The  Rocky  View  of
News, Current Events
& Comment
Whatever the evil (poison) is, it must be presented in a mix of something good, or good for you.
Rat poison is like this, 99.5% of the ingredients are tasty and nutritious for the rat
(otherwise, they wouldn't eat it, would they?).  Only .5% (1/2 percent) is deadly.
I am reminded of Dad's special brownies.  It is the same truth.

---

If you want to remain in your ignorance then take this blue pill -

During the late 20th century the word "liberal" came to mean someone whose copy of the Bill of Rights was missing the Second and Tenth Amendments, and the word "conservative" someone whose copy was missing the First and the Ninth.
— Jon Roland, May, 1994

Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.
— Attributed to Josef Stalin
 

[The following is the opening paragraphs from the maps page of the National Wilderness Institute web site.  It has some very interesting maps relating to government ownership of land in the uSA.]

To show the extent and pattern of governmental ownership and control of land, NWI created the following set of maps. While these maps present a powerful picture of the overwhelming extent of government land control, they do not cover all lands under government ownership at various levels or all of the specially regulated or conserved areas.

Some of the lands not included are the Federal Highway System as well as most county and all city lands. Additional protected areas include Coastal Zone Management Areas; National Marine Sanctuaries of 4,412,480 acres; National Estuarine Research Reserves of 399,302 acres and private nature reserves and sanctuaries of more than 1.2 million acres.

[The first URL is the html page for getting to the maps and the 2nd is for the list of maps.]
http://www.nwi.org/Maps.html
http://www.nwi.org/Maps/
 

For Release: March 3, 2003

Shattered Dreams: 100 Stories of Government Abuse - only $15 per copy - includes all postage & handling!
You also can download a free PDF copy
http://www.nationalcenter.org/ShatteredDreams.PDF

To highlight the staggering degree to which government regulations can harm average Americans, The National Center for Public Policy Research's John P. McGovern, M.D. Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs has published its fourth compilation of stories of victims of regulatory and government abuse. The publication, entitled Shattered Dreams: 100 Stories of Government Abuse, highlights how regulations that are poorly written and/or inflexibly enforced can overwhelm, intimidate, bankrupt or otherwise harm average Americans.

"Egregious and sometimes arbitrary implementation of rules and regulations can destroy people's lives," said Chris Burger, program coordinator for the John P. McGovern, M.D. Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, who helped compile Shattered Dreams. "Often, no one is held accountable. We hope that putting a human face on these problems will help bring about reform."

The publication includes situations related to the Americans with Disabilities Act, building codes, civil asset forfeiture, the Department of Labor, education policy, eminent domain, the Endangered Species Act, the Food and Drug Administration, free speech infringement, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Indian affairs, the IRS, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, property rights, public lands, rails-to-trails programs, small business, smart growth, water issues, wetlands and zoning.

Examples of five of the 100 stories of regulatory abuse featured in Shattered Dreams include:

* Property owner Jack McFarland, his wife and three young daughters must travel by foot over three miles to get to their home near West Glacier, Montana because the National Park Service closes Glacier Route 7 every year for about five months following the first snowfall. The McFarland family and others owning private property near Glacier National Park have been denied motorized access to their property on the theory that vehicles threaten wildlife and cross-country skiers. For 90 years, the NPS recognized that two federal laws prohibit it from blocking homeowner access. Contrary to its prior position, it now argues that its new regulation doesn't violate established federal law. These families with children, after all, are still permitted to walk -- in wolf country.

* Pastor Fred Jenkins formed St. Luke's Pentecostal Church in North Hempstead, New York in 1979. For years, the church leased space as it saved to buy a permanent home. In 1997, St. Luke's purchased a property with a partially constructed church already built. It then spent two years seeking government permission to complete construction. Shortly after St. Luke's finally obtained the necessary permit, the town condemned the property, and offered, as compensation, $80,000 -- $50,000 less than the Church paid for it. Adding insult to injury, the government said St. Luke's had no right to appeal the loss of its property, claiming it lost that right when the government first decided that it might later condemn the land -- in 1994, three years before St. Luke's even owned it.

