Site hosted by Build your free website today!
   Your Source For Keeping An Eye On Big Brother   Page Two   Always Free

• The Dick Act
• Bush, "Drop Dead."

• Commentary
• Federal Schools
• Spy Ware
• Spy Ware Links
• New World Order Police

• Questions: The Patriot Act
• Why We Are Americans
• Taking Liberties

To Return To This Index From Anywhere On This Page Just Use Your Browser's Back Button


The Dick Act of 1902

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917

Bush to Arab world: Drop dead
By Ian Williams
Sept. 24, 2002

Driven by right-wing ideologues and his own zeal, President Bush has taken Ariel Sharon's side in the Middle East even while plotting a war with Iraq. Foreign policy experts say that's a dangerous combination.

In the old days scientists used to look for the "missing link," the fossils that bridged the gap between stupid monkeys and clever men. There is a similar missing link between the U.S. government and a coherent foreign policy. The Bush administration has totally sidelined the Middle East conflict, the one between Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab world. For a variety of reasons -- the ascendancy of neoconservative hawks in the White House and the State Department; President Bush's own embrace of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's hard-line positions; Bush's simple, black-and-white view of the world, in which the "war on terrorism" trumps everything else; the complete absence of any pressure from Congress; and domestic political considerations -- the Bush administration has apparently decided that it doesn't need to reach out to the Arab world by pushing for Mideast peace before a possible invasion of Iraq.

In contrast, when former President George Bush went to war to chase Iraq out of Kuwait, he pledged the world in general, and the Arabs in particular, that the U.S. would push hard on the Middle East peace process immediately afterwards. "And he met the promise, and began the process with the Madrid peace talks," comments Richard Murphy, who was assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs in the Reagan administration. Contrasting that with what he calls the present administration's "obsession with Iraq, that we can't deal with anything until Saddam is replaced," Murphy says the Bush administration is missing the obvious -- and he doesn't know why. "They do not buy the argument that they could make it easier for themselves by paying attention to the Israel-Palestine confrontation to buy more space and maneuverability with the Arab world. They just resist it. I can't explain it, but they just don't buy it."

It's not as if the vital strategic importance of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a secret. Everyone from close allies like Tony Blair to strategic partners like Saudi Arabia to U.N. head Kofi Annan have been telling Bush that the U.S. needs to advance the peace process -- not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it will help him oust Saddam Hussein without plunging the region into chaos. Such voices of reason persuaded Bush that going to the U.N. was essential to gain European support and to at least contain Arab hostility for his Iraqi adventure, but they have been completely unable to convince him to get involved in the peace process.

In the eyes of most of the world, Bush seized the moral high ground after his speech in the General Assembly -- and then last week he slid off it. It was not merely because he behaved like a petulant kid who took his ball and went home when Saddam Hussein said he would let in the weapons inspectors without conditions, thus revealing the shallowness of his conversion to multilateralism. It was also because it became clear once again that the U.S.'s Middle East policy is barely distinguishable from Ariel Sharon's. (On Monday, the White House broke days of silence and criticized Israel's siege of Yasser Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah as having "aggravated" U.S. attempts to reform the Palestinian Authority; it was administration's first explicit criticism of Israel in months.)

Last week the "Quartet" -- the U.N., E.U., U.S. and Russia -- met at the U.N., supposedly to organize an international peace conference on the Israel-Palestinian issue. But far from seizing the opportunity to tackle the problem that has haunted the organization since its foundation, the U.S. showed no interest. One U.N. official commented, "If anything, the U.S. is backpedaling -- after all, the International Conference was their idea, but they don't seem in any hurry to have it now. The idea that you need to promise anything about Palestine to get Arab cooperation seems to have gone out of the window."

Instead of being a triumphant follow-up of the previous week's events, the press conference to announce the Quartet's anodyne report was dominated by a public row between Igor Ivanov, the Russian foreign minister, and Secretary of State Colin Powell, about the appropriate response to Saddam's apparent capitulation. Many of the non-U.S. participants were not happy. Palestine's U.N. representative, Nasser El Kidwa, was terse and to the point about the results of the Quartet meeting. "It was a lousy declaration," he said. For their part, the Europeans also came away angry and frustrated that their attempts to secure obligations for Israel on the "road map" for a peace deal with the Palestinians were overruled by Washington.

The Arab ambassadors came away irate as well. Echoing a complaint heard througout the Arab world and Europe, El Kidwa charged that America was guilty of hypocrisy for threatening to invade Baghdad while ignoring "Three decades of Israeli defiance [of the U.N.]." El Kidwa pointed out that the U.S., almost always acting alone, has vetoed dozens of Security Council resolutions on the Palestinian issue.

