PoliticalAction.com Blog

December 22, 2009 – WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and John Ensign (R-Nevada), raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor against the Democrat health care takeover bill on behalf of the Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. The Senate will vote tomorrow on the bill’s constitutionality.

“I am incredibly concerned that the Democrats’ proposed individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from Americans across the country,” said Senator Ensign. “As an American, I felt the obligation to stand up for the individual freedom of every citizen to make their own decision on this issue. I don’t believe Congress has the legal authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”

“Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,” said Senator DeMint. “This is not at all like car insurance, you can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance. This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies. We’re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans. This is not liberty, it is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.”

Americans who fail to buy health insurance, according to the Democrats’ bill, would be subject to financial penalties. The senators believe the bill is unconstitutional because the insurance mandate is not authorized by any of the limited enumerated powers granted to the federal government. The individual mandate also likely violates the “takings” clause of the 5th Amendment.

The Democrats’ healthcare reform bill requires Americans to buy health insurance “whether or not they ever visit a doctor, get a prescription or have an operation.” If an American chooses not to buy health insurance coverage, they will face rapidly increasing taxes that will rise to $750 or 2% of their taxable income, whichever is greater.

The Congressional Budget Office once stated “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

A legal study by scholars at the nonpartisan Heritage Foundation concluded: “An individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product from a private party, with tax penalties to enforce it, is unprecedented– not just in scope but in kind–and unconstitutional as a matter of first principles and under any reasonable reading of judicial precedents.”

The representatives and senators who vote for this health control monstrosity need to be fired. We have allowed our employees (elected officials) to ignore the rules that we sent them to DC with (the Constitution). Have you read the rules that they are to follow lately?

Remember when we were told that if everyone had to buy car insurance the rates would go down? How much did your car insurance rates go down?

Our congress told the American people that if they controlled education then it would be better for all of us? How many local school districts are in major trouble now? Do children get a better education now? Why can’t seniors in high school pass the 8th grade exam that children were given 50 years ago?

Our congress told us that if they gave control of our currency to a private central bank (Federal Reserve) we would not have fluctuations in our monetary value. The American people were told that a private cental bank that controlled monetary policy would assure the people that their savings would not be diminished with inflation. We see how well that worked out and now we have foreclosures all over the place and the dollar is gone. Just take a dollar out and read it, it is a Federal Reserve Note, not a dollar issued by the United States. To top this off the Federal Reserve, along with Pelosi and Reid, don’t want to allow an audit of the Federal Reserve.

Our congress promised workers that they would take part of their paycheck (Social Security) and hold it for them to use in retirement and it would never be used for anything else. Now we all know that Social Security is going to be bankrupt soon.

We need senators and representatives who go to Washington to follow the Constitution and start removing some of the unconstitutional things our congress has done over the last several decades. Allowing our congress to run wild and spend money like they are rich with an unlimited credit card that never has to be repaid is killing our county. This is not a football game where each team works to regain control of the field.

They are taking away incentives by deciding what businesses should be allowed to fail, deciding what your children will be taught in school, deciding how much “money” you should be allowed to have in retirement, deciding that you are not allowed to replace a window in your house without a permit from the EPA (effective the first part of 2010), and so much more that I don’t have the space to print some of the things I have found. When a business fails then others have an opportunity to fill that void. The American Dream is being murdered.

How long are we going to allow this corruption to go on? Just because every other country is doing socialism and communism does not mean that we should. What happened to State’s Rights? What happened to things that are not expressly authorized to congress in the Constitution are reseved to the States and the people?

Robyn Hamlin
Missouri

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech today, President Obama asserted:

“[T]he world must come together to confront climate change.”

President Obama will be attending the Copenhagen UN climate change conference on December 18 where he will be an active participant “as [in the words of ‘The White House Blog’ for Dec. 10] the global community, with the United States in a leading role, works towards securing the strongest possible outcome in Copenhagen.”

Lisa Jackson, United States EPA Administrator, is already in Copenhagen making promises to work with Congress to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

“We will work closely with our Congress to pass comprehensive clean energy reform through the U.S. Congress … and lowering U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by more than 80% below current levels by 2050.”

If you oppose U.S. participation in a new UN climate change agreement which would lead to a loss of U.S. sovereignty, costly “climate debt” payments to developing nations, economy-destroying caps on greenhouse gas emissions, and further empowerment of the UN as a world government, then contact your representative and senators and tell them to oppose any Copenhagen UN climate change agreement.

Thanks.

Your friends at The John Birch Society

This noble man is spot on again…..

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times

An angry aide to Rep. Ron Paul, an iPhone and $4,700 in cash have forced the Transportation Security Administration to quietly issue two new rules telling its airport screeners they can only conduct searches related to airplane safety.

In response, the American Civil Liberties Union is dropping its lawsuit on behalf of Steve Bierfeldt, the man who was detained in March and who recorded the confrontation on his iPhone as TSA and local police officers spent half an hour demanding answers as to why he was carrying the money through Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

The new rules, issuedin September and October, tell officers “screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security” and that large amounts of cash don’t qualify as suspicious for purposes of safety.

