American Preppers The Patriot

PING!!

2010-03-26T18:41:00.002-05:00

Ran across this on earlier today, and if this doesn't outrage you....nothing will. This just helps reinforce my position that I never have and never will have a cell phone!!

Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with customer location data more than 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009, according to a company manager who disclosed the statistic at a non-public interception and wiretapping conference in October.

The manager also revealed the existence of a previously undisclosed web portal that Sprint provides law enforcement to conduct automated “pings” to track users. Through the website, authorized agents can type in a mobile phone number and obtain global positioning system (GPS) coordinates of the phone.

The revelations, uncovered by blogger and privacy activist Christopher Soghoian, have spawned questions about the number of Sprint customers who have been under surveillance, as well as the legal process agents followed to obtain such data.

But a Sprint Nextel spokesman said that Soghoian, who recorded the Sprint manager’s statements at the closed conference, misunderstood what the figure represents. The number of customers whose GPS data was provided to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies was much less than 8 million, as was the total number of individual requests for data.

The spokesman wouldn’t disclose how many of Sprint’s 48 million customers had their GPS data shared, or indicate the number of unique surveillance requests from law enforcement. But he said that a single surveillance order against a lone target could generate thousands of GPS “pings” to the cell phone, as the police track the subject’s movements over the course of days or weeks. That, Sprint claims, is the source of the 8 million figure: it’s the cumulative number of times Sprint cell phones covertly reported their location to law enforcement over the year.

The spokesman also said that law enforcement agents have to obtain a court order for the data, except in special emergency circumstances.

The information about the data requests and portal comes from Paul Taylor, manager of Sprint’s Electronic Surveillance Team. He made the revelations at the Intelligent Support Systems (ISS) conference, a surveillance industry gathering for law enforcement and intelligence agencies and the companies that provide them with the technologies and capabilities to conduct surveillance.

The conference is closed to press, but Soghoian, who is a graduate student at Indiana University, obtained entry and recorded a couple of panel sessions, which he posted on his blog (see below). In one of the recordings, Taylor is heard saying that the automated web system was rolled out a year ago and that in 13 months it had processed more than 8 million requests for GPS data from law enforcement.

“We turned it on the web interface for law enforcement about one year ago last month, and we just passed 8 million requests,” Taylor is heard saying. “So there is no way on earth my team could have handled 8 million requests from law enforcement, just for GPS alone. So the tool has just really caught on fire with law enforcement. They also love that it is extremely inexpensive to operate and easy.”

Soghoian concluded on his blog that the quote provided proof that “location requests easily outnumber wiretaps, and … likely outnumber all other forms of surveillance request too.”

He cites a telecom attorney named Al Gidari who claimed at a talk last year that each of the major wireless carriers received about 100 requests a week for customer-location data. At 100 requests a week for each of the top four wireless carriers, the total should be around 20,000 requests a year.

“I now have proof that he significantly underestimated the number of requests by several orders of magnitude,” Soghoian writes.

But Sprint spokesman John Taylor (who is not related to Paul Taylor) says Soghoian had “grossly misrepresented” the 8 million figure, which doesn’t refer to unique requests or to individual customers, but to the total number of “pings” made on every number for the duration of a law enforcement request.

“The figure represents the number of individual pings for specific location information, made to the Sprint network as part of a series of law enforcement investigations and public safety assistance requests during the past year,” said spokesman Taylor. “It’s critical to note that a single case or investigation may generate thousands of individual pings to the network as the law enforcement or public safety agency attempts to track or locate an individual.”

There are four circumstances under which law enforcement agents can use the Sprint website and obtain GPS data: 1) under the authority of a court order; 2) to track the location of a customer who has made a 911 call; 3) in an emergency situation, such as tracking someone lost in the wilderness or trying to locate an abducted child or hostage; 4) with a customer’s consent.

In the case of court orders, Taylor said agents are required to provide Sprint with the order, after which the company provisions the law enforcement account to allow an agency to track the targeted phone number. Court orders cover a 60-day period, and agents can do automated pings to obtain real-time GPS data every three minutes throughout that 60-day period. Taylor says this accounts for the 8 million figure.

“If you can access the info every three minutes over 60 days, that adds up pretty quickly,” he told Threat Level.

He added that the GPS data includes only latitude and longitude and the date and time of the ping.

The automated system was set up so that law enforcement agents wouldn’t have to contact Sprint’s electronic surveillance team each time they wanted to ping a phone number throughout the 60 days of a court order. Agents still have to obtain a subpoena to get historic call detail records, such as phone numbers called, the date, time and duration of calls and the cell site and sector from which the calls were made.

Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/gps-data/#ixzz0jKU6X8bB

Got cell phone??

Bob
III

Amendment

2010-03-18T13:35:00.000-05:00

Been a while. Sorry. Real life & all. The House just voted to allow "deem and pass." Here's one reaction:

“Mr. President, I send an unprinted Amendment to the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration,” are the exact words that any U.S. Senator can say when offering this amendment on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

This amendment, below, should be walked down to the floor of the U.S. Senate and voted on prior to any vote on the floor of the U.S. House, in order to prepare the legal battlefield for the court challenge against the Alice-in-Wonderland-like-Red-Queen, Speaker Pelosi, and her dictatorial and unconstitutional scheme to pass the Senate Health Care bill without voting on it. While we are uncertain that we will be fighting on this ground, it is essential to prepare the battlefield, if we do.

This amendment, I am reliably advised, was written by a former judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals who was on President Bush’s short list for the Supreme Court (Roberts beat him out) and is recently retired and is teaching Constitutional law at one of the most prestigious national law schools at University on the west coast.

So, in other words, don’t mess with the language of this amendment. Just launch it, now on whatever bill is now pending on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

START OF TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT:

Unprinted Amendment No.___ .

Intended to Proposed by Mr. _________.

Viz:

Add at the end of the bill the following new Section:

“Sec.___ . a) Inasmuch as Sections Five and Seven of Article I of the United States Constitution mandate a certain process for the enactment of a federal law and do not allow a measure to become a law by “deeming” it passed by either House of Congress, it is the Sense of the Senate and its judgment that the House of Representatives is required by the Supreme Law of the United States, to vote directly and up or down on H.R. 3590 in order to send that measure lawfully to the President, if, and only if, it shall have been approved by a majority vote of each such House taken on an identical measure; and, more particularly, it is the Sense of the Senate that, in conformity with Article I of the Constitution, the House of Representatives, unless the measure is returned to the Senate with an Amendment by the House, must vote directly on the language sent to it by the Senate precisely as it was duly enrolled at the direction of the Senate by its Enrolling Clerk, certified as an Act of the Senate by the Secretary of the Senate, and thereupon transmitted by the Senate’s Messenger to the House Chamber while the House of Representatives was in actual Session.

b) It is the further Sense of the Senate that the exact words that the Senate caused to be enrolled on parchment and taken by messenger to the House of Representatives, constitute the sole document and the only document upon which Members of the House can lawfully cast their vote, whether Yeah or Nay, under the process expressly mandated by the United States Constitution; and it is also the Sense of the Senate and its judgment that to do otherwise by “deeming” rather than voting would void any purported enactment, deprive it of the force of law, justify disobedience to it, and cause irreparable violence and harm to our system of government and its fundamental law through fraud, deception, abuse of power, and usurpation of the civil rights of the People.

c) This Section maybe cited as the “Congressional Voting Rights Resolution.”.

END OF AMENDMENT TEXT.

I further ask all patriots and Americans who care deeply about the U.S. Consititution to re-post the text of this Amendment every where possible on the internet. Specifically, wallpaper the web with the text of the this Amendment, today.

Check. From http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2010/03/18/mr-president-i-send-an-unprinted-amendment-to-the-desk/

Food: Business Meetings

2010-02-17T12:32:00.001-06:00

Americans for Tax Reform Center for Fiscal Accountability is one of those portal web sites that can eat through as much time as you have to serve it.

ABOUT:

We might hope to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant's books, so that every member of Congress, and every man of any mind in the Union should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently, to control them.

Thomas Jefferson, 1802

The Center for Fiscal Accountability, founded in 2008, is a project of Americans for Tax Reform, a national taxpayer advocacy organization. Accountability - the “process that requires us to disclose fully and truthfully our performance to those who are entitled to know,” according to the Honorable Maurice McTigue – is one of the cornerstones of the Republican form of government. Acknowledging that the American people and its economy can best thrive and prosper when the role of government is limited and subject to the scrutiny of taxpayers, the Center for Fiscal Accountability seeks to shed a light on government expenditures, and to promote transparency, accountability, and restraint in government finance.