* The president of New York's Lower East Side Tenement Museum wants the museum to expand into the building next door. She wants space to teach English to immigrants and local history to residents. She'd like "state of the art" storage space. She'd like an elevator. She'd like more room for "immigrant artists" who are "searching for places to express their experiences." She also would like to hold programs to "promote tolerance and teach citizenship skills." Tolerance and citizenship skills notwithstanding, she's asked the state government to take Lou and Mimi Holtzman's building -- an apartment building the Holtzman family has lived in since 1910 -- and turn it over to her museum. Since the Holtzmans don't want to sell their recently-remodeled apartment building, and their tenants don't want to leave, the state may confiscate the property against their will, give it to the museum and compensate the Holtzmans with taxpayer money at a price set by the government.

* After he removed illegally dumped tires and abandoned cars from a property he purchased, a Pennsylvania man was told by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers that his clean-up efforts were a violation of the Clean Water Act. After the man served a year-and-a-half in prison for allegedly destroying wetlands and subsequently filed for bankruptcy, three environmental groups filed complaints with the government that the man's punishment was too lenient.

* In 1923, the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement agreed to allow the federal government to run the Maine-to-Georgia Appalachian Trail through a portion of its Greymoor Monastery. However, given an inch, the government wanted a mile, and the friars may regret their generosity. The National Park Service demanded an additional 18 acres of the monastery's land in 2000, with the threat that the land could be condemned and taken under the government's power of eminent domain if necessary.

"American children are still taught the stirring words of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: 'government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth,'" said Amy Ridenour, president of The National Center for Public Policy Research. "It's a lesson some government officials need to re-learn."

The John P. McGovern, MD Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs is a project of The National Center For Public Policy Research, a non-partisan, non-profit education foundation located on Capitol Hill. For more information, contact Chris Burger at 202-371-1400 x107 or cburger@nationalcenter.org, or David Almasi at 202-371-1400 x106 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org or click here to purchase for $15 to to download a free PDF copy.

The National Center for Public Policy Research
777 N. Capitol St. NE, Suite 803
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 371-1400
Fax (202) 408-7773
E-Mail: info@nationalcenter.org
Web: www.nationalcenter.org
 

4    oranges
1    grapefruit
1    lemon
1    lime

Naturally, you can alter the recipe to taste, or multiply it for quantity.
 

During recent Senate hearings on Senate Bill 557 (1990), the so-called "Civil Rights Restoration Act," it was noted that Senator Kennedy and other supporters consistently referred to "religious or church organizations" whereas opponents spoke of defending "religious freedom" and "rights" of the Church. The word "organizations" is emphasized because the use of this term may be the key to government meddling in the affairs of the Church.

Most people believe a Church that has tax exemption is a "tax-exempt church." They err greatly. A church that has tax exemption is not a tax exempt Church ... it is a tax exempt "organization." A "religious or church organization" is a corporation that "functions" in a "legal" capacity, doing "business" as a church. The IRS is fully aware of this distinction, because all of their publications reflect it. Nowhere do they refer to "tax-exempt churches." They always refer to religious or church "organizations." Surely, Congress understands the distinction as well?!

A Church that voluntarily initiates an "application" to the State for "corporate" status obtains "limited liability" and "tax exemption." It has petitioned the State to dictate it's right to exist and prosper. Thus, the Church consents to a change of its status; from a "lawful" assembly of private citizens to that of a "legal" gathering of public subjects.

The Church (a congregation of believers) does not have rights granted by the Constitution. It has inalienable rights granted by God that are "secured" by the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. Incorporated churches and artificial persons (Corporations) do not have "inalienable rights" granted by God that are "secured" by the Constitution. They only have such rights, privileges and immunities, as granted to entities created by the State. The U.S. Supreme Court understands corporations are creatures of the State, as the Court has stated:

"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and, if the expression may be allowed, individuality; properties by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered as the same, and may act as a single individual. They enable a corporation to manage its own affairs, and to hold property, without endless necessity of perpetual conveyances, for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of men with these qualities and capacities, that corporations were invented and are in use."

                     Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 
                                4 Wheat. Rep. 634

                     Osborn et.al. v. The Bank of the United States,
                                9 Wheat 740 @ 767

"A corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises.. . Its powers are limited by law ... Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation."

                       Wilson v. U.S., 221 U.S. 382

"... Corporations are not citizens ... The term citizen ... applies only to natural persons ... not to artificial persons created by the legislature..."

