Source: CNN

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Are Cameras the New Guns?

MSNBC Continues Propaganda Campaign Against Patriot Groups

Surveillance Drones To Zap Protesters Into Submission

The U.S. Federal Government under both the Bush and Obama administrations has made it perfectly clear that in the event of almost any major disaster scenario, including economic and environmental, they see the institution of Martial Law as not only viable, but inexorable. From legislative actions like the Patriot Act and the Enemy Belligerents Act (currently in committee) to continuity of government programs such as Rex 84 (formerly classified) and Presidential Directive PDD 51 (currently classified, even from Congress), all the “legal” precedents have been put into place to allow the Executive Branch to implement military oversight of civilian affairs, dissolution of Constitutional liberties, even the end of Miranda Rights and the right to a speedy impartial trial as protected under the Sixth Amendment. In some cases, government legislation allows for the rendition and torture of American citizens as combatants, all for the “greater good”, of course…

Some in this country dismiss such bills and directives as abstract novelties that don’t constitute any real threat to our freedoms or our daily life. People have a tendency to assume that the atmosphere we live in today will remain the same tomorrow and always. Many of us never consider that dramatic, even violent change in American domestic policy is possible on a moment’s notice. On the contrary, the continuity legislation now in place shows that our government under the direction of corporate globalists is not only prepared to implement a military lockdown of this country, they fully anticipate that such an event will occur in the near future.

In this article, we will examine how Martial Law will be presented to the citizens of the U.S., how it would likely evolve and progress, and what the ultimate end result will be if such action is not stopped by the Liberty Movement and the American public.

A “Reasonable” Tyranny

Tyranny does not always burst through your front door wearing body armor and brandishing an assault rifle. Sometimes, it waltzes through your living room and sweeps you off your feet. Sometimes it wears a glad mask that promises warmth and safety. Sometimes, tyranny invites you out to the party and makes you feel like you belong.

NEVER leave your drink unattended around tyranny…

Regardless of how apathetic the American public may seem at any given moment, the majority of them at their core hate false authority backed by thuggish jackboot mentality when directly faced with it, and will not capitulate to despotism easily. That’s just the way we are. Revolution is in our blood (though now slightly diluted), and it is an undeniable aspect of our national psyche. Widespread and immediate military control of U.S. streets would be met with a fury the world has never seen. If martial law were ever to be achieved by the Federal Government, it would have to be presented to Americans gradually, as absolutely reasonable and necessary to their personal well being not to mention that of their family. Globalists would have to twist the reality of martial law into a tapestry of fuzzy logic and two dimensional rationalizations, making the action appear almost mathematically evident. They would also need a crisis on a scale nearly beyond belief.

The U.S. is on the verge of many such crises. The economic health of this country is blatantly unstable, and even some mainstream analysts who called us “fear mongers” six months ago are now reluctantly admitting that some form of collapse is probable:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html?hp

The financial life of America hangs by the thinnest of threads, and any moderate disaster at this stage will most definitely send it spiraling out of control.

Reports of U.S. warships positioning off the coast of Iran are now verified by the Department of Defense, and the media is beginning to spew WMD propaganda once again:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=131181&sectionid=351020205

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R0HD20100628

The likelihood of a U.S. or Israeli attack on the major oil producing nation has increased drastically. It is only a matter of time before Iran gives the West an excuse, or the West fabricates an excuse from thin air. Any new war, anywhere, would spell disaster for the world economy. Period.

And, perhaps the most devastating of all circumstances, BP’s act of eco-terrorism in the Gulf of Mexico has turned from a distraction that should have been disentangled immediately, into a slow motion catastrophe whose consequences could be so far reaching they might turn out downright biblical, not to mention, an ample pretext to call for a coastal evacuation and even martial law:

http://www.examiner.com/x-17299-Hernando-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m5d9-Gulf-Oil-Spill-2010-Plans-to-evacuate-Tampa-Bay-area-expected-to-be-announced

These scenarios do not include the ever present threat of government sponsored false flag terrorism, which could exacerbate social tensions one hundred fold. A 9/11 scale attack, perhaps even nuclear in origin, would assuredly be followed by a declaration of martial law.

Under circumstances like these, people tend to allow their fear to dictate what is “reasonable” at the moment. Principles often take a back seat to “moral relativity” in the face of misfortune, even though wisdom demands that principles be held as most important in the worst of times. Freedom and civilian control over government are vital not just when our wallets are stuffed, our stomachs are fed, and the weather is mild, but when the threat of national upheaval hangs in the sky like a sun-baked vulture. When an early and unpleasant demise becomes a distinct possibility for a significant majority of the citizenry, this is when liberty should take precedence over all things.

