair. The thought that our worst fears were coming true so soon literally sent chills down my spine. Talk of foreign troops on American soil and secret, empty detention centers appeared to be taking shape before our very eyes. Scary stuff indeed.
But as the hours and days unfolded and more light was shined upon this story, it became less of a looming threat and more like an engrossing tabloid scandal.
One look at the Napoleonic Michael Hilton (or whatever one of the several aliases you've come to know him by) soft soaping the locals was reminiscent of some of the characters I'd met during my 17 years as a private investigator. I was occasionally employed to inquire into the backgrounds of a client's potential business partner(s) and over the years I developed a knack of "sizing-up" some of these slick operators into often stereotypical profiles.
Hilton was one such character. The very choice of a recognizably wealthy name for an alias sent up an immediate red flag. Then the other familiar flashy dresser driving expensive cars, staying in the priciest digs in town and throwing money around like so much confetti is essential to a good con. These things are meant to distract the masses from responsible business practice by mesmerizing them with "bread and circuses".
The curiosity about this guy led me to the web-site americanpolicegroup.com where I literally broke out in laughter. This thing looks like somebody's wet dream; a fantasy company one might create for a video game or a big screen adaptation of a comic book.
I mean look at those screen shots: Choppers coming out of an "Apocolypse Now" sunset? Soldiers in action poses with automatic pistols in each hand. Who are they trying to appeal to? 16 year olds? Certainly not serious clients looking for a company that practices restraint and professionalism. These images would best be suited on a poster advertising the next Quentin Tarantino flick.
Talk about ambitious. Not even "Blackwater" has the resources that this company claims to have. And the array of services that they offer is quite frankly absurd. The licensing, personnel and insurance alone would be on a scale that would make it impossible for this company to be kept under the radar so long or to rise out of nowhere so soon.
It was during this perusal that something occurred to me. In all the articles I have read, no one addressed the issue of the services they advertise and the licenses required for those services. I am very familiar with laws pertaining to Private Investigators and I know that the State of California is very strict with how a licensed private investigator conducts his business.
"American Police Force" is a California corporation and in order to advertise for investigative services in the State of California, one must be licensed and the licensee must advertise using the name that the license is issued under. I went to the website of www.bsis.ca.gov/online_services/verify_license.shtml. This is the website for the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS). They have a database that anyone can use to verify a license. You simply put in the name the company is advertising under and it will tell you whether that company is a licensed firm. As I suspected, no matches were found. They are not licensed to operate as a Private Investigator nor as a Security Operator (required to provide bodyguard services). I knew this would be the case going in because the State of California will not issue a license to a company that has the word "police" as part of its company name. Use of the word "police" in the context of any license is strictly forbidden by California State law.
On the contact page of "American Police Force" is the phone number (714) 647-3000. This is a Santa Ana, California number and is listed as their "West Coast Mainline". Providing this number for the purposes of inquiring about investigative services as they are advertised on the American Police Force website is a violation of California State law and punishable under the Private Investigator's Act which states:
"Unlicensed persons who represent themselves as licensed or act as private investigators are committing a misdemeanor and may be jailed for up to one year and fined $5,000."
As an added measure, I attempted to reach someone by phone at BSIS to do a verbal verification but found they were closed today (Oct. 2) in accordance with the Governor's furlough mandate.
I was able to file a complaint online at www.bsis.ca.gov/industries_regulated/uaau.shtml with the "Unlicensed Activity Action Unit" so they could follow up. I'm sure the more complaints filed will result in a better chance that this issue receives the attention it deserves.
Returning to the contact page of "American Police Force" also brought to my attention an "East Coast Mainline" phone number of (202) 379-4910. This is a Washington D.C. number. After some research I determined that responsibility for security and private investigator's licenses came under the jurisdiction of the "District of Columbia Security Officer's Manager's Branch". I phoned them at (202) 671-0500 and spoke with an Officer Francis who verified that "American Police Force" was not licensed to operate as a private investigation agency or as a security firm. She confirmed that if "American Police Force" was in fact advertising and offering investigative services under that name and directed inquiries to that Washington D.C. number, then they would be in violation of the law. She sounded very concerned and assured me that she would conduct inquiries into the matter "today". When I asked if she had heard of "American Police Force" or the scandal in Montana concerning them she said she had not.
The one conclusion I'm drawing from all this is that "American Police Force" is a scam of epic proportions. If, in fact, there is some larger entity driving this company from behind the scenes, it appears (at least to this observer) that they are an utterly incompetent, motley crew of bumbling con artists that may (at best) inspire an interesting screenplay along the lines of a low-budget "Ocean's 11"..except with a very ugly cast.
Almost time for the bus. Back in 2 days with a vengeance. Steve.0 -
Welcome back, Mr. Austin.
Though I have not responded in this thread, I check it whenever there is a new post, and I thank you for your efforts in putting these things before us.0 -
Thanks` Don,
Secession movement spreads well beyond Texas
By DAVE MONTGOMERY
dmontgomery@star-telegram.com
AUSTIN ?? As head of the Texas Nationalist Movement, Daniel Miller of Nederland believes it?_s time for the Lone Star State to sever its bond with the United States and return to the days when Texas was an independent republic.
"Independence. In our lifetime," Miller?_s organization proclaims on its Web site.
When Gov. Rick Perry suggested that some Texans might want to secede from the Union because they are fed up with the federal government, the remarks drew nationwide news coverage and became fodder for late-night comedians.
But to Texas separatists like Miller and Republican gubernatorial candidate Larry Kilgore of Mansfield, secession is no laughing matter. Nor is it exclusive to the nation?_s second-largest state.
Fanned by angry contempt for Washington, secession movements have sprouted up in perhaps more than a dozen states in recent years. In Vermont, retired economics professor Thomas Naylor leads the Second Vermont Republic, a self-styled citizens network dedicated to extracting the sparsely populated New England state from "the American Empire."
And on the other side of the continent, Northwestern separatists envision a "Republic of Cascadia" carved out of Oregon, Washington and the Canadian province of British Columbia.
While most Americans dismiss the breakaway sentiments, sociologists and political experts say they are part of a larger anti-Washington wave that is rapidly spreading across the country.
Challenging Washington
More commonplace are states?_ rights movements to directly challenge federal laws, a citizen revolt that one scholar says is unparalleled in modern times. Among the actions in which states are thumbing their nose at Washington:
?? Montana and Tennessee have enacted legislation declaring that firearms made and kept within those states are beyond the authority of the federal government. Similar versions of the law, known as the Firearms Freedom Act, have been introduced in at least four other states.
