The USA PATRIOT
Act Was Planned Before 9/11
by Jennifer Van Bergen
Truthout.org
20 May, 2002

Many people do not know that the USA PATRIOT Act was already written and ready to go long before September 11th. Recent criticism of Bush's admission that he had received warnings only weeks before September 11th has made it more important to understand the origins of the USAPA.

The USA PATRIOT Act - the so-called "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001," a.k.a. the USAPA -- was enacted in the immediate wake of 9/11, riding a wave of fear that spread over the nation. This Act has caused much concern amongst civil rights advocates. The Administration, however, responded to such concerns by calling critics unpatriotic. Now, the White House has had a similar response to critics of Bush's recent admission of early warnings.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Friday: "I think that any time anybody suggests or implies to the American people that this president had specific information that could have prevented the attacks on our country on September 11, that crosses the lines."

Dick Cheney came out on Thursday with the statement that Democratic criticism of Bush's handling of pre-Sept. 11 terror warnings was "thoroughly irresponsible." Cheney added an ominous remark to his "Democratic friends ... that they need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions."

Cynthia McKinney responded: "If committed and patriotic people had not been pushing for disclosure, today's revelations would have been hidden by the White House," she says. "Ever since I came to Congress in 1992, there are those who have been trying to silence my voice. I've been told to "sit down and shut up" over and over again. Well, I won't sit down and I won't shut up until the full and unvarnished truth is placed before the American people."

House Minority leader Dick Gephardt said: "Our nation is not well served when the charge of 'partisan politics' is leveled at those who simply seek information that the American people need and deserve to know."

Oddly, following Democratic criticism of Bush's admission, came the weekend news that the White House now anticipates an even terrorist greater attack on American soil. Intrepid investigative journalist Michael Ruppert, best known for his reports claiming government's prior knowledge of 9/11, states that Fox TV cancelled his Saturday appearance on the Geraldo Rivera Show due to these reports.

These may be mere coincidences. Time Magazine just released a lengthy article by Michael Elliott, "How the U.S. Missed the Clues," in which he states: "Last summer the White House suspected that a terrorist attack was coming. But four key mistakes kept the U.S. from knowing what to do."

Whether the Administration could have anticipated 9/11 or not, the proponents of the USAPA were waiting to go long before that day. Similar antiterrorism legislation was enacted in the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, which however did little to prevent the events of 9/11, and many provisions had either been declared unconstitutional or were about to be repealed when 9/11 occurred.

James X. Dempsey and David Cole state in their book, "Terrorism & the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security," that the most troubling provisions of the pre-USAPA anti-terrorism laws, enacted in 1996 and expanded now by the USAPA, "were developed long before the bombings that triggered their final enactment."

Dempsey is the former assistant counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights and Deputy Director at the Center for Democracy & Technology, and Cole is professor of law at Georgetown University and an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Looking back at the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, Dempsey and Cole declare that "the much-touted gains in law enforcement powers" under that Act, "produced no visible concrete results in the fight against terrorism." They add that the principles espoused in the Act "were shown in case after case to be both unconstitutional and ineffective in the fight against terrorism." And importantly, the authors comment that the United States government has not shown that the expanded powers it has asserted in the USAPA are necessary to fight terrorism.

Dempsey and Cole trace the origins of the national security trend back to the "intolerant approaches of the 1950s," when association with Communist or anarchist groups was made a ground for exclusion and deportation. Congress removed the guilt by association law in 1990, but it was revived only six years later by law enforcement proponents in the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, immediately following the Oklahoma City Bombing.

More specifically, however, Dempsey and Cole show that it was the Reagan Administration which initially proposed some of the most troubling provisions which eventually became part of the USAPA. When Reagan proposed these provisions, Congress rejected them on constitutional grounds. The first Bush Administration then made similar proposals, which were again rejected by lawmakers. Congress twice refused to enact the secret evidence provisions proposed by Bush I. (Indeed, just prior to 9/11, Congress was about to pass a law repealing the secret evidence provisions of the 1996 Antiterrorism Act.)

