Originally posted from 08-24-03 to 08-31-03
We Lynched Lady Liberty
He Says We're Good Little Patriots
by Sergei Borglum Hoff
(Former peace officer and sculptor)
 
 Mount Rushmore National Memorial

 "A monument's dimensions should be determined by the importance to civilization of the events commemorated... Let us place there carved high, as close to heaven as we can... our leaders, their faces, to show posterity what manner of men they were. Then breathe a prayer that these records will endure until the wind and the rain alone shall wear them away."--Gutzon Borglum, sculptor of Mount Rushmore National Memorial [1930]

From boyhood, I have been guided by the knowledge that my ancestors were liberty-committed-patriots who successfully challenged King George the Third, during the war for American independence. Family journals reveal that in the year of 1867, my pioneering great-grandparents adventured across the prairies and mountains by covered wagon and were instrumental in taming the American frontier. Despite formidable backwoods challenges, they persevered and openhandedly assisted their homesteading neighbors, further contributing to the prosperity and wholesomeness of our promising land. Among their many achievements and patriotic commitments, including participation in every American war, they created twenty national and state memorials in celebration of freedom and our courageous leaders. I have an unwavering loyalty to my family and the nation that they loved. My roots run deep, and will never be removed. Millions of citizens can rightfully speak with pride in recognition of their American heritage. I will be pleased if they do step forward, further heralding the virtuous intent and patriotic fortitude of their forbearers.

"Putting people first has always beenAmerica's secret weapon. It's the way we've kept the spirit of our revolutions alive--a spirit that drives us to dream and dare, and take great risks for a greater good."--Ronald Reagan

In 1987, as a sculptor and grandnephew of Gutzon Borglum, I presented President Ronald Reagan with a bronze sculpture of Gutzon. During our conversation, the President spoke with familiarity regarding Gutzon's sculpture, steadfast manner, and his timeless gift to the people of America. The inspiring patriotic significance of Mount Rushmore and our ongoing struggle for liberty that this enduring Monument further represents were mutually remembered. Having observed his forthright approach and other sincere attributes of this revered President, noble qualities also exhibited by Mr. Borglum, I believe that both patriots were honored by this presentation. Their dedication to national excellence, justice, and our traditional American values cannot be ignored.
 
 Honor the Genuine American Patriot
 
My next statement is one of respect for those few politically enlightened men and women who are further trustworthy and liberty-committed. Contrary to the commonly held notion, acts of bravery are not limited to those Americans within the public safety professions. While their efforts are meritorious and command nationwide gratitude, other heroes live and work in our midst, with the further intent of restoring integrity to our Constitutional Republic. Such individuals are well aware of the message that I am about to deliver. These honorable citizens are confident and courageous enough to present the truth without any prompting from me. Their voices will never be stilled, or patriotic endeavors defeated. Yet, their sincerity of purpose and words of wisdom are seldom remembered and at no time applauded. Unlike the submissive majority, these genuine patriots are representative of our founding intent, sovereign dignity, and national strength. For them, enslavement by our government will never be an acceptable condition of life. They will remain free, or perish. If we are truly concerned Americans with national pride and clear conscience, then how can we not appreciate the value of their courageous efforts, and further honor such commitments to freedom and human rights? Ashamedly, we do not.
 
 Their Life Threatening Betrayals Draw Unnatural Responses

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

Seldom are there more disturbing patriotic obligations than challenging acts of betrayal by our leaders and other public servants. This is particularly true when such perfidious and life threatening deeds draw unnatural responses of either praise or timidity from the injured citizenry. Given the sweeping abnormality of the people's behavior and magnitude of federal interference within our daily lives, concerned yet lesser persistent defenders of our founding principles will despairingly and wrongly conclude that it is now time to surrender their freedoms. As for my ingrained response, I refuse to fearfully sit in this stinking puddle of national humiliation, and be browbeaten by bureaucratic hoodlums with titles that suggest honorable intent. As a sovereign American citizen my stance was foreordained; I shall never yield. Memories of my meeting with this courageous presidential defender of freedom and the very real dangers now facing our children demand that I put forth this challenge. The unjustified accusatory tone of the citizenry further necessitates that I present notable family history, along with a few personal experiences, as a foundation for my intentions and opinions. Upon reading the next several lines, many individuals--not giving the personal and national ramifications of our constitutional crisis adequate thought--will label me un-American or unpatriotic for publicly expressing my unpopular views. A small number of loyal, resolute, and knowledgeable Americans that speak in a similar vein are now under condemnation by the unenlightened masses, and two masterful weavers of disinformation: government propagandists and the mainstream news media. They have indeed spun a lengthy mythical yarn.
 
