Saturday, January 07, 2012

Fighting Back!

*******

*******
Virginia Says No to Lawless Imprisonment
By David Swanson
Global Research, February 29, 2012
War Is A Crime - 2012-02-28
Good things do come out of the Virginia state legislature. That normally reprehensible body has just stood up to the federal outrage that has come to be known as the NDAA. The letters stand for the National Defense Authorization Act, but at issue here is not the bulk of that bill. Virginia's state government has no objection to dumping our grandchildren's unearned pay into the pockets of war profiteers while our schools lack funding. At issue is the presidential power to lock people up without a trial, which was slipped into the latest military funding bill late last year and signed into law by President Barack Obama on New Year's Eve. In fact, Virginia's legislature does not object to that abuse except in one particular circumstance, namely when the victim of it is a U.S. citizen. But in that circumstance, Virginia says Hell No.
Locally in Charlottesville, we rallied at Republican Congressman Robert Hurt's office.
We urged him to vote No, and he did so, saying:
"After studying the controversial provisions and after hearing from many in the Fifth District, I concluded that the detainee provisions in the bill did not provide clear and unambiguous protection of the constitutional rights of American citizens. For this reason, I opposed the bill on final passage."
Groups from across the political spectrum, including the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, urged passage of a bill in Virginia's state legislature to nullify the new provisions.
Both houses have now passed the bill by veto-proof margins.
Here's what the bill (House bill 1160) says:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. § 1. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no agency of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, political subdivision of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, employee of either acting in his official capacity, or member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force, when such a member is serving in the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force on official state duty, shall aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of any citizen pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-18, § 1021) if such aid would place any state agency, political subdivision, employee of such state agency or political subdivision, or aforementioned member of the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, and provision of the Code of Virginia, any act of the General Assembly, or any regulation of the Virginia Administrative Code.
The bill’s primary sponsor, Delegate Bob Marshall, said:
"During World War II, the federal government incarcerated tens of thousands of loyal Japanese Americans in the name of national security. By this bill, Virginia declares that it will not participate in similar modern-day efforts. Even President Obama had questions about the bill, when he promised the American people that he would not use the unrestrained powers it granted him — but why should we trust any President with such powers? There are moments in our history when our liberties hang in the balance. This is one of those moments. I urge the Senate...to lead the way in the nation to ensure that Virginia will not cooperate when the Federal Government strays off the reservation with laws that take away the civil liberties of our citizens."
Presumably the phrase "strays off the reservation" was used with intended irony. In any event, Delegate Marshall got this one right. Obama had insisted on being given these powers and then bizarrely promised not to use them, or at least not to use them in certain ways. According to Obama's promise in his signing statement, he will choose not to imprison us through the military. Our lawless imprisonments, if non-military, will comply with his promise and his law, but not with the U.S. Constitution. And Virginia will not assist. I can't recall the last time a state or federal government claiming to represent me did something that made me feel more, rather than less, safe. Predictably, this surprise came from Virginia's normally medieval legislature before anything of the sort has emerged from war-warped Washington.
Here's some background on where this issue came from, last December:
These were among the complaints registered the last time this nation had a king:
"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."
To prevent the U.S. government from behaving like a king, the drafters of the U.S. Constitution empowered an elected legislature to write every law, to declare every war, and to remove its executive from office. To further prevent the abuse of individuals' rights, those authors wrote into the Constitution, even prior to the Bill of Rights, the right to habeas corpus and the right never to be punished for treason unless convicted in an open court on the testimony of at least two witnesses to an overt act of war or assistance of an enemy.
President Barack Obama waited until New Year's Eve to take an action that I suspect he wanted his willfully deluded followers to have a good excuse not to notice. On that day, Obama issued an unconstitutional signing statement rewriting a law as he signed it into law, a practice that candidate Obama had rightly condemned. The law that Obama was signing was the most direct assault yet seen on the basic structure of self-governance and human rights that once made all the endless U.S. shouting of "We're number one!" significantly less ludicrous. The National Defense Authorization Act is not a leap from democracy to tyranny, but it is another major step on a steady and accelerating decade-long march toward a police-and-war state.
President Obama has claimed the power to imprison people without a trial since his earliest months in office. He spoke in front of the Constitution in the National Archives while gutting our founding document in 2009. President Obama has claimed the power to torture "if needed," issued an executive order claiming the power of imprisonment without trial, exercised that power on a massive scale at Bagram, and claimed and exercised the power to assassinate U.S. citizens. Obama routinely kills people with unmanned drones.
The bill just signed into law, as sent to the President, said this:
"Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force."
In other words, Congress was giving its stamp of approval to the unconstitutional outrages already claimed by the President. But then, why create a new law at all? Well, because some outrages are more equal than others, and Congress had chosen to specify some of those and in fact to expand some of them. For example:
"Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war."
And this:
"The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."
Jon Stewart explained when those detained without trial under the law might be released: "So when the war on terror ends, and terror surrenders and is no longer available as a human emotion, you are free to go."
An exception for U.S. legal residents and citizens was kept out of the bill at President Obama's request.
So why did Obama threaten to veto the bill initially and again after it passed the Senate? Well, one change made by the conference committee was this (note the crossed-through text):
"The Secretary of Defense President may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States."
The reference here is to military tribunals. The President — that is, the current one and future ones — need not hand someone over even to a military tribunal if . . . well, if he (or she) chooses not to.
That was the most power Obama could have transferred to the White House in this bill. But it was not absolute power, and was therefore not good enough. Hence the signing statement, the relevant portion of which begins:
"Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded."
This is Bush-Cheneyspeak for "I will not comply with the following sections of this law despite signing it into law."
After having persuaded the Congress to remove an exception for U.S. legal residents, Obama has the nerve in the signing statement to assert, not that the law makes any such exception, but that he personally will choose to do so, at least for U.S. citizens. Future presidents may lock U.S. citizens up without trials, but Obama won't do so. He promises:
"I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."