The troublesome provisions proposed by Reagan and the first Bush included the resurrection of guilt by association, association as grounds for exclusion or deportation, the ban on supporting lawful activities of groups labeled terrorist, the use of secret evidence, and the empowerment of the Secretary of State to designate groups as terrorist organizations, without judicial or congressional review.

Despite the Reagan and Bush proposals and one-sided hearings, there was broad-based opposition to such legislation. According to Dempsey and Cole, "several members of the House Judiciary Committee, both Democrat and Republican, questioned the need for the legislation." Lawmakers repeatedly asked why new legislation was needed and how it would help. Administration witnesses literally refused to answer lawmakers' questions, finally causing Representative John Conyers to exclaim, "I've never seen this much law created as a result of prosecutions that we agree worked very effectively!"

"The legislation languished and seemed headed for defeat," say Dempsey and Cole. Until Oklahoma City.

The Oklahoma City bombing, for which there exists a significant body of evidence of a shadow government operation, was used as justification for the enactment of the very provisions lawmakers had previously found most constitutionally troublesome.

Included in the resulting 1996 Antiterrorism Act, although it had nothing to do with terrorism at all, was Republican Senator Orrin Hatch's long-sought provision to limit the right of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is the procedure whereby a person convicted by a state court can challenge that conviction in a federal court. The thing is, terrorism cases are brought in federal, not state, courts. "Senator Hatch wanted to make it more difficult for federal courts to order retrials of prisoners where state courts had violated the U.S. Constitution," according to Dempsey and Cole.

The USAPA clearly furthers the goals of making it more difficult for anyone to review or appeal government wrongdoing. It allows for indefinite detention of suspected (not "proven") alien terrorists, without probable cause of a crime, without a hearing or an opportunity to defend or challenge the evidence against them, when they have not even been proven to be a threat and have already established a legal right to remain here. The only process allowed the suspected alien is the "right" to go to federal court and sue the government for its actions.

The USAPA expands the Secretary of State's power to designate terrorist groups without any court or congressional review and allows for secret searches without probable cause. Dempsey and Cole state that these changes "go far beyond what was needed to respond to terrorism." Indeed, they point out that in many instances, "the changes are not limited to terrorist investigations at all, but apply across the board to all criminal investigations."

A good example of the kind of change brought about under the USAPA, which illustrates the underlying and pre-existing agenda of its proponents, is section 218, which amends a single phrase in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The purpose of FISA was to allow intelligence agencies to gather information about foreign powers without the restrictions imposed on them by the Constitution. The reasoning for this was that the purpose of foreign intelligence gathering is not to detect crimes but to gather information about foreign agents.

Under FISA, when an agent wanted to obtain authority to conduct electronic surveillance or secret physical searches, a designated official of the executive office had to certify that "the purpose" for the surveillance was to obtain foreign intelligence information. Section 218 of the USAPA modifies that clause so that intelligence gathering need not be "the purpose," - in other words, it need no longer be the primary purpose, -- but may be only "a significant purpose" of the surveillance.

This means that if an official can certify that obtaining foreign intelligence is a significant purpose of a surveillance action (the other purpose clearly being criminal investigation), he can avoid the requirement that he first show probable cause of criminal activity. It means the FBI, the CIA, or any other intelligence agency, can surveil you without probable cause, as long as they say the surveillance has something to do with a foreign intelligence investigation of some sort (which may otherwise not even involve you directly).

Because courts have consistently refused to "second guess" FISA surveillance certifications, there is effectively no judicial review of such activities. This small change has enormous ramifications. For all practical purposes, the section 218 USAPA amendment of FISA allows government to completely avoid Fourth Amendment probable cause requirements for searches and seizures of American citizens (not just immigrants).

The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress notes: "From the beginning, defendants have questioned whether authorities had used a FISA surveillance order against them in order to avoid the predicate crime threshold..."

In 1980, the 4th Circuit court stated in the landmark case of U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung that "the executive should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." Another circuit court declared in 1991 that "the investigation of criminal activity cannot be the primary purpose of [FISA] surveillance."

In other words, courts have pretty consistently thrown out intelligence information gathered under FISA where it has been established that foreign intelligence gathering was not the primary purpose of the surveillance.

