Immigration Reform Places Interests of Illegal Aliens Ahead of Americans

January 30, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

You must understand the duplicity of our U.S. Congress and President Obama.  They place the interests of illegal aliens and businesses who hire them over and above American citizens.  The White House and Congress place illegality of businesses who hire illegal aliens and the illegality of the alien migrants—over and above 47 million Americans who cannot secure jobs, but must live on taxpayer funded food stamps.

Ironically, Obama and Congress import 100,000 legal immigrants every 30 days in light of the fact that we suffer 14 million unemployed Americans.  They import green card holding Somalian, Congolese, Sudanese and Indian immigrants who displace and take jobs from our own minority working poor.  When those immigrants can’t find jobs, they apply for and receive welfare in free food, housing, medical and allowances.  It costs you billions of dollars as a taxpaying American.  With 100,000 added every 30 days, there is not letup.

Yet, Congress and Obama want to legalize 20 million illegal aliens to give them access to our Social Security, housing, food stamps, medical and schools.   In a swoop of the pen, our financially broken and $16 trillion in-debt country will take on 20 million dish washers, nannies, gardeners and unskilled and uneducated poor.  It defies anyone’s imagination.

They won’t enforce the laws on the books, but they want to legalize illegality.  They won’t enforce any new laws either, thus, millions more can be expected to pour into America like a Human Katrina.

“Most Western elites continue urging the wealthy West not to stem the migrant tide [that adds 80 million net gain annually to the planet], but to absorb our global brothers and sisters until their horrid ordeal has been endured and shared by all—ten billion humans packed onto an ecologically devastated planet.” Dr. Otis Graham, Unguarded Gates
Dan Stein, president of The Federation for American Immigration Reform, talk about what we face this week.

“President Obama’s outline for overhauling the nation’s immigration policy places the interests of illegal aliens above the vital interests of American workers and taxpayers,” said Stein.  “The president’s speech in Las Vegas sketched out a reform plan designed to aid and abet those who broke our immigration laws, increase competition for American workers, and pander to those who politically profit from illegal immigration, rather than truly fix a system that has been broken for decades.

“President Obama’s plan offers nothing to American workers except the certainty of even greater competition for scarce jobs and further suppression of their wages. It offers nothing to American taxpayers except assurance they will pay ever increasing costs as millions of low-skilled illegal immigrants move through the amnesty process and become eligible for government assistance programs.

“President Obama’s immigration reform plan is sadly premised on the notion that it is the illegal immigrants who are the victims of our nation’s dysfunctional immigration policies, and our policies must be changed to address their grievances.  In fact, it is the American people who are the true victims of our dysfunctional immigration policies, and especially this president’s defiant refusal to enforce laws meant to protect them.”

“Immigration “reform,” as outlined by the president, would not only leave our failed policy of family chain migration in place, but would actually speed up admissions of extended relatives who enter the country irrespective of their job skills and education. The plan also calls for increases in employment-based immigration, even as we are still grappling with historically high levels of unemployment affecting workers in virtually all segments of our labor market.”

While promising amnesty and increased legal immigration, President Obama offered nothing regarding enforcement of the law, except maintaining the same non-enforcement policies he has implemented during his first term.

“Given President Obama’s record on immigration enforcement, his promises to secure the border and enforce federal law are simply worthless,” responded Stein. “For one thing the GAO recently chastised the administration for its claims that our borders are under control by noting that the administration does not even have a ‘yardstick’ for measuring operational control of our borders.

“Second, President Obama has asserted virtually unlimited discretion to ignore the immigration laws. He has also demonstrated a willingness to grant blanket work authorization to entire classes of illegal aliens. Much like REAL ID, it could be years, even a decade or more, before the mandate for universal E-Verify is carried out. In the meantime, countless millions of new illegal immigrants are likely to show up with the assurance that as long as they do not commit a violent crime, there will be no consequence for violating our immigration laws.

“President Obama’s actions during his first administration made it clear that his immigration policies are geared toward satisfying the economic and political interests of illegal aliens and their supporters. The legislative plan he outlined today confirms that the interests of the American people are not part of his vision of immigration reform.”

Contact Dan Stein at . Better yet, join FAIR and bring your individual power to collective power with over 250,000 members.

Frosty Wooldridge has bicycled across six continents – from the Arctic to the South Pole – as well as six times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border. In 2005, he bicycled from the Arctic Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece.

He presents “The Coming Population Crisis in America: and what you can do about it” to civic clubs, church groups, high schools and colleges. He works to bring about sensible world population balance at his website:

Frosty Wooldridge is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

The Man Who Should Be President

April 15, 2012 by · Leave a Comment 

Today, I am going to do something that I have never done: I am going to devote virtually my entire column to posting another man’s words. That man is the man who should be President of the United States: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. The following is a written transcript of a speech Dr. Paul gave on the floor of the US House of Representatives back in 2007. Had Congressman Paul been elected President in 2008, the country would be four years into the greatest economic, political, and, yes, spiritual recovery in the history of America. As it is, the US is on the brink of totalitarianism and economic ruin. And you can mark it down, four years from now it won’t matter to a tinker’s dam whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney was elected President this November. Neither man has the remotest understanding of America’s real problems nor the courage and backbone to do anything about it if they did understand.

Read the following. This is a man who understands the Constitution. This is a man who understands sound economic principles. This is a man who understands liberty and freedom. This is a man who has the guts to tell the truth. This is a man who has put his life and career on the line for the principles of liberty for more than two decades. This is a man who has returned every dollar that he has been paid as a US congressman to the taxpayers. This is the man who should be President of the United States.

[Ron Paul’s speech begins here] For some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government’s abuse of the people’s rights.

I have never met a politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.

What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.

The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.

Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.

True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.

Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.

It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.

Who are the true patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot?

Randolph Bourne said that, “War is the health of the state.” With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a “war psychology” to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.

Certainly, the neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe.

This is a bad trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism. Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism; that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized.

Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big-government liberals and big-government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.

The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.

All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.

Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or even imprisonment may result.

Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code’s unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.

Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state’s pleasure.

A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve.

Protesters against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money outlawed matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head. Whether it’s with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, or an immoral monetary system or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic, while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots.

If there is a war going on, supporting the state’s effort to win the war is expected at all costs, no dissent. The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home, they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions, the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war and to carelessly sacrifice liberties, which they are told is necessary.

The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties.

We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being reminded that 9/11 has changed everything.

Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed, that is, our policy of foreign interventionism, has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world’s policemen and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration.

We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.

Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed the declared effort to make us safe, and we are willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed.

The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists. There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we are now engaged will last a long, long time.

The war mentality and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and, with this, our respect for self-reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self-sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there is no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hair spray, and searching old women in wheelchairs.

Our enemies say boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We are worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It is certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.

We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us.

These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security.

We may be the economic and the military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism is being lost.

The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course, both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty, even if it is just now and then.

The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution will disappear.

The record since September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long-planned invasion of Iraq.

The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America.

The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time to study it. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.

The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak-and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to library and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens’ use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.

The attack on privacy has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.

Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.

Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world have been widely engaged in, though obviously extralegal.

A growing concern in the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government’s list of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one’s name removed even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It is called the REAL ID card, and it is tied to our Social Security numbers and our State driver’s license. If REAL ID is not stopped, it will become a national driver’s license ID for all Americans. We will be required to carry our papers.

Some of the least-noticed and least-discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted the President in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional Republic.

Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called “other conditions.” The President can call up the National Guard without congressional approval or the Governors’ approval, and even send these State Guard troops into other States.

The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt against the King’s abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this self-evident trend away from personal liberty and empire-building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.

Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliché “Support the Troops” is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be.

Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm’s way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of “patriot”?

Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.

But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty. [Ron Paul’s speech ends here]

There it is. The speech Dr. Paul gave in 2007 seems even more relevant today than it did then. Don’t you think?

You want to elect a real American statesman? You want to elect a man who would preserve liberty and freedom in America? You want to elect a man who would resist the devilish New World Order? You want to elect a man who would reestablish sound economic principles? If so, you will vote to elect Ron Paul as President of the United States. (And, no, no one has paid me a penny to post his speech or make this endorsement.)

Forget all the smoke and mirrors and the dog and pony shows that you see and hear from the other Presidential candidates. The issues that Dr. Paul addressed in this speech are the issues that are going to determine our country’s future. Again, this is the man who should be President of the United States.

Chuck Baldwin is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

You can reach him at:
Please visit Chuck’s web site at:

HR 1505: Giant Land Grab For The Police State

November 4, 2011 by · Leave a Comment 

Montana Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg lent his support for ceding more power and authority to the federal government’s emerging police state by supporting HR 1505, the “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act.” This monstrous bill empowers the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to confiscate to itself tens of thousands of acres of land across the US northern border. This is for “national security” reasons, of course. Gag!

My friend, Dr. Ed Berry, has written a very astute summary and analysis of HR 1505 on his web site, I am going to be borrowing heavily from his research in this column.

Dr. Berry rightly notes that the DHS is the giant head of no less than seven federal agencies: Transportation Security Administration (TSA), US Customs & Border Protection (CBP), US Citizenship & Immigration Services (CIS), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), US Secret Service (SS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and US Coast Guard (USCG).

Dr. Berry says pointedly, “FEMA is the one with the small cages to put you in if you do not behave. TSA is the one that gives you a useless body scan before you get on an airplane, bus, etc. DHS is the one adding its sensors to streetlights around America and the promoter of E-Verify and Real ID as a cradle-to-grave biometric tracking system for every American.” And it is CBP that the DHS is using to seize property along the US northern border.

According to Denny Rehberg, the reasons the DHS needs to seize all this property are: 1) to stop the “turf war” between federal agencies, 2) Drug growers are hiding in our forests, 3) to catch criminals hiding in our forests, 4) to stop illegal aliens from coming in America.

Let’s first acknowledge that the federal government has absolutely no natural right or constitutional jurisdiction to claim (much less seize) land and territory outside of the District of Columbia. In many of the western states of the US, for example, the vast majority of land in any given State is now regarded as “federal” land. Ask yourself, where is the constitutional authorization for this federal land grab? When did the various State legislatures vote to give these properties to the federal government? When did the various State governors sign the State laws giving these properties to the federal government? When did the citizens of the various states vote to give these properties to the federal government? The answer is, nowhere, and they didn’t!

How is it, then, that we have elected representatives such as Denny Rehberg–people who took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States–who are either so ignorant of the Constitution that they took an oath to uphold, or who are so flippant and careless about that oath, that they so quickly and routinely trample, not only the federal Constitution, but the natural laws and principles of God, and the sovereign rights and authority of the several states?

Now, let’s look at Rep. Rehberg’s reasons why he supports HR 1505 one at a time:

*To stop the “turf war” between federal agencies

This is a very specious argument, to say the least! No federal agency has any claim to State land! The land doesn’t belong to those miscreants inside the Beltway! It belongs to the people of the several states! Therefore, it is the responsibility of the State governor and county sheriff to determine who is and who is not allowed access to these lands. All this talk of a “turf war” between federal agencies is just a bunch of hooey!

On this point, we must note that Rep. Rehberg has introduced a “Sheriffs First” amendment to HR 1505. If approved, this amendment would recognize county sheriffs’ law enforcement power over federal agencies and personnel. Of course, this is power sheriffs already have!

For the record, I don’t believe for one second that Denny Rehberg cares one whit whether county sheriffs exercise their authority over these Nazi-like federal agencies. He came up with this amendment as a way to mollify the people of Montana after he discovered that a sizeable number of his constituents are rightfully “mad as hell” about his support for this draconian piece of legislation. After all, he is campaigning for a US Senate seat.

One disagreement I have with Dr. Berry’s analysis is his statement, “The exception to a sheriff’s ultimate authority should be our Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which may be our only way to remove corruption among local police.” The way to deal with corrupt local police officials is for the governor to intervene. Per the Tenth Amendment, law enforcement is the exclusive jurisdiction of State government.