“We had been hearing of so many reports of TSA screeners engaging in wide-ranging fishing expeditions for illegal activities,” said Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, pointing to reports of officers scanning pill-bottle labels to see whether the passenger was the person who obtained the prescription as one example.

He said screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.

TSA was created in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to boost screening at airports, but the young agency has repeatedly bumped heads against civil libertarians, who argue officers overstep their authority.

TSA spokeswoman Lauren Gaches said the new “internal directives” are meant to ensure their screeners are consistent. She acknowledged the policy on large sums of cash had changed, but wouldn’t provide a copy of either document. She said the directives would not be released unless a Freedom Of Information Act request was submitted by The Washington Times.

“TSA routinely assesses its policies and screening procedures to ensure the highest levels of security nationwide,” she said. “Currency alone is not a threat, and TSA does not restrict the amount of currency a traveler may carry through the checkpoint.”

TSA had earlier defended the search, though it had criticized officers’ abusive behavior.

The ACLU released the September directive because TSA included it in a public court filing, but said when TSA gave it the October directive it was instructed not to publish it.

That second directive tells screeners that “traveling with large amounts of currency is not illegal,” and that to the extent bulk quantities of cash warrant searching, it is only to further security objectives, the ACLU said.

The ACLU sued in June on behalf of Mr. Bierfeldt, who was detained after he sent a metal box with $4,700 in cash and checks through an X-ray machine at the airport.

He had the cash as part of his duties as director of development for the Campaign for Liberty, the offshoot group that Mr. Paul, Texas Republican, created from his failed presidential bid.

Mr. Bierfeldt recorded audio of the confrontation on his iPhone, including threats, insults and repeated questions about where he obtained the money.

“Are you from this planet?” one officer told him, while another accused him of acting like a child for asking what part of the law forced him to answer their questions about the money.

“The TSA has stated that their policy is going to change, which is basically what we were after all along,” Mr. Bierfeldt told The Washington Times.

Some civil liberties activists speculate that TSA wants passengers to be uncertain about its procedures because it gives more power to the authorities in an encounter.

The new directives don’t affect a situation where a TSA officer, in the performance of a regular screening, comes across evidence of illegal activity, such as a bag of illicit drugs.

Alert: 75% Of America Rejects
Lautenberg Gun Ban
Rasmussen Poll Says A Majority of Democrats and Repulicans Believe The Constitution Guarantees The Right To Own A Gun.

Only days after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to one of the nation’s most egregious gun laws, a new Rasmussen poll shows waning support for stricter gun laws.

Among Americans polled, 75% said the Constitution guaranteed the right to own a gun. The percentage of “yes” answers was higher among Republicans (92%) and lower among Democrats (64%). Among others, 71% answered yes. And, 57% of those polled cited fear of increased government restrictions as the reason for a spike in gun sales.

Gun Hater Lautenberg Proposes “Extraordinary Powers” Be Given To the U.S. Attorney General To Limit Gun Sales.

Obama and the White House are looking the other way as Lautenberg seeks to ban guns from 1,000,000 US citizens on a secret FBI terrorist watch list. Obama has deliberately and repeatedly lied to America’s 90 million gun owners across the country when he insisted that he would not try to take away anyone’s firearms. Now Obama’s silence endorses Lautenberg’s latest attempt at banning guns.

Lautenberg has now been introduced bill S.1317 that would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists. We must defeat this bill from giving extraordinary powers to limit gun sales to the Attorney General.

Fax NOW – Get Your Name Off The List
STOP Lautenberg’s Attorney General Gun Grab
Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators

Lautenberg To Reveal Names on Secret List

The names of the people on the watch list are secret, and Lautenberg said he was frustrated by the F.B.I.’s refusal to disclose to investigators details and specific cases of gun purchases beyond the aggregate data.

Gun hater Lautenberg requested the gun grab study from the Government Accountability Office. He is using statistics, compiled in the report that is scheduled for public release next week to invade US citizen’s privacy and put more restrictions on the Second Amendment.

Lautenberg said he wanted a better understanding of who is being allowed to buy guns.

How you ask? Trial by innuendo and misinformation that has put 1,000,000 Americans and maybe even you on a terrorist watch list without your knowledge by saying: people placed on this government’s terrorist watch list can be stopped from getting on a plane or getting a visa, and will also be stopped from buying a gun.

Lautenberg wants gun purchases stopped for just being on the list. Current law states federal officials must find some other disqualification of a would-be gun buyer, like being a felon, an illegal alien or a drug addict.

Is your name on the list and can you get it removed?

The government’s consolidated watch list, used to identify people suspected of links to terrorists, has grown to more than one million names since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It also has drawn widespread criticism over the prevalence of mistaken identities and unclear links to terrorism.

A CNN story raises questions about mistaken identities on the list – James Robinson is a retired Air National Guard brigadier general and a commercial pilot for a major airline who flies passenger planes around the country.

