In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Were I plotting to cause a Revolution, I could not formulate a better plan then what we are watching.
God Speed, young gentlemen...the wind is in your sails..you hold ALL the reins of power, America wide.
Ignore the reefs ahead..they do not exist for you...
I have watched and waited since 1968.
Today, I meet people EVER DAY that are as infuriated as I...and more so.
They are being pushed..and they finally realize that their backs are to the wall.
There is coming a point where the only directions left to go is on their knees..where they will suck the fingers of their Masters..or they will go right over those self-proclaimed 'leaders'...
Missouri National Guard Train to Kill "Militia Insugents" in Exercise
Link: InfoWars
Article by Kurt Nimmo
Text:The Missouri National Guard is training to engage in combat with "militia" groups, according to the News Tribune.
"During the battalion's annual training exercise, eight members of the Jefferson City-based unit, acting as a fictitious militant group, attempted to disrupt the battalion's operations through attacks and harassment. The battalion's other two units, the Kansas City-based 205th Area Support Medical Company, and the Springfieldbased 206th Area Support Medical Company, fended off the attacks while performing their medical duties," the newspaper reported on June 30.
National Guard training in Missouri and South Dakota prepares soldiers to confront and kill "insurgent" Americans.
The article was written by Silas Allen, a journalist with the Pentagon. In 2006, the Pentagon officially announced it would declare psychological warfare on the American people by planting propaganda in the corporate media and the Allen article is a less than covert part of this process.
An earlier article written by Silas Allen, also posted on the News Tribune website, details a Missouri National Guard unit practicing basic convoy operations during a training exercise in the Black Hills of South Dakota on June 14. During the exercise, an "insurgent group" with "a reputation for harassing convoys with ambushes and improvised explosive devices," attacks the Guard convoy. "The unit was also told to look out for civilians trying to approach the convoy on the battlefield. The civilians could be working with the insurgent group or could simply have a legitimate complaint," Allen writes.
The two exercises serve as prime examples of an orchestrated attempt by the government to train soldiers to militarily confront domestic "militia" groups.
In April, a leaked DHS report on "rightwing extremism" said "right-wing militias" will recruit veterans returning from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. "DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat," the report claims. "These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists - including lone wolves or small terrorist cells - to carry out violence."
The corporate media hyped the supposed threat posed by "lone wolves" after white supremacist and probable government operative James von Brunn allegedly attacked the Holocaust museum in Washington. "The lone wolf is what concerns the Washington field office, what concerns the FBI the most," John Perren, head of the counterterrorism branch at the FBI's Washington field office, told the Associated Press.
After Von Brunn's brutal attack, the corporate media shill and government disinfo operative Glenn Beck attempted to link 9/11 truth activists to the deranged accused killer. The corporate media has attempted to link truth activists and patriots to the Von Brunn incident and an earlier one in Pittsburgh.
A report produced by the Missouri State Police, entitled "The Modern Militia Movement," specifically characterizes constitutionalists and Ron Paul supporters as domestic terrorists. "Red flags outlined in the document include political bumper stickers such as those for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, talk of conspiracy theories such as the plan for a mega-highway from Canada to Mexico and possession of subversive literature," the Missouri Information Analysis Center report states.
In April, the Maryland National Guard was put on alert in anticipation of Tea Party protests, thus revealing that the government considers constitutional activists to be "insurgents" and "militants."
In March, the United States Army Reserve Command published a Force Protection Advisory recommending "situational awareness" and "mitigation measures" in response to End the Fed protests. On November 22, 2008, Alex Jones led a rally at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas Texas. The Dallas protest is specifically mentioned in the official Army document. Ron Paul's brother was also in attendance. The event was monitored by the Pentagon.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has recommended merging the National Guard into the "Total Force" of the U.S. military. "The recommendations that are so disturbing are those involving the assimilation the National Guard and Reserves into the regular US military, under control and management of the DoD," writes Carolyn Harris.
The DoD currently trains its employees to regard protest as a form of domestic terrorism. "It has come to our attention that the Department of Defense's Annual Level I Antiterrorism (AT) Training for 2009 misinforms Department of Defense (DoD) personnel that certain First Amendment-protected activity may amount to `low level terrorism,'" complained the ACLU last month.
The federalized National Guard has increasingly engaged in training exercises and drills designed to confront the American people. The exercises in Missouri and South Dakota reveal how the government is brainwashing troops to consider constitutionalists and patriots as "insurgents" who will attack military checkpoints and convoys.
In February, the National Guard conducted an "urban military" training mission in Arcadia, California. The Guard conducted a reconnaissance operation in the small town "to identify possible locations of the weapons dealer," according to the Times Herald. The DHS, MIAC, the Virginia Fusion Center and others have characterized Second Amendment supporters and activists as potential terrorists.
National Guard troops in Ohio, New York, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Kentucky have deployed to conduct exercises against the American people, including taking over schools and jails and assuming police functions illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act. National Guard troops were used to control the public during the Boston Marathon, the Kentucky Derby, and during New Year celebrations in Times Square last year.
If you'd like to contact the Missouri National Guard about these training exercises aimed at patriots, constitutionalists, and supporters of the Second Amendment and the Constitution, call 1-800-GoGuard.
Senate Blocks Bill To Audit The Fed As Government Prepares For Second Round Of Looting
Link: Prison Planet.com
Article By Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
A Senate amendment based on Congressman Ron Paul's successful House bill to audit the Federal Reserve was blocked by the Senate yesterday evening on procedural grounds, as Jim DeMint slammed the Fed for refusing to disclose where trillions in bailout funds had gone, while a top Obama administration advisor called for a second "stimulus" package to be prepared.
Republican Senator DeMint had attempted to get a provision attached to the 2010 spending bill that would have removed restrictions on auditing the Fed's discount window operations, funding facilities, open market operations and agreements with foreign central banks and governments.
However, the amendment was blocked by Senate authorities who claimed that it violated rules for provisions attached to spending bills.
Of course, when the elite want to get their own legislation rammed through, such as the recent climate bill in the House, it's perfectly fine for Congressmembers to be prevented from even reading it, for it to have 300 pages added at 3am in the morning before the vote, and for all kinds of pork barrel to be attached. But God forbid should representatives actually try to pass something that would benefit the American people and not the private bankers that are beyond all scrutiny and above the law.
DeMint said that the Fed has enjoyed a monopoly over money and credit in the United States since 1913 yet has never been transparent or accountable to Congress, while during that time the dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power.
"The Federal Reserve will create and disburse trillions of dollars in response to our current financial crisis," DeMint said. "Americans across the nation, regardless of their opinion on the bailout, want to know where the money has gone," he added, referring to the Fed's refusal to disclose where trillions in bailout funds has gone.
"Allowing the Fed to operate our nation's monetary system in almost complete secrecy leads to abuse, inflation and a lower quality of life," said DeMint.
A Reuters article about the Senate's move to block the bill said that the Federal Reserve was "facing growing pressure as it tries to heal the ailing economy."
In reality, the Federal Reserve has done nothing to "heal" the economy as unemployment outstrips expectations and the financial picture only looks bleaker every day. The private, run for profit Fed has taken trillions in "stimulus" funds and refused to even divulge where it has gone, even under threat of lawsuits file by Bloomberg.
Meanwhile, people like Ben Bernanke have committed financial terrorism by threatening an economic collapse if the Fed is allowed to be audited.
Any real audit of the Fed would of course create a giant roadblock for the Obama administration's plans to launch a whole new program of looting and grand larceny in the guise of a second "stimulus" package.
"We should be planning on a contingency basis for a second round of stimulus," Laura D'Andrea Tyson, a member of the panel advising President Barack Obama on tackling the economic crisis, said on Tuesday," reports CNBC.
This is precisely why Senate authorities, bought and paid for by the private bankers that now own the United States, have blocked efforts to audit the Fed, because they know that the fallout will spell disaster for their place on the power peanut gallery and in turn end the ceaseless feasting at the trough of the battered, bruised and shaken-down American taxpayer.
Senate Update on Audit the Fed Bill
Link: Campaign For Liberty
Article by Dan Prentice
Dear Friend of Liberty,
Earlier today, the first shot in our battle to pass Audit the Fed through the U.S. Senate was fired on the Senate floor by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina.
Senator DeMint, who has a well-deserved reputation for taking the battle to the other side in the Senate, once again proved why he is such a valuable ally in our fight to bring transparency and accountability to the Federal Reserve.
A little while ago, the Senate voted to pass HR 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. This $3 billion bill contains, among many other things, provisions for GAO audits on certain agencies.
Seizing on a chance to take quick action to bring Audit the Fed up for a vote, and with the GAO provisions in mind, Senator DeMint attached the full text of S 604, the Senate version of Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill, to HR 2918 as Senate Amendment 1367 before it was considered for final passage.
However, Senate Democrats refused to even allow a vote on the amendment! That's right. The internationalist, Fed-loving elite in the Senate used a parliamentary tactic to shut down DeMint's amendment.
After Senator DeMint brought Audit the Fed to the floor, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska raised a "point of order" to prevent a vote, claiming that the amendment violated Senate Rule 16 by "legislating" on an appropriations bill. The Senate president agreed, and the amendment was shot down.
Senator DeMint did not back down, though, and directly challenged Senate leadership by pointing out the other GAO audits contained in the bill. As Senator DeMint listed them off, the Senate president was forced to agree with Senator DeMint that each one he described, all of which would be left in for final passage, also violated Senate Rule 16.
Which tells us at least one thing: the problem wasn't with "legislating" on the bill or violating Senate Rules (which is commonly done). Shooting down the amendment was about preventing a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve for the first time in its history!
Senate leadership is hoping this issue will just fade away so they can get on to what they deem to be more "important" business, like dictating what kind of healthcare plan you and I can carry or passing destructive Cap-and-Tax legislation.
But the American people deserve answers on what the Fed has done with trillions of our tax dollars and what they are committing us and future generations to as part of their secret deals with foreign central banks and governments.
The leadership decided today to turn their backs on transparency, but our fight is just beginning.
As Senator DeMint made clear on the floor, the Audit the Fed bill has wide bipartisan support. He rightly warned the Senate that even if they delay today, they WILL have to deal with the issue on the floor.
It is up to you and me to back up Senator DeMint's words by making sure the momentum continues to build and the bill comes up for a final vote.
The rejection of the Audit amendment is just the first battle in our war. Now is the time to really put the pressure on the U.S. Senate to Audit the Fed!
Senator DeMint fired the opening salvo and showcased the hypocrisy of the Senate for allowing other GAO audits to be included in the bill while refusing to even allow a vote on Fed transparency.
Again, we're just getting started. Senator DeMint will keep fighting to pass Audit the Fed on its own or as an amendment, and we need to continue putting pressure on our senators to do everything in their power to achieve a floor vote.
H1N1 Flu Preparedness Summit Held Today in Bethesda, Maryland
Link: InfoWars
July 9, 2009
On July 2, Obama's Office of the Press Secretary posted a press release on the White House website. It announced "an all-day H1N1 Flu Preparedness Summit. to further prepare this nation for the possibility of a more severe outbreak of H1N1 flu." The announced summit is to be held today at the Natcher Conference Center at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and Homeland Security Advisor John Brennan are hosting the summit.
DHS' Napolitano said the "federal government remains vigilant and well coordinated with state, local, and international partners as we prepare for all possibilities as to how the H1N1 flu virus may impact us this fall."
"Scientists and public health experts forecast that the impact of H1N1 may well worsen in the fall - when the regular flu season hits, or even earlier, when schools start to open - which is only five or six weeks away in some cases," Sebelius is quoted in the press release. "The goal of the Summit is to launch a national influenza campaign by bringing federal, state and local officials, emergency managers, educators and others together with the nation's public health experts to build on and tailor states' existing pandemic plans, share lessons learned and best practices during the spring and summer H1N1 wave, and discuss preparedness priorities."
DHS' Napolitano said the "federal government remains vigilant and well coordinated with state, local, and international partners as we prepare for all possibilities as to how the H1N1 flu virus may impact us this fall."
In other words, rest assured, an engineered pandemic is on for this fall.
Is it possible HHS, DHS, and other agencies are not only discussing plans for martial law lock-down - politely called quarantine - in Bethesda, but also the logistics of a mandatory vaccination program?
The CDC is already working with state governments and health agencies on how best to administer a toxic vaccine through clinics. The CDC estimates that at least 50 million vaccine doses will be available in the U.S. by October 15 and enough experimental and untested vaccine to "immunize" (that is, comprise immune systems) everyone in the country will be available later in the season.
On June 26, William Schaffner, an influenza "expert" at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, said that "public health departments are under-funded and will get fatigued" and the multiple immunizations "required" (according to the government) may overwhelm U.S. state agencies.
That's where the CDC, DHS and the Pentagon come into the picture. After the pandemic is hyped sufficiently by the corporate media, the stage will be set to lock-down cities and administer soft kill vaccinations at gunpoint.
Addendum
Posted on the USA Today site this afternoon:
School-age children, pregnant women and health-care workers may be in line for swine flu vaccinations this fall, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told state health officials Thursday at an H1N1 Preparedness Summit in Bethesda, Md.
She said the government will make a decision about whether to provide the shots once they see results of studies on the new vaccine.
President Obama, who called in to the summit from Italy where he is attending the Group of 8 summit, said the government must do all it can to prepare for a renewed outbreak of the flu this fall.
I got a job today. I wanted to keep this up but all the news I posted was too disheartening. I will see most of you in that great firing line in the sky.
Steve
3%er
It is yet another example of the federal government running roughshod over the states.
Last month, the state of Tennessee's General Assembly passed House Bill 1796, the "Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act," which states that any firearms or ammunition manufactured within the state and legally owned and kept within the state by citizens are "not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration" due to provisions in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
But according to Assistant Director Carson W. Carroll of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the U.S. Constitution is little more than a g.d. piece of paper, as George W. Bush so infamously deemed it during his reign as the decider-in-chief.
On July 16, Carroll dispatched his agency's official response to the law passed in Tennessee - the BATFE asserts that "Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply."
It will be interesting to see how Tennessee reacts to this official proclamation.
Obama Signs Executive Order Barring Release of His Birth Certificate
Source: The Freedom Medium
Text: July 19, 2009
First, we did a story about an Army Major who filed suit regarding his deployment to Afghanistan on the grounds that Obama was not America's legitimate Commander-In Chief.
World Net Daily thought highly enough of this article to link to it on their front page.
Then we did an article pointing out the differences between a Birth Cerificate and a Certification Of Live Birth.
Some of the biggest names in conservative news have weighed in on this topic, such as Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and numerous others have offered their opinions.
One of the people at the forefront of this issue is Joseph Farah and his staff over at World Net Daily.
They are even running an online petition demanding Obama produce a long-form birth certificate.
Thanks to the alertness of our great friend and loyal supporter Erica, who gave us the heads-up on this. it appears that the issue of Obama being forced to produce a copy of his birth certificate may prove to be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
On January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489.
For those of you who can't take the time to read it. here is the section that applies:
"Sec.2
Notice Of Intent To Disclose Presidential Records
When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines providied by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege."
Now for all of you who commented on our previous articles that we were no more that right-wing nut jobs, that this thing about Obama's birth certificate was a non-issue, and those of you who tried to shift the focus of the stories, doesn't this strike you as just a little odd?
That the first order of business Obama took care of on day one of his Presidency was to sign off on an Executive Order that states that only the records he chooses to be made public will be released?
This is the subject that was at the absolute top of his agenda?
If this isn't proof that Obama is hiding something, I don't know what is.
Castle Doctrine Dies In Texas
Source: infowars
Article by Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
July 27, 2009
So much for English common law and Sir Edward Coke's dictum that a man's home is his refuge and castle. "For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man's home is his safest refuge]," Coke wrote in 1628.
So much for the Bill of Rights and centuries of English common law - police in Texas can now demand you evacuate your castle at gunpoint.
William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, said "no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process," except in the case of criminal causes.
In the United States, the Castle Doctrine, arising from English common law, designates one's place of residence as a refuge not only against violent attacks, but unwarranted trespassing by the state.
In Texas, the authorities have put an end to this idea, which ultimately found its way into Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures. Property rights are integral to the Constitution.
"Police can arrest people who don't leave town under mandatory evacuation orders under a new state law that goes into effect in the heart of Texas' hurricane season," reports the Associated Press. "As it stands, officials cannot compel people to evacuate, only warn that those who stay behind won't have any emergency services at their disposal." The new law gives county judges and mayors the power to authorize use of "reasonable force" to remove people from the area.
The state now has the authority to smash down your door and arrest you for failure to follow orders.
The Supreme Court has ruled "the Fourth Amendment protects other interests in addition to privacy interests, such as possessory interests." In other words, the court ruled that the state cannot evict without cause.
Jonathan Jorissen, writing for the Ave Maria Law Review in 2007, noted that "forcible removal of victims of natural disasters [in this instance, Katrina] seemingly constitutes seizures. Applying the requisite standard of reasonableness, it must be asked whether the actions were, in fact, reasonable. Given the nature of the situation, it is evident that they were not. The affected citizens were not guilty of any crime. Additionally, their property was in no way necessary for the government to carry out its duties. Instead, these hurricane victims were further victimized by their government, which removed them from their homes based on the suspicion that they might contract some disease. Without a more compelling interest, the government's actions were unreasonable."
As Supreme Court Justice William Patterson observed, property rights are the foundation of any social compact. "Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society."
In Texas, the state has destroyed that compact and the very concept of natural law.
Massive US Terrorism Simulation Involving Foreign Agencies Begins Today
Source: infowars
Article By Steve Watson
Monday, July 27, 2009
A huge simulation coordinated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has begun today with no mainstream media coverage at all.
The security exercise known as National Level Exercise 09 (NLE 09) will last for five days and will involve foreign security officials working in conjunction with the US military, as well as Federal, State, Local Tribal and Private Sector representatives.
According to a factsheet in the recesses of the FEMA website, the agency will host National Level Exercise 2009 (NLE 09) on July 27 through July 31, 2009:
"NLE 09 will be the first major exercise conducted by the United States government that will focus exclusively on terrorism prevention and protection, as opposed to incident response and recovery," the factsheet states. It is designated as a Tier I National Level Exercise, or TOPOFF, which are exercises conducted annually in accordance with the National Exercise Program (NEP), "which serves as the nation's overarching exercise program for planning, organizing, conducting and evaluating national level exercises," according to FEMA.
NLE 09 "will focus on intelligence and information sharing among intelligence and law enforcement communities, and between international, federal, regional, state, tribal, local and private sector participants".
The FEMA information sheet states that the exercise involves a scenario that begins "in the aftermath of a notional terrorist event outside the United States, and exercise play will center on preventing subsequent efforts by the terrorists to enter the United States and carry out additional attacks. This scenario enables participating senior officials to focus on issues related to preventing terrorist events domestically and protecting U.S. critical infrastructure."
The exercise will also include agencies in Britain, Mexico, Canada and Australia, the Department of Homeland Security has said. The Navajo Nation will also participate.
"This year the United States welcomes the participation of Australia, Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom in NLE 09." The FEMA factsheet does not explain why the participation of foreign officials is necessary, nor does it elaborate on the roles they will play.
Canadian federal involvement was today confirmed in a press release attributed to "Public Safety Canada". The Press release also noted the involvement of the United Kingdom, Australia and Mexico.
An independent reporter from Oklahoma (or FEMA region VI) was informed that NLE 09 is not "media friendly" because it largely involves people looking at computer screens in Oklahoma City and Tulsa.
After asking if it would be possible to sit in on the exercise, Andrew W. Griffin
of Red Dirt Report was told by Brook Arbeitman, the public information officer for the Oklahoma Office of Homeland Security, that this was not possible and that the exercise is mostly decompartmentalized.
Arbeitman, interestingly enough, could not answer some more in-depth questions about NLE 09 because she is a role player in the exercise, playing - you guessed it - a public information officer for Oklahoma Office of Homeland Security and as a result "is not privy" to some of the specifics.
"We will be playing along with everybody to whatever extent the exercise" proceeds, Arbeitman said.
According to FEMA, the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, Justice, and State, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and a broad spectrum of component agencies, offices and commands will all participate in the exercise.
NLE 09 activities will take place at command posts, emergency operation centers, intelligence centers and field locations throughout the country, including federal headquarters facilities in the Washington, D.C. area as well as facilities in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and California.
In our previous story on NLE 09, we noted that this exercise is a continuation of previous simulations under FEMA and the DHS that have involved the rounding-up and internment of American citizens labeled as "suspected terrorists".
Under REX 84 and other operations, FEMA, in association with 34 other federal civil departments and agencies, has consistently trained to detain large numbers of Americans.
We also noted that several recently leaked Department of Homeland Security, FBI, and local law enforcement documents have stated that the focus of security operations should be "rightwing extremists" who support the Second Amendment and states' rights and oppose abortion and open borders.
Wyoming Governor Calls for 10th Amendment Resolution
Source: tenth amendment center
Text:July 29, 2009Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal today transmitted the following memorandum and proposed resolution on state sovereignty to the Wyoming Legislature's Management Council.
(h/t Mike Johnson, EverythingCody.com)
Freudenthal, a Democrat, was previously a US attorney for the Clinton administration, and is currently serving his 2nd term as Governor of Wyoming. He endorsed Barack Obama for president and is commonly referred to as one of the most popular governors in the country.
MEMORANDUM
To: Management Council Members
From: Dave Freudenthal, Governor
Date: July 28, 2009
Re: Sovereignty Resolution
As you know, individual states have been adopting Sovereignty Resolutions over the past few years. Such resolutions have been considered by the Wyoming Legislature over the years as well. Representative Illoway is working on one for this session.
The attached version expands slightly on the versions currently circulating. The resolution includes a list of specific federal laws and a reference to the idea that retaining lands in federal ownership runs afoul of the "equal footing" doctrine. I am enclosing a possible resolution for your consideration. Clearly this is ultimately a legislative prerogative.
From time to time we all wonder whether sending resolutions to Washington, DC really does any good. On the other hand, it's nice to at least get our view on the record.
DRAFT
A JOINT RESOLUTION requesting Congress to cease and desist from enacting mandates that are beyond the scope of the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution of the United States.
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, today, in 2010, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many powers assumed by the federal government and federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the union of states, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and
WHEREAS, section 4, article IV, of the Constitution provides, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," and the Ninth Amendment provides, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States frequently considers and passes laws, and the executive agencies of the federal government frequently promulgate regulations, the constitutional authority for which is either absent or tenuous, including, without limitation, the Real ID Act (which imposes significant unfunded mandates upon the states with respect to the traditional state function of driver's licensing), the Endangered Species Act (which, as construed by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service, authorizes a federal executive agency to require specific legislation related to the traditional state function of wildlife management), the Clean Water Act (which, as construed by the Environmental Protection Agency, authorizes a federal executive agency to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over waters which are not subject to federal regulation), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (which implements a policy of federal lands retention in derogation of the "equal footing" doctrine); and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING:
Section 1. That the Wyoming Legislature claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.
Section 2. That this resolution serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, from enacting mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.
Section 3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs the states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.
Section 4. That the Secretary of State of Wyoming transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress and to the Wyoming Congressional Delegation, with a request that this resolution be officially entered in the congressional record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America.
The Obama administration's offensive against the Second Amendment has begun.
As was predicted, the strategy uses international law to create a foundation for repressive and extreme gun control. The mechanism is an international treaty, the "Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials."
If the plan succeeds, police sales of confiscated firearms would be prohibited, and anyone who reloads ammunition at home would need a federal license. In addition, the treaty would create an international law requirement that almost every American firearm owner be licensed as if he were a manufacturer.
Founded in 1948, the Organization of American States (OAS) includes all of the independent nations of the Western Hemisphere. (Cuba's participation has been suspended since 1962.) In 1997, President Clinton signed a gun control treaty, which had been negotiated by OAS. Subsequently, neither he nor President George W. Bush sent the treaty to the United States Senate for ratification.
The treaty is commonly known as "CIFTA," for its Spanish acronym, Convenci?n Interamericana Contra La Fabricaci?n Y El Tr?fico Il?citos De Armas De Fuego, Municiones, Explosivos Y Otros Materiales Relacionados. The document is called a "convention" rather than a "treaty" because "convention" is a term of art for a multilateral treaty created by a multinational organization.
At the OAS meeting in April 2009, President Obama said that he would send CIFTA to the U.S. Senate and urge ratification. The White House claimed that the convention was merely an expression of international goodwill, and that it had been negotiated with the participation of the National Rifle Association.
Both statements were false.
In the United States, it is common for police and sheriffs' departments to sell confiscated firearms to federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs). The FFLs then resell the guns to lawful consumers. Of course, when any FFL sells a gun to a customer, the sale must be approved by the National Instant Check System, or its state equivalent.
Police and sheriff sales of confiscated guns would be outlawed by CIFTA which mandates: "State Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal."
Another target of CIFTA is reloading. The millions of Americans who reload include competitive target shooters, hunters, trainers who want to craft milder ammunition for beginners and many other hobbyists who enjoy making things themselves and saving money. Due to the present shortage of ammunition, more and more people are taking up reloading-so many that reloading equipment manufacturers are having difficulty keeping their products in stock.
Reloading is entirely lawful in every state, and no state requires a specific permit for those reloading ammunition. CIFTA, however, declares that "illicit manufacturing" is the "manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials" that takes place without "a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place."
Thus, either the federal government or all 50 state governments would have to enact legislation to impose reloading licenses, and to define unlicensed reloading as crime. According to Article IV of CIFTA, "State Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials."
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) charges $10 per year for a license to manufacture most ammunition. Also under existing law, the premises of firearms and ammunition manufacturers may be inspected without notice once per year by the BATFE, and an unlimited number of times in cases involving a criminal investigation. Thus, anyone who reloads ammunition would be taxed and subject to home inspection by the federal government.
Reloaders are not the only ones who would be required to have a manufacturing license. So would every company or individual that makes any part of a firearm or an accessory. In fact, so would almost every firearm owner in the nation.
CIFTA Article I requires licensing for the manufacture of "other related materials." These are defined as "any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm."
That definition straightforwardly includes all spare firearm parts. It also includes accessories that are attached to firearms, such as scopes, ammunition magazines, sights, recoil pads, bipods and slings.
Current U.S. law requires a license to manufacture a firearm, with a "firearm" being defined as the receiver-no federal license is needed to make other parts of a firearm, such as barrels or stocks.
But CIFTA's plain language requires federal licensing of the manufacturers and sellers of barrels, stocks, screws, springs and everything else that is used to make firearms.
Likewise, the manufacture of all accessories-such as scopes, sights, lasers, slings, bipods and so on-would have to be licensed.
In the United States, the manufacture of a firearm or ammunition for one's personal use does not require a license, since the licensing requirements apply to persons who "engage in the business" by engaging in repeated transactions for profit. (18 U.S. Code sect. 923(a).) Yet CIFTA would require licensing for everyone.
Many, perhaps most, firearm owners occasionally tinker with their guns. They might replace a worn-out spring, or install a better barrel. Or they might add accessories such as a scope, a laser aiming device, a recoil pad or a sling. All of these simple activities would require a government license. The CIFTA definition of "Illicit manufacturing" is "the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials." (Emphasis added.)
Even if putting an attachment on a firearm were not considered in itself to be "assembly," the addition of most components necessarily requires some assembly; for example, scope rings consist of several pieces that must be assembled. Replacing one grip with another requires, at the least, the use of screws.
Because the definition of "manufacturing" is so broad, nearly all gun owners would eventually be required to obtain a manufacturing license.
CIFTA mandates that "State Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials . the criminal offenses established pursuant to the foregoing paragraph shall include participation in, association or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit, and aiding, abetting, facilitating, and counseling the commission of said offenses."
Yet the preamble of CIFTA says: "this Convention does not commit State Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character."
Does the preamble negate the comprehensive licensing system that CIFTA demands? Not really. The exemptions are for "ownership, possession, or trade." There is no exemption for "manufacturing." As detailed above, "manufacturing" is defined broadly enough as to include the home manufacture of ammunition, as well as repair of one's own firearm, or assembling an accessory for attachment to one's firearm.
Notably, even if CIFTA were read so that the "does not commit" language also pertained to manufacturing, there is nothing that prevents a state party from choosing to enact manufacturing regulations.
The nations that have ratified CIFTA so far have not necessarily fully implemented the literal requirements of language regarding firearms and related material manufacturing. It is hardly unusual for nations to make a show of ratifying a treaty, but then do little to carry out the treaty's requirements. However, in a culture such as the United States, with a strong commitment to the rule of law, CIFTA might have greater practical effect.
If ratified by the Senate, CIFTA would become the law of the land. Would the BATFE then be empowered to write regulations implementing the convention-without waiting for Congress to pass a new statute?
If a treaty is "self-executing," then it is an independent source of authority for domestic regulations. By traditional views of international law, CIFTA is not self-executing, since its language anticipates that ratifying governments will have to enact future laws to comply with CIFTA.
On the other hand, CIFTA does not explicitly declare itself to be non-self-executing. Harold Koh, who has been nominated as legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State, has challenged the doctrine of "so-called self-executing treaties" and argues that the Supreme Court decisions creating the doctrine are incorrect. (100 Yale Law Journal, pages 2360-61, 2383-84; see also 35 University of California at Davis Law Review, page 1111 n. 114; 35 Houston Law Review, page 666.)
Rather, Koh writes, legislatures "should ratify treaties with a presumption that they are self-executing." Further, domestic courts should "construe domestic statutes consistently with international law" and "should employ international human rights norms to guide interpretation of domestic constitutional norms." (106 Yale Law Journal, page 2658 n. 297.) As detailed in last month's issue of America's 1st Freedom, Koh considers stringent gun control to be a very important international human right (July 2009, p.32).
In Koh's view, even when Congress has not created a statute to implement a treaty, courts should recognize a right of private plaintiffs to bring lawsuits under the treaty. (100 Yale Law Journal, pages 2383-84.) Thus, Koh and his allies could argue that Senate ratification of CIFTA trumps the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which outlaws abusive lawsuits against gun manufacturers and stores.
Suppose that the Senate, when ratifying CIFTA, added specific reservations declaring that CIFTA is not self-executing, that CIFTA authorizes no additional regulations and that CIFTA does not authorize any new lawsuits. The United States executive branch, under Koh's guidance, might ignore the reservations. When the Senate added a reservation to another treaty, Koh wrote, "Many scholars question persuasively whether the United States declaration has either domestic or international legal effect." (111 Harvard Law Review, pages 1828-29 n. 24.)
Ultimately, the question of whether BATFE can promulgate regulations under CIFTA might be decided in court cases. One way for a court to resolve the issue would be to acknowledge that federal statutes already authorized regulation of manufacturing, and that CIFTA, as the latter-enacted law, simply expanded the definition of manufacturing so that the licensing requirement now applies to persons who are not engaged in the firearm business, and to manufacture or assembly of firearms attachments and spare parts.
It is not hard to foresee Obama-appointed federal judges upholding massive new BATFE gun control regulations, especially when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the State Department's top legal adviser (Harold Koh) insist to the courts that the expanded federal regulations are necessary for the United States to comply with its international law obligations.
CIFTA does not specifically require gun registration. But once you impose manufacturing licenses, registration comes along for the ride. Existing federal regulations for manufacturers of firearms and ammunition require that manufacturers keep records of all products they produce, and these records must be available for government inspection.
Thus, those who reload ammunition would have to keep records of every round they made, and gun owners would have to keep a record of everything they "assembled" (e.g., putting a scope on a rifle). These records would then be open to BATFE inspection.
Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., (formerly a gun criminal for the terrorist group The Black Panthers), introduced H.R. 45, to set up a national licensing and registration system for handguns and for self-loading long guns. As implemented under the direction of President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and State Department legal adviser Koh, CIFTA could go even further-it also covers ammunition reloading as well as long guns that are not semi-automatic.
Further, CIFTA could be used to impose national licensing, registration and taxation of gun owners without members of Congress having to cast a vote that explicitly creates such laws. Indeed, because treaties need to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, yet need no approval from the House of Representatives, the House could be cut out of the law-making process altogether.
Preparing for Martial Law: International Swine Flu Conference to Be Held in Washington
Source: infowars
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
August 6, 2009
On his show today, Alex Jones read an email sent by a listener. "I work at the National Institutes of Health and we received an email about the upcoming International Swine Flu Conference that will be occurring in Washington, D.C. Aug 19 - Aug 21, 2009," the listener writes. "They're talking about mass fatality management and continuity of government. They're going to hit us with a massive biological false flag attack."
The email contains a PDF attachment of a brochure for the Swine Flu Conference. Breakout sessions detailed on the brochure include discussions on mass fatality planning, business continuity planning, and COOP or Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government Planning. Additional sessions cover enforced quarantines, mass vaccinations, and how to "control and diffuse social unrest and public disorder." The brochure is also available for download on the International Swine Flu Conference website sponsored by ISFC New-Fields Exhibitions.
"Top leaders and key decision-makers of major companies representing a broad range of industries will meet with distinguished scientists, public health officials, law enforcers, first responders, and other experts to discuss pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery at the 1st International Swine Flu Conference," the website announces.
The conference is further evidence the government plans to launched a false flag attack under the cover of an engineered H1N1 flu pandemic and impose martial law.
Prison Planet and Infowars have covered the story of a manufactured flu pandemic in detail, including:
On July 25, the Los Angeles Times reported the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expects the flu pandemic expected this autumn to kill hundreds of thousands. "The number of potential deaths is much higher than that usually seen in seasonal flu, which kills an estimated 36,000 Americans a year, and is even higher than the nation's most recent pandemic." The 1957 pandemic of Asian flu killed 70,000. The 1918 Spanish Flu claimed between 500,000 to 675,000 lives in the United States.
The CDC has announced that it will no longer keep track of the number of people killed by the virus. "Health officials from the CDC said the virus was too widespread to continue counting," the Digital Journal reported. "Health experts say millions have likely been infected worldwide."
The U.S. government has bought 195 million doses of H1N1 swine flu vaccine for a possible autumn vaccination campaign, a U.S. federal official told Reuters on July 23. The U.S. Health and Human Services Department has also contracted for 120 million doses of adjuvant, a compound to stretch the number of doses of vaccine.
In late 2007, the Bush administration issued a "directive" establishing a "National Strategy for Public Health and Medical Preparedness" based on Biodefense for the 21st Century. Prior to this, in May of 2007, the U.S. military had the foresight to "plan for a possible avian flu pandemic that could kill as many as three million people in the United States in as little as six weeks," according to Yahoo News. Guidelines and "planning assumptions for US military services and combatant commands" were published in a document entitled "Implementation Plan for Pandemic Influenza."
"Possible scenarios include US troops being called in to put down riots, guard pharmaceutical plants and shipments, and help restrict the movement of people inside the country and across its borders," Yahoo summarizes. "The plan envisions fast moving, catastrophic waves of disease that would overwhelm health facilities and * the ability of state and local authorities to provide even basic commodities or services."
The "hidden agenda consists in using the threat of a pandemic and/or the plight of a natural disaster as a pretext to establish military rule" and "suspend Constitutional government and allow the Military to intervene in civilian affairs in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act," author Michel Chossudovsky wrote in 2005.
..................................................................... To see the original e-mail click on the source link. Steve
Bryce Shonka
Tenth Amendment Center
August 7, 2009
Remember the good old days, when one only had to watch out for the Federal Government's twisted interpretation of the commerce clause to justify tyranny?
Well those days seem to be long gone. The Obama Administration has been employing an old tactic lately - what some might call an imperial threat - and they're not doing it overseas, either.
STATES UNDER THREAT
The state of Oklahoma is now the target of a direct challenge from US Attorney General Eric Holder, who is using the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as justification to violate Oklahoma's sovereignty as affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
In a letter written to the State Attorney General in April, the Federal government used aggressive language, bringing up the possibility of withholding Federal funds appropriated for Oklahoma. The reason? A proposed amendment to the State Constitution, which requires voter approval, that would make English the official language of the State.
"What it indicates is the Federal Government's contempt for the states, in this case Oklahoma, and for the idea of federal - as opposed to national - government. AG Holder believes that Oklahoma is an administrative subdivision of the USA, and that it is perfectly right for him to coerce Oklahomans to do his will. Who cares whether he has ever been to Oklahoma, met an Oklahoman, or thought about Oklahoma?" said Kevin Gutzman, an American historian and New York Times bestselling author.
Oklahoma is not alone as a state challenged by central authority in recent months. Recently, federal firearms licensees in Tennessee and Montana received a letter from another Federal agency, the ATF, who had also issued a decree wrought with hubris - claims by the Federal government of their legal supremacy across the land.
DESTROYING LOCAL GOVERNMENT
"Both of these letters, particularly this letter to the Attorney General of Oklahoma, are very officious," observed Rob Natelson, professor of law at the University of Montana. "It reminds one eerily of the kinds of communications that started to come out from the Emperor to the local cities of the Roman Empire, beginning the course of the ultimate destruction of local government."
Professor Natelson is a widely-recognized expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution, and on several occasions, he has been the first to uncover key background facts about the Constitution's meaning. I knew this before our conversation. What I didn't know, however, was that he's also been studying Roman Law and history for the past 50 years, and is responsible for several works in that field.
"During the 2nd century AD, the Roman Emperors began increasingly to interfere with local government and they did this with.letters.letters that look something like this," continued Natelson, indicating the letter from Holder to Oklahoma. "They started out as almost advisory and they got increasingly peremptory. By the end of the 2nd century, there was very little local government left. You had very few people, therefore, willing to participate in local elections; very little patriotic spirit towards one's own province or city. And this was the harbinger for the ultimate centralization of the Roman Empire."
He continued with a strong, decisive tone, "Almost everyone who's studied in that area agrees that the effect was to sap the life out of the empire, so that everything flowed to the center. All that counted was the Emperor and his bureaucrats.and his courtiers. I look at this and I see this letter which gets close to looking like an order from the central government down to a sovereign state legislature, and I say.WOW. This looks like something that Septimius Severus would have sent to the local officials."