It is clear that intelligence agencies have wanted to change this law for some time. It is clear that they have been frustrated by the "primary purpose rule." However, it is not merely the result of intelligence agency wishes or a matter of history that this restriction has now been overridden. History shows that Congress has consistently resisted enacting these types of changes. History also shows that the Reagan and Bush I Administrations repeatedly attempted to push such laws through. Oklahoma City proved that only a "real" terrorist attack would convince Congress.

Furthermore, it is obvious that the proponents of this amendment know it is an end-run around the Fourth Amendment. They have had many years to think about it and have repeatedly shown their willingness to enact carefully crafted, unconstitutional laws. They know the amendment allows intelligence to conduct criminal investigations on American citizens without adherence to basic constitutional protections. Furthermore, under the information sharing provision of section 203 of the USAPA, information gathered in this way can now be shared with other intelligence and law enforcement agencies, for whatever uses they want.

Most significantly, it is clear that the events of 9/11 gave the proponents of this amendment the opportunity they needed to slip it by Congress.

United States Versus America
Commentary
By Doug McIntosh
madmac@europa.com
March 14, 2002

A house divided against itself cannot stand; therefore, the United States of America has already fallen. It has fallen because America has been replaced by the United States. It has fallen because the American Republic has been replaced with the United States Empire. And it is the US Empire that the rest of world despises and will eventually destroy. It's a long story from the American Revolution of 1776 to the Corporate Police State called the United States of America in 2002. A multigenerational effort has been successful in perverting and capturing the American Republic and turning it into an empire. Partly the people's apathy has allowed a global elite to do this; partly, the global elite has simply done what they wanted, bribing or killing anyone who got in their way. A series of specific economic, political, military, educational and cultural policies have essentially replaced America's Constitutional Republic with globalist imperial policies. Understand this simple fact and the current situation comes into clear focus.

Take economics for instance: American citizens believe in the constitutional definition of sound money, i.e. precious metals, with Congress controlling monetary policy. Citizens of the United States believe in a central bank, fiat money, deficit spending and congress reduced to a lap dog. Obviously, the American Republic, in terms of economics, doesn't exist. It has been replaced by the United States Empire with its globalist, elitist, aristocratic banking infrastructure. The economic policies of the American Republic: excise taxes, no national debt except in time of declared war and congressional control of issuing money no longer exist. Hence, why all the talk of the American Republic? It's a delusion used by the corporate oligarchy to maintain control of an ignorant populace.

What about the political policies of the American Republic versus those of the United States Empire? The American Republic's foreign policy was based on moral principles that in turn led to specific policies. George Washington's sound advice to avoid foreign entanglements was the centerpiece of American foreign policy for generations. The American Republic had no standing, professional army to encourage imperial pretensions. The American Republic had no income tax to fund a large central government with global entanglements. The American Republic had no central bank to finance deficit spending to bypass limited federal powers. The American Revolution was fought against the idea of a monarchy, aristocracy and oligarchy. Yet, now we find the American Empire supports client monarchs around the world. The American Empire has used tax laws to create an internal aristocracy of leading families and allowed economic policy to be controlled by a Federal Reserve with banker owners. No, the current American policies are that of the United States Empire and not of the historical American Republic.

Often the refrain is heard in the United States about, "Why do they hate us?" The implication is we are just innocent Americans being attacked by evil people. The reality is innocent Americans are being murdered for the corrupt policies of the United States Empire. The rest of the world despises the United States, while remaining quite in love with both America and Americans. Americans like you and me, but not the Imperial institutions arrogantly crushing the rest of the world. By and large, the American Republic has ceased to exist and our leaders are not Americans at all. Our leaders are from the United States Empire and they plan, execute and enforce the policies of the United States, not America. It's this reality that has led to America's current state of chaos and war. What we have in America today is a global, imperial elite, and their home grown lackeys, ruling a nation they have seized through deceit, control through cunning, manipulate for their own benefit- just as they do everywhere else on our planet. Bluntly put, America is like a submarine that has been hijacked. This new crew is incompetent and will be the death of us all: United States Empire citizens and American Republic citizens alike. Gives new meaning to the phrase ship of fools, doesn't it?

Not convinced the rest of the world despises the United States Empire and will take any action to crush it in the next few months and years? OK I will examine one recent United States foreign policy situation and show why it caused the rest of the world to seethe with hatred towards the US Empire. That's seething with rage when they are not howling with laughter mind you. Bushoccio isn't the kind of leader to inspire much of anything as his recent trip to Japan shows. If I were a rich man, which I'm not, I would have gambled some money that President Pretzel would do something stupid and cause chaos in the currency markets. I would have won big on that one as the difference between devaluation and deflation shows.

Enron shows us the current system is geared to crushing anyone trying to make the first million and protecting those who already have the multi billions. A blow is being prepared to strike the United States and destroy its economy. A blow is being prepared to crush the United States and its insolent New World Order pretensions. The rest of the world will not tolerate the United States for much longer I'm afraid. But the 2/3 of the people who live in the state of denial called the United States don't have a clue. They don't understand since the leaders, media and the elite want them ignorant. I tell you the truth but I'm a fringe dweller and few will hear my warnings until it is too late. So be it: let the blood be on our leaders hands. Let the innocent blood be on their souls and charged to their spiritual account. As for me, death before dishonor.

The day is coming when the world's people will rise up, cut off Uncle Sam's head - use it for a hood ornament - and then use the hole for a toilet. If you think my words are harsh, then you need to understand the world is mobilizing to destroy an empire they regard as arrogant and ruthless. Cause and effect shows us that since the United States economic, political and military hubris knows no limits the global reaction will also know no limits. Here in America we rely on the whore media and so are usually ignorant of current reality. For instance, less than a month ago President Pretzel set off a firestorm with his "axis of evil" description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Only when Pakistan's reigning dictator showed up at the White House last week North Korea selling them missile technology wasn't even brought up for discussion. Likewise, North Korea selling missile technology to Egypt isn't on the agenda either. Can't let anything interfere with real politics now can we? It's precisely this kind of arrogant, pandering, hypocritical Imperial mind games that is going to get people like you and me killed by people sick of being looted and pillaged by the capitalist rapists. I see no indication the 2/3 of my brain dead countrymen realize 2/3 of the Arabs despise us, much less why. A good hint might have something to do with our military, political and economic support for an out of control Ariel Sharon.

The United States is collapsing around my ears. It's mixture of politically correct lunacy, corporate fascism, media spin control and economic decay is simply not sustainable for much longer. What the whore media parades as strength is really weakness. What we are told is wisdom is stupidity. What we are told is economic prosperity is a rigged fraud careening into a black hole of bankruptcy. Anybody notice the 20% rise in those last year? Or how about the chemtrails I see almost every day but don't exist. The reason they don't exist is not because I don't see them, but because the system says that I don't see what I see. Welcome to the United States police state. We've had nearly six months of Air National Guard combat air patrols over our major cities since 9-11-2001. We are told our urban skies are safe while we are being Chemtrailed almost daily. Are the pilots blind, or are they being told to shut up? And you think I'm full of it? The United States where people talk about reforming the economic system that produced Enron. What fools! Just wait till JP Morgan goes. Will the Fed and Mr. Magoo bail themselves out? Or will the economic system come crashing down just like our enemies have planned?

I believe each of us has a specific destiny. Each human being on this planet has one task to complete before they die and move on to the next phase. I have now completed mine. My destiny was to write this essay and tell my countrymen and countrywomen, Americans and Imperial drones alike, exactly what was happening and why it is happening. Everyone physically living in the America now called the United States Empire after reading this essay will have a crystal clear understanding of the current reality. The United States Empire is finished. The negative energy back blast coming onto the geographical space occupied by the entity called America/United States is something fierce. Understand why and then be prepared. This is my free gift to you. Use it wisely or foolishly.

Prepare for chaos or not.
The choice is yours.

USA Traffic Jam
Posted by David

Reprinted from the WNOL Forum
May 7, 2004

Hello everybody,
I just wanted to take a moment on this site to spew some steam about the cost of fuel. I'm a long-hauler and I drive coast to coast so I see a bunch of different fuel prices all over the country and hear what people are saying about it and how it is messing up everybodys life. It doesn't really matter if you're an independent or a company driver or even if you drive a car, pickup or motorcycle what I see is that everyone suffers in this latest government corporation scam to rip-off the American people again. This time it goes all the way to the end customer, the retailers, stores, food, medical and everything. That's what we do, the truckers. We haul what everybody wants and do our best to get it to you as safe and fast as we can.

Many people don't realize how many restrictions are laid on us to do our job. If it wasn't for us how in the hell does everybody think they're going to get these things, their food, fuel, medical supplies, clothes and so on? Right, they're not. You might see all this stuff come in on planes, trains and ships but who do you think gets it to them and then to you? We do. If we can't afford to run then you ain't getting your stuff and if that's the case then if you're a business owner you'll be shutting your doors because you don't have any product. Food and medical supplies can't sit at the ports, the loading docks or on the side of the road because they're all time-sensitive.

I think it's time for every American to stand up and scream at our government corporations and say no, we ain't paying these prices. We should all just stop moving. That's what they're trying to do to us anyway. If they continue on this deadend street we will all have to stop running and that will shut this country down. They can't do that. We are a highly mobile nation that depends on transpotation.

If we decided to stop moving for at least three days, everybody stays home, eccept law enforcement and emergency vehicles, hospitals, power plants, (radio and television stations so they can tell us what is and what isn't going on) and those types of things then maybe they'll get the message. A total three day national citizen protest. You won't be fired from your job because your employer should be at home too. What are they going to do? Fire the whole damn nation? Doubt it. And we shouldn't do this on a weekend either. We should do it starting on a Wednesday, take Thursday and Friday off and then continue through the weekend. Yeah, that makes it six days altogether.

Stock up on the food and fuel you'll need for seven days, even though you won't really be going anywhere because everybody will be home. You can't go to the Zoo, the library, the museum, the movies, the theater, the concert, Taco Bell, Burger King, MacDonald's, get car parts, buy flowers for you honey, go clothes shopping or to the mall, you can't even go get milk, bread, butter and eggs. There won't be any stores open and even if there was they won't have any product because the transportation industry will be shut down too. So, stay home or at least go visit your nearby relatives that you haven't seen for awhile, hang out with your family for a change, go for that long walk you've always talked about but haven't done yet.

Don't worry about the stock market because if those fools want to go to work they will only be able to tell us after it's all over who took a dive and that will tell us who's all involved with this big rip-off.

What is our government going to do about it...force us? Doubt it. Sooner or later everybody is going to have to wake up to the fact that we are the government, we are the sweat of the corporations and when we say enough then we should be heard. These people work for us and not the other way around. Since when did any employee ever get away with telling their boss what to do? Our government ain't do different. They work for us, we put them where they're at and we can damn well remove them very easily.

So, the bottom line here is let's shut 'em down, be heard and show the world that the people of this great nation still do run our country. I'm on the road again.

Thanks for your opinion David. -Ed

A Little History
On the 2nd Amendment

If you know a little bit about the history of America, you would know that America was once a colony of Great Britain. Because of the many abuses that the early colonists suffered at the hands of the King of England, George III, the colonists decided that the time had come to break away from England and its King. This decision did not come easily. England had the largest and most well equipped army in the world at the time.

It all began in September 1768, when there were some rumors going around of an impending occupation by British troops. The British troops were to occupy Boston to allegedly suppress riots and collect taxes. This of course inflamed the City of Boston.

A group of freeholders led by John Hancock and James Otis met at Faneuil Hall and passed several resolutions that would ensure that the inhabitants of Boston would not be disarmed.

For the next few years, disputes between the British and the Colonists escalated. The Boston Massacre occurred on March 5, 1770 where British troops fired into a crowd of civilians "armed" with sticks, further eroding relations between England and the Colonists.

By early in 1775, the British began carrying out a policy of disarming the Colonists. The Revolutionary War was sparked on April 19, 1775 when a group of militiamen that were exercising at Lexington, refused to give up their arms. This widely published account began when Major John Pitcairn in charge of a band of British troops yelled "Disperse you Rebels, damn you, throw down your arms and disperse."