?? Arizona lawmakers will let voters decide a proposed state constitutional amendment that would opt the state out of federal healthcare mandates under consideration in Congress. The amendment will be placed on the November 2010 ballot. State Rep. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, said five other states considered similar versions of the amendment this year and at least nine others are expected to do so next year.
?? Nearly two dozen states have approved resolutions refusing to participate in the Real ID Act of 2005, which requires that driver?_s licenses and state ID cards conform to federal standards. A similar resolution was introduced in the 2009 Texas Legislature but died in committee.
A campaign called "Bring the Guard Home" is pushing legislation in 23 states that would empower governors to recall state National Guard units from Iraq on the premise that the federal law authorizing such deployments has expired. "It?_s gaining momentum, to say the least," said Jim Draeger, program manager for Peace Action Wisconsin. He said the initiative has a respectable chance of passing the Legislature in his state.0 -
I ask a favor. Being on dialup, post with more than 20 replies take forever to load, multipage threads are a killer. Think maybe you could start a new thread from time to time so it remains shorter, perhaps one page? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
BGHillbilly
Junior Member ; Turn off the signature lines. I too have dialup..the endless signatures are a nightmare.
BGHillbilly, I understand your dilemma, and I agree with Highball.
To turn off signatures, go to your "profile" in the top right corner of the page. Then on the bottom right it says, "View Signatures in Posts?:" change it to "NO" and the page should load TONS faster.
I like the information all being in one thread, so that when I go back to reference or look up something, it is easy to find.
Good to see you back Steve.0 -
Pennsylvania `Firearms Freedom Act' Legislation Introduced
Source: ammoland
Pennsylvania --(AmmoLand.com)- State Representative Sam Rohrer has introduced the "Firearms Freedom Act" (HB1988) for consideration in the state legislature. The bill is "An Act prohibiting certain firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition from being subject to Federal law or Federal regulation.":
"create the Pennsylvania firearms freedom act; to make certain findings regarding intrastate commerce; to prohibit federal regulation of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition involved purely in intrastate commerce in this state; to provide for certain exceptions to federal regulation; and to establish certain manufacturing requirements."
HB1988 currently has 48 additional co-sponsors, and according to FirearmsFreedomAct.com, is similar to bills recently enacted into law in both Montana and Tennessee.
While the bill seems to focus solely on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment's limit on the power of the federal government. It specifically states:
The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
Rohrer, in a recent letter to Pennsylvania House Members, addressed the issue of the commerce clause...read more here.
As reported earlier Michigan in now following in the steps of Montana's Firearms Freedom Act and Tennessee's Firearms Freedom Act. And recently - AmmoLand.com0 -
Good to be back. Thanks to all and sorry about the dial up. 0 -
Criminalizing Everyone
washingtontimes
By Brian W. Walsh
"You don't need to know. You can't know." That's what Kathy Norris, a 60-year-old grandmother of eight, was told when she tried to ask court officials why, the day before, federal agents had subjected her home to a furious search.
The agents who spent half a day ransacking Mrs. Norris' longtime home in Spring, Texas, answered no questions while they emptied file cabinets, pulled books off shelves, rifled through drawers and closets, and threw the contents on the floor.
The six agents, wearing SWAT gear and carrying weapons, were with - get this- the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Kathy and George Norris lived under the specter of a covert government investigation for almost six months before the government unsealed a secret indictment and revealed why the Fish and Wildlife Service had treated their family home as if it were a training base for suspected terrorists. Orchids.
That's right. Orchids.
By March 2004, federal prosecutors were well on their way to turning 66-year-old retiree George Norris into an inmate in a federal penitentiary - based on his home-based business of cultivating, importing and selling orchids.
Mrs. Norris testified before the House Judiciary subcommittee on crime this summer. The hearing's topic: the rapid and dangerous expansion of federal criminal law, an expansion that is often unprincipled and highly partisan.
Chairman Robert C. Scott, Virginia Democrat, and ranking member Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican, conducted a truly bipartisan hearing (a D.C. rarity this year).
These two leaders have begun giving voice to the increasing number of experts who worry about "overcriminalization." Astronomical numbers of federal criminal laws lack specifics, can apply to almost anyone and fail to protect innocents by requiring substantial proof that an accused person acted with actual criminal intent.
Mr. Norris ended up spending almost two years in prison because he didn't have the proper paperwork for some of the many orchids he imported. The orchids were all legal - but Mr. Norris and the overseas shippers who had packaged the flowers had failed to properly navigate the many, often irrational, paperwork requirements the U.S. imposed when it implemented an arcane international treaty's new restrictions on trade in flowers and other flora.
The judge who sentenced Mr. Norris had some advice for him and his wife: "Life sometimes presents us with lemons." Their job was, yes, to "turn lemons into lemonade."
The judge apparently failed to appreciate how difficult it is to run a successful lemonade stand when you're an elderly diabetic with coronary complications, arthritis and Parkinson's disease serving time in a federal penitentiary. If only Mr. Norris had been a Libyan terrorist, maybe some European official at least would have weighed in on his behalf to secure a health-based mercy release.
Krister Evertson, another victim of overcriminalization, told Congress, "What I have experienced in these past years is something that should scare you and all Americans." He's right. Evertson, a small-time entrepreneur and inventor, faced two separate federal prosecutions stemming from his work trying to develop clean-energy fuel cells.
The feds prosecuted Mr. Evertson the first time for failing to put a federally mandated sticker on an otherwise lawful UPS package in which he shipped some of his supplies. A jury acquitted him, so the feds brought new charges. This time they claimed he technically had "abandoned" his fuel-cell materials - something he had no intention of doing - while defending himself against the first charges. Mr. Evertson, too, spent almost two years in federal prison.
As George Washington University law professor Stephen Saltzburg testified at the House hearing, cases like these "illustrate about as well as you can illustrate the overreach of federal criminal law." The Cato Institute's Timothy Lynch, an expert on overcriminalization, called for "a clean line between lawful conduct and unlawful conduct." A person should not be deemed a criminal unless that person "crossed over that line knowing what he or she was doing." Seems like common sense, but apparently it isn't to some federal officials.
Former U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh's testimony captured the essence of the problems that worry so many criminal-law experts. "Those of us concerned about this subject," he testified, "share a common goal - to have criminal statutes that punish actual criminal acts and [that] do not seek to criminalize conduct that is better dealt with by the seeking of regulatory and civil remedies." Only when the conduct is sufficiently wrongful and severe, Mr. Thornburgh said, does it warrant the "stigma, public condemnation and potential deprivation of liberty that go along with [the criminal] sanction."
