http://ohmygodronpaulwilleatallofourbabiesandourbabiesbabiesandtheirbabiesbabiesuntiltherearenobabiesleft.com/

————————–

By Richard Deekbag

What a joke! All these idiots complaining about their junk being touched by the TSA. I say we should just stand there and take it like real men. I say, “If it’s for national security then TOUCH MY JUNK, PLEASE!!” It’s the patriotic thing to do. If you opt-out of the junk-touching then the terrorists win, pure and simple. If you opt-out of the junk-touching then you hate America!!

I do think there is room for the TSA to improve this process though. It appears that all females get to be felt up by female TSA agents and all males get to be fondled by male TSA agents. This is a discriminatory practice. The TSA should ask the traveler if he or she is a homosexual. If the answer is affirmative then the traveler should be appropriately touched by a member of the opposite sex.

Yes, all touching in the name of national security is appropriate. Other than that small change I applaud the great work of the TSA over the past few weeks. The skies are infinitely safer and there can be no one who says they aren’t friendlier with this policy in place. In fact, they just published a children’s book to help children adapt to the new policy. Here’s is the cover:

This is a great effort by the TSA. They didn’t have to do this. In fact I heartily recommend you contact the TSA via their TalktoTSA website and let them know how much you appreciate them caring enough to do a free hernia check on children as well as adult air travelers. They are so damn good at it they don’t even ask you to turn your head and cough!

Now let’s turn our attention to the terrorist-harboring, enemy combatant-infested, treasonous organization known as Wikileaks. The bottom line is that everyone associated with Wikileaks should be waterboarded for fun and then executed. As patriotic Americans we cannot tolerate having the truth told about government lies. We must protect the lies! These bald-faced lies are crucial for national security!

The American people need to understand that truth is treason when it comes to protecting the homeland. They act like the government exists solely for them! How utterly ridiculous! They need to pay attention in the public school classroom so they learn some important lessons about their government.

Government is their God and their God is good. America is not a nanny-state as some say. It is a God-state. It always does what’s in the citizenry’s best interest whether they like it or not. Everything it touches turns into a success story! All the wars are won and over quickly. There is very little national debt. The budget is balanced year after year, when adjusted for inflation. And of course, the government protects the free market by regulating it perfectly! But I digress.

Here is something that cannot be just a coincidence. Head of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange has a curious middle name. It is a name he has in common with another man who is wrong on every damn thing. Assange’s middle name is Paul. I, am of course, talking about the crazy, kooky, and quixotic Congressman from Texas, Ron Paul.

It’s obvious that Ron Paul needs to have his head examined. Paul has come out in support of Wikileaks revealing the truth about our government. This amounts to treason. Congress recently censured Charlie Rangel for ethics violations. His violations pale in comparison to Ron Paul’s constant violations. Ron Paul should be censured and thrown out of Congress. After all he actually believes in and follows the Constitution. How utterly ridiculous!

So to recap, Americans should live by these tenets:

1. The first person to use “National Security” as an excuse, always wins!
2. Touch my junk, please! It’s patriotic!
3. Touch my junk, please! Or the terrorists win!
4. Julian Paul Assange should get a medal… tied around his neck and be dropped from a plane over the Pacific Ocean.
5. Truth is treason, government lies must remain secret! It’s patriotic!
6. Truth is treason, government lies must remain secret! Or the terrorists win!
7. Ron Paul believes in the Constitution. Censure Him!! And don’t get me started on his supporters.

America! F@%& YEAH!,

Richard Deekbag

————

They say, “To cook a frog, don’t toss it into boiling water, put it into cool water and turn the heat up slowly”.

Our government would tell us that for the right (they call it a privilege) to fly on a commercial flight, we must submit either to a dose of radiation and provide a naked rendering of our body or submit to a government groping. . . or both. Either option, would be considered a crime if committed without a claimed “government authority”. The history of airline/airport security for the past forty years clearly shows that security is not the goal

Although airline hijackings have existed since, at least, the 1930′s, they didn’t “come into vogue” until the 1960′s with demands from hijackers to be taken to Cuba or some other political venue or for the payment of a ransom. This changed in 1970 when three airliners were hijacked by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The aircraft were forced to fly to Jordan where the passengers were ultimately released and the aircraft were destroyed. Today, this would be classified as a major “terrorist” event. In reality, they were political hijackings, which occurred only because they were allowed to occur. In 1970, as today, the existing security measures did not address the problem nor were they meant to correct the problem. At best, they were (and are) all theater meant to provide a sense of security.