On the right panel you will see a map. Click to be taken to your state's "transparency" site. There you will probably wile away several hours learning, for example, that your state's Department of Education has spent $432,000 (rounded to nearest thousandth) this fiscal year on "FOOD: business meetings," including-- and I especially like this-- $3210 at Circus Circus, MS. Biggest single "food: business meeting" expenditure was over $18,000 at a place called Whispering Wood Hotel and Conference Center conveniently located very near the casinos in Tunica, MS (a location which is about as far from being a "central" location as you can get-- I didn't even want to look at reimbursed travel expenses).

O.k. let's review. Mississippi has a budget deficit estimated to be greater than $544, 000, 000 for 2010, and teachers are going to conferences where the food at coffee breaks and probably at some big dinner is costing the tax payers $18, 000-- which is by the way just short of the median income in my Mississippi County.

Keep an eye on government so that every member of Congress, and every man of any mind in the Union should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently, to control them.

I "MUST" Post Another Article

2010-02-12T13:53:00.001-06:00

I offer my apologies to the readers of this blog for my absence this past week. Since I am not one to preach but not adhere to my advice or opinion, I have been busy this week preparing a Constitutional Studies seminar for interested individuals in my area and have been actively involved in the upcoming district caucuses being held on March 6th. Since I can never seem to keep my mouth closed or my mind shut, it was time to post my thoughts again on The Patriot before too much time had lapsed. . I had been relying on the words of the Founding Fathers to inspire articles, but the wisdom of other patriots carry as much weight with me as theirs do. In the spirit of passing knowledge and opinion I offer another article for your perusal and the words of Daniel Webster.

“A strong conviction that something MUST be done is the parent of many bad measures.”

Daniel Webster US diplomat, lawyer, orator, & politician (1782 - 1852)

It is within these words of Daniel Webster that we find ourselves and the state of our country in today. Health care MUST be reformed, the economy MUST have a bloated stimulus package in order to prevent catastrophe, and we MUST institute laws to lower carbon emissions to save our planet. The word ‘must’ has, within its meaning, a feeling of totality, one of rigidity, one of obsession. ‘Must’ is used to frighten, to coerce, and to enforce.

We need to, as a society, lessen the use of ‘must’ and replace it with ‘would like’. By making this change we can solve many of the problems that have brought us to this brink of self-destruction. By removing ‘must’ we would then have: “I ‘would like’ to have a big screen TV”. “I ‘would like’ to live in a McMansion”. “We ‘would like’ to reform healthcare”. “We ‘would like’ to fix the economy”. “Must” should be reserved for the direst of situations. “We MUST defend the Constitution”. “We MUST protect the country from foreign hostilities”. “We MUST do unto others as we would have them do unto us”.

By rephrasing what we “must do” we give ourselves the time to find the BEST way to bring about our goal. By lessening our greed, we find the room for charity. By removing our blinders, we are allowed to see “the big picture” and how our decision will affect the whole. Only when we find a way to examine all sides of a situation, weigh the impact of our decisions, and are prepared to NOT give in to selfishness, will we be able to fairly bring about real CHANGE. This is what we MUST do.

The Right of Recall

2010-02-09T11:27:00.000-06:00

This isn’t American democracy — this is a shop-worn, elitist, authoritarianism closer to abuses we see in countries like Venezuela.

So, what would happen if the people could change this rotten situation?

Actually, there may just well be a mechanism within our political system to do so — the Right of Recall. Nine states already have laws on the books providing for Recall of members of Congress: Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin. These 9 states suffer 12 incumbent Senators who are members of the runaway Congressional majority, who arenot already standing for reelection in 2010, but potentially could be.

For example, the New Jersey state constitution provides, “The people reserve unto themselves the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress.”

Interesting. Read the whole thing here.

Freedom Before Ideology: Battling the Radicals

2010-02-05T12:08:00.002-06:00

"I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag."

Craig Anthony Washington – US Congressman-Texas (1989-1995)

It seems as of late, politicians, progressive pundits, and liberal radicals have decided to promote the latter form of political expression rather than the former. This includes our President, his staff, and the Democratic leadership in congress. It is these groups who believe the Constitution is simply a guide to TRY and follow and NOT the supreme law of the land which MUST be adhered to. They are supported by people who either wish to destroy our country, or those who are so deluded with a cause, that they are blinded to what is allowed by our system of government. In many cases activists are so radicalized that they not only ignore the constraints of the Constitution, they ignore the laws of the state and natural law. They will destroy valuable farm land to protect a 2 inch fish, murder a doctor because he performed an abortion, they lobby politicians to sway a vote that would promote their cause, but harms the public as a whole or is blatantly unconstitutional. What they fail to remember is that the Constitution is what allows them to have their views and protects their ability to speak those views without fear of arrest or prosecution.

This is yet another example of how extreme radicals look only to the end to justify their means. This seems to be more prevalent among progressive activists. In fact ‘winning at all costs’ is a precept in the book of progressive idealistic thought (see Alinsky 1 & 2). Those who spend their money, their time and their effort to circumvent the Constitution fail to realize that in doing so, they risk losing the protection it provides for them to do what they do. They forget that is was a group of radicals that formed the Constitution to ensure that, when necessary, the views and voices of the opposition could not be squashed by government. If they wish to ‘fundamentally transform America’ they risk transforming their ability, to provide the discourse that makes America great, completely out of the system.

It is up to everyone who values the Constitution to stand up as loudly as the extremists. It is our duty to not shrink in the face of their attacks. Our words are as protected as their words. For every one who holds their thoughts, there are dozens more who believe as we do. When the minority is allowed to dictate the governance of the country, we move closer to oligarchy as opposed to the democratic-republic which has served the masses for over 200 years.

State of the Union - State of the Nonsense Part 2

2010-02-03T12:01:00.002-06:00

“To the security of a free constitution it contributes in various ways - by convincing those who are entrusted with the public administration that every valuable end of government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burdens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness - cherishing the first, avoiding the last - and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws.”

George Washington – First State of the Union Address: January 8, 1790 Federal Hall, New York City

In preparing for the second installment of my State of the Union commentary I decided to read George Washington’s first address. It was interesting to see that basically the form of the address has not changed much in 200 plus years. The only real change has been the substance of the content. The substance of Washington’s address is one of accepting the trust bestowed upon him, and a warning to congress to remember that they have been entrusted with the same. This single paragraph, directed to the Congress, sums up all that those in the federal government should strive for, not just in Washington’s time, but for as long as there is a nation based on the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case as evidenced by directives and policies promoted by the President in the 2010 State of the Union address. Therefore, using Washington’s words as the benchmark, let us review some more excerpts from the first State of the Union address of President Obama.

“We need to invest in the skills and education of our people”. - Obama

“Nor am I less persuaded that you will agree with me in opinion that there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. “ - Washington

Aside from the lyric eloquence of Washington’s statement, both presidents call for support of education. The difference between the two is the method which to go about it. Washington call for support of the institution of education, Obama calls for the government to pay for free education. Washington calls for the congress to promote an environment favorable to education, Obama calls for government control and pay for education reform. Now being the strict constitutionalist that I am, I cannot help but point out that supplying funds for education or determining programs for schools to follow are not among the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Those powers are reserved to the states.

“Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history” - Obama

“The advancement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures by all proper means will not, I trust, need recommendation” - Washington

Washington’s comment, “by all proper means”, states that the support should come from the government within the constraints imposed on it. Again this does not mean assuming more power, entitling and subsidizing business or agriculture, and certainly NOT bailing out failing banks or businesses or assuming operation of them. The business of government is not business, but government. This also does not mean the over-regulation of business, the over-taxing of business or the suppression of business in favor of one type of business over another. It seems our modern era government needs more of an education in the advancement of business rather than a recommendation.

“Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security……Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future -- for America and for the world.” - Obama

“Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace…..A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies…..In the arrangements which may be made respecting it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy.” – Washington

While both men have promoted the need for a strong military and federal support for troops, it is readily apparent that the execution of that support has not been efficient or expedient in the first year of President Obama’s administration. Nine months passed before a response was made for a request for more troops for Afghanistan, returning wounded veterans continue to face obstacles in their care. Recently it has been reported that combat bonus pay has not been paid to veterans who completed their duty and are now forgotten. President Obama stated, “That's why we're building a 21st century VA. And that's why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families.” It is more apparent that military families and the general public (through charity) are taking better care of our troops than the government who is entrusted to do so. The public has sent troops comfort packages, sent letters of support, donated to charities that help keep soldiers in touch with their families. The people have raised donations to send more effective body armor to protect their loved ones that the government, at times, had refused to provide. Finally, constant threats of reductions in defense spending or abuses of defense spending bills packed with non-defense earmarks have made the promise to our troops seem shallow.