*Drug growers are hiding in our forests

In this regard, Dr. Berry’s analysis is absolutely spot-on: “America’s War on Drugs is a scam. It keeps the price of drugs high by limiting supply, so drug cartels and our CIA can make money selling drugs. It hires police to catch pot growers and smokers who overflow our prisons. But wealthy drug dealers who pay off the police have a free run. The solution is not to give DHS control over our land. The solution is to stop the War on Drugs.”

Dr. Berry is also correct when he states, “Virtually all drugs used in America come across our southern border and DHS has not been able to stop it. So why should we allow DHS to control non-existent drug traffic [over] our northern border when they can’t stop the problem where it exists?”

*To catch criminals who are hiding in our forests

Again, law enforcement is the responsibility of State and local government. If there are criminals “hiding in our forests,” it is the job of the State law enforcement agencies to find and apprehend them. Moreover, Dr. Berry astutely observes that to use this argument as justification to cede more authority and territory to DHS “shows the real intent of HR 1505 is to control American citizens.” Amen!

*To stop illegal aliens from coming into America

I cannot believe Denny Rehberg could say this with a straight face! Yeah, we have a real problem with all those illegal Canucks coming across our northern border, don’t we? That’s so absurd; I doubt that anyone reading that statement could do so without laughing out loud!

For the record, I live about 75 miles south of the Canadian border, and, ladies and gentlemen, I can tell you unequivocally that there is absolutely no problem with illegal aliens coming across that northern border! In fact, the western states that border Canada enjoy some of the lowest crime rates anywhere in the country.

I’ll tell you where we have a problem will illegal aliens (not that I have to): it’s along our southern border! So, what are the DHS and the rest of the federal government doing to protect our southern border? Not much! The DHS often imprisons Border Patrol agents who attempt to do their jobs. The federal Justice Department sued the State of Arizona for its attempt to stop illegal immigration and constantly hassles and harangues Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, because of his no-nonsense enforcement of Arizona immigration laws. Furthermore, the Obama administration secretly used federal police agencies to actually supply sophisticated firearms to Mexican drug cartels–firearms that were used to murder a US Border Patrol agent, no less. Does this sound like a federal government that is truly concerned about illegal immigration to you? And now we are supposed to believe that HR 1505 is designed to stop illegal immigration where, for all intents and purposes, it doesn’t even exist? Get real!

Dr. Berry inserts one more salient point into his column: “Do you see a pattern here? All the claimed reasons for HR 1505 are the result of federal laws or lack [of] enforcement of our Constitution. Now the feds want another law to supposedly cure the problems they created.”

See Dr. Ed Berry’s column at:

I implore readers to contact their US congressman or congresswoman and find out where he or she stands on HR 1505. This is a monstrous bill that lurches the United States forward into a federal police state in giant strides! The implications and ramifications of this bill, should it become law, are staggering–and scary!

Chuck Baldwin is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice

You can reach him at:
Please visit Chuck’s web site at:

Constitutional Judo

December 30, 2010 by · Leave a Comment 

By Giordano Bruno | Neithercorp Press…

judoIn all things, there exists a ‘point of balance’; a line that, if crossed, results in the sudden and expedient loss of our self-determinism and makes us subservient to the fickle whims of social, political, and physical gravity. We are “thrown” into the air, as it were, and the landing is rarely ever pleasant. The U.S. Constitution and the civil liberties it outlines is itself one of these historic points of balance. Its original purpose was to temper the most epic of grappling matches ever ignited; between the relentless constructs of government, and the individual freedoms of the common man. The ultimate problem inherent in this struggle is one of consistency, vigilance, and labor…

While the concept of the Democratic Republic and the Constitution was meant to remove suffocating class warfare from our political life and free us from the numerous dangers of elitism, invariably, those men who thirst for power over others find a way to insinuate themselves into any system, regardless of checks and balances, especially when the populace does not fulfill its necessary role as watchdog and tireless sentinel. Many Americans often assume that ‘the people’ derive their power from the Constitution, but the reality is actually reverse; the Constitution, in fact, derives its power from the people. Our duty (which some have forgotten) has always been to protect the rights and liberties inscribed on those pages of parchment. Not just to know those rights, or recite them, but to implement and defend them in our day-to-day existence. Without the constant nurturing cultural pulse of sound minds and courageous hearts, the Constitution dies.

Many in our society, instead of taking on the responsibility of preserving their freedoms, have instead handed it over to the trappings of government. The fatal error here is obvious; the corporatized and over-centralized political landscape of America’s government today does not hold the same values as the people it is determined to lord over. We have witnessed the parasitic possession of our system, know it to be corrupt, yet still seem to expect this bureaucratic monstrosity to cradle our liberties in good faith!

Government is a tool; a mechanical apparatus that can be used to either preserve freedom, or annihilate it. Its use depends upon those men who wield it, and the men who wield our government today certainly do not have the expansion of freedom in mind. In this article, we will examine the many points of contention (balancing points) brewing as our exceedingly globalist leaning political leaders overstep their bounds. Any one of these points, if allowed to falter by Americans, could throw the whole of our heritage into disarray…

Death By A Thousand Cuts

If you’ve been living at the center of the Earth for the past decade, or playing online games till daybreak battling for dominion of Castle Grayskull, then you may have missed out on the numerous attempts by our Government (under both major parties) to erode our freedoms one precious layer at a time. Some of these attempts have so far fallen flat, while others have been frighteningly successful. Here is just a sample of various recent actions and legislation designed specifically to swindle away your rights, if not the shirt right off your back:

Patriot Acts I & II: The Patriot Act is what I call “chameleon legislation”; it’s designed to be “open to interpretation” by officials and to be modified for whatever purpose they happen to deem fit at the moment. Ultimately, both Patriot Acts opened a terrible gateway to a world where any freedom is expendable, especially if it means stopping terrorists and “evil doers”. Of course, the manner in which terrorism is defined by proponents of the Patriot Act is wildly general. ANYONE could be defined as a terrorist, and any threat could be construed as a matter of national security. The true goal of this legislation was not to protect the public, but to untie the hands of the establishment when implementing further destructive actions, as well as to plant the fog of doubt into the minds of Americans as to the continued validity of the Constitution itself.

The Enemy Belligerents Act: The Enemy Belligerents Act is a perfect example of how the leadership caste of the Democrats and Republicans (who are neo-cons, not true conservatives) work in tandem to institute globalist policy. In this case, the act was introduced by the dastardly duo of John McCain and Joe Lieberman. To put it simply, this legislation, if fully imposed, would allow the government to label any person they choose, even an American citizen, as an enemy combatant. This means you could be arrested without being officially charged, imprisoned without a trial or legal council for an unspecified length of time, and no one, not even your family, would be told where you were. They should just re-name it the ‘Shanghai Act’, because it basically legalizes government piracy. The only problem is that this shanghai is less likely to end with tropical island adventure and more likely to end with you being tossed in a dark stinky hole in the middle of another Abu Ghraib surrounded by Blackwater mongoloids with a penchant for naked man dog-piles. Again, this is the kind of poison your government thinks up on a regular basis…

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act: A bill passed by George W. Bush in 2007 with very little initial media coverage. Allows the Federal Government at the direction of the president to subvert Posse Comitatus and use the military within the borders of the U.S. as a police force without any consent from state governments. Also gives the office of the president unprecedented powers over the National Guard. Just add any real or engineered national disaster and what you get is a perfect recipe for Hurricane Katrina deluxe. Martial Law, here we come…

Establishment Of Northcom: Northcom (United States Northern Command) is, at bottom, the teeth behind legislation like the John Warner Defense Act. If martial law is declared in the U.S., it will be Northcom and its assigned military units that will stand at the forefront. Northcom’s stated mission is to “defend the homeland”, supposedly against terrorism, however, much of Northcom’s focus in annual exercises like ‘Vigilant Shield’ has been to prepare for civil unrest and continuity of government. Meaning, they train under the assumption that YOU will be the enemy. The first person posted to command Northcom was General Ralph Eberhart, the same man who was in charge of NORAD on 9/11. Apparently, if you ignore available intelligence and fail completely in your assigned duties, you get a promotion in the upper echelons of the military today, unless I missed something, and he didn’t fail…

Presidential Directive 51: A presidential action shrouded in secrecy and general cloak and dagger spookiness. When ignorant yuppies accuse the Liberty Movement of “paranoia”, I always point out PDD 51, and ask them if they are at least intelligent enough to be concerned. This order was initiated by George W. Bush and continued by Barack Obama, and is designed to give the president virtual dictatorial powers during a state of “national emergency”. It dissolves all states rights and places the entire country under the purview of Northcom, and Homeland Security. The guise of “continuity of government” is used as a rationale. Also allows the president to declare a state of emergency for almost any reason. Members of Congress and even some members of Homeland Security who have requested to read the entire directive have been denied. The bill is apparently so disturbing that Obama doesn’t even want those with security clearance to view the full document. Though I’m sure there is some grey area that can be exploited where classified materials are concerned, as far as I can tell from my research, Obama’s withholding of information on a directive such as PDD 51 from Congress is wholly illegal.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): Supported by both Bush and Obama. The word “foreign” is highly misleading. FISA allows telecom companies to supply the personal data and communications of anyone, including Americans, to the government without threat of civil retribution (lawsuit). Under Constitutional law, any invasion of privacy by government authorities must first be approved through an individualized warrant. The person or premises to be monitored must be specified, and the reason behind the surveillance must be clearly explained. FISA does away with all of these protections to your privacy and gives free reign to government to spy on whoever they choose without any oversight whatsoever. It even allows for mass surveillance, or data collation, on entire subsections of the populace. What I find most interesting about FISA is the way in which it brazenly breaks the barrier between government and corporate power. We all know about the revolving door in Washington, but in the past, the idea of the barrier was at least somewhat maintained for appearances, if nothing else. The trick to FISA is that “technically”, it is the telecoms that are doing the actual surveillance, and not government. This is, I’m sure, the argument that will be used by the Feds if FISA is ever taken to the Supreme Court under the Fourth Amendment. The reality, though, is that the telecoms and the government are one in the same, and to treat them as two separate legal entities is to blind one’s self to the facts. Now, Mussolini’s definition of fascism (the melding of government and corporate infrastructure into a single entity with a single purpose) absolutely seems to apply to the U.S.

Big Brother Technotronic Super Villain-esqe Surveillance Grid: Ever feel like you are being watched? Get used to it, says Homeland Security! CCTV cameras have doubled in most U.S. cities over the past two years, while New York has tripled theirs in only six months. The TSA has been given invincible IRS-like goon squad status and now fondles and x-rays airport travelers at will, storing biometric data without consent and generally treating people worse than cattle. Don’t care because you don’t fly? Don’t worry! Naked body scanners are coming to bus and train stations near you! Hell, if we don’t put a stop to this horror soon, the TSA may roll scanners out on street corners.

A friend of mine was recently on a trip to Boston and went to see the U.S.S. Constitution, the oldest commissioned American war vessel still afloat. He related to me that his excitement was soon smothered when he realized visitors had to pass through metal detectors and security just to see the boat. I’m sure that the government is merely trying to prevent Al Qaeda from sneaking on board with box cutters, hijacking the ship, and sailing it into the Sears tower, causing the building to implode at near freefall speed.

The reason he was disenchanted with the experience was because he knew the metal detectors and security served little purpose, except to condition people into accepting that this was the norm. Everywhere you go, there DHS is.

Next of course would be easily tracked national ID cards, which were attempted a couple of years ago with little success under the Real ID Act. State compliance for the Real ID was postponed until May 2011, which is right around the corner. We’ll see if the states cave, or stand their ground. Finally, no surveillance society would be complete without citizen spies. Homeland Security is establishing its new “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign in your local Walmart. Yes, imagine the ghoulish face of cave troll Janet Napolitano leering down at aisle five as you attempt to save a dollar on frozen buffalo wings. She slobbers rhetoric about how you are surrounded by terrorists while you try to find that economy sized box of Count Chocula. Wouldn’t we all just feel safer?