One argument is always presented by tyrants and their flock during the initial stages of social enslavement: “You can’t enjoy freedom if you are dead. It is always better to be alive, no matter the cost.”

However, what they fail to mention is that it is exceedingly difficult to enjoy being alive when you are a modern feudal peasant whose destiny is subject to the whim of power hungry corporatists and madmen. There is nothing meaningful in that kind of life, just as there is nothing meaningful in the life of a cog in a great machine except to turn around and around. You can’t enjoy freedom if you are dead, but you also can’t enjoy living if you’re not free.

At the beginning of any autocratic system, total authoritarian control is almost always presented as a panacea, a wonder-drug for the masses. When confronted with epic struggle, some people would rather defer responsibility for their survival to someone else rather than make the effort to save themselves, and thus, totalitarianism is born. Martial law in America would be no different. It will be presented to us as purely rational and absolutely necessary; an “extreme solution to extreme times”. Its success would rest solely on how many of us are willing to make the effort to determine our own destinies, and how many of us are too cowardly to do so.

Consequences Of Martial Law

Regardless of how well governments sugarcoat the prospect of martial law at its introduction, after it has been instituted, it doesn’t take very long for the people to realize they have been duped. The consequences of a militarized society cannot be hidden after the fact, nor does the establishment feel the need to hide those consequences after they have been handed unlimited power.

To peer into the future of what American martial law might look like, one need only research the history of martial law and dictatorships in general. From the Philippines to China to the Soviet Union, the stages of tyranny are pretty much the same no matter where you are in the world. Anyone who believes martial law in America will forgo any of these terrible steps, or that we will somehow maintain a sense of propriety and fairness, is going to be sorely disappointed.

Free Press Destroyed: The very first action of any government that has achieved military control of a country is to dominate the flow of information. The greatest threat to elitist domination is usually the people who they mean to rule over. Ending freedom of the press stalls chances that a view that opposes government control will gain footing. In America, the mainstream media is already under globalist control and would likely remain active during martial law, at least for a time. FOX, CNN, CNBC, etc, would change little, while the true free press (alternative web news which now dominates over the ratings of mainstream media) would be attacked, if not shut down completely. Government enforced web filters (like those in China and being legislated in Australia) could be put in place, and arrests of citizen journalists are liable to occur.

Dissolution Of Checks And Balances: In some cases, military rule allows for the dissolution of states rights and even of Congress itself. If Congress is allowed to remain, it would be in a ceremonial capacity only. Under martial law, all decision making is “streamlined” into the hands of the executive branch. The excuse given for this is often the same everywhere; the President (dictator) must not have his hands tied by checks and balances during a state of crisis, otherwise, his decisions are slowed, and more people could be hurt. Once the executive branch of a country removes checks and balances, they almost never put them back willingly, even after the so-called “crisis” has subsided.

Erasure Of Civil Liberties: Say goodbye to Habeas Corpus immediately. All tyrannies have abruptly suspended rights to fair trial, rights to legal representation, Miranda Rights, even the right to know what one has been charged with before being arrested. This process quickly devolves the justice system to the point where those who are detained simply disappear, and are never heard from again. The U.S. currently has many pieces of legislation that have passed or are pending which allow rendition and even torture of regular citizens, specifically in the event of a national emergency, which under current rules, the President can declare at his leisure.

Curfews, Checkpoints, Searches, Citizen Spies: Say goodbye to privacy. Expect ID checkpoints, and arrests for lack of ID. Expect nighttime curfews in cities enforced with extreme prejudice. Expect warrant-less searches of your home without cause, not to mention surveillance of web and phone traffic. Also count on the fact that some people, out of paranoia, or out of some twisted desire for petty influence, will start pointing an accusing finger at anyone who looks at them the wrong way, and the establishment will encourage this. Tyranny is much easier when the citizens police each other. We actually see some of this behavior today, however, under martial law, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of holding the authorities or anyone who supports them legally accountable for any wrongdoing. There is essentially no means to voice grievance. Martial law is like a free pass to law enforcement officials to do whatever they please, whenever they please.

Arrests Of Activists And Dissidents: Political opponents of the establishment, no matter how honorable and peaceful they may be, would likely be arrested. Those who have the capability to lead a movement in opposition of the current government or those who have the respect of a sizable percentage of the populace will become priority targets during martial law. All tyrants seek to quash other voices, especially strong voices, so that they can create an environment in which THEIR voice is the only one that can be heard. Activists are normally labeled as subversives, insurgents, or terrorists. They are arrested and treated as enemy combatants. The reigning government will claim that such people are “dangerous” to the stability of the country, and a threat to national security. Associating activists with terrorists also makes the idea of rendition and torture slightly more palatable to the fearful public.