Some overseas and domestic policy experts say the administration's refusal to move the peace process forward reflects a lack of planning and foresight, either on how to achieve the stated end of removing Saddam Hussein, or about what will happen afterwards either in Iraq or in the region.

Jim Hoge of the Council on Foreign Affairs says, "There is no sign of planning. If there were, I would think they would be alerting us to it, because it would be reassuring." He suggests that the Bush administration's obsession with Iraq is "diverting attention and energy particularly at the top, where it is so important, from two much more serious problems: the war against Al-Qaida, which is still capable of causing a tremendous damage against the U.S., and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, one of the most potentially disruptive issues in the region and in the world. And over the last 50 years, every time we get diverted or back off, matters get worse not better."

For this preoccupation to make sense, Hoge says, the administration has to prove that "there is an imminent danger from Saddam Hussein's regime that has to be met. If there is such a case I haven't seen them make it. They are far from answering the important questions: what are we going to do, what happens afterwards if we conquer Iraq, what effect will it have on the region."

Bush's evangelical crusade against evildoers

Richard Murphy agreed that the president "still has a lot to tell us about postwar planning, and I suspect that is because there isn't much of it." In his speech to the U.N., Bush suddenly promoted Iran from being a charter member of the "axis of evil" to being the first victim of Iraqi aggression. It certainly pleased the Iranians, but there was no follow-up; any hopes that the White House might be considering a thaw toward Iran were dashed. Murphy skeptically recalls that Bush told off his speechwriters recently for trying to put some "nuance" in his orations: He was having none of it. The overture to Iran was apparently as expedient as the momentary multilateralism of the rest of his speech, to be blown away as soon as Saddam Hussein ruined the game by giving in.

Trying to find some reason why the President is not taking the obvious diplomatic steps, such as reassuring the allies he needs to mount a successful military operation, Murphy suggests, "Being obsessed may be why he's not interested in the tactics of building support with Iran or with the Saudis. He's done a little bit to smooth them over -- but they are in a pretty fussed state."

There is a reason why the Saudis are fussed. Their regime, like the other precarious, despotic ones that sit on much of the region's oil, may not survive the anger that would follow all-out American unilateral war on Iraq, without some gesture toward the Palestinians. And if, as many Palestinians and some Israelis fear, Sharon used the cover of a war with Iraq to "transfer" (i.e. ethnically cleanse) Palestinians, moving them from the West Bank to Jordan, then a more general conflagration would be inevitable.

The ideologues driving the Bush administration seem to believe, first, that the threat of the "enraged Arab street" is exaggerated, and second, that if the "moderate" regimes do fall, that might be OK. (In a profile in the New York Times Magazine Sunday, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is characterized as "not ... so sure that rocking the stability of tyrannies in the Arab world, even West-leaning tyrannies, is a bad thing.") For many veterans of the international diplomatic arena, that kind of thinking is disturbingly over-optimistic -- even disconnected from reality. In attempting to explain Bush's actions, Murphy sees the president as someone who is acting on faith, rather than facts.

The president "is a believer," says Murphy. "This is a man who's on a mission. He is very evangelical about terrorism: he's got to root out evil. I wonder if in his mind there really is a very strong linkage between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Evil is there, and evil must be uprooted and the fixation on terrorism has now encompassed Saddam Hussein -- who 'tried to kill my father' as a footnote. He seems to think the facts are there about the linkage -- if only we could discover them. In his mind they are joined up. He does not speak as man with any doubts."

Is the president's policy based on a series of deeply felt but disconnected prejudices in which Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Iran and Osama bin Laden metamorphose into one single evil entity, and Ariel Sharon and the USA are together on the side of the angels? The Brookings Institution's Judith Kipper sees this as "not an inappropriate analysis of the way they think. This is a very, very ideological administration, more than conservative, and the president does have a sense of priorities that sees everything in black and white."

Referring to the well-known schism in the Bush administration between the moderates and the hawks, Kipper says, "There's no doubt about who's in charge. He is closer to the Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz point of view." The hawks, of course, tend to be avowedly and uncritically supportive of Likud policies: Rumsfeld, for example, referred to the "so-called occupied territories" recently.