The first two sentences above are highly unusual if not unprecedented. Most, if not all, of Bush and Obama's law-altering signing statements up to this point have not sought to clarify what a particular administration would choose to do. Rather, they have focused on declaring parts of the laws invalid. Usually this is done in a manner misleadingly similar to the third sentence above. By claiming the power to interpret a law in line with the Constitution, Bush and Obama have each on numerous occasions asserted the view that the Constitution grants presidents far-reaching powers that cannot be restricted by legislation. If Obama had wanted to deny that this law could be applied to U.S. citizens (or legal residents), the above paragraph would look very different, although equally unusual in that it would then be rejecting power rather than claiming it.
Also note, as Marcy Wheeler has already pointed out, Section 1021 applies to any detention, and Obama promises only not to subject U.S. citizens to indefinite military detention. While locked away forever without a trial you'll be able to take comfort that yours is a non-military imprisonment.
Also, remember that Obama claims and exercises the power to kill U.S. citizens or anyone else (arguably at least as serious a violation of rights as imprisonment!), and for that he will use the military if he sees fit, or even allow the military to operate freely.
Also notice that legal residents are not included in the category of citizens.
Next, Obama declares Section 1022 on military custody "ill-conceived." His personal right to a waiver, won through the conference committee, was not enough. Obama insists on also erasing this section of law: "I reject," he writes,
"any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations. I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. ... I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation."
Obama goes on to reject several other sections of the law, including restrictions on his unlimited power to rendition prisoners to other countries. Among the notable rejections is this:
"Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section."
In other words, U.S. prisoners held in Afghanistan will not be given even any formal pretense of a legalistic review of their status unless Obama and his Secretary of "Defense" see fit.
I've just been editing a forthcoming book in which one of the contributors writes:
"In 1971, Congress passed the Anti-Detention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a), which states that "no person shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Fred Koramatsu, who had brought the unsuccessful case before the Supreme Court, was eventually awarded the Medal of Freedom. Congress apologized and provided for limited reparations for this heinous act."
The author is referring to the unconstitutional indefinite detention of Japanese and Japanese-Americans during World War II. This type of criminal abuse for which Congress had to apologize and pay reparations, and for which there is a misleadingly pro-war-looking memorial hidden between the U.S. Capitol and Union Station, has now been effectively sanctioned by our Constitutional Scholar in Chief.
My chief regret is that we have not seen the major resistance we could have, and without any doubt would have, seen to this if only Obama were a Republican.
*******
Court Criticizes Obama DHS on Stealth Amnesty Document
By NWV News Writer Jim Kouri
February 6, 2012
A watchdog group that investigates, exposes and prosecutes government corruption announced Thursday that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling criticizing President Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for failing to abide by Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) law.
According to Jill Farrell, Director of Public Affairs for Judicial Watch, JW officials filed their original FOIA request with DHS on August 30, 2010, and then followed up with a lawsuit on March 23, 2011, after the DHS stonewalled the release of records.
The Obama administration filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the lawsuit on August 4, 2011, asking the court to terminate the watchdog group’s lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted DHS’s motion regarding some select records, but also denied the motion in part and chastised the agency for its inadequate explanations as to why it was withholding certain documents:
• Regarding assertions of attorney-client privilege, the court listed a series of “egregious” examples demonstrating DHS’s unwillingness to specify reasons for exempting documents from disclosure and concluded, “In the end, DHS’s generalized and non-specific showing fails to satisfy the court that the attorney-client privilege has been properly invoked in connection with the information withheld from Judicial Watch.”
• The court drew a similar conclusion regarding memoranda and communications that DHS was withholding pursuant to the attorney work product privilege, which protects materials “prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative.” The court ruled: “Absent a more particularized showing from DHS, the Court cannot conclude that DHS has applied the appropriate standard in this case…”
• Regarding the deliberative process privilege, which protects “documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising a part of the process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote, “The Court agrees with Judicial Watch that DHS has failed to provide sufficient factual context for much of the information withheld under the deliberative process privilege to allow the Court to conclude that the privilege has been properly invoked.”
Although the court had the ability to force disclosure under these circumstances, Judge Kollar-Kotelly allowed DHS one “final” opportunity to establish the applicability of these privileges to the information withheld from Judicial Watch.
The Obama administration’s campaign to suspend the deportations of most illegal aliens has been subject to intense scrutiny since 2010, when the press uncovered a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services memo that contemplated various “administrative alternatives” to bypass Congress and implement stealth amnesty for illegal aliens. A subsequent Houston Chronicle story exposed an effort by the administration to suspend the deportations of illegal aliens who supposedly have not been convicted of any “serious” crimes.
Documents previously uncovered by Judicial Watch show that DHS officials misled Congress and the public about the scope of the immigration enforcement policy change, which gave wide latitude to local immigration officials to dismiss illegal alien deportation cases – including the dismissal of charges against illegal alien criminals convicted of violent crimes. The Obama administration announced recently that it would effectively halt any enforcement actions (on an alleged “case-by-case” basis) against any illegal alien who has not committed any other “serious” crimes.
“The court’s ruling shows the secrecy games by the Obama DHS. Clearly the Obama administration wants to obscure the truth about its lawless illegal alien deportation policy. The Obama DHS believes it should be able to withhold records from the American people without explanation or justification. We’re pleased the court would not allow DHS to continue its contempt for FOIA law. We look forward to continuing our legal pursuit of these records,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Illegal Deportation Actions by Obama Administration
Aspart of President Barack Obama's "new immigration and deportation strategy," all U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers must complete a training program that stresses removing high-risk offenders while at the same time forgo the deportation of illegal immigrants with clean records and strong ties to their communities, said the ICE officers' union officials on Friday.
