Back to Basics

The IRS Bullying tactics currently in the news is not a new thing. This individual, who was targeted by the U.S. version of the KGB, learned that the IRS is totally directed by the government to harass those with political ideology other than their own, which is Marxist. The government uses the IRS as a chain-saw to silence those with whom they disagree, especially ministers who believe in God.

In early 2000, an application for a 501c3 tax exemption for a valid ministry resulted in an avalanche of form after form requiring excessive information. This continued for several months after the demanded $400.00 had been sent to them to process the application.

After several months it became evident that they would never grant me the exemption even though this ministry has proved to benefit society with a 100% success rate in suicide prevention, crisis counseling, chaplain work in all areas, the training of chaplains and homeless ministry. They had no intention to grant the exemption and they kept my $400.00, which, for a devoted minister, is a sacrifice.

At the very same time, a perverted organization called, North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) whose goal it is [to] make it legal, for older men to have sex with little boys, which they refer to as inter-generational sex, applied for tax exempt status and that was immediately granted without delay.

The government then zeroed in on its quest to close down this ministry. California Governor Gray Davis, a Democrat, launched a full frontal assault. My driver’s license Renewal Notice came in the mail at the usual time. I sent back the signature, again as usual, and BAM! The DMV wrote back that I had to provide identification to renew my license, which was strange since I had been living and driving in the State of California for 16 years with no violations.

Identification was sent and it was rejected even though it had been accepted before. I sent them a copy of my passport and even that was not accepted. The demand for massive identification was such that nobody could have provided what they insisted on having.

It is to be noted that the DMV, under direction of Gov. Davis took a very defensive stance against me, were rude and downright insulting when I called them, and in letters they wrote to me. Some of the things they said to me were downright stupid, something not expected from a government office.

They then asked for a birth certificate which I sent, but that was rejected since they would not accept a copy of a birth certificate. It had to be the original one. Since I was born in Houston I contacted the Texas Bureau of Vital Statistics. Gov. Davis had already contacted them with instructions not to cooperate with me.

That bureau stated that I had to provide identification to prove who I was in order to be issued the certificate. I had sent them copies of the original birth certificate but that was not acceptable, it didn’t prove a thing, they said. I then sent them copies of my passports over the years and those were refused. They had made it impossible for me. The government was firing its best shots to force me out of public life.

by Burt Prelutsky

The only consolation to being in my 70s is that I got to spend most of my life in a pre-Obama America, and probably won’t have to spend too many years in the post-Obama one.

I hate to be a gloomy Gus, but prior to the election, I wrote that the nation could probably survive another four years of this schmuck, but what it couldn’t survive is an electorate that would give him another four years in which to do his dirty work.

By now, even Obama must be embarrassed to keep blaming Bush. But being the sort of egotist who can never acknowledge his own miserable failings, I fully expect he will now start blaming Biden. Speaking of Biden, it’s often said of vice-presidents that they provide the president with more protection than the Secret Service. But for my part, I would actually prefer to see Biden in the Oval Office. At least, thanks to his gift for malaprops, he could be counted on to keep us laughing.

What confounds me about the left-wing lap dogs in the media is the way they keep insisting that their role is to speak truth to power when, in fact, all they really do is provide cover for Obama and his cronies in Congress. For instance, remember how upset they were when George Bush got the Patriot Act passed, when he invaded Afghanistan and when he refused to shut down Gitmo?

Well, here it is 2012. Obama has extended the Patriot Act, lost more American lives in Afghanistan in four years than Bush did in seven and kept Gitmo open, and nobody in the media or the Democratic Party is calling him a fascist, calling for his impeachment or suggesting he should die a painful death. On top of all that, he has employed drones to assassinate terrorists with little or no concern for so-called collateral damage. Understand, I have mentioned a few of the things that I personally approve of, but how is it that liberals aren’t raising a stink about it? It’s because they are hypocrites, first, last and always. So long as their side wins elections, nothing else matters. That’s why Sen. Feinstein initially vowed to get to the bottom of the national security leaks to the NY Times, and then shut her yap when it became obvious that Obama was the source of leaks that were intended to bolster his foreign policy decisions leading up to the election.

