You might expect a few mistakes — and a little fraud — to crop up in the 52 million stimulus checks that the government has sent out. But a new report from Fox News may have people gasping: Millions of dollars in stimulus checks may have been sent out to between 8,000 and 10,000 dead people.
Where's My Stimulus?
The Social Security Administration says that this could have happened because they had no record of these people’s deaths, but even more curious, Fox News said that at least one of them never even collected Social Security benefits.
That person was a U.S. citizen but left for Italy in 1933 and only returned to the U.S. for a seven-month visit in 1969. Antoniette Santopadre of Valley Stream, New York told Fox she was expecting a check but didn’t get one. Instead a check was sent to her husband, Romolo Romonini who died in Italy 34 years ago.
Social Security blames a rushed schedule, but why would checks be sent to someone who never even claimed benefits? If he left for Italy in 1933 that was before Social Security was even created. The Social Security Act was first passed in 1935 and workers were registered by January 1937.
If the Fox story is true, then our Social Security record system is even more faulty than anyone could possibly imagine.
Someone put names into that system without even getting proper identification. This mistake definitely needs a Congressional investigation fast.
With Social Security in so much trouble, we must be certain that we’re not wasting Social Security benefits on people who shouldn’t be in the system. As of this writing, I’m still waiting for a comment from the Social Security Administration.
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 27, 2002
Mr. Speaker:
Most Americans believe we live in dangerous times, and I must agree. Today I want to talk about how I see those dangers and what Congress ought to do about them.
Of course, the Monday-morning quarterbacks are now explaining, with political overtones, what we should have done to prevent the 9/11 tragedy. Unfortunately, in doing so, foreign policy changes are never considered.
I have, for more than two decades, been severely critical of our post-World War II foreign policy. I have perceived it to be not in our best interest and have believed that it presented a serious danger to our security.
For the record, in January of 2000 I stated the following on this floor:
Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer separate…as bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates hatred directed toward America …and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism, since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state…the cost in terms of lost liberties and unnecessary exposure to terrorism is difficult to assess, but in time, it will become apparent to all of us that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens, but instead is a threat to our liberties.
Again, let me remind you I made these statements on the House floor in January 2000. Unfortunately, my greatest fears and warnings have been borne out.
I believe my concerns are as relevant today as they were then. We should move with caution in this post-9/11 period so we do not make our problems worse overseas while further undermining our liberties at home.
So far our post-9/11 policies have challenged the rule of law here at home, and our efforts against the al Qaeda have essentially come up empty-handed. The best we can tell now, instead of being in one place, the members of the al Qaeda are scattered around the world, with more of them in allied Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Our efforts to find our enemies have put the CIA in 80 different countries. The question that we must answer some day is whether we can catch enemies faster than we make new ones. So far it appears we are losing.
As evidence mounts that we have achieved little in reducing the terrorist threat, more diversionary tactics will be used. The big one will be to blame Saddam Hussein for everything and initiate a major war against Iraq, which will only generate even more hatred toward America from the Muslim world.
But, Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police state. I’m sure the large majority of Americans would answer this in the negative. Most would associate military patrols, martial law and summary executions with a police state, something obviously not present in our everyday activities. However, those with knowledge of Ruby Ridge, Mount Carmel and other such incidents may have a different opinion.
The principal tool for sustaining a police state, even the most militant, is always economic control and punishment by denying disobedient citizens such things as jobs or places to live, and by levying fines and imprisonment. The military is more often used in the transition phase to a totalitarian state. Maintenance for long periods is usually accomplished through economic controls on commercial transactions, the use of all property, and political dissent. Peaceful control through these efforts can be achieved without storm troopers on our street corners.
Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a declared war. Under these conditions, most citizens believe that once the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. For the most part, however, after a declared war is over, the return to normalcy is never complete. In an undeclared war, without a precise enemy and therefore no precise ending, returning to normalcy can prove illusory.
We have just concluded a century of wars, declared and undeclared, while at the same time responding to public outcries for more economic equity. The question, as a result of these policies, is: “Are we already living in a police state?” If we are, what are we going to do about it? If we are not, we need to know if there’s any danger that we’re moving in that direction.
Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. During a crisis, the rights of individuals and the minority are more easily trampled, which is more likely to condition a nation to become a police state than a military coup. Promised benefits initially seem to exceed the cost in dollars or lost freedom. When people face terrorism or great fear- from whatever source- the tendency to demand economic and physical security over liberty and self-reliance proves irresistible. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty.
Once it’s discovered that the desire for both economic and physical security that prompted the sacrifice of liberty inevitably led to the loss of prosperity and no real safety, it’s too late. Reversing the trend from authoritarian rule toward a freer society becomes very difficult, takes a long time, and entails much suffering. Although dissolution of the Soviet empire was relatively non-violent at the end, millions suffered from police suppression and economic deprivation in the decades prior to 1989.
But what about here in the United States? With respect to a police state, where are we and where are we going?
Let me make a few observations:
Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities.
One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety.
The terrorist attacks only provided the cover for the do-gooders who have been planning for a long time before last September to monitor us “for our own good.” Cameras are used to spy on our drug habits, on our kids at school, on subway travelers, and on visitors to every government building or park. There’s not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain- anything goes if it’s for government-provided safety and security.
If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the hands of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks, What’s the big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it eliminates the enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear. The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for reasons other than safety- including political reasons. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers.
Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities. The numbers are given at birth, and then are needed when we die and for everything in between. This allows government record keeping of monstrous proportions, and accommodates the thugs who would steal others’ identities for criminal purposes. This invasion of privacy has been compounded by the technology now available to those in government who enjoy monitoring and directing the activities of others. Loss of personal privacy was a major problem long before 9/11.
Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Community and individual state regulations are not as threatening as the monolith of rules and regulations written by Congress and the federal bureaucracy. Law and order has been federalized in many ways and we are moving inexorably in that direction.
Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences.
Because government pays for much of our health care, it’s conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm one’s health are the prerogative of the federal government, and are to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down. This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles and bikes.
Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits- or a policemen will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting a gun for sure.
The states do exactly as they’re told by the federal government, because they are threatened with the loss of tax dollars being returned to their state- dollars that should have never been sent to DC in the first place, let alone used to extort obedience to a powerful federal government.
Over 80,000 federal bureaucrats now carry guns to make us toe the line and to enforce the thousands of laws and tens of thousands of regulations that no one can possibly understand. We don’t see the guns, but we all know they’re there, and we all know we can’t fight “City Hall,” especially if it’s “Uncle Sam.”
All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don’t, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. “Involuntary servitude” was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don’t apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS- especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government’s chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works.
Economic threats against business establishments are notorious. Rules and regulations from the EPA, the ADA, the SEC, the LRB, OSHA, etc. terrorize business owners into submission, and those charged accept their own guilt until they can prove themselves innocent. Of course, it turns out it’s much more practical to admit guilt and pay the fine. This serves the interest of the authoritarians because it firmly establishes just who is in charge.
Information leaked from a government agency like the FDA can make or break a company within minutes. If information is leaked, even inadvertently, a company can be destroyed, and individuals involved in revealing government-monopolized information can be sent to prison. Even though economic crimes are serious offenses in the United States, violent crimes sometimes evoke more sympathy and fewer penalties. Just look at the O.J. Simpson case as an example.
Efforts to convict Bill Gates and others like him of an economic crime are astounding, considering his contribution to economic progress, while sources used to screen out terrorist elements from our midst are tragically useless. If business people are found guilty of even the suggestion of collusion in the marketplace, huge fines and even imprisonment are likely consequences.
Price fixing is impossible to achieve in a free market. Under today’s laws, talking to, or consulting with, competitors can be easily construed as “price fixing” and involve a serious crime, even with proof that the so-called collusion never generated monopoly-controlled prices or was detrimental to consumers.
Lawfully circumventing taxes, even sales taxes, can lead to serious problems if a high-profile person can be made an example.
One of the most onerous controls placed on American citizens is the control of speech through politically correct legislation. Derogatory remarks or off-color jokes are justification for firings, demotions, and the destruction of political careers. The movement toward designating penalties based on the category to which victims belong, rather the nature of the crime itself, has the thought police patrolling the airways and byways. Establishing relative rights and special penalties for subjective motivation is a dangerous trend.
All our financial activities are subject to “legal” searches without warrants and without probable cause. Tax collection, drug usage, and possible terrorist activities “justify” the endless accumulation of information on all Americans.
Government control of medicine has prompted the establishment of the National Medical Data Bank. For efficiency reasons, it is said, the government keeps our medical records for our benefit. This, of course, is done with vague and useless promises that this information will always remain confidential- just like all the FBI information in the past!
Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation of probably cause. “Sneak and peak” and blanket searches are now becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to the 4th amendment?
It may be true that the average American does not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. I’m sure our citizens are more tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing all this government supervision is necessary and helpful- and besides they are living quite comfortably, material wise. However the reaction will be different once all this new legislation we’re passing comes into full force, and the material comforts that soften our concerns for government regulations are decreased. This attitude then will change dramatically, but the trend toward the authoritarian state will be difficult to reverse.
What government gives with one hand- as it attempts to provide safety and security- it must, at the same time, take away with two others. When the majority recognizes that the monetary cost and the results of our war against terrorism and personal freedoms are a lot less than promised, it may be too late.
I’m sure all my concerns are unconvincing to the vast majority of Americans, who not only are seeking but also are demanding they be made safe from any possible attack from anybody, ever. I grant you this is a reasonable request.
The point is, however, there may be a much better way of doing it. We must remember, we don’t sit around and worry that some Canadian citizen is about to walk into New York City and set off a nuclear weapon. We must come to understand the real reason is that there’s a difference between the Canadians and all our many friends and the Islamic radicals. And believe me, we’re not the target because we’re “free and prosperous”.
The argument made for more government controls here at home and expansionism overseas to combat terrorism is simple and goes like this: “If we’re not made safe from potential terrorists, property and freedom have no meaning.” It is argued that first we must have life and physical and economic security, with continued abundance, then we’ll talk about freedom.
It reminds me of the time I was soliciting political support from a voter and was boldly put down: “Ron,” she said, “I wish you would lay off this freedom stuff; it’s all nonsense. We’re looking for a Representative who will know how to bring home the bacon and help our area, and you’re not that person.” Believe me, I understand that argument; it’s just that I don’t agree that is what should be motivating us here in the Congress.
That’s not the way it works. Freedom does not preclude security. Making security the highest priority can deny prosperity and still fail to provide the safety we all want.
The Congress would never agree that we are a police state. Most members, I’m sure, would argue otherwise. But we are all obligated to decide in which direction we are going. If we’re moving toward a system that enhances individual liberty and justice for all, my concerns about a police state should be reduced or totally ignored. Yet, if, by chance, we’re moving toward more authoritarian control than is good for us, and moving toward a major war of which we should have no part, we should not ignore the dangers. If current policies are permitting a serious challenge to our institutions that allow for our great abundance, we ignore them at great risk for future generations.
That’s why the post-9/11 analysis and subsequent legislation are crucial to the survival of those institutions that made America great. We now are considering a major legislative proposal dealing with this dilemma- the new Department of Homeland Security- and we must decide if it truly serves the interests of America.
Since the new department is now a forgone conclusion, why should anyone bother to record a dissent? Because it’s the responsibility of all of us to speak the truth to our best ability, and if there are reservations about what we’re doing, we should sound an alarm and warn the people of what is to come.
In times of crisis, nearly unanimous support for government programs is usual and the effects are instantaneous. Discovering the error of our ways and waiting to see the unintended consequences evolve takes time and careful analysis. Reversing the bad effects is slow and tedious and fraught with danger. People would much prefer to hear platitudes than the pessimism of a flawed policy.
Understanding the real reason why we were attacked is crucial to crafting a proper response. I know of no one who does not condemn the attacks of 9/11. Disagreement as to the cause and the proper course of action should be legitimate in a free society such as ours. If not, we’re not a free society.
Not only do I condemn the vicious acts of 9/11, but also, out of deep philosophic and moral commitment, I have pledged never to use any form of aggression to bring about social or economic changes.
But I am deeply concerned about what has been done and what we are yet to do in the name of security against the threat of terrorism.
Political propagandizing is used to get all of us to toe the line and be good “patriots,” supporting every measure suggested by the administration. We are told that preemptive strikes, torture, military tribunals, suspension of habeas corpus, executive orders to wage war, and sacrificing privacy with a weakened 4th Amendment are the minimum required to save our country from the threat of terrorism.
Who’s winning this war anyway?
To get popular support for these serious violations of our traditional rule of law requires that people be kept in a state of fear. The episode of spreading undue concern about the possibility of a dirty bomb being exploded in Washington without any substantiation of an actual threat is a good example of excessive fear being generated by government officials.
To add insult to injury, when he made this outlandish announcement, our Attorney General was in Moscow. Maybe if our FBI spent more time at home, we would get more for the money we pump into this now- discredited organization. Our FBI should be gathering information here at home, and the thousands of agents overseas should return. We don’t need these agents competing overseas and confusing the intelligence apparatus of the CIA or the military.
I’m concerned that the excess fear, created by the several hundred al Qaeda functionaries willing to sacrifice their lives for their demented goals, is driving us to do to ourselves what the al Qaeda themselves could never do to us by force.
So far the direction is clear: we are legislating bigger and more intrusive government here at home and are allowing our President to pursue much more military adventurism abroad. These pursuits are overwhelmingly supported by Members of Congress, the media, and the so-called intellectual community, and questioned only by a small number of civil libertarians and anti-imperial, anti-war advocates.
The main reason why so many usually levelheaded critics of bad policy accept this massive increase in government power is clear. They, for various reasons, believe the official explanation of “Why us?” The several hundred al Qaeda members, we were told, hate us because: “We’re rich, we’re free, we enjoy materialism, and the purveyors of terror are jealous and envious, creating the hatred that drives their cause. They despise our Christian-Judaic values and this, is the sole reason why they are willing to die for their cause.” For this to be believed, one must also be convinced that the perpetrators lied to the world about why they attacked us.
The al Qaeda leaders say they hate us because:
-We support Western puppet regimes in Arab countries for commercial reasons and against the wishes of the populace of these countries.
-This partnership allows a military occupation, the most confrontational being in Saudi Arabia, that offends their sense of pride and violates their religious convictions by having a foreign military power on their holy land. We refuse to consider how we might feel if China’s navy occupied the Gulf of Mexico for the purpose of protecting “their oil” and had air bases on U.S. territory.
-We show extreme bias in support of one side in the fifty-plus-year war going on in the Middle East.
What if the al Qaeda is telling the truth and we ignore it? If we believe only the official line from the administration and proceed to change our whole system and undermine our constitutional rights, we may one day wake up to find that the attacks have increased, the numbers of those willing to commit suicide for their cause have grown, our freedoms are diminished, and all this has contributed to making our economic problems worse. The dollar cost of this “war” could turn out to be exorbitant, and the efficiency of our markets can be undermined by the compromises placed on our liberties.
Sometimes it almost seems that our policies inadvertently are actually based on a desire to make ourselves “less free and less prosperous”- those conditions that are supposed to have prompted the attacks. I’m convinced we must pay more attention to the real cause of the attacks of last year and challenge the explanations given us.
The question that one day must be answered is this:
What if we had never placed our troops in Saudi Arabia and had involved ourselves in the Middle East war in an even-handed fashion. Would it have been worth it if this would have prevented the events of 9/11?
If we avoid the truth, we will be far less well off than if we recognize that just maybe there is some truth in the statements made by the leaders of those who perpetrated the atrocities. If they speak the truth about the real cause, changing our foreign policy from foreign military interventionism around the globe supporting an American empire would make a lot of sense. It could reduce tensions, save money, preserve liberty and preserve our economic system.
This, for me, is not a reactive position coming out of 9/11, but rather is an argument I’ve made for decades, claiming that meddling in the affairs of others is dangerous to our security and actually reduces our ability to defend ourselves.
This in no way precludes pursuing those directly responsible for the attacks and dealing with them accordingly- something that we seem to have not yet done. We hear more talk of starting a war in Iraq than in achieving victory against the international outlaws that instigated the attacks on 9/11. Rather than pursuing war against countries that were not directly responsible for the attacks, we should consider the judicious use of Marque and Reprisal.
I’m sure that a more enlightened approach to our foreign policy will prove elusive. Financial interests of our international corporations, oil companies, and banks, along with the military-industrial complex, are sure to remain a deciding influence on our policies.
Besides, even if my assessments prove to be true, any shift away from foreign militarism- like bringing our troops home- would now be construed as yielding to the terrorists. It just won’t happen. This is a powerful point and the concern that we might appear to be capitulating is legitimate.
Yet how long should we deny the truth, especially if this denial only makes us more vulnerable? Shouldn’t we demand the courage and wisdom of our leaders to do the right thing, in spite of the political shortcomings?
President Kennedy faced an even greater threat in October 1962, and from a much more powerful force. The Soviet/Cuban terrorist threat with nuclear missiles only 90 miles off our shores was wisely defused by Kennedy’s capitulating and removing missiles from Turkey on the Soviet border. Kennedy deserved the praise he received for the way he handled the nuclear standoff with the Soviets. This concession most likely prevented a nuclear exchange and proved that taking a step back from a failed policy is beneficial, yet how one does so is crucial. The answer is to do it diplomatically- that’s what diplomats are supposed to do.
Maybe there is no real desire to remove the excuse for our worldwide imperialism, especially our current new expansion into central Asia or the domestic violations of our civil liberties. Today’s conditions may well be exactly what our world commercial interests want. It’s now easy for us to go into the Philippines, Columbia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or wherever in pursuit of terrorists. No questions are asked by the media or the politicians- only cheers. Put in these terms, who can object? We all despise the tactics of the terrorists, so the nature of the response is not to be questioned!
A growing number of Americans are concluding that the threat we now face comes more as a consequence of our foreign policy than because the bad guys envy our freedoms and prosperity. How many terrorist attacks have been directed toward Switzerland, Australia, Canada, or Sweden? They too are rich and free, and would be easy targets, but the Islamic fundamentalists see no purpose in doing so.
There’s no purpose in targeting us unless there’s a political agenda, which there surely is. To deny that this political agenda exists jeopardizes the security of this country. Pretending something to be true that is not is dangerous.
It’s a definite benefit for so many to recognize that our $40 billion annual investment in intelligence gathering prior to 9/11 was a failure. Now a sincere desire exists to rectify these mistakes. That’s good, unless, instead of changing the role for the CIA and the FBI, all the past mistakes are made worse by spending more money and enlarging the bureaucracies to do the very same thing without improving their efficiency or changing their goals. Unfortunately that is what is likely to happen.
One of the major shortcomings that led to the 9/11 tragedies was that the responsibility for protecting commercial airlines was left to the government, the FAA, the FBI, the CIA, and the INS. And they failed. A greater sense of responsibility for the owners to provide security is what was needed. Guns in the cockpit would have most likely prevented most of the deaths that occurred on that fateful day.
But what does our government do? It firmly denies airline pilots the right to defend their planes, and we federalize the security screeners and rely on F16s to shoot down airliners if they are hijacked.
Security screeners, many barely able to speak English, spend endless hours harassing pilots, confiscating dangerous mustache scissors, mauling grandmothers and children, and pestering Al Gore, while doing nothing about the influx of aliens from Middle-Eastern countries who are on designated watch lists.
We pump up the military in India and Pakistan, ignore all the warnings about Saudi Arabia, and plan a secret war against Iraq to make sure no one starts asking where Osama bin Laden is. We think we know where Saddam Hussein lives, so let’s go get him instead.
Since our government bureaucracy failed, why not get rid of it instead of adding to it? If we had proper respect and understood how private property owners effectively defend themselves, we could apply those rules to the airlines and achieve something worthwhile.
If our immigration policies have failed us, when will we defy the politically correct fanatics and curtail the immigration of those individuals on the highly suspect lists? Instead of these changes, all we hear is that the major solution will come by establishing a huge new federal department- the Department of Homeland Security.
According to all the pundits, we are expected to champion this big-government approach, and if we don’t jolly well like it, we will be tagged “unpatriotic.” The fear that permeates our country cries out for something to be done in response to almost daily warnings of the next attack. If it’s not a real attack, then it’s a theoretical one; one where the bomb could well be only in the mind of a potential terrorist.
Where is all this leading us? Are we moving toward a safer and more secure society? I think not. All the discussions of these proposed plans since 9/11 have been designed to condition the American people to accept major changes in our political system. Some of the changes being made are unnecessary, and others are outright dangerous to our way of life.
There is no need for us to be forced to choose between security and freedom. Giving up freedom does not provide greater security. Preserving and better understanding freedom can. Sadly today, many are anxious to give up freedom in response to real and generated fears..
The plans for a first strike supposedly against a potential foreign government should alarm all Americans. If we do not resist this power the President is assuming, our President, through executive order, can start a war anyplace, anytime, against anyone he chooses, for any reason, without congressional approval. This is a tragic usurpation of the war power by the executive branch from the legislative branch, with Congress being all too accommodating.
Removing the power of the executive branch to wage war, as was done through our revolution and the writing of the Constitution, is now being casually sacrificed on the altar of security. In a free society, and certainly in the constitutional republic we have been given, it should never be assumed that the President alone can take it upon himself to wage war whenever he pleases.
The publicly announced plan to murder Saddam Hussein in the name of our national security draws nary a whimper from Congress. Support is overwhelming, without a thought as to its legality, morality, constitutionality, or its practicality. Murdering Saddam Hussein will surely generate many more fanatics ready to commit their lives to suicide terrorist attacks against us.
Our CIA attempt to assassinate Castro backfired with the subsequent assassination of our president. Killing Saddam Hussein, just for the sake of killing him, obviously will increase the threat against us, not diminish it. It makes no sense. But our warriors argue that someday he may build a bomb, someday he might use it, maybe against us or some yet-unknown target. This policy further radicalizes the Islamic fundamentalists against us, because from their viewpoint, our policy is driven by Israeli, not U.S. security interests.
Planned assassination, a preemptive strike policy without proof of any threat, and a vague definition of terrorism may work for us as long as we’re king of the hill, but one must assume every other nation will naturally use our definition of policy as justification for dealing with their neighbors. India can justify a first strike against Pakistan, China against India or Taiwan, as well as many other such examples. This new policy, if carried through, will make the world much less safe.
This new doctrine is based on proving a negative, which is impossible to do, especially when we’re dealing with a subjective interpretation of plans buried in someone’s head. To those who suggest a more restrained approach on Iraq and killing Saddam Hussein, the war hawks retort, saying: “Prove to me that Saddam Hussein might not do something someday directly harmful to the United States.” Since no one can prove this, the warmongers shout: “Let’s march on Baghdad.”
We all can agree that aggression should be met with force and that providing national security is an ominous responsibility that falls on Congress’ shoulders. But avoiding useless and unjustifiable wars that threaten our whole system of government and security seems to be the more prudent thing to do.
Since September 11th, Congress has responded with a massive barrage of legislation not seen since Roosevelt took over in 1933. Where Roosevelt dealt with trying to provide economic security, today’s legislation deals with personal security from any and all imaginable threats, at any cost- dollar or freedom-wise. These efforts include:
-The Patriot Act, which undermines the 4th Amendment with the establishment of an overly broad and dangerous definition of terrorism.
– The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, which expands the government’s surveillance of the financial transactions of all American citizens through increased power to FinCen and puts back on track the plans to impose “Know Your Customer” rules on all Americans, which had been sought after for years.
-The airline bailout bill gave $15 billion, rushed through shortly after 9/11.
– The federalization of all airline security employees.
-Military tribunals set up by executive order-undermining the rights of those accused- rights established as far back in history as 1215.
– Unlimited retention of suspects without charges being made, even when a crime has not been committed- a serious precedent that one day may well be abused.
– Relaxation of FBI surveillance guidelines of all political activity.
– Essentially monopolizing vaccines and treatment for infectious diseases, permitting massive quarantines and mandates for vaccinations.
Almost all significant legislation since 9/11 has been rushed through in a tone of urgency with reference to the tragedy, including the $190 billion farm bill as well as fast track.
Guarantees to all insurance companies now are moving quickly through the Congress.
Increasing the billions already flowing into foreign aid is now being planned as our interventions overseas continue to grow and expand.
There’s no reason to believe that the massive increase in spending, both domestic and foreign, along with the massive expansion of the size of the federal government, will slow any time soon. The deficit is exploding as the economy weakens. When the government sector drains the resources needed for capital expansion, it contributes to the loss of confidence needed for growth.
Even without evidence that any good has come from this massive expansion of government power, Congress is in the process of establishing a huge new bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, hoping miraculously through centralization to make all these efforts productive and worthwhile.
There is no evidence, however, that government bureaucracy and huge funding can solve our nation’s problems. The likelihood is that the unintended consequences of this new proposal will diminish our freedoms and do nothing to enhance our security.
Opposing currently proposed and recently passed legislation does not mean one is complacent about terrorism or homeland security. The truth is that there are alternative solutions to these problems we face, without resorting to expanding the size and scope of government at the expense of liberty.
As tempting as it may seem, a government is incapable of preventing crimes. On occasion, with luck it might succeed. But the failure to tip us off about 9/11, after spending $40 billion annually on intelligence gathering, should have surprised no one. Governments, by nature, are very inefficient institutions. We must accept this as fact.
I’m sure that our intelligence agencies had the information available to head off 9/11, but bureaucratic blundering and turf wars prevented the information from being useful. But, the basic principle is wrong. City policeman can’t and should not be expected to try to preempt crimes. That would invite massive intrusions into the everyday activities of every law-abiding citizen.
But that’s exactly what our recent legislation is doing. It’s a wrong-headed goal, no matter how wonderful it may sound. The policemen in the inner cities patrol their beats, but crime is still rampant. In the rural areas of America, literally millions of our citizens are safe and secure in their homes, though miles from any police protection. They are safe because even the advantage of isolation doesn’t entice the burglar to rob a house when he knows a shotgun sits inside the door waiting to be used. But this is a right denied many of our citizens living in the inner cities.
The whole idea of government preventing crime is dangerous. To prevent crimes in our homes or businesses, government would need cameras to spy on our every move; to check for illegal drug use, wife beating, child abuse, or tax evasion. They would need cameras, not only on our streets and in our homes, but our phones, internet, and travels would need to be constantly monitored- just to make sure we are not a terrorist, drug dealer, or tax evader.
This is the assumption now used at our airports, rather than allowing privately owned airlines to profile their passengers to assure the safety for which the airline owners ought to assume responsibility. But, of course, this would mean guns in the cockpit. I am certain that this approach to safety and security would be far superior to the rules that existed prior to 9/11 and now have been made much worse in the past nine months.
This method of providing security emphasizes private-property ownership and responsibility of the owners to protect that property. But the right to bear arms must also be included. The fact that the administration is opposed to guns in the cockpit and the fact that the airline owners are more interested in bailouts and insurance protection mean that we’re just digging a bigger hole for ourselves- ignoring liberty and expecting the government to provide something it’s not capable of doing.
Because of this, in combination with a foreign policy that generates more hatred toward us and multiplies the number of terrorists that seek vengeance, I am deeply concerned that Washington’s efforts so far sadly have only made us more vulnerable. I’m convinced that the newly proposed Department of Homeland Security will do nothing to make us more secure, but it will make us all a lot poorer and less free. If the trend continues, the Department of Homeland Security may well be the vehicle used for a much more ruthless control of the people by some future administration than any of us dreams. Let’s pray that this concern will never materialize.
America is not now a ruthless authoritarian police state. But our concerns ought to be whether we have laid the foundation of a more docile police state. The love of liberty has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacies today that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. Tolerance of inconvenience to our liberties is not uncommon when both personal and economic fear persists. The sacrifices being made to our liberties will surely usher in a system of government that will please only those who enjoy being in charge of running other people’s lives.
Mr. Speaker, what, then, is the answer to the question: “Is America a Police State?” My answer is: “Maybe not yet, but it is fast approaching.” The seeds have been sown and many of our basic protections against tyranny have been and are constantly being undermined. The post-9/11 atmosphere here in Congress has provided ample excuse to concentrate on safety at the expense of liberty, failing to recognize that we cannot have one without the other.
When the government keeps detailed records on every move we make and we either need advance permission for everything we do or are penalized for not knowing what the rules are, America will be declared a police state. Personal privacy for law-abiding citizens will be a thing of the past. Enforcement of laws against economic and political crimes will exceed that of violent crimes (just look at what’s coming under the new FEC law). War will be the prerogative of the administration. Civil liberties will be suspended for suspects, and their prosecution will not be carried out by an independent judiciary. In a police state, this becomes common practice rather than a rare incident.
Some argue that we already live in a police state, and Congress doesn’t have the foggiest notion of what they’re dealing with. So forget it and use your energy for your own survival. Some advise that the momentum towards the monolithic state cannot be reversed. Possibly that’s true, but I’m optimistic that if we do the right thing and do not capitulate to popular fancy and the incessant war propaganda, the onslaught of statism can be reversed.
To do so, we as a people will once again have to dedicate ourselves to establishing the proper role a government plays in a free society. That does not involve the redistribution of wealth through force. It does not mean that government dictates the moral and religious standards of the people. It does not allow us to police the world by involving ourselves in every conflict as if it’s our responsibility to manage a world American empire.
But it does mean government has a proper role in guaranteeing free markets, protecting voluntary and religious choices and guaranteeing private property ownership, while punishing those who violate these rules- whether foreign or domestic.
In a free society, the government’s job is simply to protect liberty- the people do the rest. Let’s not give up on a grand experiment that has provided so much for so many. Let’s reject the police state.
UNITED STATES of America – It can now be reported that the recent resignation of former New York Federal Reserve Bank of New York Chairman, Stephen Frieidman, signals an expanding investigation of New York Attorny General Andrew Cuomo, who is not only focused on the massive New York state financial derivative Ponzi Scheme, but is now centered on money laundry, and possible funding of alleged terrorists in Pakistan.
Note: Cuomo was recently in a state of shock when he looked at new evidence linking Citibank, J. P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs and AIG, to not only a terrorist money laundry in Pakistan, but to evidence tying all of these aforementioned brokerage firms and the Federal Reserve itself to PRE 9/11 knowledge, which allowed them to profit with put options and short positions placed before 9/11.
This allowed these criminal brokerage firms to benefit from the death of near 3,000 in New York City.
Reference: Friedman, who still sits on the Board of Goldman Sachs, has been recently cooperating with the New York Attorney General, but as you will find out in the rest of this briefing, Friedman has been playing both sides against the middle and is now involved in espionage double-cross.
Sources close to Defense Intelligence and the National Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as European INTERPOL, have actually fingered Friedman as the bagman for the Bush-Clinton Crime Family Syndicate involving illegal wire transfers of TRILLIONS of dollars of STOLEN U.S. Treasury funds that were laundred through Goldman Sachs brokerage firm in New York City, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Israel Discount Bank and the Federal Reserve itself to the Israeli Bank Leumi in Tel Aviv onto secret U.S. national security accounts in Pakistan.
Note: Assisting Friedman in looting the U.S. Treasury (the back end of the toxic derivatives) is a Pakistani national who is a joint U.S.-Pakistan CIA Intelligence officer with the initials ” K.H. ”
KH, who was presumed dead by many in the intelligence community, including Stephen Friedman, is now cooperating with European INTERPOL.
Note: Early Saturday morning on May 9, 2009, foreign born alleged President Barack Obama ordered a missile attack near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, which was was an alleged attack against so-called Al Qaeda terrorists.
We can now report that it was daddy Bush and his little bitch, Bill Clinton, that ordered Obama to launch the attack given reports that the whistleblower KH was in the vicinity.
Clearly, folks, this was not an attack on terrorists but an assassination attempt on KH that failed.
KH has fingered Stephen Friedman, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with former President George Herbert Walker Bush, former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in setting up these secret CIA proprietary accounts in Pakistan tied to none other than the late alleged 9/11 terrorist aka patsy CIA employee Tim Osman aka Osama bin Laden.
Note: Bin Laden, who died of kidney failure in December of 2001 and was a cosignator on these accounts, is claimed to still be alive based on the U.S. media’s big lie that he is still wandering the hills of Afghanistan.
Believe this, folks, he is dead as a door nail!
Should bin Laden’s death be reported, the IRS would have immediate access to these secret accounts that now have rotating access codes aka electronic serial combinations based on biblical chapters and verses.
The Pakistan money laundry has been a piggy bank for the Bush-Clinton Crime Family Syndicate since the 9/11 attack on America.
These accounts have now been frozen by the World Court and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) given the cooperation of the now whistleblower KH in handing over the account numbers and access codes aka the biblical chapters and verses that have now prevented daddy Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan from getting into these accounts.
Reference: It has been reported that the Pakistani government refused Barbara Bush, wife of former President George Herbert Walker Bush, and Andrea Mitchell, wife of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, and Chelsea Clinton, daughter of former President and daddy Bush’s little bitch, Bill Clinton, entry into Pakistan.
Reference: It was Chelsea Clinton that used funds from a Goldman Sachs hedge fund to arrange the BRIBING of New York Governor David Paterson in order to keep Caroline Kennedy from being appointed the next New York Democratic U.S. Senator.
It is clear now that former Federal Reserve Bank of New York Chairman, Stephen Friedman, is caught in a double cross.
Friedman had been cooperating with the New York state investigation while at the same time keeping secret the existence of these secret Bush-Clinton Crime Family Syndicate’s accounts in Pakistan, which now not only have a possibly link to the Bernard Madoff Ponzi Scheme but to the funding of alleged worldwide Al Qaeda terrorists as well as the 9/11 attack itself.
He clearly thought that KH had died – well he is clearly alive and kicking, folks.
P.S. At this hour the Obama Administration is ignoring a French Intelligence warning of a possible FALSE FLAG terrorist attack that would be staged in New York City around the Broad Street area aka the location of the Goldman Sachs brokerage firm.
We can now divulge that there are tape recorded conversations involving current White House Chief of Staff and former head of the North American Israeli Mossad, Rahm Emanuel, and current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, concerning the existence of certain files, documents and computer downloads currently held at Goldman Sachs that involve former Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Chairman Stephen Friedman, the Bernard Madoff Ponzi Scheme and the secret money laundry from the U.S. to Israeli to Pakistan.
French Intelligence sources have, once again, identified certain alleged Al Qaeda types that are linked to the noted 9/11 Israeli Mossad’s Urban Moving Systems espionage group, that is still operating in New Jersey, and have been recently photographed outside the New York financial district.
P.P.S. At this hour there is NO Justice Department as the Obama Administration continues to allow Bush Clinton Crime Family Syndicate rule over the United States.
The bought and paid for U.S. Congress, along with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), continue to run rampant in attempts to attack the American People.
For example, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, who has lunch on occasion with former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, still has a terrorist watch list that includes enemies of Karl Rove aka former Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
Napolitano and Chertoff have also put together a list called the “Domestic Extremist Lexicon”, which classifies individuals as terrorists if they do not agree with corporate, fascist media versions of events.
Not to be left out, radical feminista and tribalist Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA), is sponsoring legislation (H.R. 1966), which would allow the government to censor the internet if it was determined that internet bloggers brought “emotional distress” to alleged individuals that were being criticized.
Ms. Sanchez is also working on legislation, which would allow the 2nd Amendment rights of the American People to be infringed on should a DHS oversight panel decide that an individual American citizen might be a terrorist and therefore be unable to buy a firearm.
Clearly, according to Ms. Sanchez, if you are critical of Ms. Sanchez you are therefore a “terrorist”.
Ms. Sanchez, who favors the illegal invasion of the United States by illegal aliens from Mexico is the REAL terrorist and a THREAT to our U.S. Constitution.
Call the DHS and tell them you have identified a terrorist in our Congress:
Operator Number: 202-282-8000
Comment Line: 202-282-8495
Final note: I want to make it clear to all of our loyal readers that the Bush-Clinton-Federal Reserve Crime Syndicate is desperate.
We, the American People, have uncovered the truth about their TREASONOUS activities. So, their next step aka the Swine Flu will be to attack us.
Daddy Bush and his little bitch, Bill Clinton, are sociopaths. They are loosing their money and their power and the U.S. Military has told foreign born alleged President Obama that they will not tolerate him enabling any more of this TREASON.
Again, folks, prepare for revolutionary mode. The best defense is a great offense.
We will do whatever is necessary to save our U.S. Constitution, our beloved Republic, our freedoms and our American way of life and remove these TRAITORS from American soil.
…
We announce to the criminal government and its criminal corporate media enablers: YOU ARE TOO CORRUPT TO CONTINUE!
We, the American People, who are well armed, will be victorious!
* * * REMEMBER * * *
The orders of the day for ALL patriots as we continue to identify the enemies of the American Republic and the American Revolution in the 21st Century and eradicate them:
When it comes to the enemies of the American Republic and the American Revolution in the 21st century, we dedicate ourselves to the 2nd American Revolution and making these enemies a memory.
We must remove them from American soil, and DO IT NOW!
Overlord at Yorktown remains relentless and victorious.
At this hour, we live free or die as Lafayette remains at Brandywine and Albert Gore Jr. remains the year 2000 duly eletected, non-inaugurated, REAL natural born President of the United States.
Our friends at The Patriot Depot just received a call from Rosemarie in Ball, Louisiana alerting Patriot Depot that her brother-in-law was stopped by small town Louisiana police and detained by the roadside for half an hour. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an “extremist” group. Why? Her brother-in-law (name not disclosed for privacy) had purchased and displayed a conservative “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker on his car.
The bumper sticker is based on the famous flag designed by American Revolution era general and statesman Christopher Gadsden. The yellow flag featured a coiled diamondback rattlesnake ready to strike, with the slogan “Don’t Tread on Me!” underneath it. Benjamin Franklin helped make the rattlesnake a symbol of Americans’ reluctance to quarrel but vigilance and resolve in defense of their rights. By 1775 when Gadsden presented his flag to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the rattlesnake was a symbol of the colonies and of their need to unite in defense of threats to their God-given and inherited rights. The flag and the bumper sticker symbolize American patriotism, the need to defend Americans’ rights, and resistance to tyranny’s threats to American liberty. Those threats included-and include-illegal taxation, profanation of Americans’ rights, and violation of the fundamental principles of American law.
The notorious Department of Homeland Security memo, which was apparently based on the infamous Missouri State Police Report that described supporters of presidential candidates Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Chuck Baldwin as “militia”-type potential extremists and potential terrorists, is not the first effort of leftist radicals to slander their political opponents as “extremists.” Some observers have noted that similar “reports” emerged during the Clinton administration. But “liberals” and other leftists have been calling defenders of traditional American limited, constitutional government, free enterprise, and individual liberty “extremists” since at least the 1964 election.
The political left’s attempts to establish a false equivalence between genuine left wing extremists and those who oppose the left’s assault on our culture, law, and liberty is more than propaganda to fool the ignorant and manipulate public opinion. Combined with the power of government, it is an attempt to harass, intimidate, and silence all political opposition-and probably an attempt to demonize them as a prelude to governmental oppression and persecution. Keep in mind that the First Amendment states,
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.
Small town police misled by phony left wing “reports” are bad enough. Federal government agencies and their armed agents under the direction of leftist radicals are exponentially worse. They will tread on us. The time has come to let our voices be heard!
A sinister bill working its way through the House may eventually serve as a companion piece to the Department of Homeland Security’s “Rightwing Extremist” report that labels veterans and advocates of the Second Amendment as dangerous terrorists — H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Peter King of New York.
featured stories House Bill Aims to Strip Rightwing Extremists of Second Amendment Right
The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General
to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”
On April 29, with little fanfare or corporate media coverage, H.R. 2159 was introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” The entire bill can be read on the Govtrack website.
A similar bill was introduced in the Senate in 2007 but did not make it out of committee.
As noted above, the DHS has compiled a long list of folks the government considers terrorists. The bill, if enacted, would allow the attorney general, a documented gun-grabber, to deny millions of Americans due process. “[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process,” Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, tells WorldNetDaily.
Pratt worries that the new bill will be used in conjunction with the DHS “Rightwing Extremism” report. “By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt continues. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009.”
On May 1, 2009, Infowars reported on the existence of another DHS document, the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon.” It adds more suspected terrorists to the government’s list, including people working in the alternative media, anarchists, pro-life activists, skinheads, lone terrorists, members of the militia movement, “decentralized” terrorists, and others.
The DHS reports were distributed to “federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”
Earlier this week, a man was stopped in Louisiana and detained by police for the crime of displaying a “Don’t tread one me” bumper sticker on his car. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an “extremist” group, according to The American Vision website. “Don’t tread on me” was originally displayed on a flag designed by general and statesman Christopher Gadsden during the Revolutionary War. It is depicted as a terrorist symbol in the DHS “Rightwing Extremist” report.
featured stories House Bill Aims to Strip Rightwing Extremists of Second Amendment Right
Stephen Halbrook, Independent Institute Research Fellow and author of the book The Founders’ Second Amendment, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to Attorney General nominee Eric Holder.
During Holder’s shoo-in confirmation hearings earlier this year, Stephen Halbrook, Second Amendment attorney, detailed Holder’s vehement opposition to the right to bear arms. Holder’s role in the Waco massacre and Ruby Ridge were expected to be brought up during the hearings but were not.
Shortly after 9/11, Holder penned a Washington Post op-ed entitled “Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists.” In the article, the future Attorney General argues that a new law should give “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale.” He also states that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret “watch lists” compiled by various government entities. In order to make his point, Holder makes the ludicrous hypothesis that Osama bin Laden would be able to purchase an unregistered firearm at a gun show in America.
The government now possesses the appropriate “watch lists” and has designated specific categories of Americans as domestic terrorists. If H.R. 2159 becomes law the Obama administration and the Justice Department will go after opponents to their far-reaching plan to disarm the nation and deliver it defenseless into the clutches of bankers and corporatists determined to reduce a once proud constitutional republic to the status of a fuedalist backwater.
(U) Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to
FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval of an authorized
DHS official. State and local homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS.
(U) This product contains U.S. person information that has been deemed necessary for the intended recipient to understand, assess, or act on the information
provided. It has been highlighted in this document with the label USPER and should be handled in accordance with the recipient’s intelligence oversight or information
handling procedures.
(U//FOUO) Domestic Extremism Lexicon
26 March 2009
(U) Prepared by the Strategic Analysis Group and the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland
Environment Threat Analysis Division.
(U//FOUO) Homeland Security Reference Aids—prepared by the DHS/Office of
Intelligence and Analysis (I&A)—provide baseline information on a variety of
homeland security issues. This product is one in a series of reference aids designed to
provide operational and intelligence advice and assistance to other elements of DHS,
as well as state, local, and regional fusions centers. DHS/I&A intends this background
information to assist federal, state, local, and tribal homeland security and law
enforcement officials in conducting analytic activities.
This product provides
definitions for key terms and phrases that often appear in DHS analysis that addresses
the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to the
United States. Definitions were derived from a variety of open source materials and
unclassified information, then further developed during facilitated workshops with
DHS intelligence analysts knowledgeable about domestic, non-Islamic extremism in
the United States.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 2 of 11
(U) Definitions
(U) aboveground (U//FOUO) A term used to describe extremist groups or
individuals who operate overtly and portray themselves as
law-abiding.
(U) alternative media (U//FOUO) A term used to describe various information
sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and
issues that differ radically from those presented in mass
media products and outlets.
(U) anarchist
extremism
(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who
advocate a society devoid of government structure or
ownership of individual property. Many embrace some of the
radical philosophical components of anticapitalist,
antiglobalization, communist, socialist, and other movements.
Anarchist extremists advocate changing government and
society through revolutionary violence.
(also: revolutionary anarchists)
(U) animal rights
extremism
(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who
ascribe equal value to all living organisms and seek to end the
perceived abuse and suffering of animals. They believe
animals are sentient creatures that experience emotional,
physical, and mental awareness and deserve many of the
same rights as human beings; for example, the right to life
and freedom to engage in normal, instinctive animal behavior.
These groups have been known to advocate or engage in
criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an
attempt to advance their extremist goals. They have targeted
industries, businesses, and government entities that they
perceive abuse or exploit animals, including those that use
animals for testing, human services, food production, or
consumption.
(also: animal liberation)
(U) antiabortion
extremism
(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who are
virulently antiabortion and advocate violence against
providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and
their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic
beliefs to justify their criminal activities.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 3 of 11
(U) anti-immigration
extremism
(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who are
vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along
the U.S. southwest border with Mexico, and who have been
known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts
of violence and terrorism to advance their extremist goals.
They are highly critical of the U.S. Government’s response to
illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are
designed to extend “rights” to illegal aliens, such as issuing
driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing
in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education.
(U) antitechnology
extremism
(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals opposed to
technology. These groups have been known to advocate or
engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and
terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals.
They have targeted college and university laboratories,
scholars, biotechnology industries, U.S. corporations
involved in the computer or airline industry, and others.
(also: Neo-Luddites)
(U) Aryan prison
gangs
(U//FOUO) Individuals who form organized groups while in
prison and advocate white supremacist views.
Group members may continue to operate under the auspices
of the prison gang upon their release from correctional
facilities.
(U) black bloc (U//FOUO) An organized collection of violent anarchists and
anarchist affinity groups that band together for illegal acts of
civil disturbance and use tactics that destroy property or strain
law enforcement resources. Black blocs operate in
autonomous cells that infiltrate nonviolent protests, often
without the knowledge of the organizers of the event.
(U) black nationalism (U//FOUO) A term used by black separatists to promote the
unification and separate identity of persons of black or
African American descent and who advocate the
establishment of a separate nation within the United States.
(U) black power (U//FOUO) A term used by black separatists to describe their
pride in and the perceived superiority of the black race.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 4 of 11
(U) black separatism (U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals of black or
African American descent who advocate the separation of the
races or the separation of specific geographic regions from
the rest of the United States; some advocate forming their
own political system within a separate nation. Such groups or
individuals also may embrace radical religious beliefs.
Members have been known to advocate or engage in criminal
activity and plot acts of violence directed toward local law
enforcement in an attempt to advance their extremist goals.
(U) Christian Identity (U//FOUO) A racist religious
philosophy that maintains
non-Jewish whites are “God’s
Chosen People” and the true
descendants of the
Twelve Tribes of Israel.
Groups or individuals can be
followers of either the Covenant
or Dual Seedline doctrine; all believe that Jews are conspiring
with Satan to control world affairs and that the world is on the
verge of the Biblical apocalypse. Dual Seedline adherents
believe Jews are the literal offspring of Satan and that nonwhites,
who are often referred to as “mud people,” are not
human beings.
(also: Identity, CI, Anglo-Israel)
(U) Cuban
independence
extremism
(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who do
not recognize the legitimacy of the Communist Cuban
Government and who attempt to subvert it through acts of
violence, mainly within the United States.
(also: anti-Castro groups)
(U) decentralized
terrorist movement
(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who
pursue shared ideological goals through tactics of leaderless
resistance independent of any larger terrorist organization.
(U) denial-of-service
attack
(U//FOUO) An attack that attempts to prevent or impair the
intended functionality of computer networks, systems, or
applications. Depending on the type of system targeted, the
attack can employ a variety of mechanisms and means.
(also: DoS attack)
(U) direct action (U//FOUO) Lawful or unlawful acts of civil disobedience
ranging from protests to property destruction or acts of
violence. This term is most often used by single-issue or
anarchist extremists to describe their activities.
(U) Christian Identity symbol.
adl.org
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 5 of 11
(U) Green Anarchism
symbol.
(U) environmental
extremism
(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who use
violence to end what they perceive as the degradation of the
natural environment by humans. Members have advocated or
engaged in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and
terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals.
They target industries, businesses, and government entities
that they allege are engaged in habitat destruction, citing
urban sprawl and development, logging, construction sites
and related equipment, and man-made sources of air, water,
and land pollution.
(also: ecoterrorism)
(U) ethnic-based
extremism
(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who are
drawn together and form extremist beliefs based on their
ethnic or cultural background. Members have advocated or
engaged in criminal activity and have plotted acts of violence
and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals.
(U) extremist group (U//FOUO) An ideologically driven organization that
advocates or attempts to bring about political, religious,
economic, or social change through the use of force, violence,
or ideologically motivated criminal activity.
(U) green anarchism (U//FOUO) A movement of groups or
individuals who combine anarchist
ideology with an environmental focus.
They advocate a return to a preindustrial,
agrarian society, often
through acts of violence and terrorism.
(U) hacktivism (U//FOUO) (A portmanteau of “hacking” and “activism.”)
The use of cyber technologies to achieve a political end, or
technology-enabled political or social activism.
Hacktivism might include website defacements,
denial-of-service attacks, hacking into the target’s network to
introduce malicious software (malware), or information theft.
(U) hate groups (U//FOUO) A term most often used to describe white
supremacist groups. It is occasionally used to describe other
racist extremist groups.
(U) Jewish extremism (U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals of the
Jewish faith who are willing to use violence or commit other
criminal acts to protect themselves against perceived affronts
to their religious or ethnic identity.
en.wikipedia.org
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 6 of 11
(U) leaderless
resistance
(U//FOUO) A strategy that stresses the importance of
individuals and small cells acting independently and
anonymously outside formalized organizational structures to
enhance operational security and avoid detection. It is used
by many types of domestic extremists.
(U) leftwing
extremism
(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals that
embraces anticapitalist, Communist, or Socialist doctrines
and seeks to bring about change through violent revolution
rather than through established political processes. The term
also refers to leftwing, single-issue extremist movements that
are dedicated to causes such as environmentalism, opposition
to war, and the rights of animals.
(also: far left, extreme left)
(U) lone terrorist (U//FOUO) An individual motivated by extremist ideology
to commit acts of criminal violence independent of any larger
terrorist organization.
(also: lone wolf)
(U) Mexican
separatism
(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals of
Mexican descent who advocate the secession of southwestern
U.S. states (all or part of Arizona, California, New Mexico,
and Texas) to join with Mexico through armed struggle.
Members do not recognize the legitimacy of these U.S. states,
including the U.S. Government’s original acquisition of these
territories.
(U) militia movement (U//FOUO) A rightwing extremist movement composed of
groups or individuals who adhere to an antigovernment
ideology often incorporating various conspiracy theories.
Members oppose most federal and state laws, regulations, and
authority (particularly firearms laws and regulations) and
often conduct paramilitary training designed to resist
perceived government interference in their activities or to
overthrow the U.S. Government through the use of violence.
(also: citizens militia, unorganized militia)
(U) neo-Nazis (U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who adhere to and
promote Adolph Hitler’s beliefs and use Nazi symbols and
ideology. Subjects subscribe to virulently racist as well as
anti-Semitic beliefs, many based on national socialist ideals
derived from Nazi Germany. Neo-Nazis may attempt to
downplay or deny the Jewish Holocaust.
(also: national socialists, Nazis)
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 7 of 11
(U) patriot movement (U//FOUO) A term used by rightwing extremists to link their
beliefs to those commonly associated with the American
Revolution. The patriot movement primarily comprises
violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign
citizens.
(also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists,
Constitutionist)
(U) Phineas
Priesthood
(U//FOUO) A Christian Identity
doctrine derived from the Biblical
story of Phinehas, which adherents
interpret as justifying inter-racial
killing. Followers of this belief
system also have advocated
martyrdom and violence against
homosexuals, mixed-race couples,
and abortion providers.
(U) primary targeting (U//FOUO) Plans or attacks directed by extremists against
parties that are the focus of an organized campaign.
(U) Puerto Rican
independence
extremists
(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who engage in criminal
activity and advocate the use of violence to achieve
Puerto Rican independence from the United States.
(U) racial Nordic
mysticism
(U//FOUO) An ideology adopted by many white supremacist
prison gangs who embrace a Norse mythological religion,
such as Odinism or Asatru.
(also: Odinism, Asatru)
(U) racialist (U//FOUO) A term used by white supremacists intended to
minimize their extreme views on racial issues.
(U) racist skinheads (U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who combine white
supremacist ideology with a skinhead ethos in which “white
power” music plays a central role. Dress may include a
shaved head or very short hair, jeans, thin suspenders, combat
boots or Doc Martens, a bomber jacket (sometimes with racist
symbols), and tattoos of Nazi-like emblems. Some are
abandoning these stereotypical identifiers.
(also: skins)
(U) radicalization (U//FOUO) The process by which an individual adopts an
extremist belief system leading to his or her willingness to
advocate or bring about political, religious, economic, or
social change through the use of force, violence, or
ideologically motivated criminal activity.
(U) Phineas Priesthood
symbol.
adl.org
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 8 of 11
(U) rightwing
extremism
(U//FOUO) A movement of rightwing groups or individuals
who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily
hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and
reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.
This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements
that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to
abortion or immigration.
(also known as far right, extreme right)
(U) secondary
targeting
(U//FOUO) Plans or attacks directed against parties
(secondary targets) that provide direct financial, logistic, or
physical support to the primary target of an organized
campaign, with the goal of coercing those parties to end their
engagement with a primary target. Secondary targets can
include customers of or suppliers to a primary target or
employees of a primary target organization.
(U) single-issue
extremist groups
(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who focus on a single
issue or cause—such as animal rights, environmental or
anti-abortion extremism—and often employ criminal acts.
Group members may be associated with more than one issue.
(also: special interest extremists)
(U) skinheads (U//FOUO) A subculture composed primarily of
working-class, white youth who embrace shaved heads for
males, substance abuse, and violence. Skinheads can be
categorized as racist, anti-racist or “traditional,” which
emphasizes group unity based on fashion, music, and lifestyle
rather than political ideology. Dress often includes a shaved
head or very short hair, jeans, thin suspenders, combat boots
or Doc Martens, and a bomber jacket.
(also: skins)
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 9 of 11
(U) sovereign citizen
movement
(U//FOUO) A rightwing extremist movement composed of
groups or individuals who reject the notion of
U.S. citizenship. They claim to follow only what they believe
to be God’s law or common law and the original
10 amendments (Bill of Rights) to the U.S. Constitution.
They believe they are emancipated from all other
responsibilities associated with being a U.S. citizen, such as
paying taxes, possessing a driver’s license and motor vehicle
registration, or holding a social security number.
They generally do not recognize federal or state government
authority or laws. Several sovereign citizen groups in the
United States produce fraudulent documents for their
members in lieu of legitimate government-issued forms of
identification. Members have been known to advocate or
engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and
terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals.
They often target government officials and law enforcement.
(also: state citizens, freemen, preamble citizens, common law
citizens)
(U) tax resistance
movement
(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who vehemently believe
taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs
are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is
voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on
income, was not properly ratified. Members have been
known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts
of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their
extremist goals. They often target government entities such
as the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
(also: tax protest movement, tax freedom movement, antitax
movement)
(U) tertiary targeting (U//FOUO) Plans or attacks against parties with indirect
links to the primary target of an organized campaign.
Tertiary targets can include employees, customers, investors,
and other participants in a company (the secondary target)
that does business with or provides support services to the
primary target; or parties who provide direct financial,
logistic, or physical support to the secondary target.
(U) underground (U//FOUO) A term used to describe clandestine extremist
groups, individuals, or their activities.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 10 of 11
(U) violent antiwar
extremism
(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who
advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of
violence and terrorism in an attempt to voice their opposition
to U.S. involvement in war-related activities. They often
target the military, seats of government power, and defense
industry personnel, facilities, and activities.
(U) violent religious
sects
(U//FOUO) Religious extremist groups predisposed toward
violence. These groups often stockpile weapons, conduct
paramilitary training, and share a paranoid interpretation of
current world events, which they often associate with the end
of the world. They perceive outsiders as enemies or evil
influences; display intense xenophobia and strong distrust of
the government; and exercise extreme physical or
psychological control over group members, sometimes
isolating them from society or subjecting them to physical or
sexual abuse and harsh initiation practices.
(U) white nationalism (U//FOUO) A term used by white supremacists to emphasize
what they perceive as the uniquely white (European) heritage
of the United States.
(U) white power (U//FOUO) A term used by white supremacists to describe
their pride in and the perceived superiority of the white race.
(U) white separatism (U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who
believe in the separation of races and reject interracial
marriages. Some advocate the secession of specific
geographic regions from the rest of the United States.
Members have been known to advocate or engage in criminal
activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt
to advance their extremist goals.
(U) white supremacist
movement
(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who believe that whites—
Caucasians—are intellectually and morally superior to other
races and use their racist ideology to justify committing
crimes, acts of violence, and terrorism to advance their cause.
Some advocate racial separation/segregation.
White supremacists generally fall into six categories:
Neo-Nazi, Ku Klux KlanUSPER, Christian Identity, racist
skinhead, Nordic mysticism, or Aryan prison gangs.
White supremacists have been known to embrace more than
one of these categories.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 11 of 11
(U) Reporting Notice:
(U) DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal
activity to DHS and the FBI. The DHS National Operations Center (NOC) can be reached by telephone at
202-282-9685 or by e-mail at NOC.Fusion@dhs.gov. For information affecting the private sector and
critical infrastructure, contact the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC), a sub-element of the
NOC. The NICC can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9201 or by e-mail at NICC@dhs.gov. The FBI
regional phone numbers can be found online at http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm. When available,
each report submitted should include the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people and type of
equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated
point of contact.
(U) For comments or questions related to the content or dissemination of this document, please contact the
DHS/I&A Production Branch at IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov.
(U) Tracked by: TERR-020100-01-05, TERR-020600-01-05, TERR-060100-01-05
What I have to say in this article may deeply anger or enrage many who read it. But what I have to say is no more than a rewording of this miraculous passage from Thomas Jefferson:
“[E]very able-bodied freeman, between the ages of sixteen and fifty, is enrolled in the militia… The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Quivery IX
I think that very few Americans have thought deeply about this passage, what it’s really saying, and thus very few understand the ramifications of this passage—even those in the heart of the Truth Movement may not have thought about this passage deeply enough to really see that this passage may be the key to everything.
featured stories There is One Type of Total Gun Ban that We Need, Jefferson Would Agree, and It’s the Key to Bringing Back 1776
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
How is it the key to everything? You might think it is by the way this passage promotes Second Amendment issues. That is true, but that is not what I am getting at here. We already all know that. What this passage really involves is actually a far bigger issue, one that I think very few of us have noticed, amazingly.
Jefferson says that it is the ordinary citizens who are the militia. Jefferson does not say that it is certain government-VIP groups, or any other government groups, who are members of the militia. (These VIP groups are the police and military, which are “standing armies”, if armed or maybe even if unarmed, when they are amassed on US soil; and they are groups like the FDA or USGS or NSA. These are groups that are given elevated status over the level of citizen by big government. From what I can tell, this basic issue is anti-Jeffersonian and/or unconstitutional.) That is the key: it is the citizens, and definitely not any (unconstitutional) government-favored special groups, who are the militia: who are the real homeland security.
Jefferson’s passage at the start of this article clearly lays this out, and it requires that almost all of us rearrange our thinking in order to get back to a 1776 mental framework. I sense that even listeners of the Alex Jones Show may have this thesis I am presenting here hit them with a shock, like a ton of bricks, as if it’s a radical thesis. But that just shows us how far we’ve come from 1776, and how subtly we’re all still under the trickery of the New World Order, even if we think we are so enlightened since we are Alex Jones listeners, guns owners, and members of the Patriot movement. Ok, with the thesis laid out, now let’s see how this Jeffersonian vision works…
So, what does this all mean? What would it mean if we had a total weapon and total gun ban for on-duty police and for military and post-Constitutional government entities? What would really happen in such a scenario? Well, it must be something quite good for the people that happens, since governments worldwide fight against this sort of a scenario almost more than they fight against anything. But more specifically, it means that it is against the law, against the Founders, and against 1776, for on-duty police, military, and for the aforementioned post-Constitutional government entities (FDA, CIA, EPA, Dept. of Education, etc.) to possess firearms (including any projectile weapon, such as non-lethal weapons [tasers, etc.] or crossbows or longbows, microwave guns, etc.), since these big-government-favored groups are not part of the militia. That’s the key issue, and this is all very important; so let’s get this down pat in more detail.
How are on-duty police, military, and for the aforementioned post-Constitutional government entities (FDA, CIA, EPA, Dept. of Education, etc.) not part of the militia, in Jefferson’s philosophy? Here’s how:
These big-government-favored groups are elevated in power above the status of being an ordinary citizen, but Jefferson says it’s only those of the status of ordinary citizen who are party of the militia (who are gun owners), thus if you fall outside of this ordinary citizen group you are breaking the law if you own a weapon!
That is what Jefferson’s comments lead to, and if we explore the ramifications of this (as I am going to next), you will perhaps agree that this is Jefferson’s greatest, largest, and most critical issue for preservation of the Constitutional Republic. So let’s figure out why this issue—gun ban for on-duty police and for military and non-Constitutional government entities—is really the single issue we should focus on perhaps more than any other.
There are so many issues we members of the Truth and Patriot movements have to grapple with. If we want our country back, if we want back what Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Henry, and the rest of the Founders set up for us, where on earth do we start when we are in such an incredible quagmire today, where we have strayed so unimaginably far from the Founders’ Republic? We have to deal with pandemic hoaxes, GM food plagues, FEMA holocaust, secret government, false flag terror, government robot weapons, attempts by big government to destroy inalienable rights, vaccine holocausts, depleted uranium, and all the rest that infowars.com patriots are all too familiar with. It is perhaps a daunting task when we consider how much we have to deal with. But what if we could reduce all these issues down to one, single issue—an issue that’s power-source of all the others—wherein we could focus in on that one issue, obliterate it, and ipso facto, 1776 would be restored? That is precisely what is at stake in the aforementioned issue of pushing for a gun ban for on-duty police and for military and non-Constitutional government entities. This is a simple issue, a clearly definable issue, one that could easily get huge amounts of support since already 70 percent (or more) of Americans are pro-Second Amendment (and this is growing fast). So, let’s see why if we won that single battle of removing weaponry from government, military, and on-duty police, that all other things would fall into place.
Yes, that’s right, we need one type of gun control. We need gun control for on-duty police and any military and government officials who are on US soil (excluding Congress, the President, and perhaps the members of the Supreme Court, since they may be members of the militia, in Jefferson’s vision). This would include any group that even loosely resembled a standing army (such as privatized military forces like Blackwater) since they are unconstitutional, except for the one Constitutional standing army: the militia. In other words, on-duty police should banned from possessing guns, as should any government people in the military, FDA, CIA, and any of the other post-Constitutional monstrosities that we Americans have permitted to come into existence and control every aspect of us down to our consciousness. The way this would happen peacefully is if members of these big-government-favored groups deprogrammed from their brainwashing and voluntarily put down their arms in order to join this Second Amendment Jeffersonian revolution. I think getting this to happen is doable.
* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
* efoods
What will be the net effect of this? It would have such tremendous ramifications that it would bring us right back to the America that the Founders established for us. Consider how this works.
If we had unarmed police and military, we would have police and military that would be no threat to any gun-owner (“one man with a gun can control a hundred without one”). I cannot underestimate the importance of this. Eventually the balance of power would shift to such a degree that government would be under the control of the gun owners (of the Jeffersonian militia). Why? Because anyone out there who is in any way fired up about the Second Amendment knows that the feeling of owning a gun, carrying a gun, is so safe, secure, and free, that the joy it brings just blossoms within you in such a way that you glue on to that feeling of freedom almost as tightly as you hug your child. So, in other words, the gun owners would thrive and unite in their euphoria of freedom and Constitutionalism, by the feelings they have inside from carrying the gun. I can see this in a lower-level form when I am at the shooting range, at the gun shop. I can see it in the eyes, feel it in the hearts, of my fellow pro-Second Amendment friends, and there are a lot of them. As Alex Jones has said, protecting our Second Amendment is the one thing that millions will lay down everything and fight for right now. This is because the gun owner knows, feels, how the peace-of-mind of holding the gun is the key to freedom, as Jefferson and many of the Founders did too. Jefferson describes the issue most clearly:
As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks. Never think of taking a book with you. The object of walking is to relax the mind. You should therefore not permit yourself even to think while you walk; but divert yourself by the objects surrounding you. Walking is the best possible exercise. Habituate yourself to walk very far. –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
It is the gun, the Second Amendment, that gives freedom. Without it we are slaves; with it we can be like Jefferson on his walks, with a mind clear and liberated, unworried and free to philosophize. The feelings of freedom that gun owners employ would overflow if there was a gun ban for on-duty police and for military and non-Constitutional government entities. This is because it would instantly be the case that
1. The citizens would not have a powerful military or police force to fall back on and be dependent upon, and thus they would have to assume those responsibilities for themselves, and they would become the police and military, they would assume those roles: fathers would become protectors instead of TV-watchers, grandfathers would again take their grandchildren to the range, women would again recognize the urgency to carry a pistol wherever they go, and women would walk through parking lots at night without a shred of fear (a woman empowered, without fear: a feminism the fake feminists will never know). Again, in the current state of TV-addicted-America, this sounds odd to many who think dialing 911 is the key to safety, but again, I am just rewording what Jefferson has already said when he told that what I am writing about in this article is real homeland security: “…our attention should be fixed on the safety of our country. For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia [citizens] is their best security.” –Jefferson, Eight Annual Message, Nov. 8, 1888.
2. Without the illusion of “security” from the big government police and military forces, the citizens would not have a powerful military or police force to fall back on and be dependent upon, and thus they would feel that they have no protection—as if they are “naked in the wilderness”—citizens would in this case do what people always do: they would seek out protection, and the best protection, they would find, is the gun. There is already so much pro-gun fervor in America, that quickly after a disarming of on-duty police and of military and non-Constitutional government entities, there would be an overpowering zeitgeist in the air that the best protection is the gun (this zeitgeist already exists in America at a lower level, as it it’s just waiting to overflow). Consequently, those who are gun owners would amplify their devotion to their art, and those who are not would become passionate gun owners by the millions. We would quickly change from a helpless nation to a nation empowered.
Now, what I have described so far in this article is a blueprint for how we completely disempower the government, and radically empower the citizenry. And this all occurred from one little issue: institute a gun ban for on-duty police and for military and non-Constitutional government entities.
Notice: this is a single issue, not many issues. This is one issue that can solve all other issues. This is not like trying to do many things: it is not trying to reign in GM food, vaccines, and the Fed all at once. It’s a much simpler task: you just do one thing, which is disarm the big-government-favored groups. And if we all focused our energy on this one issue, we could get it done, and the rest of the 1776 cards would fall into place.
And here’s why this issue of disarming the big-government-favored groups is the issue that allows everything else about the New World Order to fall away, from vaccines to draft, to carbon tax, to ID chip. Here’s what America would look like with disarmed big-government-favored groups:
A. On the one hand, there would be the armed, patriotic America, which would consist of a mass of wide-eyed, passionate, happy gun owners (sort of like a vaster version of what I already see at a much smaller scale at the shooting range every Saturday), with confidence, character, and inner peace (as Jefferson described in a passage above), which would number in the hundreds of millions
B. And then on the other hand, there would be a completely unarmed government, numbering only a tiny fraction of those described in a.
The power is with A. And what about B? Well… B is, well, rather pathetic, isn’t it. We are, at any moment, incredibly close to this sort of a scenario, since there is only one thing we need to do to put this sort of a world in place: disarm on-duty police, disarm military on US soil (or maybe all military, at least for a time), and any other big-government-favored groups.
Just from this disarmament, A and B fall into place. Do you see what happens then, if A and B are in place? Government has no authority; gun owners are authority—they are government!
What do you think would happen if B tried to tell A that they can’t have a garden because they might plant pot in it? Yeah, I am laughing too! What do you think would happen if B told A that there was a draft, or that there were mandatory vaccinations for swine flu, or that Congress is being lobbied to “pass” a “bill” that robs the citizens blind (“bank bailout”)? Yeah, it’s a pretty funny scenario; almost like a zebra herd walking up to the lion prides to tell the lions to please stop eating them–or, almost like an American in the current situation, where the current American tries to “write their Congressman”. Even non-gun-owning (i.e., non-Constitutional) members of America are not really citizens, in this scheme of this article, and of Jefferson’s lawmaking, and they are at the wretched, disempowered level of B, more than they are of A.
So, in summary, there are so many issues we have to fight for, and we need to get more and more aware of all that is going on, but amid everything else we Truthers and Patriots are doing, we may want to think about launching a campaign, with more energy and persistence and passion than anything we have ever done, to fight for this one single issue: a gun ban for on-duty police and for military and non-Constitutional government entities, in order to have the chain of events outlined in this Jeffersonian treatise carry out. This is a doable project, since it is a single project, a clear and easy-to-understand project that will make all people feel as empowered as one of the Patriots in the Revolutionary War. Looking at our plight with this issue above all others can give us a means to win this victory against the satanic New World Order, and can give us hope, inspiration, drive, and rebirth, resembling the Minutemen of the Republic.
Posted in The Constitution on April 17, 2009 by undercover4liberty
Author: W. Cleon Skousen
Discover the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Founding Fathers which they said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desired peace, prosperity, and freedom.
These beliefs have made possible more progress in 200 years than was made previously in over 5,000 years.
The following is a brief overview of the principles found in The Five Thousand Year Leap, and one chapter is devotes to each of these 28 principles.
Principle 1 – The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.
Natural law is God’s law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, there are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”
Principle 2 – A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” – Benjamin Franklin
Principle 3 – The most promising method of securing a virtuous people is to elect virtuous leaders.
“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who … will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.” – Samuel Adams
Principle 4 – Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” – George Washington
Principle 5 – All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent, and to him they are equally responsible .
The American Founding Fathers considered the existence of the Creator as the most fundamental premise underlying all self-evident truth. They felt a person who boasted he or she was an atheist had just simply failed to apply his or her divine capacity for reason and observation.
Principle 6 – All mankind were created equal.
The Founders knew that in these three ways, all mankind are theoretically treated as:
1. Equal before God.
2. Equal before the law.
3. Equal in their rights.
Principle 7 – The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things.
The Founders recognized that the people cannot delegate to their government any power except that which they have the lawful right to exercise themselves.
Principle 8 – Mankind are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights.
“Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner [of the right] shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.” – William Blackstone
Principle 9 – To protect human rights, God has revealed a code of divine law.
“The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found by comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity.” – William Blackstone
Principle 10 – The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.
“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legislative authority.” – Alexander Hamilton
Principle 11 – The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes … but when a long train of abuses and usurpations … evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” – Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence
Principle 12 – The United States of Americashall be a republic.
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands….”
Principle 13 – A Constitution should protect the people from the frailties of their rulers.
“If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary…. [But lacking these] you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” – James Madison
Principle 14 – Life and liberty are secure only so long as the rights of property are secure .
John Locke reasoned that God gave the earth and everything in it to the whole human family as a gift. Therefore the land, the sea, the acorns in the forest, the deer feeding in the meadow belong to everyone “in common.” However, the moment someone takes the trouble to change something from its original state of nature, that person has added his ingenuity or labor to make that change. Herein lies the secret to the origin of “property rights.”
Principle 15 – The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations.
Prosperity depends upon a climate of wholesome stimulation with four basic freedoms in operation:
1. The Freedom to try.
2. The Freedom to buy.
3. The Freedom to sell.
4. The Freedom to fail.
Principle 16 – The government should be separated into three branches .
“I call you to witness that I was the first member of the Congress who ventured to come out in public, as I did in January 1776, in my Thoughts on Government … in favor of a government with three branches and an independent judiciary. This pamphlet, you know, was very unpopular. No man appeared in public to support it but yourself.” – John Adams
Principle 17 – A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power by the different branches of government.
“It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” – James Madison
Principle 18 – The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in a written Constitution.
The structure of the American system is set forth in the Constitution of the United States and the only weaknesses which have appeared are those which were allowed to creep in despite the Constitution.
Principle 19 – Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained by the people.
The Tenth Amendment is the most widely violated provision of the bill of rights. If it had been respected and enforced America would be an amazingly different country than it is today. This amendment provides:
“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.”
Principle 20 – Efficiency and dispatch require that the government operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority.
“Every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded [bound] by it.” – John Locke
Principle 21 – Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.
“The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent [to perform best]. – Thomas Jefferson
Principle 22 – A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men.
“The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence of others, which cannot be where there is no law.” – John Locke
Principle 23 – A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.
“They made an early provision by law that every town consisting of so many families should be always furnished with a grammar school. They made it a crime for such a town to be destitute of a grammar schoolmaster for a few months, and subjected it to a heavy penalty. So that the education of all ranks of people was made the care and expense of the public, in a manner that I believe has been unknown to any other people, ancient or modern. The consequences of these establishments we see and feel every day [written in 1765]. A native of America who cannot read and write is as rare … as a comet or an earthquake.” John Adams
Principle 24 – A free people will not survive unless they stay strong.
“To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” – George Washington
Principle 25 – “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.”- Thomas Jefferson, given in his first inaugural address.
Principle 26 – The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore the government should foster and protect its integrity.
“There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America , or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated.” Alexis de Tocqueville
Principle 27 – The burden of debt is as destructive to human freedom as subjugation by conquest.
“We are bound to defray expenses [of the war] within our own time, and are unauthorized to burden posterity with them…. We shall all consider ourselves morally bound to pay them ourselves and consequently within the life [expectancy] of the majority.” – Thomas Jefferson
Principle 28 – The United Stateshas a manifest destiny to eventually become a glorious example of God’s law under a restored Constitution that will inspire the entire human race.
The Founders sensed from the very beginning that they were on a divine mission. Their great disappointment was that it didn’t all come to pass in their day, but they knew that someday it would. John Adams wrote:
“I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.”
Undercover 4 Liberty 