According to federal law enforcement officials, a majority of ICE’s commanding officers and prosecuting attorneys have completed the training seminar, but the National ICE Council, which represents agency’s more than 6,000 immigration officers, has not allowed its members to enroll in the new training program.
The tough and outspoken president of the National ICE Council, Chris Crane, has opposed many of the president’s strategies, arguing that Obama’s policies force ICE officials to disregard the law.
In separate statements, officials from the border patrol agents union have also criticized Obama's immigration and border security policies.
On one occasion, while testifying before the House Judiciary subcommittee, Crane accused Obama of pandering to Latino groups for political gain.
“Law enforcement and public safety have taken a back seat to attempts to satisfy immigrant advocacy groups,” Crane told the panel of congressmen.
For radio interviews regarding this article:
*******
Another Victory for Principle
By Attorney Jonathan Emord
Author of "The Rise of Tyranny" and "Global Censorship of Health Information"
February 6, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
Last week I explained how the Supreme Court had defended the right of a church to fire a minister, relying on original principles underlying the First Amendment Religion Clauses (the free exercise and establishment clauses). This week I am pleased to report on another Supreme Court decision that stands as a victory for principle: United States v. Jones (decided January 23, 2012). In Jones, the Supreme Court relied on original principles underlying the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches to hold an FBI/local police attachment of a GPS tracking device to a car unconstitutional. This return to original principles is an essential pivot by the Court and may signal a movement to restore the Founding Fathers’ republic.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: “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.”In Jones, the Government (the FBI and the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia) attached a GPS tracking device to a car and monitored the car’s whereabouts. The Government suspected that the car’s owner, Antoine Jones, was engaged in illicit narcotics transactions in the District of Columbia and surrounding areas. Although the Government obtained a warrant, by the time the GPS device was attached to the car, the warrant had expired. Moreover, the Government attached the GPS in Maryland, outside the jurisdiction (the District of Columbia) where the warrant authorized the attachment. The United States District Court granted, in part, a pre-trial motion to suppress the GPS obtained evidence on the basis that it violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. The District Court held that the data gathered from the GPS device while the car was parked in a garage adjacent to Jones’ residence violated the Fourth Amendment, but that the data gathered from the GPS device while the car drove on the public streets was admissible. That Court relied on precedent stemming from Katz v. United States in which the Supreme Court held that no Fourth Amendment violation would occur without proof that the person searched had a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The District Court in Jones held that a “person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another,” and, so, it allowed data obtained by the GPS from transportation on public streets to be admitted into evidence. Although the initial trial of Jones ended in a hung jury, the Government retried Jones and secured a conviction on the second attempt. He was sentenced to life in prison.
Jones appealed the decision, and the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the conviction without reaching the Fourth Amendment privacy issue, holding that because a car is an “effect” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and because the search was warrantless (the GPS device having been attached after the warrant expired and in the wrong jurisdiction), the Fourth Amendment was violated.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court in review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. He defined the issue consistent with the Founding Fathers’ conception of the Fourth Amendment: “It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.” Suddenly, and profoundly, the Court focused on the original understanding of a constitutional provision, revivifying the Founding Fathers’ principles that have for so long been relegated to a condition of exile (to paraphrase United States Court of Appeals Judge Douglas Ginsburg). Scalia reverted to the property rights ideological basis underlying the Fourth Amendment, the amendment’s essential common law trespass foundation. He wrote: “The text of the Fourth Amendment reflects its close connection to property . . . . Consistent with this understanding, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was tied to common-law trespass, at least until the latter half of the 20th Century.”
Without abandoning the precedent from the mid to late 20th Century (holding Fourth Amendment protection present when the Government invades areas in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy), Scalia expanded the protective compass of the amendment to embrace the original understanding, writing: “What we apply is an 18th century guarantee against unreasonable searches, which we believe must provide at a minimum the degree of protection [the Fourth Amendment] afforded when it was adopted.” The Court therefore affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, reversing Jones’ conviction.
United States v. Jones marks another instance in which the Supreme Court has based its decision on the original understanding of constitutional provisions in issue. Earlier in the month of January, the Court restored original meaning to the Religion Clauses by denying the EEOC the power to second guess a church congregation’s decision to fire a minister. In United States v. Jones, the Court likewise restored the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment by denying federal and state police the power to attach a GPS device without a warrant to the vehicle of a suspected criminal, re-establishing the common law trespass foundation to the Fourth Amendment.
The two decisions stand as victories for principle and bode well for the future. Although the Court, particularly in the Jones’ decision, reveals ideological divides among its members, there is an unmistakable movement afoot to restore the Founding Fathers’ understanding of the meaning of constitutional provisions. If that movement continues, the Court will be well-positioned to help restore the government to the limited federal republic of the Constitution’s design (from the unlimited bureaucratic oligarchy it has become since the 1930’s). Individual liberty and prosperity depends on that restoration.
Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Congressman Ron Paul calls Jonathan “a hero of the health freedom revolution” and says “all freedom-loving Americans are in [his] debt . . . for his courtroom [victories] on behalf of health freedom.” He has defeated the FDA in federal court a remarkable eight times, six on First Amendment grounds, and is the author of Amazon bestsellers The Rise of Tyranny, and Global Censorship of Health Information. He is also the American Justice columnist for U.S.A. Today Magazine. For more info visit Emord.com.
Website: Emord.com
*******
*******
36 States Did Not Ratify 17TH Amendment - What Will States Do?
By: Devvy Kidd
January 16, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
The outrage continues over the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) passed by the U.S. Senate. Those political animals have confirmed rotten, activist judges for decades destroying our lives and that includes the U.S. Supreme Court. Dr. Richard Cordero put together an extensive collection of evidence to politically correct, Justice Sonia Sotomayor is guilty of fraud and a participant in a cover-up in concealing assets as part of a judicially run and tolerated bankruptcy fraud scheme.