James Robinson is a retired brigadier general and a commercial pilot. His name is on the terrorist “watch list.”

He has even been certified by the Transportation Security Administration to carry a weapon into the cockpit as part of the government’s defense program should a terrorist try to commandeer a plane.

But there’s one problem: James Robinson, the pilot, has difficulty even getting to his plane because his name is on the government’s terrorist “watch list.”

That means he can’t use an airport kiosk to check in; he can’t do it online; he can’t do it curbside. Instead, like thousands of Americans whose names match a name or alias used by a suspected terrorist on the list, he must go to the ticket counter and have an agent verify that he is James Robinson, the pilot, and not James Robinson, the terrorist.

“Shocking’s a good word; frustrating,” Robinson — the pilot — said. “I’m carrying a weapon, flying a multimillion-dollar jet with passengers, but I’m still screened as, you know, on the terrorist watch list.”

Fax NOW – Get Your Name Off The List
STOP Lautenberg’s Attorney General Gun Grab
Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators

History Repeating Itself?

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.”

Lautenberg Must be Stopped

Recently Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have joined Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and victims and family members of the Virginia Tech tragedy, to introduce legislation to eliminate the private transfers of firearms and close the nation’s “gun show loophole.”

This Senate bill is in the Judiciary Committee, chaired by anti-gun liberal Democrat Leahy. Lautenberg’s gun hate is well documented and he says you are irrational if you support private gun sales.

“There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole. The reason it’s still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington” Sen. Lautenberg said ignoring the Constitution.

Fax NOW – Get Your Name Off The List
STOP Lautenberg’s Attorney General Gun Grab
Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators

Lautenberg and the Gun Grabbers in the Senate are now tying to use the GAO to justify putting Americans on a secret gun ban list.

LAUTENBERG’S MOTIVES

Motives for his latest gun ban to are twofold:

* First, he is taking small steps to enact gun control legislation this is just one step.

* Second, eradicate the gun culture altogether.

All that seems to be on the minds of the Anti-Gun Senators and at the offices of gun control extremists is figuring out how to invade your privacy to erode and eventually destroy the right, and the means, of self-defense.

Now the Anti-Gun Coalitions are trying to use a self supporting GAO study to destroy the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms to protect themselves under the law. They are attacking and hiding behind an Anti-Terrorist Agenda while getting political and financial support from:

George Soros a Hungarian-born billionaire bank rolling efforts with his check book and spending more that $100 million to destroy the Constitution.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) admitted that “guns would be banned and confiscated” if she could have her way.

The United Nations actively pushes globalism seeking to disarm all Americans.

We must Stop the Anti-Gun Coalition and get ready for the biggest gun control fight of the year from coast to coast. We can not do that without your support.

Stand up against this attack! Stand up for the right to not only defend yourself, but to defend your family, your children, your friends, and your classmates!

Fax NOW – Get Your Name Off The List
STOP Lautenberg’s Attorney General Gun Grab
Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators

Like all other threats against our freedoms, we must rise and defeat this bill from giving extraordinary powers to limit gun sales to the Attorney General.

In order to stop Lautenberg and his fellow gun-grabbers-we need to let the Congress know with thousands of faxes telling them to leave guns alone.

Americans like you who understand what our Founding Fathers envisioned for our nation…and who are willing to fight to defend our Constitution and for what it stands.

So please, help the Citizens Committee and me defeat those who wish to gut and trash the United States Constitution.

Help me flood the U.S. Senate with a sea of FAXES big enough to drown each and every Senator willing to vote away the Second Amendment.

Please, send your Donation and FAX TODAY!

Fax NOW – Get Your Name Off The List
STOP Lautenberg’s Attorney General Gun Grab
Select Here to Reject AG Gun Ban and Fax All 99 Senators

Keep calling your Senators today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOU’RE OUTRAGE at ongoing efforts to take guns away!

CALL PRESIDENT Obama, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your disdain and ABSOLUTE REJECTION of all GUN BANS.

DO NOT BE SILENCED – MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered to ALL Senators right away!

For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care.

Your contribution of $20 or $25 is urgently needed today.

Your donation for just $10 will help so much. If you can afford to send $50 or $100 or more it would truly be a godsend.

Remember, protecting our freedom is not inexpensive.

But then, it’s impossible to put a price tag on freedom.

SELECT HERE to DONATE NOW.
The rights you save may be your own!
https://secure.responseenterprises.com/saf/?a=3158

Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever.

For more information about CCRKBA go to http://www.ccrkba.org/

Thank you. I know I can count on you.

Sincerely,

Alan Gottlieb
Chairman
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

In response to http://politicalaction.com/news/Homeland_Security.html

I completely agree. I’m tired of these Nazi’s that call
themselves Americans tearing suitcases apart for no reason and asking there stupid questions (same ones over and over).They scared my poor wife so bad we lived 6 months in another country as she was disgusted to come back to our home. I had to get a lawyer to get my confiscated items back. Apparently Sesame Street DVD’s are a matter of national Security as is Mary Poppins and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.They kept his dvd’s and our cameras thru the Thanksgiving holiday , New years and Christmas holidays (no photos for us
to remember that year. Then they were suspicious because I got a lawyer to get my things back. The terrorists it seems is our government.