Can you imagine what the Democrats would have said if President Bush had spent months avoiding having an actual press conference, preferring to be pandered to by David Letterman, Jay Leno, the goofy ladies on The View and talking football on 9/11 with Lazaro Mendez, who bills himself as the Pimp with the Limp on his morning radio show? Hard to believe the media would have let Bush get away with attacking Fox News if he then pretended that Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg and Senor Mendez, were the reincarnation of Edward R. Murrow, Eric Sevareid and Howard K. Smith.

In California, in case it escaped your attention, it seems that lemmings, along with illegal aliens, are now being encouraged to vote.

UPI FILE

In 2006, Louisiana National Guard troops took to the streets of New Orleans to stem rising crime in the area, which had begun to repopulate after Hurricane Katrina flooded more than 80 percent of the city in 2005.

In medicine under the germ theory of disease, vaccinations are supposed to provide immunity by introducing the disease to the body in small doses, allowing the body to build up its “germ-fighting” abilities. Of course, this is not so, as I pointed out last week.

But that theory is now being employed on Americans in another way that has nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with control. Americans are being “vaccinated” into acceptance of martial law and military rule.

Military vehicles from the U.S. Army Reserve patrolling the streets of Sheboygan County in Wisconsin that began Aug. 5 and will continue through Aug. 17 are part of a “training exercise,” according to Captain William Geddes of the 200^th Military Police Command at Fort Mead, Md. But those soldiers have already “trained” in the use of the M117 Armored Security Vehicles in Afghanistan. So the training is more to train the American public.

Geddes said the U.S. Army Reserve wanted to alert to the public — but apparently not those in local government — ahead of the training so they wouldn’t be alarmed when a pack of heavily armored military vehicles is driving around.

Remember, there is nothing to see here. Just move along.

This is just the latest in a series of ongoing violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which is supposed to prevent the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities. Recent “vaccinations” include:

• A joint drill between the U.S. Army and the Miami Police Department in May.
• Troops from the Minnesota National Guard, which had been deployed to Iraq, walking the streets of Crookston, Minn., in May. One soldier told a resident it was training. When asked what the training was for, the grunt replied, “To be honest ma’am, I don’t know.”
• Troops from the Bravo Company of the Minnesota National Guard’s Crookston Armory conducting “Urban Operations Training” with Humvees and 27 soldiers in February.
• In Homestead, Fla., the Air Force military police patrolmen from Homestead Air Reserve Base are responding to crimes and detaining criminals for local police.
• The National Guard assisting police with traffic control and providing “security” in Kingman, Ariz., in 2009.
• The Tennessee National Guard and Arnold Air force Base Police assisting the Tennessee Highway Patrol and U.S. Department of Homeland Security with a traffic checkpoint in 2009.
• The U.S. Army sending 22 military police and an officer from Fort Rucker to patrol the streets of Samson, Ala., following a shooting in 2009.
• The U.S. Marine Corps Air and Ground Combat Center working with the California Highway Patrol to “reduce accidents and drinking and driving” in San Bernardino County, Calif., in 2008.
• The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the U.S. trained to respond to domestic threats, according to The Washington Post.
• The battle-hardened 3^rd Infantry Division’s 1^st Brigade Combat Team training in the United States to “help with civil unrest, crowd control or deal with potentially horrific scenarios” like a terrorist attack.

America prides itself in being called “the land of the free.” But, what, exactly, does it mean to be free? Does it mean owning a car and having a job? People in communist countries own a car and have a job. Does it mean going to a mall to shop. People in communist countries go to a mall to shop. Does it mean going to an amusement park to recreate? People in communist countries go to amusement parks. Does it mean going to the polls and voting? People in communist countries go to the polls and vote. In reality, many, if not most, of the things that most Americans would identify as marks of freedom are commonly practiced in the most oppressed communist countries of the world. So, what does it mean to be free?

