NATIONAL ID & THE CONUNDRUM OF ENFORCEMENT

By: Devvy
September 18, 2008

© 2008 - NewsWithViews.com

The clock is ticking on the shadow government's tracking of your every move with the so-called National ID. For those who might not be familiar with this Nazi style snooping and forced production of "Show your papers," Rep. Sam E. Rohrer, has very thoroughly and succinctly explained it in this column. It is a must read for all Americans (perhaps this weekend) to fully understand they may soon be forced to accept the loss of their rights or lose their job:

"A few weeks ago we introduced Lowell Rogers to you. He's a tugboat engineer. His employer is about to be brought under a security/identity scheme -- a Real ID card of sorts for maritime employees. It's called the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC). Apparently, since the Department of Homeland Security can't get Real ID implemented, due to the largest state rebellion since the Civil War, they've decided to pick us off -- one occupation at a time."[1]

Congressman Ron Paul explains the real issue here:

“National ID cards are not proper in a free society,” Paul stated. “This is America, not Soviet Russia. The federal government should never be allowed to demand papers from American citizens, and it certainly has no constitutional authority to do so.”[2]

Voluntary v mandatory

"Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary."[3]

The State of Arizona has signed into law: NO National ID:

"Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano signed a bill today that prohibits the implementation of the REAL ID in Arizona. SB2677 received a Final vote of approval in the House last week by an overwhelming margin of 51 to 1. Napolitano’s signature was uncertain until today when she signed the bill into law.

"The bill prohibits implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005, which was passed by Congress as part of a supplemental spending bill for tsunami relief and the War on Terror. The bill did not receive a hearing in either the House or the Senate, and the public was largely unaware of it until it had already been signed into law.

“Everyone thinks that the REAL ID is just about protecting us against terrorism,” said co-sponsor Senator Karen Johnson (R-18). “But it really represents a cash cow for technology companies as well as the birth of the National ID card, complete with all the biometric information that technology can handle – face recognition, fingerprints, etc.”[4]

This mess was given to us by a Republican controlled Congress (with a few exceptions like Ron Paul) and signed off by George Bush. A few Democrats made an effort to repeal it, but Pelosi was too busy making sure the House cafeteria got organic food. You have to love her priorities. The House of Nitwits is killing this country.

Clearly, the National ID is voluntary to the states. However, the Bush Administration has used blackmail to force the states to go along with this draconian plan: Either your citizens give up their rights or they will not be able to fly on commercial airplanes, travel on AMTRAK or enter a federal building. Nevada has such a convoluted schedule for issuance date and forms of ID to get this ID, look to a big, fat mess to deal with if you live in that state.[5]

Millions of Americans throughout the 50 states do NOT want this National ID rammed down their throats and have fought their state legislatures hard; most of the states have caved into the blackmail. The ones who have caved, those state reps and senators who couldn't find the guts to stand up to a tyrannical government, should be thrown out of office in November if they're up for reelection. If your state has passed legislation and signed by your governor to reject the National ID, be sure to call their office, tell them thank you let them know you're behind them. These elected officials need to know the people stand with them.

So what happens next? Let's look at the State of Arizona. John America works for Gibraltar Insurance who says he must fly to Chicago from Phoenix for business. However, Mr. America won't be allowed to board an airplane because his state has exercised their RIGHT to say no to Chertoff, his Department of Fatherland Security and retain their sovereignty. Mr. America fully supports the rejection of this National ID, but no National ID, can't get on the plane. Now what does Mr. America do? Let's say Arizona State Rep. Russell Pearce has to fly to Washington, DC, on official business for the State, or even Gov. Napolitano who signed the legislation saying no. Will these elected officials of the State of Arizona be barred from getting on an airplane?

This is the conundrum of enforcement staring the Bush Administration and the next one right in the face. The Feds have already had to back up and if the states remain strong and defiant, we will win:

"But the way this turned out is so odd it's worth repeating. States including New Hampshire, Maine, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington, and Montana have enacted laws saying "hell no we'll never comply with Real ID." And Homeland Security officials carefully ignored those public votes of condemnation, instead pretending that those states really intend to acquiesce by the next major deadline of December 31, 2009. (See our special report on Real ID from earlier this year.)" [6]

I submit to you there has to be a showdown and the states MUST prevail. I see no other way for this to be resolved. The states who have rejected this scheme to retain their rights and the rights of their citizens must fight. This is clearly a Tenth Amendment issue and has squat to do with the war on terrorism. With states who caved to the pressure or agree with this "show your papers" identification system and those states who have said no through a state law, what you will have is chaos next year. Mrs. America from Portland can fly to see her grand kids in Florida because she was forced to surrender her rights by their legislature, while Mr. America in Phoenix has his rights protected by his state, but can't get on a plane to do business in Chicago.