Signed,
KP

Individual rights. Economic freedom. Increased competition and productivity. These talking points are often foundational to the rhetoric of small government advocates. There are, however, plenty of supporting arguments that don’t achieve nearly the amount of exposure as these more traditional persuasions.

One such point sprouts from trends in human behavior as identified through social scientific research. Now, the problem with social scientific research, as noted by the Austrian School of Economics, is that it is impossible to hold all variables constant when dealing with human beings, and therefore truly controlled experiments cannot exist. For this reason, Austrians refute Positivist, research-based assumptions about human behavior, and instead draw from the concept of Praxeology, a more philosophically based assumption which notes that every conscious action is intended to improve the actor’s satisfaction.

While the empirical study of human behavior may not adequately serve to make De Facto claims, that is not to say that such research is of no use. Indeed, when evaluated in light of Praxeology, such findings can aid in the ability to forecast generally, though not as a matter of fact. This alignment of Praxeology and Positivism can serve as a powerful persuasive device for members of either school of thought.

In 1986 Richard Petty and John Cacioppo developed a theory based on social scientific research known as the Elaboration Likelihood Model. ELM posits the existence of an “elaboration continuum”, suggesting that people will be more or less likely to elaborate on their thoughts during a decision making process depending on the circumstances. The opposite ends of this elaboration progression yield corresponding levels of thought processing which can be identified as Central Route and Peripheral Route.

Central Route Processing requires intensive thought and scrutiny. It is more likely to occur when the decision maker has increased motivation or ability. Peripheral Route Processing is less cognitively intensive, and relies more on superficial judgments. Conversely, this is more likely to occur when the decision maker has less motivation or ability. One of the determining factors of a subject’s motivation is their involvement with the issue at hand, also referred to as perceived relevance.

Various studies have given credence to the claim that when a subject has higher perceived relevance to an issue, their motivation is increased, and they are more likely to employ Central Route Processing. Less perceived relevance lends itself to decreased motivation, likely resulting in Peripheral Route Processing.

These claims emerging from Positivist studies are coincidentally compatible with the Praxeological view that decisions are made on an ordinal basis, identifying that the conscious mind is capable of only one decision at a time. Based on this understanding, it is sensible to believe that individuals will put less effort into decisions that are less relevant, because realistic time constraints prohibit intensive and comprehensive evaluations of all given circumstances.

The implications of these assumptions have far reaching potential in the political realm. Government intervention throughout society removes the relevance of decision making from the individual, and therefore is likely to invoke a less logically aware voting constituency in regards to various societal issues. Advocates of big government often cite the inadequacy of the population to manage their own affairs, and as a result call for the necessity of a “big brother” to forcibly “protect people from themselves”.

Regardless of one’s philosophical approach to understanding human behavior, the evidence forecasts plainly against the value of big government. While it may be true that a majority of the population in today’s society wields a less than logical understanding of politically infused issues, the reason for this may not result from a natural incapacity, but from a lacking motivation given the systematic loss of individual relevance. As this loss of relevance is incurred at a more substantial rate, so too is the loss of motivation for the logical assessment of government managed issues. The resulting consequence is a voting constituency who is inclined to make superficial judgments when electing political representatives, because of a lack of motivation to scrutinize important societal affairs.

This trend of lost relevance is not healthy for the development of society. When fewer people are logically assessing the most important issues of our time, it follows that the resulting consensus will be less adequately able to respond to these issues because the free exchange of ideas will be less prolific.

Just another reason why less government makes more sense.

This originally appeared in Michael Badnarik’s book, “Good To Be King.”

Rights vs. Privileges

The most important concept in this book is the difference between rights and privileges. For that reason, this chapter can be downloaded from my web site at no charge, and may be reproduced and distributed without written permission, as long as it is copied intact and without modification. A right is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon another … the powers of free action.” Please note that rights are “inherent” in a person. This means that it is physically impossible for rights to be extracted from a person by any means. Imagine a brick made of lead. The first thing that will cross your mind is that this object will be heavy. Extremely high density or weight is an inherent quality of lead. If an object isn’t heavy, you can be certain that it’s not made of lead. You cannot put a lead brick into a vacuum and “suck out the heavy.” You cannot put a lead brick into a microwave and zap it until it becomes light and fluffy. The quality of being heavy is one of the distinguishing attributes of lead.

Now recall some of the dreams that you’ve had. You can’t put the unpleasant ones into a bag and bury them in the back yard. You can share your dreams with others, but you don’t have to worry that someone will steal them from you when you’re not looking. Your dreams are an inherent part of who you are. No one can extract your dreams from you. The same thing is true about your rights. When you die, your dreams will die with you. If someone kills you, they will deprive you of life, but they can never deprive you of your right to life.