On June 12, 1775 a British General, named Thomas Gage proclaimed martial law and offered a pardon to everyone who would lay down their arms except Samuel Adams and John Hancock.

The British used every means at their disposal to attempt to disarm the Colonists including banning imports, entrapment, deceptive promises of "safe keeping", direct seizure and the murder of those who continued to bear arms.

The Second Amendment
When the Revolutionary War was over, and we became a free and independent nation, it was certainly understandable that the former Colonists were afraid of a powerful central government that controlled a standing army. They intended that the States would have the majority of the power and that the federal government would remain relatively small.

The Second Amendment is sometimes known as the "Right To Keep And Bear Arms".

When the Second Amendment was proposed, they wanted to ensure that the States retained the right to form militias composed of all free men capable of bearing arms. These militias were made up of all men capable of handling a gun who were at least 18 years old and not more than 44.

An unarmed militia is not really a militia at all. So the reading of the Second Amendment is actually somewhat redundant.

The Second Amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The first part of the Second Amendment says "A well regulated Militia..." It is important for you to know that in the language of the new Americans, "well regulated" did not mean regulation by legislation. What "well regulated" actually meant was that a militia would be effective, efficient, well trained and able to carry out their tasks proficiently.

The very nature of a formal military body or army is to be well trained and proficient. Therefore, it is quite clear that the Founding Fathers intended that the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment was the Citizens themselves and not an official army.

The second part of the Second Amendment, says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This part of the Second Amendment completely guaranteed that the general population of the United States who were law-abiding citizens would always have the right to possess guns.

The words "the people" are used throughout the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Every time the words "the people" are used, it was meant to include the whole body of the population.

It is also important for you to realize that in the Constitution, rights always refer to individual Citizens and powers are granted to the Government.

The Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten (10) amendments, are actually an enumerated collection of "negative liberties."

By "negative liberties", I mean that the Bill of Rights does not really "grant" rights to the people. What it really does is list the pre-existing rights of truly free people and it limits or prohibits government action on those rights.

Governments throughout time, have always used their authority to gain power, influence and control over its population. The Founding Fathers knew this fact. That is why we have the Bill of Rights.

Quote:
"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances." Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788

Some people think that the Second Amendment only guarantees the States, the right to form militias. This interpretation is wrong and has no historical basis whatsoever.

There are millions of Americans today who own guns, enjoy target shooting, competition and hunting who believe that our own Federal and State governments are violating the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, by passing laws that tell them what guns they can own, and what they can do with them. They can't.

One of the central purposes of the Bill Of Rights and the Second Amendment was to give the People Of The United States as much help as possible to remain a free and independent people.

Remember:
The Bill Of Rights however did not "give" Citizens their rights. The Bill Of Rights actually was intended to prevent our own government from violating those pre-existing rights of the People under Common Law.

The Signing of the United States Constitution
The Founding Fathers
The Second Amendment
(In Modern English)
When the Second Amendment was written, the Founding Fathers did not speak exactly as we do today. Here is how the Second Amendment would look, if it were adopted today.

"Efficient and well trained Citizens are essential to the security of each State and that of the country, therefore, the right of law-abiding Citizens of America to own and carry firearms cannot be violated by government."

A Little Right To Keep And Bear Arms History
On June 16, 1788, during the ratification of the United States Constitution, George Mason said "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officials."

The opinions of the Founding Fathers concerning firearms, did not spring up at the Revolutionary War. The concept of the male population belonging to a militia that safeguards the freedom of the public is a very old concept and dates back over 800 years.

Sir William Blackstone whose Commentaries written in 1765 is regarded as the most definitive work on Common Law ever written. In that book, he wrote that the people have "...the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense."

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms throughout history mainly centers upon three (3) things:
1. Owning, carrying and using arms as a member of a militia whose duties are to protect the liberties of the people from tyranny and attack.

2. It also centers upon the basic human right of self-preservation and self defense. Self defense is a basic right of human beings that precedes and supercedes any form of government.

3. Privately owned firearms guarantees the human being will have ready access to food.

In 1833, United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, talking about the duties of the militia "...the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections and domestic usurpations of power by rulers..."