Bailout Bills (All Variations): I find that a lot of people like to blame our current economic doomfest on one political party or the other, stumbling about in the dark in a sad attempt to trace the roots of the credit and mortgage collapse back to Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, etc. Everyone is desperate to play cheerleader for their team, not realizing that both teams are fake and almost every president since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 is to blame for selling out the American people to global banks. Let’s not forget, both Obama and Bush supported bailout legislation which is now widely considered to be an abject failure. The majority of Americans according to most polls opposed these bills, and yet they were still passed. What do the bailouts have to do with the loss of Constitutional rights? When the entirety of your country’s financial future is poured into the coffers of international banking elites and your currency is subsequently debased if not destroyed, leaving you with nothing but debt and supranational centralization, it is a certainty that a total loss of your rights will soon follow.

FDA Food Safety Modernization Act S. 510: Currently being considered for passage in the House. Yet another bill written in such a way as to make it wide open for interpretation by the authorities. First of all, the FDA has never been synonymous with “safety”, considering half the products they approve end up causing cancer or shrinking your testes. They would approve rat urine for mass consumption if a company like Monsanto wanted to market it. The FDA’s true roll has been to let major corporations violate safety regulations unobstructed while ruthlessly bringing the hammer down on smaller businesses. Now, the FDA has set its aim upon not just small farms, but personal gardens!

The bill gives the FDA far reaching powers over what it terms “food production facilities”, which are defined as “any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation”. It also places all food production under the control of Homeland Security in the event of a “national emergency” (there’s that poorly defined phrase again). I have heard some organic growers and ranchers shrug off the bill, believing that the FDA would never take advantage of the broad interpretation and bring pressure on private gardens or food trade. This kind of naivety is always astonishing to me. When has a society ever opened a door to power that its government has not taken quick advantage of? In fact, the FDA has already begun harassing the Amish, of all people, for private farm trade, even without S. 510:

These are non-commercial farms, yet the FDA believes it has the authority to dictate their food production activities. If the government is willing to set its laser guided sites on a pacifist group that still rides around in horse and buggy, then they’ll definitely have no qualms going after the rest of us.

Anti-Constitutional Arguments For Dummies

Most people enjoy the advantages of freedom and are naturally conservative towards government, whether they realize it or not. Because of the rather unsavory past actions of the neo-cons (globalists), the word “conservative” has been sullied, and is now associated with corporatism and big government. However, real conservatism has always been quite revolutionary. True conservatives believe in the principle of limited government, and individualism above collectivism, which means they usually find themselves the target of establishment fury. True conservatives are almost always in rebellion against the system, because the system is almost always operated by those who are anti-freedom. Show me a self proclaimed conservative who supports proliferation of government with a smile and I’ll show you a very confused man.

The label “Conservative” should really be interchangeable with “Constitutionalist”, and once this is understood, anti-Constitutional arguments can be viewed without the blurred distractions of the false left/right paradigm. We begin to understand that the conflict is not between Democrat and Republican, Liberal or Conservative, because those terms have been warped and their meaning eroded. The conflict we face is instead between individualists (Constitutionalists), and collectivists (globalists).

We’ve all heard the gamut of anti-Constitutional arguments in the past, but almost always through the left/right filter. Let’s set that filter aside for a moment and consider a few of them once again more objectively…

Argument 1 – The Constitution is an outdated document and is no longer practical for the modern world:

I’ve heard this argument from both sides of the aisle once again indicating that left vs. right is all fantasy. Does a good idea ever become outdated? What about inborn instincts? Can the desire for freedom ever be impractical?

The suggestion that the Constitution is “too old” is ludicrous for many reasons. First, the idea of an independent republic is painfully new compared to the long wash of human empires filled with vast stretches of feudalism and tyranny. Globalism is often touted as the next step in the cultural evolution of man, but it is really a giant leap backwards compared to Constitutionalism, representing yet another old centralist autocracy marketed in a modern way. A global feudal state is still a feudal state.

Second, the guidelines of the Constitution are built upon social necessities that have never and will never disappear. The right to speak openly one’s opinions or observations without fear of government reprisal is not a right that we will ever find ourselves too modern to appreciate. The right to bear arms and defend oneself will always be essential to a culture that wishes to prevent despotism in its various forms. The right to privacy from all people, including the government, will never be programmed out of the public entirely. Every man has an innate need to live without being examined and judged as though he were under constant suspicion. Every aspect of the Constitution is archetypal, and therefore, as much a part of us as our own eyes and ears. These things do not lose their usefulness, no matter what era we live in.

Third, I have yet to see a political dynamic that is more sincere and honorable than the U.S. Constitution. I have yet to see a social concept presented as an alternative to the Constitution that does not have an ulterior motive attached. If someone, anyone, can present a new system that improves upon the Constitution while retaining the liberties described in the Constitution, I would love to see it. I hear a lot of criticism of the Constitution by globalists, but I have never seen any of them present a workable replacement that the public would respect, or willingly accept.

Argument 2 – Some rights must be given up for the greater good:

I’ll tell you a little secret; there is no “greater good”, unless you are talking about personal conscience. If your version of the “greater good” demands that you supplant your personal conscience, then it is not “greater”, and it is not “good”.

Safety is usually the catalyzing issue that leads to relinquished liberties, but safety itself is an illusion. No government can promise you true safety. Life is dangerous, and filled with the unexpected. Get over it and stop projecting your fears on the rest of us. If someone really feels that they are in immediate danger of a terrorist attack, then they should build a concrete bunker for themselves and stay in it, instead of trying to impose a collective bunker made out of unconstitutional laws and government surveillance around all of us.

Ultimately, what IS the greater good in this situation? Is it an unaccountable globalist nanny state and the dissolution of all individual and national sovereignty for the sake of a few people’s delusions of security? Maybe I’m just reckless, but I’m not buying it…

Argument 3 – National sovereignty must be removed if we are to achieve world peace:

World peace sounds very nice, I admit, but anyone who thinks removing Constitutional boundaries and bowing to globalism is the cure for war is smoking something laced with a serious amount of something. Almost every war of the past century alone has been funded, facilitated, or outright ignited by the same types of global elitists who now demand that we centralize world economic and political power into their hands to end war. This isn’t irony, it’s actually very well thought out Hegelian gaming; a sort of anti-Karma that rewards evil and punishes the respectable.

We have been led to believe that peace requires some kind of Faustian trade; freedom for harmony. But, legitimate freedom is a harbinger of peace, and nothing, not even the promise of harmony, is worth trading it away.

Argument 4 – The government could never undo Constitutional liberties because we would just vote them out:

This argument shows a serious lack of insight into how our government actually functions. As I have pointed out, most of the anti-Constitutional legislation described in this article was supported by both major parties. Therefore, it would be logical to then consider that voting out one party and replacing them with the other makes little difference as to the policies the government pursues. Unless you are voting for third party or liberty based candidates, your stop at the ballot box was a big waste of time. Sorry, that’s just reality. The people who write in Mickey Mouse have more sense than most of the voting public. The point? Elections change very little on a federal level.

The argument is also sometimes reversed by nihilists, who claim that the American public is to blame for government corruption because they voted for said politicians in the first place. Again, how the public votes has little bearing on most major elections because they have not been given a real choice. I get more excitement when deciding between Coke or Pepsi.

Argument 5 – The Founding Fathers couldn’t live up to their Constitutional ideals:

Yes, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and he also tried to implement a gradual emancipation for all slaves. It’s a contradiction. Jefferson, like all the Founding Fathers, was living in the midst of a revolutionary age filled with contradictions and conflict. The fact that they were able to sort through much of this and form a nation that at least aspired towards equal rights and independence is nothing short of a miracle. Washington made many mistakes, and so did Adams. In the context of the era in which they lived, they still did extraordinarily well, and this world is immensely better off because of their contributions.

This argument is perhaps the most dishonest of those I’ve heard, because it seeks to dismantle the very tangible and beneficial accomplishments of the revolutionary period by defaming men who cannot defend themselves because they are long since dead. It is successful when used to target people who know only historical events or dates but do not know more about the characters of the figures involved. That is not to say we should blindly idolize the Founding Fathers, on the contrary, we should endeavor to see them as real human beings with strengths, as well as flaws. Those flaws do not discredit what they built. What men are able to achieve in spite of their flaws is often far more meaningful and valuable than what they lose because of them.

Moral Ambiguity In Times Of Crisis

Liberty is most threatened in moments of great duress. Desperation breeds reckless abandon, and such an atmosphere is suffocating to wisdom. Each point of balance in the struggle for freedom requires considerable focus, and that focus can be twisted, flipped, and wrenched by the shock of disaster. The preservation of Constitutional rights depends greatly on our ability to maintain a sense of integrity and discipline as a culture, even when all the world seems to crumble around us.

Fear makes the insane seem reasonable. Financial collapse, war, civil unrest, all of these calamities can tempt us to silence our dissent, to do things we would not normally do, or to concede that which is precious to us. Even now, that kind of fear has led to many unfortunate compromises. The good news is, there is no freedom taken, that cannot be taken back.

The question is, how much are we willing to endure to see that our ideals survive? How hard are we willing to work? How much of our time, effort, and energy are we willing to expend? If the answer is not “all of it”, then we have failed already. What we have covered so far is the present situation, and by no means does it have to continue. When drawing a line in the sand, that line must first be drawn within. We must promise ourselves that it is here we will not bend, we will not lose balance, we will not be thrown. All liberty depends most on this.

The “Hi Tech” Corporate Police State: “Reengineering” the Internet … for Persistent Surveillance

December 6, 2010 by · Leave a Comment 


Ghost in the Machine: Secret State Teams Up with Ad Pimps to Throttle Privacy

WikiLeaksThe secret world of “cyber situational awareness” is a spymaster’s wet dream, made all the more alluring by the advent of ultra high speed computing and the near infinite storage capacity afforded by massive server farms and the ubiquitous “cloud.”

Within that dusky haze, obscured by claims of national security or proprietary business information, take your pick, would you bet your life that the wizards of misdirection and deception care a whit that you really are more than a disembodied data point?

Lost in the debate surrounding privacy invasion and data mining however, is the key role that internet service providers (ISPs) play as intermediaries and gatekeepers. From their perch, ISPs peer deeply into and collect and analyze the online communications of tens of millions of users simultaneously, in real-time.

Concerted efforts to eliminate online anonymity, in managed democracies and authoritarian regimes alike, are greatly enhanced by the deployment of deep packet inspection (DPI) sensors and software on virtually all networks.

As Canadian privacy watchdogs tell us, DPI offer ISPs “unparalleled levels of intelligence into subscribers’ online activities.”

“To unpack this a little” they aver, “all data traffic that courses across the ‘net is contained in individual packets that have header (i.e. addressing) information and payload (i.e. content) information. We can think of this as the address on a postcard and the written and visual content of a postcard.”

All of which is there for the taking, “criminal evidence, ready for use in a trial,”Cryptohippie chillingly informs.
Still the illusion persists that communication technologies are somehow “neutral.” Neither good nor bad but rather, much like a smart phone loaded with geolocation tracking chips or the surveillance-ready internet itself, simplythere for all to use.

Reality as is its wont, bites with ever-sharper teeth.

As with other recent advances touted as breakthroughs–from the biomedical and pharmaceutical research that spawned factory farming and genetically-modified crops to something as seemingly banal as the highway system that ushered in exurban sprawl–from the workplace to the car-pool lane to idle hours spent trolling the web, our techno-toys function rather handily as instruments of social control.

Simply put, DPI hand our minders an unprecedented means to examine and catalogue our online communications. From blog posts to web searches to the content of email and video files, we’re delivered up every day, figuratively and literally, to advertising pimps or law enforcers, a faceless army of gatekeepers guarding an indefensible system in perpetual crisis.

Subtly guiding internet traffic into fast and slow lanes, based on the size and content of a particular file, or examining said file for malicious or illegal content, DPI has been deployed as a means of conserving bandwidth and as a defense against viral attacks.

Leaving aside the critical issue of net neutrality, linked to moves to further monetize the internet and hold communications hostage to the ability to pay for quicker network speeds, there is no question that ISPs and individual users should have a keen interest in defending themselves against the depredations of organized gangs of identity thieves and predators.

If DPI were solely a tool to weed out malicious hacks or channel traffic in more equitable ways, thereby ensuring the broadest possible access to all, it couldprovide concrete benefits to users and contribute to a safer and more secure communications’ environment.

This hasn’t happened. Instead, securocrats and corporatists alike are working feverishly to “reengineer the internet”–for the delivery of targeted ads and as a surveillance platform–and both view DPI’s ability to read individual messages, the “deep packet” as it were, as a singular means to do just that.

Last year, Antifascist Calling reported on moves by surveillance mavens to deploy deep packet sniffing Einstein 3 software developed by the National Security Agency on the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure.

As with the agency’s pervasive driftnet spying on Americans, as AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein revealed in his release of internal companydocuments, DPI and the hardware that powers it is the “secret sauce” animating these illegal programs.
Earlier this year, Klein told Wired Magazine that the documents suggest that NSA’s warrantless wiretapping “was just the tip of an eavesdropping iceberg,” evidence of “an untargeted, massive vacuum cleaner sweeping up millions of peoples’ communications every second automatically.”

Ostensibly designed for detecting and thwarting malicious attacks aimed at government networks, The Wall Street Journal revealed that the packet sniffing Einstein 3 program, developed under the code name TUTELAGE, can screen computer traffic flowing into state portals from private sector networks, including those connecting people to the internet.

“Its filtering technology,” journalist Siobhan Gorman wrote, “can read the content of email and other communications.”

Einstein 3 is considered so toxic to privacy that AT&T sought “legal assurance that it will not be sued for participating in the pilot program,” The Washington Post reported. Although they were given assurances by Bush’s former Attorney General, Michael B. Mukasey, that the firm “would bear no liability,” AT&T deferred until the Obama administration granted the waiver in 2009. So far, the federal government has expended some $2 billion on the program.
Jacob Appelbaum, a security researcher with the Tor Anonymity Project toldCNET News in March that expanding Einstein 3 to private networks “would amount to a partial outsourcing of security” to unaccountable corporations.

But it will do much, much more. Appelbaum averred that the project represents “a clear loss of control [for the public]. And anyone with access to that monitoring system, legitimate or otherwise, would be able to monitor amazing amounts of traffic.”

A year later, a related program under development by NSA and defense giant Raytheon, “Perfect Citizen,” relies on a suite of sensors deployed in computer networks that will persistently monitor whichever system they are plugged into. While little has been revealed about how Perfect Citizen will work, it was called by a corporate insider the cyber equivalent of “Big Brother,” according to an email obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

I have pointed out many times that under the rubric of cybersecurity (the latest profit-generating “War on Terror” front), the secret state, America’s telecoms and internet service providers are conjoined at the hip in what are blandly called “public-private partnerships.”

Indeed, the secrecy-shredding web site Public Intelligence, posted a confidential document that provided details on the inner workings of one such initiative, Project 12.

Ultimately, the goal of the secretive enterprise, Public Intelligence averred, “is not simply to increase the flow of ‘threat information’ from government agencies to private industry, but to facilitate greater ‘information sharing’ between those companies and the federal government.”
This will be accomplished once “real-time cyber situational awareness” is achieved across all eighteen critical infrastructure and key resources (CIKR) sectors identified in the report.

Simply put, NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program and a constellation of top secret cybersecurity projects will come to nought if filtering software that examines–and catalogues–the content, or deep packets, of those spied upon aren’t deployed across all networks, public and private.

No surprise then, that the origins of the ghost in the internet surveillance machine lie in unscrupulous efforts by advert pimps to deliver us to market.

“Opting In” to the Corporate Police State
Readers are familiar with the practice of web sites that install tracking “cookies” and other nasty bits of code that follow our antics across the internet.

This information is sold to advertisers by firms such as Google and Yahoo who charge a premium price for the privilege of peering into browsing habits.

Last month The Wall Street Journal reported that a gaggle of niche firms “harvest online conversations and collect personal details from social-networking sites, résumé sites and online forums where people might discuss their lives.”

We’re told that the dubious practice of “web scraping” provides the “raw material” in a rapidly expanding “data economy.” Journal reporters found that marketers “spent $7.8 billion on online and offline data in 2009″ and that “spending on data from online sources is set to more than double, to $840 million in 2012 from $410 million in 2009.”

And with incentives such as these, and virtually nothing in the way of regulation, is it any wonder we find ourselves preyed upon.

While we might garner a measure of privacy from the prying eyes of ISPs, marketing vultures and our political minders through the use of strong encryption, as I reported last month, the Obama administration will soon seek congressional authorization which mandates that software designers and social networking sites build backdoors into their systems.

According to The New York Times, the administration claims this is necessary so that law enforcement and intelligence snoops have a surefire means “to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages,” because their “ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is ‘going dark’.”

Mendacious administration claims are more than matched by those in the online advertising industry.

Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that deep packet inspection, “one of the most potentially intrusive technologies for profiling and targeting Internet users with ads is on the verge of a comeback, two years after an outcry by privacy advocates in the U.S. and Britain appeared to kill it.”

Advertising grifters Kindsight and Phorm “are pitching deep packet inspection services as a way for Internet service providers to claim a share of the lucrative online ad market.”

Right up front, Phorm declares that theirs’ is a “global personalisation technology company” that “delivers a more interesting online experience,” that is, if your interests lie in having a behavioral profile of yourself created, centered around intrusive web tracking and data mining technologies.

While both firms claim that user privacy is of “paramount” concern, the industry’s track record suggests otherwise. In 2008 for example, internet marketing firm NebuAd planned to “use deep packet inspection to deliver targeted advertising to millions of broadband subscribers unless they explicitly opted out of the service.”

An outcry ensued when the scheme became public knowledge. While NebuAd has gone out of business, “several U.S. ISPs who signed deals with NebuAd have been hit with class-action lawsuits accusing them of ‘installing spyware devices; on their networks,” the Journal averred.

According to Ars Technica, the lawsuit charged the firm and ISPs “Bresnan Communications, Cable One, CenturyTel, Embarq, Knology, and WOW! of all being involved in the interception, copying, transmission, collection, storage, usage, and altering of private data from users.”

NebuAd was accused by plaintiffs of exploiting “normal browser platform security behaviors by forging IP packets, allowing their own JavaScript code to be written into source code trusted by the web browser,” the complaint reads. “NebuAd and ISPs together cooperate in this attack against the intentions of the consumers, the designers of their software, and the owners of the servers they visit,” attorneys charged.

“All of the involved parties,” journalist Jacqui Cheng wrote, were “alleged to have violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, California’s Computer Crime Law, the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the California Invasion of Privacy Act.”

In Britain, a similar controversy erupted when BT Group PLC were forced to disclose that they “had tested Phorm’s technology on some subscribers without telling them. Last year, BT and two other British ISPs that explored deploying Phorm’s service–Virgin Media Inc. and TalkTalk–abandoned it,” theJournal reported.

At the time, the nose-tweaking tech web site The Register revealed that although Phorm refused to state how many BT customers had been profiled, “at the absolute least there are 38,000 BT Retail customers unaware their communications have been allegedly criminally intercepted in the last two years. The number could be as high as 108,000.”

When grilled by The Register as to why Phorm doesn’t believe “people have the right to know how likely it is they were part of a secret test,” a Phorm spokesperson replied “‘We’re just not going to disclose that’.” He claimed “‘they were BT customers and you have to ask BT about that’.”

BT also refused to respond to inquiries. How’s that for transparency!

Why then, should users believe industry professions of faith that ISPs won’t provide them with subscribers’ real identities? After all, as one wag told theJournal, ISPs “feel like they have data and they ought to be able to use it” and “they really desperately want to.”

Accordingly, the Journal reported that Kindsight, owned by telecommunications giant Alcatel-Lucent SA (talk about a seamless web!), “says six ISPs in the U.S., Canada and Europe have been testing its security service this year although it isn’t yet delivering targeted ads. It declined to name the clients.”

CEO Mike Gassewitz told Journal reporters that the company “has been placing ads on various websites to test the ad-placement technology and build up a base of advertisers, which now number about 100,000.”

Phorm’s history hardly inspires confidence. CEO Kent Ertugrul, “a Princeton-educated, former investment banker,” we’re informed by the Journal, honed his business skills in the early 1990s when he formed “a joint venture with the Russian Space Agency to offer joy rides to tourists in MiG-29 fighter jets.”

Coming at the height of the Yeltsin kleptocracy that looted billions of dollars in assets from the sell-off of the prized possessions of the former Soviet Union, at the very least this should have raised an eyebrow or two.

Before changing its name to Phorm in 2007, Ertugrul ran an enterprise called 121Media. According to numerous published reports, the firm produced a spyware application called PeopleOnPage. “This application,” Wikipediaaverred, “acted as a browser hijacker and passed details of the user’s currently visited website to central ContextPlus servers, so that the user could be targeted with advertising” in the form of intrusive pop-ups.

The adware component, AproposMedia, was described by as “…a malicious executable program that is usually installed without user consent or knowledge. AproposMedia may have the ability to secretly monitor, record, and transmit computer activity.” Indeed, The Register reported that Ertugrul’s PeopleOnPage ad network “was blacklisted as spyware by the likes of Symantec and F-Secure.”

Former pop-up king Ertugrul has called online rights’ campaigners “privacy pirates” who represent a “neo-Luddite retrenchment,” and told The Daily Telegraph last year that Phorm’s technology is a “game changer” in “protecting users’ privacy.”

But armed with a marketing scheme that promises “the potential for companies to collect substantially more revenue for literally any page on the internet,” serious privacy concerns are a real issue when deep packet inspection technologies are touted as a splendid means to do so.

Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee told New Scientist in 2009 that the “ever-increasing power of computers that is helping the internet to grow is also threatening its future.”
Berners-Lee “likened DPI to wiretapping, and pointed out that companies could use it to learn a huge amount about our ‘lives, hates and fears’.”

Information I might add, that is portable and readily exploitable by our political minders and the corporate grifters they so lovingly serve.

And with a national security state already monitoring huge volumes of data collected from the internet and other electronic communications’ platforms,The Guardian warns that Britain and other managed Western democracies are “sleepwalking into a surveillance society.”

Isn’t it time we woke up?

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research,  his articles can be read on Dissident VoiceThe Intelligence Daily,Pacific Free PressUncommon Thought Journal, and the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military “Civil Disturbance” Planning, distributed by AK Press and has contributed to the new book from Global ResearchThe Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century.

Some thoughts about socialism

April 5, 2009 by · 4 Comments 

History is littered with post-crisis regulations. If there are undue restrictions on the operations of businesses, they may view it to be their job to get around them, and you sow the seeds of the next crisis.

– Liz Ann Sonders, chief investment analyst, CharlesSchwab & Co., a leading US provider of investment services.1

socialismAnd so it goes. Corporations, whether financial or not, strive to maximize profit as inevitably as water seeks its own level. We’ve been trying to “regulate” them since the 19th century. Or is it the 18th? Nothing helps for long. You close one loophole and the slime oozes out of another hole. Wall Street has not only an army of lawyers and accountants, but a horde of mathematicians with advanced degrees searching for the perfect equations to separate people from their money. After all the stimulus money has come and gone, after all the speeches by our leaders condemning greed and swearing to reforms, after the last congressional hearing deploring the corporate executives to their faces, the boys of Wall Street, shrugging off a few bruises, will resume churning out their assortment of financial entities, documents, and packages that go by names like hedge funds, derivatives, collateralized debt obligations, index funds, credit default swaps, structured investment vehicles, subprime mortgages, and many other pieces of paper with exotic names, for which, it must be kept in mind, there had been no public need or strident demand. Speculation, bonuses, and scotch will flow again, and the boys will be all the wiser, perhaps shaken a bit that they’re so reviled, but knowing better now what to flaunt and what to disguise.

This is another reminder that communism or socialism have almost always been given just one chance to work, if that much, while capitalism has been given numerous chances to do so following its perennial fiascos. Ralph Nader has observed: “Capitalism will never fail because socialism will always be there to bail it out.”

In the West, one of the most unfortunate results of the Cold War was that 70 years of anti-communist education and media stamped in people’s minds a lasting association between socialism and what the Soviet Union called communism. Socialism meant a dictatorship, it meant Stalinist repression, a suffocating “command economy”, no freedom of enterprise, no freedom to change jobs, few avenues for personal expression, and other similar truths and untruths. This is a set of beliefs clung to even amongst many Americans opposed to US foreign policy. No matter how bad the economy is, Americans think, the only alternative available is something called “communism”, and they know how awful that is.

Adding to the purposeful confusion, the conservatives in England, for 30 years following the end of World War 2, filled the minds of the public with the idea that the Labour Party was socialist, and when recession hit (as it does regularly in capitalist countries) the public was then told, and believed, that “socialism had failed”.

Yet, ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, polls taken in Russia have shown a nostalgia for the old system. In the latest example, “Russia Now”, a Moscow publication that appears as a supplement in the Washington Post, asked Russians: “What socio-economic system do you favor?” The results were: “State planning and distribution”: 58% … “Based on private property and market relations”: 28% … “Hard to say”: 14%.2

In 1994, Mark Brzezinski (son of Zbigniew) was a Fulbright Scholar teaching in Warsaw. He has written: “I asked my students to define democracy. Expecting a discussion on individual liberties and authentically elected institutions, I was surprised to hear my students respond that to them, democracy means a government obligation to maintain a certain standard of living and to provide health care, education and housing for all. In other words, socialism.”3

Many Americans cannot go along with the notion of a planned, centralized society. To some extent it’s the terminology that bothers them because they were raised to equate a planned society with the worst excesses of Stalinism. Okay, let’s forget the scary labels; let’s describe it as people sitting down to discuss a particular serious societal problem, what the available options there are to solve the problem, and what institutions and forces in the society have the best access, experience, and assets to deliver those options. So, the idea is to prepare these institutions and forces to deal with the problem in a highly organized, rational manner without having to worry about which corporation’s profits might be adversely affected, without relying on “the magic of the marketplace”. Now it happens that all this is usually called “planning” and if the organization and planning stem from a government body it can be called “centralized”. There’s no reason to assume that this has to result in some kind of very authoritarian regime. All of us over a certain age -individually and collectively – have learned a lot about such things from the past. We know the warning signs; that’s why the Bush administration’s authoritarianism was so early and so strongly condemned.

The overwhelming majority of people in the United States work for a salary. They don’t need to be motivated by the quest for profit. It’s not in our genes. Virtually everybody, if given the choice, would prefer to work at jobs where the main motivations are to produce goods and services that improve the quality of life of the society, to help others, and to provide themselves with meaningful and satisfying work. It’s not natural to be primarily motivated by trying to win or steal “customers” from other people, no holds barred, survival of the fittest or the most ruthless.

A major war can be the supreme test of a nation, a time when it’s put under the greatest stress. In World War 2, the US government commandeered the auto manufacturers to make tanks and jeeps instead of private cars. When a pressing need for an atom bomb was seen, Washington did not ask for bids from the private sector; it created the Manhattan Project to do it itself, with no concern for balance sheets or profit and loss statements. Women and blacks were given skilled factory jobs they had been traditionally denied. Hollywood was enlisted to make propaganda films. Indeed, much of the nation’s activities, including farming, manufacturing, mining, communications, labor, education, and cultural undertakings were in some fashion brought under new and significant government control, with the war effort coming before private profit. In peacetime, we can think of socialism as putting people before profit, with all the basics guaranteed – health care, all education, decent housing, food, jobs. Those who swear by free enterprise argue that the “socialism” of World War 2 was instituted only because of the exigencies of the war. That’s true, but it doesn’t alter the key point that it had been immediately recognized by the government that the wasteful and inefficient capitalist system, always in need of proper financial care and feeding, was no way to run a country trying to win a war.

It’s also no way to run a society of human beings with human needs. Most Americans agree with this but are not consciously aware that they hold such a belief. In 1987, nearly half of 1,004 Americans surveyed by the Hearst press believed Karl Marx’s aphorism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was to be found in the US Constitution.4

Along these lines, I’ve written an essay entitled: “The United States invades, bombs, and kills for it, but do Americans really believe in free enterprise?”5

I cannot describe in detail what every nut and bolt of my socialist system would look like. That might appear rather pretentious on my part; most of it would evolve through trial and error anyway; the important thing is that the foundation – the crucial factors in making the important decisions – would rest on people’s welfare and the common good coming before profit. Humankind’s desperate need to halt environmental degradation regularly runs smack into the profit motive, as does the American health-care system. It’s more than a matter of ideology; it’s a matter of the quality of life, sustainability, and survival.

“Omission is the most powerful form of lie.” – George Orwell

I am asked occasionally why I am so critical of the mainstream media when I quote from them repeatedly in my writings. The answer is simple. The American media’s gravest shortcoming is much more their errors of omission than their errors of commission. It’s what they leave out that distorts the news more than any factual errors or out-and-out lies. So I can make good use of the facts they report, which a large, rich organization can easier provide than the alternative media.

In early March, the Washington Post ran an article about Iran which stated that “Iranian leaders … reiterated that the Holocaust was ‘a lie’.” The article then went on to add that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “repeated his assertion that the Holocaust is a ‘big lie’.”6 That’s all we’re told. What is the poor reader to conclude but that some Iranian leaders must be amongst that much vilified and ridiculed group called “Holocaust deniers”?

What the article fails to mention is that these Iranian leaders use the word “lie” to refer to only particular features of the Holocaust. There is no report of any of them simply, clearly, unambiguously, and unequivocally asserting that what we know as the Holocaust never took place. Ahmadinejad, for example, has instead commented about the peculiarity and injustice of a Holocaust which took place in Europe resulting in a state for the Jews in the Middle East instead of in Europe. Why are the Palestinians paying a price for a German crime? he asks. And he wonders about the accuracy of the number of Jews – six million – allegedly killed in the Holocaust, as have many other people of all political stripes and nationalities, including the noted Italian author Primo Levi, a Holocaust survivor. Even Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority – Israel and Washington’s favorite Palestinian because of his opposition to Hamas, their least favored Palestinians – wrote in his doctoral dissertation: “The truth of the matter is that no one can verify this number, or completely deny it. In other words, the number of Jewish victims might be 6 million and might be much smaller – even less than 1 million.”7

It is also worth noting that at the end of the Post article we learn that “a senior Israeli official in Washington, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not cleared to discuss such matters publicly” has asserted that “Iran would be unlikely to use its missiles in an attack [against Israel] because of the certainty of retaliation.” Really? That’s what I and others have been saying for years. It should have been the story’s headline, not the very last sentence, literally. Yet, we can be certain that Israeli and American officials and their disciples will continue to warn the world of the danger of Iranian missile attacks. So will the Washington Post, engaging in future omissions of its own news story.

What actually has long worried Israeli and US officials about possible Iranian nuclear weapons is not that Iran might attack anyone, but that Israel’s beloved security blanket – being the only nuclear power in the Middle East – would at risk, as might be Washington’s dominance of the area.

Later in March, the Los Angeles Times ran an obituary of Janet Jagan, the former president of Guyana and widow of Cheddi Jagan who had earlier also been president. The obituary says not a word about the fact that for 11 years, 1953-64, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths in their repeated attempts to prevent the democratically elected Cheddi Jagan from occupying his office.8

I’ve selected these examples of omission virtually at random. If I wanted to report on each media omission concerning significant US foreign policy matters I could fill this newsletter each month with nothing else.

It happens that in late March the Washington Post also provided us with the less common out-and-out lie. In an editorial about the leftist former guerillas in El Salvador, the FMLN, winning the presidential election with their candidate Mauricio Funes, the Post said: “If Mr. Funes as well as the election’s losers now respect the rule of law, the result could be the consolidation of the political system the United States was aiming for when it intervened in El Salvador’s civil war during the 1980s. At the time, the goal of a successful Salvadoran democracy was dismissed as a mission impossible, just as some now say democracy is unattainable in Iraq and Afghanistan.”9

The idea that the US intervention in the Salvadoran civil war stemmed from a desire to bring democracy to the country is so breathtaking in its audacity that it’s conceivable the Post editorial writer is suffering from early-stage Alzheimer’s; it’s wholly comparable to saying that the Apartheid regime of South Africa strove to increase harmony and equality between blacks and whites. In the process of supporting a Salvadoran government of remarkable tyranny, brutality and human-rights violations, the United States provided the country’s armed forces with a never-ending supply of funds, weapons and training that brought continual destruction and suffering to the people of El Salvador. The Post’s “disclosure” will not send historians scurrying to rewrite their books. Nor can it serve to conceal the fact that the United States is not fighting for “democracy” in Iraq and Afghanistan any more than it did in El Salvador.

The ideology of Barack Obama

In the past two months:

  • US Vice President Joe Biden was asked by reporters at a summit in Chile if Washington plans to put an end to the near-50-year-old economic embargo against Cuba. He replied “No.”10
  • Israeli authorities broke up a series of Palestinian cultural events in Jerusalem, disrupting a children’s march and bursting balloons at a schoolyard celebration.11 There has not been, nor will there be, any embargo of any kind by the United States against Israel. Nor will President Obama make any comment about what he really feels about invading a children’s party and bursting their balloons.
  • The White House and the Pentagon appear to be having a competition over who can announce the most troops being sent to Afghanistan. Is anyone keeping a body count?
  • US drones continue to drop bombs on people’s homes and wedding parties in Pakistan. No one in Washington publicly admits to this or comments in any way about the legality or morality of it all.
  • Bolivia and Ecuador have expelled American diplomats for what their hosts saw as conspiring to undermine the government.

Any number of other examples can be given of how alike the foreign policies of the Bush and Obama administrations are, how little, if any, change has occurred; certainly nothing of any significance. Yet, my saying such a thing is precisely what most often bothers Obama supporters who read or hear my comments. They’re in love with the man with the toothpaste-advertisement smile, who’s “smart” (whatever that means), who plays basketball, and is not George W. Bush, and his wife who puts her arm around the queen of England.

Obama’s popularity around the world is enhanced, to an important extent, by the fact that he has endeavored to conceal or obscure his real ideology. As an example, in early March, in an interview with the New York Times, he was asked: “Is there a one word name for your philosophy? If you’re not a socialist, are you a liberal? Are you progressive? One word?”

“No, I’m not going to engage in that,” replied the president.12

The next day he called the Times reporter, telling him: “It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question”. Obama then gave the reporter several examples of why his policies show that he isn’t a socialist.13

He didn’t have to convince me. Obama’s centrist bent is clear to anyone who bothers to look. But after the Times incident – which apparently bothered him – he may have felt the need to be more clear about his ideological leanings to avoid any further silly “socialist” episodes. The next day, meeting at the White House with members of the New Democrat Coalition, a group of centrist Democratic members of the House, Obama said at one point: “I am a New Democrat.”14

Most conservatives will probably continue to see him as a dangerous leftist. They should be happy that Obama is the president and not any kind of real progressive or socialist or even a genuine liberal, but the right wing is greedy.