In Columbus, Ohio last weekend, a rally in support of State Sovereignty drew around 7,000 people. Judge Andrew Napolitano addressed the rally and made similar comments indicating the nature of our current point in US history.
"In the long history of the world, very few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its maximum hour of danger. This is that moment and you are that generation"
IMPERIALISM AND DECLINE
Are these men `crying wolf'?
"Some people might think that's a far fetched analogy but I can't emphasize enough how important this development is seen by historians. When people think of the collapse of the Roman Empire they think of the fall of Rome in 476 AD. The conversion of Rome from a relatively free state - almost a Federation - into a totalitarian state, really picked up speed and accelerated during the 2nd century [AD], with this increasing intermeddling by the central authorities in local state government. That's what it reminded me of," recalled Natelson.
"[The DOJ] are not violating any law by sending these letters, but there's a change in tone, there's a new and disturbing tone in them. At least the ATF letter was addressed to individuals. This one is addressed to a state legislature - really, it's a bit much. Besides the fact that there's the tone, there's the fact that they sent the letters at all. Most of the letters that were sent out by the emperor were called rescripts, and that's almost what [the letter from Holder] looks like. The one difference is that a rescript was usually a reply to a request for advice. In some ways this is worse than a rescript because this is unsolicited. A better way to compare it would be to an imperial constitutio - an imperial decision or decree." Natelson added.
His Roman analogy is worth considering, for several reasons. Rome may have ended up a brutal dictatorship, but it began through a series of treaties between regions, and in some ways parallels present day America.
"When you draw comparisons between the U.S. and ancient Rome, you have to be very cautious, though Rome does have lessons to offer us and the history and results of the relentless centralization of the Empire is one of them," Natelson continued.
THE OTHER WAY AROUND
If there's a case to be made that the US is headed for the same sort of central plan that sucks the life out of a Republic, it would be difficult to imagine who in the United States could be encouraged by such a trend, outside of DC's beltway.
"Certainly state legislators in Oklahoma and congressmen from Oklahoma should put the Federal Government on notice that they will support a substantial reduction in the budget for Holder's portion of the federal bureaucracy so long as he is trying to coerce them in this way." recommended Gutzman.
Worldwide trends in recent political elections do exhibit signs of a move away from central planner candidates, a trend the United States has been contrary to for nearly a decade, but perhaps the pendulum has reversed itself.
"As the economy grows increasingly complicated, increasingly interdependent and increasingly technological, centralized control (which never worked very well) works less and less, and people are less willing to stand for it. This reflects a visceral gut reaction people have against centralized control, because they know from their own life it makes no sense, though it always takes time for those mega-trends to filter into the political class," Natelson continued. "Eventually, when a mule gets hit over the head enough times it figures out what's going on, and eventually the politicians will figure out what's going on, too."
People in the US are coming together by the thousands, demanding decentralization and nullification of Federal powers. Never before have the political elites had to contend with a non-partisan political force on such a massive scale. A storm seems to be brewing; a maelstrom of everyday Americans rallying around the document designed to keep the government in fear of the people - instead of the other way around.
Government Permission Will be Required to Travel
Source: Campaign for Liberty
Authors: Micheal Ostrolenk, Robert E. Smith, Richard Sobel and Jan Towe
Campaign for Liberty
August 19, 2009
Starting this year, Americans will have to get government approval to travel by air. As Privacy Journal revealed last fall, henceforth "Permission Now Needed to Travel Within U.S." Getting a reservation and checking-in for air travel will soon require Transportation Security Administration authorization. That permission is by no means assured: For example, if your name matches a "no-fly" list, even mistakenly, you can be denied the right to a reserve a seat on a flight. If your name is on a "selectee" list, you and your possessions will be searched more thoroughly before you can board. What is going on here?
All travelers will need government OK in order to board a flight, or take a cruise. What the government can allow one day, it can forbid the next.
Protecting air safety is essential, but professional screening at airports already provides for it. Giving the TSA as an official agency the additional authority to decide who gets to go where reaches beyond safety into overextended governmental power. This newly minted "Secure Flight" rule fundamentally imbalances long-standing citizens' rights both to travel and to be left alone. If your name appears among hundreds of thousands on "watchlists," you assert that the government should not require ID to fly, you don't want to reveal your date of birth for concern about identity theft, or you don't choose to declare your gender, you can stay home.
By combining the requirement for government photo IDs in order to fly with checking government watchlists including potentially every passenger, "Secure Flight" puts the federal government into the business of licensing travel. All travelers will need government OK in order to board a flight, or take a cruise. What the government can allow one day, it can forbid the next. All things considered, isn't this a higher-tech and later-day version of South African domestic passports or eastern European checkpoints? In fact, because of the high technological capacity of the U.S. version, aren't its implications for travel control of plane, train, bus and subway travel much more far reaching? It's incredible that something like this is happening relatively unrecognized in America.
While some people consider the requirement to show ID or reveal a birth date a small trade-off for security, what is at stake here is the right to travel. That fundamental freedom of movement appears in the Articles of Confederation in the right to freely enter and leave all the states of the then small union. It was so fundamentally a part of American citizenship that the privileges and immunities clauses of the Constitution included it without explicitly mentioning it again for the more perfect union. With a large and expansive nation now ranging from Hawaii and Alaska to Washington DC, that right to travel nationally, and petition the distant government, is even more fundamental. Yet some courts maintain that if you can walk, you don't need the right to fly. People have the right to walk around freely without carrying a national ID; why do they have to show one to travel? The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the scope of the right to travel but lower courts have tended to restrict it more narrowly than the Founding Fathers would approve.
Clearly, the air ID and "Secure Flight" rules mean you cannot travel any distance reachable only by air without official permission. Moreover, the system can easily be extended to Amtrak as a government railroad, which already requires government ID in order to purchase a ticket. It can further be extended to urban rapid-transit networks tied to travel cards, and private inter-city buses requiring IDs to buy tickets or board coaches. These are the bases for an internal passport system in the U.S.
There are a lot of practical issues here too. The assumption that any "no-fly" list includes all potential wrong doers is implausible, and first time criminals would by definition not appear until it's too late. Many people on these lists are there because their names are similar to those who are suspect for other reasons. There are perhaps a few hundred people whose past activities merit keeping them off the streets, let alone flights; the small group is better caught through search warrants and good police work before they come to the airport. To demand that 750 million annual passengers have to get government permissions to fly creates a needle in-a-haystack approach to locating a few potential wrongdoers (none so far have been caught by the matching). "Secure Flight" is simply an ineffective use of scarce resources that sweeps much too broadly over people's most basic rights to travel and be let alone.
What can you do? Like other regulations quickly promulgated at the end of an outgoing administration, these rules need to be delayed and reconstituted. Contact your Senators, Representatives and the White House to suspend such ill-considered regulations now. Insist that the government create a system that makes flying safe without granting federal officials the final say over permission for citizens to travel. Otherwise, the traveling public may be detoured onto a perilous downhill road to being permanently grounded.
Follow the link for the short news clip. Legislators voted 20-28 in Mass. to impose unreal fines if "emergency" occurs.
Collectivism leads inevitably to totalitarianism.
Pittsburgh Officials Mull Assault Weapons ban for G-20
Source: knka.com
City council members are expected to consider a proposed assault weapons ban today during a special session on the G-20 SummitPITTSBURGH (KDKA)
As the G-20 Summit nears, Pittsburgh City Council is considering the possibility of instituting an assault weapons ban during the high-profile event.
According to our news partners at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, city officials are talking about reviving an old law that would ban those types of weapons.
If approved, the ban would likely be in effect until after the G-20 Summit ends.
City council members are expected to consider the assault weapons ban today along with many other pieces of legislation during a special session on the G-20 Summit.
Officials have been meeting nearly everyday to make plans for the summit that will bring thousands of people to the city on September 24th and 25th.
To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `National Emergency Centers Establishment Act'.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.
(a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.
(b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure--
(1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;
(2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;
(3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and
(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.
(a) In General- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers.
(b) Minimum Requirements- A site designated as a national emergency center shall be--
(1) capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster;
(2) environmentally safe and shall not pose a health risk to individuals who may use the center;
(3) capable of being scaled up or down to accommodate major disaster preparedness and response drills, operations, and procedures;
(4) capable of housing existing permanent structures necessary to meet training and first responders coordination requirements during nondisaster periods;
(5) capable of hosting the infrastructure necessary to rapidly adjust to temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance needs;
(6) required to consist of a complete operations command center, including 2 state-of-the art command and control centers that will comprise a 24/7 operations watch center as follows:
(A) one of the command and control centers shall be in full ready mode; and
(B) the other shall be used daily for training; and
(7) easily accessible at all times and be able to facilitate handicapped and medical facilities, including during an emergency or major disaster.
(c) Location of National Emergency Centers- There shall be established not fewer than one national emergency center in each of the following areas:
(1) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions I, II, and III.
(2) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV.
(3) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions V and VII.
(4) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VI.
(5) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions VIII and X.
(6) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX.
(d) Preference for Designation of Closed Military Installations- Wherever possible, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate a closed military installation as a site for a national emergency center. If the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense jointly determine that there is not a sufficient number of closed military installations that meet the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), the Secretaries shall jointly designate portions of existing military installations other than closed military installations as national emergency centers.
(e) Transfer of Control of Closed Military Installations- If a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security administrative jurisdiction over such closed military installation.
(f) Cooperative Agreement for Joint Use of Existing Military Installations- If an existing military installation other than a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall enter into a cooperative agreement to provide for the establishment of the national emergency center.
(g) Reports-
(1) PRELIMINARY REPORT- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--
(A) an outline of the reasons why the site was selected;
(B) an outline of the need to construct, repair, or update any existing infrastructure at the site;
(C) an outline of the need to conduct any necessary environmental clean-up at the site;
(D) an outline of preliminary plans for the transfer of control of the site from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of Homeland Security, if necessary under subsection (e); and
(E) an outline of preliminary plans for entering into a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f).
(2) UPDATE REPORT- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--
(A) an update on the information contained in the report as required by paragraph (1);
(B) an outline of the progress made toward the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);
(C) an outline of the progress made toward entering a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and
(D) recommendations regarding any authorizations and appropriations that may be necessary to provide for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.
(3) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--
(A) finalized information detailing the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);
(B) the finalized cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and
(C) any additional information pertinent to the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.
(4) ADDITIONAL REPORTS- The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, may submit to Congress additional reports as necessary to provide updates on steps being taken to meet the requirements of this Act.
SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
This Act does not affect--
(1) the authority of the Federal Government to provide emergency or major disaster assistance or to implement any disaster mitigation and response program, including any program authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or
(2) the authority of a State or local government to respond to an emergency.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated $180,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to carry out this Act. Such funds shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) CLOSED MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term `closed military installation' means a military installation, or portion thereof, approved for closure or realignment under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) that meet all, or 2 out of the 3 following requirements:
(A) Is located in close proximity to a transportation corridor.
(B) Is located in a State with a high level or threat of disaster related activities.
(C) Is located near a major metropolitan center.
(2) EMERGENCY- The term `emergency' has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(3) MAJOR DISASTER- The term `major disaster' has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(4) MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term `military installation' has the meaning given such term in section 2910 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
Fema camps sound all warm and fuzzy. Wonder what they're serving for dinner.
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
Source: cnet.com
by Declan McCullagh
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."
Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:
The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.
Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.
Many media outlets have misfired about guns. Countless newspapers and television networks -- from CBS to MSNBC -- have misreported that conservative protesters are threatening President Obama with guns at public events. It hasn't happened.
In Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a gun, William Kostric, joined an Aug. 11 health care protest. This was blocks away and hours before Mr. Obama's town-hall meeting in that city. Mr. Kostric was given permission to be on church property where the protest occurred and was not at the place the president visited. What most of the coverage left out was that Mr. Kostric didn't carry his gun only for the protest; he legally carries a gun with him all the time for protection.
While the media regularly used terms such as "hotheads" to mischaracterize the situation, the coverage ignored that union members who opposed the protest had attacked Mr. Kostric and a friend, kicking, pushing and spitting on them. Despite violence against him by Mr. Obama's supporters, Mr. Kostric did not draw his gun or threaten anyone.
On the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric asked, "Are we really still debating health care when a man brings a handgun to a church where the president is speaking?" Deliberately or not, she got the facts wrong. As we know, Mr. Kostric did bring a gun to the church, but the president was not there and never was scheduled to speak there. Mr. Obama spoke at a separate event at a local high school at a different time. Not letting facts get in the way of her hysterical story line, Ms. Couric linked Mr. Kostric's gun to "fear and frankly ignorance drown[ing] out the serious debate that needs to take place about an issue that affects the lives of millions of people."
In another case in Arizona, a black man staged an event with a local radio host and carried a semiautomatic rifle a few blocks away from another Obama town-hall meeting. According to the radio station, the staged event was "partially motivated to do so because of the controversy surrounding William Kostric." This occurrence was not an example of an outraged gun-toting Obama protester, but a stunt to garner attention for a shock jock. Of course, this inconvenient truth was ignored by most news outlets.
MSNBC misrepresented the facts to try to back up a bogus claim about racism being behind opposition to Mr. Obama's agenda. On Donny Deutsch's Aug. 18 show about the Arizona town-hall meeting, the producers aired a clip of the anonymous black man carrying the so-called assault rifle -- but the network edited the tape so the man's race was obscured. Truth be damned, MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer said, "There are questions whether this has a racial overtone. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists." Another commentator on the same show worried about the "anger about a black person being president." The supposed result: "You know we see these hate groups rising up."
MSNBC's irresponsible behavior is more than just bad journalism; it sows distrust between races. Ernest Hancock, the radio host who staged the event, was hoping to get some free publicity for himself and his show. Whatever one thinks of this PR stunt, it had nothing to do with race. MSNBC misrepresented a black man carrying a gun as a white man to invent a racial dynamic that didn't exist.
Media disinformation about guns is a sad sign of the drastic action liberals will take to undermine support for gun rights for law-abiding citizens. It's also an indication of liberals' extreme desperation as Mr. Obama's agenda unravels.
Mass. Health Bill Would Allow Warrnetless Arrests, Quarintine
Article by Alex Newman
A pandemic and disaster preparation bill (S. 2028) passed unanimously by the Massachusetts Senate earlier this year is receiving wide-spread criticism as citizens mobilize to oppose its passage in the commonwealth's House of Representatives.
"Under this bill, Massachusetts becomes a medical police state. There is no debating it," wrote Natural News editor Michael Adams in an August 28 article entitled "Wake Up, America: Forced vaccinations, quarantine camps, health care interrogations and mandatory 'decontaminations,'" where he suggested America was delving into medical fascism. "The citizens of Massachusetts will have no rights, period. The Constitution is ancient history. You are now the property of the State."
The bill contains a number of controversial, alarming, and blatantly unconstitutional provisions. Under an emergency declared by the governor, the statute purports to give the health commissioner, and law enforcement and medical personnel broad authority to mobilize forces, vaccinate the population, enter private property with no warrants, and even quarantine people against their will.
The legislation provides severe penalties - $1,000 fine per day and possible jail time - for not complying with state orders, while also claiming to shield everyone involved from liability. It gives local health authorities the power "to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons" and gives government agents the authority to "arrest without a warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order" while using "reasonable diligence to enforce such order." Also, law-enforcement authorities "shall assist" medical personnel in the "involuntary transportation" of people to "treatment centers."
The provision on vaccines does give citizens the authority to refuse the vaccination, but people who do can be "isolated or quarantined." The same fate awaits those are "unable or unwilling to submit to decontamination or procedures necessary for diagnosis." One part of the legislation requires that owners or occupiers of a property "permit entry into and investigation of the premises," and another section creates price controls.
Draconian measures like this to supposedly deal with pandemics and outbreaks of disease are getting a boost with the hysteria surrounding swine flu, but critics are warning of the dangers of such tactics and fighting back. "In this time of fear, we can't let that fear take away our freedom to make voluntary health decisions," said Barbara Loe Fisher, the president of the National Vaccine Information Center. She offered a chilling analysis of the legislation in Massachusetts and the national situation, saying "it looks like few choices will be allowed." But she encouraged people to find out what their rights are.
Though it breezed past the Senate with a 36 to 0 vote, the Massachusetts bill is still languishing in the House after being referred to the committee on health care financing. "One of the reasons the bill is stalled in the house is because those house reps are being bombarded with phone calls from constituents saying, `I will refuse the vaccine,'" explained writer Devvy Kidd in a piece about important bills to defeat where she said the reaction to this legislation may have been blown out of proportion.
But while opposition to the plan may be mounting, there are many in power who believe - like Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel - that the government shouldn't let "crises" go to "waste." This bill has been debated in the Massachusetts legislature before, but the House and Senate could never agree on a final version. So some lawmakers are using concern over the swine flu outbreak as a tool for pushing their agenda and getting it passed this time around.
"It's too bad that we have to have something like that pending to get us to finally act," said Democratic Massachusetts Senator Richard Moore in a televised interview, referring to the spread of the H1N1 virus. "This was actually on the calendar before that became a news story," he explained, but "it does give us another reason why it's a good idea to have this one the books." If the House passes it, a veto by the governor will likely be the last thing that could stop it.
Unfortunately, people hoping that the judicial branch will step in and restore some sanity may be left wanting. "Judges will not stand in the way of emergency actions taken to protect the public from a clear and present danger, and if they do, the state appeals court will over turn their rulings in a matter of hours," explained a piece written by Louisiana State University director of the program in law, science and public health Edward Richards and Dr. Katherine
Rathbun. "The history of judicial restraint on emergency powers is one of blind obedience to civil and military authority."
A great deal of tyrannical federal statutes dealing with health emergencies already exist, and some other states are considering vast power grabs of their own. Maine recently had its National Guard engaging in swine flu vaccine scenario drills at a school while the military draws up plans to help FEMA with the swine flu situation across the country.
But it is past time for citizens to demand that their leaders respect the people's medical freedom and individual rights. Massachusetts should kill this bill and other states should fight to preserve the liberty of their citizens. Government officials at all levels should finally obey their oaths to the Constitution and the bill of rights, especially in the life-and-death field of healthcare.
Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
September 3, 2009
All military personnel will be vaccinated against the H1N1 flu virus, and the vaccine will be available to all military family members who want it, a Defense Department health affairs official said today.
The H1N1 vaccination program will begin in early October, said Army Lt. Col. (Dr.) Wayne Hachey, director of preventive medicine for Defense Department health affairs.
The vaccine, which has been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration, will be mandatory for uniformed personnel, Hachey said. "What we want to do is target those people who are at highest risk for transmission," he said.
Health-care workers, deploying troops, those serving on ships and submarines, and new accessions are at the top of the list. "Any place where we take a lot of people, squash them all together and get them nice and close and put them under stressful conditions will get the vaccine first," he said.
The department will use the usual seasonal flu vaccine distribution chain for the H1N1, Hachey said, noting that while the mass H1N1 vaccinations are new to the general population, the process for vaccinating against seasonal flu is old hat for the Defense Department. "We've been doing this for decades," he said. "The system is tried and true."
The department initially will receive 1 million doses of the H1N1 vaccine, and another 1.7 million doses later in October.
Officials don't know yet whether people will need one dose or two, Hachey said. "The assumption right now is that people will need two doses, 21 days apart," he said. "That may change."
FDA officials still are studying H1N1 and the vaccine, and the results should be known by the end of the month.
Seasonal flu vaccine already is available, and the Defense Department will begin giving those shots shortly, Hachey said. "That has been our message to immunizers: to try and get as many people as they can immunized against the seasonal flu early," he said.
Guidelines for giving priority to family members will follow those for the general population, Hachey said. The Department of Health and Human Services is buying millions of doses of the vaccine.
"Installations are going to register with each state as an immunizer," Hachey said. "They will tell how many people they care for. This includes dependents, retirees and so on."
The Centers for Disease Control will place the order and will ship the vaccine where needed. Family members will have multiple opportunities to get the vaccine, whether at Defense Department medical facilities or off post, Hachey said.
The CDC has established target groups for those at greatest risk for transmitting or being affected by the H1N1. They include pregnant women, health-care workers, those younger than 25 or older than 65, and those with pre-existing health conditions.
Hachey said previous plans are serving the Defense Department well. "We have been preparing for pandemic flu because of its potential impact on the mission," he said.
The symptoms of the H1N1 flu are almost the same as the seasonal flu: fever, sore throat, runny nose, nausea, muscle aches and feeling rundown. The 2009 H1N1 virus - formerly known as swine flu - is a pandemic virus, according to the World Health Organization. U.S. officials call the virus "troubling" and urge communities across the United States to take actions to mitigate the effects of it. The federal government is urging states and municipalities to begin preparing now for the fall flu season.
President Barack Obama addressed the H1N1 pandemic following a White House meeting today.
"As I said when we saw the first cases of this virus back in the spring, I don't want anybody to be alarmed, but I do want everybody to be prepared," he said. "We know that we usually get a second, larger wave of these flu viruses in the fall, and so response plans have been put in place across all levels of government."
But government cannot do it all, and the American people have a responsibility to stop the spread of the disease, Obama said. "We need families and businesses to ensure that they have plans in place if a family member, a child or a co-worker contracts the flu and needs to stay home," he said.
"And most importantly, we need everyone to get informed about individual risk factors, and we need everyone to take the common-sense steps that we know can make a difference," the president said. "Stay home if you're sick. Wash your hands frequently. Cover your sneezes with your sleeve, not your hands. And take all the necessary precautions to stay healthy. I know it sounds simple, but it's important and it works."
The H1N1 is a never-before-seen combination of human, swine and avian flu viruses, officials said. First detected in Mexico in February, it quickly spread around the world. According to July WHO statistics, there have been 94,512 H1N1 cases worldwide, and 429 people have died from it. In the United States, 33,902 contracted H1N1, and 170 have died.
250th post giveaway. I thought I would put this in here for those who read the other articles that I find relevant to our fight. It's not much but I cleaned out my reloading bench and found 18 300 win mag once fired that I won't use. Headstamp w-w super 300 win mag. If you or someone you know can use these enter and I'll let my dog pick a winner. After the short contest I will delete this post and would ask you to do the same. I am thinking about scaling back the front page so you won't have to go to the second to read new material. Please copy or print any article that you found relevant.
Thanks and good luck
the other steve [8D]
Well, I thought it might make for an easy give away. I'll leave it up and maybe someone can use them to complete a set or practice trimming case length. I decided to just leave the previously posted articles for the new people we seem to be seeing more of.
Steve
3%er
Article by Stephen Lendman
Monday, 7 September 2009
Massachusetts may be a trial balloon for what federal authorities plan everywhere as the fall flu season approaches, to be followed by hyped reports of nationwide Swine Flu outbreaks, perhaps caused by the vaccines intended to prevent them.
Fact check:
no Swine Flu threat exists;
reported H1N1 infections and deaths are uncorroborated;
WHO predicting a global pandemic affecting "as many as two billion people....over the next two years" is falsified hype unless a diabolical depopulation scheme (by vaccines or other means) plans to create one;
vaccines don't protect against diseases they're designed to prevent and often cause them;
all vaccines contain harmful toxins, including mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, phenoxyethanol (antifreeze), and squalene adjuvants that weaken and can destroy the human immune system, making it vulnerable to many annoying to life-threatening illnesses; and
evidence suggests that the H1N1 strain was bioengineered in a US laboratory, and the vaccines being produced for it are extremely hazardous and potentially lethal.
Under no circumstances should anyone submit to them even if threatened with fines, quarantine, or incarceration.
Government and PhRMA Are Enemies, Not Protectors
On April 26, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a "Determination that a Public Health Emergency Exists....as a consequence of confirmed cases of H1N1 Influenza in four US states." At an April 27 press briefing, Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano said:
Yesterday "I issued a public health emergency declaration" as part of "standard operating procedure" to make more government resources available to combat the spread of Swine Flu. She then ordered the FDA "to proceed to permit things like Tamiflu to be used for populations that they otherwise wouldn't be used for - in this case, for example, very, very young children."
On November 13, 2005, Japan's Health Ministry said it was "looking into reports of a number of sudden deaths of young people who had taken prescribed dosages of Tamiflu." The Ministry also "found 64 cases of psychological disorders linked to the drug in the past four years."
The Japan Institute of Pharmaco-Vigilance head, Dr. Rokura Hama, said "Tamiflu appears to be similar to other powerful drugs that can cause behavioral changes" by affecting the central nervous system. It's the leading medication prescribed for the treatment and prevention of flu. In April, DHS ordered 12 million doses made available in locations around the country for quick access if needed.
Then on June 11, the World Health Organization (WHO) "raise(d) the level of (Swine Flu) influenza pandemic alert from phase 5 to phase 6," its highest level in declaring "The world is now at the start of the 2009 influenza pandemic," while admitting its severity would likely be "moderate (and) most people will recover from swine flu within a week, just as they would from seasonal forms of influenza." The WHO no longer reports "confirmed" Swine Flu cases globally, yet continues to hype the scare without corroborating proof.
There was no emergency earlier or now, but you'd never know it from hyped media reports to convince people voluntarily to submit to experimental, untested, toxic and extremely dangerous vaccines that damage the human immune system and cause health problems ranging from annoying to life-threatening.
George Bush's Executive Orders (EOs) 13295 and 13375, Homeland Security Presidential Directive-21, and Military Pandemic Planning
In addition to the federal laws below, the Bush EOs, HSPD-21, and Pentagon plan suggest a hidden agenda behind today's Swine Flu crisis as a way to institute martial law on the pretext of a public health emergency, using hyped fear to win popular acquiescence.
On April 4, 2003, EO 13295 issued a "Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases" that included cholera, diphtheria, infectious TB, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and viral hemorrhagic fevers like ebola and lassa.
On April 1, 2005, EO 13375 amended EO 13295 by adding "the following new subsection:"
"(c) Influenza caused by novel or reemergent influenza viruses that are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic."
The October 2007 HSPD-21 "establishe(d) a National Strategy for Public Health and Medical Preparedness which builds upon principles set forth in (the 2004) Biodefense for the 21st Century and will transform our national approach to protecting the health of the American people against all disasters."
It called for:
"nationwide, robust, and integrated biosurveillance...to provide early warning and ongoing characterization of disease outbreaks in near real-time;
countermeasure stockpiling and distribution....of medical countermeasures (vaccines, drugs, and therapeutics) to a large population....;
mass casualty care....created by a catastrophic health event;" and
"community resilience" whereby "civic leaders, citizens, and families are educated regarding threats and are empowered to mitigate their own risk;" in addition, the federal government must be involved in "medical preparedness to assist (nationwide) in the face of potential catastrophic health events."
In May 2007, the Department of Defense's (DOD) "Implementation Plan for Pandemic Influenza" prepared for a possible H5N1 (Avian Flu) pandemic that could affect up to one-third of the population and kill as many as three million in just weeks, it was claimed. It involved using US troops to put down riots, guard pharmaceutical plants and shipments, and restrict the movement of people inside the country and across borders.
This plan remains active and US laws authorize it, including Sections 1076 and 333 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 that amended the 1807 Insurrection Act and 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. They prohibit using federal and National Guard troops for law enforcement except as constitutionally allowed or expressly authorized by Congress in times of a national emergency like an insurrection.
The president may now announce a public emergency, declare martial law, suspend the Constitution, and deploy US troops on city streets to suppress what he calls disorder.
The Legal Basis for Quarantines
Vaccine law expert Alan G. Phillips says:
"....underlying laws....allow states to mandate vaccines in an emergency....throw out exemptions....impose quarantines and isolation outside of our homes," and the only way around this is to "chang(e) state policy and law."
US laws are similar. They can mandate vaccinations and let states isolate and quarantine Swine Flu victims if authorities call the disease infectious and life-threatening.
Under the proposed Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA), civil liberties may be suspended in case of a public health emergency, with or without verifiable evidence.
The September 2003 Turning Point Model State Public Health Act (MSPHA) lets state, local, and tribal governments revise or update public health statutes and administrative regulations. According to James Hodges, executive director of Johns Hopkins and Georgetown University's Centers for Law and the Public Health, over half the states have these laws that can order flu testing, ban public gatherings, mandate quarantines, and issue other emergency public health directives.
Federal laws already do it, including the 2006 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act that lets the HHS Secretary declare any disease an epidemic or national emergency requiring mandatory vaccinations. It also protects drug companies from tort liability, except in cases of "willful misconduct."
US State Responses to Swine Flu
Growing numbers of states are exploiting the hyped scare by declaring a public health emergency. Others are passing laws that order forced quarantines, impose fines or imprisonment for offenders, and prepare to govern under martial law with local police, National Guard, or federal troops for enforcement.
Florida ordered voluntary or mandatory detentions at home or in state-designated facilities as well as closures of suspected buildings and areas. Quarantine Detention Orders state:
"non-compliant" persons are ordered to "remain in detention quarantine until released by the State Epidemiologist or Health Officer;"
at home, they must wear surgical masks at all times in the presence of anyone, even family members, and follow other required instructions while in isolation;
in state-run facilities, they must "comply with all orders....regarding (their) medical care," and must "cooperate with the detention facility's access to (themselves) and (their) medical records for purposes of delivering and monitoring (their) medical care;" and
these "action(s are) taken under the police power authority of the health department and your cooperation is required by law;" failure to comply is a "crime."
Forms circulating on the Internet show that Iowa ordered home or facility quarantines for anyone suspected of possible H1N1 infection. However, Mason City, Iowa's KIMT TV 3 reported that "Health leaders in (the state) are reassuring people that there are no H1N1 related quarantines being ordered," yet preparations have been made to do it.
North Carolina's Draft Isolation Order calls for imprisonment for up to two years and pretrial detention for residents failing to comply with isolation orders.
Washington empowers local health authorities to issue emergency detention orders for up to 10 days.
On April 28, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a "Proclamation to Confront Swine Flu Outbreak" and ordered "all state agencies and departments to utilize and employ state personnel, equipment and facilities to assist the Department of Public Health (DPH) and the State Emergency Plan as coordinated by the California Emergency Management Agency."
He further proclaimed a "state of emergency" because of "conditions of extreme peril" in the State.
On April 26, New York Gov. David Paterson activated the state's health emergency preparedness plan, thereby putting the state on "high alert to quickly identify and respond to any cases of swine flu." No further action was taken.
On April 28, Texas became the second state to declare a Swine Flu emergency as officials closed schools and cancelled sporting events after an alleged fatality was reported. At a press conference, Gov. Rick Perry said:
"I'm issuing a disaster declaration which covers the entire state. This will move Texas to a higher state of alert and release resources to address the spread of the virus." No further action was taken.
On May 1, Maryland's Gov. Martin O'Malley's executive order declared a public health emergency "based on an abundance of caution and concern for our students...If there is a probable case of H1N1 virus at any school, we will close that school and cease all extra-curricular activities for up to 14 days."
He also ordered "appropriate emergency protective measures (be taken to) assist public and private sector employers (take) proactive steps to prevent the spread to influenza workers and their families." He stopped short of more draconian measures, including statewide forced vaccinations and quarantines for resisters.
On August 6, the Minneapolis-St.Paul Star Tribune headlined: "As fall approaches, officials are taking a hard look at emergency plans in the event the virus strikes more aggressively." On August 10, the paper reported, without elaboration, that state officials "have a plan ready if Minnesota's health care system is swamped by 1.5 million cases."
Other states took similar actions, including Nebraska, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin, and still others are considering them as the fall flu season approaches and children return to school.
After earlier issuing a "Proclamation of Civil Emergency due to a Highly Infectious Disease," Maine Gov. John Balducci signed a Swine Flu civil emergency decree on September 1 that gives the WHO and UN martial law authority over the state and authorized the Maine Center for Disease Control to vaccinate the state's residents. Making this mandatory wasn't mentioned, but state civil emergency powers may allow it if ordered.
On April 28, the Massachusetts Senate unanimously passed the most draconian law to date, S. 2028, that imposes virtual martial law authority. If it's passed in the House and becomes law, it gives the governor sweeping powers, lets public health officials mandate vaccinations, and, with law enforcement and medical personnel, enter private residences and businesses without warrants, quarantine non-compliers, and impose $1,000-a-day fines and/or imprisonment for up to 30 days.
It also authorizes:
closures and evacuations to decontaminate residences, buildings or facilities;
the destruction of suspect materials;
restricting or prohibiting public gatherings;
public health authorities to use or supervise private health care facilities and requires private health personnel to provide appropriate services, including vaccinating state residents;
"the arrest without warrant (of anyone believed to have) violated an order for isolation or quarantine...;"
control over "ingress (and) egress" from public areas and human traffic within them;
enforcement measures for the safe disposal of "infectious waste and human remains;"
control over all medical supplies as well as other measures needed to respond to the emergency;
the use of state police for enforcement;
control over "routes of transportation and over materials and facilities including but not limited to communication devices, carriers, public utilities, fuels, food, clothing, and shelter;" and
public health officials to "institute appropriate civil proceedings against (properties) to be destroyed in accordance with the existing laws and rules of the courts of this Commonwealth or any such rules that may be developed by the courts for use during the emergency;" acquired properties may "be disposed of by destruction as the court may direct."
Massachusetts may be a trial balloon for what federal authorities plan everywhere as the fall flu season approaches, to be followed by hyped reports of nationwide Swine Flu outbreaks, perhaps caused by the vaccines intended to prevent them.
In early July, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that children, pregnant women, health care workers, and adults with chronic illnesses will be first to be vaccinated. Reports indicate that inoculations will begin in early October, preceded by media-hyped fear urging everyone to get one.
Califonia Lawmakers Pass Gun Show Ban
Source: website currently under attack
Text: The days of gun shows at the Cow Palace appear numbered.
By a 45-33 margin, the California Assembly on Wednesday passed legislation banning the sale of firearms and ammunition at the state-owned entertainment venue.
The Assembly's vote came three months after the state Senate approved the bill, which is expected to head to the governor's desk in the next few weeks.
If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs Senate Bill 585 into law, the ban will take effect Jan. 1, 2013.
The bill is "about respecting local values and local standards," said state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who authored the legislation. The residents around the Cow Palace "do not want gun shows there."
According to Leno, 44 percent of the homicides and more than 30 percent of the guns seized in the city and county of San Francisco have happened in the surrounding communities of Visitacion Valley, Bayview-Hunters Point and the Mission District since 2005
The Gun-Grabbers are on the Move Again
Source: infowars
Alan Caruba
Borderfire Report
September 10, 2009
Every despotic regime in the last century favored gun control laws. Today, the gun-grabbers are on the move again and are being led by the Obama regime.
During last year's campaign both Hillary Clinton and John McCain tore into Barack Obama for saying that residents of small-town America "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them out of bitterness over lost jobs."
Obama quickly retreated from that statement, but it revealed his real thinking and real feelings about people who own guns for any reason, as well as his contempt for people whose religious values are an important part of their lives. In both cases he was condemning large segments of the nation's population.
In America today, the figure I hear most often is an estimated ninety million people who own guns. No matter the source one cites, there is no question that most Americans have no qualms about owning guns for hunting, sport shooting, or for protection. It is no coincidence that, since Obama's election last year, gun and ammo sales have been off the chart.
Look back at what history teaches us regarding the right to bear arms. The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Unable to defend themselves, the regime killed an estimated twenty million Russian dissidents.
Turkey established gun control in 1911 and, from 1915 to 1917, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and killed.
Germany established gun control in 1938. Prior to and throughout World War II, the Nazis systematically murdered an estimated six million Jews and another five million others deemed "enemies of the state." This pattern was repeated in China which outlawed gun ownership in 1935. Gun ownership was outlawed in Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia.
It is estimated that 56 million people were killed by their own governments in the last century. Despite that, both England and Australia passed laws prohibiting gun ownership. The result has been a surge in deaths of people who were killed because they were left defenseless against criminals. In Australia, armed robberies increased 44 percent.
As this is being written, there are proposed laws in the House and Senate that would strip Americans of their Second Amendment right to "to keep and bear arms." A right the Constitution says "shall not be infringed."
Recently, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced S.1317 that would give the Attorney General the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists. The government's consolidated watch list, used to identify people suspected of links to terrorists, has now grown to more than a million names since 9/11.
In Lautenberg's New Jersey, one must have a government issued certificate to purchase a firearm and undergo a difficult process to secure the right to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise.
A similar law, the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 would make it illegal to own a firearm unless you are fingerprinted and can provide a current driver's license along with your Social Security number. It requires people to submit to a physical and mental evaluation each and every time a firearm is purchased.
In addition, Blair-Holt would require that guns must be locked away and inaccessible to any child under age 18. It would empower law enforcement officers to come into your home to inspect whether or not you are in compliance. Failure to comply includes a fine and incarceration up to five years in prison. In a case of criminal home invasion this law renders the gun owner defenseless.
This replicates the 1938 German Weapons Act that restricted ownership of firearms to "persons whose trustworthyness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit."
These proposed laws also abrogate the Fourth Amendment that says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" shall not be violated without a warrant.
To learn more about these "under the radar" efforts to restrict gun ownership and the right to carry firearms, visit http://www.saf.org/, the website of the Second Amendment Foundation and http://www.ccrkba.org/, the website of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
What I have described are incremental steps taken to ultimately render the Second Amendment null and void.
If you oppose these efforts, you need to write your representatives in Congress and let them know. A donation to the Second Amendment Foundation and/or the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms will assist their efforts on your behalf.
Despite the anti-gun attitude of the current White House I have always found it incongruous that the President is surrounded by men and women in the Secret Service, all of whom carry firearms to protect whoever holds that office. Members of Congress are protected by a Capitol Hill police force, all of whom are armed. We all know that a gun is an essential part of what every police officer wears daily while enforcing the law.
When writing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers first protected free speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom of citizens to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The Second Amendment gave priority to the right to own and bear arms because you cannot have the freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment without those protected in the Second.
Comments
God, I love it when a plan comes together !!
Were I plotting to cause a Revolution, I could not formulate a better plan then what we are watching.
God Speed, young gentlemen...the wind is in your sails..you hold ALL the reins of power, America wide.
Ignore the reefs ahead..they do not exist for you...
I have watched and waited since 1968.
Today, I meet people EVER DAY that are as infuriated as I...and more so.
They are being pushed..and they finally realize that their backs are to the wall.
There is coming a point where the only directions left to go is on their knees..where they will suck the fingers of their Masters..or they will go right over those self-proclaimed 'leaders'...
Link: InfoWars
Article by Kurt Nimmo
Text:The Missouri National Guard is training to engage in combat with "militia" groups, according to the News Tribune.
"During the battalion's annual training exercise, eight members of the Jefferson City-based unit, acting as a fictitious militant group, attempted to disrupt the battalion's operations through attacks and harassment. The battalion's other two units, the Kansas City-based 205th Area Support Medical Company, and the Springfieldbased 206th Area Support Medical Company, fended off the attacks while performing their medical duties," the newspaper reported on June 30.
National Guard training in Missouri and South Dakota prepares soldiers to confront and kill "insurgent" Americans.
The article was written by Silas Allen, a journalist with the Pentagon. In 2006, the Pentagon officially announced it would declare psychological warfare on the American people by planting propaganda in the corporate media and the Allen article is a less than covert part of this process.
An earlier article written by Silas Allen, also posted on the News Tribune website, details a Missouri National Guard unit practicing basic convoy operations during a training exercise in the Black Hills of South Dakota on June 14. During the exercise, an "insurgent group" with "a reputation for harassing convoys with ambushes and improvised explosive devices," attacks the Guard convoy. "The unit was also told to look out for civilians trying to approach the convoy on the battlefield. The civilians could be working with the insurgent group or could simply have a legitimate complaint," Allen writes.
The two exercises serve as prime examples of an orchestrated attempt by the government to train soldiers to militarily confront domestic "militia" groups.
In April, a leaked DHS report on "rightwing extremism" said "right-wing militias" will recruit veterans returning from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. "DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat," the report claims. "These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists - including lone wolves or small terrorist cells - to carry out violence."
The corporate media hyped the supposed threat posed by "lone wolves" after white supremacist and probable government operative James von Brunn allegedly attacked the Holocaust museum in Washington. "The lone wolf is what concerns the Washington field office, what concerns the FBI the most," John Perren, head of the counterterrorism branch at the FBI's Washington field office, told the Associated Press.
After Von Brunn's brutal attack, the corporate media shill and government disinfo operative Glenn Beck attempted to link 9/11 truth activists to the deranged accused killer. The corporate media has attempted to link truth activists and patriots to the Von Brunn incident and an earlier one in Pittsburgh.
A report produced by the Missouri State Police, entitled "The Modern Militia Movement," specifically characterizes constitutionalists and Ron Paul supporters as domestic terrorists. "Red flags outlined in the document include political bumper stickers such as those for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, talk of conspiracy theories such as the plan for a mega-highway from Canada to Mexico and possession of subversive literature," the Missouri Information Analysis Center report states.
In April, the Maryland National Guard was put on alert in anticipation of Tea Party protests, thus revealing that the government considers constitutional activists to be "insurgents" and "militants."
In March, the United States Army Reserve Command published a Force Protection Advisory recommending "situational awareness" and "mitigation measures" in response to End the Fed protests. On November 22, 2008, Alex Jones led a rally at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas Texas. The Dallas protest is specifically mentioned in the official Army document. Ron Paul's brother was also in attendance. The event was monitored by the Pentagon.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has recommended merging the National Guard into the "Total Force" of the U.S. military. "The recommendations that are so disturbing are those involving the assimilation the National Guard and Reserves into the regular US military, under control and management of the DoD," writes Carolyn Harris.
The DoD currently trains its employees to regard protest as a form of domestic terrorism. "It has come to our attention that the Department of Defense's Annual Level I Antiterrorism (AT) Training for 2009 misinforms Department of Defense (DoD) personnel that certain First Amendment-protected activity may amount to `low level terrorism,'" complained the ACLU last month.
The federalized National Guard has increasingly engaged in training exercises and drills designed to confront the American people. The exercises in Missouri and South Dakota reveal how the government is brainwashing troops to consider constitutionalists and patriots as "insurgents" who will attack military checkpoints and convoys.
In February, the National Guard conducted an "urban military" training mission in Arcadia, California. The Guard conducted a reconnaissance operation in the small town "to identify possible locations of the weapons dealer," according to the Times Herald. The DHS, MIAC, the Virginia Fusion Center and others have characterized Second Amendment supporters and activists as potential terrorists.
National Guard troops in Ohio, New York, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Kentucky have deployed to conduct exercises against the American people, including taking over schools and jails and assuming police functions illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act. National Guard troops were used to control the public during the Boston Marathon, the Kentucky Derby, and during New Year celebrations in Times Square last year.
If you'd like to contact the Missouri National Guard about these training exercises aimed at patriots, constitutionalists, and supporters of the Second Amendment and the Constitution, call 1-800-GoGuard.
Link: Prison Planet.com
Article By Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
A Senate amendment based on Congressman Ron Paul's successful House bill to audit the Federal Reserve was blocked by the Senate yesterday evening on procedural grounds, as Jim DeMint slammed the Fed for refusing to disclose where trillions in bailout funds had gone, while a top Obama administration advisor called for a second "stimulus" package to be prepared.
Republican Senator DeMint had attempted to get a provision attached to the 2010 spending bill that would have removed restrictions on auditing the Fed's discount window operations, funding facilities, open market operations and agreements with foreign central banks and governments.
However, the amendment was blocked by Senate authorities who claimed that it violated rules for provisions attached to spending bills.
Of course, when the elite want to get their own legislation rammed through, such as the recent climate bill in the House, it's perfectly fine for Congressmembers to be prevented from even reading it, for it to have 300 pages added at 3am in the morning before the vote, and for all kinds of pork barrel to be attached. But God forbid should representatives actually try to pass something that would benefit the American people and not the private bankers that are beyond all scrutiny and above the law.
DeMint said that the Fed has enjoyed a monopoly over money and credit in the United States since 1913 yet has never been transparent or accountable to Congress, while during that time the dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power.
"The Federal Reserve will create and disburse trillions of dollars in response to our current financial crisis," DeMint said. "Americans across the nation, regardless of their opinion on the bailout, want to know where the money has gone," he added, referring to the Fed's refusal to disclose where trillions in bailout funds has gone.
"Allowing the Fed to operate our nation's monetary system in almost complete secrecy leads to abuse, inflation and a lower quality of life," said DeMint.
A Reuters article about the Senate's move to block the bill said that the Federal Reserve was "facing growing pressure as it tries to heal the ailing economy."
In reality, the Federal Reserve has done nothing to "heal" the economy as unemployment outstrips expectations and the financial picture only looks bleaker every day. The private, run for profit Fed has taken trillions in "stimulus" funds and refused to even divulge where it has gone, even under threat of lawsuits file by Bloomberg.
Meanwhile, people like Ben Bernanke have committed financial terrorism by threatening an economic collapse if the Fed is allowed to be audited.
Any real audit of the Fed would of course create a giant roadblock for the Obama administration's plans to launch a whole new program of looting and grand larceny in the guise of a second "stimulus" package.
"We should be planning on a contingency basis for a second round of stimulus," Laura D'Andrea Tyson, a member of the panel advising President Barack Obama on tackling the economic crisis, said on Tuesday," reports CNBC.
This is precisely why Senate authorities, bought and paid for by the private bankers that now own the United States, have blocked efforts to audit the Fed, because they know that the fallout will spell disaster for their place on the power peanut gallery and in turn end the ceaseless feasting at the trough of the battered, bruised and shaken-down American taxpayer.
Link: Campaign For Liberty
Article by Dan Prentice
Dear Friend of Liberty,
Earlier today, the first shot in our battle to pass Audit the Fed through the U.S. Senate was fired on the Senate floor by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina.
Senator DeMint, who has a well-deserved reputation for taking the battle to the other side in the Senate, once again proved why he is such a valuable ally in our fight to bring transparency and accountability to the Federal Reserve.
A little while ago, the Senate voted to pass HR 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. This $3 billion bill contains, among many other things, provisions for GAO audits on certain agencies.
Seizing on a chance to take quick action to bring Audit the Fed up for a vote, and with the GAO provisions in mind, Senator DeMint attached the full text of S 604, the Senate version of Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill, to HR 2918 as Senate Amendment 1367 before it was considered for final passage.
However, Senate Democrats refused to even allow a vote on the amendment! That's right. The internationalist, Fed-loving elite in the Senate used a parliamentary tactic to shut down DeMint's amendment.
After Senator DeMint brought Audit the Fed to the floor, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska raised a "point of order" to prevent a vote, claiming that the amendment violated Senate Rule 16 by "legislating" on an appropriations bill. The Senate president agreed, and the amendment was shot down.
Senator DeMint did not back down, though, and directly challenged Senate leadership by pointing out the other GAO audits contained in the bill. As Senator DeMint listed them off, the Senate president was forced to agree with Senator DeMint that each one he described, all of which would be left in for final passage, also violated Senate Rule 16.
Which tells us at least one thing: the problem wasn't with "legislating" on the bill or violating Senate Rules (which is commonly done). Shooting down the amendment was about preventing a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve for the first time in its history!
Senate leadership is hoping this issue will just fade away so they can get on to what they deem to be more "important" business, like dictating what kind of healthcare plan you and I can carry or passing destructive Cap-and-Tax legislation.
But the American people deserve answers on what the Fed has done with trillions of our tax dollars and what they are committing us and future generations to as part of their secret deals with foreign central banks and governments.
The leadership decided today to turn their backs on transparency, but our fight is just beginning.
As Senator DeMint made clear on the floor, the Audit the Fed bill has wide bipartisan support. He rightly warned the Senate that even if they delay today, they WILL have to deal with the issue on the floor.
It is up to you and me to back up Senator DeMint's words by making sure the momentum continues to build and the bill comes up for a final vote.
The rejection of the Audit amendment is just the first battle in our war. Now is the time to really put the pressure on the U.S. Senate to Audit the Fed!
Senator DeMint fired the opening salvo and showcased the hypocrisy of the Senate for allowing other GAO audits to be included in the bill while refusing to even allow a vote on Fed transparency.
Again, we're just getting started. Senator DeMint will keep fighting to pass Audit the Fed on its own or as an amendment, and we need to continue putting pressure on our senators to do everything in their power to achieve a floor vote.
Link: InfoWars
July 9, 2009
On July 2, Obama's Office of the Press Secretary posted a press release on the White House website. It announced "an all-day H1N1 Flu Preparedness Summit. to further prepare this nation for the possibility of a more severe outbreak of H1N1 flu." The announced summit is to be held today at the Natcher Conference Center at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and Homeland Security Advisor John Brennan are hosting the summit.
DHS' Napolitano said the "federal government remains vigilant and well coordinated with state, local, and international partners as we prepare for all possibilities as to how the H1N1 flu virus may impact us this fall."
"Scientists and public health experts forecast that the impact of H1N1 may well worsen in the fall - when the regular flu season hits, or even earlier, when schools start to open - which is only five or six weeks away in some cases," Sebelius is quoted in the press release. "The goal of the Summit is to launch a national influenza campaign by bringing federal, state and local officials, emergency managers, educators and others together with the nation's public health experts to build on and tailor states' existing pandemic plans, share lessons learned and best practices during the spring and summer H1N1 wave, and discuss preparedness priorities."
DHS' Napolitano said the "federal government remains vigilant and well coordinated with state, local, and international partners as we prepare for all possibilities as to how the H1N1 flu virus may impact us this fall."
In other words, rest assured, an engineered pandemic is on for this fall.
Is it possible HHS, DHS, and other agencies are not only discussing plans for martial law lock-down - politely called quarantine - in Bethesda, but also the logistics of a mandatory vaccination program?
The CDC is already working with state governments and health agencies on how best to administer a toxic vaccine through clinics. The CDC estimates that at least 50 million vaccine doses will be available in the U.S. by October 15 and enough experimental and untested vaccine to "immunize" (that is, comprise immune systems) everyone in the country will be available later in the season.
On June 26, William Schaffner, an influenza "expert" at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, said that "public health departments are under-funded and will get fatigued" and the multiple immunizations "required" (according to the government) may overwhelm U.S. state agencies.
That's where the CDC, DHS and the Pentagon come into the picture. After the pandemic is hyped sufficiently by the corporate media, the stage will be set to lock-down cities and administer soft kill vaccinations at gunpoint.
Addendum
Posted on the USA Today site this afternoon:
School-age children, pregnant women and health-care workers may be in line for swine flu vaccinations this fall, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told state health officials Thursday at an H1N1 Preparedness Summit in Bethesda, Md.
She said the government will make a decision about whether to provide the shots once they see results of studies on the new vaccine.
President Obama, who called in to the summit from Italy where he is attending the Group of 8 summit, said the government must do all it can to prepare for a renewed outbreak of the flu this fall.
Steve
3%er
Don't be a stranger, just because you got a job,
doesn't mean you can not post here anymore. [;)] [:D][:D]
There does not seem to be much good news anymore, does there? [V]
Source: infowars
Text:Infowars
July 18, 2009
It is yet another example of the federal government running roughshod over the states.
Last month, the state of Tennessee's General Assembly passed House Bill 1796, the "Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act," which states that any firearms or ammunition manufactured within the state and legally owned and kept within the state by citizens are "not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration" due to provisions in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
But according to Assistant Director Carson W. Carroll of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the U.S. Constitution is little more than a g.d. piece of paper, as George W. Bush so infamously deemed it during his reign as the decider-in-chief.
On July 16, Carroll dispatched his agency's official response to the law passed in Tennessee - the BATFE asserts that "Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply."
It will be interesting to see how Tennessee reacts to this official proclamation.
It will be interesting to see how Tennessee reacts to this official proclamation.
Indeed it will.
No such announcement has been made about Montana, at least that I have heard ?
Source: The Freedom Medium
Text: July 19, 2009
First, we did a story about an Army Major who filed suit regarding his deployment to Afghanistan on the grounds that Obama was not America's legitimate Commander-In Chief.
World Net Daily thought highly enough of this article to link to it on their front page.
Then we did an article pointing out the differences between a Birth Cerificate and a Certification Of Live Birth.
Some of the biggest names in conservative news have weighed in on this topic, such as Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and numerous others have offered their opinions.
One of the people at the forefront of this issue is Joseph Farah and his staff over at World Net Daily.
They are even running an online petition demanding Obama produce a long-form birth certificate.
Thanks to the alertness of our great friend and loyal supporter Erica, who gave us the heads-up on this. it appears that the issue of Obama being forced to produce a copy of his birth certificate may prove to be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
On January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489.
For those of you who can't take the time to read it. here is the section that applies:
"Sec.2
Notice Of Intent To Disclose Presidential Records
When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines providied by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege."
Now for all of you who commented on our previous articles that we were no more that right-wing nut jobs, that this thing about Obama's birth certificate was a non-issue, and those of you who tried to shift the focus of the stories, doesn't this strike you as just a little odd?
That the first order of business Obama took care of on day one of his Presidency was to sign off on an Executive Order that states that only the records he chooses to be made public will be released?
This is the subject that was at the absolute top of his agenda?
If this isn't proof that Obama is hiding something, I don't know what is.
Source: infowars
Article by Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
July 27, 2009
So much for English common law and Sir Edward Coke's dictum that a man's home is his refuge and castle. "For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man's home is his safest refuge]," Coke wrote in 1628.
So much for the Bill of Rights and centuries of English common law - police in Texas can now demand you evacuate your castle at gunpoint.
William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, said "no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process," except in the case of criminal causes.
In the United States, the Castle Doctrine, arising from English common law, designates one's place of residence as a refuge not only against violent attacks, but unwarranted trespassing by the state.
In Texas, the authorities have put an end to this idea, which ultimately found its way into Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures. Property rights are integral to the Constitution.
"Police can arrest people who don't leave town under mandatory evacuation orders under a new state law that goes into effect in the heart of Texas' hurricane season," reports the Associated Press. "As it stands, officials cannot compel people to evacuate, only warn that those who stay behind won't have any emergency services at their disposal." The new law gives county judges and mayors the power to authorize use of "reasonable force" to remove people from the area.
The state now has the authority to smash down your door and arrest you for failure to follow orders.
The Supreme Court has ruled "the Fourth Amendment protects other interests in addition to privacy interests, such as possessory interests." In other words, the court ruled that the state cannot evict without cause.
Jonathan Jorissen, writing for the Ave Maria Law Review in 2007, noted that "forcible removal of victims of natural disasters [in this instance, Katrina] seemingly constitutes seizures. Applying the requisite standard of reasonableness, it must be asked whether the actions were, in fact, reasonable. Given the nature of the situation, it is evident that they were not. The affected citizens were not guilty of any crime. Additionally, their property was in no way necessary for the government to carry out its duties. Instead, these hurricane victims were further victimized by their government, which removed them from their homes based on the suspicion that they might contract some disease. Without a more compelling interest, the government's actions were unreasonable."
As Supreme Court Justice William Patterson observed, property rights are the foundation of any social compact. "Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society."
In Texas, the state has destroyed that compact and the very concept of natural law.
Source: infowars
Article By Steve Watson
Monday, July 27, 2009
A huge simulation coordinated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has begun today with no mainstream media coverage at all.
The security exercise known as National Level Exercise 09 (NLE 09) will last for five days and will involve foreign security officials working in conjunction with the US military, as well as Federal, State, Local Tribal and Private Sector representatives.
According to a factsheet in the recesses of the FEMA website, the agency will host National Level Exercise 2009 (NLE 09) on July 27 through July 31, 2009:
"NLE 09 will be the first major exercise conducted by the United States government that will focus exclusively on terrorism prevention and protection, as opposed to incident response and recovery," the factsheet states. It is designated as a Tier I National Level Exercise, or TOPOFF, which are exercises conducted annually in accordance with the National Exercise Program (NEP), "which serves as the nation's overarching exercise program for planning, organizing, conducting and evaluating national level exercises," according to FEMA.
NLE 09 "will focus on intelligence and information sharing among intelligence and law enforcement communities, and between international, federal, regional, state, tribal, local and private sector participants".
The FEMA information sheet states that the exercise involves a scenario that begins "in the aftermath of a notional terrorist event outside the United States, and exercise play will center on preventing subsequent efforts by the terrorists to enter the United States and carry out additional attacks. This scenario enables participating senior officials to focus on issues related to preventing terrorist events domestically and protecting U.S. critical infrastructure."
The exercise will also include agencies in Britain, Mexico, Canada and Australia, the Department of Homeland Security has said. The Navajo Nation will also participate.
"This year the United States welcomes the participation of Australia, Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom in NLE 09." The FEMA factsheet does not explain why the participation of foreign officials is necessary, nor does it elaborate on the roles they will play.
Canadian federal involvement was today confirmed in a press release attributed to "Public Safety Canada". The Press release also noted the involvement of the United Kingdom, Australia and Mexico.
An independent reporter from Oklahoma (or FEMA region VI) was informed that NLE 09 is not "media friendly" because it largely involves people looking at computer screens in Oklahoma City and Tulsa.
After asking if it would be possible to sit in on the exercise, Andrew W. Griffin
of Red Dirt Report was told by Brook Arbeitman, the public information officer for the Oklahoma Office of Homeland Security, that this was not possible and that the exercise is mostly decompartmentalized.
Arbeitman, interestingly enough, could not answer some more in-depth questions about NLE 09 because she is a role player in the exercise, playing - you guessed it - a public information officer for Oklahoma Office of Homeland Security and as a result "is not privy" to some of the specifics.
"We will be playing along with everybody to whatever extent the exercise" proceeds, Arbeitman said.
According to FEMA, the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, Justice, and State, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and a broad spectrum of component agencies, offices and commands will all participate in the exercise.
NLE 09 activities will take place at command posts, emergency operation centers, intelligence centers and field locations throughout the country, including federal headquarters facilities in the Washington, D.C. area as well as facilities in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and California.
In our previous story on NLE 09, we noted that this exercise is a continuation of previous simulations under FEMA and the DHS that have involved the rounding-up and internment of American citizens labeled as "suspected terrorists".
Under REX 84 and other operations, FEMA, in association with 34 other federal civil departments and agencies, has consistently trained to detain large numbers of Americans.
We also noted that several recently leaked Department of Homeland Security, FBI, and local law enforcement documents have stated that the focus of security operations should be "rightwing extremists" who support the Second Amendment and states' rights and oppose abortion and open borders.
Source: tenth amendment center
Text:July 29, 2009Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal today transmitted the following memorandum and proposed resolution on state sovereignty to the Wyoming Legislature's Management Council.
(h/t Mike Johnson, EverythingCody.com)
Freudenthal, a Democrat, was previously a US attorney for the Clinton administration, and is currently serving his 2nd term as Governor of Wyoming. He endorsed Barack Obama for president and is commonly referred to as one of the most popular governors in the country.
MEMORANDUM
To: Management Council Members
From: Dave Freudenthal, Governor
Date: July 28, 2009
Re: Sovereignty Resolution
As you know, individual states have been adopting Sovereignty Resolutions over the past few years. Such resolutions have been considered by the Wyoming Legislature over the years as well. Representative Illoway is working on one for this session.
The attached version expands slightly on the versions currently circulating. The resolution includes a list of specific federal laws and a reference to the idea that retaining lands in federal ownership runs afoul of the "equal footing" doctrine. I am enclosing a possible resolution for your consideration. Clearly this is ultimately a legislative prerogative.
From time to time we all wonder whether sending resolutions to Washington, DC really does any good. On the other hand, it's nice to at least get our view on the record.
DRAFT
A JOINT RESOLUTION requesting Congress to cease and desist from enacting mandates that are beyond the scope of the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution of the United States.
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, today, in 2010, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many powers assumed by the federal government and federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the union of states, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and
WHEREAS, section 4, article IV, of the Constitution provides, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," and the Ninth Amendment provides, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States frequently considers and passes laws, and the executive agencies of the federal government frequently promulgate regulations, the constitutional authority for which is either absent or tenuous, including, without limitation, the Real ID Act (which imposes significant unfunded mandates upon the states with respect to the traditional state function of driver's licensing), the Endangered Species Act (which, as construed by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service, authorizes a federal executive agency to require specific legislation related to the traditional state function of wildlife management), the Clean Water Act (which, as construed by the Environmental Protection Agency, authorizes a federal executive agency to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over waters which are not subject to federal regulation), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (which implements a policy of federal lands retention in derogation of the "equal footing" doctrine); and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING:
Section 1. That the Wyoming Legislature claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.
Section 2. That this resolution serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, from enacting mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.
Section 3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs the states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.
Section 4. That the Secretary of State of Wyoming transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress and to the Wyoming Congressional Delegation, with a request that this resolution be officially entered in the congressional record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America.
Source: InfoWars
America's 1st Freedom. August 2009
By Dave Kopel
The Obama administration's offensive against the Second Amendment has begun.
As was predicted, the strategy uses international law to create a foundation for repressive and extreme gun control. The mechanism is an international treaty, the "Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials."
If the plan succeeds, police sales of confiscated firearms would be prohibited, and anyone who reloads ammunition at home would need a federal license. In addition, the treaty would create an international law requirement that almost every American firearm owner be licensed as if he were a manufacturer.
Founded in 1948, the Organization of American States (OAS) includes all of the independent nations of the Western Hemisphere. (Cuba's participation has been suspended since 1962.) In 1997, President Clinton signed a gun control treaty, which had been negotiated by OAS. Subsequently, neither he nor President George W. Bush sent the treaty to the United States Senate for ratification.
The treaty is commonly known as "CIFTA," for its Spanish acronym, Convenci?n Interamericana Contra La Fabricaci?n Y El Tr?fico Il?citos De Armas De Fuego, Municiones, Explosivos Y Otros Materiales Relacionados. The document is called a "convention" rather than a "treaty" because "convention" is a term of art for a multilateral treaty created by a multinational organization.
At the OAS meeting in April 2009, President Obama said that he would send CIFTA to the U.S. Senate and urge ratification. The White House claimed that the convention was merely an expression of international goodwill, and that it had been negotiated with the participation of the National Rifle Association.
Both statements were false.
In the United States, it is common for police and sheriffs' departments to sell confiscated firearms to federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs). The FFLs then resell the guns to lawful consumers. Of course, when any FFL sells a gun to a customer, the sale must be approved by the National Instant Check System, or its state equivalent.
Police and sheriff sales of confiscated guns would be outlawed by CIFTA which mandates: "State Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal."
Another target of CIFTA is reloading. The millions of Americans who reload include competitive target shooters, hunters, trainers who want to craft milder ammunition for beginners and many other hobbyists who enjoy making things themselves and saving money. Due to the present shortage of ammunition, more and more people are taking up reloading-so many that reloading equipment manufacturers are having difficulty keeping their products in stock.
Reloading is entirely lawful in every state, and no state requires a specific permit for those reloading ammunition. CIFTA, however, declares that "illicit manufacturing" is the "manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials" that takes place without "a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place."
Thus, either the federal government or all 50 state governments would have to enact legislation to impose reloading licenses, and to define unlicensed reloading as crime. According to Article IV of CIFTA, "State Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials."
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) charges $10 per year for a license to manufacture most ammunition. Also under existing law, the premises of firearms and ammunition manufacturers may be inspected without notice once per year by the BATFE, and an unlimited number of times in cases involving a criminal investigation. Thus, anyone who reloads ammunition would be taxed and subject to home inspection by the federal government.
Reloaders are not the only ones who would be required to have a manufacturing license. So would every company or individual that makes any part of a firearm or an accessory. In fact, so would almost every firearm owner in the nation.
CIFTA Article I requires licensing for the manufacture of "other related materials." These are defined as "any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm."
That definition straightforwardly includes all spare firearm parts. It also includes accessories that are attached to firearms, such as scopes, ammunition magazines, sights, recoil pads, bipods and slings.
Current U.S. law requires a license to manufacture a firearm, with a "firearm" being defined as the receiver-no federal license is needed to make other parts of a firearm, such as barrels or stocks.
But CIFTA's plain language requires federal licensing of the manufacturers and sellers of barrels, stocks, screws, springs and everything else that is used to make firearms.
Likewise, the manufacture of all accessories-such as scopes, sights, lasers, slings, bipods and so on-would have to be licensed.
In the United States, the manufacture of a firearm or ammunition for one's personal use does not require a license, since the licensing requirements apply to persons who "engage in the business" by engaging in repeated transactions for profit. (18 U.S. Code sect. 923(a).) Yet CIFTA would require licensing for everyone.
Many, perhaps most, firearm owners occasionally tinker with their guns. They might replace a worn-out spring, or install a better barrel. Or they might add accessories such as a scope, a laser aiming device, a recoil pad or a sling. All of these simple activities would require a government license. The CIFTA definition of "Illicit manufacturing" is "the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials." (Emphasis added.)
Even if putting an attachment on a firearm were not considered in itself to be "assembly," the addition of most components necessarily requires some assembly; for example, scope rings consist of several pieces that must be assembled. Replacing one grip with another requires, at the least, the use of screws.
Because the definition of "manufacturing" is so broad, nearly all gun owners would eventually be required to obtain a manufacturing license.
CIFTA mandates that "State Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials . the criminal offenses established pursuant to the foregoing paragraph shall include participation in, association or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit, and aiding, abetting, facilitating, and counseling the commission of said offenses."
Yet the preamble of CIFTA says: "this Convention does not commit State Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character."
Does the preamble negate the comprehensive licensing system that CIFTA demands? Not really. The exemptions are for "ownership, possession, or trade." There is no exemption for "manufacturing." As detailed above, "manufacturing" is defined broadly enough as to include the home manufacture of ammunition, as well as repair of one's own firearm, or assembling an accessory for attachment to one's firearm.
Notably, even if CIFTA were read so that the "does not commit" language also pertained to manufacturing, there is nothing that prevents a state party from choosing to enact manufacturing regulations.
The nations that have ratified CIFTA so far have not necessarily fully implemented the literal requirements of language regarding firearms and related material manufacturing. It is hardly unusual for nations to make a show of ratifying a treaty, but then do little to carry out the treaty's requirements. However, in a culture such as the United States, with a strong commitment to the rule of law, CIFTA might have greater practical effect.
If ratified by the Senate, CIFTA would become the law of the land. Would the BATFE then be empowered to write regulations implementing the convention-without waiting for Congress to pass a new statute?
If a treaty is "self-executing," then it is an independent source of authority for domestic regulations. By traditional views of international law, CIFTA is not self-executing, since its language anticipates that ratifying governments will have to enact future laws to comply with CIFTA.
On the other hand, CIFTA does not explicitly declare itself to be non-self-executing. Harold Koh, who has been nominated as legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State, has challenged the doctrine of "so-called self-executing treaties" and argues that the Supreme Court decisions creating the doctrine are incorrect. (100 Yale Law Journal, pages 2360-61, 2383-84; see also 35 University of California at Davis Law Review, page 1111 n. 114; 35 Houston Law Review, page 666.)
Rather, Koh writes, legislatures "should ratify treaties with a presumption that they are self-executing." Further, domestic courts should "construe domestic statutes consistently with international law" and "should employ international human rights norms to guide interpretation of domestic constitutional norms." (106 Yale Law Journal, page 2658 n. 297.) As detailed in last month's issue of America's 1st Freedom, Koh considers stringent gun control to be a very important international human right (July 2009, p.32).
In Koh's view, even when Congress has not created a statute to implement a treaty, courts should recognize a right of private plaintiffs to bring lawsuits under the treaty. (100 Yale Law Journal, pages 2383-84.) Thus, Koh and his allies could argue that Senate ratification of CIFTA trumps the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which outlaws abusive lawsuits against gun manufacturers and stores.
Suppose that the Senate, when ratifying CIFTA, added specific reservations declaring that CIFTA is not self-executing, that CIFTA authorizes no additional regulations and that CIFTA does not authorize any new lawsuits. The United States executive branch, under Koh's guidance, might ignore the reservations. When the Senate added a reservation to another treaty, Koh wrote, "Many scholars question persuasively whether the United States declaration has either domestic or international legal effect." (111 Harvard Law Review, pages 1828-29 n. 24.)
Ultimately, the question of whether BATFE can promulgate regulations under CIFTA might be decided in court cases. One way for a court to resolve the issue would be to acknowledge that federal statutes already authorized regulation of manufacturing, and that CIFTA, as the latter-enacted law, simply expanded the definition of manufacturing so that the licensing requirement now applies to persons who are not engaged in the firearm business, and to manufacture or assembly of firearms attachments and spare parts.
It is not hard to foresee Obama-appointed federal judges upholding massive new BATFE gun control regulations, especially when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the State Department's top legal adviser (Harold Koh) insist to the courts that the expanded federal regulations are necessary for the United States to comply with its international law obligations.
CIFTA does not specifically require gun registration. But once you impose manufacturing licenses, registration comes along for the ride. Existing federal regulations for manufacturers of firearms and ammunition require that manufacturers keep records of all products they produce, and these records must be available for government inspection.
Thus, those who reload ammunition would have to keep records of every round they made, and gun owners would have to keep a record of everything they "assembled" (e.g., putting a scope on a rifle). These records would then be open to BATFE inspection.
Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., (formerly a gun criminal for the terrorist group The Black Panthers), introduced H.R. 45, to set up a national licensing and registration system for handguns and for self-loading long guns. As implemented under the direction of President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and State Department legal adviser Koh, CIFTA could go even further-it also covers ammunition reloading as well as long guns that are not semi-automatic.
Further, CIFTA could be used to impose national licensing, registration and taxation of gun owners without members of Congress having to cast a vote that explicitly creates such laws. Indeed, because treaties need to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, yet need no approval from the House of Representatives, the House could be cut out of the law-making process altogether.
hummmmm!! any one here own a Colt 1911 A1 marked, "Property of U.S. Government" ??
i would bet many here do, i once did but lost it while skiing down the slopes of Mt. McKinley [;)]
I wish them allspeed with this plan.
The fence-sitters, Quislings, fellow travelers and Beast-Lovers will wet their jeans obeying the new rules.
Then they will have orgasims turning in their neighbors with more guts then they...
This, or a similar tyrannical action, is likely the 'tipping point' for certain hard men and constitutionalists.
Bring it on.
And so many still wear blinders in blissful ignorance.
This, or a similar tyrannical action, is likely the 'tipping point' for certain hard men and constitutionalists.
Bring it on.
+1 brothers.
License my *! [:(!]
LET THE PARTY BEGIN!!!!!!!!!!![:D]
Source: infowars
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
August 6, 2009
On his show today, Alex Jones read an email sent by a listener. "I work at the National Institutes of Health and we received an email about the upcoming International Swine Flu Conference that will be occurring in Washington, D.C. Aug 19 - Aug 21, 2009," the listener writes. "They're talking about mass fatality management and continuity of government. They're going to hit us with a massive biological false flag attack."
The email contains a PDF attachment of a brochure for the Swine Flu Conference. Breakout sessions detailed on the brochure include discussions on mass fatality planning, business continuity planning, and COOP or Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government Planning. Additional sessions cover enforced quarantines, mass vaccinations, and how to "control and diffuse social unrest and public disorder." The brochure is also available for download on the International Swine Flu Conference website sponsored by ISFC New-Fields Exhibitions.
"Top leaders and key decision-makers of major companies representing a broad range of industries will meet with distinguished scientists, public health officials, law enforcers, first responders, and other experts to discuss pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery at the 1st International Swine Flu Conference," the website announces.
The conference is further evidence the government plans to launched a false flag attack under the cover of an engineered H1N1 flu pandemic and impose martial law.
Prison Planet and Infowars have covered the story of a manufactured flu pandemic in detail, including:
On July 25, the Los Angeles Times reported the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expects the flu pandemic expected this autumn to kill hundreds of thousands. "The number of potential deaths is much higher than that usually seen in seasonal flu, which kills an estimated 36,000 Americans a year, and is even higher than the nation's most recent pandemic." The 1957 pandemic of Asian flu killed 70,000. The 1918 Spanish Flu claimed between 500,000 to 675,000 lives in the United States.
The CDC has announced that it will no longer keep track of the number of people killed by the virus. "Health officials from the CDC said the virus was too widespread to continue counting," the Digital Journal reported. "Health experts say millions have likely been infected worldwide."
The U.S. government has bought 195 million doses of H1N1 swine flu vaccine for a possible autumn vaccination campaign, a U.S. federal official told Reuters on July 23. The U.S. Health and Human Services Department has also contracted for 120 million doses of adjuvant, a compound to stretch the number of doses of vaccine.
In late 2007, the Bush administration issued a "directive" establishing a "National Strategy for Public Health and Medical Preparedness" based on Biodefense for the 21st Century. Prior to this, in May of 2007, the U.S. military had the foresight to "plan for a possible avian flu pandemic that could kill as many as three million people in the United States in as little as six weeks," according to Yahoo News. Guidelines and "planning assumptions for US military services and combatant commands" were published in a document entitled "Implementation Plan for Pandemic Influenza."
"Possible scenarios include US troops being called in to put down riots, guard pharmaceutical plants and shipments, and help restrict the movement of people inside the country and across its borders," Yahoo summarizes. "The plan envisions fast moving, catastrophic waves of disease that would overwhelm health facilities and * the ability of state and local authorities to provide even basic commodities or services."
The "hidden agenda consists in using the threat of a pandemic and/or the plight of a natural disaster as a pretext to establish military rule" and "suspend Constitutional government and allow the Military to intervene in civilian affairs in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act," author Michel Chossudovsky wrote in 2005.
..................................................................... To see the original e-mail click on the source link. Steve
Source: tenth amendment center
Bryce Shonka
Tenth Amendment Center
August 7, 2009
Remember the good old days, when one only had to watch out for the Federal Government's twisted interpretation of the commerce clause to justify tyranny?
Well those days seem to be long gone. The Obama Administration has been employing an old tactic lately - what some might call an imperial threat - and they're not doing it overseas, either.
STATES UNDER THREAT
The state of Oklahoma is now the target of a direct challenge from US Attorney General Eric Holder, who is using the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as justification to violate Oklahoma's sovereignty as affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
In a letter written to the State Attorney General in April, the Federal government used aggressive language, bringing up the possibility of withholding Federal funds appropriated for Oklahoma. The reason? A proposed amendment to the State Constitution, which requires voter approval, that would make English the official language of the State.
"What it indicates is the Federal Government's contempt for the states, in this case Oklahoma, and for the idea of federal - as opposed to national - government. AG Holder believes that Oklahoma is an administrative subdivision of the USA, and that it is perfectly right for him to coerce Oklahomans to do his will. Who cares whether he has ever been to Oklahoma, met an Oklahoman, or thought about Oklahoma?" said Kevin Gutzman, an American historian and New York Times bestselling author.
Oklahoma is not alone as a state challenged by central authority in recent months. Recently, federal firearms licensees in Tennessee and Montana received a letter from another Federal agency, the ATF, who had also issued a decree wrought with hubris - claims by the Federal government of their legal supremacy across the land.
DESTROYING LOCAL GOVERNMENT
"Both of these letters, particularly this letter to the Attorney General of Oklahoma, are very officious," observed Rob Natelson, professor of law at the University of Montana. "It reminds one eerily of the kinds of communications that started to come out from the Emperor to the local cities of the Roman Empire, beginning the course of the ultimate destruction of local government."
Professor Natelson is a widely-recognized expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution, and on several occasions, he has been the first to uncover key background facts about the Constitution's meaning. I knew this before our conversation. What I didn't know, however, was that he's also been studying Roman Law and history for the past 50 years, and is responsible for several works in that field.
"During the 2nd century AD, the Roman Emperors began increasingly to interfere with local government and they did this with.letters.letters that look something like this," continued Natelson, indicating the letter from Holder to Oklahoma. "They started out as almost advisory and they got increasingly peremptory. By the end of the 2nd century, there was very little local government left. You had very few people, therefore, willing to participate in local elections; very little patriotic spirit towards one's own province or city. And this was the harbinger for the ultimate centralization of the Roman Empire."
He continued with a strong, decisive tone, "Almost everyone who's studied in that area agrees that the effect was to sap the life out of the empire, so that everything flowed to the center. All that counted was the Emperor and his bureaucrats.and his courtiers. I look at this and I see this letter which gets close to looking like an order from the central government down to a sovereign state legislature, and I say.WOW. This looks like something that Septimius Severus would have sent to the local officials."
In Columbus, Ohio last weekend, a rally in support of State Sovereignty drew around 7,000 people. Judge Andrew Napolitano addressed the rally and made similar comments indicating the nature of our current point in US history.
"In the long history of the world, very few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its maximum hour of danger. This is that moment and you are that generation"
IMPERIALISM AND DECLINE
Are these men `crying wolf'?
"Some people might think that's a far fetched analogy but I can't emphasize enough how important this development is seen by historians. When people think of the collapse of the Roman Empire they think of the fall of Rome in 476 AD. The conversion of Rome from a relatively free state - almost a Federation - into a totalitarian state, really picked up speed and accelerated during the 2nd century [AD], with this increasing intermeddling by the central authorities in local state government. That's what it reminded me of," recalled Natelson.
"[The DOJ] are not violating any law by sending these letters, but there's a change in tone, there's a new and disturbing tone in them. At least the ATF letter was addressed to individuals. This one is addressed to a state legislature - really, it's a bit much. Besides the fact that there's the tone, there's the fact that they sent the letters at all. Most of the letters that were sent out by the emperor were called rescripts, and that's almost what [the letter from Holder] looks like. The one difference is that a rescript was usually a reply to a request for advice. In some ways this is worse than a rescript because this is unsolicited. A better way to compare it would be to an imperial constitutio - an imperial decision or decree." Natelson added.
His Roman analogy is worth considering, for several reasons. Rome may have ended up a brutal dictatorship, but it began through a series of treaties between regions, and in some ways parallels present day America.
"When you draw comparisons between the U.S. and ancient Rome, you have to be very cautious, though Rome does have lessons to offer us and the history and results of the relentless centralization of the Empire is one of them," Natelson continued.
THE OTHER WAY AROUND
If there's a case to be made that the US is headed for the same sort of central plan that sucks the life out of a Republic, it would be difficult to imagine who in the United States could be encouraged by such a trend, outside of DC's beltway.
"Certainly state legislators in Oklahoma and congressmen from Oklahoma should put the Federal Government on notice that they will support a substantial reduction in the budget for Holder's portion of the federal bureaucracy so long as he is trying to coerce them in this way." recommended Gutzman.
Worldwide trends in recent political elections do exhibit signs of a move away from central planner candidates, a trend the United States has been contrary to for nearly a decade, but perhaps the pendulum has reversed itself.
"As the economy grows increasingly complicated, increasingly interdependent and increasingly technological, centralized control (which never worked very well) works less and less, and people are less willing to stand for it. This reflects a visceral gut reaction people have against centralized control, because they know from their own life it makes no sense, though it always takes time for those mega-trends to filter into the political class," Natelson continued. "Eventually, when a mule gets hit over the head enough times it figures out what's going on, and eventually the politicians will figure out what's going on, too."
People in the US are coming together by the thousands, demanding decentralization and nullification of Federal powers. Never before have the political elites had to contend with a non-partisan political force on such a massive scale. A storm seems to be brewing; a maelstrom of everyday Americans rallying around the document designed to keep the government in fear of the people - instead of the other way around.
Source: Campaign for Liberty
Authors: Micheal Ostrolenk, Robert E. Smith, Richard Sobel and Jan Towe
Campaign for Liberty
August 19, 2009
Starting this year, Americans will have to get government approval to travel by air. As Privacy Journal revealed last fall, henceforth "Permission Now Needed to Travel Within U.S." Getting a reservation and checking-in for air travel will soon require Transportation Security Administration authorization. That permission is by no means assured: For example, if your name matches a "no-fly" list, even mistakenly, you can be denied the right to a reserve a seat on a flight. If your name is on a "selectee" list, you and your possessions will be searched more thoroughly before you can board. What is going on here?
All travelers will need government OK in order to board a flight, or take a cruise. What the government can allow one day, it can forbid the next.
Protecting air safety is essential, but professional screening at airports already provides for it. Giving the TSA as an official agency the additional authority to decide who gets to go where reaches beyond safety into overextended governmental power. This newly minted "Secure Flight" rule fundamentally imbalances long-standing citizens' rights both to travel and to be left alone. If your name appears among hundreds of thousands on "watchlists," you assert that the government should not require ID to fly, you don't want to reveal your date of birth for concern about identity theft, or you don't choose to declare your gender, you can stay home.
By combining the requirement for government photo IDs in order to fly with checking government watchlists including potentially every passenger, "Secure Flight" puts the federal government into the business of licensing travel. All travelers will need government OK in order to board a flight, or take a cruise. What the government can allow one day, it can forbid the next. All things considered, isn't this a higher-tech and later-day version of South African domestic passports or eastern European checkpoints? In fact, because of the high technological capacity of the U.S. version, aren't its implications for travel control of plane, train, bus and subway travel much more far reaching? It's incredible that something like this is happening relatively unrecognized in America.
While some people consider the requirement to show ID or reveal a birth date a small trade-off for security, what is at stake here is the right to travel. That fundamental freedom of movement appears in the Articles of Confederation in the right to freely enter and leave all the states of the then small union. It was so fundamentally a part of American citizenship that the privileges and immunities clauses of the Constitution included it without explicitly mentioning it again for the more perfect union. With a large and expansive nation now ranging from Hawaii and Alaska to Washington DC, that right to travel nationally, and petition the distant government, is even more fundamental. Yet some courts maintain that if you can walk, you don't need the right to fly. People have the right to walk around freely without carrying a national ID; why do they have to show one to travel? The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the scope of the right to travel but lower courts have tended to restrict it more narrowly than the Founding Fathers would approve.
Clearly, the air ID and "Secure Flight" rules mean you cannot travel any distance reachable only by air without official permission. Moreover, the system can easily be extended to Amtrak as a government railroad, which already requires government ID in order to purchase a ticket. It can further be extended to urban rapid-transit networks tied to travel cards, and private inter-city buses requiring IDs to buy tickets or board coaches. These are the bases for an internal passport system in the U.S.
There are a lot of practical issues here too. The assumption that any "no-fly" list includes all potential wrong doers is implausible, and first time criminals would by definition not appear until it's too late. Many people on these lists are there because their names are similar to those who are suspect for other reasons. There are perhaps a few hundred people whose past activities merit keeping them off the streets, let alone flights; the small group is better caught through search warrants and good police work before they come to the airport. To demand that 750 million annual passengers have to get government permissions to fly creates a needle in-a-haystack approach to locating a few potential wrongdoers (none so far have been caught by the matching). "Secure Flight" is simply an ineffective use of scarce resources that sweeps much too broadly over people's most basic rights to travel and be let alone.
What can you do? Like other regulations quickly promulgated at the end of an outgoing administration, these rules need to be delayed and reconstituted. Contact your Senators, Representatives and the White House to suspend such ill-considered regulations now. Insist that the government create a system that makes flying safe without granting federal officials the final say over permission for citizens to travel. Otherwise, the traveling public may be detoured onto a perilous downhill road to being permanently grounded.
source: examiner.com
Follow the link for the short news clip. Legislators voted 20-28 in Mass. to impose unreal fines if "emergency" occurs.
*I got the vote wrong on this, in a later article it was voted in unanimously*
Jail time and $1000/day fine for refusing swine flu vaccine.
source: examiner.com
Follow the link for the short news clip. Legislators voted 20-28 in Mass. to impose unreal fines if "emergency" occurs.
Collectivism leads inevitably to totalitarianism.
And so it continues......
Source: knka.com
City council members are expected to consider a proposed assault weapons ban today during a special session on the G-20 SummitPITTSBURGH (KDKA)
As the G-20 Summit nears, Pittsburgh City Council is considering the possibility of instituting an assault weapons ban during the high-profile event.
According to our news partners at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, city officials are talking about reviving an old law that would ban those types of weapons.
If approved, the ban would likely be in effect until after the G-20 Summit ends.
City council members are expected to consider the assault weapons ban today along with many other pieces of legislation during a special session on the G-20 Summit.
Officials have been meeting nearly everyday to make plans for the summit that will bring thousands of people to the city on September 24th and 25th.
Source: govtrack
A BILL
To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `National Emergency Centers Establishment Act'.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.
(a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.
(b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure--
(1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;
(2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;
(3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and
(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.
(a) In General- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers.
(b) Minimum Requirements- A site designated as a national emergency center shall be--
(1) capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster;
(2) environmentally safe and shall not pose a health risk to individuals who may use the center;
(3) capable of being scaled up or down to accommodate major disaster preparedness and response drills, operations, and procedures;
(4) capable of housing existing permanent structures necessary to meet training and first responders coordination requirements during nondisaster periods;
(5) capable of hosting the infrastructure necessary to rapidly adjust to temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance needs;
(6) required to consist of a complete operations command center, including 2 state-of-the art command and control centers that will comprise a 24/7 operations watch center as follows:
(A) one of the command and control centers shall be in full ready mode; and
(B) the other shall be used daily for training; and
(7) easily accessible at all times and be able to facilitate handicapped and medical facilities, including during an emergency or major disaster.
(c) Location of National Emergency Centers- There shall be established not fewer than one national emergency center in each of the following areas:
(1) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions I, II, and III.
(2) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV.
(3) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions V and VII.
(4) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VI.
(5) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions VIII and X.
(6) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX.
(d) Preference for Designation of Closed Military Installations- Wherever possible, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate a closed military installation as a site for a national emergency center. If the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense jointly determine that there is not a sufficient number of closed military installations that meet the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), the Secretaries shall jointly designate portions of existing military installations other than closed military installations as national emergency centers.
(e) Transfer of Control of Closed Military Installations- If a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security administrative jurisdiction over such closed military installation.
(f) Cooperative Agreement for Joint Use of Existing Military Installations- If an existing military installation other than a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall enter into a cooperative agreement to provide for the establishment of the national emergency center.
(g) Reports-
(1) PRELIMINARY REPORT- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--
(A) an outline of the reasons why the site was selected;
(B) an outline of the need to construct, repair, or update any existing infrastructure at the site;
(C) an outline of the need to conduct any necessary environmental clean-up at the site;
(D) an outline of preliminary plans for the transfer of control of the site from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of Homeland Security, if necessary under subsection (e); and
(E) an outline of preliminary plans for entering into a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f).
(2) UPDATE REPORT- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--
(A) an update on the information contained in the report as required by paragraph (1);
(B) an outline of the progress made toward the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);
(C) an outline of the progress made toward entering a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and
(D) recommendations regarding any authorizations and appropriations that may be necessary to provide for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.
(3) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--
(A) finalized information detailing the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);
(B) the finalized cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and
(C) any additional information pertinent to the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.
(4) ADDITIONAL REPORTS- The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, may submit to Congress additional reports as necessary to provide updates on steps being taken to meet the requirements of this Act.
SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
This Act does not affect--
(1) the authority of the Federal Government to provide emergency or major disaster assistance or to implement any disaster mitigation and response program, including any program authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or
(2) the authority of a State or local government to respond to an emergency.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated $180,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to carry out this Act. Such funds shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) CLOSED MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term `closed military installation' means a military installation, or portion thereof, approved for closure or realignment under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) that meet all, or 2 out of the 3 following requirements:
(A) Is located in close proximity to a transportation corridor.
(B) Is located in a State with a high level or threat of disaster related activities.
(C) Is located near a major metropolitan center.
(2) EMERGENCY- The term `emergency' has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(3) MAJOR DISASTER- The term `major disaster' has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(4) MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term `military installation' has the meaning given such term in section 2910 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
Fema camps sound all warm and fuzzy. Wonder what they're serving for dinner.
Source: cnet.com
by Declan McCullagh
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."
Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:
The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.
Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.
Source: washingtontimes.com
Many media outlets have misfired about guns. Countless newspapers and television networks -- from CBS to MSNBC -- have misreported that conservative protesters are threatening President Obama with guns at public events. It hasn't happened.
In Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a gun, William Kostric, joined an Aug. 11 health care protest. This was blocks away and hours before Mr. Obama's town-hall meeting in that city. Mr. Kostric was given permission to be on church property where the protest occurred and was not at the place the president visited. What most of the coverage left out was that Mr. Kostric didn't carry his gun only for the protest; he legally carries a gun with him all the time for protection.
While the media regularly used terms such as "hotheads" to mischaracterize the situation, the coverage ignored that union members who opposed the protest had attacked Mr. Kostric and a friend, kicking, pushing and spitting on them. Despite violence against him by Mr. Obama's supporters, Mr. Kostric did not draw his gun or threaten anyone.
On the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric asked, "Are we really still debating health care when a man brings a handgun to a church where the president is speaking?" Deliberately or not, she got the facts wrong. As we know, Mr. Kostric did bring a gun to the church, but the president was not there and never was scheduled to speak there. Mr. Obama spoke at a separate event at a local high school at a different time. Not letting facts get in the way of her hysterical story line, Ms. Couric linked Mr. Kostric's gun to "fear and frankly ignorance drown[ing] out the serious debate that needs to take place about an issue that affects the lives of millions of people."
In another case in Arizona, a black man staged an event with a local radio host and carried a semiautomatic rifle a few blocks away from another Obama town-hall meeting. According to the radio station, the staged event was "partially motivated to do so because of the controversy surrounding William Kostric." This occurrence was not an example of an outraged gun-toting Obama protester, but a stunt to garner attention for a shock jock. Of course, this inconvenient truth was ignored by most news outlets.
MSNBC misrepresented the facts to try to back up a bogus claim about racism being behind opposition to Mr. Obama's agenda. On Donny Deutsch's Aug. 18 show about the Arizona town-hall meeting, the producers aired a clip of the anonymous black man carrying the so-called assault rifle -- but the network edited the tape so the man's race was obscured. Truth be damned, MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer said, "There are questions whether this has a racial overtone. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists." Another commentator on the same show worried about the "anger about a black person being president." The supposed result: "You know we see these hate groups rising up."
MSNBC's irresponsible behavior is more than just bad journalism; it sows distrust between races. Ernest Hancock, the radio host who staged the event, was hoping to get some free publicity for himself and his show. Whatever one thinks of this PR stunt, it had nothing to do with race. MSNBC misrepresented a black man carrying a gun as a white man to invent a racial dynamic that didn't exist.
Media disinformation about guns is a sad sign of the drastic action liberals will take to undermine support for gun rights for law-abiding citizens. It's also an indication of liberals' extreme desperation as Mr. Obama's agenda unravels.
Source: thenewamerican.com
Mass. Health Bill Would Allow Warrnetless Arrests, Quarintine
Article by Alex Newman
A pandemic and disaster preparation bill (S. 2028) passed unanimously by the Massachusetts Senate earlier this year is receiving wide-spread criticism as citizens mobilize to oppose its passage in the commonwealth's House of Representatives.
"Under this bill, Massachusetts becomes a medical police state. There is no debating it," wrote Natural News editor Michael Adams in an August 28 article entitled "Wake Up, America: Forced vaccinations, quarantine camps, health care interrogations and mandatory 'decontaminations,'" where he suggested America was delving into medical fascism. "The citizens of Massachusetts will have no rights, period. The Constitution is ancient history. You are now the property of the State."
The bill contains a number of controversial, alarming, and blatantly unconstitutional provisions. Under an emergency declared by the governor, the statute purports to give the health commissioner, and law enforcement and medical personnel broad authority to mobilize forces, vaccinate the population, enter private property with no warrants, and even quarantine people against their will.
The legislation provides severe penalties - $1,000 fine per day and possible jail time - for not complying with state orders, while also claiming to shield everyone involved from liability. It gives local health authorities the power "to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons" and gives government agents the authority to "arrest without a warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order" while using "reasonable diligence to enforce such order." Also, law-enforcement authorities "shall assist" medical personnel in the "involuntary transportation" of people to "treatment centers."
The provision on vaccines does give citizens the authority to refuse the vaccination, but people who do can be "isolated or quarantined." The same fate awaits those are "unable or unwilling to submit to decontamination or procedures necessary for diagnosis." One part of the legislation requires that owners or occupiers of a property "permit entry into and investigation of the premises," and another section creates price controls.
Draconian measures like this to supposedly deal with pandemics and outbreaks of disease are getting a boost with the hysteria surrounding swine flu, but critics are warning of the dangers of such tactics and fighting back. "In this time of fear, we can't let that fear take away our freedom to make voluntary health decisions," said Barbara Loe Fisher, the president of the National Vaccine Information Center. She offered a chilling analysis of the legislation in Massachusetts and the national situation, saying "it looks like few choices will be allowed." But she encouraged people to find out what their rights are.
Though it breezed past the Senate with a 36 to 0 vote, the Massachusetts bill is still languishing in the House after being referred to the committee on health care financing. "One of the reasons the bill is stalled in the house is because those house reps are being bombarded with phone calls from constituents saying, `I will refuse the vaccine,'" explained writer Devvy Kidd in a piece about important bills to defeat where she said the reaction to this legislation may have been blown out of proportion.
But while opposition to the plan may be mounting, there are many in power who believe - like Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel - that the government shouldn't let "crises" go to "waste." This bill has been debated in the Massachusetts legislature before, but the House and Senate could never agree on a final version. So some lawmakers are using concern over the swine flu outbreak as a tool for pushing their agenda and getting it passed this time around.
"It's too bad that we have to have something like that pending to get us to finally act," said Democratic Massachusetts Senator Richard Moore in a televised interview, referring to the spread of the H1N1 virus. "This was actually on the calendar before that became a news story," he explained, but "it does give us another reason why it's a good idea to have this one the books." If the House passes it, a veto by the governor will likely be the last thing that could stop it.
Unfortunately, people hoping that the judicial branch will step in and restore some sanity may be left wanting. "Judges will not stand in the way of emergency actions taken to protect the public from a clear and present danger, and if they do, the state appeals court will over turn their rulings in a matter of hours," explained a piece written by Louisiana State University director of the program in law, science and public health Edward Richards and Dr. Katherine
Rathbun. "The history of judicial restraint on emergency powers is one of blind obedience to civil and military authority."
A great deal of tyrannical federal statutes dealing with health emergencies already exist, and some other states are considering vast power grabs of their own. Maine recently had its National Guard engaging in swine flu vaccine scenario drills at a school while the military draws up plans to help FEMA with the swine flu situation across the country.
But it is past time for citizens to demand that their leaders respect the people's medical freedom and individual rights. Massachusetts should kill this bill and other states should fight to preserve the liberty of their citizens. Government officials at all levels should finally obey their oaths to the Constitution and the bill of rights, especially in the life-and-death field of healthcare.
Source: infowars
Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
September 3, 2009
All military personnel will be vaccinated against the H1N1 flu virus, and the vaccine will be available to all military family members who want it, a Defense Department health affairs official said today.
The H1N1 vaccination program will begin in early October, said Army Lt. Col. (Dr.) Wayne Hachey, director of preventive medicine for Defense Department health affairs.
The vaccine, which has been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration, will be mandatory for uniformed personnel, Hachey said. "What we want to do is target those people who are at highest risk for transmission," he said.
Health-care workers, deploying troops, those serving on ships and submarines, and new accessions are at the top of the list. "Any place where we take a lot of people, squash them all together and get them nice and close and put them under stressful conditions will get the vaccine first," he said.
The department will use the usual seasonal flu vaccine distribution chain for the H1N1, Hachey said, noting that while the mass H1N1 vaccinations are new to the general population, the process for vaccinating against seasonal flu is old hat for the Defense Department. "We've been doing this for decades," he said. "The system is tried and true."
The department initially will receive 1 million doses of the H1N1 vaccine, and another 1.7 million doses later in October.
Officials don't know yet whether people will need one dose or two, Hachey said. "The assumption right now is that people will need two doses, 21 days apart," he said. "That may change."
FDA officials still are studying H1N1 and the vaccine, and the results should be known by the end of the month.
Seasonal flu vaccine already is available, and the Defense Department will begin giving those shots shortly, Hachey said. "That has been our message to immunizers: to try and get as many people as they can immunized against the seasonal flu early," he said.
Guidelines for giving priority to family members will follow those for the general population, Hachey said. The Department of Health and Human Services is buying millions of doses of the vaccine.
"Installations are going to register with each state as an immunizer," Hachey said. "They will tell how many people they care for. This includes dependents, retirees and so on."
The Centers for Disease Control will place the order and will ship the vaccine where needed. Family members will have multiple opportunities to get the vaccine, whether at Defense Department medical facilities or off post, Hachey said.
The CDC has established target groups for those at greatest risk for transmitting or being affected by the H1N1. They include pregnant women, health-care workers, those younger than 25 or older than 65, and those with pre-existing health conditions.
Hachey said previous plans are serving the Defense Department well. "We have been preparing for pandemic flu because of its potential impact on the mission," he said.
The symptoms of the H1N1 flu are almost the same as the seasonal flu: fever, sore throat, runny nose, nausea, muscle aches and feeling rundown. The 2009 H1N1 virus - formerly known as swine flu - is a pandemic virus, according to the World Health Organization. U.S. officials call the virus "troubling" and urge communities across the United States to take actions to mitigate the effects of it. The federal government is urging states and municipalities to begin preparing now for the fall flu season.
President Barack Obama addressed the H1N1 pandemic following a White House meeting today.
"As I said when we saw the first cases of this virus back in the spring, I don't want anybody to be alarmed, but I do want everybody to be prepared," he said. "We know that we usually get a second, larger wave of these flu viruses in the fall, and so response plans have been put in place across all levels of government."
But government cannot do it all, and the American people have a responsibility to stop the spread of the disease, Obama said. "We need families and businesses to ensure that they have plans in place if a family member, a child or a co-worker contracts the flu and needs to stay home," he said.
"And most importantly, we need everyone to get informed about individual risk factors, and we need everyone to take the common-sense steps that we know can make a difference," the president said. "Stay home if you're sick. Wash your hands frequently. Cover your sneezes with your sleeve, not your hands. And take all the necessary precautions to stay healthy. I know it sounds simple, but it's important and it works."
The H1N1 is a never-before-seen combination of human, swine and avian flu viruses, officials said. First detected in Mexico in February, it quickly spread around the world. According to July WHO statistics, there have been 94,512 H1N1 cases worldwide, and 429 people have died from it. In the United States, 33,902 contracted H1N1, and 170 have died.
Thanks and good luck
the other steve [8D]
Hope someone who reads this will, or knows someone that can.
Steve
3%er
Source: baltimore chronicle
Article by Stephen Lendman
Monday, 7 September 2009
Massachusetts may be a trial balloon for what federal authorities plan everywhere as the fall flu season approaches, to be followed by hyped reports of nationwide Swine Flu outbreaks, perhaps caused by the vaccines intended to prevent them.
Fact check:
no Swine Flu threat exists;
reported H1N1 infections and deaths are uncorroborated;
WHO predicting a global pandemic affecting "as many as two billion people....over the next two years" is falsified hype unless a diabolical depopulation scheme (by vaccines or other means) plans to create one;
vaccines don't protect against diseases they're designed to prevent and often cause them;
all vaccines contain harmful toxins, including mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, phenoxyethanol (antifreeze), and squalene adjuvants that weaken and can destroy the human immune system, making it vulnerable to many annoying to life-threatening illnesses; and
evidence suggests that the H1N1 strain was bioengineered in a US laboratory, and the vaccines being produced for it are extremely hazardous and potentially lethal.
Under no circumstances should anyone submit to them even if threatened with fines, quarantine, or incarceration.
Government and PhRMA Are Enemies, Not Protectors
On April 26, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a "Determination that a Public Health Emergency Exists....as a consequence of confirmed cases of H1N1 Influenza in four US states." At an April 27 press briefing, Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano said:
Yesterday "I issued a public health emergency declaration" as part of "standard operating procedure" to make more government resources available to combat the spread of Swine Flu. She then ordered the FDA "to proceed to permit things like Tamiflu to be used for populations that they otherwise wouldn't be used for - in this case, for example, very, very young children."
On November 13, 2005, Japan's Health Ministry said it was "looking into reports of a number of sudden deaths of young people who had taken prescribed dosages of Tamiflu." The Ministry also "found 64 cases of psychological disorders linked to the drug in the past four years."
The Japan Institute of Pharmaco-Vigilance head, Dr. Rokura Hama, said "Tamiflu appears to be similar to other powerful drugs that can cause behavioral changes" by affecting the central nervous system. It's the leading medication prescribed for the treatment and prevention of flu. In April, DHS ordered 12 million doses made available in locations around the country for quick access if needed.
Then on June 11, the World Health Organization (WHO) "raise(d) the level of (Swine Flu) influenza pandemic alert from phase 5 to phase 6," its highest level in declaring "The world is now at the start of the 2009 influenza pandemic," while admitting its severity would likely be "moderate (and) most people will recover from swine flu within a week, just as they would from seasonal forms of influenza." The WHO no longer reports "confirmed" Swine Flu cases globally, yet continues to hype the scare without corroborating proof.
There was no emergency earlier or now, but you'd never know it from hyped media reports to convince people voluntarily to submit to experimental, untested, toxic and extremely dangerous vaccines that damage the human immune system and cause health problems ranging from annoying to life-threatening.
George Bush's Executive Orders (EOs) 13295 and 13375, Homeland Security Presidential Directive-21, and Military Pandemic Planning
In addition to the federal laws below, the Bush EOs, HSPD-21, and Pentagon plan suggest a hidden agenda behind today's Swine Flu crisis as a way to institute martial law on the pretext of a public health emergency, using hyped fear to win popular acquiescence.
On April 4, 2003, EO 13295 issued a "Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases" that included cholera, diphtheria, infectious TB, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and viral hemorrhagic fevers like ebola and lassa.
On April 1, 2005, EO 13375 amended EO 13295 by adding "the following new subsection:"
"(c) Influenza caused by novel or reemergent influenza viruses that are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic."
The October 2007 HSPD-21 "establishe(d) a National Strategy for Public Health and Medical Preparedness which builds upon principles set forth in (the 2004) Biodefense for the 21st Century and will transform our national approach to protecting the health of the American people against all disasters."
It called for:
"nationwide, robust, and integrated biosurveillance...to provide early warning and ongoing characterization of disease outbreaks in near real-time;
countermeasure stockpiling and distribution....of medical countermeasures (vaccines, drugs, and therapeutics) to a large population....;
mass casualty care....created by a catastrophic health event;" and
"community resilience" whereby "civic leaders, citizens, and families are educated regarding threats and are empowered to mitigate their own risk;" in addition, the federal government must be involved in "medical preparedness to assist (nationwide) in the face of potential catastrophic health events."
In May 2007, the Department of Defense's (DOD) "Implementation Plan for Pandemic Influenza" prepared for a possible H5N1 (Avian Flu) pandemic that could affect up to one-third of the population and kill as many as three million in just weeks, it was claimed. It involved using US troops to put down riots, guard pharmaceutical plants and shipments, and restrict the movement of people inside the country and across borders.
This plan remains active and US laws authorize it, including Sections 1076 and 333 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 that amended the 1807 Insurrection Act and 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. They prohibit using federal and National Guard troops for law enforcement except as constitutionally allowed or expressly authorized by Congress in times of a national emergency like an insurrection.
The president may now announce a public emergency, declare martial law, suspend the Constitution, and deploy US troops on city streets to suppress what he calls disorder.
The Legal Basis for Quarantines
Vaccine law expert Alan G. Phillips says:
"....underlying laws....allow states to mandate vaccines in an emergency....throw out exemptions....impose quarantines and isolation outside of our homes," and the only way around this is to "chang(e) state policy and law."
US laws are similar. They can mandate vaccinations and let states isolate and quarantine Swine Flu victims if authorities call the disease infectious and life-threatening.
Under the proposed Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA), civil liberties may be suspended in case of a public health emergency, with or without verifiable evidence.
The September 2003 Turning Point Model State Public Health Act (MSPHA) lets state, local, and tribal governments revise or update public health statutes and administrative regulations. According to James Hodges, executive director of Johns Hopkins and Georgetown University's Centers for Law and the Public Health, over half the states have these laws that can order flu testing, ban public gatherings, mandate quarantines, and issue other emergency public health directives.
Federal laws already do it, including the 2006 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act that lets the HHS Secretary declare any disease an epidemic or national emergency requiring mandatory vaccinations. It also protects drug companies from tort liability, except in cases of "willful misconduct."
US State Responses to Swine Flu
Growing numbers of states are exploiting the hyped scare by declaring a public health emergency. Others are passing laws that order forced quarantines, impose fines or imprisonment for offenders, and prepare to govern under martial law with local police, National Guard, or federal troops for enforcement.
Florida ordered voluntary or mandatory detentions at home or in state-designated facilities as well as closures of suspected buildings and areas. Quarantine Detention Orders state:
"non-compliant" persons are ordered to "remain in detention quarantine until released by the State Epidemiologist or Health Officer;"
at home, they must wear surgical masks at all times in the presence of anyone, even family members, and follow other required instructions while in isolation;
in state-run facilities, they must "comply with all orders....regarding (their) medical care," and must "cooperate with the detention facility's access to (themselves) and (their) medical records for purposes of delivering and monitoring (their) medical care;" and
these "action(s are) taken under the police power authority of the health department and your cooperation is required by law;" failure to comply is a "crime."
Forms circulating on the Internet show that Iowa ordered home or facility quarantines for anyone suspected of possible H1N1 infection. However, Mason City, Iowa's KIMT TV 3 reported that "Health leaders in (the state) are reassuring people that there are no H1N1 related quarantines being ordered," yet preparations have been made to do it.
North Carolina's Draft Isolation Order calls for imprisonment for up to two years and pretrial detention for residents failing to comply with isolation orders.
Washington empowers local health authorities to issue emergency detention orders for up to 10 days.
On April 28, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a "Proclamation to Confront Swine Flu Outbreak" and ordered "all state agencies and departments to utilize and employ state personnel, equipment and facilities to assist the Department of Public Health (DPH) and the State Emergency Plan as coordinated by the California Emergency Management Agency."
He further proclaimed a "state of emergency" because of "conditions of extreme peril" in the State.
On April 26, New York Gov. David Paterson activated the state's health emergency preparedness plan, thereby putting the state on "high alert to quickly identify and respond to any cases of swine flu." No further action was taken.
On April 28, Texas became the second state to declare a Swine Flu emergency as officials closed schools and cancelled sporting events after an alleged fatality was reported. At a press conference, Gov. Rick Perry said:
"I'm issuing a disaster declaration which covers the entire state. This will move Texas to a higher state of alert and release resources to address the spread of the virus." No further action was taken.
On May 1, Maryland's Gov. Martin O'Malley's executive order declared a public health emergency "based on an abundance of caution and concern for our students...If there is a probable case of H1N1 virus at any school, we will close that school and cease all extra-curricular activities for up to 14 days."
He also ordered "appropriate emergency protective measures (be taken to) assist public and private sector employers (take) proactive steps to prevent the spread to influenza workers and their families." He stopped short of more draconian measures, including statewide forced vaccinations and quarantines for resisters.
On August 6, the Minneapolis-St.Paul Star Tribune headlined: "As fall approaches, officials are taking a hard look at emergency plans in the event the virus strikes more aggressively." On August 10, the paper reported, without elaboration, that state officials "have a plan ready if Minnesota's health care system is swamped by 1.5 million cases."
Other states took similar actions, including Nebraska, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin, and still others are considering them as the fall flu season approaches and children return to school.
After earlier issuing a "Proclamation of Civil Emergency due to a Highly Infectious Disease," Maine Gov. John Balducci signed a Swine Flu civil emergency decree on September 1 that gives the WHO and UN martial law authority over the state and authorized the Maine Center for Disease Control to vaccinate the state's residents. Making this mandatory wasn't mentioned, but state civil emergency powers may allow it if ordered.
On April 28, the Massachusetts Senate unanimously passed the most draconian law to date, S. 2028, that imposes virtual martial law authority. If it's passed in the House and becomes law, it gives the governor sweeping powers, lets public health officials mandate vaccinations, and, with law enforcement and medical personnel, enter private residences and businesses without warrants, quarantine non-compliers, and impose $1,000-a-day fines and/or imprisonment for up to 30 days.
It also authorizes:
closures and evacuations to decontaminate residences, buildings or facilities;
the destruction of suspect materials;
restricting or prohibiting public gatherings;
public health authorities to use or supervise private health care facilities and requires private health personnel to provide appropriate services, including vaccinating state residents;
"the arrest without warrant (of anyone believed to have) violated an order for isolation or quarantine...;"
control over "ingress (and) egress" from public areas and human traffic within them;
enforcement measures for the safe disposal of "infectious waste and human remains;"
control over all medical supplies as well as other measures needed to respond to the emergency;
the use of state police for enforcement;
control over "routes of transportation and over materials and facilities including but not limited to communication devices, carriers, public utilities, fuels, food, clothing, and shelter;" and
public health officials to "institute appropriate civil proceedings against (properties) to be destroyed in accordance with the existing laws and rules of the courts of this Commonwealth or any such rules that may be developed by the courts for use during the emergency;" acquired properties may "be disposed of by destruction as the court may direct."
Massachusetts may be a trial balloon for what federal authorities plan everywhere as the fall flu season approaches, to be followed by hyped reports of nationwide Swine Flu outbreaks, perhaps caused by the vaccines intended to prevent them.
In early July, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that children, pregnant women, health care workers, and adults with chronic illnesses will be first to be vaccinated. Reports indicate that inoculations will begin in early October, preceded by media-hyped fear urging everyone to get one.
Source: website currently under attack
Text: The days of gun shows at the Cow Palace appear numbered.
By a 45-33 margin, the California Assembly on Wednesday passed legislation banning the sale of firearms and ammunition at the state-owned entertainment venue.
The Assembly's vote came three months after the state Senate approved the bill, which is expected to head to the governor's desk in the next few weeks.
If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs Senate Bill 585 into law, the ban will take effect Jan. 1, 2013.
The bill is "about respecting local values and local standards," said state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who authored the legislation. The residents around the Cow Palace "do not want gun shows there."
According to Leno, 44 percent of the homicides and more than 30 percent of the guns seized in the city and county of San Francisco have happened in the surrounding communities of Visitacion Valley, Bayview-Hunters Point and the Mission District since 2005
Source: infowars
Alan Caruba
Borderfire Report
September 10, 2009
Every despotic regime in the last century favored gun control laws. Today, the gun-grabbers are on the move again and are being led by the Obama regime.
During last year's campaign both Hillary Clinton and John McCain tore into Barack Obama for saying that residents of small-town America "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them out of bitterness over lost jobs."
Obama quickly retreated from that statement, but it revealed his real thinking and real feelings about people who own guns for any reason, as well as his contempt for people whose religious values are an important part of their lives. In both cases he was condemning large segments of the nation's population.
In America today, the figure I hear most often is an estimated ninety million people who own guns. No matter the source one cites, there is no question that most Americans have no qualms about owning guns for hunting, sport shooting, or for protection. It is no coincidence that, since Obama's election last year, gun and ammo sales have been off the chart.
Look back at what history teaches us regarding the right to bear arms. The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Unable to defend themselves, the regime killed an estimated twenty million Russian dissidents.
Turkey established gun control in 1911 and, from 1915 to 1917, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and killed.
Germany established gun control in 1938. Prior to and throughout World War II, the Nazis systematically murdered an estimated six million Jews and another five million others deemed "enemies of the state." This pattern was repeated in China which outlawed gun ownership in 1935. Gun ownership was outlawed in Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia.
It is estimated that 56 million people were killed by their own governments in the last century. Despite that, both England and Australia passed laws prohibiting gun ownership. The result has been a surge in deaths of people who were killed because they were left defenseless against criminals. In Australia, armed robberies increased 44 percent.
As this is being written, there are proposed laws in the House and Senate that would strip Americans of their Second Amendment right to "to keep and bear arms." A right the Constitution says "shall not be infringed."
Recently, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced S.1317 that would give the Attorney General the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists. The government's consolidated watch list, used to identify people suspected of links to terrorists, has now grown to more than a million names since 9/11.
In Lautenberg's New Jersey, one must have a government issued certificate to purchase a firearm and undergo a difficult process to secure the right to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise.
A similar law, the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 would make it illegal to own a firearm unless you are fingerprinted and can provide a current driver's license along with your Social Security number. It requires people to submit to a physical and mental evaluation each and every time a firearm is purchased.
In addition, Blair-Holt would require that guns must be locked away and inaccessible to any child under age 18. It would empower law enforcement officers to come into your home to inspect whether or not you are in compliance. Failure to comply includes a fine and incarceration up to five years in prison. In a case of criminal home invasion this law renders the gun owner defenseless.
This replicates the 1938 German Weapons Act that restricted ownership of firearms to "persons whose trustworthyness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit."
These proposed laws also abrogate the Fourth Amendment that says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" shall not be violated without a warrant.
To learn more about these "under the radar" efforts to restrict gun ownership and the right to carry firearms, visit http://www.saf.org/, the website of the Second Amendment Foundation and http://www.ccrkba.org/, the website of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
What I have described are incremental steps taken to ultimately render the Second Amendment null and void.
If you oppose these efforts, you need to write your representatives in Congress and let them know. A donation to the Second Amendment Foundation and/or the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms will assist their efforts on your behalf.
Despite the anti-gun attitude of the current White House I have always found it incongruous that the President is surrounded by men and women in the Secret Service, all of whom carry firearms to protect whoever holds that office. Members of Congress are protected by a Capitol Hill police force, all of whom are armed. We all know that a gun is an essential part of what every police officer wears daily while enforcing the law.
When writing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers first protected free speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom of citizens to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The Second Amendment gave priority to the right to own and bear arms because you cannot have the freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment without those protected in the Second.