Economic Feudalism: In an autocracy, everything becomes a matter of national security, even the state of the workforce. All jobs become state jobs. The very poor become a possible burden. The middle class and the very rich (if not already part of the establishment) become possible competition. This is why most tyrannies seek to establish “harmonization”, which is really just a flowery way of saying that everyone is made equally dependent on the system for their survival. It is hard to become a successful man in an oppressive society if you are not one of the elite. It is even harder to be a pauper in the same society because you are seen as a parasite feeding off the collective (though you are probably hurting no one). Martial law is always followed by an end to economic prosperity for the average citizen and the removal of the traditional middle class. In the end, this causes the public to subjugate themselves. It creates a system which rewards those who submit with a semblance of the status they once had. The alternative: barely eking out an existence while under constant fear that you could be labeled an impediment to social progress. Given this choice, many would choose to conform.

Food, Water, and Healthcare Rationing: Food and water are life. Control these two things in a culture, and you have the makings of a tyranny. One of the most notable aspects in the elitist quest for empire is the trail of hunger and starvation they leave in their wake. All methods are greenlighted. Burning of farmland, hording of grain, heavy taxation on livestock or harvests, government micromanagement of planting, everything is fair game. Food regulation can be taken to a whole other level in our modern age. With malicious corporations like Monsanto in operation, genetically modified crops can be created to control diet, ‘terminator seeds’ which yield only one crop can be used to keep the masses from replanting, and the pollen from these plants can be used to infect the genus of non-GMO crops birthing mutant strains which damage the food chain. By creating a food shortage, rationing then becomes inevitable, and with rationing comes greater influence. Healthcare rationing would be a natural extension, until every moment of ones life relies on the good graces of a centralized bureaucracy.

It is rare for a government to implement all of these actions in a single instant. Usually, they are introduced slowly over a period of years, and with each new decree a problem is preemptively engineered by the elites to give a “reasonable” cause, or generate a concrete fear. As time passes, people forget what life was like before, left only with the dreadful circumstances of the present, and a disquieting sensation in the pit of their stomachs, telling them that the world they have been presented is not the world we should have settled for.

Never Compromise Liberty

Tyrants prevail when they are able to fool the masses into compromising their ideals, and their conscience. They enjoy devising scenarios by which we are made to tread through a “grey area”, a place where the truth is supposedly a matter of perspective, and that which is right and balanced could become unbalanced and destructive. Once you choose to compromise a fundamental principle, they then use that moment to set precedence.

“If torture is tolerable in the chance that it could save some lives, then perhaps it is tolerable in other situations…” they say. “If some freedoms are expendable in the name of security, then perhaps others are as well.”

How do we stop elites from setting precedence in this way? We never compromise.

“Grey Area” scenarios are a charade. A rigged casino game in which there is only a single outcome and a single winner, and the winner is definitely not you. The crisis is usually one that the establishment created in the first place, i.e. the economic collapse, the BP oil spill, false flag terror, etc. And, the solution is always predetermined. No obstacle has only one solution, there are a myriad of answers to every dilemma, some far better than others. Yet, time and time again, we are offered only one way to resolve every disaster; greater centralization and extended government power.

Most disingenuous of all is the constant promise by government to keep us safe. No government has the power to offer security. Security provided by others is an illusion. The only true safety is that which one provides for himself. We accomplish this by becoming self reliant, self aware, and tough minded. We do not wait for some abstract ruling body to come to our aid, and we do not trade our freedom on the false promise that they will honor their agreement.

I have heard it argued that America is different, that we should not suspect our government capable of tyranny because “we are the government”. I find this assumption extraordinarily naïve. Our government has not represented the wishes of the people for decades. The leaderships of both major parties have supported almost identical legislative measures and extolled parallel globalist ideologies, making a mockery of our election process by giving us only one choice in the casting of our vote. We should be very suspect of such a government, for we are not the same, our goals are entirely opposed, and only one group can be allowed to endure; those who wish to dictate, or those who wish to be free.

I have also heard it said that freedom exists under the purview of government. That the liberties we enjoy are only possible because of the protections that government provides. Elitists often take advantage of our presumption that government is some kind of cultural obligation, one that we must bow to, and that by attrition, we must bow to them. In reality, government is a philosophical construct; a framework that only exists because we will it so, and that administrates freedoms only so far as we allow it to do so. WE are the source of our liberty, NOT government. It is we as individuals who ultimately must protect the freedoms we enjoy. Under no circumstance is any government more vital than our personal liberty. The choice is eternally simple; when asked to sacrifice one or the other, government must go.

The Constitution of the United States was drafted as a means to reign in government and force it to respect the freedoms of the people. It exists to deter the power hungry, for under the Constitution they are supposed to be denied the control they thirst for, not given unrestrained supremacy. Martial law is a tool by which the power hungry can remove the restraints of the Constitution and cast aside freedoms on a whim. This is unacceptable no matter the state of affairs. War, terrorism, economic collapse, environmental catastrophe, none of these events gives anyone the license to usurp our liberties. It cannot and will not be allowed. As the 4th of July approaches, we here in America should remember what it means to call ourselves a “sovereign people”. It is a title every man is born with but few men have the strength and fortitude to keep. “Independence” requires taxing vigilance, a persevering spirit, and the determination to see that neither is tread upon. Independence has a price. In the event that we are confronted with martial law in this country, it is a price we may have to pay all over again.

Source: Neithercorp Press

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Welcome To Our Hell: The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA)

Why Are Internment Camps Being Built?

One Day Soon, We’ll All Be ‘Homegrown Terrorists’

Judges with the Colorado Court of Appeals say students and employees at the University of Colorado should be able to pack heat on campus.

In a ruling issued Thursday, the court sided with Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a gun-rights group that sued CU and argued that a 1994 university policy banning concealed weapons from its campuses violates state gun laws.

Attorneys for the group pointed to the Concealed Carry Act of 2003, a state law that prohibits local governments from adopting an ordinance to limit state concealed-carry rights. In Thursday’s opinion, the judges wrote that the Concealed Carry Act applies to universities.

The ruling revives a lawsuit that had been dismissed last spring by El Paso County District Judge G. David Miller, who said he found nothing in the state constitution that would stop CU from ordering a campus gun ban.

The ruling does not mean people will immediately be able to bring guns to campus. Instead, it sends the case back to the lower courts — in this case, to Miller — a process that can take two to three months. Miller, this time taking into consideration the higher court’s opinion on the Concealed Carry Act, would also need to rule in favor of the student gun rights group for the ban to be reversed.

As prescribed in state law, gun owners would still need a concealed-carry permit to legally bring their weapons on campus.

CU officials could appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. The Board of Regents will discuss how to proceed at a meeting next week, said CU system spokesman Ken McConnellogue.

“For us, this is not so much an issue about guns or no guns,” McConnellogue said. “This is an issue of the autonomy of the Board of Regents to govern CU campuses. That autonomy is set out in the constitution. The regents are in the best position to make these decisions.”

Regent Michael Carrigan said Thursday that he disagreed with the appeals court.

Not only is Carrigan against allowing guns on campus, but he worries that the ruling will undercut the “deference the Board of Regents should receive as an independently elected body.”

“We’re independently elected and given broad authority to make decisions about what’s right for the university’s campuses,” he said.

Regent Tom Lucero, who has the opposite perspective when it comes to guns on campus, shared Carrigan’s disappointment in the ruling. He said it should be up to the regents to allow concealed weapons on campus, an effort he said he will continue to push.

“It really strikes at the heart of regent authority,” Lucero said of the appeals court decision. “This has implications for more than just concealed carry — it has implications for the board’s overall decision-making authority.”

The CU Board of Regents banned weapons in 1970 and, in 1994, strengthened its policy requiring that students be expelled and employees be fired if found guilty of using a weapon to “intimidate, harass, injure or otherwise interfere with the learning and working environment of the university.”

Since then, the weapons issue hasn’t come up for another vote, although students protesting the ban have made their pitch to the regents.

Attorney Jim Manley, who represents Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, said at the very least people with concealed-carry permits should be able to keep guns in their cars while on the CU campus, which is now against university rules. Manley argued to the Court of Appeals that CU is violating students’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

In response, CU attorney Patrick O’Rourke argued the Concealed Carry Act does not apply because CU is a constitutionally created institution of higher education. While the Board of Regents is part of the state government, it is not a “local government” like a city or county, he said.

The state Legislature passed a law in 2003 allowing concealed weapons to be carried by permit in most parts of the state, including college campuses. But then-state Attorney General Ken Salazar issued a formal opinion that the CU regents’ order trumped state law.

Nationwide, 26 states ban concealed weapons on any school property. Twenty-three states, including Colorado, allow individual campuses to decide for themselves. A Utah Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that colleges are not an exception to a state law allowing concealed weapons on state property.

Some students have argued they would feel safer if they had concealed-carry rights on campus, and it could help prevent rapes and other violent attacks — citing the shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech University that left 33 people dead in 2007.