                       Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 177

                      (See also the Opinion of Field, J.,
                              in the Slaughterhouse Cases,
                              16 Wall.36,99)

"Whenever a corporation makes a contract it is the contract of the legal entity ... The only rights it can claim are the rights which are given to it in that charter, and not the rights which belong to its members as citizens of a state."

                       Bank of Augusta v. Earle,
                             13 Pet. 586

"A corporation can only appear by its attorney or solicitor, duly authorized; and if this authority is not apparent upon the face of the record, the decree is erroneous, and cannot be supported."

                      Osborn et.al. v. The Bank
                             of the United States,
                             9 Wheat 740 @ 767

Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., defines "Organization" as:

"Organization includes a corporation or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, partnership or association, two or more persons having a joint orcommon interest, or any other legal or commercial entity."

                                   UCC 1-201(28)

"And [Jesus] said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father'shouse an house of merchandise."

                                    John 2:16

IRS Publication 557 stipulates that:

"Sec.508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that churches are not required to apply for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status in order to be exempt from federal taxation or to receive tax deductible contributions ..

"Churches are automatically exempt from Federal income tax. That contributions to churches are deductible by donors under section 170 of the Code."

The First Amendment PROHIBITS government from making any law for or against the exercise of "religion." Laws that grant special benefits for religion are just as bad as laws enacted against religion.

The free exercise clause DOES NOT make the Church "immune" or "exempt" from anything. It excludes un-franchised Churches from the "legal" jurisdiction of man, but not from the "lawful" Common Law of God. A Church that fully retains its First Amendment status is "lawfully" and automatically "excluded" from any form of direct taxation or public laws governing business franchises.

When citing the First Amendment, it should be considered in all its parts, Freedom of Speech, Press, and Assembly are equally as important to the Church as any other part. Any law that infringes upon the inalienable right of pastors or believers saying or teaching whatever is proper and sound according to God's word, including His commandments on the unlawfulness of homosexuality, abortion, pornography, miscegenation, taxation and evil doings of government, etc., must be considered null and void. The same holds true for the printed word. It must be concluded, that for religious free exercise to exist, free choice as to whom may or may not assemble in a private setting must be upheld. A free un-incorporated Church cannot be held to the standards of a corporation doing "business" as a church.

A Church congregation is a private assembly of individuals, coming together as a family, to worship their Lord. Biblical worship is not a "public" activity. Jesus Christ, not the State ordained the assembling together of believers.

Legislatures pass laws effecting juristic entities as a safeguard to the "General" health, safety and welfare to the public as a whole. Congress has no authority to grant "special" benefits or privileges to un-enfranchised Churches or religious activities. The IRS only authorizes such "privileged" exemptions to churches that are incorporated as organizations. When a Church possesses such "benefits," it is because it has petitioned and accepted the State's franchise. As a "legal" organization, the Church removed itself from the protection of the First Amendment and is no longer free. As a subject of Caesar, the Church is rendering unto Caesar that which is God's.

It is the Church, not the State, that has transgressed the barrier separating Church and State. The greatest single thread that binds the Church to government is the act of "incorporation."

NOTE:
Reprinted in part from the FREEMAN LETTER published by the:

[This article relates to an article of May 5, 2003 on this site entitled "Trading Freedom for Security"]

On a page, of this site, linked here are a series of links to recent articles concerning the latest legal developments in the War on Terror on the U.S. home-front. Some of you will already be familiar with debate over Patriot Act II, which if passed would effectively end the law of habeas corpus and the right to legal representation in the United States.

The stories at a page, of this site, linked here concern two other proposed law changes which have received far less attention, firstly there is a Pentagon Bill to give Rumsfeld what looks like effective absolute control at the Pentagon – eliminating Congressional oversight and granting him apparently unlimited powers to contract on behalf of the U.S. Government - and an Intelligence Bill which would if passed would give the CIA and Pentagon powers to spy domestically inside the United States.

You can find out more about these bills at the following Google News Links.

Thus far it seems that very little has been written about the personnel and oversight changes contained in the Pentagon Bill, though there are other aspects of this bill raising eyebrows.

for more, click here to read a page, on this site
 

Palos Hills, Illinois -Two national membership organizations providing estate planning help, announced last week a 500 billion dollar class action lawsuit they filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and several of its agents. The suit charges violations of the civil rights of some 5500 members of the organizations, most of whom are senior Americans.

The information was released through the Executive Director of the two organizations, Michael Vallone. The suit was filed in May of 2001 and has finally been set for trial in February of 2004.

