In Freedom’s Cause

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/13/continental-new-york-plane-crash

When someone hears of a plane crash, they normally think of terrorists, at least as a possibility. What about the Buffalo plane crash that hit the house? It was only hours after the crash that news sites reported the following facts:

• We don’t know what caused it
• We lost contact with the pilot minutes before the crash
• We haven’t yet gotten the black box or voice recorder
• … and one more thing… terrorism is NOT suspected.

Wait a minute! Terrorism NOT suspected? Why the heck not? They admit that they know nothing about the crash, we’re in a heightened level of alert for terrorism, al qaida is out to kill us all, and a plane crashes and before they have any knowledge of what happened they say that it wasn’t terrorism!

Something stinks here. It’s saying one of two things. Either:

1. We do know what caused it and we aren’t telling you, or
2. We know about all terrorism in advance and this wasn’t planned.

This admission is admitting guilt to this event or guilt to all other events.

S.C. cops seize 75 guns in the first 90 minutes of ‘Guns for Roses’ program
The Associated Press
updated 12:45 p.m. ET, Sat., Feb. 14, 2009

COLUMBIA, South Carolina - Police in South Carolina are giving out roses on Valentine’s Day. All you have to do is turn in a gun.

Authorities are running the “Guns for Roses” program Saturday at two locations in the central part of the state.

Anyone who turns in a gun gets a free rose and an electronics store gift card. A handgun gets a $100 gift card, while a rifle or shotgun nets a $50 gift card.

Richland County sheriff’s spokesman Lt. Chris Cowan says there has already been a great turnout at one Columbia location and deputies have seized about 75 guns in the first 90 minutes.

He says there is no amnesty for gun owners. The weapons are checked to see if they are stolen and ballistics test will also be done.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The good news is that George W. Bush is no longer the president. The bad news is that Obama is the president.

So, our years of hating the republican mental midget who likes to transfer trillions of our dollars to his banker buddies, are to be replaced with a democratic slick-talker who reneges on all of his promises.

But there’s a bright side. Yes, Obama is a proud member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), so relax. He’s in good company. After all, if Dick Cheney was the director of the CFR then it couldn’t be too bad, right? Just because they’ve sworn to the destruction of the sovereignty of the United States, it couldn’t be that bad right? Nah.

So, what will happen with Obama’s presidency?

• He will carry the “terror” torch and continue to scare us out of our freedoms.
• He will continue the line ‘o crap regarding global warming and totally give in to the United Nations’ tax on carbon.
• The Iraq war will go on as planned.
• We will start a war with another nation.
• There will probably be some new crisis that he will sell to us that will require us to change who we are as a nation. I cannot predict what it will be, but it will probably involve the economy.
• Taxes will go up “for the good of the nation”.
• He will be allowed to do a few good things to keep the confidence of the American People, but they will be for a showcase and little else.

That’s the truth. I’m on the record. We shall see.

See http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=67239.0 for user comments.

By Victor Thorn
Considering the widespread dissatisfaction and outright anger at what’s taking place in Washington these days, why would a single person in vote for either the Republicans or Democrats in next month’s election? Look at what these two parties have done:

An $850 billion bailout, increasing inflation, $12 billion a month for a needless war in Iraq, the Katrina clean-up debacle, an astronomical national debt, the 9-11 false-flag terror attacks, more arms sales, and billions for Israel, Patriot Act legislation, votescam elections, the housing collapse, continued outsourcing, increased unemployment, and continuing graft, greed, and deceit.

Yet in the 2004 presidential election, 99 percent of those who cast a ballot voted for either George W. Bush or John Kerry (both Skull & Bones members). That means only 1 percent of voters selected someone running from a third party. When I asked Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin about this sorry state of affairs, he quoted Albert Einstein. “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” He added, “It is insane to continue voting for establishment candidates and expecting anything to change in D.C.”

Baldwin is correct. It’s easy for us to complain about our representation (or lack thereof) in the nation’s capital, but the fault primarily lies with each of us. Nobody holds a gun to our heads when we enter a polling booth. We’re absolutely free to pull whatever lever we so desire. Still, we keep
sending Democrats and Republicans to Washington.

According to Baldwin, Americans have been conditioned to vote inside the system by our national media, education system, and churches. When asked about religious leaders, Baldwin explained, “They’re no different than anyone else in that they choose the path of least resistance. Any thought
outside the mainstream is so foreign to them that they don’t even entertain it. Going outside the system requires a great deal of personal volition and effort. Regrettably, people are generally lazy and don’t want to do the work necessary to reason out any alternatives. Freedom is hard work, and the
two-party system keeps playing us against each other.”

Luckily, Baldwin continued, populist champion Ron Paul-who recently endorsed him-”has planted seeds in the ground which will start growing in people’s hearts and minds. After all, how much longer can we continue moving in this direction before we lose the very principles and foundation upon which this
country was founded? The American people need to stand up against the fear that is being used against them, such as with the recent bailout bill. The power elite in Washington aren’t going to retreat, and we can’t either.”

When questioned as to his expectations on November 4, Baldwin said, “I’d be thrilled to see the American people deny the two major candidates an electoral victory. In other words, neither one gets the necessary 270 votes, so the election would then have to be decided in the House. That would be a moral victory for third party candidates, and a significant paradigm shift for the future.” Baldwin added:

“For months before the 2004 election, my mantra was: vote for anybody but Bush or [Sen. John] Kerry. The same advice applies this year. Vote for anybody but McCain or Obama. Imagine if every single person in the United States who chose to vote this fall refused to select the Republican or
Democratic candidate. Not only would we be able to finally start breaking their monopoly, but the powers-that-be wouldn’t be able to fall back on votescam because nobody would have voted for their two-headed candidates. In light of how close our country is to a major meltdown due to decades of
corrupt rule by the Democrats and Republicans, destiny is now in our hands. Don’t throw your vote away by supporting Obama or McCain. This year, make it count.”

Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93 and Other Sept. 11 Mysteries Explored. He is the co-founder of the WINGTV Network.

Please make a donation to American Free Press

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long
as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE,
Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

Naomi Wolf, author of The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot, tells about her new book titled Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries.

There is no time left. The coup has taken place in America. Every American needs to listen to what she says. As she says, do your own research. Also, don’t assume you are safe because this is the good ol’ U.S of A. Every step has now been taken to take over the country with military support.

Don’t keep this quiet. Share it with everyone you can.

Source: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081001.html
According to the Army Times (dated Tuesday, September 30, 2008), “Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT [Brigade Combat Team] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.”

The article continued by saying, “But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

“After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.”

The Times column also reported that the Army brigade “may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control . . .” It seems that the Army’s new domestic duties also include “traffic control” as well as subduing “unruly or dangerous individuals.”

The brigade will be known for the next year as a Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced “sea-smurf”).

I am assuming that the planners and promoters of this newfound function for the Army brigade envision the Army assisting local first responders in dealing with natural emergencies such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like. Good intentions notwithstanding, to assign domestic police duties to the U.S. military is extremely disturbing.

To understand my concern for this new “homeland Army brigade,” it is important that we rehearse the principles of liberty as they relate to standing armies.

One of America’s most sacred principles has always been that the U.S. military was never to be used for domestic law enforcement. The fear of standing armies ran very deep in the hearts and minds of America’s founders. The tyranny and misery inflicted upon the colonies by British troops weighed heavily upon those who drafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights. In their minds, the American people would never again be subjected to the heavy weight of army boots. Furthermore, they insisted that America would have a civilian–not military–government.

And after the fiasco of the abuse of federal troops in the South following the War Between the States, the doctrine of Posse Comitatus was enacted into law. The Wikipedia online encyclopedia says this about Posse Comitatus:

“The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services … from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintain ‘law and order’ on non-federal property. . . .

“The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. . . .

“The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement.”

The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 and was universally accepted as being a very just–and extremely important–law of the land.

But in 2006, President George W. Bush pushed a Republican-controlled Congress to pass the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, which included a section titled “Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies.” This section provided that “The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines….” In effect, this bill obliterated Posse Comitatus.

When the Democrat-controlled Congress passed the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, however, the restrictions of Posse Comitatus were restored. But when President Bush signed the Act into law, he attached a signing statement (Executive Order) indicating that the Executive Branch did not feel bound by the changes enacted by the repeal. Translated: President Bush wiped out Posse Comitatus by Executive Order.

Now, just a few months after expunging Posse Comitatus, President Bush has authorized an Army brigade to be assigned the new role of dealing exclusively with domestic law enforcement and related duties. This evokes serious questions.

Who will give the order to send U.S. troops against American civilians, and under what circumstances? What will the rules of engagement be? How will “unruly” and “dangerous” be defined? How will soldiers be asked to deal with “crowd” or “traffic” control? And perhaps the biggest question is, Once we begin to go down this road, where will it lead?

For several years, the federal government has been accumulating to itself more and more authority that was historically understood to reside within the states and local communities. More and more, our police departments have taken on the image and tactics of the armed forces. And to a greater and greater degree, the rights and liberties of the American people are being sacrificed on the altar of “national security.” It seems to me that to now ascribe law enforcement duties to the U.S. Army only serves to augment the argument that America is fast approaching police state status.

If Hurricane Katrina is the template that our federal government is using as a model for future events, Heaven help us! Do readers remember how National Guard troops were used to confiscate the personal firearms of isolated and vulnerable civilians shortly after that hurricane devastated the New Orleans area? Do you remember how representatives of the federal government were calling upon pastors and ministers to act as spokesmen for gun confiscation? Is this what the new Army brigade is preparing for? And do President Bush and his military planners envision an even broader role for military troops on American soil?

Add to the above rumors of thousands of plastic caskets–along with thousands of portable prison cells–being shipped and stored across the country, and one is left to ask, Exactly what is it that our federal government is planning?

I think there is an even bigger question, What exactly will members of our armed forces do if and when they are commanded to seize Americans’ firearms, arrest them at gun point, or even fire upon them? How many soldiers and Marines love liberty and constitutional government enough to resist such orders, should they be given? And how many officers would resist issuing such orders?

Remember, it is the job of the armed forces to kill people and blow up things, not to do police work. Then again, Presidential administrations from both major parties have been using the U.S. military as U.N. “peacekeepers” for decades now. So, was all of this preparation for what is yet to take place in the United States?

God forbid that any of the above should actually take place in our beloved land, but I believe it would be naïve to not see that the actions and attitudes of the federal government over the past several years do nothing to assuage such fears.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

*Disclaimer: I am currently a candidate for President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. My official campaign web site is located at:

http://www.baldwin08.com/

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20081001.html

“I just want to make a comment about the obvious issue and that is the failure of Congress to act yesterday. Its just not acceptable,” said McCain. “This is just a not acceptable situation. I’m not saying this is the perfect answer. If I were dictator, which I always aspire to be, I would write it a little bit differently.”

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) said, “Mr. Speaker I understand we are under Martial Law as declared by the speaker last night.”

Michael Burgess begins his address by saying, “Mr. Speaker I ask permission DURESS… to address the house for one minute…” He then goes on to say that martial law has been declared.

Was this intentional?

Martial Law in congress excuses congress from the requirement of examining a bill for at least one day. It forces congress to vote before a bill has been examined.

Source: CBPP.org

What is “Martial Law”?

The House leadership is using a parliamentary gambit to evade a longstanding House rule that is supposed to ensure that this kind of obfuscation does not occur. That House rule (Rule XIII(6)(a)) provides that a resolution (called a rule) reported by the Rules Committee cannot be considered by the House on the same legislative day that the rule is reported (except by a two-thirds vote of the House). This is supposed to ensure that Members of the House and the public have at least one day to examine and analyze what is in legislation before they have to debate and vote on it.

To maneuver around this House rule and rush the three proposals discussed above to a vote before they have been fully examined, the Rules Committee reported a rule late Thursday afternoon (H.Res. 958) that would waive the application of Rule XIII(6)(a). Instead, it would allow the Rules Committee to wait until the last minute and not to report the rules governing the consideration of these bills or to release the text of the bills themselves until immediately before debate and votes on the bills, and on the rules governing their consideration, commences.

This extraordinary procedure is known as a “martial law” rule because it suspends the normal procedures and safeguards and allows the House Leadership to operate in a more authoritarian fashion. It enables the Leadership to seek to ram a bill or conference report through before the Members have the opportunity to fully understand what they are voting on.

Legislation that has far-reaching implications for millions of Americans deserves to be considered under a more democratic process. Waiting until the last minute to reveal what is in these bills, and then “spinning” or potentially mischaracterizing changes in the bills without Members of the House or the public having an opportunity to obtain a more objective review of what the legislation does, is unfair to Members of the House. It also is unfair to the millions of Americans whose lives could be affected by this legislation. It represents a further step in reducing the degree of transparency and democracy in how this country is governed and how decisions are made. At a time when our leaders preach the goal of promoting democracy abroad, they should not be reducing it at home.