2010 April « Bonfire's Blog

The cloud and the future of the Fourth Amendment

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/the-cloud-and-the-future-of-the-fourth-amendment.ars

By David A. Couillard

In mid-April, a coalition of privacy groups filed a brief in federal district court in Colorado, defending Yahoo against attempts by the federal government to obtain the contents of Yahoo Mail messages without first obtaining a warrant. One month earlier, the Justice Department filed a 17-page brief arguing that Yahoo Mail messages do not fall under current statutory protection because, once opened, those messages are not considered to be in “electronic storage.”

The privacy coalition—which included Google—came to Yahoo’s defense, arguing that users with e-mail stored in the cloud have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of that e-mail, and should thus be protected from warrantless searches by the government. (Hopefully the irony of Google opposing robust searches is not lost on Google’s attorneys.)

Unfortunately, the protections afforded by the warrant requirement have not yet been fully extended to the digital “cloud.” This handy metaphor for the ethereal Internet as a storage and access hub is coming to have other implications: can we really conceal our data inside this cloud, shielding it from government intrusion?

In fact, there is not even any guarantee that e-mails stored locally on a personal home computer will be afforded such protection. But as this novel question has remained unanswered by the sloth-like pace of legal innovation, a dozen more questions have cropped up. Meanwhile, the technological innovators are demanding faster answers.

The fourth amendment and reasonable expectations of privacy

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that the people shall “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…” The Fourth Amendment also provides a method by which an otherwise unreasonable search might be characterized as “reasonable” and, therefore, constitutionally valid: by aid of a warrant, issued “upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Requiring law enforcement to properly justify itself before conducting invasive searches offers an essential layer of constitutional privacy protection which, if breached, renders the improperly seized evidence inadmissible in court against the person whose privacy was violated. But a warrant is not always necessary to make a search reasonable. In some situations a search and seizure is reasonable without the need for a warrant, such as when items are in plain view, or when a person consents to being searched.

Over time, the courts have developed a standard for determining when a search requires a warrant and when it is reasonable on its own. This standard, which requires a warrant only if there exists a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” originated from a 1967 Supreme Court case involving the wiretapping of a phone booth. In that case, because the phone booth had a door which could be shut behind the user, he was deemed to have reasonably expected that nobody was listening in. The presence of a physical barrier also acted as a legal one.

The “reasonable expectation of privacy” test actually has two requirements. First, the person must have had a subjectively reasonable expectation that the item was private. Second, that item must also be something that society in general is willing to objectively recognize as reasonably private. In other words, it’s not enough that you think your fenced-in backyard is private if society as a whole would find it unreasonable to think so. Sunbathers beware.

Nuances in this standard have developed in the years since the phone booth case. One such nuance is the “third-party doctrine.” For example, the police do not need a warrant to obtain a list of the phone numbers you have dialed and when those calls were made, because, unlike the content of your calls, the transactional data is part of the business records of a third party—the service provider.

Similarly, receipts and checks exchanged with a bank or retailer are not considered to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection, because society is not prepared to reasonably expect privacy in those documents. This third-party doctrine has narrowed the situations in which a warrant is required to conduct a search.

Of course as the courts have narrowed these protections vis-à-vis the Constitution, Congress has passed legislation fortifying the constitutional protections and filling in the gaps created by new technologies. But there are two major problems with those fortifications. First, statutes can be overturned or repealed, whereas constitutional protections provide more permanent safeguards. Second, most of these laws are decades old and have hardly been updated to account for changing technologies.

Among these laws is the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which was passed in 1986. The SCA is at the heart of the dispute between Yahoo and the Justice Department, and the government’s position is that e-mails in the cloud that have already been opened are no longer in “electronic storage,” and thus fall outside the protection of the statute.

Updating these statutes is one short-term option. But, just as Google and the other groups defending Yahoo have argued, there is a basis for interpreting the “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard to cover these new cloud computing and storage uses, shielding at least parts of the cloud with the protection of the warrant requirement.

The linchpin in extending Fourth Amendment protection to the cloud rests with the reasonableness of society’s expectations governing privacy in the cloud. But societal expectations change over time.
The linchpin in extending Fourth Amendment protection to the cloud rests with the reasonableness of society’s expectations governing privacy in the cloud. But societal expectations change over time, especially as technology and our uses of that technology change.

The differing evolutions of technology and law
With massive increases in bandwidth, wireless access, and mobile device use over the past decade, remote storage (and cloud computing generally) has changed the way in which the Internet is used. Rather than being a purely public medium, the Internet has become a means of private storage and mobile or remote access.

This is in stark contrast to ten or fifteen years ago, when data was often uploaded for the intended purpose of sharing it with a mass audience. Bandwidth and access limitations made it unfeasible for everyday Internet users to rely on the cloud to efficiently store and access their private files, and mobile devices were not yet powerful enough or pervasive enough for consumers to even need such “everywhere access.”

Unfortunately, the law generally does not evolve as quickly as technology. The 1967 phone booth case was the first time telephone conversations were recognized as constitutionally protected from unreasonable searches—nearly one hundred years after the telephone was invented. The Internet and cloud computing have taken a fraction of that time to reach wide market penetration, and show little sign of slowing down. But since Moore’s Law does not apply to legal innovation, the disparities between technology and the law are likely to become even greater.

Take, for example, the case City of Ontario v. Quon, currently pending before the US Supreme Court. Although the case is not precisely within the scope of what we often think of as “cloud computing” (online storage and manipulation of e-mails, photos, documents, and so on), it deals in a similar realm—the storage of text messages within the servers of a service provider. The city of Ontario, California, contracted with Arch Wireless to provide text messaging services for, among others, the city’s police department. Although the police department had no official policy regarding use of the pagers for personal versus work-related messaging, the unofficial policy was that if an officer went over the limit but paid the overcharge fee, their messages would not be audited.

The department later decided it would audit some of these texts and found a significant number of sexually explicit personal messages. Several officers sued, claiming their Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the department, being an agent of the government, should have been required to obtain a warrant first. The district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals both agreed that the officers had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of their texts, and analogized the stored text messages to e-mail, among other things.

The Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in Quon on April 19th, and based on the Justices’ questions and demeanors, they did not seem overly sympathetic to the officers’ privacy concerns—at least not enough to extend Fourth Amendment protections to their stored text messages. In part this may be because the facts in this case were simply not compelling enough; society is likely not prepared to recognize that police officers should have an expectation of privacy in their city-issued (and taxpayer-funded) work pagers.

Though the future of Fourth Amendment protection in the cloud will probably not be foreclosed by this case, it may create a hurdle for privacy groups and entities such as Yahoo and Google who are looking for more favorable Fourth Amendment treatment by the Supreme Court. The Court’s decision in Quon should come out later this summer. Whatever the ultimate decision may be, these groups will undoubtedly be looking for any helpful language in the opinion that can be used in the inevitable next case to be brought concerning this issue.

A backpack is a “home away from home” for schoolchildren, the Court argued, and briefcases serve a similar function for adults. Why, then, should the same not apply to the documents that we “carry around with us” and access virtually via the cloud?

The new digital divide: a tech-savvy judiciary?
But what may be just as telling as the forthcoming Quon decision itself is the way in which the Justices attempted to wrap their heads around the technology during oral arguments. For example, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked what happens if a text is sent at the same time that one is being received. Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts expressed surprise that the text was routed through the service provider and did not go directly from person to person.

“Could Quon print these—these spicy conversations out and circulate them among his buddies?” Scalia also asked. And even the lawyer representing Officer Quon was not sure whether deleting a message on a pager would also delete it from the service provider’s records. This might paint a worrisome picture of a judiciary that will be making important technology-related decisions with only a limited understanding of that technology.

But it could also be viewed as a judiciary that is making its best efforts at understanding. And the picture is not all dire. During oral arguments Chief Justice Roberts remarked “I just don’t know how you tell what is reasonable. I suspect it might change with how old people are and how comfortable they are with the technology when you have all these different—different factors.” Meanwhile, several of the Justices remarked that, although a police officer using his work pager might not enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy, a private party’s texting might be a different matter.

Applying the fourth amendment to the cloud
So how can people protect their private data and still enjoy the functionality of the cloud? As cloud-computing services are being used more and more by individuals and businesses, the financial benefits of outsourcing data storage and services to the cloud are being balanced against data security costs. Encryption methods are advancing to meet these security demands, and everyday consumers now have access to encryption tools that even law enforcement cannot easily crack.

But what if law enforcement does crack the encryption? Or what if the government is able to obtain the data by going through the cloud service provider, who may have a back door built into the system despite assurances that your data is password-protected and private? In those instances, although a patchwork of old statutes might provide limited protection in certain circumstances, the broader constitutional protections of the Fourth Amendment have not been widely accepted as applicable. But should they be?

In the phone booth case discussed earlier, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. It is our reasonable expectations that shield us from government intrusion, regardless of where that intrusion is. The Court has found that we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our bags and briefcases which we use to carry “highly personal items” such as photographs, letters, and diaries around with us. A backpack is a “home away from home” for schoolchildren, the Court argued, and briefcases serve a similar function for adults.

The third-party doctrine has its limits, and should not be used to undermine our reasonable expectation of privacy in portions of the cloud.

Why, then, should the same not apply to the photographs, e-mails, and other personal documents that we “carry around with us” and access virtually via the cloud? Those objects do not lose their status as highly personal simply because they are digitized. The Supreme Court has recognized that intangibles such as fleeting telephone conversations are covered by the Fourth Amendment, and other courts have found digital files to be covered as well.

If the nature of the data isn’t the problem, then perhaps the medium is. E-mail aside, until recently the Internet was considered a primarily public medium, used for mass communication and commerce. But this is no longer the case necessarily. Blogs and YouTube accounts can be made private; services like Mozy, Carbonite, and Amazon’s S3 provide digital backup and storage space; and services provided by Google and Apple allow users to access their contact lists, calendars, e-mails, photos, and other documents from their phones or netbooks. None of these uses are public in nature. In fact, many of them are specifically intended to remain private.

This change in Internet usage seems to indicate that society might be prepared to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in the cloud, at least in some circumstances. Even if the Internet remains a public medium in some respects, taking a private object into public doesn’t necessarily destroy a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy in that object. But reasonable efforts to conceal that object must be present.