For the hawks, removing Saddam Hussein will make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict easier to resolve, because it will weaken the Palestinians. (The hawks believe that regime change in Iraq will also keep Iran, another major backer of the Palestinians, in line.) Kipper deduces that the administration "tends to see the Arab-Israeli conflict, in fact most foreign policy, through the prism of the war on terrorism. They think that if you remove the regime in Iraq then it will be much easier since then rogue states and people will have less of a mandate."

If, for Bush, invading Iraq is part of a war between good and evil, most European allies, and all the Arabs, are much less sure about where Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat place on the scale. Without the ideological views of the president's coterie, they see the need to enforce U.N. resolutions as one that does not just apply to Iraq. Few of them are the slightest bit convinced that Saddam Hussein had anything at all to do with Sept. 11, and most of them are worried about the possible consequences of an attack and the Bush administration's lack of forward planning.

Talking about democracy in the Middle East sounds good, but in reality a democratically elected government in Baghdad is likely to be just as militantly pro-Palestinian as Hussein's regime, or even more so. As indeed are other regimes that could replace the U.S. allies toppled for their connivance in what most Arabs see as an Israeli-inspired American crusade against Iraq. If the hawks are right, invading Iraq will open a new era of democracy, freedom and prosperity in the Arab world. If they are wrong, they will be remembered as ideologues who wanted to defeat the forces of evil, but succeeded only in losing Saudi and Gulf Oil -- or, in the worst-case scenario, opened a Pandora's box of global terrorism even worse than bin Laden's.

About the writer:
Ian Williams is the United Nations correspondent for the Nation.

Foriegn & Domestic"

This Website is NOT
Government Formatted
To fit your brain.

The People's Voice

The People's Voice is a national group that operates with no government, political, corporate or religious affiliations or influence. These organizations have nothing to do with the operation of this site. We are Free Americans. We are not Republicans, Democrats, Independents or any other of these endless parties which claim to represent our best interests. We are mainly American Veterans from WWII to the present. There are many of us. The only special group we belong to is America. The doctrines which give us our rights and our orders are The United States Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and few others. These documents do not belong to our elected government they belong to the People of the United States.

Our out of control government is shredding every concept of what America is all about. They are funded primarily by corporations who have their own private interests on the national level and, of course, abroad, which are not the interests of the American People. Enron and WorldCom are primary examples of the damage and these are the ones we know about. What about the others? The laws the government has passed recently against these corporate crimes is not putting any American back to work or food on their tables. These types of activites put our entire nation in harms way and the entire world sees this.

Our politicians have violated the 'original Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution' wherein that no lawyer shall hold any political office within our national government (and they know this). One cannot serve two masters.

They have permitted the pride of the American People to be exported into other nations - taking away our industry and our jobs. This makes it absolutely impossible to pursue the American Dream of Life, Liberty, Freedom and Peace. We can't afford this. Literally 100's of thousands of jobs have been lost with pension funds and health care being sucked down the drain into oblivion.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, They Can Exercise Their Constitutional Right of Amending it, or Their Revolutionary Right to dismember or overthrow it."

President of The United States - Abraham Lincoln

We are trying very hard to bring every American the much needed information about when, where and how our country has been sold out from beneath our feet, infront of our very eyes. How it is being destroyed by a secret government that is operating inside of our elected one before it's too late.
We are dedicated to informing America that even our elected government has sold us out to corporate interests, special interest groups, the United Nations, NATO and other foriegn interests.

What are the requirements to be an American? You must read, understand and apply in your daily life the contents of our Doctrines, as listed above. You must defend these documents against all enemies - foreign and domestic. You must not be afraid to stand and meet the call for defending your rights, and the rights of others, as protected by these documents. What does all of this mean? It means you need to read these documents. Learn them, know them, live by them, defend them. That's what it means and it's that simple. If you do not know what is in these documents or have never read them you will find links to them right here on this site. Therefore, your first assignment, or duty, is to read get with it.

      WILL BE
          YOUR SURVIVAL"

There are responsibilities that come with Freedom.
Taking for granted certain liberties and freedoms without understanding what must accompany them and in order to benefit from them is pure ignorance. How can you allow yourself to believe that you have these rights, in any degree, if you do not know what any of them are?
You may have been born in America, but, what does that really mean?
What is America? Why is America?
You just can't live in this country, call yourself an American and expect everything to be alright without taking personal responsibility to insure that this will always be the America you desire.
It takes work, constantly.
It takes participation, actively.
It means keeping a watchdog's eyes to monitor it on a 24/7 schedule; as individuals and not as some trumped-up government propaganda machine as the Homeland Security Act suggests, or the American Freedom Corps. Stay away from these groups. They are designed to manipulate a free people into believing that they will fix our problems when in fact they are citizens vs citizens spy-networks. Wake up!
When Americans are met with the challenge to question the activities of our government elect then they should get in their face if need be to make sure they are doing the job they were elected/hired to do. When things go astray then ask yourself what you did to prevent it. Now, what are you going to do to correct it?
If Americans allow themselves to believe that if they just sit in the comforts of their home, go to church regularly, or not, shuffle their kids off to school or home school, go to work, pay their taxes and keep their mouths shut then everything will be alright because you had nothing to do with it.
That's right! You had NOTHING to do with it.

