President Obama omits “Creator” from the Declaration of Independence

Now either the President had a serious brain cramp, or this was done intentionally.  He was speaking to the Congressional Hispanic Causus Institute on September 15 when he made this speech.  Now leaving out ‘Creator’ leaves many to wonder – and confirmation for some – as to who Barack Obama believes is the supplier of our rights.  The government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

To read the entire Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, click here.


Joseph Lieberman’s assualt on the Constitution

Joseph Lieberman’s latest assualt on the Constitution comes on the heals of President Obama characterizing anti-government sentiment as a means to violence and S. 3081 – the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, of which he co-sponsored with Senator John McCain.

The problem with S. 3081 is that it does not seperate the difference between a foreign terrorist and a domestic militian member, thusly, stripping the militia member of his Constitutional rights.

The problem with this bill is simple: it strips the right of any American suspected of any kind of terrorism of their citizenship.  On a moral and Constitutional basis I cannot support this.  Under no circumstances should an American’s right be stripped from them.

I don’t know how much more simple I can say this: in the last year we have seen some of the worst corruption come out of Washington and Wall Street.  Congressional and White House approval ratings are low, Congress’ is at an all-time low.  Washington is saying that they are fixing the problem but the American people are wising up to their old tricks.

“engaging in specific activities render the following groups ineligible for citizenship: persons who oppose or assist organizations that oppose organized government or promote the overthrow of the U.S. government; convicted avoiders of draft or deserters of military or naval forces during times of war were ineligible for citizenship.”

The basic is, is that the government is not concerned with our rights, in fact, they could care less about them, they only want the continuity of government as expressed in REX-84.

I ask a question as quoted in one of my favorite movies, “Is the government worth preserving when it lies to the American peope…let justice be done though the heavens fall.”

Washington (CNN) — A bipartisan group of legislators on Thursday introduced legislation in Congress to strip citizenship from any American found to be involved in terrorism.

 If the Terrorist Expatriation Act passes, an American would lose citizenship if found to have provided material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization — as designated by the secretary of state — or participated in actions against the United States.

 Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, and Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts, co-sponsored the bill. An identical bill is being introduced in the House by Reps. Jason Altmire, D-Pennsylvania, and Charlie Dent, R-Pennsylvania.

 “As the attempted terrorist attack on Times Square showed us again, our enemies today are even more willing than the Nazis or fascists were to kill innocent civilian Americans [in WWII],” Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, told reporters. “Our enemies today are stateless actors who don’t wear uniforms and plot against Americans abroad and here in the United States.”

 Faisal Shahzad, an American citizen, recently admitted driving a Nissan Pathfinder into New York’s Times Square on Saturday and attempting to detonate the vehicle, which was packed with gasoline, propane tanks, fireworks and fertilizer, according to a complaint filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in New York.

 Lieberman said the legislation updates the 1940 Immigration and Nationality Act, which identifies seven categories in which citizens can lose citizenship if they voluntarily perform one of the acts.

 The list, according to Lieberman, includes acts such as serving in the armed forces of a “foreign state” if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States; formally renouncing nationality whenever the United States is in a state of war; or committing treason against the United States.

 “The bill we’re introducing today would simply update the 1940 law to account for the enemy that we are fighting today,” he said. “Many have said this law goes too far. Remember, this bill only updates an existing statute that has been on the books for 70 years that accounts for the terrorist enemy that we are fighting today.”

 Brown, a member of Lieberman’s committee, said the bill isn’t a knee-jerk reaction. “This reflects the changing nature of war and recent events,” he said. “War has moved into a new direction.”

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, said he believes “it would be found unconstitutional in this context and would also be ineffective.”

 House Minority Leader John Boehner has similar worries, saying the chances of the bill passing “would be pretty difficult under the U.S. Constitution.”

 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she likes the “spirit” of the bill, but wants to know more on what constitutes taking away an American’s citizenship.  (What kind of language do you need?  It suspends the rights of American citizens!)

“I do think it’s important to know on what basis [they’d lose their citizenship],” she said. “We are committed to due process in our country. … What’s the standard?”

 Pelosi said she’d have to see the language of the bill before deciding whether to support it.

Similar legislation, however, has not been successful.

 In 2005, Congress sought to make it a felony for a naturalized citizen to vote in an election in their home country, among other things. The bill, introduced in the House, did not muster enough support to bring it to a vote.

 Legal experts, meanwhile, argue that the new bill has serious constitutional problems.

“It’s unconstitutional,” said Christopher Anders, Senior Legislative Counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union.” Taking away someone’s citizenship is a truly extraordinary step and to do that based on mere suspicion and to be giving that power to government bureaucrats without ever having a court trial will be an amazing step.”

 Under the new proposed bill, the Department of State would have the ability to revoke an American’s citizenship based on a person renouncing their citizenship. The individual, Lieberman stressed, would still have the right to appeal the determination at the State Department — or take it to federal court.

 When asked how the State Department would make their decision, Lieberman said a person would have declare the intent to renounce their citizenship — but added that information from other sources could also “lead the state department to make that conclusion.”

 Anders said the government often makes mistakes in determining a person’s involvement in terrorism. In that case, an American citizen could be rendered stateless if they do not have dual citizenship.

 Stephen Vladeck, a professor of law at American University Washington College of Law, said the government defines “providing material support to terrorism” so broadly, “that really the most benign, innocent activity could subject the most harmless Americans to this extreme sanction.”

 Vladeck predicted that if a case makes its way to the courts, the statute would be in serious trouble.

“Although there have been some crimes that have been historically treated as subject to denaturalization, I think material support is so far away from the kinds of conduct that previously has been punished that way,” he said. “I think the fact that this is up to the secretary of state, and not a court, really is going to make it very hard for this statute to survive a constitutional challenge.”

 The Supreme Court examined citizenship rights in the 1980 case of Vance v. Terrazas. The court’s decision held that in determining the loss of citizenship, the government “must prove an intent to surrender United States citizenship, not just the voluntary commission of an expatriating act such as swearing allegiance to a foreign nation.”

 Altmire said the new bill hasn’t changed the government’s burden of proof.

“When someone wants to appeal this [ruling], the burden of proof is on the Department of State. And there’s a very high legal threshold to remain consistent with the bill. None of that has changed.”

Who’s the threat?  read this about government documents pertaining to labor/concentration/internment camps.

Here’s to Joseph A. Stack – Thanks, Asshole!

People who have conspiracy theories about the government are thought to be “crazy”.  The Bilderberg Group, the CFR, the some odd intelligence agencies, Bohemian Grove, the Freemasons – it’s all hogwash right?  Hollywood has done a great job in making people think that one well conditioned, muscle ripped man can take on terrorists or the guv’ment.  But in reality we can’t.

Only a person who really has their heads buried in the sand would say that there is no corruption in government.  As for me, our nations example of foreign policy is just one example of a corrupt system.  Corporate bailouts, the support of an evil Wall Street system – am I a crazy conspiracy theorist, or am I right?

Take a look at the back of your one dollar bill – an unfinished pyramid with a blazing eye capstone, Novus Ordo Seclorum (New Order of the Ages) written underneath it, George H.W. Bush’s proclamation of a new world order.  Globalist organizations look to make power grabs anywhere they can.

Take into consideration that the United Nations in New York sits on a tract of land donated by the Rockefeller family, and David Rockefeller years ago made this startling confession.

“Some even believe we are a part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it.” – David Rockefeller from his book, David Rockefeller: Memoirs.

Is there some sort of global government conspiracy raging against the United States and the American people?  Afterall, it was Glenn Beck that was going to report on FEMA camps in the U.S. and at the last second reversed course.  And if there is some sort of inner circle conspiracy in the dark halls of Washington, do the American people want to know?  Would we be able to handle it?  Would it be worth weeding out the guilty parties?

“I think there are 25,000 individuals that have used offices of powers, and they are in our Universities and they are in our Congresses, and they believe in One World Government. And if you believe in One World Government, then you are talking about undermining National Sovereignty and you are talking about setting up something that you could well call a Dictatorship – and those plans are there!” – Congressman Ron Paul at an event near Austin, Texas on August 30th, 2003

Somewhere in the mind of Joseph A. Stack, he did what he felt he had to do.  Land a blow to the imperial presence of ‘big brother’.  But this is a wound that hasn’t hurt the beast whatsoever.  Joseph A. Stack is a murderer.  Tonight when children lay down their heads and wonder why mommy and daddy aren’t coming home and cry themselves to sleep, we can thank Joseph A. Stack.  Let me say this – Joseph A. Stack is no hero! 

Men and women in our armed forces are the heros.  Paramedics are the heros.  And, yes, even men and women who devout their lives to state militias with the sole purpose to protect the American people and the Constitution, and yet they don’t take lives without reason, are heros too.  Joseph A. Stack had this to say:

I have had all I can stand.   I choose not to keep looking over my shoulder at `big brother’ while he strips my carcass.

He would also rant against ‘big brother’, corporate wellfare, taxation, and “thugs and plunderers”.  All of these things he was tired of.  I don’t know if it escaped Stack’s notice, but most Americans are tired of the lies.  Government polls are at an all-time low.  No one trusts the government.

That to secure these right, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive at these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers to such form, as to them shall seem to them to most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So is it incumbent upon the American people to overthrow the government?  If you take this excerpt from the Declaration of Independence seriously, yes.  But when the American people have it in their head that their vote don’t count and they cannot change anything is Liberty in her grave. 

In recent years thanks to the running of Ron Paul for president, the lies of government have been exposed.  Tea Parties and the Campaign for Liberty have invigorated the American people to a new-old way of thinking.

Joseph A. Stack’s desperate attempt to land a crippling blow to the Beast of government has gone in vain and the cause for Liberty will reap the repercussions.  That is why I say, “Thanks, Asshole, and burn in hell!”

CNN: Government wants to hold sex offenders idefinately?

I saw on CNN today where there is talk of sex offenders being held indefinitely even after trial, conviction, and even after they serve their time.  Now as a person who is anti-government, I cannot support this.  It seems that the guv’ment looks to hold anyone they want without trial at will.  Many are asking the question “if they do this with sex offenders, where will it end?”  Robbers?  Murderers?  How much of the population will they suspend constitutional rights?

We could argue on the basis of the safety of the people, but once the rights of others are suspended we are all at risk.

Mind reading the next generation of airport security?

As much as it sounds like something set in a movie set thirty years down the road; this is really being considered.  Minding reading is just one of the many options considered – profiling, souped-up lie detectors.

WeCU – We See You is blending technology and behavorial phsychology by projecting images on screens like terrorist symbols to intice reactions.  Their logic is that people cannot help but react to images, even if subtely.  Hidden cameras will be used to detect temprature increases and heart rates.  More hidden devices are still to come.  Those who raise the “alarm” will be pulled out of line for further screening.

While security measures are needed, I cannot help but ask the question – are the subversion of our Constitutional rights worth it?  Can we really pick and choose what rights we want and don’t want?  Or can we stand to live without some for a short while?  Wikipedia describes constitutional government like this:

A constitution is a set of rules for government—often codified as a written document—that enumerates the powers and functions of a political entity. In the case of countries, this term refers specifically to a national constitution defining the fundamental political principles, and establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties, of a government. By limiting the government’s own reach, most constitutions guarantee certain rights to the people. The term constitution can be applied to any overall law that defines the functioning of a government, including several historical constitutions that existed before the development of modern national constitutions.

“lLimiting the governments own reach” – these are things that the Founders understood and fought for – absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I have it in the strictest of confidence from a person that I know – I won’t reveal their name – but we live by a military base.  They particpate for the military in domestic warfare training and they get paid for it.

Anyway, in the past they have acted as enemy combatants or terrorists.  But this time they went in and they were told they were going to be American citizens!  These sort of police state actions have been documented by Alex Jones.  But in time when the government looks at us as potential threats to the continuity of government; maybe it is time we look at the government as a threat to our rights and civil liberties.

The disease that infects America…

Question the government’s actions on 9/11 – you’re an extremist nut who needs to shut up.  Question the government’s post-9/11 actions – you’re an extremist nut who needs to shut up.  Question the government’s foreign policy after 9/11 – once again, you’re an extremist who needs to shut up.  Question the government at all – you’re an extremist nut who needs to shut up.

Support the ideals of Ron Paul and the Constitution – priceless. 

All of the above listed have been demonized as a disease that infects America.  It seems that Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter have the right to say something, in fact they get paid millions for it. 

I support Ron Paul, I voted for him, and I support the Constitution – oh, yes, me an extremist, a nut, a threat to the security of the government.  Question everything.  We should count ourselves fortunate to have such patriots as Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Glenn Beck – servants of the free press.

Jesse Ventura – there’s another nut.  An infectious disease that must be purged from the system.  We have been demonized, compared to crackpots and dope-smoking hippies because our moral and constitutional government wouldn’t do anything wrong, would they?

Sadly, however, it is the bigger government syndrome that infects this country.  While the bankers, politicians, and defense contractors wallets get thicker, our rights and money amounts gets smaller.  Forced participation in national healthcare that will inevitably raise costs and taxes, restrict the free choice of patients, and cause cuts to Medicare is nothing short of fascism.