GOP Senators Ignore Sotomayor's Criminal Activities: http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd455.htm
Sotomayor lied through omission on her original sworn statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee and even though she made a correction, she continued to lie about a condo she owns in Florida. Webofdeception.org uncovered the documents.
Sotomayor's confirmation vote rescheduled: http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd457.htm
Despite all the hard proof, the Senate Judiciary still confirmed an individual who should have been indicted by a federal grand jury; the statute of limitations has probably now run out. The U.S. Senate was too cowardly to deny Sotomayor a seat on the court because of her ethnicity and back lash by special interest voting blocs.
On May 18, 2006, those poltroons once again voted like lunatics: "The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment — even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents." Yes, illegal employment are the key words, but you can bet any senator who voted for it will get votes from millions of illegal aliens who are voting - illegally.
One can fill a book with anti-American, unconstitutional bills and treaties passed by the U.S. Senate in my lifetime. Like the U.S. House of Representatives, they continue to vote massive borrowed dollars for unconstitutional cabinets like the EPA, the Federal Department of Education, foreign aid and more - without a scintilla of legal authority to do so.
This issue is both constitutional and legal. First let me address the issue of what the Seventeenth Amendment is for those who might not know: It was a proposed constitutional amendment which would allow election of U.S. Senators by the people. Of course, this is 1,000 percent the opposite of those wise men who birthed this constitutional republic.
When the First Continental Congress was convened via a resolution of the Congress of the Confederation, one of the first issues discussed on May 29, 1787, was the balance of power for a newly created federal government:
3. Resolved, that the National Legislature ought to consist of two branches.
4. Resolved, that the member of the first branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several States every _____ for the term of _____; to be of the age of ____years at least and so forth.
5. Resolved, that the members of the second branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by those of the first, out of a proper number of persons nominated by the individual Legislatures, to be of the age of ____ years at least and so forth.
James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers #45: "The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures." John Jay, co-author of The Federal Papers is quoted: "Jay then informed Governor Clinton that, unlike the Senate, where the two-thirds rule was in force for treaties and impeachment, the lower house had nothing to do with treaties; it represented the people whereas the Senate represented the states--for the Federalists always a significant distinction."
The framers of the Constitution wisely understood the absolute necessity of ensuring we the people would have the right to vote for our representative in Congress, and at the same time because they all jealously guarded freedom and liberty, the states must also have equal representation. We the people would have the ability to remove via the ballot box, miscreants and scoundrels, while the state legislatures could recall their U.S. Senators who acted against the best interests of their state.
The Senate was supposed to be a sort of checks and balances, but that noble concept disappeared when U.S. Senators were then voted into office by special interests and mobs demanding more and more from the people's treasury. The absolute right of the states to equal representation was wiped out when the Seventeenth Amendment was declared ratified on April 8, 1913.
The level of ignorance on this issue shocks even me. I once read a comment below a news item regarding former senate candidate, Joe Miller, [R-AK] after he came out supporting a repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. The useful fool who submitted the comment said old Joe wouldn't have to run for office and worry about getting beat. Miller's opponent and alleged eventual winner, Lisa Murkowski, RINO, opened the pie hole in her face: "...was the first to criticize Miller's comments, issuing a news release entitled “Joe Miller reaching new extremes every day.”
“We have seen Joe Miller take some extraordinary positions in this campaign, but I never imagined he would support disenfranchising himself and every other Alaskan,” Murkowski said in a statement. “Joe is no longer content with simply taking away federal support for Alaskan families, now he wants to take away their right to select our United States senators.”
Yeah, those who gave their lives and blood to create this republic reached "new extremes" when they voted to create two separate bodies for the U.S. Congress, one for the people and one for the states.
Think Murkowski wants to give up her power as a U.S. Senator? When pig's fly. That foolish hen votes for legislation that affects my life and I can't vote her out of office. Another dangerous female, Olympia Snowe, RINO from Maine, voted for the unconstitutional Obamacare declaring her constituents wanted it! Well, I'm not her constituent and I sure as hell don't want it. The vile, Charles Schumer, [D-NY] would like to see the Second Amendment wiped off the books and every time he votes for a bill, I have no way to send his "progressive" backside packing.
The U.S. Senate over the years has ratified treaties killing nearly eight million good paying jobs sending them overseas. This has had a direct impact upon the states as far as growth, unemployment and so many problems, it would take fifty columns to cover. All because of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that was not ratified by the necessary number of states at the time - 36.
I know, there are a lot of groups out there pounding the pavement begging the outlaws in the U.S. Congress to repeal that amendment. No. How many more lies are we going to support? It sickens me to think about the lies from Pearl Harbor to the Bay of Tonkin, KAL 007, the OKC bombing, 9/11, you name it. How many more lies do we cover up instead of standing up for the truth and dealing with it?
The truth is the outlaws in the U.S Congress are not going to repeal that amendment even if it were legally ratified. House members want a senate seat and senators want the White House.
I have been on this fraud for more than 15 long years. Over the course of 2011, I sent a handful of state representatives and a couple senators proof that amendment was not ratified. Really, a massive amount of documentation. I ask if they would file a lawsuit in their official capacity as state legislators to stop any senate candidate or incumbent from being on the ballot in their state; standing would not be an issue. No one has the right to run for the U.S. Senate under a law that does not exist, period.
While not the course I suggested, I thought my prayers were answered when I found out a bill was written and was to be introduced this month in the New Hampshire General Court (Legislature): H.B. 1126 - "This bill requires members of the general court to nominate candidates for United States. senator."
However, last week I felt like I had been sucker punched when I found out from Rep. Davenport that due to a procedural error, the bill will not be introduced this session. I do thank Rep. Davenport and his colleagues for their work which will continue on this issue.
While it is devastating, it's not the end. That bill, should it have been introduced, would have prompted the question: "Wait - we can't do that. The Seventeenth Amendment allows direct election of U.S. senators." That would be true, however, no one can find the vote by California making ratification one state short even if you pooh-pooh away all the errors by states during the ratification process. Bill Benson originally researched the Sixteenth Amendment non ratification nearly 30 years ago; he also did the Seventeenth at the same time. What I have done is back up his research and more. Now many state legislators have it and so do you.
Over the past decade and a half, I've heard the stonewalling and excuses about changes to the amendment made by states: punctuation and actual word changes not mattering. Wrong. More than a decade ago, Constitutional attorney, Larry Becraft, who has more than 35 years experience fighting in federal courts and giving the IRS some of it's worst bloody noses, filed a lawsuit in the State of Oklahoma over the non ratification of the 16th Amendment; known as the federal income tax amendment. He writes:
The legal necessity for concurrence in legislative acts.
Philander Knox was Secretary of State back in 1913 and was by law the public official to whom the States which allegedly ratified this amendment were to send their notices of ratification. When enough of these documents were received by Knox, he commenced a review of them and drafted a report dated February 15, 1913. Therein, Knox noted that "under the provisions of the Constitution a legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed by Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely in the right to approve or disapprove the proposed amendment." But having said this, Knox went on in the same report and noted all the various changes that the states had made to the amendment.
“This proposition that state legislatures cannot alter or change a proposed constitutional amendment is derived from an establish legal principle which requires that legislative bodies, when considering any given legislative act, must agree to the exact same wording and punctuation of that proposed law. This legislative principle was discussed in a booklet titled How Our Laws Are Made, Document Number 97-120, 97th Congress, First Session, written by Edward F. Willett, Jr., Law Revision Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives:
"Each amendment must be inserted in precisely the proper place in the bill, with the spelling and punctuation exactly the same as it was adopted by the House. Obviously, it is extremely important that the Senate receive a copy of the bill in the precise form in which it passed the House. The preparation of such a copy is the function of the enrolling clerk.
"When the bill has been agreed to in identical form by both bodies– either without amendment by the Senate, or by House concurrence in the Senate amendments, or by agreement in both houses to the conference report– a copy of the bill is enrolled for presentation to the President.
"The preparation of the enrolled bill is a painstaking and important task since it must reflect precisely the effect of all amendments, either by way of deletion, substitution, or addition, agreed to by both bodies. The enrolling clerk.... must prepare meticulously the final form of the bill, as it was agreed to by both Houses, for presentation to the President.... each (amendment) must be set out in the enrollment exactly as agreed to, and all punctuation must be in accord with the action taken."
Of course, our lawsuit was kicked to the curb by the court and we didn't have enough money (The Wallace Institute) to take it to a higher court. I doubt it would have succeeded because most judges are simply gutless without an ounce of integrity.
I want you to go look at this case: Sullivan vs. U.S., et al. A 2003 case which clearly demonstrates federal judges are too cowardly to stand up for the U.S. Constitution and should be thrown off the bench by Congress. While that case dealt with war and the Monroe Doctrine, read the actual words of Judge James C. Cox, beginning on page 23: “..you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment (16th)”. And, "I think I'm correct in saying that actually the ratification never occurred."
According to that judge, it's okay fraud sends Americans to prison. That federal judge spontaneously brought up the Sixteenth Amendment (federal income tax) and clearly stated what Bill Benson proved in his research and went to prison for: it was not properly ratified. How many hundreds, if not thousands are rotting in federal prisons because of a law that does not exist? One too many while the American people dutifully lay bare their personal lives to the IRS in the hope they avoid an audit.
As for the Seventeenth, this needs to be considered: Can a constitutional amendment be constitutional if it amends the Constitution by a back door method?
Full text of "Constitution Jefferson's Manual And Rules Of the House Of Representatives Of The United States Eighty Seventh Congress"
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose, Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
For those states who voted not to ratify or those who were out of session at the time and didn't vote – the Seventeenth Amendment clearly does as they did not give their consent to be deprived equal suffrage in the Senate. I don't think people can appreciate the battle that went on during the first Contential Congress until they read Max Ferrand's historical work, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. It's free on the Internet, but I have the three volume soft copy set (1800 pages). It is a remarkable walk through history.
The Seventeenth Amendment clearly violates Article V for the following states who did not ratify the Seventeenth Amendment: Utah (explicitly rejected amendment); Alabama; Florida; Georgia (refused to vote on it); Kentucky; Maryland; Mississippi; Rhode Island; South Carolina; Virginia.
I went to the National Archives in Washington, DC and retrieved the proof that amendment was not ratified. Dozens of states made changes to the text in one form or another. All documents can be viewed and printed here.
Long ago I focused on this letter given to me in the mid-1990s by an individual with impeccable credentials. As you can see, it is a letter from the the archivist at the Secretary of State's office stating: "There was no debate or voting record listed in the California State Senate or Assembly Journals". On what? The ratification of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments.
It is alleged California voted to ratify the Seventeenth Amendment on January 28, 1913. Next, please look at this journal page I personally retrieved from the California State Archives. 1913. See item 7 regarding the constitutional amendment to elect U.S. Senators: May 20, 1913: From Committee. Without Recommendation. How could it go from committee without recommendation on May 20th if it was allegedly voted on five months earlier? It wasn't.
Over the years, the folks at the California State Archives have been so kind and helpful in my research. This past summer I drove 100 miles to Angelo State U, the closest repository of old records and went through their microfilm. That promoted me to again contact California to request court certified copies of the journal records for 1913. Guess what? They're all on the Internet now and what do those official records from California show for January 28, 1913?
There was no vote that day or any other for the Seventeenth Amendment. I had my web master down load everything and also put it on a CD, which I sent to the state reps and senators listed below. I did it to protect the truth, i.e., a journal page which looks authentic suddenly appears with the proper vote. I knew there was no vote back in 2000 because I went to the California State Archives (15 minutes from my home then) and asked for a search. I went back the next day and was informed by the head archivist no such vote was found.