I've said it before: These cards are kid's play to compromise and forge. The next step will be forced finger printing and then the bio chips. Here in Texas, not only will they begin issuing these IDs, but the fee for a former Texas DL will jump from $24 to $100 or more and: "People will be further identified through the use of biometrics, from fingerprints to retinal scans." [7]

Advertisement

A few more comments about the financial meltdown because it's moving fast and fluid:

"About $2.8 trillion of market value was erased from global stocks this week as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed for bankruptcy, Bank of America Corp. purchased Merrill Lynch & Co. for $50 billion, and the U.S. government took control of American International Group Inc. in an $85 billion takeover to prevent the biggest financial collapse ever. Russian Banks. Russia halted stock trading for a second day and poured $44 billion into its three biggest banks in a bid to halt the worst financial crisis in a decade." [1]

The underlying debt is still there even though the average American really has no idea what all this means, yet. Yesterday gold jumped dramatically

"Gold surged the most in nine years as investors sought the safety of precious metals on concern that the credit crisis will deepen, leading more financial institutions to fail. [2]

While the incompetent Nancy Pelosi sputters the Democrats had nothing to do with this current crisis, [3] she left out

"The current mortgage crisis came about in large part because of Clinton-era government pressure on lenders to make risky loans in order to “make home ownership more affordable for lower-income Americans and those with a poor credit history,” the DC Examiner notes today. “Those steps encouraged riskier mortgage lending by minimizing the role of credit histories in lending decisions, loosening required debt-to-equity ratios to allow borrowers to make small or even no down payments at all, and encouraging lenders the use of floating or adjustable interest-rate mortgages, including those with low ‘teasers.’

"The liberal Village Voice previously chronicled how Clinton Administration housing secretary Andrew Cuomo helped spawn the mortgage crisis through his pressure on lenders to promote affordable housing and diversity. “Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments.

"He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded ‘kickbacks’ to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.” (See Wayne Barrett, “Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie: How the Youngest Housing and Urban Development Secretary in History Gave Birth to the Mortgage Crisis,” Village Voice, August 5, 2008)." [4]

There can be no financial stability as long as we have a debauched currency and a corrupted monetary system:

"To be sure, when Americans are told that "justice" and "the rule of law" require them to forfeit their accumulated savings and economic security to the very institutions and individuals who enticed them out on the financial limb that the Establishment then sawed off, justifiably violent animosities towards the powers that be will arise among some citizens. For most victimized Americans, though, politicians, bankers, high finance, big business, and the intelligentsiia will finger scapegoats on whom wrongly to pin the blame for the crisis and its aftermath. This will generate increased confusion, recriminations, conflicts, and social chaos; and further divide, disarm, and ultimately defeat the forces that, if united, might effectively oppose the Establishment.

"In addition, rather than disseminating demands for sound money and honest banking in order to deal with the crisis, the controlled media will orchestrate calls for massive increases in the supply of fiat currency and credit, ostensibly in order to enable common people to pay their debts. Of course, this will necessitate the maintenance of fractional-reserve central banking to emit the new currency, as well as the creation of more, more, and even more debt to serve as "security" for these emissions--thereby perpetuating the cause of the crisis and ensuring that further crises will break out later on. In this way, credulous Americans will be duped into chaining themselves to new debts in order to pay off their old ones, rendering permanent their financial indentured servitude to the Establishment. March 21, 2005 [5]

I've spent most of the week helping my elderly parents and other members of my family with their banking situations, CDs and pension concerns. My email box has been drowning with desperate messages from people who are just now beginning to realize the enormity of what we're seeing. People are also very concerned, actually feeling panic, over pension funds, 401(k)s - are they really safe? Despite the absolute stupidity out of Steve Doocy's mouth on FAUX News Network, September 17, 2008, when he stated, "This financial crisis should be over by the end of the week," 'this' isn't going to be 'over' for years with the worst yet to come.

While I'm not an investment counselor nor do I sell gold or any other precious metal, you can discuss your situation with Eric at El Dorado Gold and find out your options. Gold is still the only real, safe money. As I have written so many times, the middle class is sliding into poverty and no amount of sound bites from McCain or the absurd Obama "plan" on the economy (more regulations and "universal homeowner tax breaks") is going to stop this tragedy underway. I wish it were going to be different, but we've passed the point of no return. Arrogance and greed - twin monsters - has come back to bite the banking and lending industry and the American people will be the victims. When Ben Bernanke admits, "We've lost control," We cannot stabilize the dollar. We cannot control commodity prices,"[5] it's time to face the reality of this situation and act to protect yourself, your family and your future.

My next two columns are on the battle plans for Congress and your state legislatures. I've been giving this a lot of thought for months and hopefully, the American people are finally ready to back up 'enough is enough.'

Footnotes:

National ID

1 - Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)
2 - Ron Paul Denounces National ID card
3 - A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
4 - Press Release - State of Arizona
5 - Nevada
6 - Homeland Security blinks on Real ID
7 - Texas

Economy

1 - Gold Soars Most Since 1999 as Investors Seek Haven From Turmoil
2 - Ibid.
3 - Pelosi: Dems bear no responsibility for economic crisis
4 - Clinton Pressure to Promote Affordable Housing Led to Mortgage Meltdown
5 - Will The Coming Monetary Crisis Provide Opportunity For Reform?
6- Bernanke: We have lost control

National ID

1 - Idaho - status on bill by my friend, Rep. Phil Hart
2 - Homeland Security blinks on Real ID: No hassles on May 11
3 - National ID Card and Texas Drivers
5 - Oregon - Act Fast!
6 - Kids Have To Tumb scan for School Lunch Conditioning kids like cattle - shame on parents for not fighting this
7 - A multi-billion dollar boongoggle & threat to your Second Amendment rights

1 - Internet book I highly recommend ($9.95) No Foreclosures
This can help you stay in your home while you work with lenders

Meltdown: Taxpayers to be further plundered

1 - Those with good credit: The Next Wave Of Mortgage Defaults - Already underway
2 - Federal bank insurance fund dwindling - FDIC
3 - The biggest financial convulsion since the 1930s is far from over. With Lehman's demise, it has entered a new phase.
4 - Wall Street crisis: Is this the death knell for derivatives?
5 - The Fed obliterates the Constitution
6 - Money market breaks the buck, freezes redemptions
7 - More bank failures coming
8 - Consumer debt defaults looming large - As more Americans lose jobs, credit cards, loans won't be paid
9 - Ted Butler: The smoking gun
10 - Bernanke Tries to Define What Institutions Fed Could Let Fail
11 - Those with good credit: The Next Wave Of Mortgage Defaults

© 2008 - NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved

E-mail This Page

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

---

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker. Devvy belongs to no organization.

She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Her web site (www.devvy.com) contains a tremendous amount of information, solutions and a vast Reading Room.

Devvy's website: www.devvy.com

Before you send Devvy e-mail, please take the time to check the FAQ section on her web site. It is filled with answers to frequently asked questions and links to reliable research sources.

E-mail is: devvyk@earthlink.net

A Salute To Our U.S. Constitution

By Chuck Baldwin
September 17, 2008

n this date in 1787, the U.S. Constitution was adopted. 39 delegates from 12 of the 13 colonies (Rhode Island did not send a representative) affixed their signatures to the greatest civil document ever conceived by men. Famous patriots such as George Washington, Roger Sherman, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris, James Madison, George Clymer, and Abraham Baldwin were among this gallant group.

Under divine Providence, it has been allegiance to the Constitution that has preserved our liberties and protected our very way of life. Most of the problems, failings, and frustrations that plague our nation today are due to the propensity of our civil magistrates to ignore or blatantly abuse constitutional government. Accordingly, fidelity to the Constitution would likely repair most of the damage done by this neglect.

It is the responsibility of a free people to jealously guard the principles upon which their liberties are predicated. For citizens of these United States, the principles that duly protect our liberties are contained in the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. Therefore, it is incumbent upon every American to studiously familiarize himself with these documents.

Furthermore, it is the duty of every American to stubbornly hold their elected representative, at every level of government, accountable to his or her oath to the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the contract that every civil magistrate makes with "We the People." Failure of an elected representative to fulfill that oath to the Constitution should be met with swift and certain rejection by the people at the polls. Nothing else should matter. Republican or Democrat, man or woman, black or white, believer or unbeliever: it is the responsibility of every civil magistrate to submit to the restrictions and instructions of the Constitution.

Our Constitution (along with the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence) was formed, framed, and founded upon the eternal principles contained in Natural Law, which proceeds forth from man's Creator and Redeemer. No people in human history have ever been so blessed as the people of the United States to inherit such a legacy. Such a heritage serves only to heighten our own responsibility, as "unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required."

On this Constitution Day of 2008, may this generation of Americans live up to its responsibility to valiantly bequeath to our posterity the same legacy of freedom that was so bravely and miraculously bequeathed to us. For the sake of freedom, for the love of our children, and for the safety and security of our republic, may each of us determine for ourselves--and commit to Almighty God--to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

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

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

*Disclaimer: I am currently a candidate for President of the United States
on the Constitution Party ticket. My official campaign web site is located
at:
http://www.baldwin08.com/


(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender
includes contact information and a method of removal.

To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/subscribe.php

To unsubscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/unsubscribe.php

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,
reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not
charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact
and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for
permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an
interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address
is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida. When responding, please include your
name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will
be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

SARAH PALIN'S ANSWERS: VERY TROUBLING

By Chuck Baldwin
September 16, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin gave her first exclusive interview as John McCain's Vice Presidential running mate to ABC's Charles Gibson last week. Her answers were very troubling, especially to those of us who believe in constitutional government. On foreign policy, especially, Palin reveals herself to be just another neocon; one who would enthusiastically promote Bush's preemptive war doctrine.

Speaking of the Bush doctrine, it was extremely enlightening that Sarah Palin demonstrated surprising ignorance as to what the Bush Doctrine is. Gibson asked: "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" Palin's response: "In what respect, Charlie?" Continued questions revealed that Sarah Palin was totally ignorant of the Bush doctrine.

When Gibson properly defined the Bush doctrine as being the determination of President Bush to unilaterally, preemptively launch anticipatory military attacks and invasions against foreign countries (without a Declaration of War from Congress, I might add), Palin said the President "has the obligation, the duty" to launch such attacks. No wonder John McCain likes her so much.

Palin went on to make further statements that must have made John McCain proud. When asked if she would be willing to take America to war with Russia in order to defend Georgia, she responded by saying, "Perhaps so."

Egad! Do John McCain and Sarah Palin envision--even desire--war with Russia? John McCain is already on record as supporting sending troops to Georgia; now Sarah Palin suggests that even war with Russia is a possibility. Over what? Has Russia deployed troops along our borders? Has Russia threatened to invade the United States? Are McCain and Palin truly willing to launch a war with a nation that has thousands of ICBMs in its nuclear arsenal, when our own security has not been threatened? And just how many other countries are McCain and Palin willing to defend with American toil and blood? All of Europe?

Instead of promoting European states such as Georgia joining NATO, America should promote dismantling NATO. The reason for NATO's existence ended when the cold war with the former Soviet Union ended. It is past time for European states to take responsibility for their own defense. To promote American hegemony in Russia's backyard (which is exactly what we are doing by promoting the expansion of NATO) not only serves to reignite the cold war, it could inflame an all-out, very hot war. Is this what McCain and Palin want?

With Palin's willingness to launch a possible war with Russia, I suppose it is a small thing that she has no problem with the United States invading smaller countries such as Pakistan. To quote Sarah Palin, "We have got to have all options out there on the table."

Many people familiar with John McCain have tried to warn the American people about the warmongering, hot-tempered senator. To quote one of McCain's fellow POWs, Phillip Butler (who was a POW for 8 years, 2 1/2 years longer than McCain), "I can verify that John [McCain] has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly, that is not the finger I want next to that red button."

Only one time during Sarah Palin's interview with Charles Gibson did she refer to the U.S. Constitution, constitutional government, or her responsibility as Vice President to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. This is very troubling. Can it be that Sarah Palin is simply another politician who is ignorant and unconcerned regarding constitutional government? If so, the fact that she is a social conservative would make this dereliction no less egregious.

Advertisement

Speaking of social conservatism, Sarah Palin's response to Charles Gibson's question regarding abortion is also troubling. Everyone knows that John McCain is extremely weak on the life issue. He openly and repeatedly supported embryonic stem cell research. Ms. Palin says she opposes it. So, how would this conflict affect her position as McCain's Vice President? It wouldn't.

According to Palin, she would not let a "personal opinion" interfere with a McCain administration's policy that differed from hers. In other words, she would support McCain's pro-embryonic stem cell research decisions. I am sure this would also be true as John McCain increases federal funding for abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, which is something that McCain has also repeatedly done. Pray tell, how many other "personal opinions" is Sarah Palin willing to sacrifice in order to be John McCain's running mate? Already my previous column's cogitations are being borne out.

Since my last column, I have discovered that Sarah Palin did nothing to prevent the state of Alaska from being a sanctuary state for illegal aliens. The La Frontera web site credits Lou Dobbs as noting that, according to an August 14, 2006 report by the Congressional Research Service, at least two Alaskan cities have don't ask, don't tell sanctuary policies in place for illegal aliens: Anchorage and Fairbanks. Beyond that, Alaska has a statewide policy that forbids state agencies from using resources to enforce federal immigration law.

It makes perfect sense that Sarah Palin would embrace (or do nothing to oppose) John McCain's pro-illegal immigration policy, as this is one of the issues he is most passionate about. It is absolutely inconceivable that John McCain would ever select a running mate that did not share (or that would oppose) his pro-illegal immigration convictions.

Of course, Charles Gibson never bothered to inquire concerning Sarah Palin's attitudes toward the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), free trade deals (such as NAFTA, FTAA, etc.), the burgeoning North American Community, the NAFTA superhighway, etc. It really doesn't matter. I think we all know where Governor Palin comes down on all of the above. She will continue to support America's participation in and financial support for the U.N.; she will, as former Presidents and Vice Presidents have done, ingratiate herself with the CFR. Good grief! Her boss, John McCain, is a longstanding member of the CFR. She will enthusiastically support free trade deals, which destroy American jobs and encroach upon American independence and sovereignty; she will not oppose the North American Community, or any other form of globalism. And if called on, she will promote the NAFTA superhighway.\

In other words, Sarah Palin will offer no resistance to the escalating New World Order (America's greatest threat), her conservative leanings on social issues notwithstanding.

Sarah Palin's answers did reveal one positive: she seems to be solid on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is encouraging, because with the way that both Republicans and Democrats are leading America, it may not be long before we will need to actually exercise that right.

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

*Disclaimer: I am currently a candidate for President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. Click here for my official campaign web site.

© 2008 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

E-mail This Page

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

---

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Poll: Public opposes increased presidential power

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 22 minutes ago

Americans strongly oppose giving the president more power at the expense of Congress or the courts, even to enhance national security or the economy, according to a new poll.

The Associated Press-National Constitution Center poll of views on the Constitution found people wary of governmental authority after years of controversy over the Bush administration's expansion of executive power, and especially skeptical of increasing the president's powers.

"There is clearly a concern about executive power and the balance of power that comes out in a couple of different ways," said Joseph Torsella, president of the Philadelphia-based organization. The nonpartisan center is dedicated to educating the public about the Constitution.

Torsella said he believes the polls reflect long-standing skepticism of presidential power. "I think it's a basic chord in the American song and it gets louder and stronger depending on what's happening in the headlines," he said.

The survey also found overwhelming opposition to the government's power to take private property for redevelopment and to amending the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to be president. Americans are divided over government recognition of gay marriage, but younger people are far more likely to support it.

President Bush and Congress are at record low approval ratings in recent polls, with Congress even less popular than the president. But in the new poll, the public is more reluctant to expand the president's powers than those of Congress.

Two-thirds of Americans oppose altering the balance of power among the three branches of government to strengthen the presidency, even when they thought that doing so would improve the economy or national security. People were more evenly split over giving Congress more power in the same circumstances.

"The Constitution sets up three branches of government and to increase the power of one at the expense of the others endangers the fundamental structure," said poll participant James Crowder, 74, of Cockeysville, Md., a Baltimore suburb. "This current president and his vice president have distorted the office of president so much that it will take an enormous amount of time, if ever, for us to recover from that." Crowder is a Democrat and a retired Episcopal priest.

In one area, the poll found Americans clearly on Congress' side. They said Congress should have the power to require senior presidential aides to testify before House and Senate committees — a topic currently wending its way through the courts. The administration is trying to prevent former White House counsel Harriet Miers from testifying about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

The government's power to take private property for redevelopment had little support in the poll, not even when owners are paid a fair price and the project creates local jobs.

Participants said they consider private property rights conferred by the Constitution as important as freedom of speech and religion.

The Fifth Amendment allows the government to seize property for public use with just compensation.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that governments may seize people's homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development when there is a corresponding public purpose of bringing more jobs and tax revenue.

In the new poll of people's views on the Constitution, 75 percent disagreed. Opposition to the government power known as eminent domain was as strong among liberals as conservatives.

Cities, backed by some liberals, generally see the power to seize private property as an important tool for urban renewal projects crucial to revitalizing cities.

Many conservatives — particularly in the West — have called the high court decision a dangerous interpretation of the Constitution that would lead to abuse of individual rights.

Since the ruling, 39 states have enacted legislation or passed ballot measures restricting the government's power to take property, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The poll also found a split on whether governments should recognize gay marriage. But a majority said same-sex couples should be entitled to the same benefits as married, heterosexual couples.

The answers to these questions revealed a sharp generational split. More than two-thirds of people under 35 favor recognition of gay marriage, compared with less than 40 percent of those 35 and older.

Majorities also favor following the rule of law, even if that sometimes comes at the expense of short-term public safety considerations and protecting the rights of everyone in the face of majority opposition.

The public broadly supports government aid to religious organizations for social service programs. But that support drops sharply when organizations also promote their religious beliefs while providing help to the homeless and other social services.

The AP-National Constitution Center poll involved telephone interviews with 1,000 adults nationwide. The survey was conducted Aug. 22-29 by Abt SRBI Inc. and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy

Civil Disobedience? Yes, We Need More Of It!

The state of Iowa is on the lookout for the following scofflaw who was seen breaking the law at an Iowa state rest area on the way back to Kentucky after the recent Ron Paul Rally For The Republic in Minneapolis.





If you should encounter this free man, please contact the Department of Homeland Security at 1-800-NOT-FREE and ask to speak to Michael Chertoff. Do not try to apprehend this dangerous r3VOLutionary yourself. He is believed to be armed with the spirit of liberty and a substantial arsenal of freedom information. He is extremely dangerous to the state and is wanted for questioning by the World Government.

RON PAUL CALLS ON VOTERS TO SUPPORT THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES

Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning congressman from Texas and recent candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, on Wednesday gave a boost to third parties and their candidates, providing them with a podium and a platform from which they could present their views which are generally ignored by the mainstream media.

At a crowded news conference at the National Press Club in D.C., -- a week after his stunning address at the Rally for the Republic in Minneapolis -- Paul called upon voters to reject Democrat Barak Obama and Republican John McCain and cast their ballots in November for one of the four third-party candidates instead.

"This (election) system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win," said Paul. "Voters become convinced that any other vote is a wasted vote. It's time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way not to waste one's vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority (of Americans), once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard."

Paul reported that the day before, Tuesday, the McCain campaign had contacted him and asked if he would endorse McCain, now that the primaries and the conventions were over.

"The argument was that he [McCain] would do a little less harm than the other candidate," Paul said, adding, "We just don't need to do that any more."

With Paul were three of the four third party/independent candidates -- Constitution Party Chuck Baldwin, a Baptist minister; Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, a former Congresswoman from Georgia; and Independent Ralph Nader -- united in agreement and support of a four-point platform on foreign policy, privacy, the national debt, and the Federal Reserve.

Specifically, the platform calls for an end to the Iraq War, an end to "war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran," and a refusal to "re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia."

Regarding privacy matters: "we must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction." Also, the PATRIOT ACT, FISA legislation, and the Military Commissions Act must be repealed or "radically" changed -- and there must be an end the practice of torture, secret tribunals and secret prisons -- and a restoration of habeas corpus.

There should be no increase in the national debt (some would argue it should be eliminated), and the Federal Reserve should be subject to "thorough investigation, evaluation, and an audit" -- with no further taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no further corporate subsidies.

In his remarks Paul quoted historian Carroll Quigley, author of "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time" (and Bill Clinton's mentor), who wrote: The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, on, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ?throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.

"That is a profound statement," said Paul. "It tells us what's going on and why things don't change."

"We here today are trying to say that we represent the majority, they [the third-party candidates] deserve to be heard; they deserve to be in the debates."

Each of the three candidates presented the views of their parties -- ranging from left to right on the political spectrum, and each brought different pieces of information.

Chuck Baldwin, standard bearer for the Constitution Party, said the election is not between Democrats and Republicans or between liberals and conservatives, but between constitutionalists and globalists -- with John McCain being a globalist.

He drew attention to McCain's proposal for a League of Democracies, which he plans to put in motion once he becomes president, "which is nothing but the United Nations on steroids."

McCain's essay -- "An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom" -- a pitch for his pitch for the proposed league, was published by the Council on Foreign Relations, in the Nov/Dec. 2007 issue of its journal Foreign Affairs.

Baldwin pointed out that both major parties are "helping construct" the New World Order -- but promised that if he becomes president "the New World Order will come crashing down."

Cynthia McKinney discussed the four pillars of the Green Party: peace, social justice, ecological wisdom and grass roots democracy. She raised the issue of what some have dubbed "votescam" -- the manipulation of election results by tampering with the vote-counting machines.

Independent Ralph Nader said the agreement of the candidates on the four-points represented a "beginning of a realignment of American politics." He said the issues raised indicated a "crisis in constitutional government" -- and that the U.S. Constitution has been degraded, violated, nullified, and twisted out of any semblance of its real meaning.

Not all third-party candidates took the opportunity of Paul's invitation to attend the press club. Noticeably absent was Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr -- a former CIA agent, who morphed into a Drug War prosecutor before winning a seat in Congress in 1994. He was voted out in 2003.

Barr had accepted Paul's invitation to appear, but changed his mind at the last minute -- though Paul was not informed of this and during his speech mentioned that Barr would be arriving.

That didn't happen. Instead, Barr booked the Press Club for a news conference that would follow Paul's. He said that like the other candidates he agreed with the four points of the platform, but that it would be a 'waste of time" to attend since Paul was not going to endorse anyone for president.

The Internet has been buzzing with commentary about this with Barr being called a mole and a "neocon diversion."

Don Rasmussen, Events Coordinator with the Campaign for Liberty, wrote a blistering statement slamming Barr's action -- noting that this was his [Rasmussen's] personal view and it had not been endorsed by Paul or the Campaign for Liberty.

In his words: "I am deeply disappointed by Bob Barr's decision not to participate in today's press conference just as I have been disappointed with the Barr campaign throughout this election cycle.

"The idea that he was busy is absurd. I am sitting in the National Press Club right now waiting for his hastily called press conference to begin. This is the same building where Dr. Paul's presser just ended. Barr committed to participate, but had his campaign manager call us minutes before it started to tell us that Bob thinks "it just isn't worth it." I look forward to hearing him explain how breaking a promise to Congressman Paul constitutes a wise campaign strategy.

"It is my great hope that the alternative parties will present the American people with quality candidates that offer a real option. Clearly the Libertarian Party has failed to do so. Bob Barr has repeatedly broken his promises to Dr. Paul, showed up uninvited at C4L events, and made statement contrary to Dr. Paul's beliefs while still claiming the mantle of heir to the R3VOLution.

"Hopefully, the LP will find a way to reject this candidate without rejecting the idea of engagement in practical politics."

Earlier Stories:

1, Observations from GOP Convention and Ron Paul Liberty Event (three parts): Devvy Kidd
2, Ron Paul Supporters During RNC Convention
3, Over 10,000 Ron Paul Supporters "Rally for the Republic" in Minneapolis

© 2008 NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved

Idolatry and State-Sanctioned Murder

Monday, September 01, 2008

(Updated, 9/2) by William N. Grigg

(For reasons that should become obvious, the essay that follows is not intended to express the smallest particle of disrespect for the two people who figure most prominently therein.)


"While it's true that God commands us `Thou shalt not kill,'" explained the grandmother in a gentle, solicitous tone, "you are permitted to kill in order to protect your family. Or if you're made a soldier, and you're ordered to kill, then you're allowed to kill on behalf of your country."


If you're 'made' a soldier? I mused to myself. That's an interesting choice of verb.


The evening had been an unalloyed pleasure up until this point. We had been invited to spend some time with my parents, who own a small farm in eastern Oregon.

After a typically wonderful dinner of stir-fried vegetables taken just hours earlier from their garden, followed by deep-dish apple pie, Mom and Dad invited us to raid their strawberry and raspberry patches and keep the fruit we plundered for our own use.


Following an hour or so spent gathering berries under a still-potent early evening Sun, we returned to the house and gathered in the living room to listen to my father expound the Ten Commandments. The discussion went well until we broached the subject of the troublesome Sixth Commandment.


My mother and father are the most honorable people I'll ever meet, and are astonishingly unselfish. Being without guile, they are also entirely transparent when trying to make a point through means they consider subtle.


They are quite aware of the fact that Korrin and I are unalterably opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the prospective war with Iran, and a return to conscription. And they are just as determined to exploit -- or create -- opportunities to counteract our efforts to raise children who properly revile the criminal organism called the State.


I am quite confident that the political fault-line separating Korrin and myself from our parents runs through countless other American families as well.

Real money, real law: The Sixth Commandment of God's law, inscribed on a silver ingot; the State's ethical view is illustrated on the reverse by a depiction of Cain murdering his innocent brother, Abel.


After mother had insisted that there is a secret "you may kill for your government" codicil to the Sixth Commandment, I inserted myself into the conversation as gently as I could.


"What I've taught the kids," I said in a conversational tone, "is that the only time God permits us to kill would be a circumstance in which refusing to kill might result in the death of an innocent person for whom we have legitimate responsibility. In a case of that kind, I'm actually required to kill. For instance, if someone directly threatened my family, I would not only be allowed to kill the assailant, but actually would bear the bloodguilt of my family if I didn't use lethal force to defend them."


Mom and Dad nodded distractedly, but it was obvious that my clarification didn't sit well with them. After all, the principle I adumbrated would mean that Iraqis are morally entitled to kill American soldiers who break into their homes and threaten their families.


We discussed the Decalogue for a few more minutes, and then the younger children peeled off in pursuit of other distractions. Only ten-year-old William and nine-year-old Isaiah were left in the room when I posed the following question: "To whom do the Ten Commandments apply?"


"They apply to everyone," William happily replied, as my Dad nodded in guarded approval, sensing that the lesson was moving in a direction he didn't entirely like. His unease was not relieved by my next question: "Do they apply to the government?"


A puzzled silence thrust itself on the room, occupying it for a moment or two until William and Isaiah both chimed in.


"Yes, but the government doesn't obey them," William said, as Isaiah eagerly over-talked his brother with essentially the same answer. By this time, my father's frown was nearly audible.


"So -- if government orders you to disobey any of the Ten Commandments, do you obey the government?" I continued.


"Yes," Dad quickly interjected, his face radiating weary disapproval.


"No, we don't," replied William and Isaiah, in unison.


"If the government orders you to disobey God's law, do you obey God or the government?" I persisted.


"You obey God," my children answered.


"You obey your government," Dad quietly insisted, out of duty rather than conviction. The conversation then uncomfortably trickled away, replaced by a polite silence that was drawn taut by the effort to avoid an overt argument.


It wasn't my intention to act like a prosecutor or a garden-variety smart-ass. But my father -- the greatest and most decent man I will ever know -- had put me in an untenable position: I could either politely defer to my father as he offered instruction in unalloyed idolatry, or offend my parents by quietly contradicting the obvious point of the exercise -- namely, that in a conflict between God's law and the State's commandments, we're to obey the latter.


The point of a conversation is often the issue that thrusts itself out in sharp relief from the rest of the dialogue.


In reviewing the Ten Commandments, my Mom and Dad -- who are, I hasten to observe, just like countless other decent people in this respect -- saw fit to qualify only one of them, the commandment against murder.


They didn't specifically tell my children that it is acceptable to lie, steal, covet, dishonor one's parents, or commit adultery if the government requires such conduct of them. They did, however, take special care to emphasize that the government can order them to kill other human beings who have done them no harm, in direct contradiction of God's unqualified commandment not to murder. Of course, if government can make a nullity of that commandment, it can revise the others to suit its purposes as well.


Indeed, government -- particularly the despicable state that rules us -- is little more than a perpetual organized assault on the Ten Commandments. The defining act of a government is extracting wealth from people through the threat of lethal violence, and swaddling such acts in invidious rhetoric about "social justice." Thus at its very foundation, the State institutionalizes violations of the commandments against theft, murder, and covetousness.


The State's fundamental function -- killing, or the threat to do so -- is intimately connected to a claim of ownership over its subjects. This is revealed in ways both vulgar and oblique. The best example of the former is the practice of conscription. Any government that can "make" an individual a soldier against his will is one richly deserving to be overthrown. A milder version of the same presumption can be seen every time a politician in a storm-threatened community issues a "mandatory evacuation" order to its residents, as if their lives were his, rather than theirs.


Government deprived of its power of discretionary violence, it is often said, wouldn't be much of a government at all. This, we are told by puzzled and outraged people, would be a problem of some sort. While governments run by hypocritical people who invoke God's law have done a great deal of harm, it wasn't until Machiavelli and others of like mind elevated the State above that law -- beginning with the commandment against murder -- that it became the engine of murder and misery with which we're so familiar.


Of course, owing to human nature we're stuck with government of some variety, even though there's ample reason to believe that our existing regime is quickly headed for abject bankruptcy and a Soviet-style collapse. But that doesn't mean we are required to venerate or even respect the people who operate the organs of official extortion.


Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Regime, Alexander Solzhenitsyn offered this admonition to those who wanted to bring about the end of that totalitarian state, with respect to the proper treatment to be given to agents of that state: "Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them."


In other words, treat them with politeness and respect, and ignore entirely the conceit that they are clothed in some peculiar sanctity that permits them to use or require the use of lethal violence to compel submission to their will. To behave otherwise is to act on premises that are essentially idolatrous.


Update: The Universal Soldier

Aimee Allen sang the song "(The )Universal Soldier" for me because I asked her to do that. It talks really about the essence of decision-making. It talks about should you strike and not participate any longer.

It's the universal soldier that allows the power-mongers around Washington to exist. It's always done by getting the young people and making them feel that,if they don't participate, they're unpatriotic. I think of the story of the early days of WWI, on Christmas Eve, when the Germans and the British took a break and began singing Christmas Carols. And then, on the morrow, the leaders came back and said, "You will go back to killing one another."

As a young man, as a doctor, I was drafted. There were times that people were starting to resist, but I marched off and I was the Universal soldier. What we need today is the Universal Champion of Liberty.

The irreplaceable Ron Paul, from his speech at the Rally for the Republic.

__._,_.___

Scenes from St. Paul -- Democracy Now's Amy Goodman arrested

by Glenn Greenwald

Following up on this weekend's extreme raids on various homes, at least 250 people were arrested here today in St. Paul, Minnesota. Beginning last night, St. Paul was the most militarized I have ever seen an American city be, even more so than Manhattan in the week of 9/11 -- with troops of federal, state and local law enforcement agents marching around with riot gear, machine guns, and tear gas cannisters, shouting military chants and marching in military formations. Humvees and law enforcement officers with rifles were posted on various buildings and balconies. Numerous protesters and observers were tear gassed and injured. I'll have video of the day's events posted shortly.

Perhaps most extraordinarily, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now -- the radio and TV broadcaster who has been a working journalist for close to 20 years -- was arrested on the street and charged with "conspiracy to riot." Audio of her arrest, which truly shocked and angered the crowd of observers, is here. I just attended a Press Conference with St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman and Police Chief John M. Harrington and -- after they boasted of how "restrained" their police actions were -- asked about the journalists and lawyers who had been detained and/or arrested both today and over the weekend. They said they wouldn't give any information about journalists who had been arrested today, though they said they believed that "one journalist" had been, and that she "was seemingly a participant in the riots, not simply a non-participant." I'll have video of the Press Conference posted shortly.

UPDATE: Video of my exchange at the Press Conference about the arrested journalists is here. Matt Stoller asked a very good question as the last question. Interestingly, all of the standard journalists asked very police-sympathetic questions ("how much property damage was done? were all the criminals part of this same RNC Welcoming Group? How many police officers were injured (answer: none)), while all of the independent journalists -- such as those from the superb, intrepid site, The Uptake -- asked challenging and skeptical (i.e., real) questions.

UPDATE II: Video of Amy Goodman being arrested:

Video here

UPDATE III: Hereare several photographs taken from around St. Paul from this morning --before the march or any of the protests started -- showing howmilitarized the city was. For whatever reasons, the brigades of policeofficers would periodically chant military terms and march around information ("Double Time!"), while helicopters hovered overhead andHumvees drove by frequently:



Clearly,and particularly in the wake of this weekend's thuggish raids, theintent was to create a highly intimidating, militarized andhigh-tension climate.

On a few other notes, Matt Stoller has a few additional photographs of some of the scenes around the city today. A 22-year-old intern from Utne Readerwas caught in the middle of a tear-gas assault and was forced to lie onthe ground with her hands behind her head for 15 minutes. She tookvideo of the scene here. I'll have an interview posted with her shortly. And Democracy Now is now reporting that Amy Goodman has been released, though there is no word on the two Democracy Nowproducers who were also arrested -- Sharif Abdel Kouddous and NicoleSalazar (the former of whom typically books my appearances on that showand the latter of whom had a nose bloodied while being arrested).

Finally (for now), here's a woman being pepper-sprayed at close range by a marching legion of police while standing on the side of the road holding a flower.

UPDATE IV: The Washington Post has a few more details on the arrest of Goodman and the two Democracy Now producers. In addition to them, a photographer for Associated Press was also arrested today while covering the protests (h/t Edward Champion).An AP spokesman said of the arrest: "covering news is constitutionallyprotected, and photographers should not be detained for coveringbreaking news." Democratic strategist and CNN commentator Donna Brazilewas hit by pepper spray on her way into the Xcel Center.

Just as was true for the despicable home raids this weekend, there willbe no shortage of people defending all of this (browse through thecomment section here to see many such people). The fact that there weresome criminals engaged in some destructive acts (who, needless to say,should have been arrested), apparently means that whatever the Policedo both before and afterwards is justifiable (just as the existence ofsome Terrorists justifies whatever the Government does in many people'sminds).

UPDATE V:Here is the video as I walked around St. Paul today -- including at theprotest march. It also includes war opponent and Iraq veteran Jon Stolzarguing with various pro-war counter-protesters. Almost all of thisfootage was taken before the protests began and before any arrests weremade:

Video here

UPDATE VI: From The Nation's John Nichols:

I was with Goodman earlier this afternoon, as she was reporting on the major anti-war demonstration. She and her crew were, as always, interviewing everyone they could in the calm, assured manner that has made the daily Democracy Now! program a widely-watched and well-regarded news programs on radio and cable television stations across the country.

Not only Goodman, but the entire Democracy Now team are professional journalists in the best sense of that term. Those who are simply assuming that they probably got what they deserved -- and who are, more generally, defending the Police here simply because some actual criminals engaged in destructive behavior -- are no different than those who justify anything and everything the Government does because there are some Terrorists out there and they're really violent.


UPDATE VII: The San Francisco Chronicle's Joe Garofoli interviews Amy Goodman right as she was released from jail about what took place (h/t kimocrossman):