Blog Archives

Executive Order 13629: A National Security Hybrid

November 5, 2012
By Lee DeCovnick

B.H. Obama has issued 139 executive orders since becoming president.  Some are fairly benign; many are deeply troubling, specifically as to the wholesale consolidation of emergency powers into the office of the presidency.  The newest executive order is a breathtaking assault on entire sections of Constitution and the rights, freedoms, and liberties of all Americans, carefully hidden within the stultifying and banal language of bureaucratic doublespeak.

On October 26, 2012, eleven days before our national election, with tropical depression Sandy bearing down on thirteen East-Coast states and the Libyan disaster still a smoking morass of obfuscation, cover-ups, and unanswered questions, the White House’s Friday news dump included EO 13629.  Titled “Establishing the White House Homeland Security Partnership Council,” this EO should chill the freedom-loving souls of all Americans.

Not surprisingly, the MSM has not mentioned EO 13629 — not anywhere.  No mention in the NY Times, the Washington Post, or on any of the alphabet news and cable networks.  The blogosphere, liberal and conservative (except Hannity), has had almost no mention of EO 13629.  This EO was purposefully buried by the White House and ignored by the alternative press.

Have I got your attention?  Then I’ll invite you to leave American Thinker for a couple of minutes and read the EO for yourself (only 1,232 words), and then return here.

All right, show of hands — who almost fell asleep digging through the tons of gravel to find the nasty gems?  Yeah, me too.  It takes a very close reading of this EO to understand what is actually going on here.

Let’s first look first at paragraph three:

The National Security Strategy emphasizes the importance of partnerships, underscoring that to keep our Nation safe “we must tap the ingenuity outside government through strategic partnerships with the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, and community-based organizations. Such partnerships are critical to U.S. success at home and abroad, and we will support them through enhanced opportunities for engagement, coordination, transparency, and information sharing.” This approach recognizes that, given the complexities and range of challenges, we must institutionalize an all-of-Nation effort to address the evolving threats to the United States.

A couple of things stand out.  The EO quotes “The National Security Strategy,” an Orwellian document released by the White House in May of 2010 that advocates, in so many words, the end of American sovereignty and the ascendancy of a U.N.-based “transnational government.”  It’s most famous line includes “We are now moving beyond traditional distinctions between Homeland and National Security.”

What to make of the line “… we must institutionalize an all-of-Nation effort to address the evolving threats to the United States”?  What an eerie phrase: “all-of-Nation.”  A Google search shows that phrase was also used in the “National Strategy For Biosurveillance,” a tyrant’s Christmas wish list, that was a July 2012 White House document, and Presidential Policy Directive 8, a FEMA directive on National Preparedness from March of 2011.  Odd and troubling coincidences, to say the least.

Bottom line: the National Security Strategy encourages partnerships with non-governmental organizations, foundations, and community-based organizations.  Got it.

So what exactly is the EO plan for these partnerships?

There is established a White House Homeland Security Partnership Council (Council) to foster local partnerships — between the Federal Government and the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, community-based organizations, and State, local, tribal, and territorial government and law enforcement — to address homeland security challenges.

The actionable clause: “to address homeland security challenges.”  We’ll get to the chest-beating 900-pound gorillas in the room in a moment, but two significant items immediately demand our attention.

Did you notice that “homeland security” was not capitalized?  It is usually referred to as the “Department of Homeland Security.”  The usage in the EO of homeland as noun, but not a proper noun, is not a mistake.  Yellow-highlight that line; we will return to it later.  Also, the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are not specified as necessarily being of American origin or even of a pro-American outlook.  They could also refer to foreign NGOs, as these are prominent progressive political activist groups that are strongly supported by the American-hating Byzantine bureaucracies of the U.N. and EU.

Let’s move on.  Membership of this Council is quite specific and requires a surprisingly narrow skill set:

… the Council shall be composed of Federal officials who are from field offices of the executive departments, agencies, and bureaus (agencies) that are members of the Steering Committee established in subsection (c) of this section, and who have demonstrated an ability to develop, sustain, and institutionalize local partnerships to address policy priorities.

