Posts Tagged ‘us constitution’
Guess how DHS defines who is a terrorist now
Posted: May 02, 2009
8:35 pm Eastern
HOMELAND INSECURITY
2nd ‘domestic extremism’ report includes ‘alternative media,’ ‘tax resisters’ in lexicon
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Two weeks before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security penned its controversial report warning against “right-wing extremists” in the United States, it generated a memo defining dozens of additional groups – animal rights activists, black separatists, tax protesters, even worshippers of the Norse god Odin – as potential “threats.”
Though the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon” was reportedly rescinded almost immediately, Benjamin Sarlin of The Daily Beast recently obtained and published online a copy of the unclassified memo, dated March 26, 2009.
While many of the groups listed in the lexicon – such as Aryan prison gangs and neo-Nazis – may indeed be widely considered extremists, others will likely take offense at being described as a potential “threat.”
For example, the memo defines the “tax resistance movement” – also referred to in the report as the tax protest movement or the tax freedom movement – as “groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified.”
The report, however, continues in its assessment of tax protesters, asserting that members “have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals.”
Similarly, the lexicon concludes its definition of “black separatists” by asserting, “Such groups or individuals also may embrace radical religious beliefs. Members have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence directed toward local law enforcement in an attempt to advance their extremist goals.”
In his blog piece titled “Who You Calling an Extremist?” Sarlin writes, “Partisans leapt to decry the first DHS memo as part of a Democratic conspiracy to marginalize right wingers. But it became clear that DHS’s broad descriptions of extremists were symptomatic of an ongoing agency problem that crossed ideological lines.”
The lexicon states its purpose is to provide “definitions for key terms and phrases that often appear in DHS analysis that addresses the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to the United States.”
Apparently, the DHS analyzes the “threat” level of Internet news websites like WorldNetDaily, for the lexicon defines “alternative media” as “a term used to describe various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets.”
The term “black power,” widely used in a variety of contexts, also merits a definition in the lexicon: “A term used by black separatists to describe their pride in and the perceived superiority of the black race.”
The DHS memo also includes precursors to the ill-fated “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” report, which prompted outrage from legislators and a campaign calling for the resignation of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.
For example, the lexicon contains virtually the same broad-stroke language the right-wing extremism report used.
“Rightwing extremism,” the lexicon defines as those “who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
The lexicon further points to those who oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
“Anti-immigration extremism,” the lexicon defines as “a movement of groups or individuals who are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along the U.S. southwest border with Mexico, and who have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism to advance their extremist goals. They are highly critical of the U.S. Government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend ‘rights’ to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education.”
Unlike the right-wing extremism report, however, the lexicon includes definitions of extremism across a broad spectrum of issues: anarchy, animal rights extremism, black nationalism, Cuban independence, environmentalism, Jewish extremism, Mexican separatism, right-wing militias, white supremacists, the anti-war movement and more.
Among the more curious groups the DHS appears to be monitoring is the “racial Nordic mysticism” group, defined as “an ideology adopted by many white supremacist prison gangs who embrace a Norse mythological religion, such as Odinism or Asatru.”
Among the more comical definitions is the description given of what “racist skinheads” wear, enabling law officers, it appears, to identify skinheads by their preferred brand of footwear:
“Dress may include a shaved head or very short hair,” the report states, “jeans, thin suspenders, combat boots or Doc Martens, a bomber jacket, and tattoos of Nazi-like emblems.”
Sarlin, who first publicized the memo, reports that a spokesperson for DHS told him the memo was recalled “within minutes” of being issued but declined to offer any details on the reasons for its withdrawal.
What Are Our Constitutions?
By Brian K. Lutes
It is THE HARD TRUTH that most of the people I have met in my life, and especially most of our elected representatives at the local, state, and federal levels, do not truly understand what our constitutions are, why our founding fathers wrote them, or even what they say.
I was present for a conversation between a citizen and a Commissioner from Fayette County, PA several years ago. The citizen was attempting to convince the Commissioner to propose a resolution in support of the 2nd Amendment. The Commissioner responded: “oh, that’s that gun thing, that’s none of our business, call the NRA”. The Commissioner then walked away.
“That’s that gun thing, that’s none of our business…”? Are you kidding me? Unfortunately, it is not a joke and most people would be surprised to know just how often this is the case. Every elected official, and law enforcement officer, no matter the office, location, or political affiliation, prior to taking office, must put his hand on the bible and take an oath to “support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the USA and of the State of _____ from all enemies foreign, and domestic”. Yet, most of them have never read or truly tried to understand what our most sacred documents represent.
In my opinion prior to taking the oath, elected officials and prospective law enforcement officers should be asked if they have ever read the constitutions and then be required to recite the Bill of Rights. If they haven’t read the documents or can’t recite the rights protected by them, they should not be sworn into office until they can do so.
In short, our Constitutions are the supreme laws with which all other laws must comply.( 140 F. Supp. 925) Our courts have defined our constitutions in these terms:”A constitution represents a mandate to the various branches of government directly from the people acting in their sovereign capacity; the organic law framing a governmental system (229 A.2d 388, 394). And, the US Supreme Court, in one of the earliest cases to deal with the question of what power was the Constitution, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), said “If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply”.This cemented Constitution as the Supreme law of the land.
And, In American law, the word Constitution specifically refers to a written instrument which is the basic source from which government derives its power, but under which governmental powers are constrained. It is the emphasis on restrictions of governmental powers that distinguishes the American concept. (Schwartz, Constitutional Law, Ch. 1, p. 1 (1979)) It is the supreme law of the land and it cannot be abrogated even in part by statute. Like the federal constitution, a state constitution is the supreme law within the state. ( 140 F. Supp. 925, 928)
The Federal government that was created with the adoption of the Constitution was delegated ( delegation of power is not to be confused with surrender of power, which implies abandonment or a yielding of power to another ( 2 So. 2d 11, 16) and is from a superior to an inferior) very few and well defined powers laid out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Those that were in favor of adopting the Constitution and creating a more powerful Federal government thereby were called Federalists. They wrote a series of newspaper articles that have come to be known as The Federalist Papers stating the reasons they were in favor of adopting the proposed Constitution and the powers that the new government would have. The Federalists included, among many others, James Madison who is known as the Father of the Constitution, and Alexander Hamilton.
The people that were opposed to adopting the proposed Constitution were known as Anti-Federalists. They also wrote a series of newspaper articles that have come to be known as The Anti-Federalist Papers. They feared, rightly so, that the new government that would be created would eventually become tyrannical just like the King of England they had just escaped. They demanded that protections be written into the Constitution in an effort to guarantee that certain rights of the people could not be violated by the new government. The guarantees they demanded became known as The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments of the Constitution.One of the leading Anti-Federalsits was Patrick Henry.
When the the Anti-Federalsits insisted upon the Bill of Rights, the Federalists said it was not necessary to protect rights such as freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, etc. since the new government would not be delegated any power to interfere with those rights as the new government would only be able to exercise the few powers specifically delegated to it and none that were not specifically delegated to it. Thankfully, the Anti-Federalists still insisted on the protections and were successful in having them adopted.
Let us be clear; James Madison, the father of the Constitution, wrote in the Federalist Papers that the new Federal government would only be able to exercise powers that were specifically delegated to it. And, as an added protection the 10th Amendment states: “ The powers not delegated to the United States (Federal gov.) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”
The US Supreme Court has held that the Amendment expresses the original framers’ intent that the “central” government be a government of limited powers and was included in the Bill of Rights to prevent the federal government from attempting to exercise powers that were not specifically delegated to it. (426 U.S. 833, 851) (Schwartz, Constitutional Law 2.2 (2d ed. 1979))
In short, this Amendment clearly shows that it was the intent of our Founding Fathers that the Federal government would not be able to do whatever it wanted. If the Congress wanted to carry out a particular task it would have to point to a specific clause in the Constitution that allowed it to carry out that task. If there were no authorizing clause in the Constitution, the task could not be undertaken by the Federal government.
It can’t be stressed too strongly that our Founding Fathers had just escaped a tyrannical King that as a supreme ruler was virtually unlimited in his power over their lives. They knew they had to have some form of government, but they were extremely fearful that the government they were creating might someday become just as tyrannical as the King was, so in an effort to prevent this new creation, the Federal gov., from ever becoming a threat to the liberty of the American people they delegated very few and well defined powers to it, and then added very specific denials of power (The Bill of Rights) to it.
After the framers of our Constitution came to agreement on the wording of the Constitution and the powers the new government would exercise, they submitted it to the individual States for their approval (ratification). The Constitution would apply to and bind together only those States that approved it. Any state that did not approve the Constitution would be bound to other non approving States by the old Articles of Confederation. If only one State refused to ratify the new Constitution that State would stand as an independent “nation”.
In fact, North Carolina did not ratify the Constitution for well over a year after the other States had ratified the document and joined the “union”. During the time that North Carolina had not ratified the Constitution it stood independently until it decided for itself whether or not it would join her sister States in the union. If North Carolina had never approved the Constitution it would still stand as an independent nation.
Basically, The Constitution of the United States is a voluntary compact, a contract if you will, between sovereign (self determining) States with each deciding for itself, to create a common agent, the Federal gov., in which each State would have representation, to carry out very few powers that were laid out in writing for their mutual benefit.