Each of these hijackings could have been prevented – at minimal cost, without government involvement and without the sacrifice of personal liberties. Simple: lock and reinforce the cockpit door. Although, we’ve all been herded through metal detectors, emptied our pockets and had our bags x-rayed, nobody thought to “lock the door” for more than thirty years; until after 9/11.

IS ADDITIONAL SECURITY MEANT TO MAKE US MORE SECURE?

Prior to 1970, most passengers were either not screened or were screened by magnetometers. The magnetometers may have offered a sense of security but in reality, they offered no security. Magnetometers will not detect non-ferrous metals; knives as well as aluminum-frame handguns could walk right through.

With the development of “second-generation” metal detectors (those that detected any metal and which remain in use today), this gap could have been plugged. This equipment was/is sensitive enough that it can almost count the number of teeth on your zipper or the number of fillings in your mouth. Could, but didn’t. Anyone who flew prior to 911 probably remembers that you could walk through a metal detector with your belt on, keys in your pocket or with a pack of cigarettes. Yes, cigarettes; because of the foil wrapper, a pack of cigarettes would have the same signature as a small handgun and yet, you could walk right through. Worse yet, the government knew, the airlines knew, the airports knew and security professionals knew that the metal detectors were intentionally designed to ignore the area below the calf. Many shoes have metal toes or metal arch shanks and they didn’t want to “inconvenience” us by having us remove our shoes – that is until Richard Reid, the “Shoe Bomber” in 2001. Simply put, until 2001 if you wanted a weapon on a plane you could just put it in your boot. We were told that if we queued-up like cattle, we would be secure; but 9/11 happened, with metal weapons. Were we more secure or was this all about perceptions?

THE UNDERWEAR BOMBER & ADVANCED SCREENING or “LET ME LOOK IN YOUR PANTS”

In December, 2009 Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded a plane in Lagos, Nigeria , ultimately bound for Detroit. More than a month prior to the flight, his father reported to the CIA that his son held “extreme religious views”. He had no passport, had had trained in Yemen. and his name was on the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment. Nevertheless, he was allowed to fly, was not subjected to secondary screening and US Intelligence even requested that his visa not be revoked. Somewhere over Detroit he attempted to detonate a bomb sewn into his underwear. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano later said that “the system worked.” Really?

Within days, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was making the media rounds promoting new x-ray scanners for a company in which he has a financial interest. The machines were paid for with federal “stimulus” money and have never been medically reviewed. Scientists have routinely reported that x-ray screenings WILL result in increased skin cancer. Amazingly, US Intelligence could have stopped the Underwear Bomber but didn’t. The Underwear Bomber flew TO the US and most countries do not require this “advanced” screening. So even with this invasive screening in place, within the United States, his attempt would not have been prevented. Italy, after testing, has abandoned the equipment stating that it is ineffective. So, why here? Does this make us safe?

Where do we go from here? How much are we willing to endure in the name of security? There’s already been at least one terrorist bombing where the bomb was hidden in a body cavity of the bomber. Based on the government’s modus operandi. . . event = response. . . are body cavity searches next? Are we ready for that? Don’t count it out. They’re already irradiating us, seeing us naked and sexually assaulting us.

Bottom line? If someone wants to take down an aircraft they can still do it. People are screened but parcels aren’t. And, routinely parcels are loaded onto commercial aircraft. If someone wants to use an aircraft as a “weapon”, why bother with a commercial flight – private and charter flights aren’t screened. At best, we’re being queued-up, irradiated, viewed naked, groped, questioned and our rights violated for perceptions only, not security. Theater, at our expense.

We’re the frogs. Do you feel the heat?

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin

———————————————————-

Craig Hensler is a co-developer of second-generation weapon detection systems, has screened international flights and conducted demonstrations for US air carriers, the FAA, New York Port Authority and US Sky Marshals.

Eric Holder sent a letter to some former DEA administrator’s who have urged the Justice Department to oppose Proposition 19. In it he wrote:

“Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19. If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens.”

So does this mean that Obama’s justice department will begin enforcing federal drug laws once again in California? Yes, it appears it does.