Obviously, the freedom of speech is a crucial element of freedom, so much so that it is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. And the truth is, freedom of speech is not at all what it used to be in this country. If you doubt that, just ask the hundreds and thousands of journalists, news anchors, sportscasters, business executives, religious leaders, non-profit organization heads, teachers, scientists, government employees, etc., who have lost their positions for saying something politically incorrect. If you could, ask the late Howard Cosell or the late Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder. Ask Judge Andrew Napolitano, Glenn Beck, or Lou Dobbs. There are literally millions of people across America who daily “bite their tongues” and refuse to speak for fear of demotion, dismissal, retaliation, persecution, or worse! You call that freedom of speech? Gag!

Another critical element of freedom enshrined in the First Amendment is the right to worship freely. But, this, too, is not what it used to be. Can anyone remember when pastors and church leaders were free to say what they wanted in regard to issues that tread into government? If you do, you are probably over 50 years old or attend a non-501c3 church. On the whole, pastors and church leaders today are literally “scared silly” to broach any topic that might have political overtones, which means a sizeable percentage of the Bible is either ignored or spiritualized away by the vast majority of America’s pulpits. You call this freedom of worship? Barf!

Of course, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is one of the most crucial ingredients of a free society. It is this right that, for the most part, separates the United States from the oppressed nations of the world. And, of course, the Powers That Be have been chipping away at this fundamental tenet of liberty for nearly half a century, to the point that there are literally tens of millions of Americans who are forbidden by law from owning or possessing a firearm due to a conviction or plea bargain for some “crime” in which no one—nada–was injured. And in many states, even those who have never run afoul of the law are forbidden from owning–and especially–possessing a firearm. Can anyone say Massachusetts or California?

On the heels of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” comes another draconian bill designed to give the federal government the power to turn American citizens into enemies of the state for virtually any reason it deems necessary. Stephen D. Foster, Jr. has the story.

“Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being ‘hostile’ against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’ Legally, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism.”

Foster goes on to say, “I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans. Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial.”

See Foster’s report HERE

Ever since Congress passed the Patriot Act back in 2001, it seems the floodgates have been opened for more and more intrusions and abridgements of those fundamental liberties expressly protected in the Bill of Rights. From the Patriot Act, to the Military Commissions Act, to the NDAA (Indefinite Detention Act), and to now the Enemy Expatriation Act (EEA), these big government toadies in Washington, D.C., are clearly and unmistakingly declaring war on the American people.

I invite readers to see my column on the NDAA HERE

Have we forgotten the MIAC report out of the State of Missouri back in 2009? In that official State report, supporters of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin were identified as potential dangerous “militia members,” and Missouri State law enforcement officials were notified to be on guard. Beyond that, anyone that identified themselves as being pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, anti-Federal Reserve, Christians who believe in the return of Christ, and even returning Iraq War veterans were likewise targeted as potentially dangerous to Missouri State law enforcement personnel.

After the MIAC report surfaced, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and I sent a letter to the governor of Missouri demanding that the report be removed and that the State of Missouri repudiate the report. After a firestorm of outrage by thousands of Americans all over the country (not just in Missouri) the State of Missouri did indeed remove and repudiate the report.

Totalitarian regimes throughout history have attempted to marginalize those people that the state intended to target for persecution. Once a group or groups of people had been sufficiently marginalized, it wasn’t long before public condemnation and then military retaliation took place.

While most Americans were celebrating the holidays, President Barack Obama quietly signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” into law. Obama had initially said he would veto the bill which contains the draconian language authorizing the US military to seize and incarcerate US citizens without warrant, due process, trial, etc. Of course, Obama quickly changed his mind after the bill passed both houses of Congress.

When signing the NDAA into law, Obama issued a signing statement that in essence said, “I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t.” See this report

Americans should realize that, coupled with the Patriot Act, the NDAA, for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places US citizens under military rule. And what is even more astonishing is the manner in which the national press corps, and even the so-called “conservative” talking heads, have either completely ignored it, or have actually defended it. The likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al., should be ashamed of themselves!

At this juncture, I want to highly encourage my readers to review two columns written by my constitutional attorney son, Tim Baldwin. He has written two masterful columns explaining the draconian provisions of the NDAA and responding to those irresponsible journalists who fail to understand and warn the American people regarding the horrific implications of the NDAA.