The Norrises' nightmare began with the search in October 2003. It didn't end until Mr. Norris was released from federal supervision in December 2008. His wife testified, however, that even after he came home, the man she had married was still gone. He was by then 71 years old. Unsurprisingly, serving two years as a federal convict - in addition to the years it took to defend unsuccessfully against the charges - had taken a severe toll on him mentally, emotionally and physically.
These are repressive consequences for an elderly man who made mistakes in a small business. The feds should be ashamed, and Mr. Evertson is right that everyone else should be scared. Far too many federal laws are far too broad.
Mr. Scott and Mr. Gohmert have set the stage for more hearings on why this places far too many Americans at risk of unjust punishment. Members of both parties in Congress should follow their lead.
Brian W. Walsh is senior legal research fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.0 -
Again and again and again, I will continue to repeat......Collectivism inevitably leads to totalitarianism. 0 -
ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense
gunowners.org
Friday, October 9, 2009
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has something to say to gun owners: "Own a gun; lose your coverage!"
Baucus' socialized health care bill comes up for a Finance Committee vote on Tuesday. We have waited and waited and waited for the shifty Baucus to release legislative language. But he has refused to release anything but a summary -- and we will never have a Congressional Budget Office cost assessment based on actual legislation. Even the summary was kept secret for a long time.
But, on the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill (which is still unnumbered) tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law -- nor the consequences. It simply says:
* "all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase coverage through (1) the individual market...";
* "individuals would be required to report on their federal income tax return the months for which they maintain the required minimum health coverage...";
* in addition to an extensive list of statutorily mandated coverage, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be empowered to "define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services..." within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting "required minimum health coverage."
ObamaCare and gun control
It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius' well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment -- she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas -- we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.
The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums. (What constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.) Don't be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on any American who owns "dangerous" firearms.
After all, insurers already (and routinely) drop homeowners from their policies for owning certain types of guns or for refusing to use trigger locks (that is, for keeping their guns ready for self-defense!). While not all insurers practice this anti-gun behavior, Gun Owners of America has documented that some do -- Prudential and State Farm being two of the most well-known.
The good news is that because homeowner insurance is private (and is still subject to the free market) you can go to another company if one drops you. But what are you going to do under nationalized ObamaCare when the regulations written by Secretary Sebelius suspend the applicability of your government-mandated policy because of your gun ownership?
All of this is in addition to something that GOA has been warning you about for several months . the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump your gun information into a federal database . a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to "encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records."
Remember, the federal government has already denied more than 150,000 military veterans the right to own guns, without their being convicted of a crime or receiving any due process of law. They were denied because of medical information (such as PTSD) that the FBI later determined disqualified these veterans to own guns.
Is this what we need on a national level being applied to every gun owner in America?
Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines -- and possibly more for a household with older teens. And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy -- something which was never at issue -- it doesn't prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.
ACTION: Contact your two U.S. Senators. Ask him or her, in the strongest terms, to vote against the phony Baucus bill.
You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your senators the pre-written e-mail message below.
Pre-written letter
Dear Senator:
You already know that the phony Baucus bill:
* Is predicated on $283 billion in phony "cuts" which have never, never ever been realized since a similar commitment to cut Medicare costs in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 -- and will never, never ever be realized under the Baucus bill;
* Requires massive numbers of Americans to have government-approved insurance which the CBO predicts will be more expensive than current policies;
* Refuses to provide a cost for these policies, making it almost certain that more and more Americans will find insurance beyond their reach;
* Has no legislative language and nothing but a CBO "guesstimate" of the cost and benefits, based on a summary.
On the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law -- nor the consequences. It does say that the "Secretary of HHS [Kathleen Sebelius] would be required to define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services..." within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting "required minimum health coverage."
This could spell trouble for gun owners.
It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius' well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment -- she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas -- I presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.
This is, of course, in addition to the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump my gun information into a federal database -- a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to "encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records."
Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines -- and possibly more for a household with older teens. And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy -- something which was never at issue -- it doesn't prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.
Please oppose the Baucus bill.
Sincerely,0 -
Originally posted by pickenup
Thank you Steve.
I am not going to comment on the article just yet.
Upon a bit of research, I found this...
Comments?
pickenup,
I find your care and diligence refreshing, I am very concerned about the process of constant little encroachments that interfere with gun rights. That said the mindlessness with which the more vociferous of the alarmists rises to the bait of every inferred attempt to "take our guns" is alarming in itself. A government that shamelessly plays to a people's simple minded fears is also quite alarming, the manipulation involved with keeping people alarmed so as to be able to raid the bank borders on criminal deceit. More people need to learn what you so obviously have, that every alarm needs to be diligently checked out before raising the flag without regard to accuracy.<br>
<br>
Again, good job! Perhaps the idea will rub off here and there0 -
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense
gunowners.org
Friday, October 9, 2009
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has something to say to gun owners: "Own a gun; lose your coverage!"
Baucus' socialized health care bill comes up for a Finance Committee vote on Tuesday. We have waited and waited and waited for the shifty Baucus to release legislative language. But he has refused to release anything but a summary -- and we will never have a Congressional Budget Office cost assessment based on actual legislation. Even the summary was kept secret for a long time.
But, on the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill (which is still unnumbered) tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law -- nor the consequences. It simply says:
* "all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase coverage through (1) the individual market...";
* "individuals would be required to report on their federal income tax return the months for which they maintain the required minimum health coverage...";
* in addition to an extensive list of statutorily mandated coverage, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be empowered to "define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services..." within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting "required minimum health coverage."
ObamaCare and gun control
It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius' well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment -- she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas -- we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.
The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums. (What constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.) Don't be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on any American who owns "dangerous" firearms.
After all, insurers already (and routinely) drop homeowners from their policies for owning certain types of guns or for refusing to use trigger locks (that is, for keeping their guns ready for self-defense!). While not all insurers practice this anti-gun behavior, Gun Owners of America has documented that some do -- Prudential and State Farm being two of the most well-known.
The good news is that because homeowner insurance is private (and is still subject to the free market) you can go to another company if one drops you. But what are you going to do under nationalized ObamaCare when the regulations written by Secretary Sebelius suspend the applicability of your government-mandated policy because of your gun ownership?
All of this is in addition to something that GOA has been warning you about for several months . the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump your gun information into a federal database . a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to "encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records."
