Republican Revisionism

For the first time in American history, the founding document of our nation’s government was read aloud on the floor of the House. House Republicans decided to use the reading of the U.S. Constitution as a gesture to both the tea party movement and the American public, to claim themselves as the party deeply committed to America’s roots. But the roots they chose to portray was modified. They skipped several passages, and in doing so altered our perception of the struggle we have endured to get to where we are.

By careful selection, House Republicans, once again, chose to portray our Founding Fathers to match their own agenda. Using the excuse that certain passages were no longer relevant denies an important part of our history that, as painful and embarrassing as it was, must be remembered so that we don’t repeat those same mistakes.

Our representatives need to understand the power of mistakes as learning tools. If they go unnoticed or unacknowledged they will come back to haunt us.

Our Founding Fathers hold a place of honor in our history books, their honor should be celebrated in contemporary times as well. But only a complete and accurate telling of their greatest moments, as well as their short-comings, will keep them as human as you and me.

Even in our House of Representatives decorum and respect have escaped us. One by one, after each member read their assigned passage, they would leave chambers or fiddle about with other business. The symbolism of this historic reading, instead of showing solidarity with our Founding Fathers, showed boredom and impatience with the exercise.

The reading was interrupted when the clock hit 11:31. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) was reading from Article II, Section 1, the mandate that only a "natural-born citizen" may be elected president, when a woman rose in the public gallery and shouted: "Except Obama! Except Obama! Help us, Jesus! My name is Theresa . . . Before the "birther" could say her surname, she was removed by police guards.

The new Republican House majority has made the Constitution a part of the daily rhythms of Congress. A new rule requires that every bill contain a statement by the lawmaker who sponsored it citing the specific constitutional authority to enact the proposed legislation. This is another empty gesture that will soon be dropped out of expediency. Incorrect authority will be cited thereby losing meaning of the exercise.

Leaving out portions of the original document lead to unfounded reasons for the amendment that changed it. For instance, the "three-fifths compromise," counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of divvying congressional districts. The second dealt with runaway slaves - if they escaped to a free state, the Constitution required that they not be freed but rather "delivered up" to their owners. Both were negated by the 13th Amendment but necessary to ratifying the original document, according to historians.

Manipulating history smacks of an Orwellian society. Party members practice the philosophy which allows the Party to manipulate and control humanity. Read into this what you will, but this ‘sanitized history’ amounts to negating the struggles we have faced as a nation and those Americans who have given their lives by standing up to the challenges that face us.

Separation of Church and State: Not for the U.S. Military

I just learned that there is a test designed by the psychologist who inspired the CIA's Torture Program under George W. Bush’s regime. It is labeled as experimental, but so many of the most heinous atrocities against humankind were labeled experimental, the Tuskegee experiment, LSD experiments, Dr. Cornelius Rhoads Cancer experiment, Malaria experiments, the long list continues at Military and Government Projects.

In a current case, an Army mental-health and fitness initiative unconstitutionally requires enlistees to believe in God or a "higher power" in order to be deemed "spiritually fit" to serve in the Army. This experiment does not involve injections of life threatening toxins or diseases to unwitting participants, but it does center on a persons free will and belief system which is the very basis for our moral and ethical makeup. Can this be the next step in a secret program to transform free thinking humans into robotic killing machines without conscience? Given the history of how our fighting men and women in uniform have been viewed as lab subjects who are at the complete disposal of macabre and sick CIA whims, this idea cannot be brushed aside as fantasy or sci-fiction.

Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF)  is a $125 million "holistic fitness program" unveiled in late 2009 and aimed at reducing the number of suicides and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) cases, which have reached epidemic proportions over the past year due to multiple deployments to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the substandard care soldiers have received when they return from combat.

The Army states that it can accomplish its goal by teaching its service members how to be psychologically resilient and resist "catastrophizing" traumatic events. In other words, the Army’s goal is to cut down on this type of distraction by teaching soldiers to ‘man up’ and become numb to the ‘hell of war’ so they can concentrate on what they are trained to do, winning wars.