“The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.” – Obama

“The welfare of our country is the great object to which our cares and efforts ought to be directed, and I shall derive great satisfaction from cooperation with you in the pleasing though arduous task of insuring to our fellow citizens the blessings which they have a right to expect from a free, efficient, and equal government.” – Washington

One man calls for a new start, a “fundamental change” and the other calls for an adherence to the founding principles. One asks to seize the opportunity of a political majority to force policies unfavorable with the people, the other looks forward to “the pleasing and arduous task” of governance with the welfare of the nation and the people placed before the benefit of an agenda. One man believes “'[T]he Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy." The other believed that “The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon”. This kind of makes you wish for a return of the man who gave the first State of the Union Address, doesn’t it.

D_Loki

For Sale: The Constitution

2010-01-26T14:50:00.001-06:00

“Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.”

George Washington First president of US (1732 - 1799)

It is said “every man has his price”. This is never truer then in the people we grant the powers of government to. Our country has moved from electing statesmen, to electing politicians. We have moved from having public servants to having government employees. We have moved from a time when public office was intended to be a short term event, to having it be a lifelong career. It is in this movement we have lost the goal of government. The government in our republic was intended to be a system that answers to the wishes of the people as a whole. What has become of that system is one of graft, nepotism, radical agendas, repression of rights, and of self-serving interests. Our officials care about one thing….Re-election. They have an ear for anyone with a deep enough pocket to ensure they get another 2, 4, or 6 years to continue their game. It is this “game” that is destroying our country and its founding principles.

Pressure is applied to elected officials from every angle. The side with the most clout is generally the side with the most money and the most power. In the past 20 years we have seen a resurgence of the progressive thinking of the turn of the last century. The progressive movement yet again bided their time and consolidated money and power under the noses of Americans to create a system steeped in socialist thinking. A system that cannot thrive in an environment with the constraints our Constitution provides. In the last 50 years we have seen the overstepping of the Constitution and the grab for more power by the Federal government. The old adage goes: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This is veritably evident with our recent Congresses and Administrations. The solution to this problem, lies with “We the People”.

We need to convince people to NOT “drink the Kool-aid”. We need to return to independent thought and the ideals of the Constitution. We need to revisit the need for term limits to ensure that election to Congress is not a lifetime appointment. We need to reform our election laws to prevent outside influences from guiding the path of our country. We need to make sure that those holding positions in the federal government are continually reminded of the oath they took to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States”. This oath HAS to be the foremost guide in their decision making process and we must hold them to that and not let PAC money, party influence, foreign interests, and personal gain weigh in that process. Hold your people accountable for their actions; Hold them accountable to their oath; Hold them accountable to the wishes of the people they are supposed to SERVE. If they refuse……….VOTE!

State of the Union - State of the Nonsense

2010-02-01T11:57:00.005-06:00

“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

The Constitution of the United States: Article II, Section 3

I feel myself a minor constitutional scholar. While I do not dedicate myself to the study of it exclusively, I believe it is the responsibility of every American to know what the constraints of their government are. We should know what is required, what is permitted, and what is forbidden by the Constitution. I make sure I am aware of the politics of Washington, the hypocrisy of the parties and the nonsense we are spoon-fed by the media. It is in this respect that I decided to examine what I heard in the President’s State of the Union Address and comment through a series of articles this week on the constitutionality of what was said, the continuing contradictions in the administrations words and actions, and the load of BS that seems to drip off the lips of our President like honey meant to flavor the proverbial Kool-Aid.

The argument can be made that I am nit-picking as bad as pundits in the media, but as I teach my children, I expect the truth to come from a person’s mouth. When it does not, expect me to jump on the lies (just ask my 5 year old). I believe that those serving in our government owe the public the truth and not simply what would be best to boost their poll numbers. They should speak their beliefs and stick to them. So let us go on into the Address.

“As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth. Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. I'm interested in protecting our economy.”

I would like to know the definition of punishment in the President’s mind. If I repay a loan that I was forced to take, and then decide to spend money that I earned outside the loan, how is it not punishment to tax me because I was forced to take the loan? How is it not punishment for me to be taxed to make up for the loans that have yet to repaid? How is taking property from individuals without due process constitutionally legal, or not punishment? How is it protecting the economy to levy taxes on banks that will only pass on the taxes to the public in the form of fees and reduced interest offerings? With less money to spend, less money to invest, and less money earned in accounts, the economy cannot be protected, nor can it be stimulated.

“Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America.”

More fabricated numbers. Quite simply this is completely unattainable with this economy and with the current state of taxation. Now it is time for an accounting lesson. The price of goods is determined by setting a profit margin to operate and grow business. Now if we are to expand exports, production must rise. To raise production, capital investment must be made to accommodate the expanded production. This costs money, so the price of a product will rise. The other factor in calculating the price of goods is the cost of production. This calculation includes the cost of raw materials, energy costs, labor costs, facility maintenance, and taxes. So if we equate each of these costs at $1, the total cost to produce the goods is $5. If we need to double our production within five years we need to add that cost into the equation. We will need to add a 20% increase in the price to accommodate our expansion and provide a profit margin to operate. This will add an additional $1 per year. This might be doable IF our costs do not change.

By “necessarily increasing energy costs” we add to our price calculation. Raising energy prices for “global warming” initiatives will increase our costs. Adding labor costs by taxing health care plans or forcing businesses to provide health care plans will also increase costs. Forcing “card check” legislation will increase labor costs due to union intervention. The above cost increases will also translate to the providers of our raw materials, who will also need to raise prices to cover these costs. Now being conservative, let us say that these three policies will increase cost of goods by another 20%. That will be an additional $1 for each policy. Our costs of goods will now be $8 for year one. If we need a modest 10% profit margin to operate and expand, our price of the goods will be set at $8.80. Here is where the improbability of doubling comes in.

China, as an exporting competitor, buys the raw materials at the same price we do. However, they do not have the taxes, increased labor costs, will not abide by global warming initiatives, and has a larger labor force to ensure lower wages. This equates to $1 for raw materials and estimates 50% less in labor costs or $.50. Without strict regulatory rules facility costs are halved. With the government providing energy without profit, energy costs are reduced by half. This means that while we need to produce goods at a price of $8.00, China can produce the same for $3.50. Including a profit margin for growth, China can triple our growth plan and not go over our price or set their cost at $4.55. Add a profit margin to operate again at 10% and China’s total price point is $5.00. There is absolutely no way we can double our exports if our competition is offering goods at almost ½ the price of ours. This is the Wal-Mart scenario.

Small independent businesses cannot thrive in a small market with Wal-Mart due to the fact that the prices at Wal-Mart can be as much as ½ of the independent. Simply put; we are regulating, taxing, and entitling ourselves out of the global market on exported goods.

“To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve. That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why -- for the first time in history -- my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.”

Here is another of the lies and broken promises by Mr. Obama. Let us take a look at just a few of the lobbyists in this administration:

Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

These are not low level postings. They are posts to advise either those who have a hand in policy making, or are the policy maker themselves. The pledge to ban lobbyists does not end there.

“The Apollo Alliance” had its hands far into the development of the stimulus bill. Labor unions scream loudly and are allowed to partake in the shaping of the health care reform initiative. The president has spoken that before he looks into a new policy, he consults lobbyist such as ACORN, and SEIU. Andy Stern (President of SEIU), while not necessarily a registered lobbyist, is the most frequent visitor, outside of the government, to the White House. The only supposition I can make is the administration must believe that since we accepted the campaign promise to not have lobbyist in posts, or to not allow lobbyist to shape policy, we will also accept the lie spoken during the State of the Union Address as well.

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

From FEC

“The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.”

The Supreme Court decision struck down small portions of the McCain-Feingold bill. It did NOT negate long standing prohibitions on foreign contributions for federal campaign financing. It did open the door to more money entering campaigns, but did not remove restrictions for foreign nationals, or foreign corporations from legally contributing to campaign funds. The main basis for the decision was what the court IS SUPPOSED TO DO, defend first amendment rights of American citizens. While I am not fond of more money being allowed to influence elections, the defense of the first amendment is something I will support. Now, I am not naïve. There will always be those who skate around the letter of the law. There are those who do nothing more with their lives than search for loopholes to slip through to break the rules. It is not the Court to rewrite the law. As the President stated it is up to “Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.” Personal belief tells me that the likelihood of political parties cutting off funding for their campaigns is a long shot. Maybe I am too cynical.