This is Tim’s column explaining the NDAA

And this is Tim’s column, which rebukes journalists who choose to stick their heads in the sand regarding the NDAA:

Mike Adams at NaturalNews.com has also written a great piece regarding the seriousness of the NDAA. He begins his report saying, “One of the most extraordinary documents in human history–the Bill of Rights–has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the President’s signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the U.S. military the ‘legal’ right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder. This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused. It is a system of outright government tyranny against the American people, and it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights.

“In what will be remembered as the most traitorous executive signing ever committed against the American people, President Obama signed the bill on New Year’s Eve, a time when most Americans were engaged in the consumption of alcohol. It seems appropriate, of course, since no intelligent American could accept the tyranny of this bill if they were sober.

“This is the law that will cement Obama’s legacy in the history books as the traitor who nullified the Bill of Rights and paved America’s pathway down a road of tyranny that will make Nazi Germany’s war crimes look like child’s play. If Bush had signed a law like this, liberals would have been screaming ‘impeachment!’”

Adams is absolutely right!

Today’s column will be short and to the point. It has finally arrived, folks. I’d hoped I was wrong about it but, tragically and chillingly I was not. Obama has just announced — in his own words — that he can detain (imprison) anyone he wants with the new unconstitutional NDAA bill passed by Congress and signed by the now self-proclaimed Dictator-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama. Note: As usual, the Marxist-media doesn’t care and is, instead, jubilant that Dear Leader Obama has finally done away with that pesky Constitution.

In a statement published 31 December on his White House site, Mr. Obama states: “Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” He goes in the state: “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.” Note: Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) advised in the below YouTube video that the White House and Barack Obama DEMANDED the removal of any and all protections for US citizens and legal residents. So, the collaborative Congress gave him the dictatorial powers he has wanted since he usurped the Office of POTUS.

The now formal Dictator of the USA Obama also disingenuously stated: “Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground [yes, it does] and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then.”

“Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” Note: But, it does.

“My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF.” Note: No, it did not. In fact, per Democrat Senator Carl Levin, just the opposite occurred — as Obama demanded protections for US citizens and legal residents be removed before he would sign the bill! Obama continues with: “Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” Translation: “I may choose to be a beneficent dictator, if I wish to do so.”

“Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values [they are not 'traditions and values' they are US law] as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.” Note: This is another abject ObamaLie.

As the attention of most Americans was captivated by the shiny object in Times Square this weekend like infants fixated on car keys dangled in front of them, Barack Hussein Obama signed into law  H.R. 1540, better known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Regardless of any concurrent executive signing statements that are mere window dressing and not legally binding, Obama and every member of congress who crafted and voted for this act has essentially declared war on American citizens on U.S. soil.

To quote Rush Limbaugh, “words mean things.” As a career investigator, I can assure you that words contained in local, state and federal laws most certainly mean things, and provide the legal authority for conduct sanctioned by national or state authorities without regard to any promised judicial or prosecutorial discretion that could be likened to the signing statement. The NDAA now codifies the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act, which “candidate” Obama publicly opposed. What changed?

Greasing the slope

Any person of reasonable sensibilities should be raising a multitude of questions upon considering the current and historical conduct of the executive and legislative branches of our government. It was the attack on 9/11 that ostensibly paved the way for the Bush administration to craft the USA PATRIOT Act, which was signed into law by congress on October 26, 2001. That legislation broadened law enforcement powers well beyond the rights granted to Americans by the U.S. Constitution. While many of the provisions contained in the PATRIOT Act were scheduled to end on December 31, 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill containing numerous changes in July 2005, and the House of Representatives submitted a bill that kept most of the original bill intact. The largely unchanged bill passed congressional vote on March 2, 2006 and was signed into law by George W. Bush.

Although the PATRIOT Act has gone through various subsequent incarnations, congress crafted and Obama signed a four-year extension last May, extending certain key provisions that particularly focused on businesses in the U.S.  It is important to note that the manner and methods in which the U.S. government interprets and carries out the provisions of the PATRIOT Act are classified and kept secret from the American public, an issue rarely addressed by politicians or pundits. Why the secrecy?

Continuity of agenda

One must also question the obvious continuity of agenda from the Bush administration to the Obama administration, and from the congress seated in 2001 through today. Despite pro-Constitutional campaign rhetoric from both Republicans and Democrats, and the rapid acquiescence of some TEA party candidates who now occupy seats of power, it is obvious that the rights of Americans granted by the very Constitution elected officials swore to uphold are under attack. Why the change?

As one looks at the larger picture, pieces of the puzzle seems to become more recognizable.

The move toward globalism

Once thought to be the fanciful designs of the conspiracy minded, there appears to be an acceleration toward one world governance, or the infamous “New World Order.” It is an agenda that has been in place for decades, yet the politically myopic and the agent facilitators deliberately avoid any discussion of its existence.

Its time to end this!

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIlV1gekknY
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBdPEK5pNtE

The USA Patriot Act, the law granting the government vast surveillance powers that was adopted in the wake of September 11, turns a decade old Wednesday.

But despite its namesake of “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism,” the law seemingly is being invoked far more to target domestic crime than for fighting terrorism.

The act, which has remained largely the same since President George W. Bush signed the legislation six weeks after 9/11, among other things gives the government powers to acquire phone, banking and other records via the power of a so-called “national security letter,” which does not require a court warrant.

National security letters, perhaps the most invasive facet of the law, are written demands from the FBI that compel internet service providers, financial institutions and others to hand over confidential records about their customers, such as subscriber information, phone numbers and e-mail addresses, and arguably websites you have visited.

The FBI need merely assert, in writing, that the information is “relevant” to an ongoing terrorism or national security investigation. Nearly everyone who gets a national security letter is prohibited from even disclosing that they’ve received one (the automatic gag order provision was struck down in a rare legal loss for the Patriot Act, but they persist in practice). More than 200,000 letters have been issued by the FBI.

Amendments requiring that the letters seek data relevant to a “terror” investigation have failed.

A decade after Bush’s signature, information is sketchy about how the law is being used in practice. For instance, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) claims the government applies a far broader, and classified legal interpretation of the Patriot Act.

“We’re getting to a gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says,” the Senate Intelligence Committee member said in a recent interview with Wired.com. “When you’ve got that kind of a gap, you’re going to have a problem on your hands.”

Wyden says he “can’t answer” any specific questions about how the government thinks it can use the Patriot Act. That would risk revealing classified information, he said.

There have been plenty of Inspector General reports published about the act. Some point to government abuse of it, and others highlight that the Patriot Act is often invoked for reasons unrelated to terrorism.

One report shows that of the 143,000 national security letters issued between 2003-2005, the FBI said it referred 53 cases for prosecution. (.pdf) None were for terrorism.

The law also grants so-called “black bag” or “sneak and peek” searches in which the authorities may delay notifying a property owner that an area has been searched. In 2010, less than 1 percent of the 3,970 such searches were terror-related. About 76 percent were drug-related.

Another Inspector General report showed in 2007 that the FBI evaded limits on, and sometimes illegally issued, national security letters for phone, e-mail and financial information on American citizens andunderreported the use of these self-issued orders to Congress.

Congress’ only response has been to leave the law virtually unchanged.

President Obama is over in France and wasn’t in Washington to sign the extension of the Patriot Act that was to expire at midnight, so it was signed with an “autopen.”

What a great excuse to offer the inevitable criticism he’ll get, much of it from his own base: “But I didn’t sign it — Robobama did”:

President Obama, currently on an overseas trip, is not at the White House to sign the bill, a requirement for the measure to become law.

So the White House will use an autopen –- a machine that replicates Obama’s signature -– to sign the extension, according to White House spokesman Nick Shapiro.
[...]
Jay Wexler, a Boston University law professor and author of “The Odd Clauses: Understanding the Constitution Through Ten of Its Most Curious Provisions,” says the constitutionality of using an autopen was confirmed in a thorough 2005 Office of Legal Counsel opinion.

No word yet on whether or not the autopen accidentally dated its signature 2008.

It’s possible that eventually TOTUS and the autopen will become completely self-aware, but I won’t assume that would be a bad thing. Maybe they’d sign a repeal of the health care law — you never know.