Remember, the federal government has already denied more than 150,000 military veterans the right to own guns, without their being convicted of a crime or receiving any due process of law. They were denied because of medical information (such as PTSD) that the FBI later determined disqualified these veterans to own guns.
Is this what we need on a national level being applied to every gun owner in America?
Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines -- and possibly more for a household with older teens. And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy -- something which was never at issue -- it doesn't prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.
ACTION: Contact your two U.S. Senators. Ask him or her, in the strongest terms, to vote against the phony Baucus bill.
You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your senators the pre-written e-mail message below.
Pre-written letter
Dear Senator:
You already know that the phony Baucus bill:
* Is predicated on $283 billion in phony "cuts" which have never, never ever been realized since a similar commitment to cut Medicare costs in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 -- and will never, never ever be realized under the Baucus bill;
* Requires massive numbers of Americans to have government-approved insurance which the CBO predicts will be more expensive than current policies;
* Refuses to provide a cost for these policies, making it almost certain that more and more Americans will find insurance beyond their reach;
* Has no legislative language and nothing but a CBO "guesstimate" of the cost and benefits, based on a summary.
On the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law -- nor the consequences. It does say that the "Secretary of HHS [Kathleen Sebelius] would be required to define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services..." within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting "required minimum health coverage."
This could spell trouble for gun owners.
It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius' well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment -- she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas -- I presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.
This is, of course, in addition to the certainty that minimum acceptable policies will dump my gun information into a federal database -- a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for a study to "encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health records."
Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines -- and possibly more for a household with older teens. And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy -- something which was never at issue -- it doesn't prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.
Please oppose the Baucus bill.
Sincerely,
Steve,
I find some of the line items referenced to be interesting and warranting further scrutiny. I am mainly interested in not whether you are opposed to executive stipulations such as refusal of care if you have a loaded gun in the household, those are details that can easily be addressed for change. Are you opposed to Obamacare in general and don't want universal healthcare at all?<br>
<br>
Do you want a universal healthcare and a government option? I currently pay $1400 a month for my wife's and my Kaiser. We are hammered with copays and I worry that procedures for a heart attack or cancer would ultimately be denied because we couldn't pay the copays or we would be denied for one of the many reasons used by the industry to save the cost of expensive surgeries and care. The only thing that gets hurt is the healthcare industries profit margin which is far too high and operates with far too much administration costs (CEO salaries) compared to medicare. Savings derived from those overinflated profits are what helps pay for a universal system. It will adapt.0 -
Wood guru, you don't have to quote the entire article. It takes up allot of space. I post'em as I see'em. Columns are written daily that fall through the cracks and I post them in here. As for an opinion on the subject, I'm opposed to most of the last 20 years or so.
Steve0 -
Schwarzenegger signs ammunition sales bill
redding
By Ryan Sabalow
Posted October 12, 2009
Schwarzenegger today signed into law a bill that requires buyers of handgun ammunition to leave thumbprints and detailed personal information with registered ammo sellers, as well as put restrictions on online bullet sales.
"Assembly Bill 962 reasonably regulates access to ammunition and improves public safety without placing undue burdens on consumers," Schwarzenegger said in a letter explaining his decision.
The new restrictions will take effect Feb. 1, 2011.
Authored by Assemblyman Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, the bill bans direct shipping to Californians who buy bullets via mail order or over the Internet.
Instead, any ammo they buy would need to be picked up at a licensed handgun ammunition dealer, similar to the way guns are currently bought and sold.
The bill doesn't require a waiting period to pick up ammunition as there is when purchasing firearms. All handgun ammunition must be kept behind store counters.
Ammunition that can be used in both pistols and rifles - like the popular .22 caliber round used by target shooters and small game hunters - fall under the new restrictions.
The bill also would require that those purchasing ammunition provide photo ID and a thumbprint.
The information would be kept on file and made available to law enforcement agencies.
Around a dozen gang-plagued cities in California have enacted similar local ordinances, geared to keep gang members from buying ammunition or tracking them down when they do.
De Leon spokesman Dan Reeves has said the local laws have helped police track down 200 criminals who bought handgun ammunition. Some were drug dealers and many had large caches of illegal guns or explosives.
Under the law, anyone who knowingly sells handgun ammunition to a felon would be committing a misdemeanor. The law also would make it a misdemeanor for documented gang members to possess handgun ammunition.
The bill has been criticized by gun rights advocates, online ammunition retailers and Republicans.
John Moffett, a clerk at Jones' Fort gun store in Redding, said today that the bill will put an extra regulatory hurdle on consumers and ammunition dealers.
"It's going to be a hassle on both ends," Moffett said.
Though Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill in 2004, saying the federal government's attempt at similar legislation proved to be "unworkable and offered no public safety benefit," the governor today said that De Leon's bill struck a fair balance between public safety and didn't put undue burdens on bullet vendors and firearms dealers0 -
Pittsburgh: Beta Test for a Police State
infowars
Kurt Nimmo
October 14, 2009
The G-20 police response in Pittsburgh was a beta test. "We spent months getting ready for this and it was a lot of preparation, but we'll see the dividends of that for a long time to come," Public Safety Director Michael Huss told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
In other words, Pittsburgh is not going to stand-down now that the G-20 has departed. The "dividend" is that it will remain a militarized police state.
All the Homeland Security training was not for naught. Deputy police Chief Paul Donaldson said the training involved 716 of the force's 872 officers as well as 254 officers from the Allegheny County police, county Sheriff's Office, Port Authority Transit and University of Pittsburgh. Cops were given riot gear and the latest anti-First Amendment technology, including the now infamous LRAD. "A federal grant of $200,000 allowed police to buy four Long Range Acoustic Devices, or LRADs, which were used to disperse protesters," the newspaper reports.
During the G-20, there were 6,000 heavily armed and outfitted cops on the street in response to 5,000 demonstrators, the vast majority of them peaceful.
Pittsburgh is the poster child for the police state. In 2007, the cops rolled out a 20-ton armored truck with a blast-resistant body, armored rotating roof hatch and gunports in response to street crime and violence. The $250,000 armored vehicle was paid for with Homeland Security money.
"With scores of police agencies large and small, from Lexington, Ky., to Austin, Texas, buying armored vehicles at Homeland Security expense, some criminal justice experts warn that their use in fighting everyday crime could do more harm than good and represents a post-9/11, militaristic turn away from the more cooperative community-policing approach promoted in the 1990s," writes Ramit Plushnick-Masti. "Law enforcement agencies say the growing use of the vehicles, a practice that also has its defenders in the academic field of criminal justice, helps ensure police have the tools they need to deal with hostage situations, heavy gunfire and acts of terrorism."