I define a right as something you can do without asking for permission. The opposite of a right, therefore, is something you cannot do without asking for permission. Any time you need permission to do something it is a privilege. Black’s Law Dictionary defines this as “a particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption.” Rights and privileges are opposites. I have three corollaries to the definition of rights. They are:
• All rights are derived from property;
• Every right implies a responsibility; and
• The only limitation on your rights is the equal rights of others.

Let me demonstrate the principle behind my first corollary with an example. Suppose I walk out of my house onto my land. I can walk back and forth, back and forth, across my land anytime I want without asking anyone’s permission. Walking across my land is a right. Now suppose I want to walk to the store located on the other side of your land. Can I walk back and forth across your land anytime I want to? Certainly not. Not without your permission. It is a privilege to walk across your land. Assuming that we’ve been neighbors for a while, it is possible that your response would be, “Sure you can take the shortcut, Mike. What are friends for?” So on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday I walk to the store making my way across your land. Let us now assume that something unpleasant happens to you. You misplace a winning lottery ticket, or your significant other leaves you for your best friend. You wake up Thursday morning in a terrible mood, looking for an opportunity to vent your frustrations. As I begin to make my way across your land you shout, “Hey, mister! Walk around! That’s what fences are for!” The important concept here is that privileges are granted, and they can be revoked at any time for any reason. Once again, rights and privileges are opposites.

Property! This is the one-word answer to any question regarding the Constitution. Any time there is a dispute about rights, the argument can be settled by determining who owns the property in question. Prior to the American Revolution, a man born into the proper family was thought to possess all of the land in England, and he claimed all rights as well. The king could bestow privileges on the people he favored and, being the king, he could revoke those privileges at any time. He could also have a person sentenced to death for any action he found insulting. All his power came from his ownership of property. When Christopher Columbus marched out of the water onto a beach in North America, he immediately proclaimed ownership of the entire continent for Queen Isabella of Spain. Subsequent settlers would each declare ownership of the land for the royalty they felt they owed allegiance to. The king’s power and prestige was directly related to how much land he possessed—which explains why human history consists almost exclusively of continuous warfare.

The Declaration of Independence states “they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” This statement refutes the idea that only the king had any rights. Instead of accepting privileges controlled by a human king, we claim the same rights that every king has ever claimed. We consider this to be “self-evident” now, but it was necessary for us to defend this idea by fighting a bloody revolution that ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The significance of this treaty was to transfer ownership of the land from the king to the people in America. Hence, the American Revolution was ultimately about the right to own property. The ownership of property is the most important distinction between freedom and tyranny. This idea is so important that John Adams, the twelfth president (right after George Washington) wrote: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” Regardless of your religious views, I think it can be safely said that anything as sacred as the law of God would hold considerable weight in any argument. Unfortunately, not everyone in America holds property is such high regard. Most of our problems in the United States can be traced to a blatant disregard for private property. Examine the quote of another American president, Theodore Roosevelt: “Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.”

If I own a piece of property, I control what happens to it. If the community has the “right” to regulate my property whenever it wishes, then I do not truly own the property. I am merely occupying it through the generous will of the majority. Both statements cannot be true at the same time. This is a very simple concept understood by every two-year-old. Every two year-old has two favorite words. Both are attempts to express their will over their environment. The first word is “no!” which is the equivalent of a royal veto—an attempt to forbid mother from doing something we don’t approve of. This statement is rarely a successful veto, but it is uttered with the same assumption of autonomy as any king who ever lived. Their other favorite word is “mine!” frequently shouted with a presumption of unquestioned authority, regardless of the item being claimed. The child claims ownership of any item they wish to have control over. They already understand that if it is “mine!” then I am the one who will determine what happens to the item. In other words, “I have the right to do what I want with it.” Of course children have an incomplete understanding of property, having a much more difficult time with the concept of “yours.” Parents spend countless hours trying to teach their offspring not to touch other children’s toys unless they are given permission. The problem does not go away in later years, either. Siblings sharing the same room will often draw a line down the center of the room to establish “ownership” and control over a given area and the property that it contains. Adults assume that they have a much better understanding of property than children do, but that is not necessarily the case. Americans do not legally own property in the manner that they believe they do, because they do not exercise autonomous control over their property. What would happen if you erected a derrick in your backyard and started drilling for oil? Would you be surprised if the county sheriff drove up and asked to see your permit? In order to drill for oil you must own the property under “allodial title.” Unfortunately, if you pay property taxes, then you do not own your property to the degree that you thought you did.

It may surprise many of you to learn that the federal government claims ownership of much of the land in each of the states, especially in the western states. Much of the rest is claimed by the states themselves. This is clearly an important topic, unfortunately not one that I have time to explore rigorously here.