This goes right back to the nullification debate. Do states have the right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws? Given this news it appears that Obama’s justice department’s Constitution goes right from Amendment 9 to Amendment 11.

It appears that a certain California Sheriff has a similar version of the Constitution:

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who is a co-chairman of the main opposition committee, released the letter at a news conference at his headquarters Friday, flanked by two former DEA heads, the district attorney and the Los Angeles city attorney.

“He is saying it is an unenforceable law and the federal government will not allow California to become a rogue state on this issue,” Baca said. “You can’t make a law in contradiction to federal law as a state. Therefore Proposition 19 is null and void and dead on arrival.”

Wow. Baca’s ignorance would be astounding if it wasn’t for Obama through Holder saying basically the same thing. This directly contradicts our Founders. Obama is King and anyone who disagrees with him are peasants or worse, racists. I suppose we can thank Abraham Lincoln for this.

The America we live in is one where the National Government can nullify state laws and “F%*@ the Founders” sing the Statists.

He’s so similar to George W. Bush, and in some cases worse (drone bombing fetish?), on foreign policy that I expect to hear him start mis-pronouncing the word “nuclear” any day now.

He, like his fellow progressives, believes government is the solution to all the problems of the world. Will it take someone hurling a shoe at him to wake him up to the fact that the government doesn’t have such a great track record when it comes to solutions? That probably wouldn’t work. He’d just accuse the shoe-thrower of being a Right-wing extremist and/or a Tea Party racist and/or a domestic terrorist and/or a misguided soul who has been brain-washed by “my opponents” to believe that government is the problem.

Then he may calm down a bit and suggest that perhaps he just needs to explain things better so the stupid peasants that live around his DC castle and beyond understand that the proper role of government is to be involved in every aspect of their lives.

For instance, let’s investigate the health welfare individual mandate.

Virginia (my home state) passed a law that went into effect yesterday. The law exempts Virginians from the mandate. Virginia has also sued the federal government claiming the mandate is unconstitutional. Here is the latest on this lawsuit (from Reuters):

RICHMOND, Virginia (Reuters) – The state of Virginia and the government were pitched in a legal battle in a federal courtroom on Thursday that could lead to the undoing of the massive healthcare reform law passed three months ago.

Judge Henry Hudson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Richmond heard the federal government’s arguments to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Virginia that contends the healthcare law’s requirement that all Americans have health insurance is unconstitutional.

Before President Barack Obama signed the radical overhaul of the multi-billion dollar health insurance industry into law, Virginia’s legislature passed its own law that took effect on Thursday that says no one could be mandated to buy health insurance.

While the judge will only decide if the suit can proceed — a decision Hudson said he would render within 30 days — the court heard the first airing of arguments that could make their way to the Supreme Court as some states resist implementing the law.

States “resisting” federal law is just a modern day more politically-correct version of nullification.  There are several states participating in this effort. Virginia is not alone.

If the case is not dismissed, both sides will return to court on October 18 for a summary judgment. If it is dismissed, Virginia will likely appeal and keep the suit in the courts. Regardless, other lawsuits will proceed, including one filed in Florida by more than a dozen states. In July alone, the federal government will have to argue in court twice, once in California on July 16 and once in Michigan on July 21.

Legal analysts say there is a good possibility one of these cases will reach the highest court in the country, but most say there is only a slim chance that the Supreme Court will rule in the states’ favor.

This version of nullification, successful or not, is the best method available to fight back against federal government overreach. The question is are there enough judges with the stones to uphold these “nullification” lawsuits in the courts? I hope we all get a chance to find out.

Then Lisa Lambert, the article’s author, asserts  something that left me, a normally mild-mannered human, screaming at my computer screen in anger. Here it is:

In its argument, the U.S. government said the requirement to buy health insurance falls under the Commerce Clause, the constitutional provision allowing the federal government to regulate commerce between states. Also, the Constitution says that the federal government’s power is higher than the states’.

What?

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the federal government’s power is “higher” than the states? I’m curious how many people who read that sentence will believe it is true. I’m not sure it is a blatant or malicious lie, but it is simply untrue. Then again if our lawmakers can cite the Commerce Clause to regulate any and everything under the sun maybe she’s right. Maybe the supreme law of the land in 1789 really has morphed into being just a “god-damned piece of paper” in 2010.

The Commerce Clause reads, “[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes”. (NOTE: The definition of “regulate” in 1789 was to “keep regular” or to “keep in proper functioning order”. The evidence is overwhelming that the Founders never intended for it to permit government direction and control of commerce.)

Now, “among the several States” defines the scope of the clause. It applies to interstate commerce. Since current law is such that health care is purely intrastate commerce (we can’t purchase health insurance across state lines) how can the Commerce Clause apply?

The judge deciding whether to permit the case stated his own dilemma with applying the Commerce Clause to the health welfare mandate.

[Judge] Hudson seemed skeptical of the idea that everyone in the country participates in the commerce of healthcare, saying that this could establish the paradox that a form of economic inactivity – not buying insurance – would be considered an economic activity.

This seems promising to me that the judge will ultimately permit the case to proceed. We’ll know that within the next 30 days.

The mandate is not set to go into effect until 2014. This gives any presidential candidate opposing Obama in 2012 political ammunition. All one would have to do is sign on to support Ron Paul’s bill (H.R. 4995) to repeal the health welfare mandate and then campaign on repealing it prior to it going into effect in 2014.

Imagine the GOP primary debates in 2011-2012. I envision all the GOP candidates fighting over supporting Ron Paul’s H.R. 4995 all the while Ron Paul sits back as the bill’s sponsor relaxed and ready for the next question.

It’s January of 2011 and a lone man stands on a street corner holding a sign in Ames, Iowa. The sign says, “Yes, You Will!” There is a picture of a man below those words.

It is either…

…a picture of Obama with a crown on his head and a whip in his hand.

Or a photo of a smiling Ron Paul with the phrase “run in 2012″ below the picture.

In either case, I’d be left smiling on the outside and hopeful on the inside.

From a recent press release:

Two former soldiers from the Army unit responsible for the Wikileaks “Collateral Murder” incident have written an open-letter of “Reconciliation and Responsibility” to those injured in the July 2007 attack, in which U.S. forces wounded two children and killed over a dozen people, including the father of those children and two Reuters employees.

Ethan Mccord and Josh Stieber deployed to Baghdad with Bravo Company 2-16 in 2007. Ethan was on the ground at the scene of the shooting, and is seen on the video rushing one of the injured children to a U.S. Vehicle; “When I saw those kids, all I could picture was my kids back home”. Ethan applied for mental health support following this incident and was denied by his commanding officer.

Josh Stieber was not at the scene of the shooting but says similar incidents happened throughout his 14-month tour; “The acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war.”
 Josh states that these casualties demonstrate the impact of U.S. military policy on both the civilians and the soldiers on the ground. [Read the rest here]

You can read their letter at http://www.lettertoiraq.com/.

Why is this not front page news in every media outlet in America?

This letter reminds me of a video I put together during Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign of 2008 called “Troops Are Human”. I utilized a song by CC Carter called “Letter from Iraq”. You can watch it below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvEil9LukKk

This short series will address the War on Terror. While my stances on both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are very clear, I have not yet formally written on Guantanamo Bay and its prisoners, offered practical solutions to improve our border and airline safety, and commented in depth on our foreign policy and terrorism abroad. In this part, I will explain the history of ‘Gitmo’ for knowing its history is key to understanding what should be done with this military base. Next I will dissect a recent editorial published in the local newspaper by the incumbent Congressman and then propose my solutions on how to handle Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Following this, no current discussion on terror would be complete without discussing the controversial body scanning and I will add my comments and solutions on airline safety. The last part will summarize just how dangerous the war on terror is – not only to our soldiers who risk their lives everyday and avoiding financial ruin as a country, but also to our liberties as a free society.

Readers should be aware that the incumbent in my congressional race sits on Homeland Security and is a rabid supporter of the Bush and Obama administrations’ War on Terror. While I do not question his motives to protect the American people, I do very much oppose his actions and ineffective solutions. Our country’s leaders have not only plunged our nation into expensive, preemptive, and unjust wars for the past decade, but have embarked on a vast extension of a modern-day police state. It is the duty of every citizen to question whether these new restraints over our lives are, in fact, beneficial. I view the infringement of civil liberties that are protected by our Constitution as not only illegal but unnecessary and immoral.