The best analogy I can think of to explain the way the relationship between the States and Federal government is supposed to be is this: Think of the States as individual families that share a common problem, mostly they need a solution to security issues. Each family picks representatives that get together (the Continental Congress) to discuss possible solutions to the problem. The family representatives hammer out an agreement and take it back home to discuss it with the whole family. Each family raises questions & objections with the proposed solutions and orders their representatives to meet again and the process continues. Finally, the representatives decide that the solution is to get a very tough dog (Federal gov.) for all the families to share. However, some of the families have members that are afraid of dogs so the representatives craft a very strong collar & chain (the Constitution) to restrain the dog so it cannot harass or injure any innocent family members, but is loose enough so that the dog can patrol the perimeter and chew up trespassers. Each representative then takes the collar & chain home for every family member to inspect and after the families agree that the collar & chain are strong, yet loose, enough, they attach it to the dog and set him about his assigned duties.
In future articles I will explain what has happened to our dog and how he has slipped out of the collar & chain placed upon him as well as explain the only way we will ever successfully catch and re-chain him.
Do Not Talk To The Police!
By Brian K. Lutes
It is THE HARD TRUTH that In my 6 years of working as a law enforcement officer I never ceased to be amazed at how stupid the average criminal suspect was and how ignorant they were of their Constitutionally protected rights.
Naturally with a background in law enforcement I am drawn to television shows such as COPS and one of the absolute best real life police programs I have ever watched, The First 48 on the A&E network. The program airs on Tuesday & Thursday evenings.
The cameras go along with real Homicide Detectives as they investigate murders. There are no actors, no reenactments, no scripts. Just plenty of stupid, most often guilty, suspects.
The First 48 is so entitled because most murders are solved within the first 48 hours of their commission. If a murder is not solved within that time frame the chances that the culprit will be caught are cut in half. That is a fact.
One of the things that strikes me in watching the Detectives go about trying to solve the case is how often the police have absolutely no hard evidence against their suspects. By hard evidence I mean fingerprints, DNA, gun shot residue on hands, eyewitness identifications, etc.
Most often the police get “tips” from acquaintances of the victim that the victim had an argument with someone recently or they recently broke up with a boyfriend or some other small piece of information that the detectives use to go talk with the suspects.
Most often the Detectives ask the suspects to come to the police station to “talk” with them and answer a few simple questions. By the time the Detectives get to their “suspects” they have formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the person, but do not have enough evidence to arrest, let alone convict, them and need the “suspect” to talk (confess).
This is where the stupidity steps up front & center. Almost every time the “suspect” voluntarily shows up at the police station to “talk” with the police. Now keep in mind that the “suspect” knows they committed the crime. The police think the guy did it, but they don’t know for sure. But the “suspect” knows for sure they did it and yet they show up voluntarily. This is just plain stupid!
The detectives get their suspect in the office, offer them coffee or soda and make small talk to make the guy comfortable. They will then begin talking about the case and say what a shame it is that this crime happened and how the victim didn’t deserve what happened to them. Now remember that the police most often have no actual evidence against the guy at this point, but they tell him they do and that they know he committed the crime. They will then tell the suspect that they want to help him get this off his chest and “things will go easier on you if you confess”. All of which are lies and the part about things going easier on them may be illegal under the PA cases of Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 520 Pa. 151, 553 A.2d 409 (1989) & Commonwealth v. Purnell, 412 Pa. Super. 462, 603 A.2d 1028 (1992).
However, the police are legally allowed to lie about the evidence they have against a suspect in their efforts to get a suspect to confess according to a ruling by the US Supreme Court in the case of Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 97 S. Ct. 711 (1977) and lie they will.
Most often the suspect will begin crying and that is when the Detective will move closer to the suspect and tell them “I know this is hard” and put his hand on the suspects shoulder so it seems that he cares.
Now, this is the very important part because the suspect is not under arrest at this point and the Detective has NOT ASKED HIM ANY QUESTIONS DESIGNED TO ILLICIT AN INCRIMINATING RESPONSE. Therefore the police do not have to tell the suspect that he has a right to remain silent, does not have to talk to them, has the right to an attorney as laid out in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966) and in fact can get up and walk out of the police station.
But, does the idiot “suspect” ask the Detective if he is under arrest? Does he ask for a lawyer? NO! The idiot spills his guts and admits to everything because he believed the Detective when he said he had evidence against him. The idiot “suspect” would never have been tricked if he had not talked to the police, which he did not have to do.
My point with this is: Our freedoms as Americans are protected to a tremendous degree thanks to our Founding Fathers writing our Constitutions with a healthy fear of an overbearing government that did not recognize some of the rights we enjoy such as the right against self incrimination (5th Amd .of the US Constitution & Article 1, Section 9 of the PA Constitution), the right against unreasonable search & seizure (4th Amd. of the US Constitution & Article 1, Section 8 of the PA Constitution), and many others. And, as a result we do not have to talk to the police so DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE! Especially if you committed the crime.
Now, please understand that I have no desire to see criminals, especially murderers, go free in any way. But it pains me greatly to see my fellow Americans, good, bad , or ugly, totally ignorant of the protections and rights that our Founding Fathers handed down to us and thousands of our soldiers have died for.
There is a reason it is very hard for our law enforcement agencies to deprive us of our freedoms and hard earned money. That reason is because we are a free people blessed by God to live in a Constitutional Republic where our government can exercise only the very few and well defined powers that we the people have delegated to it. This cannot continue if we are ignorant of our rights and too stupid to know that we do not have to talk to the police.
The Hard Truth 
Alan Keyes launches ‘Liberty’ blog
leave a comment »
Posted: March 07, 2009
12:20 am Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Warns of ‘Obama’s push to make U.S. Soviet-style state’
Alan Keyes, a 2008 presidential candidate who now is a plaintiff in one of the many lawsuits seeking to verify whether Barack Obama qualifies under the U.S. Constitution’s requirements to occupy the Oval Office, has launched a new blog website where, according to the site, “faith gives reason for citizen action.”
“Given Obama’s push to overturn constitutional government and make the U.S. a Soviet-style state,” Keyes told WND, “I think it’s more important than ever that those of us who believe in liberty deliberate and work together.”
Keyes’ new Loyal to Liberty site includes a variety of blog posts, comment boards, polls, podcasts and even Twitter updates.
Keyes also announced his intention to update the site daily with views and comments on current events, including plans to serialize longer works that may be published later as books or pamphlets.
Never one to mince words, Keyes made headlines recently by calling President Obama a “radical communist” and suggesting “we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”
On Loyal to Liberty, Keyes explains in more detail.
As part of a post called “Obama’s a communist: Why is it name calling?” Keyes explains that “communism” is simply an accurate descriptive term of policies, but after years of watching it fail in the Soviet Union, those to whom the term fits would rather not be associated with communist history.
“The enemies of freedom do their best to limit or eliminate words that interfere with their design for despotism,” Keyes writes. “They especially seek to stigmatize and discourage the use of words freighted with the sad and tragic history of tyranny and dictatorship. That’s why the use of the word ‘communist’ to describe Barack Obama has aroused such furious diatribe and aspersion.”
Keyes continues, however, by alluding to the saying: “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”
“It’s easy to understand,” Keyes writes, “why folks who are looking, waddling and quacking like communists would rather we called them messiahs.”
Keyes then follows with a list of 15 ways in which he suggests Obama has been “quacking” like a communist.
Other recent posts include a theological series on the foundation of society, criticism of the two-party system and the Republican Party and thoughts on the federal “stimulus” package.
As WND has reported, Keyes has brought one of the nation’s many legal challenges that have alleged Obama does not meet the “natural born citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now!
Some claim Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
The Keyes case is being handled largely by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation. Others playing a key role in the legal actions include Orly Taitz of California and Philip Berg, both of whom already have had their arguments rejected as not worthy of hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii, which the state’s procedures allowed at the time?
Written by bkl1
March 9, 2009 at 9:46 am
Posted in constitutional rights, obama, politics, socialism, Uncategorized
Tagged with alan keys, american citizenship, barack obama, birth certificate, blog posts, brockhausen v. andrade, california, charles kerchner, chicago attorney andy martin, citizen action, comment boards, communism, congress, connecticut secretary of state, cort wrotnowski, darrel hunter v. obama, david m. neal, democratic national committee, department of health, design for despotism, drew zahn, electoral college, enemies of freedom, federal elections commission, gail lightfoot, gary kreep, georgia, georgia secretary of state, georgia superior court judge jerry w. baxter, gordon stamper v. US, hawaii, hawaii circuit court judge bert ayabe, hawaii governor linda lingle, jerome corsi, kenya, kenyan birth, keyes v. lingle, l. charles v. obama, leo donofrio, liberty blog, lightfoot v. bowen, loyal to liberty, lt. col.donald sullivan, natural born citizen, newy jersey attorney mario apuzzo, north carolina, obama watch central, ohio, ohio democratic party, orly taitz, oval office, pennsylvania democrat, philip berg, president, radical communist, republican party, reverend tom terry, rightsideoflife blog, ron paul, soviet union, soviet-style state, steven marquis, temporary restraining order, texas, twitter updates, united kingdom, united states justice foundation, us constitution, US Supreme court, washington state, wnd.com, worldnetdaily