PDA

View Full Version : US freedom continues to fall



CameronD
07-05-2008, 06:43 PM
Bush has just signed a bill requiring DNA of all newborns and declaring it the property of the government to do with as it likes and the creation of a national database.

http://ronpaul2008nyc.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/us-government-now-owns-newborn-dna/

In 2005, Bush signed the real ID act requiring all citizens to have a biometric identification card for people to drive a car, get a job etc in the US. This national ID was passed hidden within an emergency funding Bill for the troops in Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act

Something really scary are happening in the US

Zwischenzug
08-05-2008, 02:02 AM
Though I'm not a Christian, this whole things screams "Mark of the Beast".

MichaelBaron
08-05-2008, 03:01 PM
Bush has just signed a bill requiring DNA of all newborns and declaring it the property of the government to do with as it likes and the creation of a national database.

http://ronpaul2008nyc.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/us-government-now-owns-newborn-dna/

In 2005, Bush signed the real ID act requiring all citizens to have a biometric identification card for people to drive a car, get a job etc in the US. This national ID was passed hidden within an emergency funding Bill for the troops in Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act

Something really scary are happening in the US


A similar practice (not DNA but a national database) was discussed by Aus Government few years back. Not sure what happened to this idea, -whether it has been approved or rejected or still under discussion

Igor_Goldenberg
08-05-2008, 03:43 PM
A similar practice (not DNA but a national database) was discussed by Aus Government few years back. Not sure what happened to this idea, -whether it has been approved or rejected or still under discussion
It was publicly rejected, tacitly approved and now being implemented. I am sure Axiom has a proof:D

eclectic
08-05-2008, 03:59 PM
i wonder if the present pope had a word in the president's ear on this matter during his recent u s visit or if it has been covered in an encyclical by either himself or his predecessors?

Spiny Norman
08-05-2008, 04:31 PM
Though I'm not a Christian, this whole things screams "Mark of the Beast".
Revelation refers specifically to:


He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name

I've always found it interesting that universal product codes (UPC) have a 666 encoding system (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Product_Code) ... the left-, middle- and right-hand markers of a UPC are indicated by two slightly longer narrow lines close by each other. The block of 6 digits to the LHS use one "code" ... the block on the RHS use an alternate coding system which is the LHS system inverted (1's to 0's, 0's to 1's) ... and the RHS "6" is two narrow lines close together, thus enabling you to read the entire system as being enmeshed in 666.

Anyway ... a DNA database is not a "mark" ... but the day they start implanting microchips under our skin is the day I start to engage in civil disobedience ... :)

Desmond
08-05-2008, 04:40 PM
The lesser known numbers of the beast. (http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=694)

Igor_Goldenberg
08-05-2008, 04:49 PM
The lesser known numbers of the beast. (http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=694)
:D :D :D :D :D :D

Capablanca-Fan
08-05-2008, 05:11 PM
The lesser known numbers of the beast. (http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=694)
:lol: Very amusing. :lol: I've passed this to some of my colleagues. :lol:

CameronD
08-05-2008, 06:22 PM
A similar practice (not DNA but a national database) was discussed by Aus Government few years back. Not sure what happened to this idea, -whether it has been approved or rejected or still under discussion

in the 80s their was the push for the Australia card.Recently Howard was in the planning stage for a national ID card, but hadn't passed any laws. Rudd shut down the concept/planning immediately on the first day in power. and stated that he opposed it and it wont happen.

http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Privacy/accesscard.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/25/australia-dumps-nati.html

CameronD
08-05-2008, 06:28 PM
Here is a map of the world with their national ID requirements. Australia was blue until Rudd cancelled howards plan upon winning the election. The numbers I hear are 186/192 countries will have a national ID by 2011. Please note that this comes from an anti-national ID website.

http://www.nonationalid.com/images/national-id-map.jpg

CameronD
08-05-2008, 06:40 PM
One of te more interesting concepts of 666 is the mitre of the pope which is on his forehead. Revelations states their will be a world government and world religion.

inscribed is...

vicarivs filii dei

Rincewind
08-05-2008, 11:10 PM
The lesser known numbers of the beast. (http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=694)

My favourite wasn't included :(

668 The Neighbour of the Beast.

Axiom
08-05-2008, 11:29 PM
I think this shows the danger of holy books including the bible .
It matters not that atheists consider them/it a load of bull, many of the established elite are strongly influenced by religious texts , including that of occultism and satanism ,
It is certainly curious the parallels that seem to be evident in the rise of the high tech surveillance police state with the teachings of the bible.
I would argue that it is not the accuracy of bible prophecy in play but the subsequent influencing on self fulfilling prophecy.A driving of the sub conscious zeitgeist. It may also be a convenient peg to hang the coat of tyranny.

Aaron Guthrie
08-05-2008, 11:33 PM
many of the established elite are strongly influenced by religious texts , including that of occultism and satanism , Thank the Beast that at least some of them are sensible.

Axiom
08-05-2008, 11:35 PM
It was publicly rejected, tacitly approved and now being implemented. I am sure Axiom has a proof:D
"now being implemented " is true , as you said .
dna data bases are now in operation in uk, usa and australia.
simply google "national dna data base" , more "proof" there than you can shake a stick at. :)

Axiom
08-05-2008, 11:38 PM
Thank the Beast that at least some of them are sensible.
of course they are not all evil incarnate , there are good souls there as well, and they are passing down or leaking information to wake us up, ..if only more would listen.

Axiom
09-05-2008, 01:51 AM
i0LvtQAQ6sc

MichaelBaron
09-05-2008, 01:29 PM
Here is a map of the world with their national ID requirements. Australia was blue until Rudd cancelled howards plan upon winning the election. The numbers I hear are 186/192 countries will have a national ID by 2011. Please note that this comes from an anti-national ID website.

http://www.nonationalid.com/images/national-id-map.jpg

Another interesting initiative that is currently under investigation by the Health Services Department (and possibly not a bad one i guess) is to have national database containing medical records that will be stored electronically. The advantage of this proposal is that if a person is delivered to hospital and is unable to speak (e.g. in coma after a car accident) it will be possible to for doctors to access his complete medical history (e.g. allergies to medications) within seconds. On the downside, privacy is going to be a big issue as medical insurance companies have already expressed "interest" in accessing this database should it be created :)

Spiny Norman
09-05-2008, 01:59 PM
My favourite wasn't included :(
668 The Neighbour of the Beast.
:clap: You should suggest it to them! Whilst you're at it, how about the Prime Numbers of the beast:


2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29
31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71
73 79 83 89 97 101 103 107 109 113
127 131 137 139 149 151 157 163 167 173
179 181 191 193 197 199 211 223 227 229
233 239 241 251 257 263 269 271 277 281
283 293 307 311 313 317 331 337 347 349
353 359 367 373 379 383 389 397 401 409
419 421 431 433 439 443 449 457 461 463
467 479 487 491 499 503 509 521 523 541
547 557 563 569 571 577 587 593 599 601
607 613 617 619 631 641 643 647 653 659
661

Rincewind
09-05-2008, 06:03 PM
:clap: You should suggest it to them!

Actually I looked at the list and it was there. I didn't see it and I think my search failed due to a spelling issue (US vs British).

Axiom
13-05-2008, 11:15 AM
Bible Student Threatened for Teaching Constitution

Kurt Nimmo
*******s
May 12, 2008

On the Alex Jones Show today, a bible student at a large Christian college in Mount Vernon, Texas, related a story of intimidation as Department of Homeland Security goons dressed in black accused him of engaging in terrorism for teaching a group of Boy Scouts about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The student and interim pastor, going by the name “Jeff,” told Alex Jones he was assigned last September the task of talking to a group of Boy Scouts, specifically concerning “Americanism” in higher education. Jeff told the boys they need to “reorient” themselves to the Constitution because such knowledge will “make or break the country.”




After tutoring the boys, Jeff was called into the university president’s office. There he was confronted by a “man in black” wearing sunglasses from the Department of Homeland Security who was accompanied by another federal official in a gray suit. In addition, state police were present during the interrogation and Jeff was told the FBI were also involved. Jeff was informed “every word” of his conversation with the Boy Scouts was recorded and he had a transcript of the conversation. Jeff’s talk was, the DHS official in a gray suit declared, “terror and espionage” and if he continued to engage in such behavior he would be arrested and “we can have your head on a silver platter.” Moreover, the feds threatened to intervene in the process of the college’s accreditation, a threat that apparently disturbed a “high level university official,” who was so “agitated” he was shaking.