So Council members must come from the field offices of the executive departments and have demonstrated an ability to develop, sustain, and institutionalize local partnerships.  Council members, except those whose agency already deals with security issues, evidently are not required to have a background in security, law enforcement, criminal justice, or the judiciary system; all that is required is an ability to develop and institutionalize partnerships.  Is the council carefully recruiting government bureaucrats who can train, mold, and imprint a bureaucratic mindset onto these partners for the Council’s purposes?  If not, what is meant by “institutionalize”?  And why are the recruited members supposed to be selected from “field offices” rather than the usual Potomac swamps?

Closely reading this EO feels like putting together a jigsaw puzzle, blindfolded.  Perhaps that was that the intent.

Let’s go on.  Okay, these White House Council members are selected by the Steering Committee.  Huh?  What Steering Committee?

The Steering Committee shall include a representative at the Deputy agency head level, or that representative’s designee, from the following agencies:

(i) Department of State;
(ii) Department of the Treasury;
(iii) Department of Defense;
(iv) Department of Justice;
(v) Department of the Interior;
(vi) Department of Agriculture;
(vii) Department of Commerce;
(viii) Department of Labor;
(ix) Department of Health and Human Services;
(x) Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(xi) Department of Transportation;
(xii) Department of Energy;
(xiii) Department of Education;
(xiv) Department of Veterans Affairs;
(xv) Department of Homeland Security;
(xvi) Office of the Director of National Intelligence;
(xvii) Environmental Protection Agency;
(xviii) Small Business Administration; and
(xix) Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Notice that this Steering Committee and thus the Council has no congressional or judicial representation — i.e., no representation from the other co-equal branches of government.  No constitutional checks and balances.  The EO sets no term limits, no overview process, and no restraints on policies, authority, and structures.  Is it normal for the government to tightly integrate such group into the structure of government itself?  Well, yes — on some social and political issues such as voter registration or global warming, as examples.  But this EO goes far beyond the accepted governmental role in integrating such organizations because the purpose of this bastardized conglomeration is homeland and national security, not a typical social or political issue.  This EO is simply a blank check to build an executive-branch bureaucracy that actually plans to transform and integrate selected extra-governmental NGOs, foundations, and community-based organizations into a robust and unaccountable national security hybrid.

Americans need to be continually vigilant — this EO could swiftly metatasize and do untold damage to our nation and its people.  Anyone else think that this EO is flagrantly unconstitutional?  It gets worse.

The Council shall be chaired by the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism …

That would be John Brennan, a veteran CIA apparatchik, Obama’s loyal terrier, and America’s current “terrorism and drone” czar.  Brennan supports reaching out to the “moderate elements” of Hezb’allah and has an exceptionally rocky relationship with the truth and reality in discussing this administration’s Middle East policies.

And more bad news:

At the invitation of the Chair, representatives of agencies not listed in subsection (c) of this section or other executive branch entities may attend and participate in Steering Committee meetings as appropriate.

That is Washington bureaucratese for the Obama czars.  So, will the Steering Committee be well-represented with Obama’s hand-picked czars?  Why not?  No one will be looking.

Finally, what is the stated mission of the Council?

… advise the Chair and Steering Committee members on priorities, challenges, and opportunities for local partnerships to support homeland security priorities, as well as regularly report to the Steering Committee on the Council’s efforts …

And what are the homeland security priorities this Administration seeks to implement?  In web searches through some nasty swamps, using homeland with a lowercase h, I stumbled on this site.  An answer, not surprisingly, was found in a report from a George Soros-supported foundation, the Center for American Progress.  This all but forgotten February 2008 report, “Homeland Security Policy Priorities for the Next Administration and Congress,” includes this “Key Action” item that was pretty interesting.

Create a civilian homeland security corps.

Finally the penny drops.

We recall this quote from Obama’s July 2, 2008 speech:

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Let’s turn our attention to the pair of 900-pound gorillas sitting in the room, and why they are important.

First, our immediate concern should reflect that this EO’s bastardized security hybrid is hardly unique in modern history.  The German Schutzstaffel, the infamous SS, and the Soviet KGB, Committee for State Security, both began as hybrid security organizations.  They were deliberately created outside traditional governmental roles, exclusively for the consolidation and implementation of power on behalf of a single individual.  We should not forget that Americans and their forefathers have experienced and soundly rejected such authoritarian abuses, such as the Salem witch trials and McCarthyism.  But only the naive can believe that such a breakdown could not happen here in 21st-century America.