  1. Washington Post, March 29, 2009
  2. “Russia Now”, in Washington Post, March 25, 2009
  3. Los Angeles Times, September 2, 1994
  4. Frank Bernack, Jr., Hearst Corp. President, address to the American Bar Association, early 1987, reported in In These Times magazine (Chicago), June 24 – July 7, 1987
  5. William Blum, “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”, chapter 26
  6. Washington Post, March 5, 2009
  7. The Middle East Media Research Institute, “Inquiry and Analysis”, No. 95, May 30, 2002; also see Wikipedia, entry for Mahmoud Abbas, “Doctoral Dissertation” section.
  8. Los Angeles Times, March 29, 2009. See William Blum, “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II”, chapter 16 for what was left out.
  9. Washington Post, March 21, 2009
  10. Miami Herald, March 28, 2009
  11. Washington Post, March 22, 2009
  12. New York Times, March 7, 2009
  13. New York Times, March 8 2009
  14. Politico magazine, online, March 10, 2009

William Blum is the author of:

  • Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
  • Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
  • West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
  • Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at

Email to

William Blum is a regular columnist for

It’s Immigration, Jobs and Economy in Colorado: Stupid!

February 11, 2009 by · Leave a Comment 

Colorado FlagRe: “Cut funds to illegals to balance Colorado’s budget” RMN Martha Reed/2/9/09

Senator Dave Schultheis introduced SB09-23 into committee last week at the Colorado State Capitol. That bill makes employers check potential employees for being legal green card holders or American citizens.

While 20 Coloradans stood up in favor of the bill, five people spoke on voting the bill down. Who do you think they might be? All of them represented hotel, restaurant, Brown Palace, and criminal alien rights groups. When asked point blank by Senator Bill Cadman, “Would you support such a bill for illegal immigrants?” The ‘Immigrants rights’ lady answered, “I’m not comfortable answering that question.”

Of course she didn’t feel comfortable. She supported illegal criminal alien rights! Except for one thing! They do not possess any rights because they reside in the USA in violation of our laws and can be arrested any second of the day. Do you think a convicted criminal can get out of prison because he has ‘rights’ to walk before his time expires? No! If you do the crime, you do the time. If criminal aliens cross over the borders, they do not enjoy a free pass or any rights to continue their violation of our laws.

Why did those representatives from hotel/restaurant want the bill killed? They love illegal labor because they can pay under the table, off the books and slave wages! They don’t want to pay a living wage to Colorado citizens. Because, if they did, they would have to show income taxes, a real Social Security card, real ID and play by the rules and pay taxes into our general fund. What a concept—working and hiring within our laws!

As our nation spirals into recession and possibly into depression, states scramble to find ways to get Americans back to work. Yet, we find Colorado lingers with mounting problems because its own leaders fail citizens at every turn.

In the Rocky today, Martha Reed wrote, “With budget cuts by Gov. Ritter, I note that his cuts primarily appear to do with prisons and education…I did not see any real cuts that will affect the thousands [in reality, 300,000 to 500,000 criminal aliens], residing in Colorado. If we cut the vast amount of money being spent, [$1.2 billion annually], to give birth to, medicate, educate, feed and support those people, we would have a budget in the black.”

Gee! What a concept! To actually enjoy our Governor Ritter and mayors in Colorado to enforce our laws to balance the books! Notice you won’t read any reports to that effect by the RMN or the Denver Post!

Unfortunately, Ritter refuses to enforce pertinent immigration laws passed in 2006. Mayor Hickenlooper continues his ‘sanctuary policy’ that allows tens of thousands of illegals to call Denver their home.

Their presence in Denver costs Denver Public Schools costs $925 million annually according to the latest report for 2007. Prison costs exceed $20 million for convicted criminal aliens. We pay over $38 million pays for children born to illegal alien mothers and their food, clothing and housing care.

It’s crazy folks! Ritter and Hickenlooper ‘pretend’ to represent us while they defiantly work in favor of illegal aliens that break our piggy bank and send us into the unemployment lines. It’s absurd! It’s insane! It’s wrong on every level.

Meanwhile, will Senator Schultheis’ SB09-23 E-Verify bill become law? If the Democrats enjoy their way, and vote it down, you will see more of the current 265,000 jobless Coloradans grow to 300,000 unemployed and beyond.

When will our elected officials represent Coloradans instead of profit greedy, arrogant employers of illegal aliens who engage in 21st century slavery by hiring criminal aliens at slave wages?

Frosty Wooldridge has bicycled across six continents – from the Arctic to the South Pole – as well as six times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border. In 2005, he bicycled from the Arctic Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece.

He presents “The Coming Population Crisis in America: and what you can do about it” to civic clubs, church groups, high schools and colleges. He works to bring about sensible world population balance at his website:

Frosty Wooldridge is a regular columnist for

Karl Rove and Bill Postmus, Soul Mates?

February 1, 2009 by · Leave a Comment 

Bill PostmusWhy we must demand accountability, objective standards, and absolute transparency From Revolt in 2100 by Robert Heinlein

“When any government or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, “This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,”the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrawise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fusion bombs, not anything – you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.”

Revolt in 2100 is about a revolution against an evangelical religious state that using disinformation, coercion, and deceit took over America. The good guys are pro-freedom and in the book you see them carry out the restoration of real American government. The bad guys use torture, absolute monitoring, and the force of a state that has rewritten history to control the American people.

Written in 1939 the book was read widely by those in now in the freedom movement, that movement from which such individuals as Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, John Fund, among others originated. Heinlein was writing a juvenile science fiction yarn using elements he perceived as potential and threatening to our freedom. That take over worked. The elements present today with the attempted use of biometrics, as applied to the Real ID, the monolithic control reinforced by the evangelical no-think churches, and the routine use of torture and construction of American concentration camps are hauntingly like what you see in the Heinlein novel.

All of the individuals above grew up on science fiction. Heinlein, a libertarian, was the Grand Master of that genre. This is most probably the origin of the approach used to subvert power in America and hand control over to those who lurk behind foreign corporations tied to the military-industrial complex, banking, Big Oil, and Big Pharma. Those interests are the clients that Rove and these others named serve. Among those corporations are many that are closely and privately held. Instead of the transparency that, on paper, we as Americans were guaranteed, we see only lies and a closed door.

The individuals named took as their model what science fiction fans would call, “the forces of darkness.” Today they continue to work for the same employers as they continue to use the Republican Party to divide America.

The Republican Stimulus Package: War

On Friday afternoon, January 16th, at 1:30 p.m., Congressman Joe Baca (D-43) hosted the first coalition of its kind to respond to Obama’s challenge to stimulate the economy. Baca invited elected officials from both San Bernardino and Riverside Counties to sit down and discuss how the funds could be used to rebuild the badly decayed infrastructure in their area. The two counties, also commonly known as the Inland Empire have been the most heavily impacted by the meltdown in California. Foreclosures, lost jobs and despair light up the phones of food banks and in the offices of public officials every day.

Of the five Republican congressmen invited, David Dreier (R-26), Jerry Lewis (R-41), Ken Calvert (R-44), Gary Miller (R-42) and Buck McKeon (R-25) not one attended. All voted against the Obama package.

The cost of the Obama Stimulus Packages is high. The President has asked that billions be alloted for projects that rebuild desperately needed infrastructure while providing jobs lost during the last administration. But the same congressmen supported war in Iraq that destroyed the infrastructure of that country and cost far more. They also supported the exportation of American jobs to third world countries, placing many Americans out of work. They oversaw the administration of Federal funds that paid billions to companies building infrastructure, here and abroad, that are failing. Accountability and quality control have been non-existent.

The bridge which collapsed on Interstate 35 in Minneapolis in Aug., 2007 is just one example of a [problem of which many remain oblivious. The accident in Minneapolis killed 13 people and sounded a wake up call focusing attention on deteriorating infrastructure which cost millions to construct and billions to replace. Accountability for faulty construction is non-existent. Across the country, contractors involved figure among those who donate to Congressional campaigns, either directly of through their agents.

Inland Empire Toasted by Postmus

Simultaneous to the debate on the funding of the Stimulus Packages the Inland Empire witnessed the exposure of Bill Postmus, San Bernardino County Assessor. Postmus has long been known to idolize Karl Rove.

Postmus faces felony charges of drug possession. The disgraced Republican is under investigation by the District Attorney’s Office for political malfeasance. $250,000 has been budgeted to pay the law firm retained to conduct the investigation. A recall petition by a broad spectrum of individuals and organizations will file a “Notice of Intention to Circulate Recall Petition” at the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters office on Fri., Jan. 30, 2009. There will be a press conference in front of the Registrar’s office at 4:00 p.m.

Ordinary Americans are fed up with divide and profit politics.

The Stimulus Package meeting of January 16th was attended by local officials who represented both major parties. The focus of their concern was their district and the needs of their constituents. Former California State Senator Don Rogers, a respected member of the Republican delegation, said of the Postmus indictment, “We need to clean our own house first. The man should resign and other Republicans should make sure that happens.” Anthony Adams, Republican County Chairman for San Bernardino has joined the call or Postmus to step down and save the millions a recall will cost.

Calls to the DC offices of the five Republican produced five press secretaries who were out to lunch or otherwise unavailable. Of the messages left none has been returned.

Will Republicans become obsolete?

Since the November election Republicans have confronted the need to take back their party. Taking it back brings into sharp focus from whom, bringing us back to the names above.

Locally both Republicans and Democrats agree in large that changes are necessary. They know money is in short supply and should not be wasted. Paul Pugh, the COO of Sequoia Valley Resource Corporation, who has worked in the Inland Empire said, “Politics has no part in this kind of decision. We need objective standards. And we need absolute accountability. We have the products to do the job. They cost no more and give us the same number of jobs locally. The age of greed is over.” Pugh is a life long Republican who also expressed concern for the direction his party has taken over the last decades. H proposed the following standard,

Stimulus funds should be granted only to companies that agree to:

High standards for quality for project longevity and durability in accordance to the guidelines provided by studies of technologies now available across the world. Products exist and can be used that reduce the carbon footprint at least 25% during construction. Longevity for high dollar projects must use only products that extend longevity to a millennium.

Absolute transparency – no contacts with private corporations.

To ensure that happens it is reasonable to exclude from consideration companies who have previously done work that failed the new standards.

Much is in motion. Will the Inland Empire exact accountability from Bill Postmus? Will Republicans meet the challenge to come together, despite the Republican delegation to Congress? The answers are coming and Robert Heinlein would have much to say if he still lived.

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster hosts a radio program weekly at The program is titled, The Spiritual Politician and examines how government can be brought into alignment with the spiritual goal of decentralizing power and localizing control.

She is also the author of GREED: The NeoConning of America and A Tour of Old Yosemite. The former is a novel about the lives of the NeoCons with a strong autobiographical component. The latter is a non-fiction book about her father and grandfather.

Her blog is at:
She is the founder of the Arthur C. Pillsbury Foundation.
She is the mother of four living children and one deceased.

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster is a regular columnist for

Bob Poole and Privatization, Enemies of Freedom

April 15, 2008 by · Leave a Comment 

Terri Hill founded TURF, Texans United for Reform and Freedom, to fight for the rights of all Americans. She along with other Texans had been shocked at the move to turn the highways paid for by tax payers in Texas over to corporations, to be operated for corporate profit, on a lease that would last longer than most Texans expect to live. Located in San Antonio, Terri and TURF continue their battle against the looming specter of what is variously known as the Trans Texas Corridor, the North American Union, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership. By any name this long term grab for corporate hegemony over the whole of America by foreign based corporations is simply another form of fascism. We see fascism everywhere today.

Now, TURF and Terri fight continuously just to hold on to what Americans have always believed was theirs by right. Their enemy was spawned by our own movement. America is being ‘privatized’ out from under Americans, sold in plain sight to foreign corporations.

There was a time when the term, ‘privatization’ was thought to mean a return of control to individuals. Today those who have long been involved in the Freedom Movement are learning that it is something very different. How do you react to betrayal that is decades long? What do you say when suddenly you see the logic of a line of action that you once supported? That is the question that now confronts all of us who understand that the foundation on which the Revolution stands is the sovereignty of the individual and the individual’s right to exercise power over their own life. Freedom does not equal efficiency. Corporations are not individuals and have no rights.

We have been betrayed by the familiarity of those who we trusted. The reasons for that betrayal are profit and ego; they go deep into the history of our movement and even deeper into the emotional investment that those in positions of power come to feel in their own work, even when that work is revealed to be the antithesis of everything they, and we, profess to believe.