Don't just sit there and assume that everything is alright. Apathy is the path to slavery, slavery is the body of bondage and bondage is the path to revolution.
Many Americans do not realize how chained and manipulated they truly are. They are not aware that what they have was at the expence of someone elses blood.

Remember, a prisoner's chains are heavier than a soldier's pack.
Revolution is a tool to break those chains.

Revolution is not a bad thing, it is, however, an unfortunate turn of events, but, it is also the very device that allowed America to become one of the world's greatest nations in the archives of history. It was the driving force to construct our very constitution. Revolution built this country!
If you believe that revolution is a bad thing for America then you haven't studied your history very well. We are dedicated to maintaining America's greatness for all Americans.

“Don't join the book burners . . . .” — Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States, 1953–1961.

“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.” — Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” — Benjamin Franklin

“Intellectual Freedom is the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored. Intellectual freedom encompasses the freedom to hold, receive and disseminate ideas.” — Intellectual Freedom and Censorship

So what is the truth?
You will have to do your homework, diligently, and in depth.
We are here to rise up to the protect our people and our Nation!
This is The People's Voice.
Always Here & There - Any Time, Any Place.

How Did We Get A Federal
School Curriculum?

By Phyllis Schlafly

Behind frequent protestations by public officials about local control of the schools, a federal curriculum has been quietly imposed by law. All the pieces are now in place for this major goal of the Clinton administration.

Elementary and secondary school education used to be organized around subjects such as reading, math, history, geography, language and science. While smatterings of those subjects are still taught, the focus has been shifted from academic subject matter to teaching attitudes, beliefs, values, themes, behaviors and job skills.

This is indoctrination, not education. Left-wing professors write the textbooks and the teachers unions control the public schools, so the ideology is what those groups deem politically correct.

And it's all hiding behind that good conservative word "standards." Who could possibly be against standards?

Two of the three 1994 Bill Clinton laws, Goals 2000, which defines the goals, and School-to-Work, which prescribes the shift from academics to job skills, were touted as "voluntary." The third 1994 law, the appropriations reauthorization (known to many as H.R. 6), tied the knot, warning that schools would not get any federal money unless they conform to the other two laws.

In a remarkable inclusion of special-interest legislation, the third law named and funded a private organization, the Center for Civic Education (CCE), to develop the national standards for teaching civics and government. This cozy relationship was reconfirmed in the 2002 education law called Leave No Child Behind and means that CCE is empowered, with the force of federal law and a stream of taxpayers' money, to decide what is taught in our nation's schools about civics and government.

CCE produced a 180-page volume called "National Standards for Civics and Government," plus textbooks, teacher's guides and other materials for elementary, middle and high school levels. This great quantity of words is short on facts but long on inculcating attitudes.

CCE's textbook called "We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution" admits a peculiar aversion to facts: "The primary purpose of this text is not to fill your head with a lot of facts about American history and geography. Knowledge of the facts is important but only insofar as it deepens your understanding of the American Constitutional system and its development."

"Deepens your understanding," that is, of a prescribed worldview without cluttering your mind with hard facts about American history and what's actually in the U.S. Constitution. For example, the fact that the U.S. Constitution contains a Second Amendment doesn't exist in the book called "Standards."

This is curious because, while the federal law was vague about the content of the standards CCE was empowered to write, the law was very specific in demanding instruction on the Bill of Rights. Many pages of "Standards" are devoted to the Bill of Rights but, funny thing, the Second Amendment is completely censored out.

The 180 pages of "Standards," of course, contain much that is informative, but the information is peripheral to the selling of a political agenda designed to change the student rather than educate him. The book admits that "Standards" is trying to teach "certain dispositions or traits of character."

One major theme is a put-down of allegiance to national sovereignty. Professor Allen Quist of Bethany Lutheran College made a word count and discovered that the book contains only eight references to national sovereignty, but 17 references to the environment, 42 references to diversity, and 42 to multiculturalism.