CSF measures soldiers' "resilience" in five core areas: emotional, physical, family, social and spiritual. Soldiers fill out an online survey, and if the results fall into a ‘red’ area, they are required to participate in remedial courses to strengthen their resilience in the disciplines in which they received low scores.

For the thousands of "Foxhole Atheists" like 27-year-old Sgt. Justin Griffith, the spiritual component of the test contains questions written predominantly for soldiers who believe in God or another deity, meaning nonbelievers are guaranteed to score poorly and will be forced to participate in exercises that use religious imagery to "train" soldiers up to a satisfactory level of spirituality. Religious imagery, in other words ‘brainwashing’.

The Army gives no option to avoid questions concerning a higher being. The only responses available assumes there is a higher being and the questions do not take into account the viewpoint of atheists. This fact shows the Army deems anyone who is a non-believer is unfit to serve in the U.S. military. It further shows that it is the Army’s belief that without faith in a higher being the person has no meaning and purpose in their life and therefore it is hard for them to make sense of what is happening to themselves and others around them.

The Army exercises verbal gymnastics in order to get around the answer, but they say religiosity is not a mandatory part of the test. If this is the case then why is it presented as such? Soldiers feel they are required to participate, under fear of disciplined by their superior officers, in remedial training if they score poorly on the spiritual portion of the test and if they didn't act on the recommendations they received after taking the exam. In fact, nowhere on the test does it state that such training is voluntary.

It's not just the First Amendment which is being blatantly violated here, clause 3 of Article 6 of the body of the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits any type of 'religious test' being used in connection with any government service. Thus, this 'spirituality' portion of the Army's CSF test completely savages this bedrock Constitutional prohibition.

U.S. Constitution: a Civil Religion

The Constitution is the law of the land. It is what Americans base our government on. It is the very bedrock of our democratic society. It is not a religion. It is not a holy missive recited to our founding fathers straight from the mouth of God.

But, this is exactly how some Democrats fear the GOP and tea party are heralding this charter. It is one of the most well-written documents in world history. It is to be respected, but treating it as if it were holy scripture endangers its very substance as well as the foundation of this great nation.

This is not an instrument of worship, it was presented to us as a guide to keep our nation on its intended course to provide every American: justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. And, through its amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, our basic freedoms. We are not required to show proof that we deserve these freedoms, they are given freely as part of the package when we become American citizens.

It’s words were carefully chosen for their meaning. I am in agreement with any political party, and others, who view the document as that which gives life to this nation. The tie in with the religious beliefs of the writers of this document cannot be ignored, nor are they asked to be, for the writers were devout in their faith while they wrote it. However, there is a statement in the Constitution that says “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Anyone stating that this document is the word of God simply does not appreciate the danger in making such a misguided and flammatory statement.

The first amendment, added just four years after the signing of the Constitution, states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I think it is clear, regardless of our founding fathers affinity to any one religion over another, that their intention was that this government will not bend to any religious belief.

The reasoning behind any quibbling over where our forefathers stood on this issue ignores the very wording of this document.

There are many who may equate their belief in this document to their belief in the bible, and to those I can only say that is your right, but merging these two into one in the name of declaring what is best for this country is an attempt to impose your personal beliefs onto others while trampling on their rights. How can you justify this given that doing so goes directly against the wording of one of the documents you hold in such high regard?

If you think you can find a justification, please state your case here.

Does Our Leadership Know What is in the Constitution?

Ever stop to consider what our leaders swear to when they are sworn into office? I have and I have questions, concerns really.

Here, in part, is the oath of office that each congressman takes: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same … ."

My question is: If our leadership takes an oath to uphold and defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, at the minimum, shouldn't they know what they are supposed to uphold, defend and be faithful to?

Congressmen, judges, the president and all other government officials take this oath. On an almost daily basis, we hear of one or more of them misquote or otherwise misuse the Constitutions powers, the Bill of Rights’ granted freedoms, and/or the well-documented intentions of very founding fathers.