THE GUANTANAMO PROBLEM

“History… should not be forgotten. History itself, whether bad or good, should not be forgotten.” - Chen Zhiyong

“The detention facilities at Guantanamo for individuals covered under this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order.” - President Obama by Executive Order, January 22, 2009.  Time’s up.

I remember the years after 9/11 when the government announced they were stowing away “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. CUBA? I remember thinking. Why Cuba? Aren’t they communist and not exactly on cordial relations with the USA? I never pursued my curiosity further than this for many years until I moved abroad to communist China and completely changed my views on the War of Terror.

The origins of Guantanamo’s long, strange trip under US control began when the U.S.S. Maine exploded on February 15, 1898 in Havana’s harbor while Cuba was revolting against the Spanish empire. While the Maine was certainly not attacked by the Spanish navy, to this day it is uncertain whether stored ammunition exploded or the ship hit a mine. At any rate, the battleship was an unwelcome military presence.  (Photo shown entering Havana harbor three weeks prior to explosion.)

William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal published fictional drawings of Spanish saboteurs attacking the vessel after famously cabling his journalist, “You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.” As a result, Congress declared war against Spain in April 1898. The war cry was “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!”

Led by future President Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders, the motley army won several quick battles before malaria and dysentery could overwhelm them. While Cuba was technically made independent by the Treaty of Paris in 1898, the US government forced Cuba to add the infamous Platt Amendment to its constitution, stripping away completely its sovereignty and enabling the US to intervene in domestic affairs, making it a de facto satellite of the United States from 1901 until 1934. Marines were sent to quell insurrections in 1906, 1912, 1917, and 1920. (1)

Guantanamo Bay, consisting of 45 square miles, was part of the Platt Amendment, and the US Navy established a refueling station to project power around the Caribbean and Panama Canal. Cuba’s independence had no effect on the base besides changing it’s rental agreement. When former lawyer Fidel Castro took over as dictator of a communist police state in 1959 following the Cuban Revolution, he attempted to remove the naval base and, after cashing the first rental check, has not cashed any additional checks sent by the government through the present day.

A Cuban minefield still borders the base on land – the US removed its minefield under Clinton – and the Cuban government still treats the base as hostile. Perhaps from an American perspective, an equivalent situation would exist if China were to take over part of the coast of Oregon, plunk down a base for its navy complete withStarbucks, Pizza Hut, KFC, and McDonald’s, imprison and torture their criminals, terrorists, and prisoners of war there, and then send checks for a rent that we never cash.

It should be plainly obvious that the proper action to take is to not only close down the prison camp, but also to eventually close down the entire military base and return the property to Cuba. This would go a long way towards restoring peace, commerce, and friendship with the impoverished and isolated country. While the harsh socialist economic policies of the Castro regime certainly has not done Cubans much good, neither have American trade embargoes or the attempted CIA invasion in 1961 helped Americans.

It’s time to let bygones be bygones and simply return the property to Cuba. Now, what to do about the prisoners? Well, I will get to that. Let’s first take a look at the incumbent’s claim that closing Guantanamo Bay would weaken national security in part two.

Jake Towne

January 19, 2010

PS – On a different topic, I will be giving a talk on monetary policy tomorrow to the Concerned Citizens of Upper Perkiomen for Smaller Government.  On Thursday, I begin co-hosting my first radio show.    Details are here.

(1) Note: The Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico were also transferred to US sovereignty following the Treaty of Paris. The Filipinos were not granted self-rule and were consistently patronized as our “little brown brothers” by the President and many others. The Filipinos constantly rebelled against the American occupation, costing over 4,000 US soldiers’ lives and likely several hundred thousand Filipino dead from reprisals. Many Filipinos cooperated with the Japanese when they invaded the day of Pearl Harbor.  Although several details are incorrect, please see also Chalmers Johnson’s The Sorrows of Empire, pages 39-45.

If you want the Supreme Court to hear this argument please make a tax-deductible contribution for this purpose to the Downsize DC Foundation.

Why this is important

Statism is the belief that politicians and bureaucrats should have broad powers to use force against citizens. In its most virulent forms Statism killed more people in the 20th Century alone than all of the individual non-governmental murderers in the history of the world, COMBINED!

Professor R.J. Rummel estimates the total murderous death-toll of Statism at about 170 million people!

Not even the Black Death of the Middle Ages, or the Flu epidemic of 1918, can approach these numbers, even if you combine the totals from those two epidemics and reduce the estimate for the total number of murders committed by governments.