When "Standards" listed the seven "fundamental values" of the United States, national sovereignty didn't make the cut, but diversity did.

Six of the eight mentions of national sovereignty use the same curious wording: "The world is divided into nation-states that claim sovereignty over a defined territory and jurisdiction over everyone within it."

Do we only "claim" national sovereignty, or is it a historical fact that we won our national sovereignty in a War of Independence and we jolly well need it to protect ourselves against foreign aggressors. The words "divided into" imply that maybe it would be better if we were not "divided" into countries, phrasing that is a favorite of those who advocate global government.

CCE's "Standards" puts two government purposes on equivalent levels: "the protection of the rights of individuals and the promotion of the common good." The words "common good" are repeated over and over again in this book, but they are not in our Constitution.

"The common good" can mean whatever a totalitarian government wants it to mean. Our Founders never would have ranked "common good" as an equal value with our individual rights.

The last page of "Standards" gives its final advice to the students: Citizens have "the ability to reaffirm or change fundamental constitutional values." Is that what a federal curriculum is all about -- changing our constitutional values?

©2002 Copley News Service
Phyllis Schlafly - Columns

By Barston J. Judson
Web Site Tech Office

Spyware programs will secretly download themselves onto your computer without you knowing about it. And it tracks nearly everything you do, logs the data and then sends it back to where-ever it originated...a third party. Some of them will continue to work even when your computer is shutdown and/or turned off.
Oh, now that's scary.
Don't be too alarmed though. You can fight back. Why not? None of these organizations have any right to impose themselves on your computer without your permission. That's a violation of privacy. So, if they want to play stupid games then let's play. But, let's win!
For more information about these types of programs, how they work and how to get rid of them read either "Adware & Spyware Info" or "What Is Spyware?" by clicking on their links below. You must have these, or related programs, on your computer to benefit from their functions. They are worth it.
If you receive pop-ups, pop-unders or ad-banners while visiting this site that are not an embedded source code of our host then you may want to download something like Pop-up Stopper from 'Panicware, Inc.', or 'Ad-aware'. You will know if these pops or banners belong here because they will identify themselves with the Host Name in the upper left corner bar of your browser window.

Who wants this information? Go ahead, take a wild guess.


Adware & Spyware Info
What Is Spyware?

SPYWARE - List One
SPYWARE - List Two

These Links are also access to Direct Downloads for your Computer.

By Suzanne Thomas
Guest Writer

There are currently over 874,000 Links on the subject of the New World Order International Police found on just one search engine. This operation is a NATO factor and they are in the process of recruting active, non-active, retired and 'terminated' law enforcement officers and personnel to make up this body of Big Brother's Storm Trooping Jack-booters. Don't be surprised if a non-english speaking NATO Law Enforcement Officer knocks on your door in the middle of the night to collect your guns or your kids - even you! Sound shocking? It's happening right now. Why don't you hear about it on the nightly news? What?! And give away the element of surprise? Wake up! You very well could be next. Don't laugh. There are already thousands of Americans sitting in jail right now that don't know why. You probably didn't even know that. THEY don't want you to know that.


Under the guise of "Homeland Security" the United States is taking steps to subject the American Society to a false sense of protection. There is a format outline of this implementation and operation in Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'.

Quote: Chapter XV;
The Right of Emergency Defense; opening paragraph:

"The Armistice of November, 1918, ushered in a policy which in all human probability was bound to lead gradually to total submission. Historical examples of a similar nature show that nations which lay down their arms without compelling reasons prefer in the ensuing period to accept the greatest humiliations and extortions rather than attempt to change their fate by a renewed appeal to force.
This is humnaly understandable. A shrewd victor will, if possible, always present his demands to the vanquished in installments. And then, with a nation that has lost its character - and this is the case with every one which voluntarily submits - he can be sure that it will not regard one more of these individual oppressions as an adequate reason for taking up arms again. The more extortions are willingly accepted in this way, the more unjustified it strikes people finally to take up the defensive against a new, apparently isolated, though constantly recurring, oppression, especially when, all in all, so much more and greater misfortune has already been borne in patient silence". -End Quote.

It is agreed that we definately need to inhance our homeland security operations but it is not necessary to create another organization to do this. It would be better to clean-up what we already have. As we know, with any job, if you don't do the work you were hired to do then find another job. These people are not elected officials and yet they seem to have a lot of power as to what goes on in our lives.
All is not quiet on the Western Front; in Homeland America.