How do you conceal something digitally, though? The primary methods used now are encryption, password-protection, or concealment by obscurity behind unlisted links. In the physical context, the Court has said that a lock is not necessary to create a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is because expectations of privacy are not based upon how easy or difficult it may be to enter a private space. An unlocked house still needs a warrant to be searched because the home is considered reasonably private; and a briefcase or backpack—our “home away from home”—is opaque and generally doesn’t reveal its contents. And although a phone booth has glass walls, it still “conceals” the content of the conversation, which is audible rather than visible. However, illegal activity viewed through the open window of a home, or contraband viewed through a transparent bag, loses that protection because it is not concealed.

But digital objects cannot be concealed by opacity. Instead, the encryption, password-protection, or obscurity of an unlisted link should be considered as a form of opacity, protecting our corner of the cloud as a “home away from home,” just like a briefcase or backpack. This “virtual container” theory has so far only been advanced by one lower court, but it’s a useful analogy as cloud computing is becoming more complex than a simple e-mail inbox. It is a theory such as this that should be applied to the cloud.

The third-party doctrine
Even if society is prepared to recognize portions of the cloud as reasonably private, and even if courts come to recognize digital concealment as adequate, there is still another hurdle to overcome: the third-party doctrine. When you communicate with another person—whether via telephone, e-mail, or letter—you always assume the risk that the other party to your communication will reveal it to the public or law enforcement. Thus, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy vis-à-vis the other party to your conversation.

But is Yahoo a party to your e-mail communication? Is Google a party to your Picasa photo album or Google Doc spreadsheet? Is Apple a party to your contact list stored on MobileMe? If they are, then the government may be able to obtain that that information without a warrant and without your consent.

There are some aspects to online communication that these service providers likely are parties to. The to/from address on your e-mail is used to route it to the correct recipient, just like the to/from address on a letter or the routing and account numbers on a check. But the content of your e-mail, your photo album, your spreadsheet, or your contact list are not transactional information—or at least should not be considered as such.

Problems arise in this area, however. Google’s advertising algorithms scan your e-mails for keywords used to target advertising. Does that make Google a party to the communication? You submit your password every time you log in to an account, so is your password the same as a routing number? And a cloud service provider may reserve limited rights to access the contents of your account, as laid out in their terms of service. Does that make them a party to the contents?

These are all questions that remain unanswered or, at best, vaguely answered by the courts. But simply because your landlord has a copy of your apartment key and limited rights of access for emergency and maintenance purposes does not mean the police can use your landlord to gain access to your home without a warrant. The third-party doctrine has its limits, and should not be used to undermine our reasonable expectation of privacy in portions of the cloud.

Looking to the future
Although the courts can be slow to adapt to changing technology, the extent and speed at which these technologies are pervading society might force the Court to address these issues more quickly than the hundred years it took to deal with the telephone. In the short term, legislative action might be a good way to fill in the current gaps in protection. Congress can generally move more quickly than the courts on issues such as this.

In the long term, however, the best solution might be to continue petitioning the Supreme Court for constitutional answers to these questions. A robust application of the Fourth Amendment to the cloud might offer stronger, more permanent, and more universal protection for digital data. And with a broad enough framework, an extension of the Fourth Amendment standard into the cloud might be able to adequately address future unanticipated issues that arise as new technologies collide with the government’s attempt to search and seize data.

As Chief Justice Roberts remarked during the Quon arguments, determining which privacy expectations are reasonable “might change with how old people are and how comfortable they are with the technology.” Whatever the Court decides this summer, at least this may be a sign that they are thinking seriously about the issue and recognizing the changing uses and expectations that come with technological innovation. At the same time, technology innovators should keep in mind the legal ramifications of their innovations, and perhaps tailor their marketing of these products and services to fit more comfortably within the existing legal paradigm.
Looking to the future

April 30, 2010 Posted by bonfiresblog | Constitution | Leave a Comment

Obama’s Shadow Government

By Alan Caruba

How many of these names do you recognize?

Adolfo Carrion, Aneesh Chopra, Ear; Devamey, Kenneth Feinberg, Carol Browner, Ed Montgomery, Todd Stern, Cass Sunstein, Ron Bloom, and John Brennan. If none of them ring a bell, it is because they and others are all part of a shadow government of some thirty “czars”; advisors to President Obama who did not submit to the Senate confirmation process and are exempt from Congressional oversight.

Article 2, Section 2, U.S. Constitution, an excerpt: He (the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or the heads of departments.” (Emphasis added)

The Constitution creates two types of positions in the executive branch: principal officers and inferior officers. The first of these are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The latter are not subject to this process.

The Obama administration began with a series of nominations that were found to be tax cheats and forced to withdraw before Senate confirmation. One of them, Van Jones, put in charge of “green jobs” was forced to resign when it became known that he was a self-identified communist. Carol Browner, responsible for environmental and energy issues, was on the board of the Commission for a Sustainable Society, the action arm of the Socialist International.

http://socialistinternational.org/

In the case of “special envoys” George Mitchell, Richard Holbrooke, and Dennis Ross, they all engage in ambassadorial duties, representing the nation to foreign entities and are responsible only to the president. Key elements of the nation’s foreign policy, particularly as regards the Middle East, remain hidden from the public, except in terms of the president’s public pronouncements.

All of the president’s cabinet secretaries in charge of various departments and agencies of the government are vested with administrative powers and all must be confirmed by the Senate. By virtue of the Administrative Procedure Act, these offices must hold public hearings and maintain records when decisions are made, thus creating a paper trail. All of these offices must have separate lines in Congress’s annual appropriations bills.

The bulk of the president’s czars are exempt from such oversight. They advise and answer directly to the president and a number of them exercise control over the decisions made by cabinet secretaries and agency directors, most of whom have been reduced to a role of carrying out their decisions, their agenda.

The U.S. government is being run out of the White House by a cohort of czars/advisors who do not answer to the American people and operate in the dark. This is part of the warning issued in “The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency.” The authors, Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski, are both attorneys with extensive knowledge of the Constitution. Blackwell has been an ambassador.

These czars are essentially unconstitutional and illegal.

All presidents have had advisors, but none prior to Obama have had so many and none have been delegated vast powers. They represent a violation of the separation of powers essential to a democratic republic and all violate the need and expectation of transparency and accountability.

Some have demonstrated in their past publications and present statements that they are wholly incompetent to hold such power. The regulations czar, Cass Sunstein, has said that animals should have the same legal rights as humans. The science advisor, John Holdren, has advocated putting chemicals in the drinking water or requiring devices that would neutralize fertility, including compulsory abortion.

John Brennan, the terrorism czar, responsible for homeland security, downplayed the near disaster of the Christmas “underpants bomber” and claimed that all possible intelligence that could be secured from him had been in less than an hour after his arrest!

All these czars function in direct contradiction of the long history of such advisors to presidents and in contradiction to the framework of the U.S. Constitution designed to ensure that the executive branch is answerable to Congress.

The function (or lack of it) of elected senators and representatives is ugly enough as seen in the failure of Congress to exercise caution in the passage of bills that affect the economy and the lives of all Americans. The U.S. debt has increased to levels not seen since World War Two. Obamacare was an ugly process of bribery and closed-door deals that resulted in a straight party line vote that was a repudiation of the will of the people.

No one knows what these unelected and unsupervised czars are doing, but you can be sure they all are loyal advocates and agents of the socialist transformation of America.

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder in 1990 of The National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information about “scare campaigns” designed to influence public opinion and policy.

Alan Caruba Archives

http://www.borderfirereport.net/index/alan-caruba/index.php

April 30, 2010 Posted by bonfiresblog | Constitution, Czars | Administrative Procedure Act, communism, czars, foreign policy, Shadow Government, socialism, Socialist International | Leave a Comment

Puerto Rico – the 51st State? Congress to move fast on this one.

There is a bill to make Puerto Rico a state. Again, they are trying to pull one over on us and on Puerto Ricans, who have consistently said they do not want to become a state. The transformation and balkanization of America has moved forward. The progressives seek a coalition to gain votes for the democrats with additional millions from Puerto Rico to add to the 20 plus million criminal alien votes they seek with the promise of amnesty. Read below for more information.

Sponsored by Puerto Rican delegate Pedro Pierluisi (D), the Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499) – which has reared its ugly head a number of times over the past few congresses but has yet to have any success – would require Puerto Ricans to hold a national referendum to decide if they want Puerto Rico to remain a self-governing U.S. commonwealth, or become the 51st state.

The referendum would be set up as two plebiscites which would effectively deceive Puerto Ricans into voting for statehood. In the first round of votes, the Puerto Rican people would be given the choice between remaining a U.S. territory and “pursuing a different political status.” If the majority votes to maintain the status quo, this bill would require that Puerto Rico vote on this same issue every eight years.

If the majority votes for “different status,” a second round of votes would be held where Puerto Ricans would choose either statehood or independence-the status quo of “U.S. territory” would not even be an option! In other words, the two ballots would be rigged to favor the outcome of statehood, overriding the wishes of Americans and Puerto Ricans who want to maintain the current commonwealth status.

* Contact your US congressmen AND
* Take quick action here: http://www.capwiz.com/eagleforum/issues/alert/?alertid=14966151&type=CO

Tell your Congressman to vote NO on the Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499) today!

http://www.capwiz.com/eagleforum/issues/alert/?alertid=14966151

April 26, 2010

Last Tuesday, the liberal House leadership pulled the controversial D.C. House Voting Rights bill from the floor schedule, and we thank you for all of your calls and for taking action! However, just two days after they backed away from the D.C. bill, the House announced that it would move to consider an even more controversial bill that paves the way for U.S. territory Puerto Rico to become the 51st state!

Sponsored by Puerto Rican delegate Pedro Pierluisi (D), the Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499) – which has reared its ugly head a number of times over the past few congresses but has yet to have any success – would require Puerto Ricans to hold a national referendum to decide if they want Puerto Rico to remain a self-governing U.S. commonwealth, or become the 51st state.

The referendum would be set up as two plebiscites which would effectively deceive Puerto Ricans into voting for statehood. In the first round of votes, the Puerto Rican people would be given the choice between remaining a U.S. territory and “pursuing a different political status.” If the majority votes to maintain the status quo, this bill would require that Puerto Rico vote on this same issue every eight years. If the majority votes for “different status,” a second round of votes would be held where Puerto Ricans would choose either statehood or independence-the status quo of “U.S. territory” would not even be an option! In other words, the two ballots would be rigged to favor the outcome of statehood, overriding the wishes of Americans and Puerto Ricans who want to maintain the current commonwealth status.