 Fear and Widespread Denial
 
Having been reared by Gutzon Borglum's sister--my grandmother--I benefited from her wisdom and intimate understanding of Gutzon's social and political ideals, unfaltering character, and patriotic resolve. With confidence, I can state that my granduncle would be outraged by the debilitating socialistic atmosphere within our nation, and the unscrupulous propensities of those leaders now seated in office. With the same passion as his personal friend Theodore Roosevelt, Mr. Borglum would thunderously condemn this calamitous "USA Patriot Act" as treasonous legislation, defying the Constitution and Bill of Rights, authored and enforced by cowardly elected and appointed scoundrels. Further noting the people's fear of sacrifice, their denial of accountability, the thoughtless renunciation of our founding principles, and the fatuous predilections of an intellectually and culturally dormant populace, the corruptibility of America has become a demoralizing reality for our children. If living today, I sincerely doubt that Gutzon Borglum could muster the inspiration needed to create Mount Rushmore National Memorial. Nevertheless, he would be prepared for battle.
 
A number of readers will ask--with a seemingly justified posture of indignation--by what right does this unfamed meddlesome person reproach fellow Americans, and renounce a government that was established by the will of the people? Despite the inevitable calls for censure, I now accept that it is my duty--a responsibility of every loyal American--to contribute towards the transformation of fear and widespread denial, into proficient patriotic activism. On several occasions  I have condemned the actions of politicians and other government officials, but until now, have never publicly rebuked the irrational intent or the irresponsible detachment of the people. In view of the unnecessary dangers that we must all now face as a result of our most recent childish behavior, I was remiss in my responsibility to this troubled nation. Never again!
 
For the resolved men and women who are angered by the theft of their fundamental rights, my message will deliver more than a little advantage. Those people of a well-meaning nature yet somewhat fearful and clearly misinformed, significant attention is also directed towards their inner struggles. For the others who are content with the social engineering of their lives by an oppressive nanny-state, they will not benefit from reading further. Because of an inability to accept responsibility for their lives, these paragons of docility have by now, bleated their way into the flock, shepherded towards the precipice. Unless their grazing meadows of sweet-grass wither, they will not stray.

"The idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural right."--Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, [1816]

We wisely rebuff conspiracy theories of a delusional nature. Yet, our frequent denials of reliable, observable evidence are as detrimental as paranoia. As imperiled citizens of  a troubled nation, our fear and escapist denials will lead to disaster. Our government, which was in fact established by the will of the people, is wantonly disregarding the liberties of its masters, making it imperative that we all speak out loudly and demand constitutional remedies. Under the misdirection of rebellious politicians, this wayward government has the audacity to challenge the Constitution and our authority. Government has perpetrated far more damaging assaults on human rights and national dignity than Middle Eastern terrorists could ever hope to achieve. Truthfully, this is a treacherous juncture for us all. We are now witnessing the deaths of courage, human rights, and dignity within our nation. Sovereign citizens are under attack by terrorists, the United Nations, Socialists, gun-ban-zealots, federal police invasion forces, and a multitude of faithless public servants. Have we a rational plan of defense for our families? No! Instead, we witlessly scurry about in a mob, frantically waving Old Glory with one hand and tossing confetti from the other, while cheering the lynching of our children's unalienable rights. All of which, genuine American patriots by the hundreds of thousands sacrificed their lives in order to preserve. Yes! I am bloody outraged over the cowardly betrayals by our public servants but equally disgusted with the escapist Mardi-Gras revelry of my fellow Americans. Through fear, widespread denial, and escapism, if we permit this mighty land of the free to wither into a dysfunctional home of the oppressed, our brave and noble fathers will have fought and died in vain.
 
These vital questions must be addressed: Do we desire to be cradled, and then carried throughout life to our graves by this partisan propelled, bureaucratic monstrosity? With two centuries behind us as individuals of sovereign dignity, are we now so terrified, bewildered, and impotent that our main purpose is to seek asylum from the potential hazards of freedom? Have we no faith in our natural strengths and abilities? Do we no longer sense the invigorating American blood of liberty rushing through our veins? Do we not owe the same constitutionally guaranteed freedoms to our children and theirs? A few veteran defenders have begun to ask; are we now an emasculated nation of cowards and unworthy of retaining our liberties? 