This diatribe has only taken me half-way through the address, and I still have not touched upon the instances of unconstitutional actions proposed within the address. Stay tuned this week for another segment.

Caucus Night: Archaic Tradition or Democracy in Action

2010-02-03T01:00:00.002-06:00

I am compelled to take a break before posting the next State of the Union commentary due to Caucus Night here in Minnesota. It has been claimed that the caucus system in Minnesota is too old-fashioned. One columnist referred to it as “a typewriter in a Twitter world”. Myself, I look at it as the real opportunity for the people to voice their opinions, put the best candidate forward and be intimately involved in the election process. Now for those of you, who do not have a caucus system in your state; let me explain how it works.

The congressional districts in the state are divided into precincts, much like they are for states with the primary election system. Residents of a precinct report to a designated location to decide upon the candidates for the respective parties. In Minnesota, the precinct caucuses gather to elect delegates from the precinct to attend the district caucuses a month later. It is a time for you to meet your neighbors who hold like political views. It is time to help set the party’s agenda and platform. It is your chance to be involved. It is the time to begin selecting what candidates will be on the ballots come November. This is the most crucial part.

Time and time again, I hear people complain, “There just aren’t any candidates worth voting for”. Well guess what people, if you don’t participate in the primaries or the caucuses, the RIGHT candidate will lose out to the party’s hand-picked candidate. This usually means the totter of the party line, the career politician, and the one with the most money. The problem is, most people cannot, or will not be bothered with the electoral process UNTIL November. They are too busy. They don’t want to miss the season premier of “Lost”. Maybe they don’t understand the process and are fearful of going. No matter the reason, the reason is lame.

I have said before, that if you want to complain about the system, you had better have been a part of it. To sit idly by and allow the hard-core party supporter or the activist or the crazy nut-bag down the road to determine who will be on your ballot come November is irresponsible. It is through this we end up with corrupt candidates. I feel passing on the caucuses (or primaries) is worse than passing on the general election. This is where grassroots begin baby!! This is where your voice is louder. In the caucus system, this is were you actually debate the issues face to face with other voters rather than just coloring in a dot, or punching a piece of cardboard. Some call it archaic, I call it democracy in action, and the lowest tier in the governing our Republic. This system truly is “We the People”.

The caucus system is the grandmother down the block. The caucus system is the 18 year old high school student eager to vote. It is the veteran, the cop, the grocer and the gas station attendant deciding the direction of our country right next to the banker, the lawyer, the CEO and the trust fund baby. It is true equality in the system. As I have said, it is also the only way you can really debate the worthiness of a candidate. In the primary system, candidates simply pay a fee to file their intention to run, gather campaign funds, and bank on a vote in the ballot box. In the caucus system, those candidates or their representatives, have to convince the delegates they are the better candidate. What more could you ask for? Confrontation, debate and arguments; it is the democratic process in action. Think I am a proponent? I am. My only complaint is the lack of attendees.

I know, historically, mid-term election turn out is low. It is even lower for special elections, unless there is some sort of controversy surrounding the election. This is sad, this is wrong and it is filled with my disappointment in my fellow citizens. In my precinct, one of approximately 30,000 people, only 509 participated between the Republican, Democratic, and Independent Caucuses. That is 1.7%. 1.7%?!?! This is where our political problems arise. Our fellow citizens wish to complain. They say, “Make yourself heard at the ballot box”. How can you be heard if you didn’t pick the people on the ballot? I did have a measure of hope, when this year there was a group of 5 high school seniors who were participating in their first caucus. Somebody’s parents or civics teacher (if they even teach civics anymore) has done something right.

Plainly put, if you still have the opportunity to participate in your state’s primary or caucus, GO! Be a part of the system, be a part of the solution. Make your voice heard before the lazy folks who cannot be bothered, but wish to complain later. At the very least, you’ll gain some insight in the electoral process, and you’ll get to brag later that you truly DO have a right to complain if things don’t turn out for the best. As for the comment that the system is old-fashioned, Twitter this; “I went to the caucus, did you?”

PS. Before anyone says I need to get out of the city; I’m trying, I’m trying! For those waiting on part two of the SotU commentary, come back tomorrow. :)

D_Loki

A Republic, If You Want It

2010-02-01T10:55:00.001-06:00

Subtitled : "The Left's Over-reach Invites the Founders' Return" by Matthew Spaulding

It begins
Our federal government, once limited to certain core functions, now dominates virtually every area of American life. Its authority is all but unquestioned, seemingly restricted only by expediency and the occasional budget constraint.

Congress passes massive pieces of legislation with little serious deliberation, bills that are written in secret and generally unread before the vote. The national legislature is increasingly a supervisory body overseeing a vast array of administrative policymakers and rulemaking agencies. Although the Constitution vests legislative powers in Congress, the majority of “laws” are promulgated in the guise of “regulations” by bureaucrats who are mostly unaccountable and invisible to the public.

Americans are wrapped in an intricate web of government policies and procedures. States, localities, and private institutions are submerged by national programs. The states, which increasingly administer policies emanating from Washington, act like supplicants seeking relief from the federal government. Growing streams of money flow from Washington to every congressional district and municipality, as well as to businesses, organizations, and individuals that are subject to escalating federal regulations.

This bureaucracy has become so overwhelming that it’s not clear how modern presidents can fulfill their constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” President Obama, like his recent predecessors, has appointed a swarm of policy “czars” — über-bureaucrats operating outside the cabinet structure and perhaps the Constitution — to promote political objectives in an administration supposedly under executive control.

Is this the outcome of the greatest experiment in self-government mankind ever has attempted?

We can trace the concept of the modern state back to the theories of Thomas Hobbes, who wanted to replace the old order with an all-powerful “Leviathan” that would impose a new order, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who, to achieve absolute equality, favored an absolute state that would rule over the people through a vaguely defined concept called the “general will.” It was Alexis de Tocqueville who first pointed out the potential for a new form of despotism in such a centralized, egalitarian state: It might not tyrannize, but it would enervate and extinguish liberty by reducing self-governing people “to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.”

The Americanized version of the modern state was born in the early 20th century. American “progressives,” under the spell of German thinkers, decided that advances in science and history had opened the possibility of a new, more efficient form of democratic government, which they called the “administrative state.” Thus began the most revolutionary change of the last hundred years: the massive shift of power from institutions of constitutional government to a labyrinthine network of unelected, unaccountable experts who would rule in the name of the people.

The great challenge of democracy, as the Founders understood it, was to restrict and structure the government to secure the rights articulated in the Declaration of Independence — preventing tyranny while preserving liberty. The solution was to create a strong, energetic government of limited authority. Its powers were enumerated in a written constitution, separated into functions and responsibilities and further divided between national and state governments in a system of federalism. The result was a framework of limited government and a vast sphere of freedom, leaving ample room for republican self-government.

Progressives viewed the Constitution as a dusty 18th-century plan unsuited for the modern day. Its basic mechanisms were obsolete and inefficient; it was a reactionary document, designed to stifle change. They believed that just as science and reason had brought technological changes and new methods of study to the physical world, they would also bring great improvements to politics and society. For this to be possible, however, government could not be restricted to securing a few natural rights or exercising certain limited powers. Instead, government must become dynamic, constantly changing and growing to pursue the ceaseless objective of progress.

Spauding then chronicles the history of the progressive movement through today (it's sad):

As a result, politics came to be seen as the ebb and flow between periods of “progress” and “change,” on one hand, and brief interregnums to defend and consolidate the status quo, on the other. Other than the aberration of Ronald Reagan and a few unruly conservatives, there seemed to be no real challenge to the liberal project itself, so all the Democrats thought they had to do was wait for the bursting forth of the next great era of reformism. Was it to be launched by Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton? At long last came the watershed election of Barack Obama.

But then he says something that gives me hope:

But a funny thing happened on the way to the next revolution. ... Large numbers of citizens, many never before engaged in politics, are protesting in the streets and challenging their elected officials in town-hall meetings and on talk-radio shows.
...

There is something about a nation founded on principles, something unique in its politics that often gets shoved to the background but never disappears. Most of the time, American politics is about local issues and the small handful of policy questions that top the national agenda. But once in a while, it is instead about voters’ stepping back and taking a longer view as they evaluate the present in the light of our founding principles. That is why all the great turning-point elections in U.S. history ultimately came down to a debate about the meaning and trajectory of America.

In our era of big government and the administrative state, the conventional wisdom has been that serious political realignment — bringing politics and government back into harmony with the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — is no longer possible. Yet we are seeing early indications that we may be entering a period of just such realignment. Perhaps the progressive transformation is incomplete, and the form of the modern state not yet settled — at least not by the American people.