Second, the list of NGOs, foundations, and community-based organizations ripe for “institutionalization” would likely read like a Democratic who’s-who of hard-left organizations.  Is there any doubt that this administration and its czars would seek partnerships with La Raza, ACORN and its renamed offshoots, Move On, PETA, the Center for American Progress, Media Matters, CAIR and other Islamic organizations, the Sierra Club, AFL-CIO, the SEIU, and the AFT and CTA?

As these groups may become institutionalized into a national security hybrid, new orders will come down from the council, and information will flow up to Washington.

The new homeland security corps primary mission would likely become the monitoring and reporting of unacceptable political and social activities — city by city, neighborhood by neighborhood, block by block, house by house.

Could this corps become a latter-day Gestapo, heavily armed with cell-phone technology, linked databases, personal tablets, and bio-identification card readers?

We all can read this EO.  Some may have different interpretations of what they have read.  Considering the well-established trend of B.H. Obama’s cold disregard of constitutional checks and balances, and both the longstanding desire and a short-term need to create a White House framework for a domestic-security apparatus, EO 13629 may be forever linked in history with such infamous documents such as the Wannsee Protocol and the recently revealed files of the Spanish Inquisition.

Source

AWOL: Meet The GOP Senators Who Refused to Stand With Rand

by Larry O’Connor 7 Mar 2013, 4:41 AM PDT

It’s time to name names.

Yesterday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) embarked upon a historic filibuster in an attempt to coax the White House to answer a basic and fundamental constitutional question that affects every American’s 5th Amendment rights. He was joined by thirteen other Republican Senators as well as one Democrat.

While the stand for liberty and government accountability was taking place on Capitol Hill, a handful of Republican Senators were having an off-the-record dinner with President Barack Obama.  Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) notebaly attended the dinner wiht the President and then made their way to the Senate Chambers and participated in the filibuster.

Republican members of the House of Representatives walked down the hall to support Sen. Paul.  Rep. Louie Gohmert even brought the weary senator some chocolate bars and cough drops.

But what about the Republican senators who had something better to do Wednesday night?

The following Republicans were at the Washington Wizards game or were attending to some other pressing issue that was more important than supporting a member of their party who had the audacity to expect the White House to answer a basic, fundamental constitutional question.

Alexander, Lamar – (R – TN) Class II
455 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4944
Contact: www.alexander.senate.gov/

Ayotte, Kelly – (R – NH) Class III
144 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3324
Contact: www.ayotte.senate.gov/

Blunt, Roy – (R – MO) Class III
260 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5721
Contact: www.blunt.senate.gov/

Boozman, John – (R – AR) Class III
320 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4843
Contact: www.boozman.senate.gov/

Burr, Richard – (R – NC) Class III
217 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3154
Contact: http://www.burr.senate.gov/

Coats, Daneil – (R – IN) Class III
493 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
Contact: www.coats.senate.gov/

Coburn, Tom – (R – OK) Class III
172 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5754
Contact: www.coburn.senate.gov/

Cochran, Thad – (R – MS) Class II
113 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5054
Contact: www.cochran.senate.gov/

Collins, Susan M. – (R – ME) Class II
413 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2523
Contact: www.collins.senate.gov/

Corker, Bob – (R – TN) Class I
425 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3344
Contact: www.corker.senate.gov/

Crapo, Mike – (R – ID) Class III
239 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6142
Contact: www.crapo.senate.gov/

Enzi, Michael B. – (R – WY) Class II
379A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3424
Contact: www.enzi.senate.gov/

Fischer, Deb – (R – NE) Class I
825 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6551
Contact: www.fischer.senate.gov/

Graham, Lindsey – (R – SC) Class II
290 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5972
Contact: www.lgraham.senate.gov/

Grassley, Chuck – (R – IA) Class III
135 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3744
Contact: www.grassley.senate.gov/

Hatch, Orrin G. – (R – UT) Class I
104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5251
Contact: www.hatch.senate.gov/

Heller, Dean – (R – NV) Class I
361A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6244
Contact: www.heller.senate.gov/