The suit stems from a raid on the offices of the organizations conducted by the IRS on March 31, 2000. On that date approximately 30 armed IRS agents entered the Palos Hills, Illinois offices of Heritage America and The Aegis Company and took thousands of private records of the members of the organizations, and interrogated the staff for as long as two hours without reading anyone their rights.

Mr. Vallone reported that, "We have faced one delaying tactic after another by the government and the IRS in this case. The suit was originally filed on May 8, 2001 and the government failed to file any response whatsoever until we obtained a default judgement against them. They then filed a motion to dismiss the case and it was granted to them based on a technicality regarding how the government and the IRS agents were 'served' with the lawsuit. This cost us more than a year of time," said Vallone.

The suit was re-filed August 29, 2002. The government filed a Motion to Dismiss the case once again in December of 2002. The Plaintiffs (Heritage America and The Aegis Company) immediately filed a Motion to Strike the government's motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs believe their "Motion to Strike" will essentially 'void' the governments Motion to Dismiss the case, and make it as if they never filed it.

"Our reasoning for filing the Motion to Strike is because the government failed to identify which defendants they were appearing for." said Vallone. "We believe they failed to specifically identify the defendants because the government knows that we have evidence which demonstrates that the US Attorney lacks legal authority to defend an IRS agent in court."

Vallone further reported, "although the government never filed an answer to our Motion, and although it has now been nearly four months since the Motions were filed, the court has still not ruled on the Motions."

Nevertheless, just recently the court approved a joint resolution for scheduling the case and set a trial date of February of 2004. Incredibly, the same day that Heritage and Aegis received word that the court had issued the order to schedule the trial the IRS conducted NEW RAIDS against the offices of Heritage and Aegis. This time, in addition to raiding the company offices, they also raided the home of Mr. Vallone and a company storage facility. Furthermore, Mr. Vallone was on vacation at the time and the IRS followed Mr. Vallone to Orlando, Florida and searched his hotel room.

In reference to the more recent raids Vallone plans to push forward with the lawsuits, "This lawsuit, despite everything the government and IRS has done to sabotage it, is going forward," he said. Not only has the court scheduled the trial, on April 10, 2003 the court issued an order to begin discovery information to be released to both sides. "We will shortly begin deposing multitudes of IRS agents. In light of that, I believe the government is now doing everything they can think of to try to put me in jail and make this suit 'go away'," said Vallone". They have investigated me for seven years, and we have uncovered two separate attempts to entrap me in illegal activities, but God has watched out for me and we will continue to push ahead regardless of what they do."

The class action lawsuit contains 10 separate counts of violations of Title 42 of the United States Code for deprivation of civil rights, and an additional count under Title 18 which charges that the IRS and its agents violated the federal racketeering laws.

The complaint was filed in the Southern District of Illinois, case #02-978-GPM.

The attorney for Heritage America, The Aegis Company and their 5500 members is Stephen McIlwain of Albuquerque, New Mexico. The lawsuit is being coordinated by United Citizens for Legal Reform. The Director of UCLR is Mr. Sam Sorrell. Craig A. Weaver in the U.S. Attorney assigned to the case.

Previous Article:  $500 Billion Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against the IRS
 

a r t i c l e   /   c o m m e n t a r y

Trading Freedom for Security
by William F. Jasper
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/05-05-2003/vo19no09_trading_print.htm
contributed by Viv

The paradox at the moment is that the same USA/Britain that invaded the sovereign state of Iraq, to provide its people with so called "freedom, liberty and democracy", are responsible for those same supposed freedoms and liberties being taken away or at least curtailed in their own countries.  Some 5 years back I read a very good book by the same author of the article below called "Global tyranny step by step"....William F Jasper.  It really knocked my socks off when I read it then, but I remained a tad sceptical.  Recent events have made me dust off its cover again.....great insight, great predictions, interesting times..... much of it concurs with Greater Book written some 2000 years ago. Sorry if the article below seems a bit lengthy but I believe it is worth a read.  Viv

“In an age of militant mediocrity, anyone who takes a position will be called an extremist.”