You probably don’t own your car the way you think you do. If I give you a “gift certificate,” do you have the gift, or just a piece of paper that represents that gift? When you finish making payments on your auto loan, does the bank send you the “title” to the car, or simply a “certificate of title”? The certificate of title is a piece of paper that only represents the title of the car. Each car that is manufactured has an MCO, or “manufacturer’s certificate of origin,” that is the true title for the car. Because most cars are purchased on a payment plan, the dealer sends the MCO to the state agency that controls the registration of vehicles. The MCO is microfilmed and then shredded to make it much more difficult for you to obtain the actual title. If you are able to pay cash for your car and you know enough to demand the MCO as part of the purchase agreement, it is possible for you to purchase an automobile and own it the way you currently believe that you own it.

Property may be an adequate source of rights for land, but what is the source of your right to life? Many will argue that your right to life comes from God, however that debate is outside the scope of this book. Whether divinely created or scientifically evolved, one thing that is indisputable is the fact that your body exists. It is also widely assumed, at least in the contemporary United States, that you own your own body. If someone else owns your body, then you are a slave. The institution of slavery was based on the premise that other humans were considered to be property, and thus could be bought and sold like any other commodity. That idea is loath to many of us now, however the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude was not passed until December of 1865. You cannot successfully claim your right to life until those around you respect your body as property that you alone control. Even today the women in Middle-Eastern countries are treated as the property of men, and children are still sold into slavery around the world.

The second corollary on the subject of rights is the fact that every right implies a responsibility. Rights and responsibilities are as inseparable as the heads and tails of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. I have a right to wear a gun on my hip, but I also have the responsibility to make sure that no one is injured by it. Furthermore, carrying a gun does not give me a right to your property. I only have a right to my property, not to yours. Americans have grown weary of their responsibilities, and our government has been only too eager to relieve us of those burdens. When two people have a child, they have a responsibility to determine what the child will learn and what values it should adopt. Over the years parents have become complacent about that responsibility, turning it over to government schools that offer “one size fi ts all” education. Then parents have the audacity to wonder why their children haven’t adopted the values they would like them to have. Instead of planning for their future, our parents and grandparents allowed the Socialist Insecurity Administration to take money from their paycheck to create their retirement program. Today, everyone is concerned that Social Security doesn’t return enough money for basic subsistence, much less the money people need to enjoy their golden years. If people had retained that responsibility for themselves, placing their money in a simple savings account with 5 percent interest, they would easily have more money than they currently get from the government. By allowing the government to assume our responsibilities, we have gradually given away many of our rights.

My third corollary on the subject is that the only limitation on your rights is the equal rights of others. To put it another way, you only have the right to your property. You do not have the right to anyone else’s property. Many people believe that they have a right to health care. There is even a presidential candidate who recently suggested a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that right. A right to health care suggests that you should be able to walk into a doctor’s office and insist that she or he correct your illness for free, or for a significantly reduced cost. Would you be willing to do your job for free for anyone who steps in off the sidewalk? I sincerely doubt it. You’d be very busy—and very, very poor. Why should your doctor provide services for free after spending all the time and money required to graduate from medical school? “Don’t worry!” people tell me, “the government will pay the doctor’s salary.” Oh, really? And where does the government get the money to pay the doctor’s salary? From taxes, of course. But for every $100 the government takes from my wallet, they keep $50, the HMO keeps $25, and the doctor gets what’s left. Wouldn’t it be easier and far more efficient for you to walk into my house to take $100 out of my wallet yourself? You’d be able to pay for even better treatment than you’re getting right now. There is, of course, one small problem with that plan. I am a strong Second Amendment supporter. If you come into my house in an attempt to take money from my wallet, you will soon be going to the doctor for something far more serious than whatever you were suffering from in the first place. You should have learned this in grade school, but just in case you missed it, you do not have a right to other people’s property, not even when the government takes it away from them and gives it to you. That is the basis for socialism, and that is exactly what the Constitution is intended to prevent.

John Shanahan is a licensed practicing engineer, member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and co-founder of Inland Empire 9/11 Truth. The following is an open letter to the city of Pomona, CA regarding the case of Mohammed Abdullah.

June 11, 2009

City of Pomona, City Manager’s Office
Linda Lowry, City Manager
City of Pomona
505 South Garey Avenue
Pomona, CA 91766

Subject: An Open Letter
Restraining Order filed against Mohammed Abdullah by City Attorney’s Office, Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman

Dear Linda Lowry,

As a result of various emails that I have received in the past week, I have been made aware of the subject case. I understand that this case will be heard in Pomona Superior Court at 8AM tomorrow.

I have viewed various videos of Mr. Abdullah that are available on the internet. I have never met Mr. Abdullah and most importantly, never discussed with him any issues which I believe to be important before writing a letter such as this one. In one of these videos, Mr. Abdullah describes himself as an African-American; it has never been clear to me whether Mr. Abdullah is trying to set himself apart from people like myself. It is very clear to me, however, that at this time in our young country’s existence, we need more people who will think of themselves as Americans and not hyphenated-Americans. At another point in the video, Mr. Abdullah discusses how he changed his name to a Muslim name (after he converted to the Muslim religion) and abandoned his “slave” name. The interviewer does not follow up with the obvious question that if he had a “slave” name, was he actually a slave? If so, on what plantation did he perform his slave services? I have been told by various people who have expertise and knowledge of various religions that it is written in one of the core Muslim documents (Koran?) that this “religion of peace” actually calls for the death of non-believers of the Muslim faith. I have no idea how Mr. Abdullah justifies his membership in this religion. I believe that it is important to add that I have met a number of Muslims (several of them are my engineering clients) and I have never felt my life to be in danger when I am in their presence. The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that most Muslims are probably decent people, who, like many Christians, believe in certain fundamentals of their professed religion and ignore other precepts.

I have expressed the above reservations only because Mr. Abdullah publicly discussed them in his videos. The purpose of this letter, however, is to strongly support the positive activities in which Mr. Abdullah has been engaged on the streets of Pomona in his commendable attempts to overcome the most insidious vice of most Americans of any religion – IGNORANCE!

Just so that you understand the main point of my letter to you, Linda Lowry, I am convinced that we are all in the process of losing our country; the country that your parents gave to you and the country that my parents gave to me. Many people with blinders over their eyes simply don’t want to admit the written evidence on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations that relates how George Bush, Vicente Fox (President of Mexico) and Steve Harper (Prime Minister of Canada) met several times between March and May of 2005 to set up what is called the North American Union. This is a melding of the 3 countries in which the internal boundaries will be de-emphasized and the external borders of all 3 countries combined would be treated as sacrosanct. The 15 page document is called, “Building a North American Community”. They scheduled completion by 2010.

I have read through various portions of the temporary restraining order issued to Mr. Abdullah. The portions of this restraining order were made public in one of the emails that I received from a fellow 9-11 truther. It is my understanding that the wording of the restraining order was prepared by the City Attorney’s office for the City of Pomona. The City Attorney’s office was probably directed to do so by the police department, under the leadership of the Acting Police Chief, David Keetle. According to the City of Pomona website, the City Attorney is Arnold M. Alvarez.

The quotation below is supposedly from the restraining order and I have found it to be extremely offensive on a number of levels:

“During the last several months defendant has lectures (sic) passersby over the wrongful acts of the U.S. government and the war in Iraq.”

Does Mr. Alvarez actually contend that there is some moral justification for the war in Iraq? If so, what is it? I will not within this letter attempt to spend several pages reviewing all of the lies used by George Bush in order to justify the March, 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Is Mr. Alvarez so naive and ignorant as to NOT believe that rape and torture are part of any war? Has Mr. Alvarez never heard of the Rape of Nanking? Is Mr. Alvarez completely unaware of the torture of various German Nazi officers during the International Military Tribunal after WW2 so as to obtain testimony that would buttress the story of the Jewish Holocaust?

Mr. Alvarez has used the term irrational behavior to describe the actions of Mr. Abdullah. Does Mr. Alvarez have access to a dictionary? Does he not know the definition of the word “irrational”? The actions and statements made by Mr. Abdullah, on the surface, appear to be very rational and logical. Mr. Abdullah has determined by his own reasoning, investigation and thought processes that there is no valid reason for the war in Iraq. After coming to that conclusion (correctly, in my opinion), Mr. Abdullah has taken positive high-profile steps to make this information as public as possible to as many as possible of the generally, dumbed-down sheeple who pass by his soapbox in the City of Pomona. How could anyone possibly apply the word irrational to these actions?

Mr. Alvarez has also used the word “offensive” to describe Mr. Abdullah’s speech. What is the matter with the City Attorney for the City of Pomona?! Doesn’t Mr. Alvarez know that the first freedom, freedom of speech, as given in the First Amendment (total of 5 freedoms) of the Constitution was enacted to protect that very type of speech. The most offensive type of speech (without being obscene) occurs when people in government (generally powerful people) are being criticized. There is no need to protect nice speech or complimentary speech or backslapping speech or other accolades. I don’t know exactly what Mr. Alvarez’s knowledge is of the Constitution, but judging from the wording he used in this restraining order, it might need improvement. An excellent website can be obtained (many resources) by performing a browser search on the “Institute on the Constitution” (Mike Peroutka, former Presidential contender in 2004). If Mr. Alvarez really still thinks that certain speech is unlawful that offends people because it criticizes the government , he should become familiar with the Federalist Papers and just as importantly, the Anti-Federalist Papers. I am having a difficult time believing that an attorney representing a large city as Pomona could show so much ignorance of the background to the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Since we are discussing offensive speech that is critical of the government especially as it relates to government policy in promoting unjustified foreign wars, I would like Mr. Alvarez and everyone reading this letter to consider the Vietnam War. It has been more than 30 years since the fall of Saigon and various books have been written and LBJ’s phone tapes have become public, but I still don’t believe that most people in this country will admit that over 58,000 of my American contemporaries as well as several million Vietnamese and Cambodians all died for a LIE! Before Mr. Alvarez sends the Pomona police to Rancho Cucamonga to issue a “letter-writing restraining order” to me, Linda, please ask Mr. Alvarez to consider reading a book. The book was written in 1984 by James Stockdale. James Stockdale was a US Navy fighter pilot who was assigned to the Gulf of Tonkin. The book is entitled “In Love and War”. Part of Stockdale’s mission included flying over a portion of the Gulf on August 2 and August 4, 1964 in response to requests from 2 US warships, USS Turner Joy and USS Maddox. On August 2 he engaged the fleeing North Korean torpedo boats who had attacked the US ships because of an earlier provocation of the US Navy (admitted by LBJ in his tapes released in 2000). On August 4 he responded to another emergency call from the 2 destroyers and spent about an hour flying low over the area watching the destroyers fire at an enemy that was NOT there. Mr. Stockdale spent the first chapter of the aforementioned book detailing the above incidents. The audio tapes of LBJ released in 2000 (for his library) clearly indicate that, as a minimum, it was the US Navy ships that were conducting “aggressive” operations at that time and LBJ acknowledged on the tapes, with a chuckle, that this undoubtedly resulted in the attack on August 2. Most people in this country who were alive and functioning on August 5, 1964 continue to wallow in their ignorance and believe LBJ’s national speech on that date when he exclaimed “We’ve been attacked!”.