No one involved in the original Freedom Movement would have expected that one of their original heroes would be haunting the offices of state legislators in a vigorous campaign to see this naked grab for profits by corporations installed in Texas and throughout America. But that is exactly what Terri has witnessed. Over and over she heard the word, ‘privatization’ used to describe what she well knew was actually the corporatization of assets paid for by people like herself, hard working Americans who now would be expected to pay in perpetuity for something financed through taxes that grow ever higher.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership is one component of a larger plan by global interests. It is represented by the Bush Administration, intended to convert America into one large plantation filled with serfs. We, the serfs, are intended to be virtual slaves. There is no need for direct ownership because everything we do can be monitored and controlled by the same corporations who, through the Real ID, will own the very information that determines who we are. Under the SPP we move under the control of corporations and effectively outside of the Bill of Rights. The Real ID, reinforced by biometrics that were fraudulently sold to Congress as reliable, are the lynch pin of the plan that is now reaching its full fruition. All of this is being rapidly brought on line.

The man appointed by Governor Rick Perry, the man who coined the word, ‘privatization,’ and founded Reason Magazine and Reason Foundation is Robert Poole. If you have been in the movement for very long you know his name. Once, Robert Poole was admired for his work, looked up to as a hero for freedom. Today he is on the other side, opposed by the out-gunned and indomitable activists like Terri Hill. Terri, the mother of five children, is fed up with all forms of government. She also chose to home school her children. For Terri freedom is personal.

Most people who knew Bob through the last decades would not have believed this possible. But it is the voice of Bob Poole that you hear advising the frustrated Texas Senate Committee on how to evade the law after they spent the 2 – 2 ½ hours discussing the Federal prohibitions for the kind of agreement Poole urged be adopted. This happened in the afternoon of February 5th, 2008. Terri reports that she often saw Poole talking to legislators there, working to persuade them to pass into law a measure that their constituents begged them to stop. Poole, who retired to Florida some years ago to play with his model trains, has been very busy, using the respect according him to sell fascism in Texas.

That outcry began as soon as the public learned what was being considered. The legislature reacted by hiring lobbyists, another move that was clearly proscribed by Texas law. The original law enabling the grab, HB 3588, was passed by the Texas legislature in 2003.

In Texas the legislature meets only every two years for a few months beginning on January 1st and continuing for around four months. When the ordinary people found out there was hue and cry you could hear across the state. Immediately people like Terri became active. A new generation of freedom fighters launched their own battle. Their activism resulted in a measure, HB 792, in 2007. But according to Terri Hill that was at best a partial victory. While hundreds of thousands of Texans emailed and called to complain what was achieved was a partial moratorium, a measure that leaves Texas, and America, vulnerable today.

What Poole is promoting is called a Comprehensive Development Agreement, or CDA, a measure that, if not defeated, will result in the conversion of the entire infrastructure of government to the control of corporations, control that cannot be ended by a vote, even if such was possible given the presence of Diebold’s Vote Stealing Machines. Such agreements allow corporations to control and profit from their contracts for fifty years with another fifty years available at their option.

What this provides to corporations is a safe haven for their money, money stolen from Americans that is then ‘invested’ through bonds that protect their ill-gotten gains for another four generations.

Bob’s motivations are clear. This phase of ‘privatization’ is a natural extrapolation of his previous work, begun in the early 1970s with his book, “Cutting Back City Hall.” Then, we believed that freedom, not fascist profits and efficiency was the point of the exercise. Seeing the ugliness of the truth takes a special kind of courage, a courage that few possess. Over the last thirty plus years Bob has been heaped with honors, lauded and celebrated as a defender of freedom. It would take a better man than Bob Poole to acknowledge his mistake. That is why the biggest lies die last.

This is what Bob Poole has done with the trust invested in him. He either failed to see, or seeing, could not confront the contradiction lacking the courage. The failure to acknowledge mistakes when the emotional investment extends across an entire lifetime is, perhaps understandable. But it is cannot be overlooked. This is the failure to objectively see and acknowledge that drove Ignaz Simmelweiss, an obstetrician in Vienna in the middle 1800s, to infect himself with child bed fever. His fellow butcher – surgeons refused to follow his example and save lives by simply washing their hands because to do so would leave them with a monumental burden of accountability. Too many had died for them to see. Ideas are powerful. Because they are powerful those who build new institutions bear a terrible responsibility. Along with the praise and profits they must bear the consequences and shoot their own dog when it proves to be rabid, which ‘privatization’ has proven to be.

Poole has long been associated with those we now understand to be the architects of fascism, “Robert Poole founded the Reason Foundation in 1978, and served as its president and CEO from then until the end of 2000. He was a member of the Bush-Cheney transition team in 2000. Over the years, he has advised the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations on privatization and transportation policy.”

Next time you get a fund raising letter from Reason Magazine or Reason Foundation remember who is supporting the Trans Texas Corridor; remember to look more closely at all of the ideas they have spawned, including another Poole brain child, the right to pollute. If the idea does not return control to the individual, affirming that inherent autonomy, ask yourself who is receiving the profits.

Terri Hill and TURF will continue their fight for freedom. They must. Freedom is the one thing you do not have until you give it to everyone, now and always and they see and understand what freedom is.

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster is a regular columnist for

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster hosts a radio program weekly at The program is titled, The Spiritual Politician and examines how government can be brought into alignment with the spiritual goal of decentralizing power and localizing control.

She is also the author of GREED: The NeoConning of America and A Tour of Old Yosemite. The former is a novel about the lives of the NeoCons with a strong autobiographical component. The latter is a non-fiction book about her father and grandfather.

Her blog is at:
She is the founder of the Arthur C. Pillsbury Foundation.
She is the mother of four living children and one deceased.

Mark Lerner is going to stop the Real ID. Now

March 24, 2008 by · Leave a Comment 

Mark Lerner is on the road nearly every moment he can find the money. His time is spent in appointments with legislators, sitting down with them to discuss the Real ID. When Mark starts talking they are polite, but not particularly interested. They think they know what the Real ID is about. But when Mark is finished they are worried and asking questions. Mark is the whistle-blower who brought the fraud by biometrics companies to the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission only to be ignored for nearly two years before he went public. The silence from the SEC continues today. Mark is no longer silent. He is desperate to stop the Real ID because its implementation will hand over the most personal information and the biometrics of all Americans to the use of corporations and governments globally.

Americans have no idea what they are facing. Mark is determined that they be awakened to the their danger. The danger lies deep in plans long in place, from such innocuous agencies such as American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, AAMVA currently has an alliance called the DLC (Driver’s License Compact) All but a few states belong to it. AAMVA recently forged a new alliance called the DLA, (Driver’s License Agreement) Under the section entitled, “Jurisdiction,” within the DLA, it states that the United States, Mexico and Canada, will be under one umbrella of jurisdiction to share citizen’s of each country’s information contained in DMV data bases.

The Department of Homeland Security calls the AAMVA and its network, referred to as AamvaNet, the “Backbone of the Real ID Act,” meaning it is the essential system that will allow data bases to be connected and information shared. That includes all information garnered about Americans from all sources. AAMVA has introduced a new alliance between states and territories and countries. Those countries are the United States, Canada and Mexico. This is the precursor, what is needed, for the establishment of the North America Union, the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

This ties together the Trans Texas Corridor, Homeland Security, and the issuance of the Amero to replace the U. S. Dollar, along with and the most ominous branches of the United Nations with the corporations that now take for granted that their profit agenda should control the world.

“If you stop the Real ID you throw a major monkey wrench in their plans,” said Lerner for this interview. That is why Mark stays on the road talking to legislators who have been blinded by the carefully orchestrated half-information provided to them by the Real ID ‘opposition’ that either focuses on only one issue, for instance Cato Institute with privacy, or by those who simply cannot understand the scope of what is proposed.

Mark also spends his time in briefings with ordinary Americans and activists who come away shocked and appalled that the measure could have come so far and remained under their radar. One recent participant from a conference in California said, “I am numbed; shocked, I had no idea.”

Mark is used to that. His own participation began on the other side of the issue. Determined to do something about security in the wake of 9/11 Mark became a confident of Chairmen of the Boards, CEOs, and other senior officials in the Biometrics Industry. He learned all there is to know about the technologies and about the potential for profits that made those technologies the focus of excitement for billionaires across the globe.

Yet for Mark the focus remained not profits but security and between 2003 – 2004 he realized that for those investing it was profit and not security that was driving the testing. Over two years, he said, he realized that the technologies did not work as presented and the people involved were not to be trusted. Tests were manicured so that outcomes showing an effectiveness of 45% appeared as 90%. Alarmed and unable to get those falsifying results to stop Mark informed the SEC. He was told an investigation was underway. He waited. Then, Congress funded those same technologies.

Mark presents the documentation to anyone who questions his experience. A methodical and careful man, he kept the records, the same information he presented to the SEC.

Today he continues his battle saying that to be truly defeated the Real ID Act must be challenged and brought down simultaneously from three different directions. First, he calls on the grass roots, people, he says, must know and take action. When he speaks he asks them to tie up the phone lines of legislators who support the Real ID; to become informed on the Act, and to ensure that more people find out what is going on under the radar. Then he lays out how the Act can be challenged at the state level and federally. So, he says, “the wolf does not come back again dressed in the skin of yet another sheep.”

To date, Mark has spent four weeks giving evidence to several different committees of Congress in Washington D. C. He has spent weeks on the road, sitting down with legislators in Oklahoma, California, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Kansas, and other states. Every day he or his one occasionally paid staff person hear from activists or legislators in another state who now are beginning to realize what is really in store for Americans. A month ago the ACLU and ACLJ came together for the first time to help Mark in fighting the Real ID Act.

Typically, Mark stays at the cheapest possible hotels. Motel 6 costs less and so keeps him on the road to the next state. He eats fast food; it is cheap and filling. It is a far cry from the kinds of places he stayed while giving advice to the heads of the Biometrics Industry. Asked what others can do to help he responded for this interview, “We have a button on the site if you can spare anything to help. If you have no money we also accept frequent flyer miles.” He evidently means it. Major contributors to the effort have been few and the money tight. The money is so tight his group, Stop The Real ID Coalition, is just a blog that costs them nothing. Mark says that every penny counts.

And Mark, like the energizer bunny, just keeps going and will not stop, he says, until he has driven a spike through the heart of the Real ID because, as he said, “our freedom and the Constitution are in danger and I am an American.”

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster is a regular columnist for
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster hosts a radio program weekly at The program is titled, The Spiritual Politician and examines how government can be brought into alignment with the spiritual goal of decentralizing power and localizing control.

She is also the author of GREED: The NeoConning of America and A Tour of Old Yosemite. The former is a novel about the lives of the NeoCons with a strong autobiographical component. The latter is a non-fiction book about her father and grandfather.

Her blog is at:
She is the founder of the Arthur C. Pillsbury Foundation.
She is the mother of four living children and one deceased.

Arlo Guthrie – Take Back America

March 7, 2008 by · Leave a Comment 

To be sung to the American Hymn, “My Country ’tis of thee.”

Just Vote Ron Paul

My country tis of thee Sweet land of tyranny – Of thee I sing

Land where my freedoms died.

Land where my friends all hide from threats of genocide – for thee I cry

I look out on the land

And see Monsanto’s brand Of GMO E-coli in our crops

Why can’t the madness stop

Don’t eat their poisoned slop You can just say no…

I see disease erupt

With every big gulp cup Of sugar corn

Our nations over weight diabetes is at the gate

We even know our fate …but those fries won’t wait!

I know theres still a chance

To change this ugly dance

His name’s Ron Paul He’s trying hard to show

Where evil wants to go

Let’s bring our freedoms glow Just vote Ron Paul

The lyrics above were written by an astrophysicist – musician – documentary maker who is concerned over the looming threat of disease and famine that now confronts America and people around the world. You can listen to the song on You Tube. He, like so many of us, is supporting Ron Paul for President. This election is the first where the real parties are so clearly defined; Corporate and the People. The illusion of ‘Republican’ and ‘Democratic’ are clearly dead. Once you see it the other illusions also die. There was a time that the politics of Augustus Franklin Dunning and Arlo Guthrie would have clashed. No more.