‘‘(Those who will) sacrifice essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety," observed Benjamin Franklin, "deserve neither liberty nor safety." The harsh verdict of history sustains the bitter truth of Dr. Franklin’s observation. Those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety end up trading freedom for security. The present moment calls for sober reflection on that grim warning. Are we giving up essential liberties in the war on terror for the promise of safety? In the name of security are we concentrating and institutionalizing power in such ways that we are inviting terror far beyond what any terrorist group could ever hope to inflict on us?

Recall that throughout history — and particularly in the past century — governments have been by far the primary and most lethal instruments of terror. Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and their fellow dictators have proven the most efficient terrorists. Wielding unbridled power, they have turned the state into an instrument of terror, death, and destruction. In our stampede to safety after the 9-11 attacks, have we been rushing headlong into a deadly trap?

We have already allowed an incredible and unprecedented concentration of power, threatening to destroy all constitutional protections. The new Department of Homeland Security and the USA Patriot Act represent an enormous restructuring and centralizing of power. These radical innovations’ full impact has not even begun to be told. Yet each day brings word of new proposals calling for the federal government to usurp more power, and for the states and the people to surrender more of their rights, freedoms, and responsibilities. Projecting the lines of trajectory from current trends, we could soon be living in an Orwellian police state

Patriot Act II

Over the past few months, a staggering array of truly alarming programs, policies, and legislative proposals has come to light: conducting searches without warrants; military tribunals for U.S. citizens; dispensing with habeas corpus; increased wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping; video surveillance; see-through-clothing x-ray machines; "data mining" of financial transactions and virtually all electronic databases; national identification cards; and biometric identification. Some of these schemes have been scuttled (temporarily) by exposure; others have been adopted or await legislative action.

One of the most frightening proposals to be leaked to the public is a piece of draft legislation crafted by activists at the U.S. Justice Department. Officially entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (DSEA), the legislation has been dubbed "Patriot Act II" by opponents, since it appears to be a follow-up punch to the USA Patriot Act of 2001, passed in the wake of 9-11. The Justice Department originally denied that the draft legislation existed, even though it had provided copies of the bill — marked "CONFIDENTIAL — NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION" and dated January 9th — to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Vice President Richard Cheney.

As we write, almost none of the 535 members of Congress have received official copies of the draft legislation, including members of the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate, who normally would be expected to have early access to the proposed law. A whistleblower within Justice leaked the draft, however, and it is now publicly available. (See www.thenewamerican.com/focus/patriotact/.)

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a leading voice in Congress for preserving constitutional restraints on government, finds the bill’s provisions very alarming. "Rather than effectively fight threats to our national security and safety," he said in a statement issued by his office, "Patriot Two would endanger the liberty of every American citizen and destroy what remains of America’s constitutional republic. This proposal gives the Federal Government expanded power to snoop into the private affairs of American citizens without acquiring a warrant or meeting the constitutional standards of probable cause. However, perhaps the most disturbing portion of the draft is the provision that would give the government the power to revoke United States citizenship for engaging in political activity."

According to Dr. David Cole, Georgetown University Law professor and author of Terrorism and the Constitution, the legislation "raises a lot of serious concerns." "It’s troubling that they have gotten this far along and they’ve been telling people there is nothing in the works," he said, referring to the Justice Department’s secrecy and deception in dealing with Congress. Patriot II, says Professor Cole, "would radically expand law enforcement and intelligence gathering authorities, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create a DNA database based on unchecked executive ‘suspicion,’ create new death penalties, and even seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups."

Some of the key disturbing provisions of the 86-page Patriot Act II draft include:

• Definition of "terrorist suspect": Section 304 states that the term "‘suspected terrorist’ means any person as to whom the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense … has determined that there is reason to believe" has engaged in terrorism as defined in various sections of the United States Code, or who falls into a number of other broad categories, or "is a member of a terrorist organization designated as such."

• Definition of "designated terrorist organization": According to Section 423, "the term ‘designated terrorist organization’ means an organization which … is designated as a terrorist organization by an Executive Order" or under the authority of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act. A "designated terrorist organization" can also be a single person "listed in or designated by an Executive Order as supporting terrorist activity...."

• Presumptive pre-trial detention: Section 405 would "presumptively deny release to persons charged with crimes listed" in title 18 of the U.S. Code "which contains a standard list of offenses that are likely to be committed by terrorists." While it would seem sensible to deny bail and release to members of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other violent terrorist groups, the open-ended definition of terrorist groups provided in the law, as we will show below, would make it possible for the government similarly to deny bail to political opponents not even remotely connected to terrorism.

• Expatriation: Section 501, one of DSEA’s most radical sections, provides that an American citizen may be stripped of his citizenship — and the constitutionally protected rights that go with citizenship — if charged with "joining or serving in, or providing material support … to, a terrorist organization … if the organization is engaged in hostilities against the United States, its people, or its national security interests."

Patriot II would also provide frightening powers to the executive branch in its sections concerning secret arrests, warrantless searches, and electronic surveillance. Those who think that these powers would never be abused by President George W. Bush, or that they would be directed solely at the likes of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad, should be reminded that administrations come and go and that these powers would be wielded not only by President Bush but by his successors.

Only a short time ago, President Clinton and Attorney General Reno were building the case for labeling as terrorists peaceful pro-life activists and other law-abiding citizens who opposed big government and the United Nations. One can easily imagine a future administration that would resume these efforts — and add other targeted groups as well. Such as gun owners. Or property owners along our southern border trying to stem the invasion of illegal aliens across their property. Or supposedly intolerant pro-family activists who have taken on the militant homosexual lobby. All of these groups have been branded as terrorists or potential terrorists by the radical left and their allies in Congress and the media.

Growing Opposition

Fortunately, the many blatantly unconstitutional features of the Patriot II legislation have already stirred bipartisan opposition.

Senators Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) are among those who have registered concern. "As recently as just last week, Justice Department officials have denied to … the Judiciary Committee that they were drafting another anti-terrorism package," said Senator Leahy in a written statement in early February. "There is bipartisan concern … about the administration’s lack of responsiveness to congressional oversight." Senator Feingold, the only senator to vote against Patriot Act I, said, "I have serious concerns … and hope the Senate will give this bill more scrutiny than the first USA Patriot Act."

Senator Grassley said of Patriot II in an interview with PBS: "I’m going to be very cautious about that legislation. Quite frankly I’m not going to be for dramatic expansion of it even knowing the environment of terrorism I know is now a threat to Americans. I think we need to move very cautiously. And I think we’ve had about enough expansion as we should have for a while."

However, stopping Patriot Act II will not, by itself, stop the emerging police state; there are still many hidden trap doors to Patriot Act I that could hold very unpleasant surprises. Senator Grassley says that before the Senate can even consider further "anti-terror" legislation, Attorney General Ashcroft must answer key questions they have been asking for months concerning Patriot Act I. According to Grassley, Ashcroft has refused to answer repeated congressional inquiries. Many senators are becoming impatient with the continued stalling. "You know, it’s just like pulling teeth to get information out of a lot of bureaucracy," Grassley said in a PBS interview. "But when it comes to this issue the Justice Department has been very difficult."

"We really do want answers to the requests that we send," Senator Leahy said in the same PBS program. "We have 23 outstanding requests to various parts of the Department of Justice dating back a year, July of last year." Congressman Dan Burton (R-Ind.), chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, experienced an inordinate amount of stonewalling from the Clinton White House and the Janet Reno Justice Department. Like the senators, Rep. Burton has run into the same problem when he has tried to get information concerning the federal government’s use of powers already put in place under Patriot I and other legislation. "An iron veil is descending over the executive branch," he said earlier this year, after being rebuffed once again in oversight requests for information.

Of course, many of those members of Congress now complaining about the executive branch’s cooperation have only themselves to blame. In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, they rushed to show the American public that they were looking out for our national security — by passing the Bush administration’s USA Patriot Act virtually sight unseen. "It’s my understanding the bill wasn’t printed before the vote — at least I couldn’t get it," said Rep. Ron Paul, one of only three members of the House to vote against the act. "They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill," he said in an interview with Insight magazine. "Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote."

As THE NEW AMERICAN previously noted in reference to this mad rush toward dictatorship, "in the heat of crisis, the restraints on government power evaporate — and the chains of slavery can be forged. The Patriot Act I can definitely be viewed as a major link in the chains of slavery; Patriot II would go a long way toward finishing the task.

Congressman Paul’s suspicions that Patriot I was "a very bad bill" were amply confirmed once he obtained a copy. He quickly recognized that it threatens constitutionally protected rights while doing little to protect against terrorism. "This law clearly authorizes illegal search and seizure, and anyone who thinks of this as anti-terrorism needs to consider its application to every American citizen," he said.

Unfortunately, Rep. Paul could not stop the stampede. However, Congress did include "sunset" provisions in the legislation. These provisions make some of the key powers expire at the end of 2005 unless Congress reauthorizes them. The administration and some congressional Republicans are now trying to make the temporary powers permanent by removing the sunset clauses. The New York Times reported on April 8th that Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) is leading the effort to lock in the new fedgov police powers.

Der Fuerherland Security

Not satisfied with having abdicated their responsibility to read Patriot Act I before passing the radical bill, House and Senate members then recklessly created the Department of Homeland Security. Combining dozens of federal law enforcement, emergency, and security agencies into a gargantuan bureaucracy, this massive restructuring represents an unprecedented concentration and expansion of federal police powers. It also vastly extends federal authority (unconstitutionally) over state and local police and emergency services, thus striking down many vital checks and balances the Founding Fathers wisely devised to prevent a centralized, all-powerful leviathan.

No evidence has been forthcoming to show that the new Cabinet-level Homeland Security Department will provide us any added security against terrorist attacks, but it plainly presents us with the danger of a huge political monstrosity that could certainly morph into a deadly Gestapo. The known facts concerning the 9-11 attacks argue strongly for less centralization, not greater. It was local FBI agents in the field, lower-level agents at CIA and INS, and local police who uncovered various parts of the hijackers’ plans and tried to do something about it. It was high-level political operatives and bureaucrats in Washington who repeatedly stymied the men and women in the field and kept them from thwarting the terror conspiracy.

Now the new Department of Homeland Security is extending its tentacles into state and local governments in a multitude of ways. Besides claiming jurisdiction over matters for which it has no constitutional authority, the department is lavishing on communities billions of dollars in grants, equipment, and training. Former federal officials are also popping up as the administrators of new state and city counter-terrorism agencies. With this crossbreeding increasing, the natural resistance to top-down orders from Washington is decreasing; and state and local agencies are becoming merely administrative units of the federal government, rather than independent entities beholden to their state and local constituencies.

Sid Caspersen typifies this new breed. A former FBI official from New York City, Mr. Caspersen was hired last year by New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevey to head the Garden State’s new office of counter-terrorism. At a March 14th press conference, Mr. Caspersen explained his view of how New Jersey’s counter-terrorism office would operate if the Department of Homeland Security issues a "red alert," the highest in the federal government’s color-coded terror alert system.

According to the former G-Man, red alert can mean a virtual lockdown of all citizens. "You literally are staying home," Caspersen said. He continued: "What we’re saying is, ‘Everybody sit down.’ If you are left standing, you are probably a terrorist.... That’s how we’re going to catch you." Caspersen told reporters, "Red means all noncritical functions cease." "Noncritical would be almost all businesses, except health-related," he said. Most government agencies "would run at a very low threshold," he stated, and "state police and the emergency management people would take control over the highways."

As might be imagined, some New Jersey citizens took alarm at Caspersen’s extreme views. What if they happened to be out grocery shopping, driving to work, or dropping the kids off at a Little League game unaware that a "red alert" had been issued? Would they suddenly be considered fair game in the cross hairs of an anti-terror SWAT team? Such a worry might have been thought ridiculous months ago, but not now when public authorities are openly extolling the most totalitarian measures as necessary to the common safety.

Roger Schatzkin, Mr. Caspersen’s press officer, told THE NEW AMERICAN that "the director’s remarks were taken out of context." But he did not dispute the accuracy of the above quotations, which various media had reported. New Jersey’s implementation of a federal red alert would likely be much less draconian and pervasive than Caspersen’s "infelicitous remarks" indicated, Mr. Schatzkin said. "The director was thinking in the context of 9-11 in New York City," Schatzkin explained. "He was at ground zero right after the attacks and the first thing you have to do is secure the area. Every car or truck left on the street is a potential bomb that has to be checked out. Individuals in the area have to be considered potential suspects. He was not referring to a statewide lockdown but [to] appropriate restrictions within a more limited locale where a terrorist attack has occurred," or where authorities have information that one may be imminent.

Such explanations might be more reassuring if they were not being made amidst an avalanche of new restrictions on movement, privacy, and the exercise of virtually every basic right, as well as amidst a steady din of plans and proposals for even more severe assaults on the Constitution. Consider these schemes already in various stages of implementation:

• Total Information Awareness (TIA): As reported earlier in these pages ("Watching Your Every Move," January 27, 2003), the TIA program aspires to outdo the Big Brother invasiveness depicted in Orwell’s 1984. TIA is a project of the Information Awareness Office (IAO) run by Admiral John Poindexter in the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Under TIA, Poindexter’s office is developing advanced technologies for "data mining," surveillance, and biometric identification. It envisions a "virtual, centralized, grand database," a vast repository of financial records, medical records, telecommunication records, travel records, criminal records, educational records, etc. on every individual — all in the name of protecting us against terrorists.

• Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information & Prevention System): This Bush-Ashcroft plan envisioned a national neighborhood spy system "for reporting suspicious and potentially terrorist-related activity." The TIPS goal was to enlist "millions of American workers," such as postal employees, truck drivers, utility workers, delivery drivers, and others. Widespread public opposition to this chilling mimicry of Nazi and Communist police-state practices caused the administration formally to drop this program. However, postal employees and other federal workers say that their management has still encouraged them to carry out the spirit of the program.

• Transportation Security Administration (TSA): Prior to the 9-11 attacks, the security personnel and baggage screeners at U.S. airports were provided by the airlines themselves, private security companies, local police and sheriff departments, and specially created local airport police units. Responding to the attacks, Congress created the TSA, which, virtually overnight, nationalized security functions at all U.S. airports and established one of the world’s largest police forces, with 58,000 officers.

• Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II): Citing the laudable goal of airline safety, this TSA program seeks to employ data-mining methods and technology to obtain detailed private information on airline passengers for so-called "risk assessment." No studies have been produced to show that this invasive program will be at all effective in contributing to airline security, or how constitutional and privacy issues can be reconciled with the program.

• Digital Eye Scans: In February, London’s Heathrow airport launched a program using iris recognition stations that check passenger identification based on a digital eye scan. Although it is a voluntary program involving passengers on Virgin Atlantic and British Airways transatlantic flights, Britain’s Home Office Minister Lord Rooker said: "These are unprecedented steps. Biometric technology offers many new possibilities." According to news reports, there are also plans to install iris scan technology at New York’s JFK airport and Washington’s Dulles Airport. Over the past two years there has been a growing chorus advocating mandatory use of biometrics in government identification documents.

• Virtual Strip Searches: In March 2002, a new whole-body-scan x-ray system was installed at Orlando International Airport in Florida. The new system, which sees through clothing, is a prototype being tested for possible use throughout the country. The x-ray machines, marketed under the name Rapiscan 1000, are supposed to speed passengers through security check points. However, critics are calling the devices Rape-a-Scan because the see-through images leave nothing to the imagination. Although still a voluntary procedure, pressures are certain to mount to make it mandatory — after a few more terrorist attacks. Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), a proponent of the body scans, has argued that concerns about privacy and embarrassment are trumped by the security imperative. "We’re facing a new type of terrorist: they’re willing to blow themselves up and they can conceal explosives even within body cavities," he said.

• Military Terror Tribunals: By a November 13, 2001 emergency executive order, President Bush established military tribunals to try accused foreign terrorists. But for these so-called courts to pass constitutional muster, Congress must declare war; Congress must create these tribunals; and these tribunals must be made subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. While many Americans may not think such technicalities are important to protect the rights of Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists, they are very important to protecting the rights of American citizens. Prominent jurist Robert Bork has advocated expanding the tribunals’ jurisdiction to American citizens, and President Bush has already done so in the case of Yasser Esam Hamdi. Mr. Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, was captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Although not formally charged, he was brought to the U.S. and has been held incommunicado without access to legal counsel. Under the Patriot Act II, many loyal, law-abiding U.S. citizens stand vulnerable to being charged as terrorists, stripped of their citizenship, and subjected to these tribunals, which lack the constitutional safeguards of the American judicial system.

                                                 * * *
Over the past year and a half, our constitutional safeguards have been battered and torn like few other times in our history. We must set to repairing these breaches immediately, otherwise another major terrorist attack or crisis (real or contrived) may prove sufficient to sweep aside what remains of our republic and our freedoms
 

I N S I G H T

[You do not have to believe there is an enemy within to examine some facts.  This could be enlightenment for some.]

A small sample; 911: The Road to Tyranny, Alex Jones (Real Audio required).
 

goto top .....mailto:  therockyview@tellme1st.net