Hoeven, John – (R – ND) Class III
120 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2551
Contact: www.hoeven.senate.gov/

Inhofe, James M. – (R – OK) Class II
205 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4721
Contact: www.inhofe.senate.gov/

Isakson, Johnny – (R – GA) Class III
131 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3643
Contact: www.isakson.senate.gov/

Johanns, Mike – (R – NE) Class II
404 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4224
Contact: www.johanns.senate.gov/

McCain, John – (R – AZ) Class III
241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2235
Contact: www.mccain.senate.gov/

Murkowski, Lisa – (R – AK) Class III
709 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6665
Contact: www.murkowski.senate.gov/

Portman, Rob – (R – OH) Class III
338 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3353
Contact: www.portman.senate.gov/

Risch, James E. – (R – ID) Class II
483 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2752
Contact: www.risch.senate.gov/

Roberts, Pat – (R – KS) Class II
109 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4774
Contact: www.roberts.senate.gov/

Sessions, Jeff – (R – AL) Class II
326 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4124
Contact: http://www.sessions.senate.gov/

Shelby, Richard C. – (R – AL) Class III
304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5744
Contact: www.shelby.senate.gov/

Vitter, David – (R – LA) Class III
516 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4623
Contact: www.vitter.senate.gov/

Wicker, Roger F. – (R – MS) Class I
555 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6253
Contact: www.wicker.senate.gov/

Source

The misunderstood history of nullification

By Mike Maharrey
National Communications Director
The Tenth Amendment Center

Could the recent Supreme Court ruling on the federal health care act bring conservative Republicans back to their state-sovereignty, nullification roots?

It just might.

Last week, two major conservative publications — National Review and The American Spectator — featured stories flirting with nullification. On top of that, millions of conservative Republicans got a nullification lesson on Thursday when Walter Williams guest-hosted “The Rush Limbaugh Show.”

Many Americans associate nullification with racism, because they think Southern states used the principle to protect slavery. In fact, northern abolitionists advanced nullification and appealed to “states’ rights” in their battle against fugitive slave laws. And while modern Republicans generally respond tepidly to the idea of nullification, their party was born out of a nullification fight in Wisconsin, a historical fact that long ago fell down an Orwellian memory hole.

Historically speaking, the Republican Party is the party of nullification.

In March of 1854, Benammi Stone Garland, two federal marshals and several others broke into the home of Joshua Glover. They clubbed him over the head, dragged him bleeding from his shanty and locked him up in the Milwaukee jail. Glover was an escaped slave, and Garland his “owner.” Legally, Garland had every right to take his “property” into custody and drag Glover back to Missouri. The Constitution provided for the return of escaped slaves. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 created the mechanism. The act denied due process to anyone accused of escaping slavery. Federal courts authorized the capture of fugitive slaves simply on the word of their “owners.” The accused weren’t even allowed to testify in their own defense. The Fugitive Slave Act was wildly unpopular and actively resisted in every northern state.

Wisconsinites quickly acted. Led by Sherman Booth, an abolitionist newspaper editor, several thousand people gathered on the steps of the Milwaukee courthouse. When a federal judge refused to release Glover on a writ of habeas corpus, the throng broke him out of jail and ushered him onto the famed Underground Railroad. Glover ultimately escaped to freedom in Canada.

The events of that spring day sparked a five-year battle between Wisconsin and the federal government. The feds charged Booth for violating the Fugitive Slave Act, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court freed him on a writ of habeas corpus, declaring the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional. Justice Abram Smith wrote, “Every jot and tittle of power delegated to the Federal Government will be acquiesced in, but every jot and tittle of power reserved to the States will be rigidly asserted.”

The aftermath of Glover’s escape led directly to the formation of the Republican Party. Anti-slavery meetings in the spring of 1854 spurred by the fight between Wisconsin and the federal government led to a statewide convention in July. The attendees formed a party and nominated candidates for the November elections. They called their new party “the Republican Party.” It flexed its muscle that fall, winning two of three congressional races and taking control of the Wisconsin legislature.

Republicans lost ground in 1855 when the party added temperance to its platform. But with the battle over slavery turning bloody in Kansas, Wisconsin Republicans turned things around in the 1856 elections. The fledgling party, promoting free soil and state sovereignty, took all three congressional seats, and grabbed firm control of the state assembly and senate. The Republican-controlled state legislature passed a resolution supporting the Wisconsin Supreme Court in nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act and interposing for Booth. It also defied federal law by passing a Personal Liberty Act. Among other things, the law gave county courts the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to fugitive slaves, made it the duty of district attorneys to seek their discharge and established fines of $1,000 for kidnapping free blacks.

The selection of Wisconsin’s next U.S. senator reveals the Republican Party’s deep state-sovereignty roots. The caucus put two resolutions to the candidates. The first endorsed Jeffersonian constitutionalism as expressed in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which nullified the Alien and Sedition Acts. The second asserted that Republicans had a duty to stand by the state Supreme Court to “pronounce final judgment” in all matters regarding the reserved powers of the states and to shield residents from unconstitutional federal acts. Early front-runner Timothy Howe heartily endorsed the first resolution but equivocated on the second. He ultimately lost to James Doolittle, who pledged his full support for both resolutions.

The Republican Party grew from the soil of state sovereignty and nullification. Now is the time for Republicans to rediscover those roots and support state nullification of the federal health care act.

Mike Maharrey serves as the national communications director for the Tenth Amendment Center, a think tank promoting constitutional fidelity and working to restore a proper balance of power between the state and federal governments. You may contact Mike at: michael.maharrey@tenthamendmentcenter.com.

Source

The Slippery Slope of Domestic Drones

Posted by Amanda Bowers
originally posted at the Washington State TAC

There are plenty of obvious concerns about the use of domestic drones. Their use by law enforcement is expanding rapidly, and it’s only normal to be concerned about privacy laws. Even if you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, with drones the size of hummingbirds, will you have a reasonable expectation of privacy on your own property, or even through your own windows? In the long run, what will constitute the need for surveillance? In Washington state it could be a nice new way to fine litterers.

Let’s not forget the original intent of this technology. Drones are used by our military to spy on, and to kill our enemies. Or at least, those we perceive to be our enemies, whether guilt has been proven or not, and with a callous disregard for collateral damage.

While it could be argued that some use of surveillance drones is reasonable; for example, border patrol or missing persons cases, how soon does it become difficult to draw the line? Are we there already?

Just this week members of Congress accused the EPA of using drones to conduct surveillance flights over Iowa and Nebraska farms. Though they were assured by the EPA that they are using only manned aircraft to check for violations of federal clean water laws, it does make one wonder about the right of the EPA to conduct this type of surveillance in the first place. Not to mention the fact that even Congress doesn’t know what the EPA is doing.

We have many large government agencies like this. The EPA might not actually be using drones to monitor your compliance with federal laws now, but how long until they are? With domestic drones getting smaller and easier to come by, it seems that it is only a matter of time. And if the EPA now, then who next? The FDA? It would be a lot easier for them to keep tabs on who you are selling your raw milk to, if they could only monitor everyone who comes and goes from your property.

Then there is the fact that law enforcement is already talking about arming drones with rubber bullets. Of course this is mainly for things like crowd control. But At some point do you look up at the drone flying over head and feel a sudden solidarity with citizens in Islamabad, wondering; am I next? Perhaps the idea seems a little far fetched now, but not so very long ago, the idea of drones surveying your neighborhood was also far fetched.

Welcome to our new reality.

James Madison once warned us that “the means of defense against foreign danger have always been the instruments of tyranny at home.”

Is doesn’t seem like wisdom to treat our government, who can so easily brush off the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians, as if they are somehow different people when it comes to surveillance here at home. We need to be vigilant about how this technology is used.

H.R. 5925, The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act, was recently introduced by Rep. Austin Scott, R-GA, “To protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones, and for other purposes.” The text of the bill is not available yet, but it would require the government to obtain warrants for surveillance purposes.The bill is currently bound up in judicial committee where many bills go – never to be heard from again. It’s a good start though, and a reminder that we can enact our own surveillance regulation in our own states. In the meantime, we should be asking our Congress men and women to support this kind of legislation that would protect our 4th amendment rights.