The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as well as the Sixteenth) was clearly not ratified by enough states. There is also another problem. I tried to obtain an investigation from the State of Georgia, but they don't do mail requests anymore because of budget cuts. I was going to ask Rep. Bobby Franklin to help me, but God, rest his soul, that fine man died unexpectedly on July 26, 2011, from heart disease; I was so shocked. What did I want Bobby to help me with? The State of George did not vote on that amendment. Their governor at the time commissioned an investigation: Congress did not properly adopt the amendment before it was even sent to the states. I printed out everything I could find at Angelo U of the bickering between congress critters at the time and the amendments, but I wish I had a copy of that investigation. State reps and senators can probably get a copy because they are elected officials.
The bottom line is this: We are being destroyed from within. The top issues in this country crushing us are Agenda 21, the unconstitutional "Federal" Reserve and the federal income tax. Our major job sectors gutted because of vile treaties like NAFTA pushed through by then Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Obamacare and endless new regulations coming out of alphabet soup agencies that are unconstitutional, killing the states and employers. The states have no representation in Congress; they are little more than doormats. The states must stand up and fight back as those representatives were going to in New Hampshire with H.R. 1126 or allow the federal machine to crush them and all of us.
That isn't going to happen until one state takes the first step in challenging the non ratification of that amendment. It may be okay with the federal judge in the Sullivan case that people are rotting in prison for an amendment that wasn't ratified, but it's not okay with me and I hope not okay with you. And, please, I'm sick to death of the mealy mouthed excuses that it can't be done or chaos would ensue or the legislatures would appoint the same flavor of corrupt individuals that keep getting elected by the mobs. I would say Apollo 13 qualified as a situation where chaos might have taken over, but it didn't. Strong minds, professionalism and faith brought those astronauts home.
We are a different nation now than in 1913. We have the power, literally, of the people at the state level to make damn sure those appointed senators represent the rights and interests of the state which benefit all of us or we vote out the state representatives and senators who appointed them. If we truly are to be a nation of self governance, then we have to take control. Those individuals in the state houses work for us, not the other way around.
This will only happen when a few state legislatures go for the cure. Do what Rep. Joshua Davenport did - get a bill introduced THIS session. This is an emergency, so maybe there is some way it can be done in your state. Those counterfeit U.S. Senators are killing jobs, making more and more regulations hurting the rights of your citizens, not to mention our God-given rights. Yes, it IS an emergency as we slide further into the continuing nightmare.
Okay, forget New York, California and states like mine (Texas) who are out of session until Jan. 2013. It would be close to impossible to get a special session called for something so important as fraud and the right of the state to expose it. Every state has its own rules about introducing bills, but if you want something bad enough, it can get done.
Over the years I have been asked to endorse senate candidates; I have refused. I have not voted for a senate candidate since 1996. I will NOT be party to the continuing fraud. No individual has the right to run for the U.S. Senate. I know "senators" like Rand Paul are very popular and if this fraud were exposed, their state legislature can still appoint him to carry on. This is a mess (with both amendments), but by golly, it can be dealt with one step at a time. Or, do we continue to live with lies, fraud and destruction?
No more resolutions asking Congress to pretty please, repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. That will never happen and it's not even the legal way to address this. While I would like to have seen a few state legislators challenge ballot access, too many state judges are cowards just like federal judges.
Here are the individuals I sent the material to besides the representatives in New Hampshire: Rep. Phil Hart [Idaho], Rep. Pete Nielsen {Idaho], Rep. Bryan Hughes [Texas}, Senator David Williams {Kentucky], Senator Howard Stephenson [Utah], Rep. Leo Berman [Texas], Rep. Matthew Shea {Washington State] Rep. Lois Kolkhorst [Texas] and Rep. Jim Landtroop [Texas]. While I did not send him the materials, if you live in Arizona (think the slimy, corrupt John McCain), I would contact Sen. Ron Gould. He knows all about this fraud. All are fine individuals. If we don't try, we will surely continue down the abyss.
This is NOT a political party issue. It's about fraud and the real intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. It's about the right of the states in this Union to have representation in the U.S. Congress.
Now, how bad to we want to get rid of rotten, corrupt senators and how bad do the states want to reclaim their rightful place in Congress?
Enough to make your voice heard at your state house - now? Many state legislatures are only in session a few months and then close up shop. We can't continue to put out a thousand brush fires coming out of the Senate. Once a bill is introduced in a state, then it's up to the people of that state to literally storm the state house demanding passage; non violently of course. Remind them November is coming.
Here is a special page I set up to help educate legislators as well as my fellow Americans about the destruction of the Seventeenth Amendment and past efforts. We are on the cliff, folks. I do hope the good people who are promoting repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment turn their efforts towards getting a bill passed just like the one in New Hampshire, H.R. 1126, that sadly, won't get introduced this year.
No more lies. No more covering up because it is the easy way out.
Important links:
1- Inside Oklahoma’s 16th Amendment lawsuit
Geoff Metcalf interviews attorney Larry Becraft on ratification challenge
2- The Oklahoma Protest - 16th Amendment
There has been no court challenge to the Seventeenth Amendment because it takes tons of money and there isn't a single federal judge in this country with the intregrity or courage to take it on.
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.
Devvy's regularly posted new columns are on her site at: www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts.
*******
*******
Sheriffs Standing with the People Against the Feds
By Larry Pratt
January 7, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
I have reported earlier that sheriffs in New Mexico are threatening to arrest federal agents if they attempt to enforce unconstitutional federal acts in contravention of state law.
The even better news is that sheriffs in other states are doing the same. Sheriff Brad Rogers of Elkhart County, Indiana has told Food and Drug Administration agents they will be arrested if they go on Amish farmer David Hochstetler’s land. Having falsely alleged that raw, unpasteurized milk sold by Hochstetler had caused several cases of food poisoning, the FDA filed a complaint in federal court to support their attack on the farmer.