America faces problems in every direction; every problem shares a common origin. Those problems have been perpetuated by the complete lack of transparency in government, the take over of government by corporations, and the ugliness of greed evidenced by those in those same parties. Those in power, both Republicans and Democrats, have proven there is nothing, no matter how venal, petty or vicious, they will not do for a profit.

This appeared in Huffington Post. “After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.

The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff’s identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case.”

Who profited? Big Pharma. Who lost? All of us. Who will pay the costs? Us, in more ways that we dare consider. Our children are simply a means to augment income for them.

From the Real ID to the food we eat corporations have used government to evade accountability. Then they use the Vote Stealing Machines, for which we are also forced to pay, to ensure that our shackles are firmly welded in place. And they expect us to act as if the authority their wield is legitimate even as their real intentions are so thoroughly revealed. Phony elections negate any authority.

Every day more Americans understand the systemic methods used by those acting under the color of law to extract our wealth. They used the FED, which is now desperately working to maintain the illusion of stability just one more day or week so they can continue to pump us dry. They used the courts, they used the elections paid for by us. They used all of the institutions for which we, not they, pay.

The solution is the truth, transparency, Ron Paul and return to community.

We can awaken our fellow Americans to the threat of GMO tainted food. We can reverse the downward spiral of health and the prison door now swinging shut on our hopes, slammed by the Grid Corporations, we can take America back to its roots. Part of the answer is Ron Paul, but only part. The rest begins with losing your illusions, the transparency. The next step takes you back to your community where the power of truth and the truths that make us whole can be best seen. You know who you can trust to return the lawnmower, that is why local community works.

Arlo Guthrie sang the words,

“Inch by inch, row by row
Gonna make this garden grow
Gonna mulch it deep and low
Gonna make it fertile ground

Inch by inch, row by row
Please bless these seeds I sow
Please keep them safe below
‘Till the rain comes tumbling down

Pullin’ weeds and pickin’ stones
We are made of dreams and bones
Need a place to call my own
‘Cause the time is close at hand

Grain for grain, sun and rain
Find my way in nature’s chain
Till my body and my brain
Tell the music of the land “

That music is the simple truth that sees seeds become what nourishes our souls and stomachs. That music is the sound of people coming together in their most local communities. Communities, small and personal, is where America began. Once, we were a people who knew that. We will be again.

The 60’s saw a momentary rebirth of community. It was a time of hope. Then, we all agreed that we needed clean air and water; we were active locally to change the world, resonating to the music that affirmed that out of many we would be one, one despite all seeming divisions. Then, the idea that anyone would assert the right to own the water and tax the air we breathe would have been understood as outrageous. Those ideas are still outrageous no matter what government and corporations say.

Arlo Guthrie endorsed Ron Paul for president, saying, “I love this guy.” So does Don Rogers, former State Senator in California who has known Ron for years.

Rogers wrote a letter asking for support for the Stop the Real ID Coalition. The ACLU and the ACLJ, so opposite in our perceptions, both commend and support the same organization, Stop the Real ID Coalition, in its efforts to inform state legislatures so that they can do what is right and refuse to participate in that corporate war against the freedoms of individuals. The issue is freedom, the real thing.

Today you hear more people every day, Right and Left, quote the Constitution, remembering that a free people govern themselves. Despite the lies and posturing of George Bush, the Unitary Executive Theory, and his corporate employers the only sovereignty is in each of us. As Jefferson said, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Arlo and Augustus both see that. We are coming together in community to solve the problems and exact accountability against those who have so abused our trust.

Just vote Ron Paul, return to community, and take back America. There are many ways to vote and we need to use the ones that work. Thomas Jefferson would have agreed.

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster is a regular columnist for
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster hosts a radio program weekly at The program is titled, The Spiritual Politician and examines how government can be brought into alignment with the spiritual goal of decentralizing power and localizing control.

She is also the author of GREED: The NeoConning of America and A Tour of Old Yosemite. The former is a novel about the lives of the NeoCons with a strong autobiographical component. The latter is a non-fiction book about her father and grandfather.

Her blog is at:
She is the founder of the Arthur C. Pillsbury Foundation.
She is the mother of four living children and one deceased.

REAL ID: Security From What, May I Ask?

February 19, 2008 by · Leave a Comment 

Ever since 9/11, millions of Americans have been more than willing to surrender their liberty in the name of “national security.” Security from what, may I ask?

Terrorists pose zero threat to our freedom. Terrorism is not a philosophy of government, but a means of venting political grievances. Terrorists control no governments nor command any armies. The 19 9/11 hijackers are – how shall I describe this? – DEAD! (1) You can’t take over a country and force its people to speak Arabic and to pray toward Mecca five times a day WHEN YOU ARE DEAD!

However, our government has been hard at work, with our blessing, turning the land of the free into a full-blown police state. While our troops fight and die “for our freedom” in Iraq and Afghanistan, we gladly give up our freedom here at home. Millions of us praise grossly intrusive airport security, warrantless searches and wiretaps, no-knock raids, tasering, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, guilt without trial, torture and martial law as necessary for our “protection”. Protection from what?

Another measure being implemented in the name of protection and security is the Read ID Act (RIDA). Last week, former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) wrote a piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on the threats to our liberty inherent in this act. Let me briefly summarize.

  • The Tenth Amendment forbids Uncle Sam to regulate state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards.
  • The RIDA would undermine the First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances by requiring a RIDA-compliant card to enter any federal building, including the office of your congressman or senator.
  • The RIDA would undermine the Second Amendment by requiring a RIDA-compliant card in order to purchase a firearm.
  • The RIDA could undermine the Ninth Amendment by requiring RIDA-compliant card to board an airplane or even to travel between states. (Ze papers, please.)
  • Citizens could be required to show a RIDA-compliant card in order to vote in federal elections.
  • A veteran could be denied access to a VA hospital because he or she did not possess the required RIDA-compliant card.
  • Under RIDA, you would have no recourse to correct erroneous information or fight identity theft. (Even if you maintain that you have nothing to hide, you do indeed have something to fear.)

Feel any freer? Feel any more secure?

Hmm. Me neither.

And it is not “the terrorists” who want to do this to us. It is our own government.

I was referred to Mr. Barr’s fine column in an e-mail containing the following phrase: “First a card in your wallet, next a chip in your flesh….”

The RIDA moves us inexorably closer to the “mark” prophesied in Revelation 13:18, without which no one may buy or sell. The technology is already in place for such chip implants. When these implants become a reality, and you step out of line, the powers that be canturn that chip off. It will all of a sudden be as if you never existed. You will not be able to so much as buy groceries. You will become, in true Orwellian fashion, an unperson.

Our supposedly Great Christian President is pushing the RIDA. Former Arkansas Governor – and shameless religious hustler – Mike Huckabee likewise supports it. The only surviving presidential candidate in either major party who opposes the RIDA is – surprise! – Congressman Ron Paul.

And if you are so trusting that a Republican president would not abuse their power, would you be similarly trusting of A DEMOCRAT? If you give up your freedom to one party, you give it up to the other as well.

America has two constitutions. There is the written Constitution, which has a very simple purpose: to restrain the federal government and to protect our God-given rights. And then there is the constitution of the people themselves, i.e. what are we really made of? And if the people are so mentally, morally and spiritually bankrupt as to surrender their liberties for some touchy-feely sense of security, the written constitution becomes just a worthless piece of paper.

(1) Even if you are a 9/11 True Believer, the claim that 9/11 was an attack on our freedom is absurd. I do not subscribe to the official story on 9/11. For the very best source of information on why 9/11 could not have happened according to the official story, please view these very fine documentaries.

Doug Newman is a regular columnist for
You can visit his website at: The Fountain of Truth
He can be reached at:

Freedom Warriors continue the Battle for the Constitution and the Soul of America

February 14, 2008 by · Leave a Comment 

Ernie Kicks Butt in Arizona: Mark Kicks Butt in Oklahoma

We need to defeat the Real ID and we have only until May 11th of this year to keep the states out of participation. Despite what you have heard little has been done until recently to ensure that states pass the legislation that stops the Real ID for their citizens. Now, that effort is in fast forward.

The impact of the Real ID is worse than anything you ever heard and billions in profits to the most corrupt corporations in America are riding on its implementation using biometrics. Your DNA, your eye scan, your finger prints and your medical records will become, effectively, the property of not just one government agency but all agencies, American and global. More, they will be sold to corporations. Go to the site for Stop the Real ID Coalition. This is a threat Americans need to understand.

You did not hear about this for the same reason Congress didn’t. The details were buried in the footnotes.

The fast forward for stopping the Real ID comes in the form of a very small group of determined individuals.

Mark Lerner, the founder of Real ID Coalition, is doing a great job getting states to pass the needed legislation barring their participation. We need 20 states to ensure it cannot be carried out. Mark is now working his way through the state legislatures and they are finally finding out the truth and passing the needed legislation. Mark and the coalition people are straight ahead kind of folks and their information is right on and factual. Homeland Insecurity hates that.

You can help. The first way is to donate, and we really need the money first just to keep Mark on the road and second to pay for security. You will see why in a moment. You can also replicate the actions of Freedom Man himself, Ernie Hancock who, as always, took his own kind of action.

Ernie had tickets for not properly recycling printed up. These looked like the real thing; lots of check off boxes with the infractions of the recipient clearly noted. But the phone number went to a newspaper in Phoenix. 40 of the tickets were placed on trashcans. That paper changed its phone number. The url on the ticket took you to a very special and entirely accurate site, Arizona Tip Hotline. Ernie wonders what would have happened if they had used more than 40 of the tickets. He has thousands and Ernie has not yet begun to make the powers that be in Arizona unhappy.

The phones at city hall lit up and have stayed lit. The people are starting to understand the Real ID. Now we need to get the model legislation written by Mark to those in the Arizona legislature. We also need to get Mark there to hammer home the message in the language legislators best understand.

Ernie gets the attention of the public and the establishment; Mark bats clean up, pulling the state back from the edge of fascism towards freedom.

Today in Oklahoma Mark finished his presentation to various state senators and left. Fifteen minutes later an outraged representative of Homeland Insecurity, reportedly very highly placed, whatever that means, raged into the office of the senator who is sponsoring the bill and demanded that it be defeated and that the Real ID be accepted. Or Else. It seems that the powers that be really, really, want to Real ID. The guy probably bought stock in biometrics.

So tomorrow morning Mark will be meeting this same puffed up bureaucrat for the best two falls out of three before he addresses the whole Senate at 9am. It is amazing how important these adherents to the Uniform Fascism Theory think they are. Stay tuned for more developments.

Ernie said he would be delighted to have you use the full content of his innovative and informative site for your state. This is especially effective in the capitol in the weeks before Mark arrives. This is cheap and will get the panties of the Federal Homeland Insecurity establishment in a knot. Nothing flusters Mark, he is determined.

Ernie is sending me the jpeg for the ticket and I will send it on after this email so you have all that is necessary. I will also post it on my blogsite, How the NeoCons Stole Freedom.

The authorities know exactly who Ernie is and they just groan. Even Homeland Insecurity is scared of Ernie. You could get that kind of reputation, too. Sometimes the Revolution is more fun than is legal today and this is one of those times.

Get Revolutionary. Stop the Real ID in your state!

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster is a regular columnist for
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster hosts a radio program weekly at The program is titled, The Spiritual Politician and examines how government can be brought into alignment with the spiritual goal of decentralizing power and localizing control.

She is also the author of GREED: The NeoConning of America and A Tour of Old Yosemite. The former is a novel about the lives of the NeoCons with a strong autobiographical component. The latter is a non-fiction book about her father and grandfather.

Her blog is at:
She is the founder of the Arthur C. Pillsbury Foundation.
She is the mother of four living children and one deceased.