Why we do not want Puerto Rico admitted as the 51st state:

* The U.S. would transform, overnight, into a bilingual nation. # At least half of Puerto Ricans do not speak English, the language of our U.S. Constitution and founding documents. The Washington Times article, “Puerto Rican statehood,” analyzes all the implications of adding a foreign language-speaking state to the Union.
# It would bring immediate demands for massive federal spending.
# The average income of Puerto Ricans is less than half that of our poorest state, and infrastructure and the environment are far below American standards. Puerto Rico has a population with a median national income of $17,741, nearly a third below that for the U.S.
# Puerto Rico is already a democracy.# Despite the bill’s deceptive title, Puerto Rico already has an elected government and exists as a self-governed commonwealth of the U.S.
# Statehood would give Puerto Rico more congressional representation than 25 of our 50 states! It would inevitably give Democrats two additional U.S. Senators and 6 to 8 additional Members of the House.

H.R. 2499 is stealth legislation designed to lead to the admission of Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico as the 51st state, thereby making us a de facto bilingual nation, like Canada. The U.S. Congress should not be forcing Puerto Ricans to vote on statehood, especially since the Puerto Rican people have rejected statehood three times since 1991!

No Member of Congress who describes himself as a limited government, fiscal conservative should be casting a YEA vote for H.R. 2499, as Puerto Rican statehood would cause an immediate increase in federal expenditures, particularly for taxpayer-funded welfare state services.

Tell Congress not to override the wishes of Americans and Puerto Ricans who want to maintain the current commonwealth status of Puerto Rico by forcing a vote on rigged referenda!

The House will likely bring H.R. 2499 to the floor for a vote on either Wednesday or Thursday of this week. Please call and email your Representative today and tell him to vote NO on H.R. 2499 which forces a vote on rigged referenda to make Puerto Rico the 51st state!

Puerto Rico’s “Nuclear Option” on Statehood
By Robert G. DePosada, Special to Roll Call

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_118/ma_congressional_relations/45328-1.html?mostemailed=1

“Imagine that a majority of Quebec’s citizens, fed up with being part of Canada, voted to become the United States’ 51st state. Then, without the consent of Congress, the French-speaking province brazenly proceeded to elect U.S. Senators and a dozen U.S. Representatives and send them to Washington, D.C., to demand their seats in Congress.”

April 28, 2010 Posted by bonfiresblog | Constitution, Economy, New World Order, US Administration | Balkanization of America, Constitution, Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499), Transforation of America, Vote scheme | Leave a Comment

We Refuse!

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/18/we-refuse/

by Michael Boldin

http://www.werefuse.com/

(California http://www.werefuse.com/California/index.htm)

The following is based off a speech given at the Palm Desert Tax Day Tea Party on April 15, 2010

There are a few core beliefs that guide me in everything I do as the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

* Rights are not “granted” to us by the government – they are ours by our very nature, by our birthright.
* ALL just political authority is derived from the people – and government exists solely with our consent!
* We the people of the several states created the federal government – not the other way around!
* The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government in the Constitution – and nothing more.
* The People of each State have the sole and exclusive right and power to govern themselves in all areas not delegated to their government.
* A Government without limits is a tyranny!
* When Congress enacts laws and regulations that are not made in Pursuance of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the People are not bound to obey them.

These seven items are about sovereignty, which is something we hear about quite a bit lately – but few really understand. Sovereignty is defined as “final authority.” All through history, this final authority was in the hands of just one or two people – a king, a queen, or even just a small cabal of elites at the top of the food chain.

But the founders and ratifiers gave us something unique in history – a first, really. They created a system where the average people – you and I – held final authority. We the people are sovereign. We the people hold final authority. We the people are in charge. And, they the government work for us!

The Tenth Amendment codifies in law this principle of popular sovereignty – that “We the People” of the several states created the federal government to be our agent for certain, enumerated purposes – and nothing more. But unfortunately, that’s not how things have been working, and very little that the government does is actually authorized by the constitution. And, this is a problem that didn’t just start in January 2009 – it’s been going on a long, long time.

Question – What do we do about it?

* Do we call and email our representatives in Congress and ask them to limit their own power?
* Do we march on D.C. and demand that the government limit its own power?
* Do we sue them in their own courts and ask their judges to limit their power?
* Do we vote the bums out in 2010, or 2012 – and ask new politicians to limit their own power?

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own powers – that power would endlessly grow…regardless of elections, separation of powers, courts, or other vaunted parts of our system.

Guess what – they were right. For a hundred years, we the people have been suing, and marching, and lobbying, and voting the bums out – but yet…year in and year out, government continues to grow and your liberty continues to diminish – and it doesn’t matter who is the president, or what political party controls congress – the growth of power in the federal government never stops.

The problem we face today is not about personalities or political parties – it’s about power. Until we address the absolute fact that the federal government has too much power, things will never change.

Question – What do we do about it?

Jefferson and Madison gave us the answer. In response to the unconstitutional attacks on liberty that were the Alien and Sedition Acts, they secretly authored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. Here are a few excerpts that really define exactly how things are supposed to work when two or more branches of the federal government conspire against the constitution and your liberty.

the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government
whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.
where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated [by the Constitution], a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy

So while it might be important to call, petition, demand, march, sue and vote bums out, because they’re all bums, there’s much more we’re supposed to do. When the federal government violates your rights, you’re not supposed to wait four years for new politicians in the hope that they’ll fix it. You’re not supposed to wait two, or four, or more years for some black-robed judge to pronounce that they’ve violated your rights. You are supposed to resist those violations of your liberty as they happen – and it is your state’s solemn duty to do the same.

NEW MOVEMENT

While such a task might seem daunting, it’s something that’s already happening today, and has been growing in recent years too.

In 2007, one state rep in Maine introduced a non-binding resolution opposing the REAL ID Act.

In 2008, one state rep in Oklahoma introduced a simple non-binding resolution reaffirming the Constitution as defined by the 10th amendment,.

In 2009, one state rep in Montana introduced a bill to nullify some federal gun laws and regulations.

In 2009, one state rep in Arizona introduced a state constitutional amendment to effectively ban a national health care plan in that state.

These simple, single acts by courageous people have grown into a state-level resistance to unconstitutional federal acts the likes this country has possibly never seen.

* Already a dozen states have passed 10th amendment resolutions reaffirming the Constitution as the founders and ratifiers gave us.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/10th-amendment-resolutions/

* 25 states have passed laws and resolutions nullifying the Real ID act – stopping it dead in its tracks in most of the country.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/real-id/

*7 states have passed Firearms Freedom Acts – nullifying some federal gun laws and regulations in their states.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/firearms-freedom-act/

*14 states have now passed laws nullifying unconstitutional federal laws on marijuana

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/marijuana/

*3 states have already passed Health Care Freedom Acts to ban federal health care mandates in their states.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/health-care/

*Other states are considering nullification laws on cap and trade, the misuse of state national guard troops, monetary policy and much more.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/cap-and-trade/

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/bring-the-guard-home/

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/constitutional-tender/

Here at the Tenth Amendment Center we have released model legislation for you to give to your state reps to demand that they stand with you and refuse to comply with unconstitutional acts from Washington D.C. Our latest?
The Federal Health Care Nullification Act.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/federal-health-care-nullification-act/

This Act is not over 1000 pages. It’s not 500 pages. It’s not a dozen, or even two. It’s one single page to nullify now.

Here’s a majority of what it says:

The Legislature of the State of _______________ declares that the federal law known as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

And it adds some much-needed ‘teeth’ too:

Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or both.

They want to fine us or put us in jail for not buying insurance from some corporation. What’s next – fining us for not buying a Chevy? Well, it’s time that we turn this thing around – and in the federal health care nullification act – we fine THEM for violating our rights!

While this may seem difficult to accomplish – or even insurmountable – if we do nothing, or if we even do the same things we’ve been doing, we’re doomed to failure. But if we do what’s right, we will succeed! Samuel Adams put it best: “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”

Question: What do we do about it?

Step one is to sign on in support the Federal Health Care Nullification Act. WeRefuse.com is a new website (and the only one that I’m aware of) dedicated solely to nullifying national health care on a state level. Join us in our first goal of 100,000 to stop national health care “laws” today!

Let’s make this work and then we can use it as a model for every other constitutional violation coming out of D.C.

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/newsletter/

April 19, 2010 Posted by bonfiresblog | AmendmentX, Constitution | liberty, limited government, national health care, Obamacare, REAL ID Act, sovereignty, unconstitutional federal acts, We the People”, WeRefuse.com | Leave a Comment

Southern Poverty Law Center: Liars Ca$hing in

The SPLC is a hate group. American Patriot’s are on Morris Dees hit list.
Mark Potok is his vicious attack dog.

http://www.devvy.com/new_site/splc_041910.html

By: Devvy
April 19, 2010

“The Southern Poverty Law Center, for the viewers who may not know it, is an organization that specializes in finding offenses that they can raise money around…..Morris Dees, who is the owner of it, if you’d like, I think, is nothing more than a scam artist.” C-SPAN Q&A Host: Brian Lamb Interview with Wesley Pruden, “Washington Times” Editor in Chief.

The misnamed Southern “Poverty” Law Center is nothing of the sort. That organization is drowning in money.[1] Their “leadership” doesn’t give a ticker’s damn about the U.S. Constitution. Morris Dees cares only for money and he’s been raking it in for decades to support his lavish lifestyle. A lifestyle of sexual perversion (peeping on his naked 16-year old step daughter), sexual deviant (in bed with another man in front of his wife) and peddling “intolerance” better than any snake oil salesman of the 19th Century:

The Church of Morris Dees

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/The%20Church%20of%20Morris%20Dees.html

By Ken Silverstein
Harper’s Magazine, November 2000
How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance

“That was then. Today, the SPLC spends most of its time–and money–on a relentless fund-raising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate. “He’s the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil rights movement,” renowned anti- death-penalty lawyer Millard Farmer says of Dees, his former associate, “though I don’t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye.” The Center earned $44 million last year alone–$27 million from fund-raising and $17 million from stocks and other investments–but spent only $13 million on civil rights program , making it one of the most profitable charities in the country….