This creates a historic opening for conservatives.

The American people are poised to make the right decision. The strength and clarity of the Founders’ argument, if given contemporary expression and brought to a decision, might well establish a governing conservative consensus and undermine the very foundation of the unlimited administrative state. It would be a monumental step on the long path back to republican self-government.

The whole article is here.

Keep an eye on government

2010-01-29T12:41:00.001-06:00

Who contributes to candidates running for office in your county and state?

As citizens and patriots, it is our responsibility to keep an eye on government. Open Secrets is a

nonpartisan guide to money’s influence on U.S. elections and public policy. Whether you’re a voter, journalist, activist, student or interested citizen, use our free site to shine light on your government. Count cash and make change.

One of my favorite features of the web site is "Get Local" (under quick links). There I learned, for example, that during his 2008 campaign Congressman Childers (MS 1st) paid $22,000 to a polling service... in Alabama. Have we no polling services in Mississippi? Apparently there are not consulting services in Mississippi, either. $37,000 to a Maryland firm. I am of a mind that candidates, especially in states with serious unemployment, ought to keep as much money at home as possible.

Perhaps these expenditures are legitimate. This is not:

Expenditure data is only available for members of the House. The Senate has exempted itself from reporting expenditures.

Keep an eye on government. If we don't do it, who will?

"The United States Is ‘Ungovernable’ by Design"

2010-01-28T11:26:00.001-06:00

Last week Matt Yglesias of Think Progress bemoaned the fact that neither the House nor the Senate could get anything done.

Regarding the U.S. Senate, Yglesias complained: “It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It’s insane, and it needs to be changed.”

In his article, Adam Graham quips,

It’s as if a genius schemed against them to thwart their efforts and require impossibly large majorities to accomplish something.

Adams then goes on to reminds us that a genius did conspire against the left (and the right):

While Yglesias worries about the minority ruining a Democratic stampede, Madison worried about something else entirely. In Federalist 51 he writes:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. …. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

Madison’s solution was simple.

Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. ...

Our constitutional system of government works — but it works to protect liberty, not allow those who want to get their agenda passed and get it passed yesterday to run roughshod over the minority. Madison warned of such a system, writing, “In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature.”

Read the whole thing here. Short and interesting.

2010-01-27T07:59:00.001-06:00

The 2010 Census, the Constitution and You

The year 2010 is another Census year, and many Americans are concerned about the apparent politicization of a process that has been with us since our Constitution was first written.

The director of the Census Bureau will now report directly to “White House senior management” instead of to the Commerce Secretary. “Senior management” likely means Rahm Emanuel, an Obama political crony who is currently serving as White House Chief of Staff. The move was part of what prompted Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to withdraw as commerce secretary nominee. According to the Wall Street Journal,

Mr. Gregg also cited issues involving the Census Bureau. That appeared to be a reference to reports that the White House, responding to concerns from black and Hispanic lawmakers, would be highly involved in the political decisions surrounding the decennial count. The parties have battled for years over how to carry out the survey, with Democrats tending to favor methods that would increase the number of minorities, giving them greater clout in redrawing the congressional map. Mr. Gregg has been critical of those approaches.

Initially, the community organizing group ACORN was to play a large role in conducting the Census, but the Census Bureau severed all ties with the group after a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute used hidden-camera footage to show ACORN employees advising them on how to skirt the law.

"Over the last several months, through ongoing communication with our regional offices, it is clear that ACORN's affiliation with the 2010 Census promotion has caused sufficient concern in the general public, has indeed become a distraction from our mission, and may even become a discouragement to public cooperation, negatively impacting 2010 Census efforts," read a letter from Census Director Robert M. Groves to the president of ACORN.

"Unfortunately, we no longer have confidence that our national partnership agreement is being effectively managed through your many local offices. For the reasons stated, we therefore have decided to terminate the partnership," the letter said.

Privacy advocates are also concerned that, as part of preparation for the census, GPS coordinates for every front door in the nation were collected. What happened to good old fashioned maps?

Also somewhat telling about the political machinations behind this year’s census is the fact that there is no question asking if the residents of a home are either citizens or legal residents. According to the Washington Times,

It appears that this is the first census to omit this inquiry. Question 13 of the 2000 census form specifically asked the following:

Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States?

-Yes, born in the United States-->Skip to 15a

-Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas

-Yes, born abroad of American parent or parents

-Yes, a U.S. citizen by naturalization

-No, not a citizen of the United States

Meanwhile, they want to know your ethnicity (with Hispanics getting their very own section), age and sex. And if you were lucky enough to receive an American Community Survey, it has questions like whether you currently have a job, what cars you own, how old your home is, how many bedrooms it has, how many toilets are in it and how much you pay for fuel to heat it.

But are you a citizen who pays taxes and is eligible to vote? Eh, not important.

Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) says she refuses to answer any questions on the census other than the first one, which asks how many people live in the home, citing concerns about “very intricate” and “very personal” questions. Census spokeswoman Shelly Lowe says that anyone over the age of 18 who does not answer all of the questions could face a $5,000 fine.

But is that constitutional?

Article 1, Section 2 of our Constitution deals with the enumeration (counting) of citizens, which happens for the purpose of determining how many House representatives each state receives:

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.

That’s it. It says nothing about checking off a box with your ethnicity, age, or whether your home has three or four bedrooms.

If you don’t have a problem answering all of those questions that have nothing to do with how many people live in your congressional district, start checking off boxes. But if you feel the Census questions are too inquisitive, we've heard some people are doing this: answering the first question about how many people live in the home and then taping a copy of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution to the bottom of the form.

And if you’re worried that you might be targeted to pay that $5,000 fine, consider that by the time the red tape gets unsnarled, you’ll probably be dead.

Originally posted on www.familysecuritymatters.org

This is not a time for compromise. It is a historic moment to be grasped by those of us who believe in individual freedoms.

2010-01-22T03:29:00.000-06:00

A must read. It's short & powerful. (Emphases mine.)

From it:

The Enlightenment and religious reformations that swept Europe following the Renaissance threw out the old existing order, and the great debate began between two acutely different variants of what constituted its proper replacement. The Anglo-Saxons concerned themselves with “the rights of men,” and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and our own magnificent uprising of 1776 affirmed the notion of individual rights derived from a higher power than man. The logical consequence of this was the notion of equity: that the public official might do only that which was explicitly permitted by law while the private citizen was empowered to act in any way that was not explicitly forbidden.

...

The Europeans, on the other hand, preferred to think in terms of “the rights of man.” The movement from plural to singular is important for now individual freedoms would be determined by a collective will, a “social compact” that would predetermine what was good and just for everybody. So while Anglo-Saxons depended on “enlightened self-interest,” the Europeans felt the need to legislate virtue.

America was born as the former. But immigrants, a corrupt academy, and a narcissistic underpaid media, all of whom slavishly worshiped the Europeans, brought the collectivist view into the American mainstream. The health care debate is not really about who should be covered, but about taking decisions that were once the responsibility of the individual and turning them over to the collective.

...

So surely the lesson of the Massachusetts election is not that it is a Republican victory or a “bad” Democratic campaign or spontaneous undirected anger, but rather that in a moment of sudden clarity millions of American voters rediscovered their ideology. You must follow their lead. This is not a time for compromise or patching over differences. It is a historic moment to be grasped by those of us who believe in individual freedoms of the rights of men — both here and overseas. In the words of the Marxist-Leninists, “heighten the contradictions.” The American left is not merely misguided. It is fatally flawed. It is to be resisted.

"We the People"

2010-01-21T14:07:00.006-06:00

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

Patrick Henry - Lawyer, patriot, and orator (1736-1799)

These words of Patrick Henry epitomize the sum total of the United States Constitution. There is not a single word that I disagree with. To accept these words, and not be swayed by the machinations of those in power, we as patriotic Americans must fully understand the Constitution in its entirety. I mentioned in my last post that enlightenment is the key to preventing oppression of the government, and the subjugation of our liberties. With this in mind, and with the idea that to protect your rights, you must KNOW your rights, let’s delve into the Constitution so that we may have the arguments needed to debate those that support the usurpation of power by the Federal government.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This is probably the most recognizable portion of the Constitution next to the Bill of Rights. You may possibly be able to recite it thanks to Saturday Morning television, and School House Rock. Many people view the Preamble as a simple opening to the Constitution. However, it is a description of what the framers envisioned exactly what the PEOPLE would do to found a new nation. This one sentence sets forth the entire purpose, not only of the Constitution, but also of our form of government. The most important part of this sentence is, “We the People”.