Alex referenced a Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation flyer, created during Clinton’s reign, “asking the recipients to help them fight domestic terrorism,” according to Angel Shamaya, writing for the Keep and Bear Arms website. The putatively “anti-terrorism” flyer was created by the FBI and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office as part of “a disinformation campaign to paint at least a few groups of Real Americans as domestic terrorists.” According to the flyer, if recipients encounter “defenders of the US Constitution against [the] federal government and the UN,” they are to contact the FBI’s the Joint Terrorism Task Force immediately. Apparently, people who make “numerous references to the US Constitution” and attempt “to police the police” are to be considered terrorists, according to the FBI.

“According to Terry Chapman of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office — whose name is on the flyer as the MCSO contact — the FBI created the flyer and printed the MCSO [Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office] and Attorney’s Office before the text was approved. He said it was created as a full color brochure to hand out to officers, not for the general public — and that as soon as he saw it, he urged them not to use it, knowing it had some problems,” writes Shamaya.



As an example of how the police are now trained to consider constitutionalists dangerous terrorists or at least common criminals, consider the case of Abby Newman, a Virginia woman who refused to show her driver’s license to a state trooper at an illegal traffic checkpoint. Newman did not give the police permission to search her car and thus violate her Fourth Amendment right and when they did the cops discovered a pocket Constitution. So brainwashed an ignorant were the cops, they had a discussion on the legality of the pocket Constitution, labeling it “contraband,” and unsure if they should arrest Newman for possessing the book.

“Abby Newman was arrested for not showing ID in August 2000 and fell victim to an illegal vehicle search in which police found items of subversive literature, including a ‘pocket Constitution,’” write Aaron Dykes and Alex Jones. “One officer asked the other ‘Is this legal?,” an “[e]gregious misinterpretation and abuse perpetrated by the very members of society supposedly in place to guarantee our freedoms.”

Of course, these “members of society supposedly in place to guarantee our freedoms” are in place to do the bidding of the ruling elite, a gaggle of one-world globalists determined to not only decimate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, eradicate the national sovereignty of the United States, but also inculcate and brainwash the public to believe such “quaint” freedoms and the very prospect of liberty are dangerous, the treasonous vocabulary of “lone wolves” and “Super Patriots.”

Considering the reaction of the “high level university official” mentioned above, agitated because a student dared teach Boy Scouts about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it may be too late.

Listen to Alex’s interview. http://www.*******s.com/?p=2086

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2008, 11:44 AM
Certainly, many American judges have contempt for the Constitution, instead claiming it is a "living document", but meaning that they can twist it to mean what they would have liked to be written instead. So they invent new "constitutional" rights and deny rights which really are in the constitution, like free speech and gun ownership.

Americans in general have contempt for their Constitution. Walter Williams wrote in Congressional contempt (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams021799.asp) (1999):


Most of her colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans would spit on most constitutional constraints and most of the ideas expressed by its Framers. They get away with their shameless sham because most Americans are ignorant or also have contempt for the Constitution.

Try this: Ask one of these Constitution-talking politicians how much respect we should have for the 10th Amendment, which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution ... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The 10th Amendment simply and clearly says if the Constitution does not permit the federal government to do something, then the federal government doesn't have the right to do it. You tell me where in the Constitution is there delegated authority for federal involvement in education, retirement, health, housing, transportation, handouts and other activities representing more than three-quarters of federal spending.

You say: "Williams, lighten up. Congress gets authority to control our lives through the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution."

Here's what James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, had to say: "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Thomas Jefferson, always fearful of the perversion of the general welfare clause, wrote, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

In 1794, Madison wrote disapprovingly of an appropriation to assist French refugees, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

If Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were around today, their enunciation of constitutional principles would be greeted with derision and contempt by no less than 520 of the 535 members of the House and the Senate.

I hope it's our ignorance that allows Congress to trash our Constitution, and that Jefferson was right when he said, "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." But I fear the possibility that most Americans share Congress' constitutional contempt.

Ron Paul would say the same.

Axiom
09-06-2008, 01:32 AM
One-Hundred &
Thirty Seven Years
Jim Kirwan
6-8-8


That's how long this Culture of Deception has been in the making. It began with the Act of 1871 and with the incorporation of THE UNITED STATES, as that corporation differs from The United States of America, that was a democratically formulated Republic; answerable to the people that formed it.

"In short, our government, which was created by and for us as sovereigns -- free citizens deemed to have the highest authority in the land * was stolen from us, along with our rights. Keep in mind that, according to the original Constitution, only 'We the People are sovereign.' Government is not sovereign. The Declaration of Independence says, "government is subject to the consent of the governed." That's us -- the sovereigns. When did you last feel like a sovereign?"

"The U.S. Government has NOT been subject to the consent of the governed since long before you or I were born. Rather, the governed are subject to the whim and greed of the corporation, which has stretched its tentacles beyond the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia. In fact, it has invaded every state of the Republic. Mind you, the corporation has NO jurisdiction beyond the District of Columbia. You just think it does. "You see, you are 'presumed' to know the law. . . We memorize obscure facts and phrases here and there, like the Preamble, which says, 'We the Peopleestablish this Constitution for the United States of America.' But our teachers only gloss over the Bill of Rights. Our schools (controlled by the corporate government) don't delve into the Constitution at depth.

After all, the corporation was established to indoctrinate and 'dumb-down' the masses, not to teach anything of value or importance. Certainly, no one mentioned that America was sold-out to foreign interests, that we were beneficiaries of the debt incurred by Congress, or that we were in debt to the international bankers. Yet, for generations, Americans have had the bulk of their earnings confiscated to pay a massive debt that they did not incur. There's an endless stream of things the People aren't told. And, now that you are being told, how do you feel about being made the recipient of a debt without your knowledge or consent? "After passage of the Act of 1871 Congress set a series of subtle and overt deceptions into motion, deceptions in the form of decisions that were meant to sell us down the river. Over time, the Republic took it on the chin until it was knocked down and counted out by a technical KO [knock out]. With the surrender of the people's gold in 1933, the 'common herd' was handed over to illegitimate law. (I'll bet you weren't taught THAT in school.): (1)

Given these facts, Our "Constitution" is now nothing more than a historical relic, fit only for display in the Smithsonian. Our Courts and our Congress no longer bother with enforcing the terms set out in the Constitution, and we have a dictator now instead of a president. There are some judges that will not allow the Constitution to be mentioned in their courtrooms, because they know that it is no longer relevant to what passes for the law in our privatized corporate state that was once a Republic owned by the people. Now we're just vassals, owned private-property of the corporations, without any rights or standing before the so-called bar of privatized-justice.

"The government created for the District of Columbia via the Act of 1871 * operates solely under Private International Law, not Common Law, which was the foundation of our Constitutional Republic."This fact has impacted all Americans in concrete ways. For instance, although Private International Law is technically only applicable within the District of Columbia, and NOT in the other states of the Union, the arms of the Corporation of the UNITED STATES are called 'departments' -- i.e., the Justice Department, the Treasury Department. And those departments affect everyone, no matter where (in what state) they live. Each department belongs to the corporation -- to the UNITED STATES."

"Refer to any UNITED STATES CODE (USC). Note the capitalization; this is evidence of a corporation, not a Republic. For example, In Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C), it is unequivocally stated that the UNITED STATES is a corporation. Translation: the corporation is NOT a separate and distinct entity; it is not disconnected from the government; it IS the government -- your government. This is extremely important! I refer to it as the 'corporate EMPIRE of the UNITED STATES,' which operates under Roman Civil Law outside the original Constitution. How do you like being ruled by a corporation? You say you'll ask your Congressperson about this? HA!! "Congress is fully aware of this deception. So it's time that you, too, become aware of the deception. What this great deception means is that the members of Congress do NOT work for us, for you and me. They work for the Corporation, for the UNITED STATES. No wonder we can't get them to do anything on our behalf, or meet or demands, or answer our questions."

"As an instrument of the international bankers, the UNITED STATES owns you from birth to death. It also holds ownership of all your assets, of your property, even of your children. Think long and hard about all the bills, taxes, fines, and licenses you have paid for or purchased. Yes, they had you by the pockets. If you don't believe it, read the 14th Amendment. See how 'free' you really are. Ignorance of the facts led to your silence. Silence is construed as consent; consent to be beneficiaries of a debt you did not incur. As a Sovereign People we have been deceived for hundreds of years; we think we are free, but in truth we are servants of the corporation."