If this misuse and abuse were merely ignorance of our Constitution, there'd at least be some hope because ignorance is curable through education. But, these people in Washington see themselves as our betters and rulers. They consistently show their contempt for the limits that our Constitution places on the federal government envisioned by James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who explained in the Federalist Paper 45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

The way I see it, anyone who wants to represent the American people in a position of leadership should have more than a basic understanding of our Constitution. Immigrants are required to know this stuff before they can be sworn in as American citizens. Why aren’t our leaders required to know it as well?

Is Compassion in the Media A Long-Past Concept?

I am a fan of the blog Photography is not a Crime. I think the blog author Carlos Miller does a fabulous, tireless and much needed service to the public by reporting on the continued disharmony between the police and the press.

In a recent blog post entitled Cop knocks news videographer’s camera down before handcuffing him, I commented that I understood the reason for the police officers actions and gave what I thought was a very valid reason. I did not say that I condoned the actions, I simply stated that I understood the reasoning.

Judging from the numerous responses my position generated there appears to be an abundance of sensitivity over any threat to our freedoms. This is a good thing. These freedoms are worth fighting for and in light of the governments actions in regards domestic spying and Homeland Security using terrorism as a reason to clamp down hard on all of us, there should be concern. But, I think our Freedom of the Press will survive an emotional outburst from a police officer.

I am proud to be counted among the many staunch supporters of Americas constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. It does my heart good to see such compassionate outpouring over even the slightest threat, perceived or real. Let’s not ever lose that compassion.

I condemn this police officers actions, however, I do not condemn her show of emotion. She apparently shares my concern over an obvious lack of compassion creeping into the media. I believe this lack of concern is fired by sensationalism.

Is it really necessary to record the aftermath of a fatal automobile accident? A photojournalist was quick to say yes and backs that answer with a lot of valid reasons. I have been shown that it is possible to use that video as a research tool to help society. But I don’t think this was the reporters intent in this case.

Could the tragedy of that scene be conveyed by the use of words without videotape? I say yes.

I am told that editors are compassionate enough to not allow this type of footage to be released to the public. But can we be assured this will not change in these very difficult financial times?

Newspapers are folding from lack of readership. A very jaded general public needs more and more sensationalism to grab their attention. And holding their attention for any longer than the length of a sound bite is becoming even more of a challenge. How long before publishers begin forcing editors to use bloody traffic accident photos to sell their papers? Or to use the video of the bloodied aftermath to sell ads on the internet?

There once was a time when that reporter would have been publicly shamed for having the bad taste to video a bloody traffic scene. Doing so dishonors the dignity of the human victim. I’ve been told that this kind of thinking is ‘subjective’ and therefore should not be considered. Apparently, there is no longer any room for the concern of a persons dignity when it comes to ‘news’ gathering.

Likewise, it seems human emotion and compassion from a police officer is a luxury’ we as a ‘freedom’ loving nation will no longer tolerate.

You could be a terrorist if...

clipped from www.naplesnews.com You're probably a terrorist if you supported former presidential candidates like Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or Chuck Baldwin. The guy with the flip-charts doesn't count. Yet. You're probably a terrorist if you're against the New World Order, the North American Union, and those united numbskulls, the UN. Reading Tom Clancy novels doesn't help your case. You're probably a terrorist if you're against RFIDs (Radio Frequency Identification) and universal service programs. You're probably a terrorist if you're for the US Constitution, for property rights, for national sovereignty, and for Christian ideologies. You're probably a terrorist if you stock up on things like water, baby formula, ammo, cigarettes, alcohol, denim jeans, and medicines. And for all you folks rushing out to buy guns and ammo out of fear that the current administration will enact severe gun restrictions, hey, you may have made the list as well.

If you are a puppet-on-a-string assiduously following every law to the letter, enthusiastically nodding in agreement to everything the government tells you, patriotically turning in your neighbors for every infraction of the law (both written and social), then you have nothing to worry about.

Many Americans, Republican and Democrat, have grown tired of the direction in which this country is headed. The once occasional lapse in ethics has become common place, greed and irresponsibility by our financial institutions are being rewarded in the form of ‘bailout’ tax dollars, citizens have to watch what we say and do and how we do it, self-interest has supplanted “doing what is right for this country”, special interest groups are favored over national security and welfare, food safety has been jeopardized in favor of profit.

Civil unrest is brewing and FEMA detention centers are sprouting up across the nation. http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/FEMA-Concentration-Camps3sep04.htm

SWAT action of Family Farm? Where Is the Media Coverage?

On December 1, 2008, a family-run food co-op in LaGrange Ohio, was the scene of a home invasion. These “home invaders” won’t match the images you may have of drug-crazed-addicts or some street gang bent on ripping-off the family of their possessions. No, this highly organized and heavily armed ‘gang’ was made up of police officers ordered to confiscate the livelihood and personal property of the family who runs Manna Storehouse by the Ohio Department of Agriculture.

I found this comment concerning the raid on a blog called The Complete Patient:
The family that runs the co-op tells me they were herded into the living room for 8 hours while the home and business was torn apart. They were not given reason, saying they were under investigation. All of their computers and phones, and customer information were taken, as well as $10,000 worth of beef. A ‘warrant’ which didn’t appear to be valid, showed the reason for investigation, was ‘beef’.

According to this second-hand information (neither police nor government officials deny or collaborate the story) our government, in full riot gear with semi-automatic weapons pointed at the heads of this family (children included) raided a family business who was providing grass-fed beef, lamb, pastured poultry and other Weston-Price-style foods.

There is no official story in the main stream media about this raid nor is there any official press release from Ohio Department of Agriculture, however, I did find one ‘sanitized’ report in a local paper, which is how many of the family’s neighbors heard of it. (Is the internet the last stand for true freedom of the press?). The lack of coverage, considering the level of force used in a raid of this sort, is disturbing at best. Normally, the news media is all over this type of raid. The family did say they are not talking to the press in order to protect themselves.

What little background information could be found regarding this situation still does not show that the SWAT action was warranted. It seems that the discovery of a bit of non-institutional beef in an Oberlin College food service freezer a year ago (November 2007) was tracked down by a county sanitation official to Manna Storehouse. Oberlin College’s student food coop is widely known for its strident ideological stance about eating organic foods. It seems that the Oberlin student food cooperative had joined the Manna Storehouse food cooperative in order to buy organic foods in bulk from the national organic food distributor United, which services buying clubs across the nation. The sanitation official, James Boddy, evidently contacted the Ohio Department of Agriculture. After the first contact by state ODA officials, Manna Storehouse reportedly wrote them a letter requesting assistance and guidelines for complying with the law. This letter was never answered. Rather, the ODA agent tried several times to infiltrate the coop. When his attempts failed, the SWAT team showed up!

As of December 9, the family has not been charged with any crime, nor have they been contacted by anyone concerning this raid. The speculation that the business was operating without a license is simply that, speculation. They have sent a plea for any information regarding the Ohio Department of Agriculture laws governing their enterprise and what they may have done to prompt such a raid.

Three important questions arising from this incident need to be addressed.
1: Did this SWAT action take place as reported, thus far by word of mouth, or is it a fabrication to garner sympathy for the plight of the ‘little guy’?
2: Is ODA guilty of participating in a nationwide attempt to discredit small-time local food groups in favor of corporate interests?
3: Where is the media coverage?

All three questions are disturbing.

Did this SWAT action take place?
Did SWAT swoop down and ‘terrorize’ this ‘innocent’ family as the commenter reported, or is this an exaggeration to garner sympathy for the plight of family-owned businesses who don’t want to be regulated by the government?

Whether the raid was conducted with weapons drawn or not, the raid did take place and this issue needs to be addressed. Since when does the enforcement of health and/or commerce policies warrant the use of SWAT? Why did the Health Department not simply conduct a health inspection? I am certain there are rules in place to cover this situation that are more in line with good public relations than involving law enforcement.

If the government did use such heavy-handed Gestapo-type tactics simply to confiscate this family’s business records and personal food items, then a complaint should be filed with their congressperson and violation of civil rights charges brought against ODA. Bringing such matters to light is the most obvious way of ensuring any wrongdoing by the government is exposed. However, if this family sensationalized their story simply to further their cause and attempt to manipulate public opinion, should we buy into it?