“We the People”

We, as citizens of the U.S., agree to establish a government. As separate entities, either as an individual or as a state, we agree to come together under a common nation. We, as a people empower EVERYTHING within the constitution. We agree that WE must: “Establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. We the people retain all of the power and it is our responsibility to enact the aforementioned provisions of the Constitution. Each task set forth by the preamble has been both taken at face value and interpreted to be the means to an end. Examining each in turn will shed a little light on the importance of each task.

“Establish Justice”

It is not by chance that Establishing justice is the first task set forth by the Constitution. We the people must provide justice. In the body of the constitution we declare HOW we will establish justice. The phrase encompasses the three main duties of the branches of government, later delineated in the Articles of the Constitution. The establishment of justice combines the role of all three branches of our government; to make laws (the legislature), to enforce laws (the executive), and to judge the validity of law, and settle the questions of justice before the law (the judiciary). “Establish Justice”, is the foremost purpose of government. Without justice, there is anarchy. Without justice, there are no protections. Without justice, there is no remedy for addressing grievances of the people. Thusly, “Establish Justice” is given prominence in the preamble.

“Ensure Domestic Tranquility”

One of the concerns of the Continental Congress was the inability of the new country to control disputes between individual groups and between the states. Uprisings caused by an ineffective central government, such as “Shay’s Rebellion”, needed to be given a more effectual method to be resolved through peaceful means. Disputes over territory, such as the fight between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over the town of Wilkes-Barre (see Pennamite Wars) could not be arbitrated. The weak federal government outlined by the Articles of Confederation did not have the authority to resolve these conflicts so the framers of the Constitution wanted the federal government to have the ability to solve these problems to preserve the nation. This is one area of contention with how the clause should be applied. It can be construed to mean that the federal government can arbitrate the disputes and come to an equitable solution, or it can be seen as giving the federal government the power to compel states through force of arms to maintain peace. The possibility of the second interpretation was quelled by the passing of the “Posse Comitatus Act” of 1879 which:

“prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.” From Wikipedia

However, it is we the people, who are called to keep the peace. With the individual cities and states having their own law enforcement agencies to quell violence, and federal justice department, we attempt to keep the peace.

“Provide for the Common Defense”

We the people will provide for the common defense. We will protect each other as we would our families. How will we do this? The most interpreted meaning of “provide for the common defense” is that the federal government is empowered to raise a federal army to protect the nation from "enemies both foreign and domestic” and the second amendment allows for citizens to protect themselves through the ownership of firearms. A lesser thought of the meaning, is to provide for the defense of the individual rights of its citizens. It is the federal government’s responsibility to protect the citizenry from excesses of government, as much as it is the people’s responsibility. For example, a form of legislation passed by congress that is unconstitutional, needs to be corrected either by the executive branch through veto, or by the judiciary through the challenging of the legislation for validity. It is the citizen’s responsibility to protect the people by voicing their opposition through protest, legal means or through the ballot box.

“Promote the General Welfare”

We the people will promote general welfare. We will create an environment for our citizens to thrive. This is, by far, the most over-used, and misinterpreted clause in the Preamble and the Constitution as a whole. It is also one of the phrases that have its meaning misconstrued due to an ever evolving language. Welfare, as it is modernly known, is a form of entitlement, a long line of hand-outs, and the basis of our ever-increasing national debt. The literal meaning of welfare is “health, happiness and prosperity.” This definition of the word has been abdicated to mean the federal government is meant to PROVIDE general welfare. However, the exact phrase states to “PROMOTE”. To promote the general welfare means to create laws, regulations, and adjudications that maintains an environment for welfare to flourish. This means, oppressive taxes, interference of industry through regulation, or the allowance of laws that prevent the populous from maintaining their own welfare should not be allowed. Don’t be fooled that the founders wanted the people to be beholden to the government. They spent eight long, hard years fighting to get away from a government that limited their ability have the best possible welfare.

“Secure the Blessings of Liberty”

The Declaration of Independence set forth the establishment that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” By writing the Constitution and the granting of the powers to the federal government therein, we promise “We the People” will also secure liberty. The framers also promised to make sure we would, as a people, not allow government to go astray and become oppressive. The “blessings of liberty” refers back to the Declaration of Independence also, in that; it is our right to oppose any government that attempts to remove our liberty.

“For Ourselves and Our Prosperity”

This is probably the most overlooked phrase in the Constitution. We the people will establish all we have mentioned above, to form a government, where we retain the power over our own welfare, protection, and freedom and we promise to do this for our children as well. This is a BIG contention for many citizens now. The elected representatives all swear an oath to support and defend the constitution. But, I believe they only look at what comes AFTER the Preamble for what they can do and what they will base decisions on. “For ourselves and our prosperity” flatly states that we will ensure all we hold dear, and will protect it for ourselves and our children and ALL of our descendants. The excessive spending in today’s government places a restriction on our children’s ability to hold onto their “blessings of liberty”. We are enslaving ourselves and our future. This one phrase in itself makes an enormous national debt and unsecured future debt unconstitutional. It clearly makes an argument that the Constitution mandates a balanced budget to avoid the ensnarement of our future. The same holds true, that it is the responsibility of all people to challenge ANY law that would impede the freedom of future generations.

“Do Ordain and Establish this Constitution of the United States of America”

In simple terms, this means by knowing what we must do and agreeing to do so, we “ordain and establish” our nation. With these words we enact the Constitution with the power we have as a people. With the body of the Constitution, we establish a Nation and a Government of that nation. With these words, we officially give our nation a name, The United States of America.

There you have it, a concise and accurate reading of what The Constitution establishes, how the government is “supposed” to operate, and what the responsibilities are for each and every citizen who calls themselves an American. These fifty-two words explain our nation as a whole, the promise we make to ourselves, and the promise we make to our children.

D_Loki

Free thinking citizen

2010-01-21T09:42:00.001-06:00

The contributors, Loki, IdahoBob, and North Idaho Patriot, are doing an excellent job of teaching us some history. They are also reminding us that we need to be responsible citizens by thinking for ourselves, critically examining what others (including elected officials) are saying & promising, and speaking out against all those who ignore and violate the US Constitution-- those who would take away our Liberty.

Thank you guys for the time it takes to make this contribution for you fellow citizens!

That said, I want to share something I came across today. All emphases are mine-- the key point in my mind is that those described as "Libertarian" are also described as "independent-minded." It's not my intention to be pushing any particular agenda, but rather to point out that those independent minded folks see to be making a difference! So can we. Whatever our individual views are, each of us should, as a citizen, be engaged in a free and open debate about the future of The United States.
~~

The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama

by David Kirby and David Boaz

Libertarian — or fiscally conservative, socially liberal — voters are often torn between their aversions to the Republicans' social conservatism and the Democrats' fiscal irresponsibility. Yet libertarians rarely factor into pundits' and pollsters' analyses.

In 2004 libertarians swung away from Bush, anticipating the Democratic victories of 2006. In 2008, according to new data in this paper, libertarians voted against Barack Obama. Libertarians seem to be a lead indicator of trends in centrist, independent-minded voters. If libertarians continue to lead the independents away from Obama, Democrats will lose 2010 midterm elections they would otherwise win.

We find that 14 percent of American voters can be classified as libertarian. Other surveys find a larger number of people who hold views that are neither consistently liberal nor conservative but are best described as libertarian. A 2009 Gallup poll found that 23 percent held libertarian views. A Zogby poll found that 59 percent considered themselves "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," and 44 percent agreed that they were "fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian."

Libertarians shifted back to the Republican column in 2008, supporting John McCain over Barack Obama by 71 to 27 percent. Although many libertarian intellectuals had a real antipathy to McCain, the typical libertarian voter saw McCain as an independent, straight-talking maverick who was a strong opponent of earmarks and pork-barrel spending and never talked about social issues. Also, the prospect of a Democratic president working with a Democratic majority in Congress at the height of a financial crisis scared libertarian voters.

Younger libertarians were more supportive of Obama. Pro-life libertarians are more Republican than pro-choice libertarians.

Few of the voters we describe as libertarian identify themselves as such. But the Ron Paul campaign and the burgeoning opposition to President Obama's big-government agenda suggest that small-government voters may be easier to organize than they have been in the past.

~~
The entire paper to which they refer is here.

Thank you!

2010-01-20T08:28:00.000-06:00

'It is to me a new and consolatory proof that wherever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

—Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789

Thank you, Citizens of Massachusetts.

An excellent resource for informing ourselves is A Documentary History of the United States. $9.99 in paperback.