"Congress committed treason against the People in 1871. Honest men could have corrected the fraud and treason. But apparently there weren't enough honest men to counteract the lust for money and power. We lost more freedom than we will ever know, thanks to corporate infiltration of our so-called 'government.' "Do you think that any soldier who died in any of our many wars would have fought if he or she had known the truth? Do you think one person would have laid down his/her life for a corporation? How long will we remain silent? How long will we perpetuate the MYTH that we are free? When will we stand together as One Sovereign People? When will we take back what has been as stolen from us?"

Now that you have the framework, have a look at your driver's license or your passport, or any and all commercial invoices, bills, plane tickets, etc, all list us as the legal entity, and this is designated by our names as shown in capital letters. People sign forms that declare they are a "U.S. Person." The U.S. is a corporation, not a country by definition. Americans have been enslaved by ignorance and arrogance, to the point that they have never questioned the obvious.

Common usage of the word "person" is a human being. However, legal codes/statutes define it this way: "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, firm, or other legal entity. So a person is a legal entity, NOT a living breathing man or a woman. Use of the word "individual" confuses people, but it is simply a legal entity disguised as a man or woman. How may a man or woman be considered the same as a corporation or any other legal entity? That can't happen; it's impossible! "Person" is a word of the Private Civil Law, and "man" is a word of nature. This word "PERSON" is the crux of control over the people. If you consider yourself a person or U.S. Citizen/person or sign any paperwork
that states that you are such, you are voluntarily accepting that role/status and the control apparatus. You are then considered in their jurisdiction.

A man/woman shouldn't even be in these private tribunal commercial courts. Notice the word "man" or "woman" is not anywhere to be found in those copyrighted statutes either. We have been slaves for one-hundred and thirty-seven years!

We have no rights under the private corporation of the UNITED STATES; there are only their corporate dictates that we must obey. The government knows this, all of congress and the most members of the courts know this * it is only 'we the people' who remain ignorant of the private corporation that we inhabit like so many sheep in a privatized pen, just waiting to be slaughtered for the good of the corporation. So far government has not dared to say this in open court. However if their ignorant core following were ever to learn about this treason, then they might not be able to handle the reaction, much less the truth!

What we need to know, on-the-record, is the truth about our history and the above is part of that very real history. What we must remember is that what we do not know can still kill us; and because of the truth in that statement we need to take our country back from the corporate thieves that stole it from us a hundred and thirty-seven years ago!

This nation belongs only to those willing to claim her and to those who will fight to take her back. It took a very long time to destroy this nation-but it has been destroyed. Whether it stays dead is still up to the survivors, but the time for action has arrived.

We have also lost control over the media, and consequently we have no viable way to obtain accurate information except from the wider world. To do that we must become involved in breaking the chains that have locked-down our access to information while trying to block any and all information that does not agree with the corporate party-line on virtually everything that is happening in this country today. Bill Moyers outlines a path that could begin to lead us out of this corporate nightmare, but to follow it people need to be willing to get involved: and be willing to make some real sacrifices to achieve the reversals needed to be able to fight this treason to its logical conclusion. (2)

When the owners ensconced Cheney-Bush, the price of oil was around $20 a barrel. Since that time the price has skyrocketed, in direct and inverse-proportion to the failure of everything else that the president was supposed to do, by law and statute, for the people of this nation. So far nothing has even remotely slowed these corporate banker-bandits from their self-appointed task of destroying this nation. Isn't it about time that we began to fight back!

kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net


1) WINTER WHEAT 2021: The Act of 1871
http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v308/__show_article/_a000308-000266.htm

2) Bill Moyers address NCMR 2008
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y0r71L7cojE

BACKGROUND
Intellectual Violence
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20052.htm


Meet the Federal Reserve
http://MeetTheFED.com

Axiom
09-06-2008, 11:07 PM
Legislating Tyranny

Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton
June 7, 2008

The George W. Bush administration responded to the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon with an assault on U.S. civil liberty that Bush justified in the name of the “war on terror.” The government assured us that the draconian measures apply only to “terrorists.” The word terrorist, however, was not defined. The government claimed the discretionary power to decide who is a terrorist without having to present evidence or charges in a court of law.

Frankly, the Bush administration’s policy evades any notion of procedural due process of law. Administration assurances that harsh treatment is reserved only for terrorists is meaningless when the threshold process for determining who is and who is not a terrorist depends on executive discretion that is not subject to review. Substantive rights are useless without the procedural rights to enforce them.

Terrorist legislation and executive assertions created a basis upon which federal authorities claimed they were free to suspend suspects’ civil liberties in order to defend Americans from terrorism. Only after civil liberties groups and federal courts challenged some of the unconstitutional laws and procedures did realization spread that the Bush administration’s assault on the Bill of Rights is a greater threat to Americans than are terrorists.

The alacrity with which Congress accepted the initial assault from the administration is frightening. In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act passed by a vote of 98 to 1 in the Senate and by 357 to 66 in the House. The act was already written and waiting on the shelf before the 9/11 attack. Indeed, the FBI and Department of Justice have tried for years to introduce PATRIOT Act provisions into the law. That act was introduced immediately after the attacks, and few members of Congress read its contents prior to passing it.

Federal courts declared some provisions of the legislation to be unconstitutional. Vague language criminalizing “expert advice or assistance” as material support for terrorism was thrown out, as were gag orders and “National Security Letters” used to obtain private information without judicial oversight. Despite challenges from the American Civil Liberties Union and resolutions passed in 8 states and 396 cities and counties condemning the act for its attack on civil liberties, Congress reauthorized the act in March 2006, making most of it permanent and sending a clear signal that the “war on terror” takes precedence over civil liberty.

The PATRIOT Act’s infringements of civil liberty are serious, but they pale by comparison to the Bush administration’s assertion of executive power to set aside habeas corpus protection for both citizens and noncitizens declared by the executive branch to be “enemy combatants.” The Bush administration claimed and exercised the power to hold indefinitely anyone so designated without access to legal representation. In other words, the Bush administration claimed the discretionary and unaccountable power to imprison whomever it wished.

In keeping with its self-declared powers, the Bush administration quickly rounded up hundreds of detainees whom it claimed – without evidence – to be “enemy combatants.” Four detainees, Rasul, Hamdi, Padilla, and Hamdan, consisting of a British citizen, two American citizens, and an Afghan, respectively, challenged the administration in federal court cases that reached the Supreme Court.

In Rasul v. Bush the Supreme Court ruled in June 2004 that, contrary to Bush administration assertions, the courts have jurisdiction over Guantánamo and that detainees must be allowed to challenge their detention.

Also in June 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that Hamdi, an American citizen, was deprived of due process and had the right to challenge his detention. However, the ruling was far from a clean sweep for civil liberty. Both noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate (Reason, January 2005) and John Yoo, a Department of Justice apologist for the new tyranny, agree that the Supreme Court decision left flexibility and room for the government to maneuver and prevail in the end.

In December 2003, an appellate court ruled that U.S. citizen José Padilla could not be denied habeas corpus protection. To forestall another Supreme Court ruling against the Bush administration, the administration withdrew Padilla’s status as “enemy combatant” and filed criminal charges that bore no relationship to the administration’s original assertions that Padilla was plotting to explode a “dirty bomb” in an American city. As Harvey Silverglate has documented (Boston Phoenix, September 16, 2005), the Padilla case is also an extraordinary story of “forum shopping” (picking a court where judges are friendly to its case) by the Department of Justice.

Forced by the federal judiciary to release José Padilla from years of illegal detention or to put him on trial, the Bush administration had to scramble to put together some kind of charges. The best that the Bush administration could do was to charge Padilla not with any terrorist acts, but with wanting to be a terrorist – a “terrorist-wannabe” to use the words of Andrew Cohen (WashingtonPost.com, August 16, 2007).

By the time Padilla went to trial, he had been demonized for years in the media as an “enemy combatant” who intended to set off a radioactive bomb. Peter Whoriskey (Washington Post, August 17, 2007) described the Padilla Jury as a patriotic jury that appeared in court with one row of jurors dressed in red, one in white, and one in blue. It was a jury primed to be psychologically and emotionally manipulated by federal prosecutors. No member of this jury was going to return home to accusations of letting off the “dirty bomber.”