I have consumed raw milk for years and can affirm that it is not only safe, but much healthier than pasteurized milk.
The threat of incarceration led the feds to withdraw their complaint against Hochstetler. This was even after US Department of Justice attorney Ross Goldstein emailed the Sheriff that he would be arrested if he protected Hochstetler. When Sheriff Rogers refused to back down, the FDA cried uncle.
Rogers’s communication to the feds seemed to have been quite convincing: “Any further attempts to inspect this farm without a warrant signed by a local judge, based on probable cause, will result in Federal inspectors’ removal or arrest for trespassing by my officers or I.” The feds have gotten used to acting without due process -- in this case, that means not bothering to get a search warrant.
Rogers’ campaign website listed his number one objective as “Upholding the Constitution.” He is also concerned about the heart condition of his inmates and is determined to help “Provide Hope to Change a Heart.” Under that header he says, “The Elkhart County jail has 74 church services a month and allows unprecedented access to ministry volunteers. Not only can we impact inmates for the here and now, but for eternity.”
Sheriff Rogers requires his deputies to take three, two-day classes on the Constitution (at a tuition rate of $125 per person).
Rogers is not alone in his love for the Constitution. Ellis County, Texas Sheriff Johnny Brown [on the right] has stated that he would resist any effort by the federal government to confiscate firearms in his county.
Sheriff Joe Baca in Sierra County, California told his county commission that he will not enforce road closures on Bureau of Land Management and Gila National Forest Lands. [pic below]
Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County, Oregon has told the Forest Service that he will protect those using the forest in his county. He has written a short treatise entitled, “Unraveling Federal Jurisdiction within a State.” It is actually a scholarly piece based on citations from the Constitution, court cases and statutes and concludes that the Forest Service has no authority in any county. [pic below]
Siskiyou County, California Sheriff Jon Lopey has said: “I have told federal and state officials over and over that, yes, we want to preserve the environment, but you care more about the fish, frogs, trees and birds than you do about the human race. When will you start to balance your decisions to the needs of the people?...We are right now in a fight for our survival.” Lopey spearheaded a coalition of eight sheriffs calling themselves: “Defend Rural America.” [pic below]
*******
Sheriff Joe Baca in Sierra County, California
*******
Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County, Oregon
*******
Siskiyou County, California Sheriff Jon Lopey
*******
In the days after Hurricane Katrina, power was out for days. Food and medicine were about to be lost. So
Sheriff Billy McGee of Forrest County, Mississippi -- a Democrat -- took action when he realized that a federal shipment of six trucks of ice bound for Hattiesburg turned out to be only four. McGee went in search of the other two and found them being guarded by some Army reservists who possessed bureaucratic mindsets.
McGee took steps to secure the ice, but was told he was not authorized to take the vehicles. When a reservist would not get off one of the trucks, McGee had him handcuffed. The ice was delivered where it was needed in Hattiesburg, explaining why McGee is also known as The Ice Man.
Not surprisingly, the feds have brought suit against the Sheriff in federal court. Perhaps McGee will arrest any marshals seeking to interfere with the duties of a peace officer.
It is encouraging that men of integrity, who understand that the sheriff is the top law enforcement officer in his county, have been elected in counties around the country. We should be looking for more who fit this description.
Please let me know if you are aware of any constitutional sheriffs, and email me their names and stories at ldpratt@gunowners.org.
Erich Pratt is the Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America, a national gun lobby with over 300,000 members. GOA is located at 8001 Forbes Place, Springfield, VA 22151.
Either Pratt or another GOA spokesman is available for press interviews.
Larry Pratt has been Executive Director of Gun Owners of America for 27 years. GOA is a national membership organization of 300,000 Americans dedicated to promoting their second amendment freedom to keep and bear arms.
He published a book, Armed People Victorious, in 1990 and was editor of a book, Safeguarding Liberty: The Constitution & Militias, 1995. His latest book, On the Firing Line: Essays in the Defense of Liberty was published in 2001.
The GOA web site is: gunowners.org. Pratt's weekly talk show Live Fire is archived there at: www.gunowners.org/radio.htm
Contact Larry Pratt
E-Mail: ldpratt@gunowners.org
*******
What We Reap When Honor Fails
Liberty legal Foundation
March 2, 2012
So much has happened recently demonstrating the lack of honor in our judicial system that I’m now forced to review these incidents in bullet point format:
· The President’s attorney dishonors the Georgia Administrative Court by sending a letter directly to the Secretary of State requesting the executive branch of Georgia to take a lawsuit away from the judicial branch.
· The President and his attorney dishonor the Georgia Administrative court again by violating that court’s order to appear.
· The Georgia Administrative Court refuses to forward Liberty Legal Foundation’s motion for contempt to the Georgia Supreme Court, despite Georgia law leaving the Administrative court no discretion on this matter.
· The Georgia Administrative court refuses to even respond to correspondence regarding our motion for contempt.
· The Georgia Superior Court fails to comment on the motion for contempt or require the Administrative court to forward records, as required by law.
· The Georgia Superior Court Clerk initially refuses to file LLF’s appeal document, then backs down after being instructed on the law.
· The Georgia Superior Court Clerk refuses to file LLF’s emergency motion for preliminary injunction because $1 was not included with our filing. Then, when LLF hand delivers $1 to the clerk, the clerk sits on the motion for 10 days and mails it back to LLF claiming that the correct staffer didn’t get the $1. Our plaintiff gave the case number, name of the motion, and name of the staffer, who was literally pointed at in the room. Yet the clerk’s office still claims that that staffer didn’t get the $1. The motion had to be completely re-filed and was then delayed another two days before finally being filed.
· The Chief Judge of the Superior Court was made aware of all of the incidents occurring in her Clerk’s office, yet she did nothing to correct the situation.