He further said "...The right of the Citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Any questions?

Are You Ready
For A Militarized Police Force?
By Douglas MacDonald
Wednesday, Oct 1, 2003

The Bush administration is calling for the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, a law passed after the Civil War to prohibit the deployment of federal military forces onto American streets to control civil action - otherwise known as martial law.

One fear among civil rights activists is that now that the details of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act/Patriot Act 2 have been revealed, the proposals contained therein will be taken apart, renamed and incorporated into other, broader pieces of legislation within the Department of Homeland Security.

The United States Army Field Manual 19-15, entitled Civil Disturbances, issued in 1985, is designed to equip soldiers with the "tactics, techniques and procedures" necessary to suppress dissent. The manual states that "crowd control formations may be employed to disperse, contain or block a crowd. When employed to disperse a crowd, they are particularly effective in urban areas because they enable the control force to split a crowd into smaller segments."

Sound familiar? If you were at the February 15, 2003 peace rally in New York City it probably does. The manual goes on to state that "if the crowd refuses to move, the control force may have to employ other techniqes such as riot control agents or apprehensions..." The army "civil disturbance" manual, correlated to present-day realities, also makes the point "civil disturbances include acts of terrorism," which, "may be organized by disaffected groups," who hope to embarass the government," and who may, in fact "demonstrate as a cover for terrorism."

The sophistry involved in turning a peace rally into a pro-Al Queda rally is precisely the logic that is operative within the Pentagon driven civil disturbance planning situated in the broader context of so-called "homeland defense." In fact, rather than protest being the occasion of "terrorism", the "War on Terrorism" is the cover for the war on dissent.

Don't take (Mr. Morales) word for this. Read what California Anti-Terrorism Information Center spokesman Mike Van Winkle had to say recently to the Oakland Tribune (May 18, 2003): "You can make an easy kind of link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest...You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."

What's Your Opinion?
Here's what others are saying:

• Militarized Police

From: SCOTT On: October 01, 2003 08:34 PM
This article shows the wisdom of our Founding Dads - the People must retain arms superior to the state... lest that state imagine it has rights... and the People need permits.
Only by being well armed and trained can we keep the state bound by the mighty chains of the Constitution... for without the last resort of Deadly Force the state will simply ignore the Constitution & Bill of Rights... as happened in Germany in the '30's. The pernicious Nazi doctrine of gun registration facilitated the socialist doctrine of establishing a police state!

It was not pleasant to 'spank' the state in 1775 and it wont be pleasant now - 50 of the 56 signers of the Unanimous Declaration (often, mistakenly, called the Declaration of Independence)... lost either their lives, fortunes, or families - some lost all three!

To offer up our Liberties to the altar of tyranny is blasphemy against the sacrifices of our kindred dead who gave all that their posterity might live free... just say "NO"... stand tall and give the statist thugs the reception anyone violating his/her Loyalty Oath deserves (all LEO's in this country are required to swear a loyalty oath - not to the state nor to the mob but to the Constitution)... immediate field execution.

Do your part - go armed be prepared and when you see state tyranny - just say "NO"... the Constitution & Bill of Rights need us... and OUR posterity need and deserve the Constitution & Bill of Rights. Freedom is for those who claim it - no compromise; no surrender!

Sic Semper Tyrannis,
Scott Campanaro

* * * * * * *

Nazis in Charge
From: Rebellion On: October 02, 2003 07:10 PM

I am tired of the lies of the U.S. Government. People in America need to undertsand.
1.  The left right issue is staged, people like Clinton and Bush are allies (Iran Contra-Mena)

2.  911 was a created crisis to help envoke the Patriot Acts and Homeland Security (Homeland just like the Nazis called it, or Fatherland was used mostly)

3.  Carlyle Group-biggest investors, the Bin Ladin family up until 911, the Bush family. Carlyle Group is an Arms Trader, they arm several countries like Iraq, and later go after them for possesing weapons.

4.  Most overseas U.S. Military bases built by Bin Ladin

5.  Early 90s Rumsfeld was part of a corporation who sold Korea the Nuclear Power Plants, now crying that Korea has Nuclear capabilities.