Evidence, of which there was little, if any, played no role in the case. The chief FBI agent, James T. Kavanaugh, testified in court that the intercepted telephone conversations were innocuous and contained no references to terrorism or Islamic extremism, but the jury wasn’t listening. The judge allowed prosecutors to show the jury a ten-year-old video of Osama bin Laden that had no relevance to the case, but which served to arouse in jurors fear, anger, and disturbing memories of September 11, 2001. The jury convicted Padilla on all counts, despite the total absence of any evidence that he had ever committed a terrorist act or had agreed to commit such an act.

By convicting Padilla, the jury opened Pandora’s box and created a Benthamite precedent for imprisoning U.S. citizens on the suspicion that they might commit a terrorist act.

In July 2006, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that Bush’s military tribunals violate U.S. military law and the Geneva Conventions.

Republicans, who tend to regard civil liberties as devices that coddle criminals and terrorists, turned to legislation in attempts to subvert the Supreme Court’s defense of the U.S. Constitution. In November 2005, the Senate Republicans passed an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act offered by Lindsay Graham of South Carolina authorizing the president to deny habeas corpus protection to Guantánamo detainees. The fact that it was known by this time that the vast majority of the detainees were hapless individuals who were captured by Afghan warlords and sold to the Americans, who were paying a bounty for “terrorists,” carried no weight with the Republican senators.

The Republicans replied to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld with the Military Commissions Act passed in September 2006 and signed by Bush in October. The act strips detainees of protections provided by the Geneva Conventions: “No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.” Other provisions of the act strip detainees of speedy trials and of protection against torture and self-incrimination. This heinous law has a breathtaking provision that retroactively protects torturers against prosecution for war crimes.

The act explicitly denies habeas corpus protection and access to federal courts to any alien detained by the U.S. government as an “enemy combatant” and any alien awaiting determination of his status. The act reads: “No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the US who has been determined by the US to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”

This act is as atrocious a piece of legislation as the world has ever seen. It permits people to be sentenced to death on the basis of hearsay, secret evidence, and on a confession extracted by torture. Indeed, detainees could be shot in the back of the head without undergoing the kangaroo tribunal and no one would ever know or be held legally responsible.

A number of legal experts have concluded that there is no assurance that the act cannot be applied to U.S. citizens. Although language in the act refers to “alien unlawful enemy combatant,” other language in the document does not limit the act’s applicability only to aliens. Legal scholars have warned that the legislation defines enemy combatant in such broad language that the act applies to any person whom the executive branch declares has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States. No evidence for the charge is necessary. By seizing the power to decide who is and who is not an “enemy combatant,” the executive branch has seized the power to decide who shall and who shall not be permitted the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Bush administration has resurrected the dungeons and torture chambers that Blackstone’s Rights of Englishmen banished from the English-speaking world.

It is too early to know how the act will be interpreted and applied to American citizens or whether it can be challenged and overturned on constitutional grounds, but forebodings are severe. What we can say is that the act is draconian and dangerous legislation that is completely unnecessary. If the U.S. government has enough correct information to designate a person truthfully to be an enemy combatant, the U.S. government has enough information to put the person on trial in open court with all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to defendants. The U.S. government only needs indefinite detention, torture, and secret evidence when it has no evidence. Every American should be concerned that John Yoo, one of the Justice Department authors of this totalitarian legislation, is now a law professor at the University of California. Liberty has no future in America if law schools provide legitimacy to those who would subvert the U.S. Constitution.

Axiom
09-06-2008, 11:08 PM
The Assault on the Constitution

We concluded the first edition of this book with a call for “an intellectual rebirth, a revival of constitutionalism.” Alas, far from a rebirth of constitutionalism, we are witnessing a rending that we would not have imagined. On January 17, 2007, the attorney general of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, declared in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that “the Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas.” The chairman of the committee, Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) was incredulous when Gonzales insisted that “there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”

In June 2007, Dick Cheney astonished Americans with his claim that the Office of Vice President is independent of both the executive branch and Congress and is accountable to neither.

Americans should pay attention to the power that the Bush administration is claiming over them. If Americans are not protected by habeas corpus, the government can pick us up at its will and cast us into dungeons for the rest of our lives without ever giving any accountability of its action. If the Constitution does not grant habeas corpus protection, the administration is under no compulsion to provide indictments, evidence, and trial. The government can simply imprison at will.

The Bush administration is using every strategy to push aside the remains of the legal principles that shield the people from arbitrary government power. It is a short step from denying Americans’ constitutional right to a public trial by an impartial jury to denying every other constitutional right. Clearly, on the basis of an indefinite “war” against an indefinite “terrorist enemy,” the Bush regime is attempting to claim powers that are not limited by the Constitution, Congress, or the courts. It is a life-and-death matter for Americans to understand that the Bush administration is seeking to undermine all rights by shutting off the procedural avenues for enforcing rights.

Few Americans seem alarmed. Conservative attorneys, such as members of the Federalist Society who present themselves as defenders of “original intent,” are pushing for more power to be concentrated in the executive. One of the tools used to obtain this goal is Bush’s misuse of “signing statements.” Scholars, such as Phillip J. Cooper of Portland State University writing in the September 2005 issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly, warn that Bush uses signing statements not only as illegal line-item vetoes that evade congressional override but also as “wide-ranging assertions of exclusive authority and court-like pronouncements that redefine legislative powers under the Constitution. They reveal a systematic effort to define presidential authority in terms of the broad conception of the prerogative both internationally and domestically under the unitary executive theory.”

Signing statements deserve a closer look than they are receiving. There is no provision in the Constitution for signing statements. Courts often look to congressional debates and proceedings to ascertain legislative intent when a statute’s meaning is not obvious. The Bush administration is endeavoring to establish the judicial practice of also looking to the president’s signing statements in the same way, an absurd idea as the president does not enact legislation. President Bush’s use of signing statements signals the refusal of the executive branch to abide by the rule of law, a frightening prospect.

A growing number of thoughtful Americans believe, rightly or wrongly, that the “war on terror” is a hoax that is providing cover for what former President Nixon’s White House counsel, John W. Dean, says is an assault on American liberty by “authoritarian conservatives.” Time will tell whether Americans will continue to tolerate the neoconservatives’ wars and attacks on civil liberty.

The Case of Sami Al-Arian

The demise of the Rights of Englishmen, the unaccountability of police and prosecutors, the witch-hunt atmosphere created by the “war on terror,” the government’s need to find terrorist suspects in order to maintain the public’s alarm, and the sadistic and bigoted attitudes of many prison guards and even federal prosecutors and judges toward Muslims have resulted in the use of law for persecution. The case of Sami Al-Arian, who was a professor of computer science at the University of South Florida, is a pure example of the use of law as a weapon for persecution.

Most Americans know only the Israeli side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinian side is rarely heard. Even prominent Americans, such as former president Jimmy Carter, who point out that there are two sides to the story, are subjected to demonization and name-calling. Sami Al-Arian was gaining success as a voice for a more even-handed Middle East policy. He spoke to intelligence personnel and military commanders at MacDill Air Force Central Command. He gave interviews. He even invited the FBI to attend meetings where he spoke.

This was too much for the Israeli Lobby, which has enjoyed a total monopoly on the explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. The hysteria following 9/11 created the opportunity to destroy Sami Al-Arian. Alexander Cockburn (CounterPunch, March 3, 2007) reports that “at the direct instigation of Attorney General Ashcroft” trumped-up terrorism and conspiracy charges were leveled at Al-Arian.

The neoconservative media and right-wing talk radio went to work on Al-Arian. Pushed by Gov. Jeb Bush, the university fired him. He was arrested and deemed too dangerous for bail. He was held in solitary confinement for two and a half years while the federal government tried to manufacture some evidence against him. Wikipedia reports that “Amnesty International said Al-Arian’s pre-trial conditions ‘appeared to be gratuitously punitive’ and stated ‘the restrictions imposed on Dr. Al-Arian appeared to go beyond what were necessary on security grounds and were inconsistent with international standards for humane treatment.’”

The government failed to produce any evidence. The jury acquitted Al-Arian on all serious charges and voted 10–2 for acquittal on all other charges. The jury acquitted him despite U.S. District Court judge James Moody’s many biased rulings against Al-Arian.

Knowing that Al-Arian and his family could not stand the strain of solitary confinement for another two and a half years while a new case was prepared, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would retry him. His attorney urged him to make a plea in order to end the ordeal.

Al-Arian’s plea is innocuous and bears no relationship to the serious charges on which he was tried. According to Wikipedia, as part of the plea agreement “the government acknowledged that Al-Arian’s activities were non-violent and that there were no victims to the charge in the plea agreement.”

Under the plea agreement, Al-Arian’s sentence amounted essentially to time served, but he was double-crossed by Judge Moody, who according to Alexander Cockburn used “inflamed language about Al-Arian having blood on his hands” (a charge rejected by the jury) and handed down the maximum sentence.

The “terrorist” prosecutors had yet more in store for Al-Arian. In October 2006, federal prosecutor Gordon Kromberg, reportedly “notorious as an Islamophobe,” demanded, in violation of the plea agreement, that Al-Arian testify before a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, investigating an Islamic research center. According to Wikipedia, “in a verbal agreement that appears in court transcripts, federal prosecutors agreed [as part of the plea agreement] that Al-Arian would not have to testify in Virginia.”

Al-Arian’s lawyers saw Kromberg’s subpoena of their client as a setup, and Al-Arian refused to testify. On January 22, 2007, Al-Arian was brought before a federal judge on contempt charges. He described to the judge the extraordinary abuse he had suffered at the hands of federal prison officials. The guards and officers all felt free to abuse Al-Arian, because they had heard the lie on right-wing talk radio and from neoconservative media that he was a terrorist who hated Americans. The hostile judge sentenced Al-Arian to eighteen months more on a civil contempt charge for refusing to testify about a case that he knew nothing about.

Kromberg contrived to put Al-Arian in a situation in which truthful answers in court under oath could be turned into a perjury charge by offering the defendants reduced charges in exchange for their testimony that Al-Arian was involved with them in some alleged activity and lied under oath. Alternatively, Al-Arian would be cited for civil contempt for refusal to testify. The ease with which Kromberg violated the plea agreement and abused the prosecutorial power in full view of federal judges should give pause to every American.

When a university professor, who has done nothing but try to correct the one-sided story Americans are fed about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, can be treated in this way by the U.S. Department of Justice, civil liberty in the United States is in a precarious condition.

The ease with which Al-Arian was transformed into a terrorist should be a lesson to us all. People in charge of Homeland Security are no less inclined than police and prosecutors to make expansive interpretations of their mandate and what constitutes terrorism and suspect behavior. On May 28, 2007, the Associated Press reported that the Alabama Department of Homeland Security had included among terrorist groups listed on its Web site environmentalists, antiwar protesters, abortion opponents, and gay- and animal-rights advocates. It is an ancient practice of government to hype fear in order to gain arbitrary power that can be turned against anyone. Perhaps this expansive definition of terrorist explains the eighty thousand names on the government’s no-fly list.

Another problem with arbitrary and undefined power is that it ends up being exercised by people who tend to receive low marks for good judgment and intelligence. English film director Mike Figgis was held for five hours in an interrogation cell at Los Angeles International Airport because U.S. immigration officers are unfamiliar with the professional language of television show producers and lacked the common sense to avoid a misunderstanding. When asked the reason for his visit, Figgis said: “I’m here to shoot a pilot.” “Shoot,” of course, means to film, and “pilot” is the first episode of a new TV show. The people providing our security concluded that Figgis had voluntarily confessed to a plot to come to America in order to murder an airline pilot. Figgis survived his assumption that people in Los Angeles understood movie talk, but the desire of people empowered to thwart terrorism to use their power is great. Any excuse will do.

Sliding Toward Dictatorship

The assaults of the Bush regime on civil liberty, the Constitution, and the separation of powers are more determined and more successful than its military assaults on the Middle East, which provide the “war time” justification for the attack on civil liberty in the United States. The regime and its supporters are determined to raise the president to dictatorial powers, at least in times of war, the initiation of which is being turned into a presidential prerogative.

On May 9, 2007, President Bush signed the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. If in the president’s opinion a “catastrophic emergency” occurs, the directive places all governmental power in the hands of the president, effectively abolishing the checks and balances in the Constitution. Underlying this directive is the “unitary executive” doctrine, a theory pushed by the Federalist Society, an important source of law clerks, DOJ appointees, and judicial nominees for the Republican Party. The doctrine, supported by Supreme Court justices such as Samuel Alito, claims that the executive power of the president is completely separate and independent of the legislative and judicial powers and not subject to infringement by them. The manner in which this doctrine is being institutionalized is creating the additional claim that executive power is the supreme power. In effect, unitary executive theory is elevating the president to a dictator with the power to ignore or suspend laws.

The unitary executive doctrine is a direct attack on the constitutional separation of powers established by the Founding Fathers. One of the alleged advantages of the unitary executive is that the president can act more quickly and efficiently if he is not subject to interference from Congress and the judiciary. However, as Justice Louis Brandeis explained in 1926, “the doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.”

News reports that the Bush administration has contracted with Halliburton to build detention centers in the United States at a cost of $385 million revive memories of the World War II detention of Japanese American citizens. It has not been explained who are the intended detainees for the new detention centers. Do the American people want to trust with detention centers an executive branch, which claims the power to set aside habeas corpus, statutory law, due process, and the prohibition against torture?

Polls show that 36 percent of the American public and more than half of New Yorkers lack confidence in the 9/11 Commission Report. Despite a significant percentage of the public’s disbelief in the explanation of the event that took America to war in the Middle East, Congress and the media continue to tolerate the Bush administration’s aggressive rhetoric, which seeks to widen the “war on terror” from Afghanistan and Iraq to Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. The diligence with which Vice President Cheney and the neoconservatives press for an attack on Iran, and the extreme position that the Bush administration has taken on executive power, raise the question whether the Bush administration has an agenda that takes precedence over America’s constitutional democracy.

Never in its history have the American people faced such danger to their constitutional protections as they face today from those in the government who hold the reins of power and from elements of the legal profession and the federal judiciary that support “energy in the executive.” An assertive executive backed by an aggressive U.S. Department of Justice and unobstructed by a supine Congress and an intimidated corporate media has demonstrated an ability to ignore statutory law and public opinion. The precedents that have been set during the opening years of the twenty-first century bode ill for the future of American liberty.

Axiom
13-06-2008, 02:06 PM
Davis Resigns U.K. Parliament to Protest Terror Law - Brilliant Speech


Thursday, June 12, 2008

June 12 (Bloomberg) -- David Davis, the lawmaker in charge of home affairs policy for Britain's opposition Conservative Party, resigned his seat in Parliament to force an electoral contest over government limits on civil liberties.

Davis, 59, will campaign to return to the House of Commons, arguing against Prime Minister Gordon Brown's national identification card program and his plan to let police detain terrorism suspects up to 42 days without charge.

Brilliant Speech -

lzpodjxmHlI

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2008, 09:29 PM
Davis is on very safe ground to temporarily sacrifice himself given the previous (2005) election results:


Conservative David Davis 22,792 47.5 +4.3
Liberal Democrat Jon Neal 17,676 36.8 –2.1
Labour Edward Hart 6,104 12.7 –3.0
British National Party John Mainprize 798 1.7 N/A
UK Independence Philip Lane 659 1.4 –0.8

The Liberal Democrats have confirmed they will not contest against Davis. If Labour contests the seat they will be crushed simply because they have no support in it. Even if the result is 60-40 (which would actually be very good for Labour in that seat) it would be spun as an endorsement of Davis. So the resignation/by-election won't actually prove anything about the issue. It is either a stunt to embarrass the government or else a sincere attempt to give the issue more oxygen; without knowing more about Davis I can't say which.

Axiom
13-06-2008, 09:48 PM
Davis is on very safe ground to temporarily sacrifice himself given the previous (2005) election results:


Conservative David Davis 22,792 47.5 +4.3
Liberal Democrat Jon Neal 17,676 36.8 –2.1
Labour Edward Hart 6,104 12.7 –3.0
British National Party John Mainprize 798 1.7 N/A
UK Independence Philip Lane 659 1.4 –0.8

The Liberal Democrats have confirmed they will not contest against Davis. If Labour contests the seat they will be crushed simply because they have no support in it. Even if the result is 60-40 (which would actually be very good for Labour in that seat) it would be spun as an endorsement of Davis. So the resignation/by-election won't actually prove anything about the issue. It is either a stunt to embarrass the government or else a sincere attempt to give the issue more oxygen; without knowing more about Davis I can't say which.
you are a libertarian aren't you ?? :eek:
where is the support for this high profile speech for our cause ?? :doh: :wall:

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2008, 10:00 PM
you are a libertarian aren't you ?? :eek:

Did I say I was? :eek: Naaah, I just have more tendencies in such direction than most.


where is the support for this high profile speech for our cause ?? :doh: :wall:

I was more interested in the psephology because that adds something to the discussion whereas a mere "me-too" does not.

I agree with him - strongly - about the detention of terror suspects.

I do not know enough about the British ID card scheme to comment. I am not opposed to national ID card schemes as such, but my support for them or otherwise in particular cases depends on the uses to which they will be put and the safeguards, if any, in place.

Nice speech; shame it had to come from a Tory.

Axiom
13-06-2008, 10:13 PM
Did I say I was? :eek: Naaah, I just have more tendencies in such direction than most.



I was more interested in the psephology because that adds something to the discussion whereas a mere "me-too" does not.

I agree with him - strongly - about the detention of terror suspects.

I do not know enough about the British ID card scheme to comment. I am not opposed to national ID card schemes as such, but my support for them or otherwise in particular cases depends on the uses to which they will be put and the safeguards, if any, in place.

Nice speech; shame it had to come from a Tory.
You were doing well till that last sentence.
You really must divest yourself of the blind binds of the false adversarial left right paradigm.
It matters little , surely where from such fine words are spoken ?

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2008, 10:21 PM
You were doing well till that last sentence.
You really must divest yourself of the blind binds of the false adversarial left right paradigm.

You must divest yourself of your habit of jumping to false conclusions about why I'm saying what I am saying.


It matters little , surely where from such fine words are spoken ?

It matters considerably because the Conservative Party has historically been no friend of liberty and David Davis himself is quite socially conservative.

Axiom
13-06-2008, 10:24 PM
You must divest yourself of your habit of jumping to false conclusions about why I'm saying what I am saying.what were you saying ?




It matters considerably because the Conservative Party has historically been no friend of liberty and David Davis himself is quite socially conservative.
but nor has new labour or labour , so whats your point ?

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2008, 10:52 PM
what were you saying ?

I was saying "Nice speech; shame it had to come from a Tory.", and I've just explained why.


but nor has new labour or labour , so whats your point ?

Agreed; my point is that such a criticism would have been less susceptible to perceptions of a stunt had it come from someone with a stronger interest in liberty across the board, rather than from yet another politician with a very patchy interest in freedom.

Better than a bipartisan illiberal consensus, of course, but still, handle with care.

(I am encouraged by the modernisation of the Conservative Party, however.)

Axiom
13-06-2008, 11:03 PM
I was saying "Nice speech; shame it had to come from a Tory.", and I've just explained why.



Agreed; my point is that such a criticism would have been less susceptible to perceptions of a stunt had it come from someone with a stronger interest in liberty across the board, rather than from yet another politician with a very patchy interest in freedom.

Better than a bipartisan illiberal consensus, of course, but still, handle with care.

(I am encouraged by the modernisation of the Conservative Party, however.)
:hmm: i'll give you the benefit of the doubt there ......just ! :D

do i take it , you do not formally describe yourself as a libertarian ?

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2008, 11:52 PM
do i take it , you do not formally describe yourself as a libertarian ?

That is correct. I am happy to be described as libertarian-leaning, relatively libertarian (or similar) but I am not "a libertarian".

Axiom
14-06-2008, 12:52 AM
That is correct. I am happy to be described as libertarian-leaning, relatively libertarian (or similar) but I am not "a libertarian".
whats stopping you going all the way ?

Axiom
14-06-2008, 03:25 PM
Neocon Talkshow Host Michael Reagan Wants to Kill Mark Dice

YouTube
June 13, 2008

San Diego, CA) Radio talk show host Michael Reagan is calling for the murder of political activist, Mark Dice, after hearing that Dice is mailing letters and DVDs to troops in Iraq. Reagan wants to pay for the bullets.

WdJO-kUINMs


Transcript of Reagan’s statements:

“Excuse me folks, I’m going to say this. We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that’s what they are, and you shoot them dead. I’ll pay for the bullets.”

Reagan adds, “How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don’t blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice.”

Dice is demanding that Reagan be fired immediately. “Calling for the murder of someone because you disagree with their political stance is absolutely unacceptable, un American, and possibly illegal,” says Dice.

Dice has filed a report with the FBI and is considering legal action against Reagan.

Dice’s organization, The Resistance, has launched a campaign to send documentary films and declassified documents to U.S. troops who are stationed in Iraq to inform them that the 9/11 attacks were aided by elements within the U.S. government.

# # #

Contact:

Mark(at)TheResistanceManifesto.com

Contact Michael Reagan’s Boss

703-302-1000

His death threats were aired Tuesday, June 10th during the second hour.

Email the FCC and let them know.

fccinfo@fcc.gov

Kevin Bonham
14-06-2008, 05:54 PM
whats stopping you going all the way ?

My reasons have been done to death on other topics and are off topic for this one.

Axiom
14-06-2008, 06:08 PM
My reasons have been done to death on other topics and are off topic for this one.
ok, fair enough.

what do you think of the media death threat above ?

Kevin Bonham
14-06-2008, 06:12 PM
what do you think of the media death threat above ?

Completely idiotic of course.

Axiom
14-06-2008, 06:19 PM
Completely idiotic of course.
So, he should be charged ?

Kevin Bonham
14-06-2008, 06:21 PM
So, he should be charged ?

If it is an offence where he is then he should be charged.

If it's not an offence then it should be.

Axiom
14-06-2008, 06:24 PM
If it is an offence where he is then he should be charged.

If it's not an offence then it should be.
i think it is clearly in breach of the law , calling for a public murder, threat to kill, offering to "buy the bullets" !

lets see if justice prevails.

Axiom
15-06-2008, 02:35 PM
Media Ignores Talk Show Host’s Open Call for the Murder of Truth Activist


P.O.T.U.S
Saturday, June 14, 2008

The Mainstream media is continuing to avoid reporting on Nationally syndicated talk show host Michael Reagan’s open call for the murder of activist Mark Dice, an on-air incident which sparked a flood of complaints to the Federal Communications Commission, law enforcement agencies, and to Radio America itself, which produces the highly rated radio program.

Reagan’s blatant calls for the assassination of Dice, coupled with an offer to “pay for the bullet”, have gone largely ignored since the broadcast aired on Tuesday, June 10th. In what would normally provoke an outpouring of media coverage among top news agencies and networks, a questionable hush seems to have fallen in the public eye concerning this outrageous criminal act perpetrated live before millions of listeners by the son of former President Ronald Reagan.




Dice, a private citizen, appeared on The Alex Jones Radio Show on Friday and requested that listeners file formal complaints with the FCC and with Radio America concerning The Michael Reagan Talk Show. He has also filed a report with the F.B.I and is considering legal action against the popular host.

Regan’s advocating of shooting activists like Dice, which could arguably be taken as a contracting for capital murder, came about upon his hearing that the politically active American was mailing documentary films and de-classified documents to U.S. troops stationed in Iraq to inform them that the 9/11 attacks were aided by elements within the U.S. government. Reagan made the following comments on air:

"We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that’s what they are, and you shoot them dead. I’ll pay for the bullets.”

Reagan continued:

“How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don’t blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice.” (See Video)

Calls to FOX News, CNN, and MSNBC concerning their lack of coverage of the incident went unreturned.

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2008, 03:07 PM
My reasons have been done to death on other topics and are off topic for this one.
See this post (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=164496&postcount=25)for example.

Capablanca-Fan
17-06-2008, 01:42 PM
“Congress is spending us into a hole. We hear about the cost of earmarks and the Iraq war. But what about ‘entitlements’? That’s the government’s ironic term for programs that transfer money from people who earned it to people who didn’t. Entitlement? How can you be entitled to someone else’s money? To finance ‘entitlement’ programs, the government threatens force against the taxpayers who provide the money. Why are people who favor compulsion called humanitarians, while those who favor freedom are stigmatized as greedy?... What we really need is a top-to-bottom freeing of the economy, including the health-care industry, and massive cuts in government both spending and taxes. This would leave us wealthy enough to take care of ourselves, with private charity assisting those who can’t manage.” —John Stossel

Axiom
17-06-2008, 10:11 PM
“Congress is spending us into a hole. We hear about the cost of earmarks and the Iraq war. But what about ‘entitlements’? That’s the government’s ironic term for programs that transfer money from people who earned it to people who didn’t. Entitlement? How can you be entitled to someone else’s money? To finance ‘entitlement’ programs, the government threatens force against the taxpayers who provide the money. Why are people who favor compulsion called humanitarians, while those who favor freedom are stigmatized as greedy?... What we really need is a top-to-bottom freeing of the economy, including the health-care industry, and massive cuts in government both spending and taxes. This would leave us wealthy enough to take care of ourselves, with private charity assisting those who can’t manage.” —John Stossel
its gotta be better than a big government fasci-socialist scientific dictatorship police state ! :cool:
.......including a free strong informative independent media ?

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2008, 09:30 PM
scientific dictatorship

????????????????????????????????????????????????

Axiom
19-06-2008, 10:45 PM
????????????????????????????????????????????????
first coined by aldous huxley ,
see also http://www.amazon.com/Ascendancy-Sci.../dp/1419639323

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2008, 10:56 PM
Here is the story of how the criminal elite hijacked science and transformed it into a weapon against the masses. This examination includes: (1.) The occult Origins of Darwinism. (2.) Nominalism and radical empiricism as instruments of epistemological manipulation. (3.) Eugenics and population control. (4.) Scientistic cults and religious engineering. (5.) Echelon, PROMIS software, and other technologies of the Panopticon Singularity. (6.) Neoconservativism as a continuation of Technocracy and Jacobinism. (7.) Transhumanism, Singularitarianism, and other futurist variants of the elite's occult religion. (8.) The unfolding endgame between scientific dictatorships.

Sounds like a complete load of babble.

Axiom
19-06-2008, 11:04 PM
Sounds like a complete load of babble.
maybe you need to be more observant ?
see rise of high tech police state , eg, cctvs, dna databanks,biometric ids, rfids, microchips, nanotech, along with rise of globalist socialism, eugenics agenda, "humans the enemy of mother earth" rhetoric, bigger more centralised govt, etc.

just stop to observe , really observe.

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2008, 11:36 PM
maybe you need to be more observant ?

*yawn*

The problem with your "observations" is they're all through the same distorting set of lenses and anyone who is capable of "observing" in a remotely neutral fashion sees straight through them!


see rise of high tech police state , eg, cctvs, dna databanks,biometric ids, rfids, microchips, nanotech, along with rise of globalist socialism, eugenics agenda, "humans the enemy of mother earth" rhetoric, bigger more centralised govt, etc.

None of this proves a dictatorship of science. Some bits show that some technology can be used for dubious purposes by those who want to use it that way - so what? Other bits (such as socialism and centralised government) have nothing to do with science at all.

Axiom
19-06-2008, 11:49 PM
*yawn*

The problem with your "observations" is they're all through the same distorting set of lenses and anyone who is capable of "observing" in a remotely neutral fashion sees straight through them!
there is nothing distorting, about spelling out that (a) these events(listed above) are real ,
(b) socialistic big centralised govt , is prone to tyranny ,

(c) these govts are well predisposed to utilising technology to achieve the globalist socialist's end,
and,
(d) that it is entirely reasonable and rational, given history and observation, to identify this particular phenomenon .




Other bits (such as socialism and centralised government) have nothing to do with science at all.
not to do with science , but a likely exploiter or utiliser of it, to create a "scientific dictatorship" - aldous huxley.

Kevin Bonham
20-06-2008, 12:01 AM
there is nothing distorting, about spelling out that (a) these events(listed above) are real ,
(b) socialistic big centralised govt , is prone to tyranny.
and,
(c) these govts are well predisposed to utilising technology to achieve the globalist socialist's end.

None of this has anything to do with whether there is a dictatorship of science even if true. Governments (whether or not they are socialistic, large, tyrannous or whatever) would hardly be expected to further their goals by banging rocks together to make fire and drawing pictures of buffalo on the walls of caves; of course they use technology.


not to do with science , but a likely exploiter or utiliser of it, to create a "scientific dictatorship" - aldous huxley.

Given that an "unscientific dictatorship' is hardly possible in this world whatever Shrubby might have wished otherwise, the use of the term "scientific dictatorship" in present-day debate just seems designed to capitalise on popular scientophobic idiocy and technofear rather than to contribute anything meaningful. In the process, scientists generally are slurred with the insinuation of dictatorial tendencies.

Axiom
20-06-2008, 12:14 AM
note- i edited in a (d) :doh:

Axiom
20-06-2008, 12:17 AM
None of this has anything to do with whether there is a dictatorship of science even if true. Governments (whether or not they are socialistic, large, tyrannous or whatever) would hardly be expected to further their goals by banging rocks together to make fire and drawing pictures of buffalo on the walls of caves; of course they use technology.
kb ?
it's the obvious associated encroachment on human liberty that is under threat , as the high tech surveillance state becomes real before our eyes.




Given that an "unscientific dictatorship' is hardly possible in this world whatever Shrubby might have wished otherwise, the use of the term "scientific dictatorship" in present-day debate just seems designed to capitalise on popular scientophobic idiocy and technofear rather than to contribute anything meaningful. In the process, scientists generally are slurred with the insinuation of dictatorial tendencies.
i tend to agree it is not the most accurately informative term to describe the process.
i suppose when i originally used it here , it poetically encapsulated what i was trying to say .
but , high tech socialist police state , works just fine . :)

Axiom
20-06-2008, 01:05 AM
Sounds like a complete load of babble.
not to Terry Melanson .

Social Engineering and Technocratic Elite, October 24, 2006
By Terry Melanson
Many of us are familiar with U.S. president Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell speech to the nation on January 17, 1961, in which he warned the American public to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence" of the "military-industrial complex." A less known quote from the same speech sets the tone for the Collins brothers' incredibly erudite tome: "... we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

This book discloses exactly who these technological elite (technocrats) are; that they've been working behind the scenes for centuries, and public policy has indeed become its captive. Its aspiration has always been the implementation of a sociopolitical, technocratic utopian world order.

The breadth and scope of Philip and Paul Collins' massive study is nothing short of dazzling. "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship" is a meticulous examination of a shared ideological construct centuries in the making. This elite circle of technocrats hasn't simply carried forth a unified grand master plan, however; the Collins brothers stress the fact that what we are dealing with is a "conspiracy of ideas," whose adherents have developed into a powerful "epistemological cartel."

Reading "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship" is to embark on an intellectual journey of the highest order. The Collins brothers effortlessly discuss a wide range of philosophical concepts, all of which are integral to understanding the thinking and development of those behind the formation of a would-be technocracy. There simply isn't any other book that is even in the same league. "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship" penetrates the core concepts of Gnosticism, Rosicrucian mythos, Baconian utopianism, Freemasonry and the Royal Society of London; from Darwinism to scientism, population control, eugenics and Malthusian propaganda; Jung, Hegel, Wells and Huxley; Fabian socialism, world government, evolutionary pantheism, and the deification of man. The reader is privy to the fact that there is genuine continuity between Illuminism, Jacobinism, Socialism, and Marxism; that the dialectical manipulation of society is symptomatic of "the Hegelian nexus where Darwin, Marx, and Hitler intersect." The Collins brothers are equally at ease with diverse concepts such as Bentham's Panopticon, sociocracy, semiotic manipulation, "sci-fi predictive programming," transhumanism and the techno-eugenic movement - and the implications thereof. Other books that have attempted only a fraction of what is discussed in this book seem haphazard in comparison.

I highly doubt it is even possible to convey the scope of the book in a simple review: with the range of topics discussed, along with judicious quotations from a dizzying array of sources - the breadth of "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship" is simply mind-numbing. This book is the definitive statement identifying the significance behind the political concept of a New World Order. "Worth its weight in gold" really does apply in this case - and, of course, as is customary with such scholarly endeavors, the bibliography is worth the price alone.

Kevin Bonham
20-06-2008, 07:07 PM
i tend to agree it is not the most accurately informative term to describe the process.
i suppose when i originally used it here , it poetically encapsulated what i was trying to say .
but , high tech socialist police state , works just fine . :)

OK, so we have got the "science" part out of the way. The next bit is "socialist". To call current economic arrangements "socialist" is arguably even more ridiculous than to call them "capitalist" - and that's saying something.


not to Terry Melanson .

Whose piece is simply gushing sycophancy for the Collins book you spruiked for before. No evidence is provided that the book in fact succeeds on those terms.

Monodimensional analyses are nearly always rubbish, and those that play dot-to-dot with concepts are even more likely to be so.

Axiom
21-06-2008, 05:14 PM
OK, so we have got the "science" part out of the way. The next bit is "socialist". To call current economic arrangements "socialist" is arguably even more ridiculous than to call them "capitalist" - and that's saying something. tell that to jono !




Whose piece is simply gushing sycophancy for the Collins book you spruiked for before. No evidence is provided that the book in fact succeeds on those terms.

Monodimensional analyses are nearly always rubbish, and those that play dot-to-dot with concepts are even more likely to be so.
fair criticism there , but i suspect there is more truth contained in Collin's book than you would expect .

Kevin Bonham
21-06-2008, 06:12 PM
tell that to jono !

Hey Jono, to call current economic arrangements "socialist" is arguably even more ridiculous than calling them "capitalist" - and that's saying something!

But has Jono actually said that they are, as a general statement about the condition of the political economy as a whole (as opposed to specific issues for which the term is sometimes appropriate)? I'm not sure.


fair criticism there , but i suspect there is more truth contained in Collin's book than you would expect .

There may be, but I don't care to wade through all the nonsense and inappropriate terminology looking for it!

CameronD
02-08-2008, 09:07 AM
found another article for you ax

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/content/article/2008/08/01/laptops.html

Desmond
04-08-2008, 09:25 AM
found another article for you ax

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/content/article/2008/08/01/laptops.htmlLooks like they are just formalising search procedures for electronic media to be the same as for physical media.

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/travel/admissability/search_authority.ctt/search_authority.pdf

MichaelBaron
04-08-2008, 11:42 AM
I do not want to get involved into the war of quotes. But an interesting question is "At what point in history did people start to regard USA as a "benchmark" for democracy? and was this assertion ever justified?"

Zwischenzug
04-08-2008, 11:44 AM
I do not want to get involved into the war of quotes. But an interesting question is "At what point in history did people start to regard USA as a "benchmark" for democracy? and was this assertion ever justified?"

I think this was started doing this when the US liberated France from Nazi rule in World War II. This was the point when America's popularity with the international community was at it's highest.

MichaelBaron
04-08-2008, 01:05 PM
I think this was started doing this when the US liberated France from Nazi rule in World War II. This was the point when America's popularity with the international community was at it's highest.

Good point! Indeed, USA started imposing its influence on others so agressively after the WW2 even though the concept of US democracy was introduced by the likes of Abraham Linkoln and George Washington (e.g. famous "Bill of Rights").

Axiom
04-08-2008, 03:17 PM
meanwhile, seymour hersh ( pulitzer prize winner) releases a story where cheney talks of discussing ways to start a conflict with iran , by the use of a false flag event !
What you didn't catch that on the news ??

Did you also catch where kucinich is pushing for bush's impeachment, in congress ?


Maybe you caught the story about v.bugliosi's book calling for bush to be tried for murder ?
ok,ok, well you must have heard of the astronaut confirming ET existance ?

What news are you getting ?

Axiom
06-08-2008, 11:57 AM
Marching Off Into Tyranny

Paul Craig Roberts
Information Clearing House
August 5, 2008


Many Americans lack the mental and emotional strength to confront the facts. The facts are too unsettling and many are relieved when the “mainstream media” spins the facts away. Many Americans find it too appalling that any part of “their” government, even a rogue operation, could possibly have been involved in any way in the 9/11 or anthrax attacks. No evidence–not even full confessions–could convince them otherwise. Many Americans have welcomed their brainwashing by the neoconservatives: America is pure; her shining virtue causes evil men to attack her; they hate us because we are good and they are evil.

For the sake of argument, let’s accept this make-believe. It does not explain why, in order to protect us from evil men, the US Constitution needs to be dismantled and civil liberties set aside. Our Founding Fathers said that dismantling the Constitution and setting aside civil liberties are precisely what would make us unsafe in the extreme. The Bush Regime has never explained how the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution interfere with any legitimate response to terrorism.

The fact still remains that the Bush Regime responded to 9/11 and anthrax letters with a comprehensive assault on US civil liberty. The Bush Regime’s assault on America has been much more successful than its assault on “terrorism.” Who remembers the promise of a “six weeks war”? Americans have been mired for 6 years in two wars without end which the neoconned Bush Regime, in alliance with Israeli zionists, seeks to expand to Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Republican candidate for president has given his commitment to a 100-year “war against terrorism.” Many Americans will vote for this candidate who wants to fight against a hoax for 100 years.

In The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America, Jennifer Van Bergen explains the constitutional and legal principles on which American liberty is based and the Bush Regime’s intense assault on these principles. Part I of her book sets out the Constitutional principles that are under attack. Part II details the systematic attack on the US Constitution that is the heart and soul of the Republican neoconservative Bush Regime–and a Regime it is as it asserts that it is above the law and unanswerable to law, Congress, the federal courts, and the Constitution that it is sworn to uphold

Jennifer Van Bergan likens Bush and his brownshirt supporters to Julius Caesar in motives, though not in courage. She cites the poet Lucan who in his work Pharsalia described Caesar as he flouted the law of the Roman Republic and crossed the Rubicon with his army: “When Caesar crossed and trod beneath his feet the soil of Italy’s forbidden fields, ‘here,’ spake he, ‘peace, here broken laws be left; Farewell to treaties. Fortune, lead me on; War is our judge.’”

Anyone who believes that the Bush Regime’s “war on terror” is about terrorism, oil, getting even with those who attacked us, bringing freedom and democracy to Muslims–whatever rationale makes the gratuitous war crimes committed by the Bush Regime acceptable to gullible Americans–needs to read Jennifer Van Bergan’s Bush Plan for America. Nothing less than American liberty is at stake.

The hour is late. Gullible Americans are being marched off into tyranny as the promised land of safety.
http://www.*******s.com/?p=3757

Axiom
15-09-2008, 07:12 PM
Greenspan: This Is The Worst Economy I’ve Ever Seen

Sam Stein
Huffington Post
September 14, 2008

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan offered a woeful outlook of America’s economic situation on Sunday, saying the crisis with the country’s financial institutions was as dire as he had ever seen in his long career, and predicting that one or more of those institutions would likely collapse in the near future.

"Oh, by far," Greenspan said, when asked if the situation was the worst he had seen in his career. "There’s no question that this is in the process of outstripping anything I’ve seen and it still is not resolved and still has a way to go and, indeed, it will continue to be a corrosive force until the price of homes in the United States stabilizes. That will induce a series of events around the globe which will stabilize the system."

-> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/14/greenspan-this-is-the-wor_n_126274.html



Wall Street privatises US government: be very afraid

By Charles Dumas
Telegraph 14/09/2008
Page 1 of 3



The US low-tax zealot, Grover Norquist, is famous for wanting to "shrink government down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub". Still alive, he is not turning in his grave, but his idea has been well and truly buried - and not by the Democrats he hates; they have been tongue-tied on the credit crisis.

It is Wall Street, the paradigm of "red in tooth and claw" capitalism, that has turned to government subsidy on an unprecedented scale.

Low, ideally non-existent, taxes may be very desirable, but when free-market principles came into conflict with the survival of business as we know it, priorities were clear. The US Federal government's full faith and credit - in other words, the resources of American taxpayers - should be urgently deployed to preserve as much as possible of the financial industry.
advertisement

Luckily for Wall Street, government was still too big to fit in that bathtub - and proved only too willing to take up the challenge.


For connoisseurs, the post-Frannie endorsement of the rating agency, Standard & Poor's, may raise an eyebrow: the triple-A rating of the US government is unaffected, we were told after last weekend's events. Many a nasty, even catastrophic, deterioration of credit has started with such a reassurance.
-> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/09/14/ccdumas114.xml

Capablanca-Fan
16-09-2008, 09:42 AM
I do not want to get involved into the war of quotes. But an interesting question is "At what point in history did people start to regard USA as a "benchmark" for democracy? and was this assertion ever justified?"
That would be ironic, since the US founding fathers explicitly rejected democracy as tyranny of the majority, hence America is officially a republic.

Axiom
19-09-2008, 03:14 AM
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/usa_dees.jpg

Axiom
21-09-2008, 05:05 PM
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/