Click here to read the remainder of "We Lynched Lady Liberty"

Originally posted from 07-13-03 to 07-20-03
Sodomized by the Constitution?
by Jeffrey Quick

I can barely bear to read WorldNetDaily anymore. They've always pandered to the homophobes among their readership, with things like the scare quotes they use around "gay". But since the Supreme Court has decided that the 9th and 10th Amendments apply between the sheets, they've declared jihad against not only homosexuals, but the Supreme Court itself, with Joseph Farah campaigning for the impeachment of the responsible justices.

Why a conservative would want to thus erode the independence of the judicial branch is beyond me, but evidently the prevention of fudge-packing is a higher principle than the preservation of freedom. That's not how they speak of it, of course. No, Lawrence v Texas is about the trampling of states' rights in the Constitution. Since the Constitution doesn't mention sex, even the church-approved variety, it is a matter for the states to legislate. Of course the Constitution doesn't mention drugs either, and I don't see conservatives rallying around California's medical marijuana law.

Indeed, George Will noted:"given that in a 1992 abortion ruling the privacy right was explained as 'the right to physical autonomy,' the question is not just whether there is a fundamental right to engage in sodomy. Why not the right to physical autonomy in using heroin?" Will won't board that particular train of thought, but it's leaving the station, and he'll be left behind. It's absurd to proclaim a right of privacy for the uterus, and not for the vagina, bloodstream, and nervous system that support it. If terminating fetal life is a private matter, shouldn't creating it for hire also be?

Maybe the Sodomy Six themselves are on drugs. That might explain the incoherence of the Michigan affirmative-action case, or Breyer's citation of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that homosexuals had a fundamental right to privacy in their sexual behavior (as if that were relevant to constitutional law, and for which he was rightly blasted by Scalia) and his subsequent suggestion that the Constitution might have to "fit into the governing documents of other nations", or for that matter, Scalia's dissent itself. (Thomas' was at least worthy of respect. Though I disagree with his position on the right to privacy; at least he's asking the right questions). But at least the majority could see what virtually every other thinking person in the world sees: that the State has no more business meddling in the bedroom than in the church (indeed, the first meddling is a subset of the second). To argue that the Constitution supports plain and obvious tyranny is to proclaim that it does support sodomy, albeit of a metaphorical and nonconsensual sort.

But does it do so? Well, there's Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It could be argued that "the people" had long before given up their natural right to sodomy, under the influence of the Church. But if rights are inalienable and natural, then one could no more give up such a right than to give up any of the enumerated rights. We see "unnatural" sexual behavior all the time in the animal world, and while I am a flaming heterosexual, I see nothing in my gay friends to suggest that homosexual acts are any less natural for them than heterosexual acts are natural for me. If we're going to use a more exigent definition of "natural", such as "effective for procreation", then we're going to have to ban birth control as well as heterosexual forms of non-procreative sex. And there's not a big male constituency for giving up blowjobs (defined
as sodomy in many states).

Then there's that pesky 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It seems like conservatives have the same problem with the last clause of this that liberals have with the last clause of the 2nd Amendment: they just stop reading. It seems inconceivable to them that there could be powers that do not belong to a unit of government. But these are the same folks that tell us that "the people" is a Term of Art meaning, "each individual person". If "the people" of the 2nd Amendment is that same as "the people" in Amendments 1 and 4, then surely "the people" means the same thing in Amendment 10, and we as individuals have powers (and therefore rights) not defined by the Constitution.

Ah, but is the regulation of sex a matter delegated to the United States or prohibited to the States? As we said, the Constitution is mum on the subject, so it cannot have been delegated to the United States. But was it forbidden to the states? Certainly not in so many words. But the constitution guarantees that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." And not even the most puritanical of the Founding Fathers would have found it reasonable to examine a couple's conjugal relations. Amendments 3 and 5 further support the notion of the home as a sacred place, only at the mercy of the State through due process.