"Here in a single volume are the documents, speeches, and letters that have forged American history, accompanied by interpretations of their significance by noted historian and broadcaster Richard D. Heffner. It includes complete text of the Declaration of Independence, the complete Constitution of the United States, the Emancipation Proclamation, FDR's "Four Freedoms" Speech, John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" Speech, documents relating to September 11, 2001, and Barack Obama's Inaugural Address."

This is not the first time in our nation's history that the people have risen up in an attempt to take back their own lives. Read all about it!

Truer Words Have Never Been Spoken.....

2010-01-16T09:44:00.004-06:00

“We hold these truths to be self-evident….”
“We the people, of the United States, in order to perform a more perfect union….”
“I know not what course others may take, but for myself, give me Liberty or give me Death.”
“These are the times that try men’s souls.”
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

Every American should know where these words come from. Every American should know whose words these are. Every American should know when these words were spoken, and under what circumstances. I sit here today as a citizen, a parent, and a patriot and I am appalled that many of us cannot answer the above questions of who, what, where and when. It has always been said “They who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.” Well, through apathy, ignorance, inadequate public schools, and progressive “enlightened” educators, our nation and its children are done a great disservice by neglecting to teach AND exalt the above words and the history from which they come.

We take for granted the blessings that were bestowed upon us on July 4th, 1776 and September 17th, 1787. We have allowed the founding beliefs of this nation to become simple words that may or may not be binding. We have allowed the warnings of the founders to come to fruition and begin to destroy that which they gave every measure to create. We have allowed God to be removed from our society as simply as tossing a bag of trash. We have given our sense of responsibility over to tyrants who are deciding what rights, which we have already been granted, they will allow us to keep. We have been quiet too long. We have stopped listening to the divine spark within us. We have not only stopped standing up for what is right, but we have also sat quietly by and allowed what is wrong to be perpetrated on our society.

I implore every person who reads this, and believes in the nation that was founded 234 years ago, to return to educating ourselves on the principles and words that created it. Go back to the words, but do not just read them. Allow them to enter your mind, your heart, and your soul. Ingrain them in your very being for they will give you the strength to stand up to those who will destroy what we have. Use those words to base your arguments with those who think too lightly of our founding. Use their words to teach the next generation just how precious our liberties are. Use those words as the yard stick to measure the beliefs of any person who asks to lead. Use those words to find your own measure of patriotism. Use those words to relight the divine spark within yourself, to give strength to be the citizen who will “support and defend” all that we hold dear. Head on over to the APN forums and go to the General Discussions section and find the post titled the same as this. There you can download a selection of the 'words' that made this country what the founders wanted it to be.

It Takes More for Enlightenment Than Just Having A Lightbulb.

2010-01-19T14:44:00.003-06:00

“Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day.”

Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

Today’s quote holds great symbolic meaning for the times we are living in. We have, as a people, had our eyes opened to the happenings in government. People and organizations such as The Heritage Foundation, Fox News (and its personalities), conservative talk radio and the 9/12 project have “enlightened” the public to the truths behind the current health care reform proposals and the public has responded. This enlightenment cannot be left to others alone. We as patriots must pass on this information to all who will listen. We must pass on our knowledge and encourage them to speak out (in law-abiding, peaceful ways) and make our wishes known to the proverbial “powers that be”. We, as a group, have been pulled off our couches and into the streets. Encourage others to give up their apathy as well and do not become complacent with allowing our elected officials to run roughshod over our liberties, our property, our lives or our glorious Constitution anymore.

When looking toward yourselves, continue your own education. Never settle for mediocrity. You do not need to attend a University. All you need is an open mind and an open book. Review what you were taught as a child. Bring history alive in your homes. Teach your children what they are lacking in the public school system. Do not relegate their education to the indoctrination and selective teaching that occurs there. Keep your eyes on the machinations of those in Washington. The reading may leave your head spinning, but it will then give you ammunition to argue fervently in either opposition or acquiescence. If we truly believe that this is a nation “for the people, of the people, and by the people” we cannot honorably sit by, ignoring what is happening.

I will never preach religion to you or spew forth dogma that I may believe, but must argue for you to accept. What I will do is ask that you keep the spirit of God in your life by whatever name you call Him. Enlightenment is a divine spark, the difference between you and lower life. There is a reason the progressive movement tries to eradicate God from our lives. Without faith in something greater than ourselves, we will give faith and power to those who exert it over us. It is the same reason substance abuse recovery programs teach their partners to find their ‘higher power’. Without a decent moral compass, we can be lead astray, and to a place we neither want to be, nor can thrive in. This is easily witnessed in or society. Families split apart by poor choices and no line of faith to give them hope to make it through. Morality pushed aside by politicians for the purpose of an agenda. This is easily remedied by holding on to our own belief in our own vision of God.

In closing, remember just as your education is an ongoing event, so is the defense of our nation and its values. Do not allow yourself to again become complacent in either your further learning or your government. Challenge yourself and your leaders. Hold yourself and them accountable for the actions committed. Remind yourself and them that your opinion counts not only at the ballot box, but also among your neighbors. I sincerely thank you if you will do these things. I thank all those patriots who HAVE gotten off their couches. I thank them for their fervency, and their out cry. I thank them for remembering, as I do, how this country was founded, and how it should be run. I thank all those in the armed services, who take up arms and keep their oaths to uphold and defend our Constitution from all enemies. I thank those in government who hold to their principles and refuse to be coerced, bribed, or threatened to compromise themselves. I thank those who stand up in the public spotlight and put themselves up for scrutiny and criticism. Finally I thank you, for reading this, and hopefully taking charge of your own ENLIGHTENMENT.

D_Loki

Test your knowledge

2010-01-19T09:18:00.000-06:00

H/T D_Loki who posted this on the APN forum.

If you are interested in learning more about our nation's founding and heritage, The American Revolution Center looks like an excellent place to start. From the home page:

"John Adams, in the Defense of the Constitutions (1787), argues for the importance of patriotic education by writing that students and citizens “should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.” A principal means of securing the “blessings of liberty” that the Constitution describes is by educating rising generations about these precious birth rights. In a democratic republic, the primary purpose of education is to cultivate civic and moral literacy among its citizens. We hope your understanding of the American Revolution and its legacy is furthered as you explore this site. To support this, you will find a searchable database and links to other historical and cultural organizations."

Test your knowledge of the American Revolution here. Twenty questions.

482 words you need to read

2010-01-17T10:18:00.001-06:00

The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States

December 15, 1791

Preamble

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

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

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Remember the Words

2010-01-15T23:43:00.000-06:00

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

Abraham Lincoln 16th president of the United States (1861-1865)

Twenty-seven little words. One small sentence. One opinion, of one man. Words that rang true 140 plus years ago and now are SCREAMING. I again invite every reader to grab a copy of the U.S. Constitution; 4,543 words that changed how enlightened man viewed the power of government, (7,591 words including all of the amendments). Read it, from “We the People” all the way through to the last word of the 27th Amendment, “intervened”.

Make yourself remember the lessons you had in school. Remember the men who put their lives, their fortunes and their honor on the line to give us this most important document of our country’s history. Remember what it meant to the men who signed it. Benjamin Franklin, in his ailing health, needed help to sign his name to the document, and he did so with tears in his eyes. James Madison called it “the greatest single effort of national deliberation that the world has ever seen”. George Washington, in a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette wrote, “It (the Constitution) appears to me, then, little short of a miracle.” This was not just a piece of paper. This was not just a gentleman’s agreement. This was not a rush job with a deadline to “git r’ done”. It took 145 days to write and approve at the convention, and almost ten months to ratify. This was inspiration. This was a work of art. This was for the first time in history, than men put freedom before power, liberty, before persecution, and the people, before government.

Somewhere in the past 221 years too many of us have forgotten this. In twenty plus decades, the men and women who are elected to Congress have failed to hold their oaths to uphold and defend this most sacred document. Presidents circumvent their appointed powers. Justices ‘interpret’ the supreme law of the land with far too much political and personal bias, and not enough adherence to the words, just as Thomas Jefferson feared when he wrote, “The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

When it comes time to walk to the ballot boxes this year, make sure you remember the words of Mr. Lincoln. Do not wait until the general election in November. Go to your primaries, go to your caucuses. Make sure that the names on the November ballots are men and women who, first and foremost, believe that the Constitution IS the LAW. Make sure that we elect statesmen, not politicians. Make sure that those who now sit in the chambers of Congress, are sent packing for their failure to keep their oaths. Put aside politics and parties. Put aside agendas and special interest. Put aside greed and entitlement. Stand up, Speak up, Vote, and help to take our country back from the thieves who would re-write the words that set men free.

Who Do You Listen To?