The use of a SWAT team indicates a belief that this family was “armed to the teeth” and therefore the use of such equipment was deemed necessary for the protection of team members. Absent any prior knowledge that they family was an outlaw gang, such use of law enforcement was not only irresponsible but a danger to the public.

Certainly, this alleged method belies the faith we have in our government officials to protect us from harm and they should therefore be made to pay.

At any rate, what psychological effect this raid will have on these children is anybody’s guess. And what did this experience teach them about their country, their leaders, their government, and their local law enforcement?

I realize the police are ordered from ‘on high’ to behave in the manner in which they do, but at some point the individual wearing the uniform has to take personal responsibility for his/her participation in these tyrannical methods. They must consult their moral conscience to face the fact that they can no longer shrug off their part in what they did to this family to “just doing my job”.

All of us who feel that our constitution, and the freedoms granted therein, is worth fighting for must, sooner or later, be moved to action against these atrocities, to voice our opinions and fight against this kind of tyranny.

Is there some diabolical master-plan to wipe out all corporate competition?
Why did the ODA feel it was necessary to raid a family owned and run business using law enforcement and the threat of violence instead of using a less oppressive method such as serving notice of an inspection for possible health or commerce violations?

Is the FDA and Department of Agriculture protecting us from the mean ole independent businesses promoting ‘bioterrorism’ or are they protecting a market for major corporations who only view consumers as open wallets for their own financial benefit? Keep in mind that these are the same corporations who reduce their product package size and claim to be helping the economy by not raising their prices.

The FDA has a history of conducting raids on business operations selling natural herbs and nutritional supplements with claims of promoting health. The 1990 raid on Highland Laboratories, a small vitamin company in rural Oregon; 1987 raid on Life Extension Foundation in Florida; 2007 raid of Fullife Natural Options; for a list of similar raids click here.

We are all aware of the downside of large corporations. Labor Unions have been fighting this beast on the side of the little guy for a very long time. Often times resorting to violence to get their voices heard over management for simple human rights such as a decent wage, safe working conditions, reasonable work day lengths, affordable health coverage, and other benefits that those without a union will never have. Corporations are in place to feed their financial bottom-line. And if they could cut costs like health insurance, safety procedures, and even salary, they would do it.

Wal-Mart is the poster child of ‘large corporation’ vs. the ‘little guy’ and has certainly done their part to wipe-out local businesses wherever they build their stores. Despite their initial claims to the community in which they choose to spread their empire, small businesses dry up. The resulting job gains for Wal-Mart never amount to the losses suffered from these closings. The vast majority of Wal-Mart employees are paid part time wages and work without sufficient benefits which forces taxpayers to subsidize them through food stamps and Medicaid. Money earned by Wal-Mart leaves the local economy and is pumped to its headquarters therefore local banks do not benefit from Wal-Marts’ presence. Wal-Mart buys its bulk of goods from China forcing American suppliers to cut approximately 17,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs between 2001 and 2006. In 2007, Wal-Mart brought $26.7 billion of Chinese goods into the United States and cost American workers more than 200,000 jobs.

It has taken laws to be passed to protect the interests of the worker and consumer, but now corporations have bought politicians through lobby groups and outright bribes to protect themselves against the worker and our economy is suffering for it.

Multinational corporations are taking control of seeds, animals, food, and all natural substances worldwide and the police are at their beck and call to enforce governments’ and corporations’ sway over the ‘little guy’.

The Community Alliance for Responsible Eco-farming (CARE), a private group of farmers and consumers in Pennsylvania, recently released a statement regarding the relationship between private citizens and constitutional government. Their position is basically that the government has a right to control and regulate what the government creates. If, for example, the government creates a corporation (essentially conferring “person” status to that entity) then it has every right, every duty even, to oversee it. But men are not artificial entities created by government. Men are natural, and when they act as private citizens, government must stay out of their way. In fact, government is supposed to protect citizens from the actions of any entity that might inhibit the free exercise of their natural rights. When government does otherwise it blurs the line between private and public, effectively deeming EVERYTHING public, and thus making constitutions irrelevant.