I could go on in my attempt to provide offensive speech for the benefit of the Pomona police department and Mr. Alvarez by destroying other canards involving the “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor, the “surprise” invasion by the North Koreans of South Korea in 1950, a false flag plan known as Operation Northwoods that involved the destruction of commercial airliners with passengers, blowing up US ships, covert attacks on Trinidad-Tobago with much loss of American lives all in an attempt to blame Castro and justify military action to remove him from power, the direct involvement of the FBI in a sting operation that resulted in the 1993 explosion of the World Trade Center WTC1 tower, the internal bombs inside the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that caused the damage to the building and loss of life all of which were blamed on Timothy McVey and Terry Nichols in 1995 as well as the original Persian Gulf War in 1991 in which Saddam Hussein was suckered into attacking Kuwait so that our government would have reason to engage in military activities in the Middle East.

It would good if Acting Police Chief David Keetle were much more aware and knowledgeable of the U.S. Constitution. I have checked with various government sources within the State of California (San Bernardino Board of Supervisors and San Bernardino County Sheriff) and it is provable that all police officers and government officials in California take an oath of office that requires them to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America”. The problem that I have found is that most police officers and deputy sheriffs are not aware of the oath that they have sworn when they became part of the law enforcement community. If they are not knowledgeable of the U.S. Constitution and the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights), how can they possibly have the correct opinion of law enforcement on simple issues as freedom of speech which is the subject of this letter? How could they possibly understand that when they participate in DUI checkpoints and/or cite drivers solely for seat belt violations, they are actually engaging in the destruction of the 4th amendment to the US Constitution? If a police officer thinks that his main job is simply the enforcement of laws as dictated to him by others, what will his reaction be when the federal government declares martial law? As I have asked various police officers when I have been stopped for minor traffic violations in the past 5 years, which way will their guns be pointed when the big event comes? On an optimistic note, will the local police point their guns at the tyrants of the federal government in order to “protect and defend” the civilian population against the imposition of the one world government?

Acting Police Chief David Keetle should be aware that over the past 8-10 years especially, we have come closer and closer to losing our country to the globalists who are promulgating the one world government. It is extremely important for the sovereignty of our country that our local sheriffs and police start doing some investigation of their own and start paying attention to what is happening on a daily basis. One good way for Chief Keetle’s police to start doing this would be to visit the website, www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com. This is a growing website of people involved with law enforcement and military. They have taken a 10 statement oath:

(1) We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people. (2) We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people. (3) We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal. (4) We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state. (5) We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty. (6) We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. (7) We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. (8) We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on US soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control”. (9) We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies. (10) We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

It is quite well known that it is the Pomona mayor and the city council that ultimately directs the police department and the city attorney’s office takes its orders from both of these groups.

I am asking and hoping that the mayor and the city council will review the content of this letter and consider changing its policy regarding basic freedoms within Pomona to be more in line with the US Constitution. The idea that people like Mohammed Abdullah would be prosecuted instead of being thanked for their patriotic efforts involving the exposing of the militaristic, empire-building, slaughtering-of-human-life activities in foreign countries being conducted by our government shows exactly how upside-down things are within Pomona and probably most other cities.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

John F. Shanahan
9581 Business Center Drive, Suite J
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
email: jfshanahan@earthlink.net
Member: Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, www.ae911truth.org
Co-founder: Inland Empire for 9-11 Truth, www.911truthie.com

Distribution by city manager’s office to the following:
Elliott Rothman-Mayor
Danielle Soto-District 1
Freddie Rodriguez-District 2
Cristina Carrizosa-District 3
Paula Lantz-District 4
Tim Saunders-District 5
Stephen Atchley-District 6
Acting Police Chief David Keetle
City Attorney-Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman