It took the global elite a long time to recover, but they have reemerged with a vengeance. They are now on the precipice of accomplishing what their great granddaddies failed to do: bring the "Liberty or Death" colonists under their power and control.

Sadly, we no longer have the will to resist servitude. Our pulpits are too busy preaching a prosperity gospel; newsmen are in bed with the forces they once disdained; statesmen have been replaced with opportunistic, self-serving politicians; and merchants know no god but money. Hence, it is left to a small--and I mean very small--remnant to sound the clarion call for freedom and independence. Unfortunately, few seem to be listening to their cries.

2010 seems to be a banner year for these designers of despotism. That is the target year for the implementation of the North American Community, which will commercially unite the United States with Canada and Mexico. The global elite suffered a minor setback when the U.S. Senate failed to pass the Bush/McCain/Kennedy/Graham amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill. But if you think that John McCain is going to let that bill lie on the floor of defeat, you don't understand these people. Should McCain become President, he will do everything he can to implement some kind of amnesty law. Barack Obama will do the same. The reason? It is essential to the designers of despotism that our borders be eliminated.

Yes, I am saying it: George W. Bush, John McCain, and Barack Obama are part of the global elite that seeks America's entrance into an international New World Order. In fact, neither Presidential candidate from the two major parties will offer any resistance to this obstinate and oppressive oligarchy.

Perhaps one day the American people will wake up and realize that they are being led as sheep to the slaughter. I'm just not sure that it will be soon enough, however. 2010 is just around the corner.

There seems to be only one obstacle standing in the way of the globalists: America's citizens are the most heavily armed people in the world. That fact must surely stick in the throats of the globalists like a chicken bone.

Thank God that America's founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution. Without America's deep-rooted commitment to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, we would have been sold into slavery decades ago.

Without the intellectual understanding of the principles of freedom and the moral resolve to maintain those principles, however, guns, by themselves, will only protect us for so long. In the end, our strength and protection come from God, and not too many people these days seem to be interested in His opinion.

Lady Liberty is walking very gingerly these days, and the path she treads is laden with traps and quicksand. The globalists have their handpicked puppets positioned to take up where The Three Amigos (George Bush I, Bill Clinton, and George Bush II) have left off. The pieces of the puzzle are almost all in place. 2010 just might be the year that Lady Liberty lowers her torch, folds her arms, and falls fast asleep.

For what it is worth, however, I pledge no loyalty to this emerging New World Order. Neither will I let Lady Liberty die without a fight. I will say it again: the battle today is not between conservatives and liberals or Republicans and Democrats. It is a battle between Americans and globalists.

And, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am an American!

By Chuck Baldwin
July 18, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

« Close It

"... the President of The United States of America can send troops into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States of America is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Act requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and forbids troops from remaining for more than 60 days without an authorization of force or a declaration of war."

This is already a stretch on the authority placed in the Executive Branch by our Framers. Article II, Section 2 of the United State Constitution states:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;..."

The check and balance to this authority rests exclusively in Article I, Section 8 whereby Congress is charged with the authority:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

"To provide and maintain a Navy;

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;..."

As is made clear - beyond any reasonable argument - the Executive Branch is charged with commanding the Armed Forces and the Legislative Branch is charged with the funding of the Armed Forces.

Check. Balance.

Should the will of the people be that an armed conflict is unjust, the representatives of the people have the wherewithal to defund the Armed Forces, thus denying them not only compensation but the ability to procure weapons, tactical and sustainable goods and ammunition. This ability to defund presents both an intentional and moral pressure on the Commander-in-Chief. No able leader would deprive his soldiers of arms, ammunition or the security in knowing provisions are in place for their families.

Of course, the above passages from the US Constitution were enacted during a time of honor; during a time when it was unheard of and, in fact, disgraceful for one to abdicate either their personal or civic responsibility. These articles and sections were created and enacted in a time when good government was placed before the narcissism of the politically opportune.

We do not live in a time when politicians can be expected to give a damn about honor. We live in an age when taking responsibility for ones actions is seldom a reality and usually the exception to the rule. We live in an age of "group think" and "truth by consensus." If those responsible for enacting and executing the laws of our land deem a situation too politically damaging you can bet the farm they will establish a commission or a blue ribbon panel to "group think" the issue. By creating the "group think consensus" politicians avoid having to take a stand that may be unpopular, abdicating their responsibility to their constituency to a faceless, nameless "commission."
(As an aside, the ideas of "group think" and "truth by consensus," although Orwellian in their tone, are in fact Marxist/Leninist leaning notions based in moral relativism.)

While many commissions and blue ribbon panels are seated by our elected officials, others are formed by private institutions, institutions of higher learning and philanthropic institutions. Where the recent story of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is concerned, we are faced with a commission from all three.

It would appear that the Miller Center for Public Affairs, emanating from the University of Virginia, has assembled one National War Powers Commission. The commission is co-chaired by former Secretaries of State James A. Baker, III and Warren Christopher. Those seated on the commission include: Sen. Slade Gorton, US Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, Carla A. Hills, John O. Marsh, Jr., Edwin Meese, III, Abner J. Mikva, J. Paul Reason, Brent Scowcroft, Anne-Marie Slaughter and Strobe Talbott.

This commission, touted as non-partisan, has issued a report suggesting that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 be replaced with the War Powers Consultation Act.

The War Powers Consultation Act:

▪ Provides that the president shall consult with Congress before deploying US troops into "significant armed conflict" - i.e., combat operations lasting, or expected to last, more than a week.

▪ Defines the types of hostilities that would or would not be considered "significant armed conflicts."

▪ Creates a new Joint Congressional Consultation Committee, which includes leaders of both Houses as well as the chair and ranking members of key committees.

▪ Establishes a permanent bipartisan staff with access to the national security and intelligence information necessary to conduct its work.

▪ Calls on Congress, to vote up or down on significant armed conflicts within 30 days.

When one understands the authorities granted to the Executive and Legislative Branches of the United States Government, it is painfully obvious that not only does the War Powers Consultation Act continue the unconstitutional usurpation of the Commander-in-Chief's authority to command our Armed Forces; it proposes a further encroachment on the separation of powers.

"Provides that the president shall consult with Congress before deploying US troops into "significant armed conflict," provides a literal seat at the table where Executive Branch military decision making is concerned.

"Defines the types of hostilities that would or would not be considered ‘significant armed conflicts,'" effectively limits the Commander-in-Chief in the ability to act should our nation find itself, "already under attack or serious threat," both definitions being subjected to Legislative Branch interpretation.

"Creates a new Joint Congressional Consultation Committee, which includes leaders of both Houses as well as the chair and ranking members of key committees," attempts to transition the onus of declarative responsibility regarding military action from the singular voice of the Commander-in-Chief to "group think consensus" of a committee plus one.

And, "establishes a permanent bipartisan staff with access to the national security and intelligence information necessary to conduct its work," not only encroaches on the privilege granted to the Commander-in-Chief and his staff in times of conflict, it opens any and all military operations up to politization; even more so than it is already.

In fact, the only provision in this absurdly unconstitutional proposal, that exists within the boundaries of the Constitution is the right for "Congress to vote up or down on significant armed conflicts within 30 days."

That James Baker, Warren Christopher and the rest of the National War Powers Commission believe they know better how to vest constitutional powers than the Framers of our Constitution is a testimony to the definition of arrogance. That they would consider usurping the authority of the United States Constitution by allowing the partisan Congress to encroach upon the awesome and singular responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief places them squarely at the service of the American Fifth Column.

The President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief. He alone commands the US Armed Forces. The Congress funds the Armed Forces. Should Congress ever feel that the US Armed Forces are engaged in a dishonorable action they have the wherewithal to defund it mission and thus bring it to an end. All they have to do is actually have the courage to do so. Today, there is no courage on Capitol Hill...only consensus.

Check. Balance.

Frank Salvato
July 11, 2008

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.586/pub_detail.asp

« Close It

This trait of being more in love with consumption than production is one shared by most of my socialist colleagues in academia. They base their lives on the idea of taking "from each according to his ability" and giving "to each according to his need." The problem is that they do a better job of articulating their needs than promoting their abilities. This is, of course, because socialists are generally short on abilities. They seek socialism because they think being guaranteed an average outcome is safer than trying to beat the average in a system based on merit, which is otherwise known as ability.

Anyone watching the 2008 presidential race has doubtless seen a similar dynamic among supporters of Barack H. Obama. Most of his supporters have been talking about rights without any mention of the notion of responsibilities. Like supply and demand, and need and ability, the terms rights and responsibilities are best understood in relation to one another. For example, I have a 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms that the government cannot simply take away from me on a whim. But I also have a responsibility for everything that occurs between the time I discharge a bullet and the time the bullet comes to its final stopping point. But consider the following list of "rights" that supporters of Obama have recently told me that we all have: Everyone has the right to a college education. I can't imagine what it will be like as a college professor once Obama implements this one. I've been teaching to the occasional unqualified black and the occasional unqualified athlete for years. But now that everyone, including, presumably, the mentally retarded, has a right to a college degree, I might just retire and become a firearms instructor. Hopefully, Obama will not grant a Right to Firearms Education to both idiots and the insane.

(Author's Note: This one came from Obama himself). Everyone has a right to breathe clean air. This is a really bad idea for the Obama campaign. If everyone starts to enforce his right to breathe clean air in the presence of swarthy young Muslims, Obama might lose an important part of his electoral base. Everyone has a right to free health care. I recently learned this from an incoming Drexel law student appearing on The O'Reilly Factor. Bill did a great job by asking her whether this right is in the constitution or whether it just comes from the fact that she is a really nice person. She was forced to admit that it was not in the constitution. She should do really well in law school because she's a really nice person.

Everyone has a right to demand that the rich pay taxes in proportion to their ability to pay taxes. I recently learned this from an incoming Yale law student on the same segment of The Factor. Everyone agrees that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor. What is controversial is the notion that they should also pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. But that was not the issue in this segment. The issue was whether the existing gap in the proportion of taxes paid by the poor and the rich should be widened and, if so, by how much. When someone says we have a right to tax the rich "in proportion to their ability to pay" they mean "tax them until they can no longer pay" or "tax them until they are bankrupt." Many people who hold this view were not actually alive during the Carter Administration. But they have taken history classes from people who assure us that he was really not such a bad president.

Every gay man has a right to feel comfortable. I heard this one from a first-year law student at Yale. He actually informed me thrice that his right to be comfortable as a gay man trumps the First Amendment. I guess they don't teach constitutional law until the second year of the Yale law program. But the question is: How did this sissy get into Yale Law School?

After spending only a little time listening to followers of the Dali Bama I have concluded that, in Obama's America, everyone gets to declare at least one new fundamental right regardless of whether it is written into the constitution. And so, naturally, I am going to declare first that I have a right to unlimited rights. (This is sort of like making one's only wish a request for unlimited wishes). My second declaration of a new right is a little more complicated. First, I believe that I have a right to demand that you show me a copy of the U.S. Constitution every time you demand a new right. And if you cannot identify the constitutional basis of your proposed right, you forfeit that right as well as your right to vote in 2008. And, of course, I get to cast the vote you forfeited. So, those of you prone to simply announce fundamental rights without any constitutional basis should beware that this could soon deprive you of the right to vote. Until now, it's only deprived of you the right to sound intelligent.

Mike S. Adams
July 07, 2008
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/07/07/my_right_to_unlimited_rights

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

While the national corporate media has covered the outcome of this case, their analysis has been (and will be) long on the sensationalism of the arguments between these two sides, and very short on what the opinion actually says. For those who are interested in the actual language and analysis of the Heller decision, as well as some educated guesses as to the likely directions this decision will take us in the future, this analysis will deal with the issues of importance that stand out to both practicing criminal defense attorney and political science professor.

The most important things about Heller, other than the mere fact that it squarely addresses the Second Amendment, are that it is far more comprehensive than the national media are explaining. This is no mere overturning of the District of Columbia's pervasive gun ban, it absolutely establishes that the Second Amendment does indeed protect an individuals right to own and use firearms, as separate and distinct from any government controlled military organization. Justice Scalia, writing for the 5-4 majority, carefully analyzes each and every word of the Amendment, and does so from both a linguistic, legal, and historical perspective. He defines "arms", "bear", "people", "right", "keep", "militia", "state", and fully deconstructs how they are put together. There is nothing left to define here, no words about which the meaning can be speculated, and no syntax structure left to be manipulated. Short of outright overturn of the decision (which every Supreme Court abhors to do), the individual nature of this right is now set in stone. Further, Justice Scalia (rightly) heaps scorn on some of the more obtuse and insultingly disingenuous arguments that have been made to eviscerate the meaning of the Second Amendment over the last few decades. We begin our examination of Heller with its disposal of those "chestnuts".

For at least a couple of decades, we've been forced to endure the catchphrase that the Second Amendment only would allow private ownership of muskets and muzzleloaders, since that was what the founders were calling firearms. This was what would be called a "compromise position" uttered by the self congratulatory, semi-educated, through a haze of clove cigarette smoke. Justice Scalia harshly brought them to reality with the following:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 19th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima faciae, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

The second venerable "chestnut" that has long been a lamppost for gun opponents to slouch against during any debate, has been to claim that the Second Amendment is only a "collective" right, indicating that it has to do with "militia service" or some existent group organized by the government, such as police forces, National Guard Units, or the proverbial "posse". While Justice Scalia spends considerable time on the exploration of the "militia" idea, before disposing of the gun opponents agenda for that phrase, he deals a swift death blow to the idea that the Second Amendment is some kind of "collective" right. He notes that the Second Amendment specifically says the "right of the people", and goes on to add that;

The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase "right of the people" two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology.[direct quote removed] All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

In footnote here he says that Justice Stevens contention that the right is conditioned on membership in a militia, and is "primarily collective in nature", Justice Scalia calls "deadwrong", citing McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479(1985) which defined the historical origins of another individual right set forth in the Bill of Rights. Writing for the majority Justice Scalia notes that, "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right." In fact, he says, "We start therefore with the presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

The opinion spends much of its length dealing with just how, precisely; the "militia" concept is entwined with the right to bear arms. In short, he says that the Second Amendment is divided into two distinct parts. The part that talks about "militia" is what he calls a "prefatory clause", a phrase used only to clarify or justify the important part of the statement, the "operative clause". The operative clause here is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

He clearly states that the operative clause is based on the long standing conflicts in England, where the government sought to disarm groups that opposed it, to better establish tyranny, and is the codification of a pre-existing right. Hence, the word "infringed", making it clear that the people already have a right to keep and bear arms. Had the amendment been designed to give a heretofore unknown right to the people, it would have read something like, "…does hereby grant to the people a right to keep and bear arms". (The founders were followers of the philosophy of the 18th century liberals philosophers, like John Locke, and believed that humans had inalienable rights, not that humans were only to be "given" rights by a sovereign.)

He says that the prefatory clause does not serve as a limit on the operative clause, and that "…operative provisions should be given effect as operative provisions, and prologues as prologues….[if]the prologue itself should be one of the factors that go into the determination of whether the operative provision is ambiguous [that] would cause the prologue to be used to produce ambiguity rather than resolve it."

He notes that the Constitution itself empowers congress to make a Navy and to raise Armies, but that the militias are something different. He argues that the plain language and history indicate the militias were pre-existing to the government, and were composed of all able bodied men, armed with their personal weapons. He conveys that there were many reasons the founders felt that a militia would be "necessary to the security of a free state", among them repelling invasion. Though he does not mention it specifically, it is worth noting that Admiral Yamamoto advised the Japanese military ruling council against a land invasion of California, primarily because the large number of armed citizens would make it an ungovernable quagmire. This shows that the founders belief that the security of the nation would be bolstered by having an armed populace was borne out, at least through the 20th century. Scalia also draws attention to the writings of Hamilton describing that a nation of armed, able bodied men, are better able to resist tyranny, and also spends some time discussing the history of the struggles between Catholics and Protestants for control of the monarchy, as the origins of this knowledge of armed resistance to tyranny. Thus he illuminates that the prefatory phrase about the militia is merely explanatory as to the operative phrase of just why it is so important that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The fundamental right established, the remaining three elements of this decision, upon which so many people waited so anxiously, were how the court was to deal with "crime", "regulation", and the types of "arms" protected.

Justice Scalia repeatedly referred to the right to use firearms to protect oneself in the home or on ones property. Over and over again, this entered into his analysis at all levels. This established two things never before addressed by the Court. First, that the 2nd Amendment is now related to an individual's right of self defense, not merely as a mechanism for defense of the nation against foreign aggression or domestic tyranny. Secondly it clearly establishes the right of a person to use a firearm in self defense. This second point, while it has escaped comment in the popular media, was hammered home, by repetition, throughout the opinion. By choosing this language, Judge Scalia laid a bulwark against any future efforts to undermine this right of self defense, such as is currently happening in England. There, many recent cases have found persons convicted for using deadly force to defend themselves from violent attack. It seems likely Judge Scalia took this opportunity to prevent such a perversion of justice from finding roots here in America. He goes so far as to call it the "core lawful purpose of self defense".

The court acknowledges the difficulties posed to communities by "handgun violence" but says that the Constitution leaves communities with a variety of tools for combating the problem, "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table". To wit, governments and communities can't absolutely prohibit handguns, "held and used for self defense in the home".

As to the right of the government(s) to regulate ownership of firearms, the court clearly states that some regulations are permissible.. The court notes that like most rights, this right is not unlimited. Just as there are permissible limits on the freedom of speech, and the freedom to practice ones religions, so too there are reasonable limits that can be placed on ones right to keep and bear armaments. Scalia and the court note that the longstanding prohibitions which prevent convicted felons, or the mentally ill from owning firearms is permissible, as are restrictions preventing the carrying of firearms into sensitive locations. Specifically named are schools, and government buildings. Likewise the opinion specifically permits laws which impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Scalia says these are merely examples, and are not to be seen as the complete list, so we can presume that many more specific restrictions will not be undone by this opinion. It seems the BATF officers who conduct checks on gun stores and licensed dealers will not need to be updating their resume's, nor will the wand wielding inspectors at our courts, schools, and airports. However, the strong wording on the right to use a firearm to defend oneself in the home makes it likely any "school zone" bans which overlap anyone individuals private residence are likely defunct.

Lastly, the court did give some guidance in the area of the types of firearms protected by the 2nd Amendment, the area of great interest to both the enemies of gun ownership and firearms enthusiasts alike. Over the last couple of decades, this has been the central arena in the battle over guns in the US. Though this decision in no way creates a definitive list of what specific guns can be regulated or to degree, there is some pretty strong language limiting the governments reach in this regard.. On several occasion in the opinion, the court specifically upholds the ban on sawed off shotguns, as an example of the type of permissible regulation of weapons that are "unsafe" and not typical of the weapons used by the average soldier. The opinion cites the colonial regulations on the storage of gunpowder to minimize fire damage, and a singular colonial era regulation on keeping a loaded firearm for its danger to firefighters. This analysis would indicate that the government may prohibit ownership of particularly unusual or dangerous armaments. Do not expect regulations prohibiting flame throwers, rocket launchers, explosives or heavy weapons to be invalidated. However, this does not seem to extend to any weapons commonly used by the average soldier, or citizen. The popularity and utility of handguns, for use in personal self defense is given a great deal of discussion, and it seems that any "handgun" ban is going to be absolutely unconstitutional. Justice Scalia notes that many people prefer handguns for defense within the home because of their ease of handling in close quarters, and the fact that they free a second hand to do such necessary tasks as dialing the police, and though he doesn't mention it, hold a flashlight.

Of great interest in light of the recent battles fought over "assault style weapons", was a singular paragraph of great depth and analysis, that this author has yet to see addressed in the popular media. It is almost a summation of the entire analysis of the 2nd Amendment;

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like- may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendments ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias of the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large….But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

This seems to say that like the analysis of the right of speech to be extended to our fax machines and cell phones, the right to militarily useful weapons should be protected. Light machine guns, and squad automatic weapons are probably not protected and may be "infringed", but the average infantryman's rifle, "M-16 rifles and the like", appear to be protected specifically by the Second Amendment. At least, for as long as the Supreme Court stands as it does today.

That said, the opinion does expose some weaknesses in the protection if affords. The exceptions made for regulation and licensing of firearms would be deeply disturbing if adopted on a wider scale than by the small political areas that will now be losing their comprehensive bans. The weakness in the decision, specifically, is that there is great deference shown to "licensing", which is treated as an acceptable accommodation to the right, for the District of Columbia. If licensing is a permissible way to regulate handguns, then by analogy, it would be permissible for the Federal government to potentially require licensing of all firearms. To allow this to occur would build a fatal weakness into our basic freedom, since registration makes later confiscation, by tyrant or invader, not only possible but likely. Historical examples of registration based confiscation are common, and not limited to the activities of the Nazi's, both in Germany and immediately upon conquest of a neighboring state which "enjoyed" a gun registration scheme.

Also, there is the phraseology that places it within governmental power to regulate the commercial sale and interstate commercial transport of arms. This may be the single greatest threat to our continued enjoyment of the benefits of the Second Amendment. There have been and continue to be ongoing attempts to prohibit or limit the person to person sale of firearms, without involving a "licensed" intermediary. These efforts to "close the gun show loophole" are largely unopposed by the firearms manufacture and retail industries, because they see the used gun market as competition to their revenue flow. However, this simple custom in the law is the razor thin edge between our current system and de facto national registration. This is not merely speculation, for this author personally seen basic, simple, felony criminal cases in Arizona, which directly demonstrated the existence of national gun registration as early as the year 2003.

In the several months before these cases went to trial, the prosecution was able to send the serial number of a pistol to the BATF, who contacted a licensed gun dealer in an outlying city in Arizona. That dealer FAXed the firearm purchase form, which had been filled out nearly 10 years prior, at the purchase of the pistol by an individual now accused of the crime. During trial, the local deputy county prosecutor was able to produce a copy of the actual form filled out by the defendant, with his handwriting, and signature, from a lawful purchase nearly a decade old. Bear in mind, this was not a federal crime, or even a high profile crime (the accused had no criminal record, and there were no injuries). If a low level, local, prosecutor, chasing down a simple local crime, can easily acquire the purchase forms from a lawful firearms purchase, nearly a decade old, from merely a manufacturers serial number, how is that not a national registration scheme already in place? The only current limitation on this registration scheme is that if a "gun confiscator" came to the addresses on each of those forms, the persons named could now answer, "I sold it to some guy 5 years ago". If the Heller decision permits laws to be passed which require all purchases to be either from licensed dealers, or that the transaction be done through a licensed dealer, the we automatically have national gun registration. The first and most important step for confiscation by either invader or tyrant.

While Justice Scalia concludes the majority opinion by writing "it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct", it will unfortunately require ongoing activism and vigilance to make sure another government body does not make it moot.

By David Roth

David Roth is a Generation X, former political science professor, now practicing law in Phoenix.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

I have been made aware of two pieces of legislation, thanks to the constant vigilance of the patriots at SOSUSA.US. I send my most sincere thanks to them, for bringing it to my attention, so that I might bring it to yours. This legislation has just confirmed the opinion I have long held that members of our congress have either lost their damn minds, are complete incompetents, or are intentionally complicit in the destruction of our national sovereignty. Either way, I am tired of being the hog tied, blindfolded, gagged passenger in a vehicle driven by suicidal maniacs.

Yet another piece is being added to the framework, set in place for the demise of our national sovereignty. I hope, by now, you have read my past article The Demise Of Our American Identity, which exposes and explains that a deeply embedded program is already in place to move our nation into a fully integrated Western Hemisphere.

This framework strives to harmonize our nation with international law through the United Nations, the Summit of the Americas, The Organization of American States (OAS) and the Inter-American System and has been moved progressively forward by way of NAFTA, the SPP and the soon to come NAU which will finally complete the permanent dissolution of our nation into a hemispheric conglomerate where all knees shall bend to the Gods of Globalism and a new social order shall reign supreme. God help us all.

The following are just a few excerpts from one more piece of the integration puzzle. As you are reading what is obviously the bankrupting of our nation, think of the lives that have been lost for the cause of our liberty. Think of the past generations who suffered and struggled to bring us to the comfort, security and national wealth we have all enjoyed and often taken for granted. Think of our soldiers fighting and dying, even now, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then, think of your children and grandchildren. Read the words that will enslave and impoverish them. Our children will not be free as we have been. They will never know the liberty we have known. They will never know the prosperity that was possible for us, if we worked hard and studied and applied ourselves to our successful endeavors. They will not be Americans, as we perceive America, unless this generation wakes up, pays attention and makes significant changes, quickly. Time is short.

If you are waiting for someone else to rush in and save the day, stop waiting. This is your country, your sovereignty, your freedom, you home, your family and your future. This is your problem. You must be a part of the solution or you have no one to blame but yourself.

The move to Progressive socialism marches on and we are woefully behind is stamping it down. To make changes, you must understand the plan. Remember; this is just ONE piece of the puzzle.

(Excerpts)
Social Investment and Economic Development for the Americas Act of 2007
Senate Bill 2120
OCTOBER 1, 2007

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. DODD, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. CLINTON, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. NELSON of Florida, and Mr. CARDIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL
To authorize the establishment of a Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas to provide assistance to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere, and for other purposes.

(3) The United States contributes, on average, $820,000,000 in bilateral development assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean each year and has continued to strengthen its commitment to promoting our shared values, heritage, and culture while confronting the common challenges we face.

(4) The United States has also contributed through the Millennium Challenge Account more than $269,000,000 in development assistance.

(5) Poverty and inequality remain historic and persistent problems in the region, which undermine progress on social and economic development. These problems contribute to the rise of populist ideas and add to inequality.

The President, acting through the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development and working with foreign governments and civil society, shall provide increased and sustained assistance to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere by helping to—

(1) Improve the quality of life and invest in human capital, specifically by promoting education, improving health and disease prevention, and increasing the access to and quality of housing;

There is established within the United States Agency for International Development an advisory committee to be known as the Western Hemisphere Economic Investment and Development Advisory

They are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter, including for purposes of reducing poverty, expanding the middle class, and fostering increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere, in addition to amounts of United States Foreign Assistance Funds (Function 150) otherwise authorized and appropriated and the $820,000,000 in bilateral development assistance provided by the United States, on average, to Latin America and the Caribbean each year, the following amounts:

$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
$75,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
$100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
$125,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2016.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2017.

The Inter-American Development Bank Act

The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director at the Bank to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to urge the Bank to establish an account to be known as the ‘Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas.

The Fund shall be used to provide assistance to reduce poverty, expand the size of the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere by helping to:

(3) leverage personal remittances and reduce the cost of remittances sent to Latin America and the Caribbean, for the purpose of advancing economic and social development by

(A) increasing access to financial institutions for the poor, and working with local financial institutions to reduce fees and other costs associated with sending or receiving remittances;

(B) working with local financial institutions to develop programs whereby personal remittances can be used as the basis for credit for mortgages and loans for small business, microenterprises, housing, and other enterprises;

(C) providing matching funds for private entities in the United States that send donations for development projects in Latin America and the Caribbean; and

It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act and the amendments made by this Act should be used to help countries in Latin America and the Caribbean focus on improving indicators in the area of investing in people, as that term is used in section 607(b)(3) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7706(b)(3)), and consistent with the transformational development program of the Department of State; [Read]

(1) the Multilateral Investment Fund, which was fully established in 1993 as part of President George H.W. Bush’s Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, has been successful in promoting inclusive economic growth in Latin America and the Caribbean;

(4) as stated in section 499L of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as added by section 3, amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to the amendments made by this Act for a fiscal year for initiatives to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere are in addition to amounts that would be allocated or projected in the President’s budget request for Latin America and Caribbean for such fiscal year. [Read] [Read]

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury $51,000,000 for payment to the Inter-American Development Bank of arrears owed by the United States to the Multilateral Investment Fund. [Read]

You might wonder if the members of the House will save us from the insanity of the members of the Senate sponsoring this legislation. It will not be reassuring to learn that the House has its own version of this monstrosity.

HOUSE VERSION
H.R.3692 (introduced 9/27/2007)
Sponsor Rep Eliot Engel and thirty co-sponsors

Title: To authorize the establishment of a Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas to provide assistance to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere, and for other purposes.

Citizens of the United States of America, we can no longer entrust the sovereignty of this nation to most of those who are now in positions of power in our government. Our best interests are not being served. I pray that Americans will finally understand the consequences of our apathy or lack of understanding and will begin to step forward into the political arena and replace those disgraces that now hold our national sovereignty by the throat.

Until we see the truth and understand it, until we vote these scoundrels out of office and replace them with constitutionally directed candidates, we are on a collision course with disaster. Our future leaders are out there somewhere, maybe even reading this now. If so, I am asking that they step forward, trust in the citizen of this nation to see their value, and begin to bring our nation back towards a sound, sane foreign policy.

We can defeat this insanity and we must. The very survival of our nation now depends on all of us. Do all that you can to support candidates who will defend our constitution? Send the rest of them back to the obscurity they so deserve. They should hang their heads in shame for the disservice they have done this nation and our citizens.

Unfortunately; I don’t believe shame is a part of their DNA.

It is time for the awakening of our citizens. Do your part.

Godspeed and God Bless the USA

By CJ Graham
June 28, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Graham/cj2.htm

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

The greatest fear the founders of this nation had was the establishment of a strong central government and a strong political leader at the center of that government. They no longer wanted kings, potentates or czars, they wanted a loose association of States in which the power emanated from the States and not from the central government. (emphasis added)

John Adams advocated that a good government consists of three balancing powers, the legislative, executive and the judicial, that would produce an equilibrium of interests and thereby promote the happiness of the whole community. It was Adams' theory that the only effectual method to secure the rights of the people and promote their welfare was to create an opposition of interests between the members of two distinct bodies (legislative and executive) in the exercise of the powers of government, and balanced by those of a third (judicial).

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

On June 8, 1789, James Madison proposed the Bills of Rights to the new Congress. Its eventual creation was the outcropping of arguments made in the respective State legislatures debating ratification of the new Constitution. Madison had previously been opposed to the establishment of the Bill of Rights, but the treatises of Thomas Jefferson convinced him of the necessity of such Constitutional amendments. The concept was simple, according to Madison, "That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people. That government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right of acquiring property, and generally of pursing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purpose of its institution."

He further advocated, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship...The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor for applying to the legislature by petitions or remonstrances for redress of their grievances...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The framework of this nation is embodied in the Bill of Rights, unequaled in its time, and surpassed by none to date. Madison also stated, "The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized." He added, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IN TIME OF WAR

Many of the fears of the founding fathers may now be coming to fruition. Today, the executive branch of the government is immensely powerful, much more powerful than the founding fathers had envisioned or wanted. Congressional legislative powers have been usurped. There is no greater example of that usurpation than in the form of the Presidential Executive Order. The process totally by-passes Congressional legislative authority and places in the hands of the President almost unilateral power. The Executive Order governs everything from the Flag Code of the United States to the ability to single-handedly declare Martial Law. Presidents have used the Executive Order in times of emergencies to override the Constitution of the United States and the Congress.

President Andrew Jackson used executive powers to force the law-abiding Cherokee Nation off their ancestral lands. The Cherokee fought the illegal action in the U.S. Supreme Court and won. But Jackson, using the power of the Presidency, continued to order the removal of the Cherokee Nation and defied the Court's ruling. He stated, "Let the Court try to enforce their ruling." The Cherokee lost their land and commenced a series of journeys that would be called The Trail of Tears.

President Abraham Lincoln suspended many fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He closed down newspapers opposed to his war-time policies and imprisoned what many historians now call political prisoners. He suspended the right of trial and the right to be confronted by accusers. Lincoln's justification for such drastic actions was the preservation of the Union above all things. After the war and Lincoln's death, Constitutional law was restored.

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson could not persuade Congress to arm United States vessels plying hostile German waters before the United States entered World War One. When Congress balked, Wilson invoked the policy through a Presidential Executive Order.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 9066 in December 1941. His order forced 100,000 Japanese residents in the United States to be rounded up and placed in concentration camps. The property of the Japanese was confiscated. Both Lincoln's and Roosevelt's actions were taken during wartime, when the very life of the United States was threatened. Wilson's action was taken on the eve of the United States entering World War One. Whether history judges these actions as just, proper or legal, the decision must be left to time. The dire life struggle associated with these actions provided plausible argumentation favoring their implementation during a time when hysteria ruled an age.

THE NEW DANGERS

A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is by-passed. Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

(emphasis added)
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

Without Congressional approval, the President now has the power to transfer whole populations to any part of the country, the power to suspend the Press and to force a national registration of all persons. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a real or perceived emergency. Unlike Lincoln and Roosevelt, these powers are not derived from a wartime need, but from any crisis, domestic or foreign, hostile or economic. Roosevelt created extraordinary measures during the Great Depression, but any President faced with a similar, or lesser, economic crisis now has extraordinary powers to assume dictatorial status.

Many of the Executive Orders cited here have been on the books for over a quarter of a century and have not been applied. Therefore, what makes them more dangerous today than yesteryear? There has been a steady, consistent series of new Executive Orders, originating from President Richard Nixon and added to by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and George Bush that provide an ominous Orwellian portrait, the portrait of George Orwell's 1984.

THE EROSION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

A series of Executive Orders, internal governmental departmental laws, unpassed by Congress, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1991, has whittled down Constitutional law substantially. These new Executive Orders and Congressional Acts allow for the construction of concentration camps, suspension of rights and the ability of the President to declare Martial Law in the event of a drug crisis. Congress will have no power to prevent the Martial Law declaration and can only review the process six months after Martial Law has been declared. The most critical Executive Order was issued on August 1, 1971. Nixon signed both a proclamation and Executive Order 11615. Proclamation No. 4074 states, "I hereby declare a national emergency," thus establishing an economic crisis. That national emergency order has not been rescinded.

The crisis that changed the direction of governmental thinking was the anti-Vietnam protests. Fear that such demonstrations might explode into civil unrest, Executive Orders began to be created to allow extreme measures to be implemented to curtail the demonstrations. The recent Los Angeles riots after the Rodney King jury verdict only reinforced the government's concern about potential civil unrest and the need to have an effective mechanism to curtail such demonstrations.

Here are the later Executive Orders: (emphasis added)

• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and granted the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry. Many of the figures in the Iran-Contra scandal were part of this emergency contingent, including Marine Colonel Oliver North.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis."

The Violent Crime Control Act of 1991 provides additional powers to the President of the United States, allowing the suspension of the Constitution and Constitutional rights of Americans during a "drug crisis". It provides for the construction of detention camps, seizure of property, and military control of populated areas. This, teamed with the Executive Orders of the President, enables Orwellian prophecies to rest on whoever occupies the White House. The power provided by these "laws" allows suspension of the Constitution and the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights during any civil disturbances, major demonstrations and strikes and allows the military to implement government ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels, the arrest of certain unidentified segments of the population, and the imposition of Martial Law.

When the Constitution of the United States was framed it placed the exclusive legislative authority in the hands of Congress and with the President. Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." That is no longer true. The Bill of Rights protected Americans against loss of freedoms. That is no longer true. The Constitution provided for a balanced separation of powers. That is no longer applicable.

Perhaps it can be summed up succinctly in the words of arch-conservative activist Howard J. Ruff. "Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it."

Copyright FreeAmerica and Harry V. Martin, 1995

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
------------

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directives
NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20
Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

Definitions

(2) In this directive:
(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;
(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;
(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;
(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;
(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;
(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;
(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and
(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.

Policy

(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.

Implementation Actions

(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.

(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:
(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;
(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;
(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;
(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;
(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and
(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.

(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.

(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.

(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:
(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;
(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;
(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;
(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;
(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;
(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and
(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.

(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.

(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:
(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;
(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and
(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.

(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:
(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;
(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and
(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.

(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:
(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and
(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.

(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;
(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;
(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;
(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;
(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;
(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;
(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and
(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.

(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.

(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.

(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:
(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;
(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;
(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;
(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and
(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities

General Provisions

(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.

(21) This directive:
(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;
(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and
(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

GEORGE W. BUSH

« Close It

This factuality accepted, it is next to impossible, but for the bully pulpit afforded the stature of the presidency, for the President of the United States to be an effective “change agent.” While he (or she) can certainly execute executive orders and signing statements, the fact remains, it is Congress that holds the power to legislate and fund laws and government programs. Therefore, simple logic mandates that for all the tall rhetoric of “change” coming from the presidential candidates – especially the Democrats – their promises will, for the most part, ring hollow. In order to bring about real change in government, one must “change” the Legislative Branch. In this truth the American people are in luck.

By the structure of our constitutional government we find that the easiest political contests to affect are in the Legislative Branch. This is so because each of those we vote for are specific to our location, one more immediate than the other. Where the president represents the whole of the nation’s populace, our US Senators are elected by the whole of the populace in a singular state. Even more localized in voter constituency are those selected to become US Representatives.

It is for this reason that so many of the constitutionally literate take issue with senators and representatives taking it upon themselves to dabble in foreign relations. Senators and representatives are not elected by the total of the American electorate and do not officially represent the total of the American people, no matter what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would have us think. In reality, those senators and representatives who do partake in unsanctioned foreign relations are rogue and should be recognized as such.

Accepting the constitutional and electoral realities of the Legislative Branch, it is clear that it is the American people and not the presidential candidates that have the power to bring about real change, this power being the ability to easily vote to and out of office those elected officials who represent us in the US Congress. So, why is it that the American electorate is repeatedly duped into believing that it is the president who can bring about change? For that matter, why is it that the American electorate believes that the responsibility for the foibles of national government should be laid – completely – at the foot of the Executive Branch?

The answer to those two questions is one in the same. It is easier to blame one man (or woman) than it is to blame 535. That said, when one looks at the performance of those in the Legislative Branch it is clear that We the People certainly do need “change” in Washington, DC.

Admittedly, some actions taken by the Executive Branch – by President Bush and his administration – have been disappointing but when compared to the dismal performance of Congress over the past several decades it is clear that the Legislative Branch has become corrupted throughout and that they have used the tools of deception and deflection – aided by an agenda-driven media – to blame a singular man in the President of the United States for bad government executed at their hand.

It is Congress that enacts financial allocations and who is, therefore, responsible for the deficit. It is Congress that has created so many unconstitutionally mandated entitlement programs that roughly a third of our paychecks isn’t enough revenue to satisfy the annual federal budget. It is Congress that has failed to rescue Social Security. It is Congress that refuses to simplify and make more equitable the tax system. It is Congress that refuses to cease the practice of earmarking. It is Congress that is dragging its feet on funding the securing of our borders. It is Congress that has elongated the military action in the Iraqi theater of the Global War against Islamofascism by refusing to learn from their past mistake of injecting politics into military operations when US boots are on the ground. And it is Congress – the Legislative Branch – that has seated those currently under indictment for financial and procedural malfeasance.

The despotic quality of today’s Legislative Branch is not a malady unforeseen. In fact, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 13, 245.4 (1784), Thomas Jefferson professed his belief that the concentration of government power in the Legislative Branch, “...is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots [the number of the Virginia legislators] would surely be as oppressive as one...An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of the government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others...”

To be certain, our country does need “change.” But to believe that we need to rely on the three candidates vying for the presidency to bring about this change is to be deceived by those who quest to maintain their seats of power at the American public’s expense. If we are to have change it must come through the Legislative Branch. If we are to affect change through the Legislative Branch then we have to honestly look at those we elect to the US Congress and that means taking the time to be informed and to get involved...locally.

We all vote for the president. But we are all responsible – and therefore, culpable – for those we send to Congress.

Frank Salvato
4/18/2008

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for Basics Project
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/fsalvato/2008/print/04182008.htm

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

When President Bush criticized these comments as tantamount to threatening a U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA, he said that “It’s not good policy on the merits and it’s not good policy as a message to send to...people who have in good faith signed a treaty and worked with us on a treaty.”

But it was not treated as a treaty in the U.S.

Clinton submitted NAFTA as an agreement, requiring only a majority of votes in both Houses of Congress for passage, and not a treaty, requiring a two-thirds vote in favor in the Senate. NAFTA passed by votes of 234-200 in the House and 61-38 in the Senate.

Clinton did it this way because he didn’t have the votes to pass NAFTA as a treaty (requiring 67 votes) in the Senate. But how did he pull off such a blatantly illegal and unconstitutional move?

Although the strict text of the U.S. Constitution includes the treaty clause as the only means by which the U.S. can enter into such international agreements, there’s a growing body of mostly liberal-left “legal opinion” that holds that “congressional-executive agreements” like NAFTA can serve as substitutes for treaties.

Clinton’s move was seen at the time, even by some on the left, as an effort to bypass constitutional processes and the United Steelworkers challenged NAFTA’s constitutionality in court. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001, after lower courts had thrown the case out, saying it was a political matter between the President and Congress. The Bush Administration sided with Clinton and the Supreme Court declined to get involved.

The Bush Administration’s support for the unconstitutional Clinton approach could easily backfire on conservatives if the Democrats take the White House and hold Congress in the fall elections. Citing NAFTA as a precedent, liberal Democrats could submit and pass treaties by a simple majority vote.

In an article in the liberal American Prospect, Thomas Geoghegan lamented that the Kyoto global warming treaty and the International Criminal Court “are among the great global projects of our day” but are not getting through the Senate because of the two-thirds majority required for passage. “So what’s the way out of this bind? It’s the same way out we used for NAFTA or for fast-track free-trade agreements. That is, we just pass a simple law,” he said.
Geoghegan says the reason liberals can’t get these measures currently passed in the Senate is because this body “overrepresents” states like “Wyoming, Idaho and America’s backwoods.” In other words, Red State Senators have too much clout under the Constitution. They are obstructing the “progressive” vision.

Geoghegan says legal justification for this new approach can be found in an article in the American Journal of International Law by Steve Charnovitz, an associate professor of international law at the George Washington University School of Law. The article complains about Senate inaction on such treaties as the feminist Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the anti-parent U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention on Biological Diversity, the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, and various U.N. human rights treaties.

Since this article appeared, in October of 2004, the Bush Administration has been trying to pressure the Senate into ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty. It now awaits full Senate action.

Charnovitz admits the approach of pushing these treaties as mere agreements would be controversial. But he finds comfort in the fact that the legal action against NAFTA was thrown out.

It would make a good issue for John McCain, except for the fact that he’s for NAFTA and most of the U.N. treaty agenda.

By Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
March 3, 2008

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/bipartisan-crimes-against-the-constitution/

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Okay, insults or not, the facts are still the facts. And the facts are as follows:

A. Total government spending (federal, state, local) has increased from 6.9% of Gross Domestic Product in 1902 to an estimated 34.6% in 2008.

This fact alone does not prove that government spending will increase from one year to the next, because spending as a percent of GDP has fluctuated widely from one year to the next, especially in years in which the nation went from peace to war and from war to peace. For example, the figure increased from 9.8% in 1915 to 22.1% in 1918. Conversely, it decreased from 35.9% in 1946 to 23.9% in 1950

However, if the year-to-year fluctuations are smoothed by drawing a regression line through the data for the last 100 years, the slope of