Reference Links to check out at your leisure:

Information Wars
The Prison Planet
Propaganda Matrix

Anarchy or Revolution?
By: E. William Turnbull
December 9, 2003


There is always more to what is going on the world of American politcal manuvering than those we have freely elected are allowing us to know. As we have progressed through the centuries, especially the industrial age, we have created situations, because of corporate wheelings and dealings, that have put our entire nation at risk with other nations. In view of that, we have been forced by these dealings to protect our interests which have found their way into other nations and lands that do not share in the virtues of our particular and peculiar Constitution and those rights and laws which protect us on our own soil.

Our elected government has lead itself to believe that issues they discribe as 'national security' should not be let out for us to know. Why not? It's our butts that are on the line. It is the American citizen that is the blood of the corporate industrial complex and also that of our nations armed forces should the need arise for us to go to war. We should know everything our government officials are up to when it's our butt on the line.

Of course, somehow, we have forgotten who works for who, or more appropriately, they have. Any of us who have ever been in the position of management, or as a boss, knows full well that if any one of our employees were to treat us, or any other employee, the way our politicians treat us they would be fired on the spot.

How is it then that these, our elected officials, are in a position which seems to place them above the law or any of the laws as outlined by any state or federal policies regarding employment? Are the safeguards that have been designed to protect the citizens of this nation being thwarted by those we have trusted to protect our rights as outlined in our Constitution to which they have openly violated and have even disregarded their very oath of office?

As well stated in our Constitution, yet in other words but here simply, that when our elected officials fail to do what they are elected and sworn to do then we have the right by law to remove them without having to go through their clauses of protection when they stand in full light of Constitutional violations. Here enters one of the primary reasons for the existence of the malitia and the peoples right to bear arms. Yes, if the need be, we have the right to shoot them where they stand. Our forefathers fully understood what they wrote within the 2nd Amendment and why they closed it with the words, "Shall not be infringed." Sorry boys and girls, it doesn't get any plainer than that.

How many times are we going to allow these corrupt lawyer/politicians and their corporate/media bedfellows to twist the articles of the Constitution in so many ways that it becomes a battle of whose interpretation of what our forefathers said and wrote is the correct one and so disrespectful of every American citizen in such a rude manner that they are telling all of us that we don't know what we're talking about?

We have only one Constitution and this document of a free people is not that difficult to understand, therefore, it does not require a new interpretation everytime we elect new people to be responsible to it's content. I do not recall anyone voting to change our Constitution and when it comes to that whatever changes need to be made, if any, it should be up to the people at large, the entire nation, to have their say by ballot; by the vote. Afterall, whatever changes do take place within this document effects each and every person in this nation no matter their age, race, gender, religion or political preference.

Are these the sounds of anarchy? Not even. Revolution? Perhaps. What should really be heard here is the sound of a very disgruntled people. A people who have become too lazy and complacent to live up to their responsibilities as American Citizens that they cannot excape these chains of government bondage and corporate slavery until they get off their butts and not only raise their voices but their fists and be full ready to use them.

Revolution against our government is not illegal; it is not against the law...it is the law that our forefathers set in motion to create this nation and establish our Constitution and it is the one right to protect ourselves from a government that no longer serves it's people.

Our government has for decades been stripping our rights away from us and they have been after the 2nd Amendment to insure that they can fully supress us into total bondage. We are not very far from that right now with the implementation of the Homeland Security Act/Agency and the U.S. Patriot Act One/Two. These two items alone are a total violation of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These things are not conservative, liberal or independent issues. They are American issues. The citizens of the United States can no longer stand in the middle of the road, much less, position themselves to the afore three stereotypes.

Oh for the madness that drives otherwise sane men to do unbecoming things for the sake of humanity.

Your Comments

If you would like to voice or post your opinions or even make a comment on any of the articles or issues presented here please go to the 'Feedback Page' by clicking on the image presented below. You have a right to be heard. You're voice, opinion and comments are just as important as anyone elses, therefore, let's hear from you and what's on your mind.
There are instructions to assist you in deciding whether or not you would like your comments published here on this page and whether or not you want your name posted with your comments as well.