If we hold there is a compelling state interest in what happens in bed, where do we stop? The Right has mapped the slippery slope that Lawrence pushes us down ( "assisted suicide, polygamy, consensual incest, group sex, bestiality, homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption", to quote Farah). None of those things harms me, and I'd be happy to watch the toboggan race. But what is the slippery slope of compelling state interest? Why shouldn't the state decide who will breed, and how many children they will make? Why not eliminate racism in one generation by compulsory miscegenation? What if your high school coach became dictator and decided to limit your ejaculations? ("We're at war, and every day is the Big Game.") Sex is about who we are at root: animals and angels. It's too important to be left to the public sector.

Originally posted from 04-13-03 to 05-11-03
Gettin' What's Comin'
by Lewis J. Goldberg

You know...I really do try to go about my business, being an ordinary joe at lunchtime with the rest of the worker bees, but you can scarcely get (as the song says) "from the cab to the curb" without having twelve varieties of socio-political deviance stuffed in your face.

Anyway, at the local Wal-Mart today, I saw as I walked across the parking lot, a car in one
of the handicapped spaces that did me in. Across its rear window were those white stick-on letters spelling out "Healthcare is a right for prisoners - how about for soc. security / disability recipients too?"

Concentrate, Lewis...salt...light bulbs...new trash cans...

This unrepentant sinner - insisting on breaking both the ninth and tenth commandments in public, and feeling pretty good about it from all indications - was sitting in his conveyance at the time...no doubt waiting for his wife to return with his free prescription drugs he gets with the rest of my tax money that isn't already tied up in his bass boat.

I had a mind to approach him and tell him, "No, buddy. You got it backwards. We need to take health care away from the prisoners. Two wrongs don't make a right!" But I don't like confrontation any more than most people, so I went about my shopping trip, determined to vent the experience into a keyboard soon.

It is shocking how much of public policy is based on logic no more advanced than "well...they're doing it."; No more do we see the kind of deliberation honourable men used to put into their public service work - real statesmen like the men from Virginia who founded this nation (shush now...if it wasn't for Virginia, we'd have been a corrupt dictatorship from the get-go. And I'm a native New Yorker, but Hamilton is no friend of mine.)

In 'normal' times, the only way to effect change is to educate people as to the proper functions of government, and then hope they elect representatives based on what they learn. Our friend with the lettering in his window was doing just that - educating people. Unfortunately, his message tends to resonate well because it carries a potentially quick payoff. "Hey, someone's getting something you ain't...better gripe so's you get you some
too" is the essence of it. In that man's eyes, likely my message says, "you may be doing poorly, but you need to do with even less because I'd really like to buy a new laptop, and I'm not too thrilled about paying your bills, even though you're laid up."

Sadly, our well-meaning public welfare policy has taught several generations to spit on their homes, their ancestors, their communities, and their churches, that they may pursue some mystic, individualistic pathway to social nirvana. We have allowed and encouraged people to go through life burning their bridges instead of treating those around them with love and consideration. A people that once drew strength from home and family ties has forsaken its inheritance. Whereas once we relied on each other in times of need and learned humility through our mistakes, now we arrogantly demand our 'entitlements' from the government. Where we used to forge deep bonds of friendship with a few select people through sharing trials face to face, we now come anonymously to the whole of America, saying not so much as a 'thank you' for the help received - only a scowl that the assistance wasn't more.

America's so-called poor and needy have lost all sense of shame. I speak not of the truly poor, for they tend not to show up in the polls - they don't want to. Our 'visible poor' are not really poor at all; there are other adjectives we could use... In another time, the man at the Wal-Mart would have been shown to the city gate, and heard it slam - but in 'democracies' these 'poor' serve another, more sinister function: they are the people who elect Hitlers into power. They are the stupid, the greedy, the covetous, the self-righteous, the selfish, and the ones who are always on the lookout for a scapegoat to excuse their pathetic selves. There's nothing poor about them...they have plenty of stuff, and they always have a plan to get more stuff.

...and yes, I remembered everything on my shopping list.

Your comments and questions are encouraged.

Originally posted from 03-30-03 to 04-06-03
Historians Will Call Them Our Greatest Threat
by H. Scottt van Dyke

Would it have been Adolph Hitler? Or maybe Lenin, Stalin or Marx? Was it Hirohito or ToJo? Was it Chiang Kai- shek, Ho Chi Minh or Mao Tse-tung? Was it Brezhnev or Fidel Castro or maybe Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden that posed the greatest threat to the sovereignty of these United States of America? No, those who pose the greatest threat this country has ever faced in its history are Brokaw, Jennings, and Rather.

Don't get me wrong. They are not the only ones in the mainstream media who are involved in what I would consider treasonous acts against their country. They do, however, epitomize the very conduct that is bent on destroying the greatest and unarguably freest country our world has ever experienced. "Ridiculous!" you say. "How could that be? They are at the very top of their field, and have won all kinds of awards in their profession. They are respected here and around the world." That is all true, except the very thing that they are constitutionally bound to do is to tell us the truth! And that's the one thing that they cannot do.

Let me explain. Our Founding Fathers, good Englishmen that they were, understood only too well that if their new representative republic was going to have a chance of survival there was one thing that would have to change: The King's News. That is to say that the people would have to have access to the truth. You see, The King's News is the only news that the king allows you to hear. Thomas Jefferson put it this way: "If all the American people know all of the facts, they will never make a mistake." In other words, a free people can only be self-governed if they receive the whole truth about their government. The very reason the press was included in the First Amendment of our Constitution was so that itcould be the watchdog of our newly established government.

You see, the States were very concerned about giving up some of their hard-won sovereignty to a central government with too much power. If their government could control the press by threatening retaliations, imprisonment, or death then it could ultimately subdue the truth just as the last tyrannical leader had. Thus it is very clear to this citizen that our free press has a constitutional and moral obligation to do just that. They must tell us the truth, but do they?

" Oh they must be telling us what they believe to be the truth," you say. "They are very important national figures. They are in front of millions of viewers every night. How could they not tell us what they believe to be the truth? They must just have a different point of view than you do. Or are you trying to imply that there is some insidious goings on that we are unaware of?"

Let's consider this:Our country is run by a two party system of government. These two parties have considerable philosophical differences concerning the direction in which they believe our country should move in on many vital issues. Now if our free press was to operate as our Founding Fathers had intended, we would receive a balanced account of the goings on in our government. Both views of an issue would be presented to the people without biases, leaving us accurately informed and allowing us to make our political decisions soundly based on facts.

Now even though there is steady flow of evidence that challenges this conclusion, there is a large portion of our population that believe that what have just described is what actually occurs. In fact, I find that most people just assume that because we are free and live in America that things must be going right and that there is really no need for concern. For surely if matters of great importance like our freedom were being threatened or undermined someone would sound the alarm. After all, this is America isn't it?

Look at what the response was to the attack on Pearl Harbor and to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. The response was not just that of our government like it is in other nations around the world. Our response was an unstoppable and overwhelming tidal wave of over 300 million individuals coming together to defeat an adversary. This is a unique phenomenon that dates back to our humble beginning as a nation and one that our
enemies always underestimate. Or do they?

Just imagine what happens to a country when the people do not receive accurate and truthful information about their government and their intentions. Wait a minute! You don't have to imagine. All you have to do is look at history. The results of that scenario are as numerous as the stars and plain for all eyes to see. That is for those eyes that care to see.

I've got an example, if you don't mind. Does the name Chernobyl ring any bells? How
about those old Soviets and their Pravda? I wonder if we will ever know the full devastating results to the citizenry because of the state run media and its total subversion and distortions of the truth. Just think of all those little ones - you know, the children that our media is always so gallantly trying to protect. But I digress. The plain truth is that the
Russian media was not only directed to lie but was a willing accomplice. That is due mainly to their personally held political beliefs. The single most disturbing fact to me is that the Russian people still watched the news and read their papers every day, just like we do. Is there a sane person alive today that would suppose that those people didn't know that they were being lied to?

Now let us pick an issue from our own press that is being dealt with today and see how our boys are doing in the truth department. There are hundreds of examples to choose from that would amply make my point, but let's pick one of those attacks on our basic freedoms, the kind of attack that you would assume any reasonable anchor from one of our three largest networks would sound the alarm and alert the people to. That issue is gun control, i.e. the ban, the sale of, and the possession of certain guns, and full registration of all gun owners. Yes, you've heard it all on the nightly news: the liberals in our government are going to make us all safer. They are going to get the guns off the streets and out of the hands of our children. There will be no more Columbines. We are going to save the children! Now, how could anyone argue with that? Well, unless, of course, you understand the reason our Forefathers added the Second Amendment to our Constitution, you probably wouldn't. (By the way, it has been my experience that when someone talks to me about the issue, not one has been able to tell me what the Second Amendment says or why it even exists.)

Well, here's what it says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This seems to me to be pretty straightforward and a simple amendment to understand, and it is.
So what's the rub? Tthe rub is: why is it there? Why do we need the right to bear arms? Whom do we need protection from? Well, every time I pose that question I am informed that we don't, that the constitution is old and is an outdated document because we have evolved into such a modern society. Their implication is that we no longer need to keep a squirrel gun over the fireplace to protect us from the hostiles or the British.

Is that who we need protection from? Let me share with you a quote I found in a very
interesting book titled You Don't Say written by Fred Gielow. See if you can figure out who said it: "This year will go down in history! For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police will be more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." This statement sounds remarkably like the rhetoric the three
amigos spread from their pulpits every night. But it was Adolph Hitler who spoke these words in 1935. By disarming the German people Hitler rendered them defenseless to oppose him. Thomas Jefferson said, "When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Try toremember the picture that ran in the paper the day after the seizure of little Elian Gonzalas. You remember, the one with the heavily armed and helmeted federal officer and his assault weapon stuck in the little boy's face. Get the picture? James Madison said, "Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."

It is stated in The Communist Rules of Revolution, Register all firearms, under any pretext, as a prelude to confiscating them." It is stated in our own Declaration of Independence that "Among these rights is the right to change or abolish any government that tries to take those rights away." Do you suppose that the three amigos are totally unaware of these
facts? As smart and revered as these men are, do you suppose that they are unaware of their responsibility to the constitution and us? Why haven't they sounded the alarm? If they are willing to turn the other way, or even worse mislead us on such an issue, then what makes you think that they are guarding our rights in other matters?

It is my firm belief that these men have chosen sides. Based on their own personal and political beliefs, they have chosen to ignore their constitutional duty to be the watchdog of the government. They have chosen to distort the truth and deceive the very people that they are supposed to protect, and in the process lead them to destruction. Sounds a lot like Pravda to me. And haven't you noticed to what lengths they will go to use their bully pulpit to protect those who are trying to steal our freedoms?

I have a few examples: Bill and Hillary, Al Gore, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Jocelyn Elders, and Janet Reno and their countless lies, scandals, misdeeds, corruptions, treasonous acts, and total disregard to the rule of law. These are the people who act like Hitler and his cohorts. However, the people that the press chooses to vilify using their new tool of Political Correctness are the people who are our freedom fighters: Former President
Ronald Reagan, former Speaker of The House Newt Gingrich, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Nominee for The Supreme Court Robert Bork, and Special Prosecutor Ken Star just to name a few. These are the people they accuse of acting like Hitler.

What could possibly compel the three amigos to do this? Could their personal and political beliefs be in lock step with the person who mandated "and the world will follow us into the
future."? I would also ask why they support so vehemently the Liberals and their agenda? The cancer they have been implementing into our society over the last 60 years while they were in control of our legislative branch has moved us perilously close to the abyss.

Using the tools of Political correctness and their willing accomplices in the press, these politicians have been able to place socialism into just about every vital and important aspect
of our society, including getting socialist judges into our highest courts. These are the very judges who are charged with interpreting our constitution. "This can't really be happening in the United Sates, it must be a moviem: you say. No, sadly this is happening right now under your very noses.

Ladies and gentlemen, our free press has been overthrown and replaced with a propaganda machine. Not in the middle of the night under the cover of darkness. Not in dark seedy back rooms. But right in front of us in broad daylight! We have allowed the three amigos to distract us while their political brothers have slowly and quietly dismantled the only mechanisms our forefathers gave us as free individuals to protect ourselves from their tyranny. And all the while you have kept up with your busy lives and paid little or no attention. You have fallen into their hands and accepted their lies, and have even labeled those who would warn you as crackpots, kooks, and nuts. What will you do when freedom is lost?

So what prompted me to become a kook? Well, one day while listening to one of today's freedom fighters - Rush Limbaugh - a caller was sharingconcerns on the media and their handling or spin on a subject. When the caller started to rail against the media, Rush said that we all know that the media bias exists and that the media will not change. He further stated that he could devote every show to uncovering and revealing media bias, but that
he would rather devote his show to the discussion of substantive issues of the day. Well, my first thought was sure, how long will it be before they remove your right to do so, especially since the Liberals have already tried to pass the Bill Clinton fairness in broadcasting act.

My second thought was that everything else becomes a moot point if we lose our freedom. Because then all speech will be restricted or suppressed, and there will be no discussion, substantive or not. We will be reduced to listening to only the propaganda and lies of our own Pravda. So maybe it's high time someone started to fight the three amigos on a full time basis, doggedly pursuing them and revealing them for who they really are.

