Isilion

June 22, 2008

Quotable

Filed under: Tyranny

“The sovereign, after taking individuals one by one in his powerful hands and kneading them to his liking, reaches out to embrace society as a whole. Over it he spreads a fine mesh of uniform, minute, and complex rules, through which not even the most original minds and most vigorous souls can poke their heads above the crowd. He does not break men’s wills but softens, bends, and guides them. He seldom forces anyone to act but consistently opposes action. He does not destroy things but prevents them from coming into being. Rather than tyrannize, he inhibits, represses, saps, stifles, and stultifies, and in the end he reduces each nation to nothing but a flock of timid and industrious animals, with the government as its shepherd.”

~ Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

June 20, 2008

Democrats to the Rescue

Steny Hoyer

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -– and the liberty –- of the American people. ~ Barack Obama
More…

May 25, 2008

America, Where Are You Now…

Filed under: Tyranny

“What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?” Judge William B. Traxler asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.

Read More

May 10, 2008

I wonder if anyone anywhere is acutaly listening

In our time, when people are saying we must sacrifice liberty for security, that scrapping the Constitution is necessary to win the “war” against terrorism, I would suggest that you take your choice of genocides in the past 100 years and remind yourself what happens when people buy into the false proposition that the end justifies the means. People who preach that are always more interested in the means than in any end.

The only safe environment for a human being is under a weak government with very restricted powers. Normal people don’t need much to be happy – food, shelter, dignity and freedom from marauders. They need a rule of law that applies to everyone equally and at all times and in all circumstances. In established societies, legislators should meet rarely – perhaps once every two or three years – because a continuing cascade of new laws will eventually drown freedom.

The Founding Fathers, whether through luck, wisdom or divine guidance, gave us an almost perfect form of government, and we’ve been busy ever since trying to take it apart. Human beings are dangerous predators and cannot be trusted with power over their fellows. Many Americans have forgotten that the power of government comes out of the barrel of a gun. Governments coerce; they don’t persuade.

There are people living among us at this very moment capable of the cruelty so evident in the Holocaust. All they are waiting for is the opportunity. No greater opportunity exists than when a government enlists such people and says whatever you do is now justified for the sake of the “greater good.”

Read it all…

May 7, 2008

Out of control thugs

Filed under: Tyranny

This is wrong. Period.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7387629.stm

Regardless of whatever these people were suspected of doing they did not deserve this treatment. Anyone not protected by a badge who did this would not get any benefit of doubt. But the law only applies to people, not to state enforcers.

As usual, William N. Grigg, has cut right to the heart of the matter.

What we see in the video clip above is a phenomenon I’ve named a “Thugswarm.” This isn’t an example of peace officers protecting the public from lawless violence. This is an assault carried out by an armed gang, just as surely as if the assailants had been wearing the colors of the Hell’s Angels. (Come to think of it, didn’t that biker gang insist that the bloodshed at Altamont was no big deal because they were feeling a bit “on edge” owing to the size of the crowd?)
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/05/one-of-these-things-is-just-like-other.html

April 2, 2008

And the hits just keep on coming

To: Alberto Gonzales
From: John Yoo
Oct. 23, 2001
	
Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment
had no application to domestic military operations...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080402/D8VQ1NG80.html

March 7, 2008

Liberty Knows No Party

And patriots know their own…
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) discusses the REAL ID on NPR

March 6, 2008

For Future Use

I’ll expand this real soon now…

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/11/wsj/

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511—-000-.html

February 21, 2008

Res Nostra

Filed under: Politics, Tyranny, A.X. Perez

The BastardAs Thomas Paine points out, English government (the ancestor of ours) goes back to the Norman Conquest. William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy told the English people, “submit to my rule and pay my taxes or I will hurt you.” This is classic protection racketeering.

The people pointed out that while William and his Norman Knights were good, if all the people fought they could beat him. William answered this point with four distinct answers:

A. Not everyone would fight back, you may not be able to raise enough troops to beat me. Even if you
do you will wear yourself out and then the Norse, Scots, and Irish will have their way with you. I’m bad, without me you will be stuck with a worse mess.

B. I’ll protect you from the Norse, Scots, and Irish, and local bandits. So submitting will not only keep me from hurting you, it really is buying protection.

C. OK, I’ll also provide you with roads,courts of justice, and reasonably just laws. As time passes my successors will find other ways to reinvest the extortion (I mean tax money) you are paying to increase your productivity (I mean make your lives more prosperous and pleasant).