“It seems really odd to me that a college campus is the only place where a rapist, or a criminal, has a government guarantee that none of his potential victims will be armed,” said Gregory Carlson, chairman of the College Republicans on CU’s Boulder campus.

He said he agrees with the appeals court’s opinion, and thinks CU’s weapons ban is unconstitutional.

“If you feel safe in a supermarket or a movie theater, you shouldn’t worry about legal citizens having a gun on campus,” Carlson said.

Source: Colorado daily

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Amid cuts, Ohio judge tells citizens to carry gun

5th state exempts guns. Is Washington noticing?

Tennessee Follows Texas In Banning Private Gun Shows

One judge’s solution for citizens feeling less secure because of budget cuts in an Ohio county: Carry a gun.

Judge Alfred Mackey of Ashtabula County Common Pleas Court advised residents Friday to be vigilant and arm themselves because the number of deputies has been cut about in half because of a tight budget. He also urged neighbors to organize anti-crime block watch groups.

“They have to be law-abiding, and if they are not familiar with firearms they need to take a safety course so they are not a threat to their family and friends and themselves,” Mackey said Friday.

Mackey, whose comments were first broadcast Thursday by WKYC-TV in Cleveland, was expressing concerns with budget cuts that have trimmed the sheriff’s department from 112 to 49 deputies in the county, which is Ohio’s largest by land area.

Asked by WKYC how people should respond to the cuts and limited patrols, he said, “Arm themselves. Be very careful and just be vigilant because we’re going to have to look after each other.”

Andrew Pollis, who teaches law at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, saw the original TV clip of Mackey and said it was clear the judge wasn’t advocating vigilantism.

Still, Pollis said, snippets of the comments could be misunderstood “as a license, if you will, to engage in conduct which we as a society collectively would not want.”

In Akron, Summit County Common Pleas Judge Patricia Cosgrove, president-elect of the Ohio Common Pleas Judges Association, said she was surprised by Mackey’s suggestion.

“That’s scary to me,” she said. “I don’t know what the situation in Ashtabula County is. I personally would never — that’s a personal choice in terms of carrying a weapon.”

With deputies assigned to transport prisoners and serve warrants, only one radio car is assigned to patrol the county of 720 square miles, excluding municipalities with police departments. The sheriff’s patrol area covers most of the county, the judge said Friday.

Mackey said the response to his comments has been positive in the mostly rural county between Cleveland and Erie, Pa.

“People in this county are hunters,” said Mackey, who grew up on a farm with rifles and still owns firearms. “People have familiarity with firearms.”

Messages seeking comment on the judge’s remarks were left for Sheriff William Johnson and county commissioners.

Johnson has threatened to sue the commissioners to have some of his department’s funding restored.

The jail in the county of about 100,000 people has held as many as 140 prisoners, but the number has dipped to about 30 because of reductions in the guard staff. About 700 people are on a waiting list to serve time in the jail.

Ohio has had a concealed handgun law for five years, and from October to December the Ashtabula County sheriff issued 54 licenses. Twenty-eight licenses were renewed.

Source: AP

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

International Effort to Grab Your Guns

ATF Seizes 30 Toy Guns, Says “They Can Be Converted Into Machine Guns”

Premiere Radio Network Affaid of Free Guns?

Conservative legal experts say a federal district judge in Wisconsin had no legal basis for declaring the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional – and predict the decision cannot stand.

“If the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional, then the Constitution itself if unconstitutional,” Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law in Lynchburg, Va., told CNSNews.com.

“The National Day of Prayer – or prayer itself – is older than the Constitution,” Staver said. “There is no question (this ruling) will be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

In a decision released Thursday, U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb in Madison,Wis., declared unconstitutional a 1988 federal law giving the president the authority to designate the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer.

The decision came in a case filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison, Wis.-based atheist group, which had argued that the statute was unconstitutional because it endorses prayer.

The judge agreed with the atheist group, and based her decision, in part, on the fact that atheists “feel” marginalized by the law, which directs the president to declare a National Day of Prayer.

Crabb admitted that many people are not “harmed” by the president proclaiming a day of prayer – because they are “unaware of the message,” or it was “not directed at them,” or they approve of the observance.

“However, individuals such as (the) plaintiffs, who do not pray and feel marginalized as a result of the government’s message of prayer, suffer a distinct harm,” the judge wrote.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which represented 31 members of Congress in an amicus brief defending the National Day of Prayer, said the decision was badly thought out.

“It is unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer for the country represents a time-honored tradition that embraces the First Amendment, not violates it,” Sekulow said.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), himself a former judge and one of the 31 congressmen who weighed in on the case, blasted Crabb, telling CNSNews.com that “it was obvious” the federal judge “had not received a very good education” in American history.

“If she had, she would have known that at the Constitutional Convention, after five weeks of nothing being accomplished. Benjamin Franklin stood up and said, ‘Why is it that we have not once applied to the Father of Lights to eliminate understanding?’

“He said, ‘In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, we had daily prayer in this room.’ He went on to say that he had lived a long time, and the longer he lived the more convincing proofs he saw of the truth of God governing the affairs of men. He went on to move that, ‘Henceforth, that prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings upon our deliberations in Congress be held every day.’

“And from that day in 1787, until today, the very day I’m talking with you, we start (each session of Congress) with prayer. President after president have had National Days of Prayer – the whole country has. Poor Judge Crabb – I’m sure she thought she paid for a good education, but she just grew up in the dark.”

Sekulow, meanwhile, agreed the case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court — but also issued a warning.

“The reason I think it goes to the Supreme Court is because, who knows what’s going to happen at the Seventh Circuit (Court of Appeals),” Sekulow said. “That is a circuit that has been difficult at times on religion cases. I think it is very likely that this case ends up in the Supreme Court of the United States, and I think we will carry the day, but it is going to be a close case.”

But he added: “This issue could very well be decided by the next appointee to the high court. An issue like this underscores the importance of why it’s so critical for the nominee to answer direct questions about their judicial philosophy, how they view the role of judges, and their view of the rule of law.”

The lawsuit, meanwhile, had named National Day of Prayer Task Force Chairman Shirley Dobson, President Barack Obama and his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, as defendants. The judge dismissed the case against Dobson.

President Obama, who last year issued a proclamation but refused to host National Day of Prayer ceremonies at the White House, as previous administrations had done, contend that the statute is simply an “acknowledgment of the role of religion in American life” that is similar to other ceremonial practices that courts have upheld in the past.

Source: CNSNews

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Russia Warns US Communist Threat Endangering Entire World

Active ‘Patriot’ Groups in the United States in 2009

DoD Training Manual: Protests are “Low-Level Terrorism”

‘I think they’re going to let it ride, hoping some judge throws out case’

A fifth state – South Dakota – has decided that guns made, sold and used within its borders no longer are subject to the whims of the federal government through its rule-making arm in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and two supporters of the growing groundswell say they hope Washington soon will be taking note.

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds has signed into law his state’s version of a Firearms Freedom Act that first was launched in Montana. It already is law there, in Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming, which took the unusual step of specifying criminal penalties – including both fines and jail time – for federal agents attempting to enforce a federal law on a “personal firearm” in the Cowboy State.

According to a report in the Dakota Voice, the new South Dakota law addresses the “rights of states which have been carelessly trampled by the federal government for decades.”

“As the federal government has radically overstepped is constitutional limitations in the past year or so, an explosion of states have begun re-asserting their rights not only with regard to firearms, but also in shielding themselves against government health care, cap and trade global warming taxes, and more,” the report said.

South Dakota’s law specifically notes “any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in South Dakota and that remains within the borders of South Dakota is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”

The provisions are nearly a mirror of the original law penned in Montana as well as those adopted in subsequent decisions by Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming.

Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association spearheaded the Montana law and now describes himself as a sort of “godfather” to the national campaign.

He told WND the issue is not only about guns but about states’ rights and the constant overreaching by federal agencies and Washington to impose their requirements on in-state activities.

Here are answers to all your questions about guns, ammunition and accessories.

He said he’s pleased South Dakota has become No. 5, and noted Alaska, Idaho and Oklahoma all have legislation that is approaching the stage of being presented to a governor to be made into law.

The Firearms Freedom Act website also reveals that other states either with pending legislation or pending plans include Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia.

Map showing 5 states adopting gun exemptions (in green)

Marbut said Washington appears to be reacting the same way it did when states legalized marijuana or rejected the REAL ID national plan: by ignoring it.

“Ultimately we hope there will be lawsuits in other federal circuits, because there are two things that predispose the U.S. Supreme Court to take a case: the national scope of the issue and differing appellate decisions,” he told WND.

Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center said Washington likely is not anxious for a confrontation.

“I think they’re going to let it ride, hoping some judge throws out the case,” he said today.

“When they really start paying attention is when people actually start following the [state] firearms laws,” he said.

WND reported earlier when Wyoming joined the states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation.

But when Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal signed his state’s bill into law, it included penalties for any agent of the U.S. who “enforces or attempts to enforce” federal gun rules on a “personal firearm” in Wyoming including up to two years in prison and up to $2,000 in fines.

The bellwether likely is to be a lawsuit pending over the Montana law, which was the first to go into effect.

As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3, 2009.

Marbut argues that the federal government was created by the states to serve the states and the people, and it is time for the states to begin drawing boundaries for the federal government and its agencies.

The government’s filing in the case demands its dismissal, citing a lacking of “standing” for the plaintiffs and the court’s lack of “jurisdiction,” as well as the Constitution’s Commerce clause. The government filing argues, “The Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have repeatedly held that even purely intrastate activities, such as those the MFFA purports to exempt from federal law, do affect interstate commerce and thus are within Congress’ power to regulate. As a result, even if plaintiffs had standing and jurisdiction existed, plaintiffs’ amended complaint fails to state a claim and must be dismissed.”

The Commerce Clause, however, can be interpreted to have been amended by the 10th Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, adopted subsequent to the U.S. Constitution, Marbut explains.

His organization said, “The Commerce Clause was amended – by the 10th Amendment. It is a bedrock principle of jurisprudence that for any conflict between provisions of a co-equal body of law, the most recently enacted must be given deference as the most recent expression of the enacting authority. This principle is ancient. Without this principle, laws could not be amended or repealed.”

Learn what you can do about your nation. Get “Taking America Back,” Joseph Farah’s manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

For example, U.S. courts repeatedly affirmed slavery before it ultimately was rejected.

There’s no question that the components of the Bill of Rights have authority: Just look at the First Amendment, Marbut explained.

In an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a nullification.

“Laws of the federal government are to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the delegated powers of U.S. Constitution. When D.C. enacts laws outside those powers, state laws trump. And, as Thomas Jefferson would say, when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are ‘unauthoritative, void, and of no force’ from the outset,” Boldin wrote.

“When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state’s citizens,” he continued.

Source: World Net Daily

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

International Effort to Grab Your Guns

ATF Seizes 30 Toy Guns, Says “They Can Be Converted Into Machine Guns”

When the Military Serves as Police

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

ATF Seizes 30 Toy Guns, Says “They Can Be Converted Into Machine Guns”

Tennessee Follows Texas In Banning Private Gun Shows

The Republic is Dead; We Are Ready to Fight, Now What?

INDIANAPOLIS — Pendleton police have seized a license plate of a so-called “sovereign citizen,” a growing group of Indiana residents who claim to be outside the law.

Police said the plate was going to be placed on a vehicle by a self-proclaimed diplomat in lieu of a state-issued plate.Members of the sovereign citizen movement contend that they no longer have to pay taxes, claiming their homes as embassies and using identification cards that show them as diplomats, 6News’ Rafael Sanchezreported.

We all predicted this would happen.

In a move typical for that fear-mongering organization with an ever-swelling acronym, the BATFE has written gun dealers in the states of Montana and Tennessee to let them know the BATFE will be disregarding the states’ sovereign gun laws.

The “Montana Made” law, just like Tennessee’s Firearms Freedom Act, is very simple.

Much of the claimed federal authority to regulate firearm sales and transfers stems from a liberal interpretation of every American tyrant’s favorite subterfuge, the “interstate commerce” clause.  In essence, this is what gives the BATFE its nasty teeth.

With this in mind, Montana correctly understood that any weapon made in Montana by Montana residents and sold in Montana to Montana residents is Montana’s business and Montana’s business alone.

Montana thus sought to take charge of its firearms industry with the application of a simple truism:

Any gun made in Montana by Montana residents and sold in Montana to Montana residents is intrastate commerce, not “interstate commerce,” and thus does not full under the purview of the federal government.

Potentially, the state would be able to say goodbye to NICS checks; Brady background checks; NFA taxes, bans and NFA databases — and most importantly, federal “assault weapons” bans, which Montana and Tennessee rightly anticipated.

In effect, the “Montana Made” law would have permitted Montana gun companies to manufacture any kind of weapon banned by federal law — including so-called “assault weapons” – and sell them to fellow Montana residents.

Moreover, in this scenario, no one — neither the manufacturer nor the dealer nor the buyer — would have to kowtow to the BATFE by paying them a $200 tax and surrendering one’s privacy to their notoriously inaccurate and oft-abused National Firearms Registry.

It was a new day for freedom — and other states besides Tennessee were thinking of following suit: Alaska, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.

Well, the BATFE — never one to have its power downplayed (or acronym belittled)– has written letters to both Montana and Tennessee gun dealers letting them know that they proceed at their own risk.

We can only guess what new horrors those words portend — probably more dead housewives and children as disgruntled ATF thugs shoot-to-kill anyone suspected of perhaps owning a firearm not properly taxed and regulated by Washington, D.C., power brokers.

What else would be new.

A few of our members expressed interest in contacting the BATFE to vent some righteous anger – the same thing we did when the Department of Defense said they were going to ban all once-fired military brass for resale.

Remember how the DoD reneged on that commitment after just a few days due to the widespread backlash from gun owners and law enforcement?

Well, this is a bit different.  Writing the ATF and providing them with your information is akin to giving thieves your home address and the hours you won’t be home.

We’re going to take a different, less dangerous approach.

We’ve been talking to state officials from both Montana and Tennessee today to try to figure out the best way we can help these state laws succeed.

Please stay tuned to updates on this supremely important issue in our future emails.

For now, click here to read Luke’s commentary on his blog and leave a comment as this development unfolds.

But before I leave you, would you consider a donation to the National Association for Gun Rights as we continue to fight for the right to keep and bear arms?  Please click here to contribute.

In Liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

P.S. The National Association for Gun Rights can always use your help as we are completely dependent on our members’ generosity.  Please click here to donate.

Source: National Association for Gun Rights

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

When the Military Serves as Police

Tennessee Follows Texas In Banning Private Gun Shows

UN maneuvers to create “Global Gun Control”

Prolific Mexican politician and intellectual Jorge Castañeda believes that a greater North American community — a “North American Union” — with economies tied together under a European Union-style system, complete with open borders and a unified currency, is the wave of the future.

In a new interview with Web site BigThink.com, Castañeda, Mexico’s foreign minister from 2000-2003 and a global distinguished professor of politics at New York University, said that with nearly 11 percent of Mexicans living in the United States, he has stopped seeing his nation as a Latin American country.

“Well, my sense is that we’re moving closer and closer to forms of economic integration with the United States and Canada and conceivably Central America and Caribbean could become part of that in the coming years,” he said. “I don’t see Mexico as a Latin American country. Too much of trade, investment, tourism, immigration, remittances, absolutely everything is concentrated exclusively with the United States. So, Mexico has to be part of a North American community, a North American union, which at some point probably should include some type of monetary union along European lines with a free flow of labor, with energy being on the table, etc.”

Often demonized as some type of “conspiracy theory” in mainstream American press, the so-called North American Union proposals have actually existed for some time. In May of 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations released a document entitled “Building a North American Community” in which it calls for an EU-like integration of Canada, the United States and Mexico.

While the document does not specifically call for the ceding of sovereignty between the three nations — as some vocal opponents of the idea have suggested — it does recommend the formation of a North American Advisory Council and a multinational inter-parliamentary group to facilitate mutual cooperation. Though the group originally set out to achieve this goal by 2010, few in mainstream America are even aware of it today.

The CFR’s full proposal is available online. [PDF link]

“Economic and social citizenship in North America implies the ability of citizens to exert pressure for the implementation of an inclusive economic policy at home and to be engaged in the international economy,” wrote CFR member Carlos Heredia. “To the extent that citizens of the three partner countries see that North American integration brings concrete benefits, a new constituency will be galvanized to support these efforts in the years to come.”

“How far away are we from that?” Castañeda asked, rhetorically. “Quite far, but so did it seem back in Europe in the 1950’s and very little time later they came around and understood that that was their future lay. My sense is that the Mexican society is voting with its feet. We have a higher share of Mexicans living in the United States than we have ever had in our history. One out of every nine Mexicans, Mexican citizens, people born in Mexico, live in the United States today.”

In recent weeks, Castañeda also appeared on CNN’s Amanpour for a debate about the drug war. He explained that in his view, marijuana should be legalized in order to take away the drug cartels’ primary revenue source. However, “we can’t do it in Mexico if the U.S. doesn’t do it at the same time,” he said.

Speaking to BigThink, he carried a similar message.

“Having recklessly plunged the country into [the drug war] now, I think what Calderón and the United States should do is to sort of sit back for a second, think this through, see what they really want to achieve, what is achievable and what should be done that’s new,” he said. “For example, there are more and more states in the US that are moving towards decriminalization at least of marijuana. Mexico is still a very important producer of marijuana. Some people say that up to 60 percent of the profits of Mexico’s cartels come from marijuana. Well, if the United States or California’s de facto legalizing it through medical marijuana, what sense does it make for Mexicans to die to stop marijuana from entering the US when once it enters it can be sold legally at over 1,000 dispensaries in Los Angeles, more than the number of public schools there are in Los Angeles. That’s certainly one thing that we can do.”

This interview was published to the Web by BigThink.com on Feb. 16, 2010. The complete interview is available here.

Source: Raw Story

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

PUSH FOR GLOBALISM CONTINUES

Bill Gates Wants National ID Card For The US & Loosened Immigration Laws

Former president of Mexico calls for a North American Union at underreported summit