In Pittsburgh during the G-20, there were no terrorists - unless you consider citizens opposed to globalism and the world government schemes of the banksters terrorists. No hostages were taken, no drug-running gang-bangers were shooting at the police.
All around the country local law enforcement is looking to the feds to provide high-tech military hardware. San Francisco wants $125,000 for an armored vehicle and $200,000 for a mobile command vehicle. Sparks, Nevada wants $600,000 to purchase a "live fire" house its SWAT team can shoot up, and another $420,000 for a SWAT armored vehicle. Gary, Indiana wants $750,000 for a host of "modernization" upgrades to its police department, including "sub-automatic machine guns" and an armored vehicle. Ottawa, Illinois (population: 18,307) wants $60,000 to purchase, among other things, five "tactical entry rifles."
"Why is our civilian law enforcement in an arms race, and who are they arming against? Why us of course. What use to be six to ten man SWAT teams are now platoon size of 25 if not more. The City Police, Sheriffs etc, are armed to the teeth and resemble SS units, this is a way to circumvent Posse Comitatus in the coming Martial Law," writes Open Dialogue Government. "They are not rounding up illegal aliens or criminal street gangs who reek havoc on our country. They are here for us."
In addition to Homeland Security money, cities want to use "stimulus" funds to get up to speed on the high-tech surveillance state. The following cities requested stimulus funds to supplement, initiate, or upgrade public surveillance camera systems: Brockton, Massachusetts; Buffalo, New York; Burnsville, Minnesota; Caguas, Puerto Rico; Cerritos, California; Columbia, South Carolina; Compton, California; Homestead, Florida; Hormigueros, Puerto Rico; Indianapolis, Indiana; Inglewood, California; Lewiston, Maine; Lorain, Ohio; Lynn, Massachusetts; Marion, Ohio; Merced, California; New Rochelle, New York; North Richland Hills, Texas; Oakland, California; Orange, New Jersey; Orem, Utah; Orlando, Florida; Pembroke Pines, Florida; Ponce, Puerto Rico; Riverdale, Illinois; Shreveport, Louisiana; Silver City, New Mexico; Sumter, South Carolina; Tallahassee, Florida; Warren, Ohio; and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. (see Any Taxes You Pay Can and Will Be Used Against You.)
And you thought the "stimulus" was about jobs and the economy.
The in-your-face "militarization of domestic law enforcement is now coupled with the military's own rapid development and deployment of `non-lethal weapons' systems which inevitably, will be 'shared' with civilian police for `crowd control.' As with data mining, DHS spy-satellite surveillance, blanket CCTV coverage of American cities, illegal FBI deployment of infiltrators and provocateurs, `mission creep' by the Pentagon into civil affairs are signs that stronger measures to blunt the crisis may be in the offing," Tom Burghardt wrote in October, 2008.
Add to the list the deployment of combat-hardened troops in the U.S. and numerous "exercises" for "emergency preparedness" and we have the finishing touches on a police state ready to be unleashed provided the appropriate staged terror attack or - more likely - during the coming unrest in response to the unraveling economy.
Homeland security is officially defined by the National Strategy for Homeland Security as "a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur." It has superseded that mission.
In fact, Homeland Security was never about al-Qaeda or external terrorist attacks. It was from day one about the American people, specifically those Americans outlined in the DHS report on "rightwing extremism" - advocates of the Second Amendment and those of us who are demanding a return to a constitutional republic and a drastically scaled back federal government.0 -
The States Can Stop Obama
infowars
Sheriff Richard Mack
October 14, 2009
By now we have all heard the cliches and seen the posters from the "Tea Parties" espousing freedom, less government, and perhaps most of all, how the federal government had better back off trying to shove their national healthcare down our otherwise healthy throats. The truth of the matter is all the slogans of "Don't Tread On Me" or "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" or "We're Mad As Hell And We're Not Taking It Anymore," don't mean a thing when compared to reality; the real and actual answer to all the protests, marches, and outrage. The answer is in our own backyards! The States can stop every bit of it! That's right, the individual States can stop "Obamacare" and all other forms of out-of-control federal government mandates and "big brother" tactics. If Arizona, Hawaii, New Hamshire, Texas, etc. want nothing to do with National Healthcare as proposed by Barack Obama or Congress, then all they have to do is say "No!"
If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate.
For you skeptics who think the States could no more do this than fly to the moon, let's look at the law. First, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate and supreme law of the land. More specifically, the Bill of Rights was established, because some of our Founding Fathers, feared that the Constitution did not go far enough in restricting or limiting the central government. Hamilton was one of a select few who wanted a bigger and powerful federal government. However, several key states and powerful delegates such as Patrick Henry, said they would not support the formation of a new government if the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, a supreme law to establish basic and fundamental human rights that could never, for all future American generations, be violated, altered or encroached upon by government. So the Framers of our Constitution came up with ten; ten God-given freedoms that would forever be held inviolable by our own governments.
The last of these basic foundational principles was the one to protect the power, sovereignty, and the autonomy of the States; the Tenth Amendment. This amendment and law underscores the entire purpose of the Constitution to limit government and forbids the federal government from becoming more powerful than the "creator." Let's be very clear here; the States in this case were the creator. They formed the federal government, not the other way around. Does anyone believe rationally that the States intended to form a new central government to control and command the States at will? Nothing could be further from the truth. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution details what duties the federal government will be responsible for under our new system of "balanced power." Anything not mentioned in Article 1, Sec. 8, is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Tenth Amendment) Hence, the federal government was not allowed creativity or carte blanche to expand or assume power wherever and whenever they felt like it. The feds had only discrete and enumerated and very limited powers. Omnipotency was the last thing the Founding Fathers intended to award the newly formed federal government. They had just fought the Revolutionary War to stop such from Britain and their main concern was to prevent a recurrence here in America.
In perhaps the most recent and powerful Tenth Amendment decision in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mack/Printz v U.S. that "States are not subject to federal direction." But today's federal Tories argue that the "supremecy clause" of the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government is supreme and thus, trumps the States in all matters. Wrong! The supremacy clause is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the Supreme Court stated once and for all that the only thing "supreme" is the constitution itself. Our constitutional system of checks and balances certainly did not make the federal government king over the states, counties, and cities. Justice Scalia opined for the majority in Mack/Printz, that "Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other." So yes, it is the duty of the State to stop the Obamacare "incursion." To emphasize this principle Scalia quotes James Madison, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The point to remember here is; where do we define the "sphere" of the federal government? That's right; in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and anything not found within this section belongs to the States or to the People. So where does health care belong? The last place it belongs is with the President or Congress. It is NOT their responsiblity and the States need to make sure that Obama does not overstep his authority.
Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Supreme Court meant, let's take one more look at Mack/Printz. "This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other." What? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, has as a "structural protection of liberty" that States will keep the federal government in check? No wonder it was called a system of "checks and balances." The States (and Counties) are to maintain the balance of power by keeping the feds within their proper sphere.
So do the States have to take the bullying of the federal government? Not hardly! The States do not have to take or support or pay for Obamacare or anything else from Washington DC. The States are not subject to federal direction. They are sovereign and "The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions." (Mack/Printz) Which means the States can tell national healthcare proposals or laws to take a flying leap off the Washington monument. We are not subject to federal direction!
In the final order pursuant to the Mack/Printz ruling Scalia warned, "The federal government may neither, issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty." It is rather obvious that nationalized healthcare definitely qualifies as a "federal regulatory program."
Thus, the marching on Washington and pleas and protests to our DC politicians are misdirected. Such actions are "pie in the sky" dreaming that somehow expects the tyrants who created the tyranny, will miraculously put a stop to it. Throughout the history of the world such has never been the case. Tyrants have never stopped their own corrupt ways. However, in our system of "dual sovereignty," the States can do it. If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate. Doing so is what States' Rights and State Sovereignty are all about.0 -
Grayson calls on American public to `Unmask the Fed'
Kathleen Miller
Raw Story
October 15, 2009
infowars
Florida Democrat U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson wants Americans to help him block Congress from confirming the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to his second term unless he hands over documents relating to the bailouts of financial institutions, including the rescue of Bear Stearns.
In the "Unmask the Fed" campaign, Grayson calls on constituents to sign petitions demanding that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke "come clean" before senators re-confirm his appointment to the helm of the Federal Reserve.
Grayson wants access to the Bear Stearns rescue paperwork as well as the details of which financial institutions received $1.2 trillion in bailout money, how much each institution received, and what was promised in return. He's also seeking Fed documents that discuss the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch merger, transcripts of Open Market Meeting minutes, and the terms and conditions of Fed transactions not reflected in balance sheets from the past three years.
"[T]he Senate should know who got the $2 trillion the Federal Reserve has lent out over the last two years," the petition reads. "Only then will the Senate be able to judge whether he should keep his job."
Grayson and Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul sent Sen. Chris Dodd, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, a letter last week asking him to postpone Bernanke's re-confirmation hearings until the public has access to more information about the Federal Reserve.
"Without such an understanding, it is impossible to know whether Chairman Bernanke is fit to serve another term and fulfill the Federal Reserve's dual mandate to ensure price stability and full employment," the letter to Dodd read.
It continued: "Today, big banks are being bailed out and have a substantially lower cost of capital through an implicit government backstop even as Americans themselves are seeing their pay cut."
There are separate bills that would authorize an audit of the Federal Reserve that are picking up speed in both the House and the Senate, with bi-partisan support in both chambers. Paul sponsors the House version of that legislation, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is behind the Senate measure.
"The Federal Reserve has got to understand that this money does not belong to the Federal Reserve. It belongs to the American people," Sanders told Raw Story in an email from his spokesman. "As long as the Federal Reserve is allowed to keep the information on their loans secret, we will never know the true financial condition of the banking system."0 -
Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord
fightinwordsusa
October 15, 2009
The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.
A detailed summary of Monckton's presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen's focused attention.
Here were Monckton's closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:
At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they're going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won't sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word "government" actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, "climate debt" - because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. We've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word "election" or "democracy" or "vote" or "ballot" occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn't appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it - Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He's going to sign it. He'll sign anything. He's a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he'll sign it.
[laughter]
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can't resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties - And because you'll be the biggest paying country, they're not going to let you out of it.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I've read the treaty. I've seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.
But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire - it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.
So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:
Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They're trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that's his agenda and he'll do it.
I don't minimize the difficulty. But on this subject - I don't really do politics, because it's not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don't want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.
Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it's signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I - I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I -
I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.
I don't believe it until I see it. . Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?
I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn't born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he's signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he's signed it and ratified it - your Senate ratifies it - you're bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won't be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they've worked out is this - and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that - and here you have a point - is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.
Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.
Edited to add @ 8:31 am:
Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton's assessment of the new entity's purpose:
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
World Government (heading added)
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention's financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, c a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
c The Convention's facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; c a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].
Guess this tears it. Check the link to find the original article. It has multiple links.0 -
Excellent.
I hope they come after us hammer and tong. May the best men win.0 -
May the best men win.
[/quote]0 -
Lord Christopher Monckton, Oct 14, 2009. This is the whole speech from Bethel University. He covers every topic like it is. Worth the watch. Warning! Some dry british humor.
youtube
The time grows closer.
Sidenote, there is a link at the first of the video and you can watch the powerpoint presentation at the same time.
If you can't get the presentation, try updating acrobat.0 -
2 troy ounce silver Lakotas to the first person who can find and post the Coppenhagen treaty that takes place next month. This is the fall of The Republic. If this "treaty", that places carbon taxes on all of us gets signed it will render our Constitution null and void. Turn off your tv and take to the streets. In 2 years you will not recognize our homeland. Take this information to your churches and your communities; mail it to everyone on your list.
The Time Is Now0 -
I'll just post a link, the legal text is quite LONG.
If that qualifies, save your silver. [;)]
http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/Publications/WWFBinaryitem12616.pdf0 -
Sweet. Thanks Pickenup. Now it's time to interpret, back in a week or so. [}:)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
Sweet. Thanks Pickenup. Now it's time to interpret, back in a week or so. [}:)]
Thanks for doing the interp, from what I saw it referenced a bunch of previous Ugly Koyote papers that most of us have not seen either.0 -
U.S. Constitution vs. U.N. Treaty
infowars
Cassandr Anderson
Infowars
October 21, 2009
Lord Monckton of England, who is a man made global warming (MMGW) critic, recently made a speech regarding a climate change treaty (Copenhagen Treaty) which he believes Obama will sign at the UNFCCC in December 2009 (1). According to Lord Monckton this treaty will subjugate America to Communist rule and will transfer American wealth to third world countries.
While Monckton is a hero for promoting truth about MMGW, and claims to have been involved in the funding of a lawsuit against showing Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" movie to British school children that resulted in a mandatory disclaimer of the movie when shown, Monckton has misunderstood a few facts about the Copenhagen Treaty.
Firstly, he has understated the necessity of getting into action now. The 'sleeping giant' of the American masses must awaken now! (See the action list below). He also failed to mention in this clip that this IS Agenda 21 Sustainable Development being imposed in real time.
Secondly, he blames the proposed Communist One World Government upon those who "piled over the Berlin Wall", when, in fact, the culpability lies squarely in the lap of the usual suspects- the bankers: this is a UN inspired treaty and the global warming lies are based on the UN's IPCC corrupt science (remember that the Rockefellers fund and design most UN programs). Also, the Rothschilds have set up a carbon credit banking scheme (2). Follow the money.
Lastly, Lord Monckton unfortunately mistated that treaties supersede the Constitution and that once Obama signs this treaty, there is no recourse against the treaty other than agreement in partisan between all 50 states. This is not true, as the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Article IV, paragraph 2, reads as follows:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
The Supremacy Clause has been misinterpreted and twisted to mean that treaties supersede the Constitution. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has a hand in accrediting schools; it's now wonder that many "well educated" attorneys misinterpret the Constitution (3). It is also interesting to note that the Rockefellers have debased American education and history as outlined in G. Edward Griffin's shocking interview with the late Senator, Norman Dodd: http://www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html .
As a result, the Supremacy Clause is misunderstood and has yet to be clearly defined, though many have tried to get a Supreme Court decision on this matter. Constitutional expert, former Sheriff Richard Mack is emphatic that treaties are subservient to the Constitution, and that many lawyers are misinformed.
Further proof that the Constitution outranks treaties can be extrapolated from the Supreme Court decision Reid v Covert, which states, "This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty", althought the ruling was applied to an executive agreement, not a treaty.
Knowledge about the global warming scam and our Constitution are the way out of this trap that has been set for us. It will be much easier to stop this treaty based on lies now, rather than later. The future is in your hands; it's time to stand up for our country by doing the following:
1. E-mail Sheriff Mack's video and this article to your family and friends.
2. Then e-mail the same to your National and State Legislators, including your Governor.
3. Share this information with everyone you know, especially attorneys.
4. Sign the petition to prevent Obama from signing away our country:
www.globalwarmingscam.com
5. You can download great information for politicians about Agenda 21 Susutainable Development at this website: www.freedomadvocates.org0 -
They Can't Push Us Around Forever
infowars
State Rep. Susan Lynn
Tenth Amendment Center
October 22, 2009
We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
It is for those purposes that this letter addresses your honorable body.
In 1776, our founding fathers declared our freedom in the magnificent Declaration of Independence; our guide to governance. They established a nation of free and independent states. Declaring that the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens' their natural rights. The Constitution authorizes the national government to carry out seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the powers of several of the ensuing amendments.
At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the "Virginia Plan" to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states' accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states. However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.
The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.
Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.
To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress' authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.
Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.0 -
Foreign Cops Take Part in "Domestic Terrorism" Drill in California
Kurt Nimmo
infowars
October 23, 2009
Earlier in the week, Chris Matthews attempted to portray Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers as a paranoid conspiracy nut for suggesting the presence of foreign troops in the United States.
Matthews, as a supposed news anchor, should read the newswires instead of relying on his CIA Mockingbird script. But then, of course, MSNBC is not interested in reporting the news.
On October 22, two days after his disgraceful attack on the Oath Keepers, The Oakland Tribune reported on just that - foreign troops inside the United States.
"Armed officers in full battle gear will be scattered throughout the Bay Area this weekend, rescuing hostages, fighting bank robbers and quelling terrorism at the Oakland Airport, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, the NASA Ames Research Center and 22 other high profile sites," writes Sophia Kazmi. "For the first time in the three-year history of the Alameda County Sheriff's Department-sponsored exercise, there will be a foreign team of officers taking part and international observers. An eight-member team representing the French National Police's Research, Assistance, Intervention, and Dissuasion unit will compete" (emphasis added).
French police are technically speaking not troops. However, the French RAID unit - Recherche Assistance Intervention Dissuasion (Research, Assistance, Intervention, Deterrence) - is a militarized SWAT team that uses special forces techniques. It is accused of triple tapping a mentally disturbed man who took school children hostage in 1993. RAID killed the man while he slept.
It is interesting to note how terrorism is conflated with bank robbery in the article. It's part of a federal effort to characterize all crime - from marijuana possession to bank robbery - as terrorism.
"There will be the sound of gunfire and blasts - all part of Urban Shield, one of the biggest domestic terrorism drills in the country. The $1 million, two-day event begins Saturday and will test the training of 27 crack teams from throughout the state, elsewhere in the country and the world," the Tribune article reports.
Urban Shield is funded by the Department of Homeland Security and at least one large corporation - BAE, a death merchant based in Britain. BAE stands accused of paying millions of dollars in bribes to secure contracts in Africa and Eastern Europe.
BAE's "generous contributions" to Urban Shield will get the residents of Alameda County acclimated to the "sound of gunfire and blasts" and the presence of militarized cops "in full battle gear " roaming the streets of the Bay Area this weekend.0 -
The Fall of The Republic
Directed by Alex Jones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LPNRI_6T8
2 hrs 24 min runtime. Worth every minute.0 -
Freedom's Destruction through Constitutional Deconstruction
Timothy Baldwin
infowars
October 26, 2009
During the Constitutional Convention, from May to September 1787, delegates from the colonies were to gather together for the express purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation to form a "more perfect union" (NOT a completely different union!). The men that met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were under direct and limited orders from their states to attend the Federal Convention explicitly to preserve the federation and State rights and to correct the errors of the existing federal government for the limited purposes of handling foreign affairs, commerce among the states and common defense.
Yet, during that private and secret convention, there were men who proposed that a national system be established in place of their current federal system, destroying State sovereignty in direct contradiction to their orders. (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, vol. 1, 2nd ed., [Philadelphia, PA, JB Lippincott, 1891], 121) Of course, the public was not aware of this fact until years after the ratification of the Constitution, when the notes taken in the convention were printed and released to the public.
Indeed, those who proposed such a national system of government (e.g., Alexander Hamilton, John Dickinson and James Madison) would not have the people of the states aware of this proposal for fear of outright rejection of the Constitution and for fear that they would remove their delegates from the convention altogether, giving no chance of success for the ratification of a new Constitution. It was hush-hush for good reason. In fact, Alexander Hamilton was so tactful on the subject that he did not even present his nationalistic notions as a constitutional proposal, but only as his ideas of what America should be. (Ibid., 123) Despite these proposals, in the end, it was a federalist system that prevailed-a union of states and not a union of people, whereby the states retained complete and absolute sovereignty over all matters not delegated to the federal government. The states were indeed co-equal with the federal government. So, what was it about the national system that was rejected during the convention?