As for the ongoing attack on free enterprise, the general public does not know enough to know what is real and what is speculation because the press has yet to mount an investigation into what is happening.

Where is the media coverage?
Why is there no mainstream media coverage of how this and other family owned businesses across the country are being dealt with in such a Gestapo-like manner?

It isn’t just the local media that should be held to account, national media as well bear the blame. Blogs and word of mouth are doing what they can to get the word out but they are no real substitute for gaining national attention. We need a concerted effort along with main stream media to bring this situation into the main stream consciousness. This cannot continue to go on without public scrutiny.

The media did not cover the story of the tea man. What else are we not being told?

Summation:
We have a SWAT action on a family farm to confiscate all business-related property without revealing charges.
We have government officials imposing rules and regulations on individuals who want nothing to do with them.
We have a media that does not cover these actions.
We have a populace who looks the other way, some of which are members of law-enforcement, government and media.
These are the ingredients necessary to allow a corprafascist state to exist.
We all need to rise up against this trend before it is too late.
History is repeating itself.


Further Reading:
True history of FDA raids on healers, vitamin shops and supplement companies
Center for Micro Eco-Farming Movement
Whole Farm Coop, Local Harvest
Benefits of Healthy Whole Foods
Herbal Supplements Guide

More Evidence of Sanctified Civil Liberty Violations

Border Agents are now allowed to search you and your car and belongings without evidence or suspicion of wrong doing. They can make copies of anything you have in your possession including laptops, cell phones, personal papers, diaries, date books, etc. This collected personal information ends up on government databases to be added to your very own file which, of course, you cannot access but every law enforcement agency across the country can, with or without a valid reason.

If citizens were not aware that there are unethical individuals in law enforcement and scattered throughout the government who can access these files, and if we did not know that files get ‘lost’, and if we were not aware that computer files get hacked into, why would we worry? But these things have all become reality and pervasive.

First Amendment rights are one of the last protections we Americans have against this government becoming a Fascist state. And since George W Bush was first elected, his gang of neo conservatives have been relentlessly hacking away at these protections at an alarming rate.

These recent policy changes that were quietly put into effect without proper guidelines or oversight are strong reminders that freedom from government intrusion into our private lives can no longer be taken for granted.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said the updating of policies reflects an effort to be more transparent. If they are attempting to be more ‘transparent’ then why did it take a lawsuit brought against them by Asian Law Caucus and Electronic Frontier Foundation under the Freedom of Information Act to get DHS to disclose these changes? Why were these changes put into effect 'quietly' without public input or review? More double-speak from Big Brother.

In an e-mail she wrote

"to change some of the standards in its old policies reflects the realities of the post-9/11 environment, the agency's expanded mission and legal authorities, and developments in the law, including the Homeland Security Act of 2003. Although certain aspects of the policies have changed, the policies have always reflected the notion that officers have the constitutional authority to inspect information presented at the border"

Referring to the previous policy as ‘old’ connotes an outdated and therefore ineffective policy that must be updated. This old policy reflected a higher standard by Federal agents to be governed by probable cause before viewing a traveler as a suspect without probable cause. This higher standard was reflective of the population at large who used to believe that an individual was innocent until proven guilty. This notion has now been tossed aside and relegated to nostalgia along with elders are wiser and deserve to be listened to and respected.

Declaring that information is ‘presented’ at a border crossing intimates that the information is given freely by the traveler. This cannot be further from the truth. Any personal item brought to the border remains personal, and as such requires permission by the owner to be viewed by anyone else, including government agents, and is not ‘presented’ at all. Identification of the individual is ’presented’ at the officers request (demand), and everything else should remain off limits unless freely ‘presented’ by the owner.

She speaks of constitutional authority without mentioning the constitutional rights concerning privacy. This is government speak for we have the right to do and take whatever we want from anyone at anytime.

The 1986 policy, which is referred to as old, was issued after a lawsuit was filed by a group of activists returning from Nicaragua who had their diaries, datebooks and other personal papers seized and photocopied by customs officers and shared with the FBI. The government argued that the customs agency had the right to enforce a law against importing subversive literature. Their subversive literature was an attempt to inform the American public of the illegal war in Nicaragua perpetrated by our government to overthrow a freely and fairly elected Nicaraguan government.