2010-01-15T06:35:00.002-06:00

Most Americans regrettably have to have someone tell them what to think and do. What we get for the grandfolks dropping the ball on their responsibility of keeping a tight leash on their public servants. Thought everything was okay in America, went about their little lives… next thing the so-called ‘elites’ engineer a depression, shut down the economy and con everyone into thinking that the government are the ones who can save the country-instead of hanging the banksters and their private federal reserve cartel that shut off the money supply on purpose. But ‘murkans didn’t know any better back then so they accepted a bigger brother-who didn’t really provide them with jobs until World War Two came around. And there was just no stopping the enemy after that-because the enemy controlled the media, owned the media through interlocking board chairs, stock holdings. Of course they controlled the money and the US government and since ‘murkans were really naïve back then they listened to their own worst enemy as they systematically broke them-

-To ever increasing taxes for defenses against enemies they financed; Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union were financed to be credible foes to scare us into a national security state.

-To surrendering their free time to the television, the most diabolical means of mass thought control and time wastage ever invented. Between the reality shows, the sitcoms inducing selfish backstabbing, the million cop shows inducing worship of our enslavers, Neo-Marxist Hollywood and Madison Avenue have made the psyches of Americans their little bitch.

-To submitting to ‘reasonable’ licenses and fees… which start out voluntary to raise revenue but become mandatory, in violation of our Rights. Rights become privilege, privilege becomes restricted to certain approved people-and that list always shrinks.

-To state run schools based on an un-American Prussian model of regimentation to turn out dull, dumbed down unquestioning drones.

Can’t be Free if you submit to 60% and more tax rates. Can’t be Free if your mind and will are enslaved by American Idol and the 100 spinoffs of CSI. Can’t be Free if you’re afraid to light a cigarette in a public place, or choose not to wear a seat belt, or exercise your Second-even to defend your family. Certainly cannot be Free if you let your enemies who wish you enslaved teach you and yours, you only get lied to …when you can summon the strength to actually pay attention to the deliberately dulling curriculum.

Know for a fact you’re not free when you’re intimidated by mouthbreathers with police powers into being felt up and having your privates scanned by devices. Expect one at a mobile checkpoint real soon.

Yet we listen to our worst enemies for everything from financial advice(so they can fleece us), to fashion(so they can make us look retarded and have to buy new wardrobes every year) to health( so they can poison us), to “opinion makers” for those who actually watch the news(so they can tell the political equivalent of a pimp’s game on their ho… YOU.)

So, whom to listen to. I would say Be Your Own Leader but that requires more than common sense it requires knowledge, wisdom. Some of the things bred out of modern Americans. A backbone to use your power of NO, to refuse to demur to every demand an ‘authority figure’ presents you.

Well, willpower is something of a mental muscle, you have to exercise it in the first place in order to be strong. As for seeking advice, opinion, wisdom:

1. Everybody has an agenda. If they say they don’t they’re lying and you shouldn’t be listening to them in the first place. So, what’s their agenda-do you agree with it… enough to listen?

2. Are they attempting to implement that agenda in an intelligent fashion… let alone honestly? Do they have a half-way reasonable plan that envisions victory? Believe it or not that matters.

3. What are they getting out of it? By that I mean personally, what are they getting out of it-is it altruism, do they go out of their way to hide or deny any self-benefit, do they get a cash flow? Now that’s not necessarily bad, as things cost money. Like utilities, server costs, studios, cameras, etc. That’s understandable. Making a living, that’s understandable. Milking a movement for personal wealth and power… that can never be tolerated and demonstrates an hidden agenda.

4. Who are they connected with? Directly or indirectly? Any possibility they’re compromised, or duped? Or a deep cover operative leading you and your organization over a cliff, or nowhere-or some other kind of ringer?

5. Do they do what they say they will do? Do they follow through or do they quit on the first real obstacle? Does it seem like they’re going along with a bad pro wrestling script?

6. Are they reasonably together, given personal quirks-or do they reek of month old cat piss and ramble about really crazy shit like space beams taking down the World Trade Center, and endless postings about trillion dollar “packets” that are always diverted and delayed? Or some other silly Santa Klaus fantasy crap.

7. Do they go out of their way to fight with others… in the movement? Engage in frivolous innuendo with most asinine trains of what passes for thought? Build mountains out of typically nothing or otherwise nothing of consequence? Attack the dead TRUE Patriots?

8. Is their information accurate? Can you trust them to make an attempt at accuracy, or do they rely on a cult of personality to ride through the fact they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about, that they can post the most absurd shit and you’ll still buy it… because they tell you to “visualize” it becoming reality.

Now do some math: add up all you know and feel about who you listen to, and what they’ve accomplished, their fruits. It will be obvious who you should listen to.

…But why do you listen?

Are you looking for hope? Hope can be the most dangerous weapon against you, right along with the word reason and any derivative thereof.

Are you listening because they give you a sense of hope or accomplishment-and that’s enough? You know in your heart that it isn’t, that anything in this world can only get done if you actually work on it and not just fantasize about it and lie to yourself that suffices.

Are you looking for a painless way out of this? There isn’t.

Are you looking for answers why things are so messed up with our nation, our world? Do you do this knowing those you listen to may be ideologically skewed by the Madison Avenue artifice known as the left/right paradigm? Or otherwise discounts any truthful perspective outside of their own ideology? Have to accept your world view most likely isn’t 100 percent accurate, that a true picture of the way things are will require you to go places you’re not comfortable going. Because the only way we can get through this is with an accurate view of what opposes us in the first place.

Are you looking for solutions, workable means to getting your Freedom? That’s the most important question to ask. Most people want solutions but Americans are conditioned to subsist on style, image, good feelings about those they listen too-all of which can be induced. Meantime, those presented lead them nowhere. They ride a tsunami of hope and expectation fueled by desperation, throttled by ignorance and lacking a clear vision. Oh, they can talk a good game but the details… somehow are lacking. Next thing, they fold at the first sign of trouble devastating all the followers who gave up their jobs, life savings and shelter to follow them. Worse, they DO get into positions of power and totally punk their followers by doing exactly the opposite of what they promised. Powerful thing, neurolinguistic programming.

No, way past time you subsisted on escapism, entertainment, misplaced hopes. Way past time you looked at our situation the way it really is, looked at the enemy. How they operate, their strengths(many) their weaknesses(surprisingly many) their goals and how to defeat them. Just as important however is that you need to look at yourself-how you’ve been bred to be weak, to be a follower, to need people to guide you , to listen to like you were still a child. Essentially, Americans ARE adult sized children.

Strengthen your mind, your body, your will, your knowledge and your capabilities. Most of all strengthen your spirit. Get back with Your Father in Heaven. All you need to do that is to find a small quiet place-you can be driving. Let your mind go blank or otherwise automatic, think about God and for once let Him speak to you. From your heart. And, actually do because God has what you can consider the overhead perspective of everything. And He’s on our side. I mention this because Americans have had a solid spirituality sandblasted from the culture by the enemy, and a people who are afraid to die for their cause will not fight for it even so much as minor acts of civil disobedience-like not pay fines generated by automated speed cameras, let alone stand for their other Rights, country, family.

Maybe you'll come to the realization that you're better off being your own leader...

J. Croft
http://freedomguide.wordpress.com
http://freedomguide.blogspot.com

Equal protection under the law

2010-01-13T08:49:00.000-06:00

One of these most basic standards is equal protection under the law. When that is violated, America does not live up to the true meaning of its creed. When it is followed, the country functions the way it was intended to. For the Department of Justice to enforce the Voting Rights Act only to protect members of certain minority groups breaches the fundamental guarantee of equal protection, and could substantially erode public support for the Voting Rights Act itself.

These words were said by Christopher Coates, former chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department. "Coates, had been relentlessly criticized by liberals both inside and outside the division because of his involvement in two cases — one in Noxubee County, Mississippi (U.S.v. Ike Brown et al.), the other in Philadelphia (U.S. v. New Black Panther Party et al.) — that feature clear-cut voting-rights violations (namely, discrimination and intimidation) committed by black defendants."

"Apparently eager to punish Coates for his role in these cases, political appointees in theObama administration effectively stripped him of all his management and supervisory authority soon after they came into power. The indignity and abuse to which Coates was subjected represents a disheartening example of the politicization of Eric Holder’s Justice Department, and will serve as another ugly stain on an out-of-control Civil Rights Division."

Coates' remarks at a going away event, recounted here at National Review Online are well worth reading.

The United States is not a democracy. It is a Democratic Republic. The majority-- black or white, male or female, democrat or republican (or libertarian), has a moral obligation to respect the rights of individuals in the minority. It's just that simple.