The most notable proposal reveals the underlying foundation for all national principles: that is, the national government possesses superior sovereignty to force the states to submit to the laws made by the national government and to negate any State law it deems repugnant to the articles of union. This supreme power was proposed (but rejected) as follows during the Federal Convention: the to-be national government should possess the power to "negative all laws passed by the several states contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the articles of union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union." (Ibid., 207) Hamilton, and his like, would have loved it had this national principle of supreme sovereignty been accepted by the delegates. Thankfully, it was not accepted. In fact, as the convention progressed, what became apparent to those who advocated for this national form of government is that their ideas would never be accepted and ratified.
History proves with absolute certainty that a national government and its assuming principles were rejected, not only by the framers of the US Constitution, but also by those who sent delegates to the Federal Convention and who ratified the US Constitution at their State conventions. More important than the limited powers of the federal government, the people of the states rejected the nationalist doctrine that the federal government had the power to negate State laws that it deemed contrary to the Constitution. (John Taylor, New Views of the Constitution of the United States, [Washington DC, 1823], 15).
So, how is it that while the people of the states expressly forbade the federal government from interfering with the internal affairs of the states the federal government can now control nearly every facet of life within the states and the states supposedly can do absolutely nothing about it? Most attorneys who think they know so much about America's history and the US Constitution would say, "The United States Supreme Court is given the power to say what the Constitution means and that over the years, they have interpreted Congress' power to reach the internal affairs of a State." It is the "living Constitution" idea, simultaneously coupled with nationalistic doctrine, which proclaims that the actual meaning of the Constitution can change over time, and that such change is constitutional and does not deny the people their freedom protected under the compact of the Constitution.
Interestingly, the "living Constitution" idea is only used when it promotes a constitutional "construction" that expands and empowers the federal government and neuters the State governments. The "living Constitution" idea (advanced by the British Parliament) in fact is the very notion that caused America's War for Independence. (Claude Halstead Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, [Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922], 235, 237)
The ludicrous proposition of a "living Constitution" begs numerous critical questions involving the very foundation of a free society, not the least of which is this: If the meaning of the Constitution can change over time, why did the Constitution's framers spend nearly five months debating which words should be placed in the Constitution? More than that, why would the framers be so emotionally, mentally, intellectually and intensely involved in the question of what form of government we will have: national or federal?
How can it be that the judiciary branch of the federal government, which is not even politically responsible to the people or the states whatsoever (and only ever so slightly to the other federal branches), has the sole and complete power to say that the states have no power to interpret and comport to the US Constitution as they deem constitutional, when that same power was expressly rejected to the national government during the convention? After all, Hamilton and Madison both admit throughout the federalist papers that the states have complete and absolute sovereignty regarding the powers retained by them and granted to them by the people of each State, just as any foreign nation would. Both Hamilton and Madison admit that the only check on power is another independent power and thus, the only real power that could check federal power was State power. They even expected that the states would use their sovereign and independent power to the point of being the voice and, if necessary, the "ARM" of the people to implement a common defense against the federal government.
Both Hamilton and Madison admit that the federal government can never force the states out of existence and can never strip them of their rights and powers possessed prior to the ratification of the US Constitution, except as delegated to the federal government. They even refer to the states' right of self-defense in this regard to resist federal tyranny. Was this mere "bait and switch" rhetoric to get the people of the states to ratify what they thought was a pure federal system? How can the states possess the absolute sovereign power to check federal tyranny when they are bound to submit to the federal government's interpretation of the Constitution? The two positions are necessarily incompatible with each other. To say that you have power, so long as I say you have power is to deny your power altogether.
Quite obviously, in no place does the Constitution grant to the federal government (in any branch) superior sovereignty over the states. Instead, the Constitution requires ALL parties to it (State and federal) to comply with the Constitution, as it is the supreme law of the land. All the framers agreed that federal government and federal law do not equal the "supreme law of the land." Both the federal government and the federal laws are bound by the terms to which all must comply. Thus, all parties must be watching each other to ensure each is complying with the compact. And as was admitted by even the most ardent nationalist (i.e., Daniel Webster) of America's earlier history, each party to a COMPACT has the sole right to determine whether the other party has complied with the compact.
But over the years, a political idea contrary to our original federal system was adopted-not through open discussion and consent, but by fraud and force. This position states that whatever the federal judiciary rules equates to the "supreme law of the land" and the states must comply therewith, regardless of whether the federal law usurps the power the states retained under the Constitution. What the nationalists were unable to obtain through honest and open debate during the conventions they have obtained through the erroneously construed "supremacy" clause of the Constitution.
What the federal government was denied through constitutional debate and ratification the nationalists have procured through masquerade, subterfuge and trickery. America has been duped into accepting a national government, not by interpolation, but by deceptive "construction." If the federal government has the power to usurp its powers without a countermanding power checking its encroachments, where is the genius in our framers' form of government?
Was this form of government the form that best secured our happiness and freedom? And if our framers in fact bequeathed to us a federal system, whereby the states were co-equal with the federal government in sovereignty and power regarding their powers, then where comes the notion that we now have a national system, whereby the states are mere corporate branches of the federal government? Where were the constitutional debates on that subject? Where was the surrendering of sovereignty by the states, which can only be done through expressed and voluntary consent? Where was the right of the people to establish the form of government most likely to effect their safety and happiness? Do we just accept the fact that our form of government can change over time without express and legal action being taken to effect that change? God forbid!
In 1776, the colonies rejected the European (nationalist) form of government. In the UNITED STATES, the people of the states ardently believed that their freedoms would be best protected if each of their agents (State and federal) possessed equal power to check the other against encroachments of power and freedom. This was the "more perfect union" of the US Constitution. How could the founders have suggested that the US Constitution was a "more perfect union" as a nationalist system, when the nationalist system was the very system they seceded from and rejected? That is nonsense!
Ironically, the very document that was designed to perpetuate these principles of federalism has in fact been de-constructed to destroy those same principles, leaving us with the very form of government that our framers and the Constitution's ratifiers rejected. In the end, if the people of the states do not once again reject this national form of government and assert and defend the principles of federalism-the principles upon which America was founded-then this supposed federal power of constitutional "construction" will in fact be our freedom's destruction.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
336 comments