David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who was then a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, representing the activists suing the government in Heidy v. U.S. Customs Service, said

"Essentially they were using that as a pretext to do intelligence gathering on critics of our policies on Nicaragua".

As a result of that trial, U.S. Customs officials enacted guidelines to its border agents that its officers "should not read personal correspondence." With reasonable suspicion of a violation, they could detain the material. With probable cause of a violation, they could seize and copy it. These recent changes have lowered the legal standards under which agents can exercise their powers. Probable cause is no longer a hindrance to their ‘gut’ instinct.

I appreciate the task with which Homeland Security is steeling themselves for, that being to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil, but their zeal in this endeavor is treating U.S. citizens like criminals. Is there any clear evidence that they have prevented another terrorist attack? Their mindset is such that if they have not yet found evidence of an attack then they are not looking closely enough, therefore they need to step up their efforts. In the meantime, the FBI is getting closer to realizing its dream of having a dossier on every U.S. citizen.

The tenor of the way in which our elected officials view the American people has changed. No longer do government officials feel they represent us or work for us, they now view the general population as obstacles that must be overcome in order to attain their goal of a one world government. George W was elected by a right-leaning supreme court, not by popular vote. Will it happen again this election cycle? A precedence has already been set.

In light of these policy changes and the way in which Bush’s cronies have hacked away at our civil rights, the systematic shifting of powers from Congress to the Executive branch, the suspension of habeas corpus and declaration of certain prisoners as “enemies of the state”, the use of torture, the illegal warrantless spying on American citizens, the unwarranted ability to seize personal items at the borders, the selling off of America to private interests, and the recent government buyout of Wall Street, is it really any great stretch to see Fascism just on the horizon?

Are Protestors Viewed as Terrorists by the U.S.?

We can remind the FBI and the Secret Service that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants American citizens the right to free speech, but it will fall on death ears. These stone-faced, stoic protectors of our government officials are told to ensure that our highest ranking government officials never are witness to our protestations. They even have it written in their own manual how to keep protesters away from the President as well as the media.

One glaringly huge loophole in the First Amendment, that this administration in particular has abused to the extreme, is that it does not guarantee that our exercise of this right must be witnessed by our government officials. With the presidential advance team exercising their mandated duties to ensure that protesters are out of earshot of the president and relocated well out of sight of the president, just what good is the Right to Free Speech when armed bullies forcibly remove the messengers from the area?

The American Civil Liberties Union is taking their job very seriously as well. The ACLU and the ACLU of New Mexico filed a lawsuit on January 15, 2008, on behalf of several New Mexico residents and advocacy organizations who were made to stand more than 150 yards (that’s one and a half football field lengths, for you football fans out there) away from the site of a fundraiser being attended by the president as they peacefully protested the views of the administration, while a group of people expressing support for President Bush were allowed to stand only a few feet from the fundraiser site.

Favoritism? You bet your ass. Favoritism is one of the hallmarks of this administration. Not giving a damn about what his opponents have to say is another. It falls in the same category as refusing to sit down with his enemies to work toward peace instead of hiding behind his military giving out orders to attack. To hide himself away from disagreements, cheapens his stature as a leader. Keeping himself shielded from what his own citizenry has to say whitewashes his reality of our world and makes himself look even more ridiculous when he claims to be ‘in touch’ with American citizens.

Some agents carry their job too far. They block free speech written on t-shirts. They block free speech with larger posters to block out disagreeable ones.

Jeffery and Nicole Rank were arrested at one of the President’s speeches in Charleston, West Virginia, for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts. They settled their case for $80,000.

Leslie Weise and Alex Young were ejected from one of the President's speeches in Denver, Colorado, for arriving at the event in a car with the bumper sticker reading "No More Blood For Oil."

It is bad enough that protesters are forced out of sight and told to keep their opinions to themselves but when armed agents of our government start getting physical and using excessive force against targeted dissenters, then the situation becomes discriminatory, illegal and an affront to every American’s sense of freedom.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/26084prs20060706.html getting physical and using excessive force

This increased level of violence and discrimination against protesters can only lead to one conclusion, that our federal government has deemed us to be terrorists. Those of us who care enough about the sanctity of our given right to protest this president’s deeds and misdeeds, have been demonized by our public servants and the ultra conservative right wing radio talk show hosts who label themselves patriots just because they tow the party line.

How did the term patriot become so bastardized as to be limited to only those people who blindly follow wherever the president leads? Their definition is ludicrous and by adhering to this twisted view they willingly subject themselves to falling under tyrannical control. They find it insanely ridiculous that any true American citizen cannot simply accept whatever our president tells us.

"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then, they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics. I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up." -- Reverend Martin Neimoller, German Lutheran pastor arrested by the Gestapo in 1937

History is no stranger to this breed of patriot. Their past deeds are scary, immoral, illegal and lethal. These are the type of people who blacklist citizens and sabotage their futures based solely on suspicion-McCarthyism; these are the type of people who break into political opponents offices-Watergate; these are the type of people who arrest innocent citizens under the banner of national security-the Gestapo; these are the type of people who hang innocent citizens for being different than themselves-KKK; these are the type of people who resort to illegal wiretapping on American citizens because they are afraid of losing their power over us-NSA warrantless surveillance program.

It is against their doctrine to simply accept our difference of opinion on how this county should be run and allow us our right to say so. They have to spy on us and infiltrate our ranks and even enter our names in a terrorist database as though we are common criminals with an agenda to bring down this government.

The hired enforcers of America’s patriot idealism are a special group of individuals unto themselves. Ultra conservative with a license to harass, they are almost robotic in their strict, single-minded adherence to the enforcement of governmental policy. Homeland Security, FBI and CIA have all the makings of a Gestapo force and they will arrest anyone who speaks out against the president. We have already seen proof of this. It matters little to the victims of these tactics or others who may now think twice about exercising their right to free speech that the courts found in favor of the victims. The mindless minions of the government are ready and willing to step on us whenever and wherever they see fit.

I ask you, how far from the Gestapo of 1930’s Germany have we really come?

Are protesters terrorist? Only in the eyes of those who are protested against. Should we allow them to dictate when and where we protest? Absolutely not. It isn’t a matter of fighting against this government as fanatical Islamic terrorists are. We protest out of love for our country not to be the instrument of its destruction.

Very few of us today are willing to follow the path of those true patriots who fought to free this fledgling nation from the tyranny of England’s King George. But we simply cannot stand idly by and watch in abject horror as this president systematically undermines all that our forefathers protested for, fought for and died for just to appease those who paid money for the privilege of being counted among George W Bush’s cronies.

These so-called modern-day patriots have forsaken their fellow countrymen and placed protesters on the ‘other side’ instead of listening to the protests and taking something positive from what is said with the goal to make this nation stronger and less divisive. We are all in this thing together. It is not ‘Us vs. Them’.

President Bush’s abuse of Congress

This political system of ours is a strong one. It will withstand any onslaught from within and from the outside. But it will do so only if Americans know what specific powers each of its branches of government have and only if those branches diligently and relentlessly exercise their own powers that are designed to hold each others power in check.

President Bush is no stranger to controversy on how he has usurped the power of Congress to declare war. He has also abused his office in declaring his right to spy on his fellow Americans and has used corporations to help him pull off this illegal and heinous activity as well as a long list of other crimes against the Constitution.

The current White House has made a mockery of what our forefathers deemed was the perfect union of the three branches of government and continues to do so unchecked by the very safeguards that were built into our Constitution.

I found an article on AntiWar.com written by Thomas R. Eddlem back in February 2006. This essay addresses the presidential powers, and lack thereof, as succinctly as any I have read. I present the link here in hopes of further enlightening as many Americans as possible to how President Bush’s ego has sought to destroy the balance that our forefathers instilled in our constitution. Mr. Eddlem has more clearly outlined the presidents role in politics much better than I ever could. I thank-you Mr. Eddlem for your articulation in this much needed clarification.