Rep. Kucinich (D-Ohio)
Questions The 'Patriot Act'


How Can We Justify This?
Let us pray that our nation will remember that the unfolding of the promise of democracy in our nation paralleled the striving for civil rights. That is why we must challenge the rationale of the Patriot Act. We must ask why should America put aside guarantees of constitutional justice?

How can we justify in effect canceling the First Amendment and the right of free speech, the right to peaceably assemble?

How can we justify in effect canceling the Fourth Amendment, probable cause, the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure?

How can we justify in effect canceling the Fifth Amendment, nullifying due process, and allowing for indefinite incarceration without a trial?

How can we justify in effect canceling the Sixth Amendment, the right to prompt and public trial?

How can we justify in effect canceling the Eighth Amendment which protects against cruel and unusual punishment?

We cannot justify widespread wiretaps and internet surveillance without judicial supervision, let alone with it. We cannot justify secret searches without a warrant. We cannot justify giving the Attorney general the ability to designate domestic terror groups. We cannot justify giving the FBI total access to any type of data which may exist in any system anywhere such as medical records and financial records.

We cannot justify giving the CIA the ability to target people in this country for intelligence surveillance. We cannot justify a government which takes from the people our right to privacy and then assumes for its own operations a right to total secrecy. The Attorney General recently covered up a statue of Lady Justice showing her bosom as if to underscore there is no danger of justice exposing herself at this time, before this administration.

Let us pray that our nation's leaders will not be overcome with fear. Because today there is great fear in our great Capitol. And this must be understood before we can ask about the shortcomings of congress in the current environment. The great fear began when we had to evacuate the Capitol on September 11. It continued when we had to leave the Capitol again when a bomb scare occurred as members were pressing the CIA during a secret briefing. It continued when we abandoned Washington when anthrax, possibly from a government lab, arrived in the mail. It continued when the Attorney General declared a nationwide terror alert and then the Administration brought the destructive Patriot Bill to the floor of the House. It continued in the release of the Bin Laden tapes at the same time the President was announcing the withdrawal from the ABM treaty. It remains present in the cordoning off of the Capitol. It is present in the camouflaged armed national guardsmen who greet members of Congress each day we enter the Capitol campus. It is present in the labyrinth of concrete barriers through which we must pass each time we go to vote. The trappings of a state of siege trap us in a state of fear, ill equipped to deal with the Patriot Games, the Mind Games, the War Games of an unelected President and his unelected Vice President.

Let us pray that our country will stop this war. "To promote the common defense" is one of the formational principles of America. Our Congress gave the President the ability to respond to the tragedy of September the Eleventh. We licensed a response to those who helped bring the terror of September the Eleventh. But we the people and our elected representatives must reserve the right to measure the response, to proportion the response, to challenge the response, and to correct the response.

♠ Because we did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.

♠ We did not authorize the invasion of Iran.

♠ We did not authorize the invasion of North Korea.

♠ We did not authorize the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan.

♠ We did not authorize permanent detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

♠ We did not authorize the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention.

♠ We did not authorize military tribunals suspending due process and habeas corpus.

♠ We did not authorize assassination squads.

♠ We did not authorize the resurrection of COINTELPRO.

♠ We did not authorize the repeal of the Bill of Rights.

♠ We did not authorize the revocation of the constitution.

♠ We did not authorize national identity cards.

♠ We did not authorize the eye of Big Brother to peer from cameras throughout our cities.

♠ We did not authorize an eye for an eye.

♠ Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan.

♠ We did not authorize the administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it pleases.

♠ We did not authorize war without end.

♠ We did not authorize a permanent war economy.

Yet we are upon the threshold of a permanent war economy. The President has requested a $45.6 billion increase in military spending. All defense-related programs will cost close to $400 billion. Consider that the Department of Defense has never passed an independent audit. Consider that the Inspector General has notified Congress that the Pentagon cannot properly account for $1.2 trillion in transactions. Consider that in recent years the Dept. of Defense could not match $22 billion worth of expenditures to the items it purchased, wrote off, as lost, billions of dollars worth of in-transit inventory and stored nearly $30 billion worth of spare parts it did not need.

Yet the defense budget grows with more money for weapons systems to fight a cold war which ended, weapon systems in search of new enemies to create new wars. This has nothing to do with fighting terror. This has everything to do with fueling a military industrial machine with the treasure of our nation, risking the future of our nation, risking democracy itself with the militarization of thought which follows the militarization of the budget.

United States Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio)

Remembering Why
We Are Americans
Who's That Next to
Us at the Meeting?

By: Nat Hentoff
July 5th, 2002 3:00 PM

A true patriot would keep the attention of his fellow citizens awake to their grievances, and not allow them to rest till the causes of their just complaints are removed.
—Sam Adams of the Sons of Liberty and Committees of Correspondence, Boston, Massachusetts, 1771

Right after John Ashcroft revived the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover (its headquarters, after all, is named after him), The Bill of Rights defense committee of Northampton, Massachusetts (Voice, July 2), reacted by recalling Hoover's disgraced COINTELPRO program, which serially abused the Bill of Rights:

"In the 1970s, the Senate banned COINTELPRO because of its unconstitutional character. The FBI had invaded privacy in order to disrupt lawful political activity. . . . By banning COINTELPRO, Congress declared illegal what was obviously unconstitutional. It was a major step forward for democracy in this country.

"Now Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Bush . . . have unilaterally placed in jeopardy the right to organize peacefully and legally, [putting] our communities at risk. Who is sitting next to us at city council, church, peace, or ACLU meetings? And what will that mean to the outcome of that meeting or to our individual security?"

These citizens of Northampton are well aware of what constitutional lawyer David Cole wrote in the valuable June 3 "Striking Back" issue of The Nation:

"National-security types often assure us that wartime diminutions of civil liberties are only temporary. But this is likely to be a permanent war. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that the war will not be over—and the prisoners on Guantanamo will not be released—until there are no terrorist organizations of potentially global reach left in the world.

"Given that modern technology gives practically everyone 'global reach,' that day will never come. . . . The only certainty is that we will see further erosions of our privacy, our freedoms, and our principles."

Also in that June 3 issue of The Nation is an ominous and revealing piece by Robert Dreyfuss ("The Cops Are Watching You"), which details the increasing interconnections among the FBI, state and local intelligence units, and anti-terrorism squads. For one example, there is veteran FBI agent Mike Clemens, now stationed in Baltimore, who assembles and directs Maryland's FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). To determine which groups under surveillance might be involved in violent activity, Clemens told Dreyfuss, a wide spectrum of organizations has to be monitored.

Therefore, writes Dreyfuss, "the FBI—working in conjunction with state and local police—often gathers a significant amount of information on groups that end up having no proclivity toward violence, Clemens says. . . . 'We identify a group, develop sources inside it. Maybe we make 15 contacts or more over a period of six months, and if they are all negative, we just leave them alone.' " This infiltration by multiple government forces is going on nationally.

And are the names of group members, along with their other affiliations, eventually expunged from FBI files? That's as likely as George W. Bush doing penance for all those people he executed while governor of Texas.

Keep in mind that this invasive FBI monitoring of entirely lawful groups was going on—under the direction of John Ashcroft—for months before he disclosed in May that, under the "new" guidelines, he was bringing back COINTELPRO (though he never used that disgraced name).

In his Nation article, Robert Dreyfuss also reports that in March, the ACLU in Denver found out that since 1999, the police there "have maintained intelligence dossiers on 3200 people in 208 organizations, from globalization protesters to the [Quaker] American Friends Service Committee, and from Amnesty International to the Chiapas Coalition and the American Indian Movement. 'Individuals who are not even suspected of a crime and organizations that don't have a criminal history are labeled criminal extremists,' says Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU of Colorado."

New York City's police commissioner, Ray Kelly, has added counter-terrorism specialists to his intelligence division, but do we have any idea who will qualify for inclusion in the NYPD dossiers of suspected domestic "terrorists" that will be exchanged with federal intelligence units? This is something the New York Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the New York Civil Rights Coalition, and other groups operating in the spirit of Sam Adams ought to look into. So should teams of investigative reporters. Look at how much Robert Dreyfuss found out in Maryland.

In From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776, historian Pauline Maier quotes a letter from Sam Adams emphasizing that "the colonists must henceforth depend primarily upon themselves for the defense of their liberties."

In another passage, published in the January 21, 1771, Boston Gazette, and just as crucial and pertinent under Bush and Ashcroft as it was under King George III, Sam Adams wrote, "Our ship is in the hands of pilots who . . . are steering directly under full sail to a rock. The whole crew may see [this course to violate our liberties] in full view if they look the right way."

There is much more of value to our present condition in Pauline Maier's From Resistance to Revolution. Fortunately, this account of how American liberties were won has recently been restored to print by W.W. Norton & Co. I recommend the book highly to the Bill of Rights defense committees rising around the country, to ACLU affiliates, and to the growing number of increasingly concerned citizens—from right to left and in the middle.

The book's epigraph is from Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America: "The Revolution of the United States was the result of a mature and reflecting preference for freedom. . . . It contracted no alliance with the turbulent passions of anarchy, but its course was marked, on the contrary, by a love of order and law."

The Bush administration and the Democratic and Republican leaders of Congress keep intoning the mantra "the rule of law," while the FBI and CIA are amassing more information on more of us—traducing the law and using more invasive technology than ever before.

As David Cole says, "Popular resistance is critical."

Reference & Source Information:

American Police State

Bill of Rights or a Police State

Documenting the Police State

Federal-Military Police

Federal Police Force

Heavy Hand of the Police State

Law Enforcement

Police One

Police State Daily

Prime Time Police State

The Police State

Tired of Living in a Police State

Taking Liberties
With Our Freedom

By Lauren Weinstein
2:00 AM Dec. 02, 2002 PT

"The fix is in." So said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) of the mammoth new Homeland Security Act, which was signed into law last week.

McCain was upset about an array of goodies that were tacked onto the bill at the last minute by the House of Representatives. These included broad liability protections for makers of vaccines, and an array of other extremely valuable giveaways.

In the end, the overwhelming majority of the Senate, including most Democrats, chose the politically expedient course of supporting the vast legislation.

That said, McCain and other critics were right to be concerned. While it has some positive aspects, the Homeland Security Act is also full of worrisome surprises for U.S. citizens concerned about their freedoms, particularly when combined with last year's USA PATRIOT Act.

Since the events of 9/11, a range of legislation detrimental to fundamental freedoms and privacy rights has been rammed into law, without any assurance that our safety will improve as a result.

Law enforcement interests pushed through a variety of surveillance measures, including some unrelated to terrorism, that had long been rejected as inappropriate in a free society.

Important protections related to monitoring and intelligence gathering, established after serious past abuses, were swept away with the assurance that this time the government won't abuse its powers.

Among various alarming provisions, the law opens up enormous avenues for monitoring Internet communications, without even after-the-fact notifications. Virtually any government agency at any level can initiate surveillance on flimsy grounds. No subpoenas or court oversight are required.

Not to be left off the gravy train, big business also pushed through its own grab bag of perks in the new legislation.

One of the most egregious and potentially dangerous of these travesties is the Homeland Security Act's creation of new and very broad exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act.

Businesses now have a new way to evade liability for safety violations, hazards to consumers and other abuses. They need merely report the information about their behavior -- even totally unclassified activities -- to the federal government, and claim it's related to homeland security. In the parlance of the Homeland Security Act, they declare the data to be "CII," or Critical Infrastructure Information.

Instantly, the company filing drops that information into a black hole of secrecy, hidden from public view. If a government employee releases any such data without the permission of the company that submitted it, regardless of its importance to the public, they could be subject to jail time.

That's potentially a major blow to the government's regulation of corporate misdeeds, since it's often not until such abuses become publicly known that officials take steps to deal with them properly. As long as there's cover, the urge to let sleeping dogs lie is strong indeed.

Ironically, the existing statute, the Freedom of Information Act, already had exceptions for information that truly needed to be kept private. The new homeland security law goes much farther, creating a magic rubber stamp that can make a host of problems disappear from the public radar.

The dangers of the new restrictions extend beyond obvious infrastructure risks related to power, water, manufacturing, pollution and the like. They could also strike to the heart of the computer industry and Internet as well.

By invoking the exemptions of the Homeland Security Act, software and computer hardware companies could hide the existence of critical security flaws or other bugs, claiming (with a familiar refrain) that letting anyone know about them was just too big a risk.

These kinds of cover-ups rarely succeed in the long run. When the bad guys ultimately find ways to exploit the flaws, the ordinary folks who are at risk will be the last to know what's going on.

In a similar vein, ISPs and telecommunications firms may now avoid taking responsibility for security flaws in their systems. Just sweep the problems under the homeland security rug and, with luck, nobody on the outside will be the wiser.

It's been hard enough in the best of times to get companies and government agencies to admit their mistakes and abuses. Now, thanks to the Homeland Security Act, we may have more of a reason to fear those very actions than we do the terrorist threats that the new law is supposed to address.

Lauren Weinstein has been involved with the Internet for decades, beginning with ARPANET. He is the co-founder of People for Internet Responsibility, the creator and moderator of the Privacy Forum and an outspoken commentator on technology and society.


Email The People's Voice
© 2002-2003 The People's Voice