“Any good salesman knows that a products “value” is a highly mutable quality with little relation to actual worth, and Morris Dees-who made millions hawking, by direct mail, such humble commodities as birthday cakes, cookbooks (including Favorite Recipes of American Home Economics Teachers), tractor seat cushions, rat poison, and, in exchange for a mailing list containing 700,000 names, presidential candidate George McGovern-is nothing if not a good salesman. So good in fact that in 1998 the Direct Marketing Association inducted him into its Hall of Fame. “I learned everything I know about hustling from the Baptist Church,” Dees has said. “Spending Sundays on those hard benches listening to the preacher pitch salvation-why, it was like getting a Ph.D. in selling.” Here, Dr. Dees (the letter’s nominal author) masterfully transforms, with a mere flourish of hyperbole, an education kit available “at cost” for $30 on the SPLC web site into “a $325 value.”

“This is one of the only places in this letter where specific races are mentioned. Elsewhere, Dees and his copywriters, deploying an arsenal of passive verbs and vague abstractions, have sanitized the usually divisive issue of race of its more disturbing elements-such as angry black people-and for good reason: most SPLC donors are white. Thus, instead of concrete civil rights issues like housing discrimination and racial profiling, we get “communities seething with racial violence.” Instead of racially biased federal sentencing laws, or the disparity between poor predominantly black schools and affluent white ones, or the violence against illegals along the Mexican border, the SPLC gives us “intolerance against those who are different,” turning bigotry into a color-blind, equal-opportunity sin. It’s reassuring to know that “Caucasians” are no more and no less guilty of this sin than African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics.

In the eyes of Morris Dees, we’re all sinners, all victims, and all potential contributors.

“Morris Dees doesn’t need your financial support. The SPLC is already the wealthiest civil rights group in America, though this letter quite naturally omits that fact. Other solicitations have been more flagrantly misleading. One pitch, sent out in 1995-when the Center had more than $60 million in reserves-informed would-be donors that the “strain on our current operating budget is the greatest in our 25-year history.” Back in 1978, when the Center had less than $10 million, Dees promised that his organization would quit fund-raising and live off interest as soon as its endowment hit $55 million. But as it approached that figure, the SPLC upped the bar to $100 million, a sum that, one 1989 newsletter promised, would allow the Center “to cease the costly and often unreliable task of fund raising. ” Today, the SPLC’s treasury bulges with $120 million, and it spends twice as much on fund-raising-$5.76 million last year-as it does on legal services for victims of civil rights abuses. The American Institute of Philanthropy gives the Center one of the worst ratings of any group it monitors, estimating that the SPLC could operate for 4.6 years without making another tax-exempt nickel from its investments or raising another tax-deductible cent from well-meaning “people like you.”

Anyone who has read my writing for more than 15 years, has heard me speak at a function or on my radio show, knows I do not personally attack people’s physical appearance, i.e., calling someone fat or ugly. It isn’t my nature to be mean. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and losing weight for most people is a terrible struggle. However, I make an exception here regarding Mark Potok, toady mouth piece for the Southern Rich Man’s Hustle Center (SPLC). Potok is the vicious attack dog Morris Dees pays to slander anyone who believes the Constitution is being shredded and our way of life being destroyed as “hate mongers” and kin of the KKK.

Newsweek Trots Out Discredited SPLC Lawyer Mark Potok to Decry ‘Patriot’ Groups

http://newsbusters.org/?q=blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/04/12/newsweek-trots-discredited-splc-lawyer-decry-patriot-groups

“In September, Potok appeared on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” to do some good old fashioned lefty fear-mongering. The body of a Census worker had just been found hanged in rural Kentucky. Potok posited it was a distinct possibility that he had been killed by someone who saw him as an agent of the sort of nefarious federal government. This idea of government workers being the enemy goes all the way back to the militia movement of the ‘90s when forestry workers, Bureau of Land Management workers were seen really as enemies by people in the so-called patriot organizations. We’ve seen a resurgence in this movement over the last year or so, and it does seem possible this is an outcome of that. …

“I would not say that this part of Kentucky is any more sort of hot bed of anti-government sentiment than other rural areas of the country. However, that part of the country does have something of a tradition of suspicion of outsiders, going way back. Having to do with labor struggles in the area, having to do with people coming in and making documentaries that locals had felt portrayed them badly and so on.

“I think the bottom line is it’s a very rural area, and these are the kinds of areas where sometimes, you know, real white hot anti-government sentiment thrives. I think it’s probably worth saying that I know that back in ‘95, immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing, I remember “USA Today” did a poll and found that 39 percent of Americans at that time felt that the federal government was an imminent threat to their liberties as Americans. Quite incredible.

“I think that we are at a similar point in history right now, you know, where we’ve seen this anti-government sentiment very much whipped up by militia certainly but also the whole scene that we’ve seen develop around town halls and so forth.

“Ahh yes, the Tea Party was responsible, in part, for his death. Just one problem: the whole thing was a hoax! Bill Sparkman, the late Census worker, had killed himself, and staged the homicide in the hope of recouping insurance money for his family. Tragic, yes. Right-wing terrorism? Only in Potok fantasy-land.”

According to Potok, if you are against sodomites and lesbians, you’re part of a hate group.

http://americansfortruth.com/news/aftahs-labarbera-challenges-splcs-potok-to-a-debate-on-hate.html

According to Potok, if you are for upholding our immigration laws, you’re a hate group.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_splcresponse

Before jumping on the SPLC gravy train, Potok was a reporter for newspapers like USA Today and the Miami Herald. It was difficult to find any personal information on Potok, but apparently he is married, never graduated from college. He is by today’s standards, highly unattractive. A real eye sore. He’s also what I call a sissy man. A real man in the tradition of Patrick Henry or Joseph Banister scares little Napoleon’s like Mark Potok. The Second Amendment scares ninnies like Potok. He supports sodomites because I believe he identifies with them: “sensitive” and effeminate.

Socially inept bounders like Potok jack up their own feelings of inadequacy by tearing down real men who intimidate them. A real woman would be more than Potok could handle. Like Chris Matthews who said he gets a thrill up his leg every time he hears Obama speak, I suspect Potok reacts the same when he hears someone like Janeane Garofalo, who isn’t at all funny. Like Potok, Garofalo makes her living shooting off her mouth before loading what little brain matter she has. Vultures of a feather. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=96557

The SPLC has come out with its new hit list titled: Meet the Patriots.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/the-patriots?page=0,0 (Stewart Rhodes page 3)
I am on the list. I knew this was coming as I was contacted several weeks ago by a female who said she was a researcher for the SPLC. I believe her name was Heidi Beirich. As I do not trust anyone who works for the mainstream media and cable net work talk show anchors, and certainly not someone representing the SPLC, I politely told Ms. Beirich I had nothing to say. No comment. End of our telephone conversation. A week later, I received another call from some giggle-puss from Turner Broadcasting, CNN. She was working on a “tax protester” piece and wanted to interview me. I politely told her: No comment.

Besides lack of trust, there is another reason why any sane individual would stay away from those “news” and “hate fighting” groups. Credibility. As a dear friend of mine said on the phone a few days ago: When you consent to giving an interview, not only do you set yourself up for deceit and duplicity, but you give the interviewer the appearance of being qualified to have a dialogue with you on the subject matter. This has been glaringly obvious over the Obama citizenship fraud. Intellectually lazy, fact challenged reporters and anchors who all have their own agenda. The truth is no where to be found.

I don’t recognize eight of the people on the ‘Meet the Patriots’ list. As for what is written about me, here’s the smear job:

1. “Based in Big Spring, Texas, she bills herself as the “Dynamite Redhead” on her web site..”

I don’t “bill” myself as ‘the dynamite redhead’ on my web site. Those words don’t even appear on my web site.

That moniker was attached to my columns by the wonderful couple who own Newswithviews.com. Dynamite Redhead appears on their web site with my photo for NWVs columns I have written. I had nothing to do with it and it never bothered me. Some people get a kick out of it.

Beirich is the Director Research for the SPLC, but it appears she couldn’t find the truth if it jumped out of her computer monitor. But, then again, truth isn’t in the best interests of the money grubbing SPLC, only filling their coffers.

2. “Kidd gained popularity with an anti-tax message and by writing two booklets that she claims have sold more than 2 million copies.” I don’t “claim,” it is a fact that I shipped 1.6 million copies of my Why A Bankrupt America booklet. I didn’t sell them. I never received a penny in royalties for either booklet. People donated a small amount which covered only the printing, envelope, postage. The same with my Blind Loyalty booklet, which I retired after 700,000 copies. I have saved all the records from 1993 and the printer can verify those figures.

3 . “…she says she became a federal whistle blower after filing a “fraud, waste and abuse” complaint against her own job.” That is a legal fact. My FW & A complaint was filed with the Inspector General for the U.S. Air Force at Peterson Air Force Base, Air Force Space Command, Colorado Springs, Colorado in 1990. Before I filed, I went to see a JAG officer at Ft. Carson regarding my legal rights. At that time, my husband was a bird Colonel at Ft. Carson; I knew it would be an awkward situation.

And, yes, like other whistle blowers, it cost me my job. I knew that was the risk when I filed. However, for me it was a matter of conscience and something I felt I had to do. Despite my outstanding work performance review write ups, my GS-11 paycheck went bye-bye. The individuals who were guilty of protecting the waste stayed on the job killing time on taxpayer dollars.

On the hit list: Dr. Edwin Vieira, Joseph Banister, Larry Pratt — all constitionalists who support the Second Amendment and want to restore this nation to its roots are attacked by that freedom hating organization.

Any American, regardless of color, religion or political affiliation, who supports the U.S. Constitution and opposes the planned Sovietization of these united States of America is a target for money grubbing organizations like the SPLC. They use Rule 11 from communist Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals — “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.” Old KGB techniques.

As the American people continue to wake up and demand Washington, DC and their state legislatures represent them, not special interests, the attacks will increase. Tea party participants will continue to be called every vile name in the book, including this courageous American:

Black minister addresses tea party rallies
Associated Press – 4/17/2010

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=976040

PITTSBURGH – “A Louisiana minister says he hopes more pastors join him in the Tea Party movement. The Rev. C.L. Bryant has been addressing Tea Party rallies around the country. On Thursday’s federal tax filing deadline, he spoke at rallies in Pittsburgh and Washington, DC. Bryant, who is African-American, says allegations that Tea Party activists are racists and haters are “an out-and-out lie.” But he says, “This country, I believe, was given to us divinely, and Americans are not the type of people by nature to be ruled over.”

Did the SPLC play a part in the OKC bombing?

Murrah Building, April 1995

The SPLC Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995

http://www.borderguardians.org/splcOKcity.html

At the bottom of the piece cited above is a link to: The Motive. Way down at the bottom it reads: “That same evening, April 17, a military C-21 Lear Jet carrying several high-ranking military officials, including a supervisor to the NSA, crashed near Alexander City, Alabama. The disaster, which occured on a clear day, appeared to be more than a simple accident. The highly experienced crew reported “fuel management” problems, a classic sabatogue technique. Witnesses Miranda Wyckoff and Jimmy Keel claim they heard multiple explosions while the plane was airborne.”[1219]

I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the NTSB to obtain all documents pertaining to that crash. I sent all the documentation and data to my dear friend, retired Brigadier General, U.S.A.F., Ben Partin. It is his qualified opinion it was not an accident.

Declassified FBI memo reveals twists in probe

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36475

“One of the revelations was the involvement of civil-rights attorney Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center in an informant operation. According to the memo, the SPLC was involved in monitoring subjects for the FBI believed to be linked to now-executed bomber Timothy McVeigh, the neo-Nazi compound at Elohim City and the mysterious German national Andreas Carl Strassmeir…

“The involvement of the SPLC is mentioned in the following quote from the memo:

“(Name redacted) telephone call from (name redacted) on or about 4/17/95, two days prior to the OKBOMB attack, when (name redacted) of the SPLC, was in the white supremacist compound at (redacted), Oklahoma, notes the director.”

“The Daily Gazette reports, “References to an informant working for the SPLC at Elohim City on the eve of the Oklahoma City bombing raises serious questions as to what the SPLC might know about McVeigh’s activities during the final hours before the fuse was lit in Oklahoma City – but which the SPLC has failed to disclose publicly.”

“Dees confirmed the presence of an informant at Elohim City at a recent press conference, the paper reported. “If I told you what we were doing there, I would have to kill you,” Dees replied when asked to explain.”

What needs to happen is a full blown investigation by the Federal Department of Justice to look into the SPLC’s involvement in the OKC bombing. Will that happen? Not with Eric Holder as the Attorney General. Someone who obstructed justice in the murder of Michael Trentadue; see this letter to Leaky Leahy who has disgraced the U.S. Senate for decades. Robert Mueller, head of the FBI is just as corrupt.

http://www.devvy.net/pdf/mar09/rename/final/trentadue.pdf

The SPLC has spent decades spreading their propaganda to law enforcement agencies around the country. Using the most extreme examples, the SPLC has been a front runner in convincing local law enforcement that anyone who questions the government is a home grown terrorist. I highly recommend you contact your sheriff and your city council. Find out if any of your local tax dollars are going into the coffers of a rank operation like SPLC.

“Our” government paid Randy Weaver and his surviving children $3.1 million dollars for the murders of 14-year old Sammy Weaver (shot in the back) and his mother, Victoria, at Ruby Ridge. The killer, FBI agent, Lon Horiuchi, was absolved and given a free pass. The Trentadue family received one million dollars for the murder of their family member. The fruits of our labor to protect murderers and corrupt public officials. It is a stain on our country.

The individuals responsible for murdering Americans at the World Trade Center (1993), Ruby Ridge, Waco and OKC are rouge elements within the U.S. government. Sting operations gone bad. Killers on the loose wearing badges. The truth seekers will not go away no matter how many attacks and smear campaigns are thrown out by vile operations like the SPLC.

That includes September 11, 2001. I hope you will listen to my radio show, May 5, 2010. Richard Gage, AIA, who speaks for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.will be my guest. Feel free to call in and ask him a question. You can watch Richard’s presentation at the February 19, 2010 press conference in San Francisco here.

Footnote:

[1] 2006 Form 990: CEO made $334,886 in salary and compensation; Potok paid $140,000. According to that form, the poverty stricken Morris Dees’ operation hauled in almost $45 million with assets over $226,000,000. It gets better in 2008; you can view that Form 990 here.

The Southern Poverty Law Center Has Lost Its Way

http://americanvision.org/2010/post/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-its-way/

Ultra Left blooger:
Morris Dees, Pathological Narcissist and Ultra-Creep

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/morris-dees-pathological-narcissist-and-ultra-creep/

Bomb Damage Analysis of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
by Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.)

http://physics911.net/generalpartinreport

McVeigh’s Second Trial

http://www.devvy.com/pdf/McVeigh/

The OKC Bombing Case Revelations

http://www.devvy.com/briley/OKC_Bombing_Revelations.pdf

by Patrick Briley

April 19, 2010 Posted by bonfiresblog | Terrorism | "hate mongers", (SPLC) Southern Poverty Law Center, Constitution, fear-mongering, Mark Potok, Morris Dees, Patiot hit list, The Church of Morris Dees | Leave a Comment

Take Peaceful Civic Action & Restore the Constitution!

Articles of Freedom Delivery Day April 19th (5min)
Take Peaceful Civic Action & Restore the Constitution

Monday April 19th – In 50 State Capitols -
3pm EST, 2pm CST, 1pm MST, 12pm PST

BEYOND TEA PARTIES.
BEYOND POLITICAL PARTIES.

For Those Who are Uneasy and Anxious about the Fate of America

This is not the Hour for Summer Soldiers or Sunshine Patriots.

On April 19, 2010, the Voice of Freedom will be heard from Hawaii to Maine as Constitutionalists gather in every Capital City to simultaneously sing the praises of America and Her Constitution, and to serve the Articles of Freedom on Her federal and state officials.

THE PLAN:
1. Service of the Articles on all U.S. Senators, 50 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, 50 Governors and the 99 Leaders of the State Legislatures
2. Service of the Articles on the remaining 385 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, the President of the United States and the nine members of the Supreme Court of the United States.

TO SERVE THE ARTICLES
TO YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS:

Print the Articles of Freedom!
www.ArticlesOfFreedom.us/ThePlan.aspx

TAKE THE PLEDGE

http://articlesoffreedom.us/Pledge.aspx

Articles of Freedom Intro to Des Moines Tax Day Tea Rally

Thursday, April 15 – Todd McGreevy introduces the Articles of Freedom The Works of Continental Congress 2009 to the crowd of approximately 2000 in attendance at the state capitol in Des Moines, Iowa. He invites the attendees to come back to the state capitol on Monday April 19th at 2pm to take part in the nationwide dedication and delivery of the Articles to the federal and state legislators. More info at www.ArticlesOfFreedom.us/ThePlan.aspx

http://www.dolz.com/

ARTICLES OF FREEDOM
First National Redress of Grievances Lodged with All Elected Representatives
Demand of Return to Constitutional Governance and Fiscal Responsibility

Monday, April 19th, 2010 — 12:00 Noon
Sacramento, California
South Steps of the State Capitol
(Every State of the Union will participate – look up your state)

The purpose of the Articles of Freedom is to start the process of returning the United States to Constitutional Governance – This is a final step towards completing due diligence before taking large scale remedial civic actions. This step is taken in the name of every organization dedicated to the defense of the Constitution and We the People.

My name is Tony Dolz. I am one of the three Continental Congress (Articles of Freedom) delegates from California. I will be in Sacramento to deliver the Articles of Freedom to all elected representatives on April 19th and to participate in the California part of the national Articles of Freedom ceremony.

GOD SAVE THE CONSTITUTION.

April 18, 2010 Posted by bonfiresblog | Constitution | Articles of Freedom, Constitutional Governance, Continental Congress 2009, Elected Representatives, Fiscal Responsibility, Stae Capitals, Tony Dolz | Leave a Comment

Obama’s “Consequence Management Response Force” Ready To Be Deployed Against Americans In October

http://patdollard.com/2010/04/we-need-a-lot-more-in-our-toolbox-in-order-to-deal-with-angry-people-on-the-streetobamas-consequence-management-response-force-ready-to-be-deployed-against-americans-in-october/

April 14th, 2010 By Pat Dollard

“We Need A lot More In Our Toolbox In Order To Deal With Angry People On The Street”: Obama’s “Consequence Management Response Force” Ready To Be Deployed Against Americans In October

The Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m4d13-Special-army-unit-ready-to-be-deployed-on-American-soil-just-before-Nov-elections?#comments

In October of this year, one month prior to the November midterm elections, a special army unit known as ‘Consequence Management Response Force’ will be ready for deployment on American soil if so ordered by the President.

The special force, which is the new name being given to the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry, has been training at Fort Stewart, Georgia and is composed of 80,000 troops.

According to the Army Times,

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

The key phrase is ‘may be called upon to help with civil unrest.’

This afternoon a local radio talk show host reported that he had been in contact with a member of the military. This military source stated that the armed forces have been alerted to the strong possibility that civil unrest may occur in the United States this summer, prior to the midterm elections of 2010.

The source described this as ‘our long, hot summer of discontent’ that could be eerily reminiscent of the summer of 1968 when riots broke out in many of our largest cities.

However, the summer of 2010 could well be much worse due to the players involved. In 1968 the major players were war protesters. This time, the outrage simmering beneath the surface of American society involves a broad cross-section of the heartland, and most of them are heavily armed.

It is highly unlikely that these citizens would ever initiate armed conflict of any kind. In their view, gun rights are for self-defense–and for defense against tyrannical government, which our Founders regarded as the most dangerous force on earth.

However, it has become clear that other groups may well initiate violence in order to start an ‘incident’ that would give Obama and a rogue Congress a reason to implement martial law, confiscate the citizens’ guns, enforce curfews, and suspend all future elections until such time as it is deemed ’safe’ to proceed with human liberty as encapsulated in the right to vote.

Tea Party members, for example, have been warned in recent days that members of Andy Stern’s SEIU union and members of the organization formerly known as ACORN plan to infiltrate Tea Party gatherings in order to incite some sort of incident that could result in armed conflict.

In addition, all indications point to a humiliating defeat for the Democrats and Obama in November. Not only will the House in all likelihood transfer to Republican control, but it is increasingly possible for the Democrats to lose the Senate as well.

And there are Leftwing groups in this country that would use whatever means necessary to prevent that from happening.

ACORN has already gone underground, changing its name so as to fly beneath the radar screen. How many people will the group register to vote illegally?

And with Obama’s plan to naturalize between 10 and 20 million illegal aliens, a brand new voter base for the Democrats will be in place prior to November.

Add to this the growing unrest over continued high unemployment, the coming spike in interest rates and inflation, and the still-boiling outrage over the manner in which Obama and the Democrats shoved ObamaCare down the throats of the citizens, and all of the ingredients are present for a major F-5 tornado to sweep across the heartland.

To what extent would soldiers use deadly force during such ‘civil unrest’ should the Consequence Management Response Team be utilized? During the anti-war riots of the 1960s they killed student protesters. What about now?

The military source cited by the radio host today was asked this very question. He would merely say that the culture of the U.S. military is changing–half support Obama and the other half are dead-set against him.

His conclusion? There is no way to know for sure if they would obey an order to open fire on ordinary citizens.
***(Radio host is full of BS a great majority do not support him)***

The Cato Institute published this warning when the program was launched in its first phase in 2008 (the program has been updated and expanded since 2008). The Founders insisted that standing armies were never to be used against American citizens on our own soil, no matter what violations of this principle have occurred in the years following. In the spirit of the Patriots and of real journalists government must be questioned constantly and held to intense scrutiny in order to preserve liberty.

CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/03/army.unit/

Soldiers preparing for a mission coordinated by Joint Task Force North, the U.S. Northern Command unit.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The United States military’s Northern Command, formed in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, is dedicating a combat infantry team to deal with catastrophes in the U.S., including terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

The 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry, which was first into Baghdad, Iraq, in 2003, started its controversial assignment Wednesday.

The First Raiders will spend 2009 as the first active-duty military unit attached to the U.S. Northern Command since it was created. They will be based in Fort Stewart, Georgia, and focus primarily on logistics and support for local police and rescue personnel, the Army says.

The plan is drawing skepticism from some observers who are concerned that the unit has been training with equipment generally used in law enforcement, including beanbag bullets, Tasers, spike strips and roadblocks.

That kind of training seems a bit out of line for the unit’s designated role as Northern Command’s CCMRF (Sea Smurf), or CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force. CBRNE stands for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosive incidents.

According to Northern Command’s Web site, the CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force is a team that will ultimately number about 4,700 personnel from the different military branches that would deploy as the Department of Defense’s initial response force.

Its capabilities include search and rescue, decontamination, medical, aviation, communications and logistical support. Each CCMRF will be composed of three functional task forces — Task Force Operations, Task Force Medical and Task Force Aviation — that have individual operational focus and mission skills, the Web site says.

The Army says the unit would be deployed to help local, state or federal agencies deal with such incidents, not take the lead. The law enforcement-type training is not connected to its new mission, it says.

Use of active-duty military as a domestic police force has been severely limited since passage of the Posse Comitatus Act following the Civil War.

Bloggers are criticizing the new force, saying that because it has been training in law enforcement tactics it could be be used for domestic law enforcement.

Troops may be trained in non-lethal tactics, but they are not trained for what they may have to deal with in domestic situations, said Gene Healy, a vice president of the conservative think-tank Cato Institute.

Healy said civilian police and, if circumstances are extreme, National Guard troops under the command of state governors should keep the peace.

“Federal troops should always be a last resort, never a first responder,” he said.

Critics also point to a General Accounting Office study in 2003 that found that domestic security missions put a strain on a military stretched thin by two simultaneous wars, and that a unit’s readiness for combat is reduced if the members have to take time out to respond to an emergency at home.

The U.S. military “is not a Swiss Army knife,” ready to fight the Taliban one week, respond to a hurricane the next and put down a major political protest the third week, Healy said.

The Army says the non-lethal training is an outgrowth of missions that troops have faced around the world in recent years.

“We need a lot more in our toolbox in order to deal with angry people on the street,” said Col. Barry Johnson of U.S. Army North.

The key phrase is ‘may be called upon to help with civil unrest.’

Amnesty and Cap &Trade could easily fuel civil unrest on top of high emotions at the elections. If Amnesty is put on hold we may have La Raza instigating civil disobedience who has made it clear in the past their street soldiers are mixed in with gangs such as the MS13′s and Brown Berets. Good citizens out number these gangs and when Americans get mad look out. I am more concerned with social collapse than our Military people.

April 18, 2010 Posted by bonfiresblog | New World Order | ACORN, amnesty, Cap & Trade, civil unrest, Consequence Management Response Force’, crowd control, La Raza, Leftwing groups, Martial Law, Military, Obama, Obamacare | 6 Comments

Ending the Fed From the Bottom Up

by William Greene

Since its inception, the U.S. Federal Reserve’s monetary policies have led to a decline of over 95% in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar. As a result, there have been several attempts to curtail or eliminate the Federal Reserve’s powers (for example, the efforts of Rep. Louis T. McFadden in the 1930s; the efforts of Rep. Wright Patman in the 1970s; the efforts of Rep. Henry Gonzalez in the 1990s; and the efforts of Rep. Ron Paul since the 1990s); however, none have proven successful to date, due mainly to the constraints of strong political opposition at the national level.

In contrast to these attempts at the national level, a paper I recently presented at the Mises Institute’s “Austrian Scholars Conference” proposes an alternative approach to ending the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money: the “Constitutional Tender Act,” a bill template (first introduced by Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin) that can be introduced in every State legislature in the nation, returning each of them to adherence to the U.S. Constitution’s “legal tender” provisions of Article I, Section 10.

Such a new tactic could achieve the desired goal of abolishing the Federal Reserve system by attacking it from the “bottom up” – “pulling the rug out from under it,” by working to make its functions irrelevant at the State and local level. Under this Act, the State would be required to only use gold and silver coins (or their equivalents, such as checks or electronic transfers) for payments of any debt owed by or to the State (e.g., taxes, fees, contract payments, etc.).

All contracts, tax bills, etc. would be required to be denominated in legal tender gold and silver U.S. coins, including Gold Eagles, Silver Eagles, and pre-1965 90% silver coins. All State-chartered banks, as well as any other bank that is a depository for State funds, would be required to offer accounts denominated in those types of gold and silver coins, and to keep such accounts segregated from other types of accounts such as Federal Reserve Notes.

Upon going into effect, the Constitutional Tender Act would introduce currency competition with Federal Reserve Notes, by outlawing their use in transactions with the State. Ordinary citizens of the State, being required to pay their State taxes in gold and silver coins, would find it necessary to open bank accounts in those denominations.

Businesses operating within the State, being required to pay their State sales taxes and license fees in gold and silver coins, would need to do the same; and in order to acquire such coins, they would begin to offer their goods and services in “dual currency” denominations, where customers could choose to pay in Federal Reserve Notes (which would still be necessary to pay Federal fees and taxes) or gold and silver coins (including checks and debit cards based on bank accounts denominated in such coins). Customers, having found the need to open such accounts in order to deal with the State, would be able to engage in commerce using those accounts.

Over time, as residents of the State use both Federal Reserve Notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve Notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve Notes). As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the State’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the State (as citizens residing in other States carry out their desire to bank with sound money), and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve Notes for any transactions.

At that point, the Federal Reserve system will have become unwanted and irrelevant, and can be easily abolished by the people’s elected Representatives in Washington, D.C.

I believe this “bottom up” approach to ending the Fed would have a greater likelihood of success than a “top-down” approach for a number of reasons. First, it is decentralized: rather than facing concerted political opposition at a single Federal level, it attacks the issue at the State level, where strategies and tactics can be adapted to the types and amount of political opposition they encounter.

Second, it is diffused: it can be attempted in any number of States, which can cause the opposition to spread its resources much more thinly than would be necessary at the Federal level. Finally, it is legally sound: it relies on the U.S. Constitution’s negative mandate in Article I, Section 10, that “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”
Under this Act, not only would the use of FRNs by the State be made illegal; the use of legal tender U.S. gold and silver coins would be encouraged amongst the general population as well, along with any other currency that parties mutually consent to using.

This will have three immediate effects: the elimination of Federal Reserve Notes from State transactions; the requirement of individuals and businesses to cease using FRNs in their transactions with the State; and the introduction of competition in currencies amongst the general population. With all three effects working in tandem, the use of low-value pieces of paper issued by the Federal Reserve will become irrelevant, and an emaciated Federal Reserve system can be brought to a welcome, if inglorious, end.

You can download the full paper here: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1570108

Or, here at the Tenth Amendment Center:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/publications/

You can download the Constitutional Tender Act template here: http://ConstitutionalTender.com/

Bill Greene is a Professor of Theology at Miami Christian University, teaches Social Sciences at the Verity Institute, and is the founder of ConstitutionalTender.com.

Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/newsletter/

April 14, 2010 Posted by bonfiresblog | AmendmentX | “dual currency” denominations, Constitutional Tender Act, End The Fed, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Notes, gold and silver coins, old Eagles, Silver Eagles | 1 Comment

Dangers of a Constitutional Convention

*One solution to these calls for a Constitutional Convention is simple. Simply REPEAL ALL LEGISLATION that has been signed as a LAW that fails to meet the Constitutional standard. No more phony COMMERCE CLAUSE as the excuse for increasing the police burden on Americans. After ALL unconstitutional laws have been repealed we would be back to the Original Constitution – that eliminates any funny business of a Con-Con.

Dangers of a Constitutional Convention

The current economic crisis has served as a wakeup call to many Americans that there is a major problem with the policies emanating from Washington, both from the Federal Reserve as well as from the federal government.

This problem is not new, of course, but many Americans are becoming much more concerned about the effects that distant policymakers, politicians, and bankers are having on their lives and livelihoods, and they are becoming involved in political action for the first time.Perhaps the most visible manifestation of this great awakening to date would be the nationwide “Tea Party” events of April 15, when a million Americans rallied against big government and (in many cases) against the Fed, many of them for the first time.

But what, specifically, should be done to restore good government? Also, what strategy should be employed to get it done? Can Congress be persuaded to pass legislation restoring good government? Should Congress be encouraged to submit one or more constitutional amendments to the states for ratification? And if Congress does not appear willing to do what needs to be done, should the country hold its first constitutional convention (con-con) since the convention of 1787 that drafted the Constitution?

To those not familiar with the con-con movement, the latter question may sound fantastic. Yet 32 state legislatures (just two short of what was needed) called for a con-con to draft a balanced budget amendment during the 1970s and early ’80s. And now, Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett and Tea Party leader Michael Patrick Leahy are calling for a constitutional convention. They claim that a con-con is needed to get the federal government back under control. Yet if such a convention would be called, there would be no way of controlling what it might or might not do from proposing the specific amendments sought by Barnett to drafting an entirely new constitution.

What’s Wrong With a Con-Con

Although attempting to get the federal government back under control by amending the Constitution is very appealing to many conservatives and constitutionalists, it does not address the primary problem. The primary problem is that the three branches of the federal government do not adhere to the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders.

Surprisingly, this indifference to the Constitution began with some of the decisions of Chief Justice John Marshall nearly 200 years ago. Over the years this indifference has grown slowly, but with the advent of the Obama presidential administration combined with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, we’re now witnessing almost daily naked displays of raw, unconstitutional usurpations of power by the federal government with regard to states, businesses, and individuals.

In this environment, simply amending the Constitution would not be sufficient to get the government back under control. However, there are numerous individuals and groups that still advocate constitutional amendments as the solution.
To understand the downsides of a con-con more fully, we need to take a closer look at Article V of the Constitution, which states:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

According to Article V there are only two ways that amendments can be proposed to the Constitution: (1) by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress; or (2) on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, Congress shall call a convention for proposing Amendments (commonly referred to as a “constitutional convention” or “con-con”). The second method has never been used. After amendments are proposed by either method, they then must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, or by three-fourths of special state conventions. According to Article V, Congress decides which ratification process will be used.

Although the con-con issue has rarely made it onto the radar of the national news over the years, a historic high-water mark for the con-con movement was reached in 1983, when Missouri became the 32nd state (out of the required 34) to call for a balanced budget constitutional convention (see the map in Figure 1). At about this time, members and allies of the John Birch Society began educating state legislators in the remaining 18 states about the dangers of a con-con.

Since 1983, several other state legislatures have considered calling for a balanced budget con-con, and all of them have decided that convening a constitutional convention is a bad idea. Next, members and allies of the John Birch Society began working with state legislators in the states that already had one or more con-con calls on record to convince them to rescind (withdraw) all of their previous con-con calls. So far 11 states have voted to rescind all of their previous calls (see Figure 2). The most recent example is Oklahoma. On May 12, Governor Brad Henry signed SJR 11, “A Joint Resolution rescinding applications by the Legislature to the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention.” This followed passage of SJR 11 by the nearly unanimous votes of 41-2 in the Senate and 90-6 in the House.

In a nutshell, the argument against calling for a constitutional convention is that once convened, such a convention would be free to consider and propose whatever amendments to the Constitution that it deemed beneficial. Which is to say that such a convention could become a “runaway convention” in much the same way that the Constitutional Convention that produced our current U.S. Constitution was a runaway convention that disregarded the guidelines under which it was convened. While most Americans are very thankful for the Constitution produced by our original Constitutional Convention in 1787, most Americans and certainly most state legislators, when fully informed of the downsides involved, oppose the convening of a new constitutional convention in our day. (For a video presentation of the arguments against a con-con, see the 36-minute “Beware of Article V” video on YouTube.com or BirchTube on JBS.org.)

Warren Burger, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, argued along the same lines when he vigorously opposed convening a constitutional convention in a letter he wrote to Phyllis Schlafley of Eagle Forum on June 22, 1988:

I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose.”

While it would be perfectly constitutional to convene an Article V constitutional convention, it would not be prudent. Given the present-day general lack of knowledge of both the Constitution and the original intent of our Founders, along with the inordinate influence over our political processes by very biased elites, the chances that a modern-day constitutional convention and subsequent ratification process could change our Constitution for the worse are too great to risk calling for such a convention.

We even have a warning directly from James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” concerning the inadvisability of calling for a constitutional convention. When the states of New York and Virginia formally petitioned Congress in 1788 to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, which had only been completed the year before, Madison wrote a letter in which he emphatically warned against convening such a convention:

If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress….It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides … [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts….might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric….Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America. [From a letter by James Madison to G.L. Turberville, November 2 1788.]

Two hundred twenty years later, James Madison’s arguments against the calling of an Article V constitutional convention are still very convincing. Even though he had been directly involved in crafting the Constitution the previous year, he specifically advised against exercising the provision in Article V for calling a new constitutional convention because “individuals of insidious views” could use the pretense of pursuing popular amendments to mask their real intentions of radically revising the Constitution.

Constitutional Convention Advocates

On April 23 the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece by Professor Randy Barnett entitled, “The Case for a Federalism
Amendment: How the Tea Partiers can make Washington pay attention.” In this article, Barnett observed that the 10th Amendment “sovereignty resolutions,” which petition Congress to respect the states’ rights protections of the Constitution, under consideration by over half of the states this year, are not likely to have the slightest impact on the federal courts. From this reasonable observation, Barnett proceeded to assert that “state legislatures have a real power under the Constitution by which to resist the growth of federal power: They can petition Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.”

Barnett then went on to admit, “An amendments convention is feared because its scope cannot be limited in advance.” However, at this point he advocated a dangerous course. He proposed that the “tea-party enthusiasts” adopt his strategy of getting enough state legislatures to apply to Congress to call a constitutional convention, so that Congress will become scared of the prospect of a con-con and agree to endorse his amendment and present it to the states for ratification.

The problem with this strategy is that there’s no way to ensure that a con-con will not actually be convened in the process of this game of “playing chicken” with Congress, meaning the Constitution would be at stake.

On April 27 Barnett appeared as a guest on Michael Patrick Leahy’s show on PajamasTV (click here for the video of this show). http://www.pjtv.com/video/Tea_Party_Coalition_Show/The_Bill_of_Federalism_-_Prof_Randy_Barnett/1785/
During the four days between his WSJ article of April 23 and his PajamasTV appearance of April 27, Barnett changed his mind about his former strategy of scaring Congress into adopting his amendment with the threat of a con-con. Although hestill acknowledged that there is widespread fear of a constitutional convention, and that he had had some worries about one, he was now convinced that the risks involved with a con-con were worth taking in order to get his new “Bill of Federalism” (a package of 10 proposed amendments that he had drafted over the previous few days) presented to the states for ratification. He puts a lot of stock in the requirement that three-fourths of the states are required to ratify whatever amendments might issue from a con-con. He believes this mechanism would surely prevent any truly bad amendment from being ratified.

Michael Patrick Leahy, co-founder of TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) http://kithbridge.com/tcot/ and through his participation in the Tax Day Tea Party website, an important national organizer of the Tax Day Tea Parties, supports Barnett’s con-con project to the hilt. By the time of the PajamasTV show on April 27, Barnett and Leahy were in complete agreement on the strategy of working for a con-con to get Barnett’s new list of 10 amendments submitted to the states for ratification.

In May Leahy put up a new website, “The Bill of Federalism”. http://federalismamendment.com/ .
Its homepage states: “The Bill of Federalism was drafted by Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law School and is supported by The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition.” Visitors to this website are urged to contact their local state legislators and request “that they introduce a bill in their legislative body to petition Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of passing all 10 amendment of The Bill of Federalism.”

Professor Barnett has also made several appearances on the Glenn Beck TV show in the last couple of months where he has promoted his con-con project with little or no contradiction from Beck. Surprisingly, constitutionalist Judge Andrew Napolitano has vigorously supported Barnett’s con-con project in at least three different appearances on Beck’s show since mid-April. (Click here for video of both Randy Barnett and Judge Napolitano promoting a constitutional convention on the Glenn Beck TV show of May 20, 2009.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnCpQh-EyHY

Happily, Beck has expressed his very strong opposition to a constitutional convention in a “Note from Glenn” at the bottom of an article on www.glennbeck.com “How to Curtail the Federal Beast” by Judge Napolitano, dated May 15, 2009. Unfortunately, Beck has not made his anti con-con position known on his TV show during the past few months. Barnett and Napolitano have each made strong pitches for a con-con on Beck’s show several times since mid-April without even a word from Beck about the downsides of a con-con.

For example, Judge Napolitano was a guest on Beck’s TV show on May 25 (click here for video) and made still another plea for viewers to work toward a constitutional convention. Beck was on hand as host, but didn’t contradict the judge’s promotion of a con-con. The bottom line is that viewers of the Glenn Beck Show and consequently many of the over 600,000 online members of Beck’s Constitution-oriented 9/12 Project have been exposed to very powerful endorsements of the desirability of a con-con and have thus been prepared to serve in a mass movement right along with their Tea Party counterparts to bring about a very risky constitutional convention. Some good news, however, we have received word from a related 9/12 project group of 17,000 that is emphatically opposed to a con-con.

Hopefully, the many Americans who have already learned in-depth about the dangers of convening a constitutional convention will educate the organizers and participants in the Tea Party groups and the 9/12 Project about the downsides of a con-con before they can be organized into pressuring state legislators on a massive scale.

Yet another pro con-con website has appeared in recent weeks, the Constitution Restoration Initiative (CRI), which purports to have been established by citizens “yearning for freedom from the Federal government’s overreach.” Similar to Leahy’s website, the CRI has “a specific plan and strategy for the People to amend the Constitution by means of a Constitutional Convention.” http://www.constitutionrestoration.org/

How to Safely Restore Good Government

In 1820, Thomas Jefferson gave us a safer and more effective prescription for correcting abuses of constitutional power:

I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.

There is no easy way for getting the government back under control; however, as Jefferson sagely advised in 1820, the key is the creation of an informed electorate. Based on what we’ve already seen this year, we can hope to see the continued growth of a massive grass-roots movement among “the people themselves,” accompanied by appropriate Constitution-based educational initiatives, that would begin the process of forcing Congress and the presidential administration to adhere to the Constitution that we already have, then proceed to create the political atmosphere in which a majority of constitutionalists could be elected to Congress and state legislatures in the years to come.

Such a movement would consist of millions of freedom-loving, constitutionalists who have decided it’s now or never to rally around the Constitution we already have and take a stand for freedom!

IT IS ALL THE SAME ANIMAL

http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/pdf/Same-Animal-Brochure.pdf

REFER TO

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/1241

REPAIR CALIFORNIA
is under scrutiny

http://www.repaircalifornia.org/

Beware Article V (part 2 of 4)

See same Channel for more on the dangers of a con con

April 5, 2010 Posted by bonfiresblog | Constitution | Con Con, Constitutional Convention | 14 Comments

Oath Keeper Recruitment Drive – April 9-10, Fresno

Oath Keeper Recruitment Drive/strong>

Mission: Recruit 1,000 New Members for California
Event: Central Valley “Tax Time” Tea Party
Where: Chukchansi Park in downtown Fresno
When: Saturday, April 10th 11:00 – 1700 hours

Schedule for April 9-10:

April 9th
6:00 PM (1800 hours) Reception at Ramada Inn
April 10th
10:00 AM (1000 hours) General meeting with Oath Keepers
10:00 AM (1000 hours) Vendor Table Setup (by Party A)
12:00 PM – (1200 hours) Recruit OK at Ball Park
7:00 PM – (1900 hours) Regional & Vice Regional Directors Meeting

Lodging:
Ramada Inn
324 East Shaw, Fresno, CA
559-224-4040

Website
www.ramadofresno.com

Map

http://www.ramadafresno.com/map.htm

Amenities

http://www.ramadafresno.com/amenities.htm

Rooms $87 (rate for 2 queens)
Check in at 1500 Check out before 1200 hours
Full restaurant & Bar
($4.99 breakfast specials) lunch and dinner specials
Continental Breakfast 06:30-09:30 hours
Quick Bite: muffins, fruit, danish, juice, coffee

http://www.centralvalleyteaparty.com/index.php

April 10 – Tax Time Tea Party in Fresno

Parking meters will be enforced during our event. Stadium parking lots will be available around the stadium at a cost of $5.00 per car. The following image illustrates the location of one of the parking lots. Please note that will be not be using the entrance shown below, we will ONLY BE USING the main entrance at Tulare & H street.