But the terrible statistics for Statist murder still only tell part of the story. We must add to them the statistics for the mass theft, imprisonment, and torture committed by governments against innocent people. These measurements of State criminality are even more vast, so much so that they are literally incalculable.

The State, and the belief-system that fosters its criminality — Statism — are the great scourges of human existence, against which no other source of death and destruction can remotely compare.

Of course, in reaction to all of these blood-curdling facts the fool argues that such things could never happen in this country. The same foolish belief was held by people in Russia, Germany, China, Cambodia, and a hundred other places, before such things DID happen in those countries. But such naivety is also exposed by one other crucial fact . . .

Murderous and violent crimes by the State have already been committed by our government, on a massive scale. A partial list would include . . .

• Our government’s eviction of the law-abiding Cherokees from the South Eastern U.S., the confiscation of their property, and the “Trail of Tears” Death March to Oklahoma that followed
• Repeated massacres of Indian women and children by U.S. Army death squads throughout the 19th Century
• Two hundred years of State-enforced, multi-generational captivity for Africans, and the continual rape and torture that accompanied this enslavement
• One hundred years of State-enforced segregation of Africans over broad stretches of the United States, including the unofficial collaboration by police in lynchings and beatings against unarmed African-Americans
• The mass murder of Filipinos in a campaign of colonial subjugation following the Spanish-American war (which was supposedly fought against colonialism!)
• The internment of innocent Japanese-Americans in concentration camps during World War II

The United States is indeed special, but not as special as blind, adolescent patriotism wants to believe. And what remains of our specialness is under relentless and increasing pressure. We have argued elsewhere that . . .

• President George W. Bush laid the basic infrastructure for a future police state, and that .
• President Obama has retained, and in some cases expanded, all the Bush-era policies — the PATRIOT Act, warrantless spying, REAL ID, imprisonment without due process, extraordinary rendition, etc.
• Some future crisis, or series of calamities, could deploy this infrastructure in a freedom-crushing, and perhaps even murderous way

What has made America special are the controls that our Founders erected against the kind of Statist thuggery so-loved by President Bush, President Obama, and nearly all politicians. It is true that these controls have always been incomplete, and have failed repeatedly, as in the examples cited above. But it is also true that . . .

They have worked better than any other system yet devised by mortal man.

To remain special, and to become more special, we must preserve and even enhance every protection we have against State criminality. Some of these protections could be thought of as a series of boxes . . .

• The ballot box
• The jury box
• The mail box (which DownsizeDC.org is using in its modern electronic forms because the ballot and jury boxes have become so corrupted)
• And finally, as a last resort, the cartridge (ammo) box

Cartridge boxes are what . . .

• Jews, Gypsies, Poles and Russians needed against the Nazi Statists
• Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, and countless others needed against the Communist Statists
• Filipinos and many other peoples needed against American and other colonial Statists

Cartridge boxes may also be what Americans need someday, against their own government, if current trends explode into the kind of mass Statist gangsterism that so many other societies have suffered.

Our Founders gave us the Second Amendment for exactly this purpose. They were not thinking of self-defense against individual criminals when they wrote the Second Amendment the way they wrote it, though they did not exclude that purpose. Instead, they were thinking about Statist thugs . . .

The American people were to be armed as a final defense against Statist aggression, both foreign AND DOMESTIC. There is a mountain of evidence to support this view, and we want to see the Supreme Court exposed to this evidence. Do you?

The Downsize DC Foundation is joining with Gun Owners of America and several other organizations in the MacDonald case, which challenges the handgun ban in Chicago — also being called by some, “Heller II.” With your help we will be the ONLY GROUP submitting an amicus curiae brief making the argument that the Second Amendment is much more than permission to have a handgun in your home.

If you want to see this evidence presented to the Supreme Court, please make a TAX-DEDUCTIBLE contribution for this purpose. You can do so here.

Jim Babka, President
Downsize DC Foundation

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

The reason Bob McDonnell beat out Creigh Deeds in Virginia was not because McDonnell represents some new style small government Republican. McDonnell won because Deeds made campaign mistakes. McDonnell made none. Deeds lost the race more than McDonnell won it.

The same is true for the New Jersey race. Corzine, a former chairman at Goldman Sachs, easily became a scapegoat for a failing economy and political corruption. So, he lost.

What Tuesday’s election results really demonstrated was a lack of conviction for either Democrats or Republicans. When the political spectrum shines red, then blue, then red, then blue, over and over again something tangible comes to light:

America is not rooting for either party to win. America is rooting for the underdog.

After 8 years of Clinton, George W. Bush was the underdog. In 2004, Bush was still the underdog largely due to his perceived strength (however false it was) in fighting “those who attacked us on 9/11″. That quickly soured so much that by 2006 the Democratic Party was the underdog so they won control of Congress. If Bush was up for re-election himself in 2006, he’d have lost.

The 2008 election cemented the underdog theory with America getting the chance to elect the first African American President. McCain, largely a Bush twin, had no chance.

Tuesday’s election results demonstrated that the Republicans are now, once again, the underdogs. This bodes well for them in the 2010 election and it could carry over to the 2012 Presidential contest. Of course, that depends on who has the perceived power at that time.

The point of this “underdog theory” is that we are not happy with the blue nor the red team. When the time comes we just want to take away power from whichever team has it.

For liberty champions this eternal game is growing extremely tiresome.

When everyone buys into the two team league yet no one wants either team to finish in first place, isn’t it time to expand the league?

It just so happens that there is a liberty-loving team already in place ready to be added to the league. Here are their names:

• Rand Paul
• David Hedrick
• Adam Kokesh
• Peter Schiff
• Ray McBerry
• Chris Simcox
• Debbie Medina
• Bill Hunt
• RJ Harris
• John Dennis
• David Ratowitz
• Jake Towne
• Randy Brogdon
• Robert Broadus
• Collins Bailey
• Jaynee Germond
• Bob Parker
• Bill Connor
• Peg Luksik

These are the candidates being celebrated today on the anniversary of Ron Paul’s 5th of November money bomb. To learn more about these candidates please check out ThisNovember5th.com. If you find a candidate you like, then please don’t hesitate to support that candidate with a generous donation.

These are the real underdogs and outcasts. Let’s help make them winners and keep them winning.

Citizens fed up with constitutional violations causing devastation to the economy and the Nation, are stepping up to join constitutional activist Robert L. Schulz, Chairman of We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, to prepare for a modern-day Continental Congress to take place November 8-22, 2009 at the Pheasant Run Conference Center in St. Charles, Illinois.  Continental Congress 2009 is not political or partisan and seeks to defend, not amend, the current Constitution.

Billed as the “next appropriate step for the free people of America,” planners hope the historic national assembly will inspire the critical mass necessary to restore constitutional governance. 153 citizen-nominated-and-elected Delegates – three from each state and Washington, D.C. — will convene for two weeks to methodically and factually document constitutional abuses which have taken place over many years, across many administrations, every branch of government and both parties.   Delegates will consider specific non-violent, legal civic actions to stop the wrongs.

To help finance the historic event a .999 pure silver CC2009 commemorative round will be given for each donation of $100.00 or more. Planners are also seeking bigger donors they are calling the “patriotic, brave and wealthy” who “understand what Continental Congress can do for America.” Furthermore, a money bomb is also in the works.

The decision to convene CC2009 comes after fourteen years of filing Petitions for Redress with the federal government for repeated violations of the Constitution by We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, a national 501 c3 non-profit with headquarters in New York. Schulz says The Right to petition was put in the First Amendment by the Founding Fathers, “who did not want Americans to ever again experience a situation where their individual rights or civil liberties were threatened.”  To date, this Right has never been recognized by the government nor defined in any court of law.  Schulz says it must now be used to hold elected officials accountable to the rest of the Constitution “which will shift the power from the government back to The People where it belongs.”

“Americans are waking up to the urgent need to stand strong for the Founding Principles and our Constitution, as every violation further devastates our economy and our way of life,” says Schulz.  “We all desire the same outcome: restoration of our Nation.  Continental Congress 2009 is the only strategy we see that is not political or partisan, does not rely on the electoral process, and can bring peaceful and legal solutions to our current situation.  We hope this effort can be the catalyst that brings the freedom-loving people of America together at this critical time,” he concludes.

Readers can learn more about CC2009,by going to www.cc2009.us

Also check out this video promoting the event:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiwtfk_uAhQ

Subject: Our first press release to the national media

Your work has made “reading the bills” a national issue. You accomplished this with zero help from the media. Now Congress and other groups are piggy-backing on your work, attempting to steal both your steam and your thunder, pushing non-reforms like H. Res. 554. Do you . . .

* Want to stake a claim to the results of your work and the need for the real “Read the Bills Act?”
* Let the media know what the “real deal” is

If so, here’s what we want to send to the national media early next week . . .

“It will pave the way for our Read the Bills Act,” declared Jim Babka, President of DownsizeDC.org.

DownsizeDC.org created its “Read the Bills Act” (RTBA) in 2005. Constituents have bombarded their representatives in Congress with a quarter-million letters supporting RTBA. Babka has also presented it to beltway groups.

“Public pressure and my presentations are what led the Republicans to pick-up ‘reading the bills’ as a talking point. But when the people witness how worthless their approach is, demands to pass our RTBA will increase.”

The 72-hour rule makes cosmetic changes to House rules.

House members are supposed to receive readable copies of bills three days before a vote. The rule is rarely followed.

The rule changes that time requirement from 3 days to… 72 hours.

It also requires that the public gets the bill at the same time. Babka likes this real change, however…

“It’s only a rule; not a law. So it can be waived in many instances, and doesn’t apply in others. There’s no enforcement mechanism to penalize Congress when they violate their rules. And three days isn’t nearly enough time to read the monster-sized bills Congress routinely passes.”

DownsizeDC.org’s ‘Read the Bills Act’ can’t be waived and requires Congress to…

* Read the entire bill out-loud before a quorum
* Post all bills on the Internet for seven days before voting

If ignorance of the law is no defense for citizens, such ignorance must not be permitted to Congress. That’s why RTBA also provides citizens with a solid legal defense against laws passed in violation of these requirements. Babka concluded:

“The 72-hour rule is insufficient to prevent Congress from doing too much, too fast, with too little understanding. But it moves in the right direction, and its inadequacy will show why we need the REAL Read the Bills Act.”

H.R. 554 has 128 co-sponsors in the House. A discharge petition to force it to a vote has 181 of 218 signatures needed.

END OF RELEASE

Do you want the media to know about . . .

* Your role in making the “read the bills” idea into a national issue
* The defects of H. Res. 554
* The strength of the real “Read the Bills Act”

Public access websites such as Yahoo, AOL, and Lexis-Nexis will receive copies, but your contribution will determine how many individual members of the institutional news media will receive it . . .

* $250 will get it to the entire Beltway media, but . . .
* For just $750 more we can reach all of the media, all across the country, including in your area

Your contribution may determine which we’re able to do. Stake your claim. You can contribute at the DownsizeDC.org secure contribution page.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

& Downsize DC Foundation

The Constitution imposes on the government numerous burdens that we as individuals do not have. For example, I can tell my nephew to keep quiet at the dinner table because I don’t like what he said about grandma, but the First Amendment prevents the government from keeping him silent on a street corner when he criticizes it. Similarly, I can give a gift to some of my nephews and nieces because they are great kids, but I don’t need to give gifts of equal value, since I can spend my money on gifts however I wish. But the government has some burdens here that individuals do not. The Constitution requires that the government treat all persons similarly situated in a similar manner. This is the essence of “Equal Protection,” which the Constitution requires of the states and the federal government.

Napolitano goes on to cite case-law in which the Supreme Court has ruled that states may not deny people the right to an education based on citizenship status, and undoubtedly  “an education is in the same class of social benefits as providing health care.”  He points out that Obama with all his collegiate accolades certainly must know this.

Can anyone really suggest that the Harvard Law School-educated University of Chicago-employed professor of constitutional law did NOT know the law when he contended that the Congress can keep universal health care away from illegals? He must have known that, short of amending the Constitution to re-define “persons” and “Equal Protection”, whatever the Congress makes available by way of social services to the general population, it must make available to all persons.

There is no question that under the present law, Congress simply cannot pick and choose which “persons” to whom it will afford social benefits and to which “persons” it will not. How could the president not have known that?

Read Judge Napolitano’s article at FoxNews.com.

This is Judge Napolitano in his element and it is a beautiful thing. Every single American should watch these segments and heed the call to action the panelists suggest.

When the government fails to obey the rule of law within the Constitution it is up to the people to replace those oath-breakers with oath-keepers.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJjhcMO0epc
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOFcECzuD9w