· The President’s motion to dismiss was filed on his first attempt. After three days the Court notified LLF that the Court had shortened the time to file an opposition to that motion, giving us less than a day to file.
· Late that same day the Chief Judge signs an order denying LLF’s motion to have Van Irion admitted as a visiting attorney in this case, preventing LLF from filing the opposition that the Court had ordered us to file 6 hours earlier. (Note that I’ve been admitted as a visiting attorney in 5 states and at every level of court, both state and federal. I’ve never been denied admission before. Further, my local attorney sponsor was a sitting member of the state’s legislature, making this denial even more shocking.) Even more outrageous is the timing of the denial, made just hours before a Court-set deadline, after the Court sat on our motion for more than two weeks.
· The Georgia Secretary of State has, to date, refused to forward the record of the case to the Superior Court, despite Georgia law absolutely requiring this action and requiring that it be done as soon as possible.
· The Superior Court does nothing to require the Secretary of State to forward the record of the case.
· Only 90 minutes after our plaintiff files an opposition himself (because LLF was denied the ability to file it for him), the Chief Judge issues a three-page opinion granting Obama’s motion to dismiss our appeal. It seems obvious that the Court’s opinion was written before they asked us to file an opposition. Also, the dismissal was granted while the Court had not even received the record of the hearing held by the lower court. In other words, it ruled without even reviewing the record or reading our plaintiff’s opposition.
Our system of government is based upon an assumption that the people placed in high office are honorable. This is an absolute requirement for the survival of our nation. The Founding Fathers understood that when dishonorable people begin to take high office, the system of government they set into motion would begin to fail. Unfortunately America’s judicial system is proving this principle.
These are just the incidents associated with our Georgia case and we are not discussing the substance of the breathtakingly absurd rulings from any of these courts. Without needing to discuss judicial rulings, the incidents cited here demonstrate the harassment, bias, and lack of honor in the administrative operation of our courts. This bias effectively prevents those on one side of an issue to have basic access to the courts. In other words, the courts are now barring specific viewpoints from entering the front doors of the court. When we do get through we are harassed by means of the timing of orders and one-sided enforcement of procedural requirements.
Georgia is an example of what is happening across our country. Laws are being blatantly ignored by those in high office, while other laws are being used to punish their political opponents. This type of corruption reflects the practices historically found in third world nations, dictatorships, and communist tyrannies. Freedom cannot survive where such practices go unpunished.
Yet it is practically impossible to punish individuals holding high office. This is why such individuals must have honor, allowing them to resist their own selfish temptations. Unfortunately America’s high offices are now populated by corrupt people with no moral compass. Our leaders have no honor. Our Founding Fathers are being proven correct, once again.
Our opponents are trying to frustrate and exhaust us to the point that we will give up. They don’t want their bias and dishonor to be seen in the light of day. The corrupt individuals in high office are harassing us for our efforts. This tells us that we are having an effect. Even when we don’t win a legal battle, our efforts shine the light of truth on their corruption. That corruption is responding by lashing out at us.
We will be appealing the Georgia Superior Court’s ruling. But we need your help. We need your help to keep the spotlight on the dishonorable actions of those in high office. Please do what you can to support Liberty Legal Foundation.
We could not continue in our mission without the faithful support of our members. Thank you to all who have supported Liberty Legal Foundation! Please consider making a donation today to help us cover our legal and administrative costs.
*******
Some Small Farmers Are Going To Jail -- To Spite the System
Posted By Dr. Mercola
November 08 2007
A growing number of small farmers in the United States, fed up with federal regulations that they say favor big business, are facing felony charges and possible jail time.
Farmer Richard Bean, who runs Double H Farm in Charlottesville, Virginia, and his partner are being charged with felony intent to defraud, which carries the possibility of three years in jail for a conviction, for selling meat improperly labeled “certified organic” along with seven misdemeanor charges.
“We were trying to skirt the system. A small farm, making it work," Bean said. "We were able to earn a significant amount more per animal, and that‘s how we are able to compete with corporate agriculture."
Among the farm’s offenses were not slaughtering animals at a state-inspected facility, and placing certified organic stickers on meat that had been raised according to organic standards, but was not certified as such.
Government officials say the federal and state rules are designed to protect consumers from unsafe foods. However, proponents of local foods (locavores) and small farms, believe the regulations are forcing small farms out of business, and that government-certified organic foods are inferior to locally produced ones.
Small farmers and locavores are calling for unregulated direct sales of locally grown foods that allow people to obtain fresh foods that are better for the environment and the local economy.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Sadly, our food supply seems to be crumbling before our eyes, and the government is single-handedly allowing, and actually encouraging, it to happen.
It’s not bad enough that multi-national corporations are forcing small farmers out of business. Now the last remaining farmers who are trying to raise food by traditional, safer, standards are being prosecuted and sent to jail -- for selling food that is of better quality than any factory farm could ever hope for.
In the United States (and much of the world), money talks. One of the best ways to voice your opinion about this injustice is to spend your money with local small farms, farmers’ markets, and community-supported agriculture programs, and NOT with supermarkets and big-name retailers like Wal-Mart.
Please forward this article to your friends and family to help spread the word. If enough of you decide to support only naturally raised food from local farms, the industry will have no choice but to change its ways.
Fortunately, the “locavore” movement is already strong and growing in the United States, and it’s being fueled by people like you who are in-tune with the way nature works. You trust the farming methods of your ancestors over a government-approved sticker.
The absolute best food options for you are in-season varieties of produce and naturally raised meats that are grown locally. Many of them will likely also be organic, even though the farmer may not be able to afford the federal certification process to legally call them that.
Food from local sources is fresher, does not waste fuel being transported to you, and tastes like real, home-grown produce should: delicious!
For an excellent list of sustainable agricultural groups in your area, please see Promoting Sustainable Agriculture.
And remember, if you stick to foods raised in a natural, healthy way, nature will take care of your health.
*******