SPEAKERS

Our list of speakers includes candidates running against Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer. In addition to a few Central Valley Tea Party speakers, we also have nationally recognized speakers joining us for our event in Fresno.

* Tom McClintock
* John Dennis
* Brad Roltgen
* Chuck DeVore
* Damon Dunn
* Danny Tarkanian
* Steve Poizner
* Steve Brandau
* Sheriff Richard Mack
* Dave Freeman
* Ken Miller
* Tim Cox
* Ed Griffin
* Chelene Nightingale
* Ben Bergquam
* Larry Naritelli
* Lisa Cortez
* Steve Wayte
* Gary Johnson

Speaker list subject to change.

Share this:
Facebook
Like this:
Like
Be the first to like this post.

April 5, 2010 Posted by bonfiresblog | Oath Keepers, Tea Party Movement | Chuck DeVore, Fresno, Oath Keepers, Recruit, Sheriff Mack, Stewart Rhodes, Tax Day, tea Party | Leave a Comment

« Previous Entries

American Native!

”I am a Freedom Fighter and Oath Keeper that advocates for and fights to Defend the Constitution, Restore the Republic, Preserve our Liberties, Freedoms and our Nation’s Sovereignty.”

Hokaheh, Hoka hey, Hoka hay

“A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague” -Tullius Cicero

“Lighting the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!” ~Michael Badnarik

“Those who give up their liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither and lose both”
~Benjamin Franklin

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.”
~ Ayn Rand

The preamble to the United States Constitution
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Watch videos at Vodpod and other videos from this collection.

BonfiresBuzz Channel

Greetings

Music Playlist

Live Precious Metal prices

Oath Keepers

Operation Sleeping Giant

Patriot Coalition

The Patriot Code

SoCal Patriots

U.S. Border Patrol

Border Invasion Pics

Border Invasion Pics Channel

Secure Border Intelligence

U.S. Evolutions Channel

Blue Servo

M3 Report

Borderland Beat

San Diego Minutemen

Diggers Realm

Patriot Guard Riders

Sons Of Liberty Riders

GOOOH

American Indian Tea Party

Yurok Tribe

Survivor Topics

Oath Keepers Testimonials

Behold A Pale Horse _ Charlie Daniels on the New World Order
Wow! Hot new documentary movie, with Tenth Amendment teeth. Charlie Daniels leads the charge against the New World Order. View the trailer here.
President Ronald Reagan’s D-Day Speech 1984
"The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers -- the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machineguns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would […]
Karen Kwiatkowski’s Memorial Day Message
This weekend, and I hope every day, let us remember the ideals of a free and noble America, and know that these ideals are worth fighting for. Let us say a silent prayer for our fellow veterans, our brothers and sisters in arms. Let us make time to aid and assist the widows and widowers, the children who have lost a parent, and the parents who have lost thei […]
Stewart Rhodes will Speak on NDAA at Educational session for North Carolina Legislature
Oath Keepers, we are proud to announce that NC. state Representative Glen Bradley, a Founding Member of Oath Keepers, has introduced a resolution against the NDAA before the N.C. Legislature (based on the model legislation co-authored by Stewart Rhodes, Richard Frye, and Jeff Lewis). Stewart Rhodes will address the North Carolina Legislature, May 30, 2012.
Breaking! North Carolina NDAA/PATRIOT ACT Press Release
More on this shortly, but first, here is the video!

FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, Republic, scientific, and equal justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]

California Penal Code Section 834b

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

National Terrorism Advisory System

County Sheriff Project

CSPOA

Support Joe Arpaio

Let’s Say Thanks

Wounded Warrior Project

MIAP

Special Operations Warrior Foundation

Veteran Defenders olf America

Support LTC Terry Lakin

Eagle Forum University

Tenth Amendment Center

NullifyNow!

Gun Owners of America

JPFO

The Daily Bell

Publius-Huldah’s Blog

The Federal Observer

Registered Sex Offenders

Amber Alerts

Animal Recovery Mission

Eagle Nest Cam

April 2010

M T W T F S S

« Mar May »

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30

Category Cloud

Amendment11 AmendmentX Arizona Issues Bill of Rights Border Wars Constitution Economy Education Elections Environment Global Governance Globalization Illegal Immigration Liberals Military New World Order Oath Keepers Politics Rallys/Protests Reflections Socialists/Communists/Marxists SupportourTroopsandVeterans Tea Party Movement Terrorism U.S. Border Patrol Uncategorized United Nations US Administration Veterans War

Top Posts

Bilderberg 2012 date and location confirmed
Spanish Company "Scytl" To Count American Votes In November Election
Thomas Jefferson’s Other Declaration
Memorial Day 2012
Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST) ratified by Obama's Executive Order 13547

Archives

Search the archives

Search for:

Blog Stats

144,754 hits

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 157 other followers

Pages

American Native!

Elias Alias

Oath Keepers

Preparedness and Survival

Recent Comments

upaces88 on Memorial Day 2012 « Charlie Un…
Howlin' Mad Heather on Introducing Objectivism, by Ay…
Greg Masceri on Introducing Objectivism, by Ay…
genomega1 on Introducing Objectivism, by Ay…
Law of the Sea Treat… on Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST) ratif…

Bonfire’s Twitter

Memorial Day 2012 « Charlie Uno's Blog wp.me/pMZoX-1u3 21 hours ago

I added a video to a @YouTube playlist youtu.be/nVMUnosWo98?a Taps-Agent Rosas Memorial 26MAY12.mov 21 hours ago

Taps-Agent Rosas Memorial 26MAY12.mov: youtu.be/nVMUnosWo98 via @youtube 21 hours ago

Memorial Day 2012 wp.me/pMZoX-1tV 1 day ago

Obama and the "T" Word (treason): youtu.be/YQ5fu4DdVQQ via @youtube 2 days ago

InfoWars

Alex Jones Banned From Bilderberg Hotel, Calls For Press Mob
Paul Joseph Watson | Media not welcome at site of power brokers' confab.
Mass Illegal Immigration Voter Fraud in Florida… and the Feds Don’t Care.
Minuteman PAC | As many as 180,000 illegals are estimated to have already registered to vote in Florida alone.
Facebook Shares Hit New Low Falling Below $30
Washington Post | After Zuckerberg's pump and dump scandal, the social network's shares have been slowly tumbling down.
Live Video and News from Bilderberg 2012
Infowars.com | Check this page for the latest news and information on Bilderberg 2012.
Drones Shot Down Over Texas
Paul Joseph Watson | Surveillance drones blasted out of the sky in protest against 4th amendment intrusion.
Ancient Roots of Bilderberg Reveal Prusso-Teutonic Agenda for World Domination
Jurriaan Maessen | Just a few days from now, the world’s economic, political and scientific elites will gather near Chantilly, Virginia.

Live Counters

livecounters: Dems want free birth control, Sandra Fluke presented as victim w/ $192K degree. Dems would never use male student demanding free condoms. March 23, 2012
livecounters: Dems want free birth control, Sandra Fluke presented as victim w/ $192K degree. Dems would never use male student demanding free condoms.
livecounters: When will state governments ever learn, that catering to illegal immigrants or any illegal group invites fraud. http://t.co/73ne5Wg0 January 31, 2012
livecounters: When will state governments ever learn, that catering to illegal immigrants or any illegal group invites fraud. http://t.co/73ne5Wg0
livecounters: "Real" change is coming to America, not just words in an acceptance speech. This time it will be real. http://t.co/PwftG9D5 January 6, 2012
livecounters: "Real" change is coming to America, not just words in an acceptance speech. This time it will be real. http://t.co/PwftG9D5
livecounters: The Obama/DOJ immigration lawsuits say the states can't use a "patchwork" across the country. Really? What's this? http://t.co/RuktHIsH January 4, 2012
livecounters: The Obama/DOJ immigration lawsuits say the states can't use a "patchwork" across the country. Really? What's this? http://t.co/RuktHIsH

Site info
Bonfire's Blog
Theme: Andreas04 by Andreas Viklund. Blog at WordPress.com.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Mar				May »
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

	upaces88 on Memorial Day 2012 « Charlie Un…
	Howlin' Mad Heather on Introducing Objectivism, by Ay…
	Greg Masceri on Introducing Objectivism, by Ay…
	genomega1 on Introducing Objectivism, by Ay…
	Law of the Sea Treat… on Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST) ratif…

American Sovereignty

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

American Native!

Hokaheh, Hoka hey, Hoka hay

BonfiresBuzz Channel

Greetings

Music Playlist

Live Precious Metal prices

Oath Keepers

Operation Sleeping Giant

Patriot Coalition

The Patriot Code

SoCal Patriots

U.S. Border Patrol

Border Invasion Pics

Border Invasion Pics Channel

Secure Border Intelligence

U.S. Evolutions Channel

Blue Servo

M3 Report

Borderland Beat

San Diego Minutemen

Diggers Realm

Patriot Guard Riders

Sons Of Liberty Riders

GOOOH

American Indian Tea Party

Yurok Tribe

Survivor Topics

FAIR USE NOTICE

California Penal Code Section 834b

National Terrorism Advisory System

County Sheriff Project

CSPOA

Support Joe Arpaio

Let’s Say Thanks

Wounded Warrior Project

MIAP

Special Operations Warrior Foundation

Veteran Defenders olf America

Support LTC Terry Lakin

Eagle Forum University

Tenth Amendment Center

NullifyNow!

Gun Owners of America

JPFO

The Daily Bell

Publius-Huldah’s Blog

The Federal Observer

Registered Sex Offenders

Amber Alerts

Animal Recovery Mission

Eagle Nest Cam

Category Cloud

Top Posts

Archives

Search the archives

Blog Stats

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Comments