D. In conclusion pay up and I won’t hurt you and it’s cheaper to pay than fight anyhow. I will also protect you from your enemies and toss you some goodies.

The people of England agreed and William changed his sobriquet and title to the Conqueror, King of England.

About 940 years later in America…

February 16, 2008

Call it Treason?

Glenn Greenwald sums it up better than anyone else I’ve seen:

Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides that “[e]very telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of . . . customers.” 18 U.S.C. 2511 makes warrantless eavesdropping a felony; 18 U.S.C. 2702 requires that any “entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication” without a court order; 47 U.S.C. 605 states that “no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception”; and 18 U.S.C. 2520 provides for civil damages for any violations.

Like all statutes, those are all laws democratically enacted by the American people through their Congress and signed into law by the President. They were enacted precisely in order to make it illegal for telecoms to allow government spying on our calls and written communications without court orders

The principle those laws are supposed to uphold is foundational to the Constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The United States Senate has passed a bill, S.2248, and sent it to the House of Representatives which retroactively legalizes violations of the law by both the government and the telecoms and protects the telecoms from law suites specifically allowed by statute.

The are sixty-eight men and women who swore the following oath

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…


Baucus D MT Webb D VA Cornyn R TX Martinez R FL
Bayh D IN Whitehouse D RI Craig R ID McCain R AZ
Carper D DE Lieberman ID CT Crapo R ID McConnell R KY
Casey D PA Alexander R TN DeMint R SC Murkowski R AK
Conrad D ND Allard R CO Dole R NC Roberts R KS
Inouye D HI Barrasso R WY Domenici R NM Sessions R AL
Johnson D SD Bennett R UT Ensign R NV Shelby R AL
Kohl D WI Bond R MO Enzi R WY Smith R OR
Landrieu D LA Brownback R KS Grassley R IA Snowe R ME
Lincoln D AR Bunning R KY Gregg R NH Specter R PA
McCaskill D MO Burr R NC Hagel R NE Stevens R AK
Mikulski D MD Chambliss R GA Hatch R UT Sununu R NH
Nelson D FL Coburn R OK Hutchison R TX Thune R SD
Nelson D NE Cochran R MS Inhofe R OK Vitter R LA
Pryor D AR Coleman R MN Isakson R GA Voinovich R OH
Rockefeller D WV Collins R ME Kyl R AZ Warner R VA
Salazar D CO Corker R TN Lugar R IN Wicker R MS

These sixty-eight Senators violated their oath when they passed that bill. It cannot be reconciled with the Fourth Amendment. I sent a message to Barbara Mikulski, my Senator, and told her I was ashamed of the way she represented me asking her how she slept at night knowing she was undermining the foundations of or republic. Yours should hear from you, too.

December 29, 2007

LINCOLN’S FEET OF CLAY

Filed under: Politics, Tyranny

“THE GREAT EMANCIPATOR” WAS A RACIST TYRANT
By: Kevin Tuma

“My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.”

-Abraham Lincoln, August 22, 1862, Letter to Newspaper Editor Horace Greeley

In recent news, the Press has begun to pillory Ron Paul over his unconventional views of the US Civil War. It is unknown what they hope to accomplish by spotlighting a 147-year old historical event as a campaign issue; but the inference, since the discussions concern slavery, suggests a subtle attempt to smear Paul as a racist.

Before the socialist tyrant lovers in the mainstream media wax too orgasmic about using Paul’s position against him, it is worth pointing out that his position is the intelligent and informed position. It’s long since past obvious that the MSM is uninterested in reaching an intelligent, informed audience—but I’m not too sure this Lincoln debate is something they really want to dredge up into a national controversy. The odds are much too high that modern-day people may actually learn something new.

Most Americans who are products of the public school system are conditioned to love Lincoln. His image as a hero has been carefully cultivated and sugar-coated by academia and pundits.

I admired Lincoln as a child, so much so that I drew portaits of him and sculpted a bust of his head once in clay. Lincoln had interesting and noble facial features. I was proud of that sculpture, which my mother kept safe for me many years, even though its ear eventually broke off in an unfired state. Such is the hero worship a child can have for the most lionized president in American history.

The truth is both ugly and unpleasant: Not only was the ghastly, bloody war that he supposedly fought to end slavery unnecessary, Lincoln was a tyrant and an abuser of civil liberties.

The “tyrant” part is well-documented. He suspended habeas corpus. He deported a US Congressman who disagreed with the war. He had Federal police impound dissenting newspapers and smash their presses. He authorized Sherman’s March to the Sea–a war crime, by any civilized human standard.

But ‘Honest Abe’ also was not racially enlightened, as many people think. This is obvious to those who dig beneath the sugar coating of the historical image, but those who have not should start with his own words on the topic of race, from the Lincoln-Douglas debates:

“We have decided that the negro must not be a slave within our limits, but we have also decided that the negro shall not be a citizen within our limits; that he shall not vote, hold office, or exercise any political rights.”

-Abraham Lincoln, September 15, 1858
[Source: www.nps.gov]

“…I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.”

-Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858
[Source: www.nps.gov]

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

-Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858
[Source: www.nps.gov]

It can only be concluded, based upon his own words, that Abraham Lincoln may well have been a slave abolitionist, but he was also clearly a racist who considered African-Americans to be inferior human beings–if indeed he considered them human beings at all. Imagine the firestorm that would ensue today if a famous politician running for public office uttered the quotations listed above in a public forum!

Historical apologists for Lincoln mewl that the above remarks were simple political expediency–that Lincoln was bowing to the racism of the times, and that he didn’t really mean it.

Rubbish. Jefferson actually owned slaves, and never made such white separatist and piggish remarks. Ben Franklin considered the races to be equal…but then, Franklin was a sincere abolitionist who lived before his time–not an opportunist.

By contrast–according to author Lerone Bennett, at least–Lincoln was a crude bigot who habitually used the “N” word, enjoyed watching black minstrel shows and delighted in demeaning “darkie” jokes.

Lincoln also supported the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which empowered “slave catchers” in free states to arrest escaped slaves and return them to bondage. Marshals were given cash rewards for runaway slaves they returned to slavery. Marshals who refused to enforce the law were fined. Those who assisted a runaway slave, as many people in underground railroads did, were brought to justice as well. Runaways were denied the right to testify on their own behalf, and were also denied trial by jury. Lincoln did not see the law as unconstitutional, nor did he feel it should go unenforced.

Most ludicrous and disturbing of all, Lincoln was well-documented as a proponent of a separatist movement dubbed “colonization”–and in the White House, Lincoln proposed to create colonies to send black people back to Africa in Liberia, to Haiti, or to work in coal mines in Panama. Most of his plans went awry, so the colonization was not implemented. However, just a few days before his assassination, he asked General Benjamin F. Butler to study the possibility of shipping the blacks to a new colony in another location on the map.

Lincoln did not feel blacks and whites could live together. At no point, rhetorically, did the “Great Emancipator” ever deviate from that white separatist position.

Walt Disney, God bless him, probably never would have admired Lincoln enough to erect that big animatronic tribute shrine, had he known the real truth. We’ve all been sold a bill of goods on “Honest Abe”.

Racism is a hallmark of collectivists and tyrants. Adolf Hitler was a collectivist tyrant and a socialist. That’s probably why, at least early in the 1930s, the US news media had a sneaking admiration for him. They admired “Uncle Joe” Stalin, too, before news of his reign of terror leaked out enough to make him unsupportable. Both Hitler and Stalin were graced with TIME Magazine’s Man of the Year award, which really tells us all we ever need to know about the magazine in question.

The media loves tyrants. “Honest Abe” was a racist tyrant. It is therefore especially ironic that the media is now subtly attempting to paint the courtly and decent Dr. Ron Paul as a racist, using his opposition to Mr. Lincoln’s war as a rhetorical foil.

Whether the smear sticks depends upon how gullible and misinformed the public is–but in the age of the Internet, the mainstream media, as usual, is probably underestimating the opposition. In truth, a thoughtful debate on Lincoln and the War Between the States has been long overdue, and it may not be wise for the gatekeepers of the fourth estate to have that debate now, in the age of political blogging and Youtube. Especially not considering the relative youthfulness and energy of Dr. Paul’s followers.

An unintended consequence of pushing this as a campaign issue is that the Press may wind up accidentally shattering “Saint” Lincoln’s feet of clay, and bringing his whole mythology crashing down.

As the ever-cerebral Decider says, “Bring it on.” Let’s hash this out. A lot more people on the World Wide Web need to read Lincoln’s phrase, “I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” Let’s see how that quote plays in Peoria in 2008…all Americans should learn the truth about Mr. Lincoln’s view of the ‘difference in the races’.

As for Dr. Paul, there is no racist avarice in him. He is a kind, gentlemanly soul; a rare breed in Washington. He’s not politically correct, either, because he doesn’t believe in Orwellianism. But he is less prejudiced than most big-government socialists from the mainstream of the two prevailing political parties, who see racial division as a matter of campaign strategy.

Libertarians are not racists. Racism has no traction in the libertarian movement, because libertarians believe in the Power of the Individual, inalienable human rights, personal responsibility, and civil liberties. Libertarians judge people on individual merits, based on their behavior and intellect. To a true libertarian, a black man is just another man—not some sort of inferior dependent upon White Man’s Burden, or human chattel to be exploited.

Belief systems that unfortunately eluded Lincoln, historical myth to the contrary.

Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”

December 24, 2007

Well, not quite “slitting throats”

Filed under: Politics, Tyranny

“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” ~H.L. Mencken

Granted, it’s not quite “slitting throats,” but it’s the thought that counts. :)

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

Does enjoying this make me a homegrown terrorist?

October 27, 2007

Welcome to their America

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. `(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

September 5, 2007

CIA: Asleep At The Switch

Filed under: Politics, Tyranny

Bill Press, veteran radio and television talk show host discusses a recent US Inspector General’s report on the performance of the CIA in the lead up to September 11, 2001.

The money quote:

But the report is troubling, also, because it proves that the strong case made by President Bush for the Patriot Act and other preventive measures after Sept. 11 was phony. The evidence is in. It is not true, as the administration claimed, that the CIA and FBI lacked the necessary tools, prior to Sept. 11, to track down terrorists planning attacks against the United States. They had the tools. They simply didn’t use them.

read more | digg story

August 25, 2007

Apparently it is now illegal to possess cash

Filed under: Politics, Tyranny

Keep sleeping people, they’ll be coming after you next.

Need I remind you?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment 4, United States Constitution

Or is that too anachronistic for you?

Anyway, read it and weep.

ACLU sues DEA on behalf of trucker whose money was seized

The Associated Press
Aug. 24, 2007, 1:02PM
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A trucker has sued the Drug Enforcement Administration, seeking to get back nearly $24,000 seized by DEA agents earlier this month at a weigh station on U.S. 54 in New Mexico north of El Paso, Texas.

Anastasio Prieto of El Paso gave a state police officer at the weigh station permission to search the truck to see if it contained “needles or cash in excess of $10,000,” according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the federal lawsuit Thursday.

Prieto told the officer he didn’t have any needles but did have $23,700.

Officers took the money and turned it over to the DEA. DEA agents photographed and fingerprinted Prieto over his objections, then released him without charging him with anything.

Border Patrol agents searched his truck with drug-sniffing dogs, but found no evidence of illegal substances, the ACLU said.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated Prieto’s right to be free of unlawful search and seizure by taking his money without probable cause and by fingerprinting and photographing him.

“Mere possession of approximately $23,700 does not establish probable cause for a search or seizure,” the lawsuit said.

It said Prieto pulled into the weigh station about 10:30 a.m. Aug. 8 and was let go about 4 p.m.

DEA agents told Prieto he would receive a notice of federal proceedings to permanently forfeit the money within 30 days and that to get it back, he’d have to prove it was his and did not come from illegal drug sales.

They told him the process probably would take a year, the ACLU said.

The ACLU’s New Mexico executive director, Peter Simonson, said Prieto needs his money now to pay bills and maintain his truck. The lawsuit said Prieto does not like banks and customarily carries his savings as cash.

“The government took Mr. Prieto’s money as surely as if he had been robbed on a street corner at night,” Simonson said. “In fact, being robbed might have been better. At least then the police would have treated him as the victim of a crime instead of as a perpetrator.”

The DEA did not immediately respond Friday to a request for comment from The Associated Press.

Peter Olson, a spokesman for the Department of Public Safety, which oversees state police, said he could not comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit names DEA Administrator Karen P. Tandy, DEA task force officer Gary T. Apodaca, DEA agent Joseph Montoya and three state police officers identified only as John or Jane Doe.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5081398.html

digg story

Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome
Theme designed by Jay of onefinejay.com