"Those who want to reap the benefits of this great nation must bear the fatigue of supporting it." Thomas Payne.

WHY NOT? AFTER ALL. ALL WE HAVE TO LOSE IS FREEDOM ITSELF!

Originally posted from 01-29-03 to 02-09-03
Freedom's Most Dangerous Enemy, Part II
by Mike Ferguson

I am often criticized for being so outspoken in defense of personal freedom, especially in these times of terrorism and the government's effort to "secure the homeland". Tragically, far too many Americans have joined lock-step towards George W. Bush's march towards a complete police state and too few Americans are willing to speak up and defend our Constitutional freedoms.

In my first article on this subject, I explained why President Bush's efforts to shred the Constitution are more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden will ever be. The mindless explanation we keep hearing (recently from Attorney General John Ashcroft on CNN's "Larry King Live") is that our freedom and Constitutional rights must be curtailed in order to defend...our freedom and Constitutional rights.

First, the President tried to enlist hundreds of thousands of postal workers, utility meter readers, cable installers, trash collectors, bank tellers and anyone else who has the opportunity to look into any aspect of your personal life to become de facto government agents under the T.I.P.S. program. Then, Bush commissioned the building of the "Total Information Awareness" project. This program, if successfully built, will allow the government to monitor, track and prepare a database on every single business, travel and financial transaction of everyone in America. John Poindexter has been appointed to lead the development of this program. Clearly, both the T.I.P.S. and T.I.A. programs violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which preserves our right to be secure from any government intrusion into our lives until after the government can show, in court, that there is "probable cause" that we are involved in a crime that has been committed.

Now, the President is working on another way to decimate the Fourth Amendment. As part of the White House's "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace", President Bush has begun an effort to require all internet service providers to build a centralized system that will allow government surveillance of everyone's email and internet activity (click here to see the report). This program, if successfully put into place, will be built be the internet service providers by order of the government and will be administered by the government. This, again, is being pursued in the name of "homeland security".

Defenders of this monstrosity will probably claim that since internet service providers, not the government, will build the system that it meets Constitutional merit. The idea behind this is that since both the internet service providers and their customers are in the private sector, then the government will not be violating our right to privacy. This claim, of course, is ridiculous. Forcing the internet industry to spy on Americans for the government is the same thing as having the government administering the espionage directly. Both take away Americans' right to be "...secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," (Amendment IV, US Constitution). Simply put, it is unconstitutional for the government to directly or indirectly search any aspect of our lives without a court-ordered warrant based on "probable cause".

Tragically, this marks George W. Bush's third attempt to remove our Fourth Amendment rights.

Imagine living in a nation where the government can declare you an enemy at any time and for any reason. Now, imagine that government bestowing upon itself the right to either detain you without access to an attorney or simply shoot and kill you outright without any formal charges having been filed, much less without a trial or conviction, even if you are a citizen. Frightening, isn't it?

Originally posted from 01-05-03 to 01-29-03
Freedom's Most Dangerous Enemy
by Mike Ferguson

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - Oath of Office required by the United States Constitution (Article 2, Section 1) to be taken prior to assuming the duties of President.

Our freedoms in America are under attack. There is no question about that. Politicians in Washington D.C.have been telling us about the danger we are in for over a year now as part of the government's effort to ram "homeland security" proposals through the legislative process. The most frightening aspect of our current crisis is that are freedoms are not in peril because of Al Queda or Osama Bin Laden, but that our freedoms are under assault because of George W. Bush and his administration, particularly John Ashcroft.

Bill Clinton was arguably the worst President ever when it came to honoring individual freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution - that is, until George W. Bush took office. President Clinton's and Janet Reno's hostility towards our freedom pale in comparison to George W. Bush's and John Ashcroft's plan to destroy our liberty. The same Republicans who, for eight years, rightly decried Clinton's expansive government and intrusion into our lives are now almost entirely silent as George W. Bush shapes our national government in the pattern of something from Orwell's 1984. "Big Brother" is not only here because of the Bush administration, he is being openly embraced and celebrated in the name of "security".

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing that place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  -- Amendment 4 of the United States Constitution.

In simple terms, the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits the government from searching any of our personal property, records or communication unless evidence can be shown that there is "probable cause" of a crime having been committed. Even when "probable cause" is shown, the government is required to put in writing specifically what it wants to search for as a result of a warrant. Is this cumbersome on law enforcement? You bet, and America's Founding Fathers wisely designed it that way in order to protect us from an intrusive government

The great men who debated, wrote and ratified our Constitution intentionally chose to value our personal freedoms over the desires and interests of the government. These men knew that it is vital to establish clear boundaries of law that restrain a zealous government and those who want to destroy liberty. Our Founding Fathers specifically designed our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, to protect us from men like George W. Bush and John Ashcroft.

Since September 11th, 2001, President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have spared no effort in destroying the principles and values that made America great. Among the first major initiatives after 9-11 was the T.I.P.S. program. This program would have made postal workers, utility meter readers, trash collectors, bank tellers, cable TV installers, and anyone else who is out in public on a regular basis de facto government agents whose job is to peer into our homes and business transactions while on the job and report anything "suspicious". Then government thugs would take over with an investigation. Bear in mind that this program makes you and I - American citizens - the target of the government's new deputies' prying eyes.

President Bush's T.I.P.S program was designed to circumvent the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is very different than asking people to be responsible citizens and call legitimate law enforcement when we see evidence of a crime having been committed. The T.I.P.S. plan blatantly assumes every U.S. citizen to be a potential criminal suspect and unconstitutionally enlists pseudo-agents to spy on everyone they encounter, even in our own homes.

Officially, the T.I.P.S. plan was never implemented after a tremendous amount of outcry from those who stood up to protect our Fourth Amendment right to privacy. I say "officially" because I seriously doubt that the F.B.I will refuse to take down information from the mailman who thinks someone should be investigated because they receive too many plain packages or because their mail is from political groups he doesn't like

Those of us who oppose the T.I.P.S. plan were ridiculed by Attorney General Ashcroft as "aiding and abetting terrorists". President Bush, of course, backed Ashcroft in this effort. Ashcroft arrogantly feels that we should all surrender our Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms to him in the name of "homeland security." The prevailing message we continually receive from President Bush and John Ashcroft is more or less "Freedom is a pre 9-11 concept. Besides, if you are not guilty - and can prove it upon demand - then you have nothing to fear from us or from our random searches." Tragically, what the Attorney General could not get voluntarily, he chose to fight for in court.

On Monday, November 18th, 2002, Ashcroft's Justice Department and Bush's administration won in Federal Court the ability to employ secret wiretaps, surveillance and searches against Americans. Bush and Ashcroft sought, and gained, the ability to get from a secret court a secret search warrant that can be executed without the knowledge of the citizen being searched. In fact, under the provisions of the USA Patriot Act (which was strongly promoted by both Bush and Ashcroft) the subject of the search has no right to ever see the document supporting the search warrant. Therefore, any American citizen the government wants to put under surveillance or make the object of a secret search of their home, email communication or banking history has no right to due process when subjected to this government action. Due process has been taken away, even when there is no evidence of a crime having been committed. All government investigators have to claim is that you are a possible terrorist.

Anyone who feels that Goerge W. Bush could not become more overt in attacking the liberty we cherish should take a deep breath before reading any further.

Now, the Bush administration has commissioned an effort to create a database that will monitor and document every purchase, business deal, travel arrangement and monetary transaction made by everyone in America (see the Fox News story "Pentagon to Track American Consumer Purchases" if you do not believe me). The database, if successfully built, would also keep track of any reports - including those from anonymous sources - of suspicious activity. A Pentagon spokesman calls the project a system designed to locate "patterns indicitive of terrorist activity". It is called the "Total Information Awareness Program", and it clearly being built to search our records and activities as though we are all criminal suspects who much be watched by the government.

The fact that George W. Bush, through his administration of the Pentagon, is even allowing such an effort, let alone promoting it, proves his outright contempt for the Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms he took an oath to protect. No thinking person can possibly believe that the "Total Information Awareness Preogram" complies with the Fourth Amendment. Tragically, this is just the latest in the pattern of George W. Bush's assault on the Constitution and on our individual rights.

There is only one appropriate remedy for President Bush's criminal behavior: impeachment and removal from office. While that certainly will never happen in a Republican-controlled Congress, we must make certain to remember the sins of Bush's tenure in office and remove him the old-fashioned way: by ensuring that he loses his bid for reelection  in 2004. Your freedom depends on it.