Source

Bill Allows IRS To Revoke Second Amendment Rights By Stealth

image

Daisy Luther
Infowars.com
April 24, 2012

It looks like the power of the IRS to revoke passports is merely a drop in the tyrannical bucket.

The Senate has voted to approve Bill 1813, which is now on its way to the House.  The insidious bill has so many attacks on freedom that the most serious one has been largely overlooked.

There are two attacks on gun ownership in this bill.  The text of the bill, all 1676 pages of it, can be found HERE.

The first attack on the right to bear arms is found on page 1323.

The Secretary may modify, suspend, or terminate a special permit or approval if the Secretary determines that—(1) the person who was granted the special permit or approval has violated the special permit or approval or the regulations issued under this chapter in a manner that demonstrates that the person is not fit to conduct the activity authorized by the special permit or approval; or (2) the special permit or approval is unsafe.

In the ambiguous language that the Congress so loves to employ in all things unconstitutional, we can translate that to the parental favorite, “Because I said so.”

The second attack on gun ownership is more subtle.

There is a stream of logic that you have to follow.

First, if this bill passes, the IRS will have the authority to take away the passports of those whom they say owe more than $50,000 in taxes.  (The tax debt doesn’t have to be proven, mind you, the IRS simply has to accuse you of owing the money.)  You can find this section on page 1447 of the Bill.

When your passport is revoked by the government, you are suddenly on the “no-fly list”.

Membership in the no-fly club puts you on yet another list, as a potential domestic terrorist.

Domestic terrorists are not allowed to have guns.

Don’t believe me?  Listen to Raul Emanuel gloat of it.  He eloquently states “If you are known as maybe a possible terrorist you cannot buy a handgun in America.” (1:13 of the video)

Uploaded by gshuck on Mar 11, 2009

Terrorist Elite Rahm states that if you are on the govt watch list you have no 2nd amendment rights. There are more than a million people on the list as of 3-11-09, at least one of which is a 5 year old caucasion boy born in the US of parents or born here who’s parents were born here as well as there parents.

Emanuel, the Mayor of Chicago and former Obama Chief of Staff, makes the top of my personal treason list for this statement. In his own words, “maybe a possible terrorist” means you shouldn’t be allowed the rights guaranteed to you as an American. No proof necessary.

Bill 1813, ”Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act”, is chock full of new ways to take away our personal freedoms.  The bill would require “stalker boxes” on our vehicles, puts a huge number of restrictions on travel and transportation within the US, allows the government to revoke documents and licenses in ambiguous language and is, in essence, nearly 1700 pages of new restrictions. (You can find a summary HERE if you don’t want to read all 1676 pages).

A Call to Action

Did your Senator vote for this bill?  There’s a good chance he or she did, as only 22 Senators voted against it.  You can find out how your senator voted HERE.

The bill was sponsored by Barbara Boxer (California) and co-sponsored by Max Baucus (Montana), James N. Inhofe (Oklahoma), and David Vitter (Louisiana). For your convenience, I’ve included links to the contact information for each of these Senators.  Be sure and send an email to let them know how you feel about this new attack on freedom.

Email your Representatives and make it very clear that you consider this Bill an act of treason against the Constitution. This directory contains email addresses and contact information for all members of Congress.

Every bill that goes through Congress right now appears to hold another threat to the Constitution (if not multiple threats).  Every word needs to be carefully analyzed so we can fight these attacks.

Daisy Luther’s blog is Inalienably Yours.

Similar/Related Articles

  1. The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights
  2. Gingrich Advocates Trashing Fourth Amendment and Bill of Rights
  3. Travis County, Texas, Mandates Parental Behavior with “Children’s Bill of Rights”
  4. 2nd Amendment Rights Protected During Emergency In Hawaii
  5. Bill Allowing IRS To Revoke Passports Described as “Stalinist”
  6. The Death of Rights Enshrined on Bill of Rights Day
  7. The Continuing Erosion of the Bill of Rights
  8. House Bill Aims to Strip “Rightwing Extremists” of Second Amendment Right
  9. Senate Rejects Amendment to ‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill
  10. Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal
  11. A dangerous bill heading toward the president would gut our rights
  12. Don’t Mute Humanity: NDAA’s War on Americans & Bill of Rights
%d bloggers like this: