The ORIGINAL Operation Twitter Tea Party

The TRUTH Will Set You Free.

noreply@blogger.com (reland1) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:11:00 +0000

An Internationalist Primer
By William Norman Grigg
Created 1996

Writing in the July 17, 1926 issue of The Saturday Evening Post, author Arthur D. Howden Smith presented a profile of an enigmatic man named "Colonel" Edward Mandell House. Although few Americans beyond the rarefied realms of the political elite knew much of House, the austere Texan had played a decisive role in many of the most important policy decisions made by President Woodrow Wilson. On more than one occasion, Wilson described House as his "silent partner," his "second personality," his "independent self." Although this friendship would later disintegrate under the stress of political disappointment, during the eight years of the Wilson Administration, the President maintained of House that "his thoughts and mine are one."

Smith recounted that during and after World War I, House and Wilson had "dreamed ... great dreams of modeling civilization anew" -- dreams that would collide abruptly with reality when the Senate refused to approve U.S. enrollment in the League of Nations. Following this defeat, Smith records, House "returned [from Paris] to New York, heartbroken, disappointed, in despair over the failure of his ambition to make his country the balance wheel of a new world order."
His Heart's Desire

House had long entertained notions of remolding America -- and the world -- nearer to his heart's desire. According to Smith's admiring biography, House believed that "the Constitution, product of eighteenth century minds and a quasi-classical, medieval conception of republics, was thoroughly outdated; that the country would be better off if the Constitution could be scrapped and rewritten." This ambition inspired House's 1912 novel Philip Dru: Administrator, in which an "idealistic" Marxist conducts a coup and installs socialist reforms by dictatorial decree.

House described the novel as an expression of "my ethical and political faith"; thus it is of some moment that the book's hero seeks to establish "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx," embellished with "a spiritual leavening." Among the most cherished reforms envisioned in Philip Dru is the creation of a "League of Nations" (the term specifically used by House in his novel) and the submergence of the United States into a world government.

When, in real life, the League of Nations was thwarted by the U.S. Senate, House and his colleagues found it necessary to continue their struggle by other means. House was part of a cabal called "The Inquiry," a group of 100 "forward-looking" social engineers who created the Versailles Peace Treaty at the close of World War I. This group formed the nucleus of the Institute of International Affairs, which was to have branches in New York and London -- the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, respectively. This is the basis of the "Anglophile network" described by historian Carroll Quigley in his 1966 book Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. *

Although Quigley offered in Tragedy and Hope the de rigueur dismissals of "conspiracy theories," he did offer some significant admissions:

There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records.

The Round Table Groups, which were "semi-secret discussion and lobbying groups," were created to help "federate the English-speaking world along lines laid down by Cecil Rhodes...." The American affiliate of this network, wrote Quigley, "was known as the Council on Foreign Relations...." Although he did not endorse all of that network's designs or decisions, Quigley was generally supportive of its ends, stating that "my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

It was this network, according to Quigley, that "provided much of the framework of influence which the Communist sympathizers and fellow travellers took over in the United States in the 1930s. It must be recognized that the power that these energetic Left-wingers exercised was never their own power or Communist power but was ultimately the power of the international financial coterie...."

Quigley noted that the workings of this elite were partially revealed by congressional investigators in the 1950s who, "following backward to their source the threads which led from admitted Communists like Whittaker Chambers, through Alger Hiss and the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank, fell into the whole complicated network of the interlocking tax-exempt foundations."

The subversive "network of interlocking tax-exempt foundations," through which the moneyed elite has funded the efforts of "energetic left-wingers," is a fulfillment of one of House's Philip Dru prophecies: "[I]t will be the educated and rich, in fact the ones that are now the most selfish, that will be in the vanguard of the procession. They will be the first to realize the joy of it all [i.e., constructing world socialism], and in this way they will redeem the sins of their ancestors." Of course, that "redemption" is to be accomplished by seizing total power in the name of "social justice," "world stability," or some other grand abstraction -- and that seizure will be paid for by the money, liberty, and lives of the less fortunate.
The Power Elite

Although Quigley enjoyed unique access to the formal records of the "Anglophile network," he is not the only academic who has documented its existence and methods. In a study entitled The Power Elite, published 40 years ago, Columbia University sociologist C. Wright Mills sought to dismiss the "conspiracy theory" of modern political history -- even as he vindicated the essential claims of the conspiratorial perspective. Although Mills claimed to find no conspirators in high places, he nonetheless admitted, "There is ... little doubt that the American power elite -- which contains, we are told, some of 'the greatest organizers in the world' -- has ... planned and plotted." He recognized the existence of a definable network joining elites in politics, academia, the military, the media, and foundations, and admitted, "Certain types of men from each of the dominant institutional areas, more far-sighted than others, have actively promoted the liaison before it took its truly modern shape."

While many elements of this network are visible and identifiable, according to Mills, "the power elite is not altogether 'surfaced.'... Many higher events that would reveal the working of the power elite can be withheld from public knowledge under the guise of secrecy. With the wide secrecy covering their operations and decisions, the power elite can mask their intentions, operations, and further consolidation."

Furthermore, Mills noted, the power elite provides for its own continuity, and "new men come readily into it and assume its existence without question." The continuity of this elite was examined by historian Michael H. Hunt in his 1987 study Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy. Hunt described the typical member of the Eastern Seaboard "anglophile" elite into whose hands American foreign policy has been trusted for more than seven decades: "His formal education [comes from] private schools and Ivy League colleges and law schools.... He practiced corporate law until gaining public office, usually by appointment. His soundness on foreign-policy questions was insured by the values inculcated in elite social circles, in exclusive schools and in establishment clubs and organizations of which the Council on Foreign Relations ... was the most important."
More Than a Club

But the CFR is more than a mere "establishment club"; it is, in the words of Washington Post ombudsman Richard Harwood, "the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States." Writing in the October 30, 1993 issue of the Post, Harwood observed:

The president is a member. So is his secretary of state, the deputy secretary of state, all five of the undersecretaries, several of the assistant secretaries and the department's legal adviser. The president's national security adviser and his deputy are members. The director of Central Intelligence (like all previous directors) and the chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board are members. The secretary of defense, three undersecretaries and at least four assistant secretaries are members. The secretaries of the departments of housing and urban development, interior, health and human services and the chief White House public relations man ... along with the speaker of the House [are members]....

This is not a retinue of people who "look like America," as the President once put it, but they very definitely look like the people who, for more than half a century, have managed our international affairs and our military-industrial complex.

Were the CFR an organization numbering in the millions, the state of affairs described by Harwood might not be so peculiar. However, the dominance exercised by an organization whose membership numbers approximately 3,000 cannot be mere coincidence, and, as the chart on pages 20-21 illustrates, the present dominance of the CFR in government has been consistent for more than half a century. In addition, CFR members hold important positions in the tax-exempt foundations, the media, etc.
Goal: Global Government

The CFR's representatives and spokesmen insist that the group is a scrupulously nonpartisan "discussion group." Former CFR President Winston Lord once stated that "the charter of the Council on Foreign Relations is ultimately to help check 'momentary passion' and shape a 'mature design' for America's place in the world." However, commentator Joseph Kraft (CFR), who referred to the CFR as a "school for statesmen," pointed out that the organization "has been the seat of some basic government decisions, [and] has set the context for many more...." In 1953, the congressional Reece Committee (which was created to investigate tax-exempt foundations) concluded that the CFR is "in essence an agency of the United States government" and that its influence is "not objective but [rather] directed overwhelmingly at promoting the globalist concept."

Admiral Chester Ward, who served as Judge Advocate General for the Navy and was a member of the CFR for 16 years, offered a more emphatic denunciation of the group, testifying that the CFR was created for the "purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government." He noted that "this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership.... The majority visualize the utopian submergence of the United States as a subsidiary administrative unit of a global government...."
Shaping a Consensus

Admiral Ward, like Carroll Quigley and C. Wright Mills, was careful to point out that the CFR is not the Conspiracy: "[The] CFR, as such, does not write the platforms of both political parties or select their respective presidential candidates, or control U.S. defense and foreign policies. But CFR members, as individuals, acting in concert with other individual CFR members, do."

This process has been described by Harvard Business School Professor George C. Lodge, who is himself a member of the CFR and a trustee of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Lodge writes that there are "energetic and creative individuals in government, interest groups, and corporations [who] are quietly assembling global arrangements to deal with crises and tensions. For the most part, they work outside of legislatures and parliaments and are screened from the glare of the media in order to find common interests, shape a consensus, and persuade those with power to change."

It is in this role of shaping a "consensus" that the CFR exercises its power. As James Perloff noted in The Shadows of Power, the definitive survey of the history and purposes of the Council on Foreign Relations, the CFR "is not the Establishment, but a surface component of it. Nor is it a theater of illegitimate activities; it publishes an annual report in which it makes a good account of its finances, and generally it maintains the trappings of a public-spirited institution. Behind all of this, however, is a movement to effect a new world order."

* Quigley, a Harvard-trained historian who died in 1977, was the subject of a personal tribute during Bill Clinton's acceptance speech at the 1992 Democratic Party Convention. Recalling the "sumons to citizenship" he had received from John F. Kennedy, Clinton said that "as a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor I had named Carroll Quigley...." Both Tragedy and Hope and Quigley's much more important posthumous study The Anglo-American Establishment are now available.

Tracking the Trilateral Commission

In March 1972, David Rockefeller, who at the time was the chairman of both the Chase Manhattan Bank and the Council on Foreign Relations, succumbed to a prolonged fit of idealism. In three separate speeches he described his vision of an "international commission for peace and prosperity" -- a "private organization whose primary objective ... would be to bring the best brains in the world to bear on the problems of the future. This organization would examine the interrelationships between domestic and foreign preoccupations, study new approaches to the transfer of 'social technologies,' and hopefully come up with fresh insights on how we deal with common problems." Rockefeller proposed that this commission include "a governing board of, say, 30 to 40 leading private citizens, drawn from the Atlantic Alliance nations and Japan." The guiding objective of this brain trust would be nothing less than "to rebuild the conceptual framework of foreign and domestic policies."

Rockefeller's speeches merely elaborated on proposals offered in Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, which was published in 1970 by Columbia University Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR). In that volume Brzezinski insisted that "a community of developed nations must eventually be formed if the world is to respond effectively to increasingly serious crises...."

Furthermore, wrote Brzezinski, since "the emerging community of developed nations would require some institutional expression," it would be necessary to set up "a high-level consultative council for global cooperation [along with] some permanent supporting machinery [to] provide continuity to these consultations." Although the council, as foreshadowed in Between Two Ages, would initially link only the United States, Japan, and Western Europe, it would eventually "embrace the Atlantic states [and] the more advanced European communist states...." Participating nations would grow increasingly interdependent "through a variety of indirect ties and already developing limitations on national sovereignty."

In 1973 the joint vision of Rockefeller and Brzezinski was realized with the creation of the Trilateral Commission (TC), an assembly of elites from North America, Western Europe, and Japan. Appropriately, Brzezinski was appointed to be the TC's first director. In purpose and composition, the TC is an international version of its immediate progenitor, the Council on Foreign Relations.

The TC's membership includes roughly 100 members from each of the trilateral regions, and its roster is studded with the names of the wealthy, powerful, and influential. Three of the last four U.S. Presidents -- Jimmy Carter, George Bush, and Bill Clinton -- have been Trilateral members. The "Former Members in Government Service" listed on the 1995 TC roster include Mr. Clinton, five Clinton Cabinet secretaries, four U.S. ambassadors, and eight under secretaries, assistant secretaries, or deputy secretaries.

Of course, TC spokesmen insist that the group's purposes are benign, and that it exercises its formidable influence only for good. In an interview published in May of this year, Rockefeller dismissed accusations that the TC is bent on subverting American liberty as "so absurd I can't help but, to some extent, find it amusing."

Perceptive observers are hardly amused that the Trilateral Commission's intellectual progenitor has expressed approval for the most malignant political philosophy in history -- Marxism. In Between Two Ages, Brzezinski wrote that Marxism "represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man's universal vision ... a victory of reason over belief."

Speaking at Mikhail Gorbachev's State of the World Forum last October, Brzezinski restated the essence of the Trilateral approach: "We cannot leap into world government in one quick step.... [This objective] requires a process of gradually expanding the range of democratic cooperation ... a widening, step by step, stone by stone, [of] existing relatively narrow zones of stability.... [T]he precondition for eventual globalization -- genuine globalization -- is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward large, more stable, more cooperative units."

Step by step, stone by stone, the Trilateralists continue to "rebuild the conceptual framework" of world society.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
delicious delicious [1] | digg digg [2] | newsvine newsvine [3] | technorati technorati [4]
Source URL:
http://thenewamerican.com/node/1311

Links:
[1] http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://thenewamerican.com/node/1311&title=An+Internationalist+Primer
[2] http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://thenewamerican.com/node/1311
[3] http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http://thenewamerican.com/node/1311&h=An+Internationalist+Primer
[4] http://technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?url=http://thenewamerican.com/node/1311

History of The Militia

noreply@blogger.com (reland1) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:19:00 +0000

The Militia: In History and Today
Written by John A. Eidsmoe
05 March 2009

The army — defender or destroyer of freedom? Throughout history power-hungry rulers have used armies to conquer and oppress other lands, and to impose tyranny on their own people. But armies have also been used to defend country and freedom — particularly when the government is restrained from abusing the power of the sword, and when the military itself is composed of citizen-soldiers who love liberty and have a strong attachment to the homeland they are entrusted to defend.

The Founding Fathers had mixed feelings about military forces. At least 19 (probably more) of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention had served in the armed forces, several with the rank of general. They knew they owed a debt of gratitude to the continental army and the colonial militias for securing their independence from England.

But they also knew that a standing army could be, in the words of Gov. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, "the bane of liberty." One of the grievances the colonists raised against King George III of England in the Declaration of Independence was that "he has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our Legislature," and further, that he had enacted legislation "for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us."

Recognizing the right of the people to organize locally for their mutual defense, the Founders therefore devised a system of government in which military power is divided between federal forces and a popular militia, between federal and state governments, with power over the military divided between the legislative and executive branches of government.

Not only does the right of the people to organize locally for their mutual defense still exist today, the exercise of that right is every bit as important today as it was during colonial times.

Constitution Provides for the Militia

When the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, they gave considerable attention to matters of national defense. They knew the new nation needed a military defense, but they also knew a standing army could be oppressive. Accordingly, they crafted a Constitution that balanced the power of the national government against that of the state and local governments and their militias. Article I, § 8 provided that

The Congress shall have power ...

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Notice the different language. Congress is empowered to "raise and support" Armies and to "provide and maintain" a Navy, and the two-year appropriation limit for Armies does not apply to the Navy. "Provide and maintain" implies a more permanent force than does "raise and support." The Framers apparently believed a permanent naval force was necessary, but they believed armies should be raised and supported as needed, and in peacetime the nation would rely upon the local and state militias.

Article I, § 8 of the Constitution also addresses the militia:

The Congress shall have power...

To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Congress has supervisory authority over the armed forces generally, but the authority to train the militia and appoint militia officers is reserved to the states, provided they conduct that training "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Congress also has power to provide for calling the militia into federal service, meaning that Congress can federalize the militia of one or more states or pass legislation authorizing the president to call the militia into federal service.

One more provision of the Constitution deserves our attention — the Second Amendment: "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."

The reference to the militia states a reason for the right to bear arms, not a condition thereto. Note that the word "people" is not used interchangeably with the word "state," and that the term "keep and bear arms" implies individual ownership of weapons. Collectivists have argued that the Second Amendment protects only the right of the state to maintain a military force. However, in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the amendment protects the individual citizen's right to bear arms (although the court also errantly said this right is subject to state regulation).

In 1792, Congress passed the Uniform Militia Act to give limited direction to the state militias. Section 1 of the act defined militia according to the common historic understanding:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizens shall reside, and that within 12 months of the passing of this act.... That every citizen so enrolled and notified shall, within 6 months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack [etc.] ... and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or [into] service ... and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required shall [be] of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

The definition of the militia as all able-bodied male citizens was in keeping with the understanding of the time.

Defender of Liberty

One purpose of the militia is to defend the liberty of the people against foreign invaders. Throughout history it has worked effectively, and it still works today. In "The Rationale of the Automatic Rifle," Massad Ayoob recounts part of a conversation that took place when Cmdr. Robert Menard attended a 1960 meeting between U.S. Navy personnel and their Japanese counterparts. One American naval officer asked why the Japanese did not invade America's west coast during WWII. A Japanese admiral answered: "We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand."

But the militia serves another purpose: the defense of the people's liberty against domestic tyrants. To many Americans today, this thought seems radical and almost subversive. But consider James Madison's words in The Federalist, No. 46:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the state governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield in the United States an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

And Alexander Hamilton, a continental colonel but hardly a wild-eyed revolutionary, expressed a similar thought in The Federalist, No. 29:

Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped;... This will not only lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and in the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.

Across the ocean and across the millennia, Aristotle would have agreed:

A king's bodyguard is composed of citizens carrying arms; a tyrant's of foreign mercenaries.... Members of the constitution must carry [arms] even among themselves, both for internal government and in the event of civil disobedience and to repel external aggression.... For those who possess and can wield arms are in a position to decide whether the constitution is to continue or not.

From the adoption of the Uniform Militia Act of 1792 through the passage of the Dick Act in 1903, militias continued to be a bulwark of the nation's defense. Usually they were organized locally and consisted of men who were mostly friends and neighbors of each other, and commonly they elected their own officers, although they were subject to state regulation. Just before the War Between the States, the United States Army consisted of 1,108 officers and 15,259 enlisted men, but there were thousands of militias, each consisting of about 30 to 60 men. Quickly after the war began, the Union Army swelled to 2,500,000 men, and the Confederate Army consisted of 1,000,000 men. Both sides relied upon the militia units that fought for their respective states.

After the war, the status of discipline of many militias gradually declined. In the North many of the militias simply ceased to exist, and in the South they were suppressed by the Reconstruction regime. In the 1870s, many states passed new laws requiring male citizens to serve in the militias, but these laws were poorly enforced and largely ignored.

Federalizing the Guard

In 1903, Congress passed the Dick Act, which began the process of federalizing the National Guard. Rep. Charles Dick's bill divided the American adult male population, other than those serving on active duty, into two categories: (1) the National Guard (the organized militia), and (2) the Reserve Militia (the unorganized militia, all other able-bodied adult male citizens). The 1916 National Defense Act revised the Dick Act and provided that "the militia of the United States shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens of the United States ... who shall be more than 18 years of age and ... not more than 45 years of age, and said militia shall be divided into 3 classes, the National Guard, the Naval Militia, and the unorganized militia."

And as federal funding for the Guard increased, so federal control over the Guard also increased, and the Guard gradually ceased to be a defender of the people's liberty against domestic tyranny.

A further reorganization took place in 1933, under which certain specially designated National Guard units received special attention and funding from the federal government. Men who enlisted in these Guard units were considered to have simultaneously enlisted in both their state's Guard Unit and the National Guard of the United States. Members of these units could be ordered to active duty with the United States armed forces, and upon completion of that service, their status would revert to that of members of their state's Guard. Guard units were better funded than before, but much of their independence and their identity as representatives of their respective states was lost. It is an old story, repeated many times before and many times since: federal aid leads to federal control.

At first, members of these units could be ordered to federal service only in the event of a national emergency. (Article I, § 8 says Congress can call the militia into federal service "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.") In 1952, Congress removed that requirement but provided that, in the absence of a national emergency, a state Guard unit could be federalized only with the governor's consent. That consent requirement was partially repealed by the Montgomery Amendment of 1986, which provided that a governor may not withhold his consent to federalization of his state's Guard unit for service outside the United States because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty.

In 1987, Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich objected to the deployment of the Minnesota National Guard to Central America, alleging that the Montgomery Amendment unconstitutionally interfered with his authority over the Guard pursuant to Article I of the Constitution. In Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), the Supreme Court held that, under the dual-enlistment system established in 1933, guardsmen lose their status as militia members when they are ordered to federal service, and therefore the militia clauses of Article I, § 8 afford them and their units with no constitutional protection. The practical effect of this decision is that National Guardsmen are, first and foremost, federal troops; their connection with the state militias is increasingly tenuous.

Over the years from 1903 to 1990, Guard units have increasingly come under the authority of the United States government. They still bear the name of their respective states, i.e. the Idaho National Guard, and they still perform functions for their respective states. But it is now clear that they are federal forces first, state forces only second, and only at the sufferance of the federal government. The Guard continues to perform admirable service in the defense of our nation, and they serve heroically to defend their states and local communities against natural disasters like Tropical Storm Katrina. Any American who serves or has served in the Guard should be proud indeed. But the guardsman's role as defender of the people of his state against domestic tyranny, as envisioned by Madison and Hamilton, has virtually disappeared.

Enter the State Guard/Defense Force

The role the Founders once envisioned for the militia as guardian of states' rights and the people's liberties, now falls upon State Guard units, or as some states call them, State Defense Force units. But many Americans have never heard of state defense forces and incorrectly assume the state guard is the same as the National Guard.

During the 1950s, several governors objected to their guard units being federalized and called out of the country. Who, they asked, is going to man the armories or do riot or flood control, if the guard is engaged elsewhere? Congress responded in 1956 by adopting 32 U.S.C. § 109, titled "Maintenance of Other Troops," which provides that

(c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.

The act also provides that enlistment in a state's defense force shall not exempt a person from the draft, and that a person may not belong to a defense force if he is already a member of a reserve component of the armed forces.

At least 26 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have established defense forces or State Guard units, and they are spread throughout the country: Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. Most states call this force either the State Guard (as distinguished from the National Guard) or the State Defense Force, but others use different titles, like the California State Military Reserve, the Indiana Guard Reserve, the Massachusetts Volunteer Militia, the New Jersey Naval Militia, or the Ohio Military Reserve. I will refer to them generally as State Guard units. Some of these are very active, others less so.

These State Guard units are not the same as the privately organized militias that received so much media attention during the 1980s and '90s. State guard units are organized under state auspices and have distinctive chains of command that start with the governor (not the president because they cannot be federalized), and then the adjutant general of the state, followed by the commander of the state guard, then the brigade commanders, battalion commanders, and company commanders. In Alabama, as in many other states, the adjutant general is appointed by the governor, and he commands the Army National Guard, the Air National Guard, and the Alabama State Defense Force. The Alabama adjutant general and the commander of the State Defense Force are major generals, and the brigade commanders are either brigadier generals or colonels.

Because they cannot be called to federal service, state guardsmen receive no federal pay. They generally do not receive pay from the state for regular drills and commander's calls, but they can receive pay when called to active duty by the governor, and for certain other activities they can receive per diem and mileage.

The headquarters brigades of most State Guard organizations contain many retired military personnel, or at least many who have had some prior active or reserve military service. Prior military service is not a requirement at the brigade, battalion, or company levels, but many who serve at these levels do have prior military service and/or service in law enforcement, firefighting, homeland security, or emergency management. Many state guardsman want a military connection but did not choose the total commitment of an active military career and do not have the time to serve in a reserve or National Guard unit. Age limits are often relaxed, and while State Guard units stress physical fitness, they can often work around disabilities and limitations that the active duty military and the National Guard cannot accept. Those who lead and compose State Guard units have a tremendous wealth of experience in military service, law enforcement, homeland security, emergency management, and many other fields that contribute to the defense of their communities and states.

Missions Accomplished

The missions of the State Guard units are set forth in state statutes or regulations. These may vary from state to state, but generally their role is to fulfill the duties of the National Guard when the National Guard is called out of state or otherwise overtaxed and in need of assistance. For example:

• During Tropical Storm Katrina (2005), guardsmen of the Alabama 3rd Brigade (South Alabama) were called up to the Gulf states to man food distribution centers and otherwise assist in flood control and crowd control; the 2nd Brigade (Central Alabama) and the 1st Brigade (North Alabama) also provided assistance.

• After the 9/11 attack, the Alaska 49th Military Police Brigade performed classified security missions for Alaskan pipelines, railroads, harbors, and ports.

• In 2007, the Maryland State Defense Force performed assessments of National Guard facilities, joined the National Guard for Exercise Vigilant Guard, a homeland security emergency and terrorism response exercise, and performed health screenings for over 900 National Guardsmen deploying overseas.

• During Katrina the Texas State Guard activated more than 1,000 state guardsmen to paid active duty, receiving evacuees at Kelly Air Force Base, the Houston Astrodome, and other emergency centers.

• Also during Katrina, the Virginia State Defense Force provided security for armories and assisted in the deployment of National Guard troops.

The South Carolina State Guard has established an effective communications system whereby every state guardsman has an "sg.sc.gov" e-mail address, thus facilitating prompt emergency readiness responses. (Paul Revere would be envious!)

The State Guard is a uniformed service, and most guardsmen wear a variation of the U.S. Army BDU (battle dress uniform) for regular drill and duty, and the army Class A, Class B, or dress uniform for special occasions, always with distinctive State Guard insignia. (Alabama State Defense Force regulations provide that members with prior Air Force service may wear the Air Force Class A or B or mess dress with ASDF insignia.) Most state guard units follow a ranking system similar to that of the U.S. Army. Personnel with prior military service commonly enter the State Guard at the rank they held when they left active duty, with the possibility of promotion thereafter.

The mission of the State Guard is to augment the National Guard, and therefore guardsmen spend much time training and preparing for the missions they might someday be called upon to perform. This training can take many forms: instruction in military procedures, courtesies, drill and ceremony, leadership training, emergency response, CPR, counter-terrorism, funeral protocol, and many others. Several schools for training state guardsmen have been established, including the School of the Soldier and Military Emergency Management Specialist (MEMS) Academy, and specialized schools for chaplains, medics, communications specialists, and others.

True Successors to the Militia

Besides constituting a cost-effective means of fulfilling America's defense needs and providing many Americans with the opportunity for military service, State Guard units are now the true successors to the militias that the Framers intended as state and local checks upon federal power. In 1997, when the Alabama Freethought Association and the ACLU of Alabama sued to force Etowah County Circuit Judge (later Alabama Chief Justice) Roy Moore to remove a Ten Commandments display from his courtroom, Governor Fob James promised to call up the Alabama National Guard, if necessary, to defend the Ten Commandments display. Had he done so, President Clinton could have countered by federalizing the National Guard. But if Governor James had called up the State Defense Force, President Clinton could not have federalized them. Although State Guard units are not overtly political, their existence is consistent with a constitutional states' rights philosophy, and in this author's experience, state guardsmen generally tend to be politically and socially conservative.

Readers who are interested in the State Guard may go to the website of the State Guard Association of the United States (sgaus.org) and click on the link to their respective State Guard unit, or contact the adjutant general of their respective state for further information.

An addendum from the author (March 27, 2009):

My thanks to all who have written; the many comments (see below) demonstrate that there is substantial interest in state guard units or state defense forces.

Mr. Gates, my list of state guard units was taken from the State Guard Association of the United States website (sgaus.org). I have brought your comments to SGAUS’s attention, and they assure me that they are checking the states you have mentioned. If in fact these links are not legitimate, you have done SGAUS a great service by bringing this to our attention.

Mr. Cronkhite, I appreciate your kind words. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that modern state defense forces are not within the meaning of the term “militia” as used in the Constitution. The phrase “well regulated militia” in the Second Amendment clearly indicates that the Framers expected the militia to have some training and organization, as do Madison’s and Hamilton’s comments in The Federalist, No. 46 and 29. As to whether state defense forces or state guard units constitute “troops” as the term is used in Art. I § 10 of the Constitution, the answer might depend on the functions these units perform in their respective states. In either event, Article I § 10 says that states may not keep troops in time of peace “without the Consent of Congress.” Federal statutes authorizing the organization of national guard units and state defense forces clearly constitute the consent of Congress.

Mr. Stertz, recent changes to the Insurrection Act are a valid concern and a good subject for a future article.

Badger, I’ll let you and Mr. Gates work out your differences — hopefully without having to activate the Colorado Front Rangers. I believe people have a God-given right to self-defense, individually and/or collectively. When this right is exercised collectively, that is normally done through a militia with ties to state and local government, because defense is one of the few legitimate functions of government. But that does not mean defense is exclusively the function of government. When government abdicates or fails in its responsibility to defend the populace, the people may organize outside government. But state guard units and state defense forces recognized by SGAUS are linked to state and local government.

Again, my thanks to all who have written. I hope constitutionalists will see state guard units as opportunities for service.

John Eidsmoe, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, holds the rank of colonel in the Alabama State Defense Force, is a professor at the Oak Brook College of Law & Government Policy, and serves as legal counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law.

The Second Amendment and the States

noreply@blogger.com (reland1) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:53:00 +0000

The Second Amendment and the States
Written by Patrick Krey

09 June 2009

There are few topics that can divide people who are normally ideological bedfellows like the legal doctrine of the “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights against the states and the Second Amendment. This subject is rearing its head again with the upcoming appointment of a new Supreme Court justice as well as federal courts' recent conflicting opinions in regards to the Second Amendment. The Wall Street Journal reports that on June 2nd, “A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled … that the Second Amendment doesn't bar state or local governments from regulating guns, adopting the same position that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, did when faced with the same question earlier this year.”

This ruling contrasts with a recent ruling by “the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ... that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states and local governments” — in other words, states and local governments are bound by the Second Amendment. Which court is correct?

To understand the debate in this topic, it helps to briefly review constitutional history. When the Constitution was first proposed, opponents of the new document criticized it for lacking a bill of enumerated rights, which were common in virtually every state constitution of the time. In response to these complaints, proponents of the new Constitution agreed to add a series of amendments in the first Congress that would codify restrictions on the federal government to infringe certain fundamental rights. The resulting first 10 Amendments, collectively referred to as the “Bill of Rights,” were ratified on December 15, 1791.

It is important to note two little-known historical facts regarding the proposal and ratification of the Bill of Rights. Alexander Hamilton, himself a prominent advocate of a liberal reading of the necessary and proper clause as well as a loose construction of the Constitution, argued that a Bill of Rights would be dangerous because it would imply that without such an enumeration of rights, the new government might actually have the power to infringe on these rights and might even now open the door for the government to regulate in these areas. In Federalist # 84, Hamilton wrote:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? … I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.

Hamilton basically was saying that the national government lacked the power to do any of the things that the proposed Bill of Rights were prohibiting, and codifying these restrictions might lead some to argue that the national government could actually regulate in those areas, which he felt was completely unconstitutional.

In addition, James Madison, widely regarded as “The Father of the Constitution,” wanted to have the Bill of Rights restrictions to be held against the states but was rebuffed in this effort because of widely held reservations to further empower the new government over the states. The first Congress refused to even submit such a proposal to the states for ratification because it was so unpopular. As a matter of fact, numerous states had gun-control laws on the books at the time, as well as state-chartered religions. It was not that the citizens were necessarily opposed to state involvement in these matters but rather did not want any federal intrusion.

These two historical facts illustrate that, at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, it was recognized by the Framers and Ratifiers that the national government had no authority to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states, and whatever authority it did have was clearly delineated in the text of the Constitution itself. Therefore, the Bill of Rights did not give the national government any new powers but simply reiterated important restrictions upon it and not the states. This understanding is consistent with the position that not only does the Second Amendment protect an individual “right to bear arms” against federal action but also that the national government lack any power whatsoever to regulate within this area. Additionally, the states are free to regulate (or not regulate) in that area based on their own state constitutions.

The fact that the Bill of Rights did not apply against the states was not modified until after the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the judicial creation of the incorporation doctrine. The incorporation doctrine refers to the court selectively “incorporating” certain amendments in the Bill of Rights against state governments via a liberal reading of the 14th Amendment — completely contrary to the original understanding at the time of its ratification as explained by widely respected legal scholar Raoul Berger in Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment. As the late Congressman Larry McDonald explained, the rationale behind the incorporation doctrine “runs completely contrary to thoughts and purposes of the original framers.... Their intent was to limit the rights and powers of the federal government, not to help expand them.”

The courts liberal interpretation allowed the federal courts to widen their jurisdiction and judicially review numerous state laws. Some libertarians welcome this development in constitutional history as a great opportunity to spread freedom because it gives advocates of individual liberty “two bites at the freedom apple — one under his state constitution and one under the U.S. Constitution.” Sadly, the constitutional record of incorporation is not something many advocates of individual liberty can be proud of.

Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman details the sordid history of the incorporation doctrine:

This is what the Incorporation Doctrine has given us: in place of reservation of these areas of law to state governments for regulation via legislative elections, we get seizure of control over them by unelected, unaccountable, politically connected lawyers (that is, federal judges) who purport to substitute “reason” for the (one infers) “unreasonable” regulations crafted by elected officials.... It was under the cover of the Incorporation Doctrine that federal courts recently invented a right of child rapists not to face the ultimate penalty for their crimes. It was under the cover of the Incorporation Doctrine, indeed, that a Supreme Court majority for several years banned capital punishment altogether. It was under the cover of the Incorporation Doctrine that the Supreme Court eliminated state prohibitions of various types of pornography. The Incorporation Doctrine also underlies the Court-created ban on prayer, even on moments of silence, in public schools. The Incorporation Doctrine has allowed federal courts to invent rights to burn flags, ban invocations at high school graduations, and establish essentially a national code of “acceptable” punishments.

Furthermore, it was with the help of the incorporation doctrine that the “politically connected lawyers” on the court were able to invent “penumbras” giving rise to the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, and there were even discussions at the height of judicial activism to engrain a right to a minimum wage within constitutional law. Libertarians should be careful what they wish for because the “interpreters” on the court do not always see eye-to-eye with their vision of liberty.

Ironically, libertarian proponents of incorporation who usually are almost universally opposed to state power, let alone massively centralizing power in a super state, are in effect advocating the use of a larger, more powerful central government (via its court system) to force smaller governments to “be more free” without recognizing the fact that freedom means different things to different people. Such a contradictory line of thought is in direct conflict with the proud Jeffersonian decentralist tradition of those who founded our constitutional republic.

This leads us back to gun-rights activists who are currently expending numerous resources trying to get federal judges to incorporate the bill of rights against the states. Ironically, years of money spent trying to get federal judges to advance the cause of gun rights resulted in the disappointing Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller where the “conservatives” on the court acknowledged that the Second Amendment protects an individual right “to bear arms” but that right is not “unlimited” and there is still room for reasonable restrictions on gun control. As renowned constitutional attorney Edwin Vieira, Jr. wrote last fall in The New American, “Could Heller allow gun regulation to the point that the regulation could become a prohibition for all practical purposes? What effect will it have, if any, on existing or future gun laws in other jurisdictions throughout the country?”

The Heller decision was disheartening to gun rights advocates who believed that vast amounts of money spent on endless legal challenges would engrain an unlimited right to gun ownership in our constitutional law. Related efforts to incorporate the limited protections of Heller against the state will face similar frustration. Those who put their faith in “politically connected lawyers” to uphold their rights and advance the cause of freedom will continue to be disappointed. Perhaps these activists will now realize that federal judges are not reliable friends of individual liberty and instead will focus their energy on a much more realistic goal of making Congress constitutional.

[x] close

Oh Say Can You See?

noreply@blogger.com (reland1) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:00:00 +0000

The American Flag

Written by John White
May 2009

The start of a baseball game, a football game, a NASCAR race, or a rodeo is predictable: crowds turn to face the American flag; men doff their hats; women put their hands on their hearts; and the “Star-Spangled Banner” is sung. And if you take your eyes from the flag for a few moments and look around, and at the same time listen, you may experience something rather profound. Whether clean-shaven or unshaven, whether yuppies or in boots and hats, whether holding children in their arms or apparently alone, Americans of all ages have tears forming in their eyes and catches in their throats as they sing and they stare at the American flag.

Even men, the more stoic segment of society, are choked up with emotion, and you can “feel” a unity among Americans. The same type of response can often be experienced at parades when a color guard marches by carrying the Stars and Stripes — no matter what the music being played.

What is it about the American flag that provokes such a response? Well, the answer is “everything.” The flag of the United States of America is an emblem of our country’s ideals, principles, values, and traditions. It is the sense of America’s history and its vast contribution to human betterment, including the service many Americans gave to the country’s armed forces and the bloody cost of protecting and preserving that contribution. It represents the total experience of America and the American people from the founding of our nation to the present. It also represents our philosophy of government — a recognition that life, liberty, personal sovereignty, individual rights, human dignity, and the opportunity to pursue happiness are given to us by God because that is the only basis that can guarantee those blessings for everyone. Last of all, it represents our great traditions, institutions, and ideals: national sovereignty, representative government in a constitutional federal republic, the rule of law, and people of diverse backgrounds living and working together as free citizens.

It is the symbol of the most enduring free people who have ever lived.

And although our flag is a symbol, it is also considered to be a living thing. President Woodrow Wilson said, “Though silent, it speaks to us — speaks to us of the past; of the men and women who went before us and of the record they wrote into it.”

Other icons of American freedom — the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, the Capitol, the Statue of Liberty, the bald eagle, Uncle Sam — have their places in our hearts. They convey the meaning of our national experience in various ways and serve well the process of citizen education about our precious heritage. But the majesty and grandeur of the flag flying freely against the sky is the most powerful focal point for Americans who carry forward the dream of liberty and justice for all.

The official name of our flag is “The Flag of the United States of America.” It is also referred to as the National Flag, National Ensign, National Color, and National Standard. However, as with a good friend, Americans speak of our flag by nicknames: the Stars and Stripes; the Star-spangled Banner; Old Glory; the Red, White, and Blue. It is the fourth oldest national flag in the world, after Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands.

In an earlier era, when warriors marched into battle behind their regimental and national colors (and children played “Capture the Flag,” knowing what that meant), our flag was regarded by our soldiers as the rallying point of action. It represented everything for which they fought — home, corps, and country — and it contained the honor, valor, and hopes of every man around it. “Our flag must never falter, touch the ground in defeat or be lowered to an enemy,” they silently said, and they guarded it courageously, even unto death. The greatest shame in battle was to surrender one’s flag to a victor, but the American flag has been unvanquished.

Yes, we’ll rally round the flag, boys, we’ll rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom
— “The Battle Cry of Freedom,” George Frederick Root, 1863

The great American heritage of freedom is the most precious possession of the entire world. Because our flag embodies that glorious achievement and ideal, it is worthy of our honor, our affections, our deepest sacrifices. We revere the flag, not through unquestioning worship but from a deep appreciation of our national heritage and from gratitude for our good fortune to be Americans. What other nation in all of human history has stated, as the Preamble to our Constitution does, that it was founded “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”? In our flag we see our nation itself and the proud history upon which it stands.

Equally important is how others see our flag. Floating from the lofty pinnacle of American idealism, it is a beacon of enduring hope to the oppressed of all lands. It floats over an assemblage of people from every race, creed, and color whose united hearts constitute an indivisible and invincible force for the defense and aid of the downtrodden. It proclaims liberty and justice for all people.

The Design of the Flag

When our flag was created on June 14, 1777, no records were left to explain the meaning of its colors. Their meaning was first stated in 1782 in a report to Congress by the committee charged with designing the Great Seal of the United States. Charles Thomson, secretary of the Continental Congress, stated that the seal’s escutcheon has the same colors and meaning as those of the flag. He wrote, “White signifies purity and innocence, Red hardiness & valor, and Blue … signifies vigilance, perseverance & justice.”

Today it is more broadly — but unofficially — said that red stands for the courage, heroism, and sacrifices of the 44,000,000 men and women who have served in the armed services of our country, and for the blood shed to preserve our liberty; white stands for peacefulness and the purity of our high ideals; and blue, the color of the heavens, connotes the justice, strength, loyalty, and unity of all our states.

The stripes of our flag remind us of the 13 original colonies that constituted America as a new nation and gained us our liberty. The 50 five-pointed stars represent the 50 states bound together as one nation. The field of blue is technically called a canton, but is generally called the union or field of stars. According to a booklet about the flag published by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1977, “The star is a symbol of the heavens and the divine goal to which man has aspired from time immemorial; the stripe is symbolic of the rays of light emanating from the sun.”

The U.S. Flag Code

The display of our flag is governed by law to assure that it is treated with respect. The U.S. Flag Code prescribes proper display of and respect for the Flag of the United States. It is a guide for all handling and display of our flag. It was established by U.S. Code Title 36, Patriotic Societies and Observances, Chapter 10, “Patriotic Customs.” However, the code is dependent upon voluntary conformance. It does not impose penalties for misuse of the flag. That is left to the states and to the federal government of the District of Columbia, though an activist Supreme Court has declared that citizens may disrespect our flag as a form of free speech under the First Amendment.

Before 1923, there were no federal or state regulations governing display of the U.S. flag. At that time the American Legion called for a National Flag Conference to draft a code of flag etiquette for civilians. Representatives of the Army and Navy, which had evolved their own procedures, and 71 private organizations met in Washington, D.C. Their purpose was to provide guidance based on Army and Navy procedures relating to display and associated questions about the U.S. flag.

President Warren G. Harding, in addressing the conference, said, “I hope that you will succeed in formulating a code that will be welcomed by all Americans, and that every patriotic and educational society in the Republic will commit itself to the endorsement and observance and purposes of the code that you adopt here today.”

The resulting National Flag Code was adopted by all organizations in attendance, although it had no official government sanction. Nevertheless, it represented the authoritative opinion of the principal patriotic bodies of the nation, both civilian and military. Over time, the National Flag Code became widely accepted. However, it was not until 1942 that Congress passed a joint resolution on the subject and made it the law of our land.

Promotion of respect for the flag and knowledge about it is required in most states, usually through flag exercises, programs, or instruction. However, in 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette et al. that it is unconstitutional for state boards of education or local school boards to make the flag salute compulsory.

Flag Etiquette

The fundamental rule of flag etiquette is: treat the Stars and Stripes with respect and common sense.

The flag is flown at full-staff to indicate joy — the joy of being American. It is flown at half-staff to indicate mourning. In either case, it should always be aloft and free. It should be hoisted briskly and lowered ceremoniously. When raising the flag to half-staff, raise it to the top of the flagpole for a moment before lowering it. When taking it down for the night, raise it to the top of the flagpole again and then lower it to the bottom.

The flag should never be dipped to any person or thing, nor should it ever be displayed with the union down except as a signal of dire distress. When lowered, it should be received by waiting hands and arms, and should not touch the ground.

The flag should be flown daily from sunrise to sunset in good weather from public buildings, schools, permanent staffs in the open, and near polling places on election days. An all-weather flag may also be flown in bad weather. When a patriotic effect is desired, the flag may be displayed 24 hours a day if properly illuminated during the hours of darkness.

The flag should always be flown on national and state holidays and on those occasions proclaimed by the president. On Memorial Day, the flag should be displayed at half-staff until noon.

To store the flag, ceremoniously fold it lengthwise in half, then repeat with the blue field on the outside. Finally, while one person holds it by the blue field, another then makes a triangular fold in the opposite end, continuing to fold it in triangles until only the blue field shows.

The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever, nor should any picture, drawing, insignia, or other decoration be placed upon or attached to the flag, its staff, or halyard. The flag should not be embroidered on personal items nor printed on anything designed for temporary use and then discarded.

No flag or pennant may be flown above the flag or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy.

Never throw away a flag! When a flag is no longer of dignified appearance and cannot be repaired, or when a flag is so worn or soiled that it is no longer suitable for display, it should be destroyed in a dignified manner, preferably by burning. In military parlance, it is consigned to the flames in a brief ceremony.

The final flag etiquette lesson for readers is this: when the American flag passes by in a color guard, stop talking, stand at attention, and, when it is six paces away, cross your heart with your right hand until it is six paces past you. Men and boys should remove their hats. People in uniform should salute in the manner prescribed by their organization. If the flag is simply part of a float or is being carried in some way other than in a color guard, no action is necessary.

Although the flag of our nation has undergone many changes throughout our history, none of the earlier flags are considered to be obsolete. They are simply representative of an earlier era. They may be flown as “legal” and are entitled to the same respect as our current-day flag.

John White, the author/editor of 15 books, lives in Cheshire, Connecticut. He is a former naval officer.

Powered by ScribeFire.

CLC Gets Grizzly Tonight Exploring Grassroots Politics and Current Events!

noreply@blogger.com (SandieC) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:30:00 +0000

Join Shelli Dawdy and Sandra Crosnoe on Blog Talk Radio

this evening on The Constitutional Liberty Coalition Gets Grizzly

as we explore Grassroots politics and current events!

___________________

We hope to be joined by RJ Harris a constitutional liberty candidate in Oklahoma CD04 going after RINO Tom Cole in 2010. He will update us on his race and the Sooner Tea Party rally this week protesting Obamacare. Join us for updates on our recent alerts that were sent out via email also. We'll review the status of Sotomayor's confirmation, Cap and Trade, Socialized Medicine, and the Pass Act.

______________________

Finally, we hope that Liberty Rider, Michael Maresco will have a minute to give us an update on his whereabouts and his plans.

He is there at the destination near the gateway to Alcatraz!

_______________

Have a Grassroots “tale” to share thoughts on stopping the Sotomayor Confirmation?

Call us! 646-915-9997

Tuesday nights at 8PM EDT * 7PM CDT *6PM MDT * 5PM PDT

STOP Sotomayor Now -- Vote this week!

noreply@blogger.com (SandieC) — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:08:00 +0000

STOP Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to US Supreme Court

Position: Senate members should oppose her nomination, vocally.

Reasons:

Sotomayor has made public statements and issued rulings that indicate:

Lack of respect for the right to bear arms

Racial and gender bias

Lack of respect for property rights

Has indicated "empathy" is a higher priority than following the law

Further:

Made a statement that appellate court judges make law

Her testimony last week has troubling contradictions in contrast to her writings and the facts of her life.

During her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she showed a surprising lack of technical legal knowledge during some questioning, particularly in an interchange with Senator Hatch.

Has had a high rate of judicial error - 40%+ (her rulings were overturned)

Supports abortion through her statement that Roe v. Wade is settled law

Principles:

We should oppose those who are not clearly strict constructionists

Supporters of the Constitution in the Senate need to start showing themselves

Members of the Senate need to put the President on notice regarding this and future nominees to the Court

Status:

Conclusion of the hearings process, no clear date available regarding full Senate floor vote

Links:

Gun Owners of America has been closely watching and researching this nominee, providing very good general information (beyond the Second Amendment) on their site.

GOA's Executive Director Larry Pratt, was a guest on a special episode of the Blog Talk Radio show The Constitutional Liberty Coalition Gets Grizzly on Thursday, July 16 to discuss the Sotomayor nomination. Larry gave a good deal of detailed information about Sotomayor and why her nomination should be opposed. You can listen by clicking here.

Former Supreme Court Nominee Robert Bork made statements regarding Sotomayor and recent history on the confirmation process on Newsmaxx, Tuesday.

Wall Street Journal article on how little information was gleaned from Sotomayor's testimony.

______________________

SUGGESTED ACTIONS:

Maintain pressure on US Senate and House representatives (contact them)

On particular issues, contact your Governor, State legislators, county, and city representatives.

Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper

Forward this message to everyone in your contacts list

CONTACTING CONGRESS:

Call the office for your Senator or House representatives

Ask to speak directly with your Senator or Congressman

Be sure to give your zip code so they know you are a constituent

Be polite, but firm

The next best method to a phone call is a fax, the least effective is email (make the phone ring in the office!)

WHY CONTACT YOUR STATE & LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES?

Several bills currently moving through Congress, if passed, seriously encroach on states' rights, and in turn will put a lot of pressure on county and city governments.

It is essential that our state governments assert their sovereign rights

Although State legislatures are not currently in session this is the period during which legislators have the time to consider issues that need attention, or bills they will sponsor.

_______________________________________________________

(for more details/links on these bills)

______________________________

"Health Care Reform" / Socialized Medicine

Several versions exist Was H.R. 676 now, H.R. 3200 (see summary article, linked)

Stated Purpose: To make affordable health care available to all

Position: OPPOSE

_____________________________________________________

The PASS Act H.R. 1291

Stated Purpose: To better protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of personally identifiable information collected by States when issuing driver’s licenses and identification documents, and for other purposes.

Position: OPPOSE

____________________________________________________

HR 2454 (2998) American Clean Energy and Security Act - Cap & Trade

Stated purpose: Reduce carbon emissions, achieve energy independence

Position: Oppose

__________________________________________________________

S. 909 Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Bill

Purpose: Increases penalties for certain crimes committed against certain people, particularly based on sexual orientation

Position: OPPOSE

Ordinary Patriots, Extraordinary Sacrifices

noreply@blogger.com (reland1) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:00:00 +0000

Ordinary Patriots, Extraordinary Sacrifices

Written by Becky Akers
July 2009

Valley Forge, George Washington, Nathan Hale, Thomas Paine, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry: heroes whose names will live as long as liberty does. Yet behind the Founding Fathers and their immortal writings, speeches, and deeds stand hundreds of thousands of ordinary patriots who struggled as sacrificially as their famous contemporaries — and sometimes more.

For example, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin never bore arms on any battlefield. But the thousands of farmers who did and who survived their wounds paid for their courage the rest of their lives: the primitive state of 18th-century medicine condemned them to chronic pain, and maimed manual laborers often slipped into poverty.

Nor did the public honors and recognition that hailed Jefferson or Franklin soften such suffering. In some ways, those unknown hordes were even more dedicated to freedom than the Big Names. John Adams sacrificed for the Patriots’ cause, yes, but he also reaped rewards in return. He spent years away from his family, though always by choice. And he spent those years in the exciting, sophisticated, rarefied air of Philadelphia or at the French and British courts.

Compare his autonomy and fame, the mansions housing him and the state dinners at which he regularly feasted, with the shopkeeper-turned-soldier in the militia or the Continental Army whose days passed in chilblained, hungry misery. Often, these men enjoyed few options when it came to enlisting: if they hoped to defend their homes and families from the British Army marching through their community, they grabbed a musket and joined their neighbors on the line. Once the danger passed, Continental soldiers couldn’t leave as well: they must serve out terms running from several years to “the duration” lest they be whipped or even hanged for deserting. Wounds, disease, and capture menaced them all the while. By contrast, congressmen like Adams could and did leave their seats in Philadelphia mid-session. And the gravest danger Adams usually faced during his time overseas came from the European ladies who flirted with the shocked New Englander.

Who Were They?
Who were some of the ordinary patriots sacrificing their lives, futures, and sacred honor to liberty? One was Joseph Plumb Martin, born in Connecticut to a preacher and his wife. Joseph was only 14 years old when the shooting began in 1775, but that didn’t stop him from enlisting — perhaps because, as he put it, he had “collected pretty correct ideas of the contest” and was “as warm a patriot as the best of them.” Nor were his scant years unusual: many Continental soldiers and officers were in their mid-to-late teens. Boys even younger occasionally infiltrated the ranks, too. Yet, like Joseph, their youth never prevented their understanding, loving and fighting for liberty.

Joseph signed on for a six months’ stint “to take a priming before I took upon me the whole coat of paint for a soldier.” Once he donned the coat, however, it fit him like a glove: he served with the Continental Army through the end of the war. Though he was a lowly private for much of that time, he saw many of the Revolution’s most famous episodes. He starved at Valley Forge, shivered under the snows of Morristown, fought at Monmouth Courthouse, and glimpsed British Major John Andre “before his execution” for espionage, though Joseph “was on duty that day and could not attend; otherwise, I should.”

Joseph was as engaging a writer as he was “warm” a patriot. Fifty years later, he published a witty and incisive memoir that chronicled the drudgery and danger, privations and pain the average Continental endured. He tells of the cold, hunger, raggedness, and fear thousands of Americans bore so that we might live free.

For example, Joseph and the army “proceeded into New Jersey for winter quarters” in December 1779. There they would battle one of the coldest winters of the 18th century, whose climate was already harsher than ours thanks to the Little Ice Age of the mid-1500s to mid-1800s. “The snow had fallen nearly a foot deep,” Joseph recalled. “Now I request the reader to consider what must have been our situation at this time, naked, fatigued and starved, forced to march many a weary mile in winter, through cold and snow, to seek a situation in some (to us, unknown) wood to build us habitations to starve and suffer in.… I know how I felt at the time and I know how I yet feel at the recollection of it; but there was no remedy, we must go through it, and we did go through it, and I am yet alive.... Sometimes we could procure an armful of buckwheat straw to lie upon, which was deemed a luxury. Provisions, as usual, took up but a small part of our time, though much of our thoughts.”

Springtime improved only the temperature, not the accommodations. Joseph recalls one night when his company “turned into a new ploughed field, and I laid down between two furrows and slept as sweet as though I had laid upon a bed of down.”

Boys in their teens are always ravenous, let alone those marching miles per day (indeed, the soldiers defined “easy marches” as “str[iking] our tents at three o’clock in the morning, march[ing] ten miles and then encamp[ing], which would be about one or two o’clock in the afternoon. Every third day we rested all day”). No wonder food and its lack obsessed them. Joseph describes a Thanksgiving at Valley Forge, one “ordered by Congress.... We had nothing to eat for two or three days previous, except what the trees of the fields and forests afforded us. But we must now have what congress said, a sumptuous Thanksgiving to close the year of high living.... Well, to add something extraordinary to our present stock of provisions, our country, ever mindful of its suffering army, opened her sympathizing heart so wide … as to give us … half a gill of rice [about two tablespoons] and a tablespoonful of vinegar!!” After devouring this “extraordinary superabundant donation,” the still-famished soldiers “were ordered out to … hear a sermon.” Joseph was so hungry he couldn’t concentrate on the message.

The day after fighting at Monmouth, New Jersey, on June 28, 1778, Joseph and his fellows “received a gill of rum, but nothing to eat” — an imbalance that frequently beset Continental troops (and one they bore with better grace than the reverse. We might think empty soldiers would protest the lack of food rather than rum. But a paltry or missing rum ration sometimes provoked riots). Fortunately, “Providence” lent a hand when the quartermaster didn’t: Joseph was one of the oarsmen ferrying his brigade across the Hudson some days later when a “large sturgeon (a fish in which this river abounds) seven or eight feet in length … sprang directly into the boat.” Joseph’s share when “boiled in salt and water” came to “perhaps a pound and a half, for I well remember that I was as hungry as a vulture and as empty as a blown bladder.”

An Army Marches on Its Stomach
Severe hunger was a constant for most Continental soldiers. In 1775, Americans fondly hoped Canadians would join their revolt since those northern neighbors suffered the same abuses from George III’s administration as the lower 13 colonies — and a few more besides. Canada also offered a wealth of resources and more volunteers for the Continental Army. And so Colonel Benedict Arnold marched with 1,100 men from Boston to Quebec, one of Canada’s only two sizeable settlements. He would liberate Quebec from the Redcoats patrolling it while inviting its residents to fight with the Americans.

Royally commissioned maps drastically and deliberately understated the distance to Quebec to thwart anyone travelling there without the British government’s permission. Compounding the misinformation was a series of accidents that destroyed the provisions Arnold carted along for his troops. Food that should have seen them safely to their destination lasted for only the first weeks of what turned into two months on the road — or path: Arnold was following an ancient and exceedingly rugged route through Maine’s wilderness. As if that weren’t challenge enough, winter was descending.

Arnold fed his army dried peas and beef, salt pork, salted fish, and “biscuit” (i.e., hard, dry bread somewhat like very thick crackers). But once those meager, unappetizing rations ran out, the march degenerated into a survivalist’s nightmare. The noise and stench of so many humans scared away game, and though the troops occasionally stumbled across lakes with fish, the rivers along which the path meandered were usually whitewater.

Dr. Isaac Senter, 22, was the column’s surgeon. As did a few dozen of the soldiers, he kept a journal. He noted that some of the troops marching at the head of the column were soon “almost destitute of any eatable whatever, except a few candles [dipped from animal fat], which were used for supper, and breakfast next morning, by boiling them in water gruel, &c.” Incredibly, the menu would worsen: “In company was a poor dog,” Senter related, “[that] now became a prey for the sustenance of the assassinators. This poor animal was instantly devoured, without leaving any vestige of the sacrifice. Nor did the shaving soap, pomatum, and even the lip salve [these cosmetics consisted mostly of lard and other edible fats], leather of their shoes, cartridge boxes, etc, share any better fate.”

Eventually, even the candles and cartridge boxes were gone. Some troops eyed the animal skins that had lain “for several days in the bottom of their boats, intended for to make them shoes or moccasins.” They burned the hair off these hides, boiled them, and drank the “juice or liquid.” “No one can imagine,” one starving soldier sighed, “who has not experienced it, the sweetness of a roasted shot‑pouch to the famished appetite.”

These men, marching miles up hill and down with heavy loads, rowing and poling boats on rivers that were too shallow when they weren’t perilously rapid, were ingesting perhaps a hundred calories per day, if they ate at all. Pvt. Abner Stocking noted the results: “When we arose this morning, many of the company were so weak that they could hardly stand on their legs. When we attempted to march, they reeled about like drunken men, having now been without provisions five days. As I proceeded, I passed many sitting wholly drowned in sorrow.... My heart was ready to burst and my eyes to overflow with tears when I witnessed distress which I could not relieve.”

All the starving and suffering went for naught. Half the column mutinied and returned to Massachusetts. The other half reached Quebec — where the British Army captured most of the Americans. Arnold finally retreated, his campaign and the effort to recruit Canada a heartbreaking failure.

On the Home Front
Families left at home while husbands and sons went to war coped with different but daunting devils. Not only did loneliness besiege them, poverty often did, too, given the breadwinner’s absence. And without male protection, women and children feared for their physical safety, especially if the household’s weapons had also gone to the front.

Settlers in the “back country” were especially vulnerable. If American Indians hoped to retain their ancestral homes after the Revolution, they must side with the likely winner since its rulers would be setting terms and parceling out lands — and no one expected a mob of malnourished, half-naked rebels to conquer the renowned, almost-always-victorious British Army. That army welcomed and encouraged the native warriors “whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions,” as the Declaration of Independence put it. A wife whose husband exchanged the cornfield for a battlefield must have quailed at every birdcall and soughing wind, sure that they signaled an attack.

Other women like Nancy Hart of Georgia fought the enemy — literally. Supposedly six feet tall with red hair, Nancy has attracted so many fantastic details that some historians dismiss her as a legend. Her story underscores the Revolution’s internecine nature, with neighborhoods and even families warring against one another.

That was particularly true in the South, where this civil war raged brutally. Five or six Tories — Americans who were loyal to the king’s political party — visited “Aunt Nancy” in her cabin. Some accounts say they were simply hungry; others contend that Nancy had helped a fellow Patriot escape the king’s forces, for which these former friends intended to punish her. At any rate, Nancy cooked them a meal, then grabbed a gun as they ate and held them captive. One of her prisoners challenged her, so Nancy shot him dead. Patriots hanged the rest.

“Molly Pitcher” is another heroine whose reality historians question. No one knows whether she actually existed, albeit with the more prosaic name of Mary Ludwig Hays or Margaret Corbin, or whether she was a composite of several women. Or perhaps the troops called any female who replenished an artillery company’s water during battles “Molly Pitcher.” (Eighteenth-century Americans used “Molly” generically for women and girls, similar in concept to our “Jane Doe.”) And water was essential. Loading an 18th-century cannon required shoving gunpowder down the barrel; after firing, gunners had to swab the hot barrel’s interior with water to quench any leftover sparks and prevent a premature explosion while reloading. Molly Pitcher, actual or composite, and her hot, dirty, dangerous hauling of water across a battlefield were indispensable.

Joseph Martin mentions one such heroine at the Battle of Monmouth: “During the heat of the cannonade, … a woman whose husband belonged to the artillery and who was then attached to a piece in the engagement, attended with her husband at the piece the whole time. While in the act of reaching a cartridge and having one of her feet as far before the other as she could step, a cannon shot from the enemy passed directly between her legs without doing any other damage than carrying away all the lower part of her petticoat. Looking at it with apparent unconcern, she observed that it was lucky it did not pass a little higher, for in that case it might have carried away something else, and continued her occupation.” Joseph doesn’t identify this insouciant lass, but some historians peg her as Mary Ludwig Hays, a woman from Pennsylvania’s frontier who had joined her husband in time to participate at Monmouth. (Wives often travelled with their husbands’ companies in both the British and American armies. They cooked, cleaned, and nursed the wounded.)

Margaret Corbin, the other contender for the “real” Molly Pitcher, also hailed from Pennsylvania. And, again like Mary, she followed her husband John to war. They manned a cannon during the battle in northern Manhattan on November 16, 1776, when 600 Continental soldiers tried to defend Fort Washington from 4,000 Redcoats and their Hessian allies. John died at Margaret’s side, but the new and intrepid widow continued firing their gun. In fact, she didn’t quit until she herself was severely wounded. The enemy triumphed that day despite her heroism. Margaret’s devotion to liberty cost her dearly: not only did she lose her husband, her wound permanently disabled her. She lived on charity until her death at age 49.

Most of us can only envy Margaret’s privilege of blasting away at tyrants. But we can all mimic Peter van Schaack. A New Yorker who studied Locke, Montesquieu, Pufendorf, and other writers favored by the revolutionaries, he was loyal to liberty alone, not to a political party or to mere men.

Van Schaack graduated from King’s College (now Columbia University) in 1765 and founded a law school. His readings in political philosophy persuaded him that no man should force another to his opinion. Certainly George III was guilty of compelling folks to obey his whims — but so were the Patriots protesting his tyranny. The king might fine or imprison colonists who refused to transport their molasses and rum in high-priced British ships, but Patriots often bullied, dispossessed, whipped, and tarred and feathered colonists who refused to damn the king. Men like van Schaack argued that while the king might be despotic, so were the Patriots forcing all Americans to stand against him. The entire debate was “too serious a matter, implicitly to yield to the authority of any character, however respectable,” he wrote. “Every man must exercise his own reason, and judge for himself.” Van Schaack asked the Patriots endorsing compulsion against their neighbors, “Who has constituted you the judge of the rule of right for me, and what claim have you to infallibility?... Do you not differ in opinion as much from me as I do from you, and have I not as much right to blame you as you have me for this difference?” Van Schaack’s autonomy, his refusal to accept the dictates of anyone, even those who caterwauled about liberty, branded him a Loyalist for both contemporaries and historians.

We should cultivate van Schaack’s integrity and independence. Too many organizations and individuals insist they love liberty while advocating measures opposed to its fundamental tenet: that no man has the right to initiate force against others, however many badges he wears, no matter how dire the crisis from which he claims to be saving us. Conservative, libertarian, or free-market think tanks that defend the torture of terrorists are as wrongheaded as the Patriots tarring and feathering Loyalists. Politicians who prolong and protect Social Security’s scam, bail out corporations, or claim to create jobs by stealing money from taxpayers destroy liberty, even if they prattle about small government while committing their crimes. Van Schaack would refute both think tanks and politicians. Nor would their rhetoric in favor of freedom blind him to their sins against it.

After the Redcoats captured him in Quebec, Abner Stocking wrote that the soldiers guarding him and his fellows “appeared to consider us as deluded by the facinating [sic] sound of liberty and freedom.” May liberty, but never politicians or parties, delude us, too.

Looking Forward to Liberty - Ryan Underwood at Broken Arrow TeaParty July 4th

noreply@blogger.com (SandieC) — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:53:00 +0000

By request, here are my notes from today. Thanks to the
rain, the ink was disappearing as I was speaking!/ru

-----------------------------------------------------------

I am not here today to talk about politics.

Let me tell you why.

For example, I'm not really interested in discussions about
this tax or that tax, because it amounts to debating whether
we should prefer a ball and chain around our ankles to a
yoke upon our necks.

In any case, as long as you are forced to pay tax to keep
your own homestead, you are a serf; the amount of such a
tax only defines the depth of your serfdom. Why do we not
hear impassioned calls for a "fair property tax" -- which
would be none whatsoever?

The income tax forces you to share your profits with your
masters to further their own purposes. But even if you
object to the arrangement forced upon you, the property tax
says "you must work within whatever state profit-sharing
arrangement exists, or you will be homeless."

Some people would like to tell you that one political party
or another, one political organization or another, or one
mass media demagogue or another is the answer. We have been
told this for as long as I can remember, for my entire life.

They tell you this because the last thing they want you to
realize is that the answer is actually within each one of
us. What we have been failing to do is to ask the right
questions.

I think I would receive much agreement here if I were to say
that stealing is wrong, regardless of whether or not it has
been legalized.

But is it wrong for the State, in the name of "law and
order", to kill a man who resists stealing of his
possessions and furthermore refuses to be carted off to the
dungeon for mere defense of his property, with knowledge
that he would then both be in the dungeon and his property
would be taken to boot?

What about when the State lies about the value of a man's
property, so that its self-interested taking of the property
can be spun as having come at less cost to the taxpayers?

Let's go back a few generations with the "Ghost of Liberty
Past." The economic historian Murray Rothbard wrote
extensively about colonial America, revealing scores of
events that have fallen down the public-school memory hole.

One such event is the Crown making a gift to William Penn of
what would later become Pennsylvania. The part of the story
that is not told is that it took Penn almost two decades to
successfully establish a government in Pennsylvania, because
the Quakers were not only not interested in political
government, but refused to consent to it, refused to
cooperate, and were otherwise incorrigible in their love for
liberty.

Another event that has been largely forgotten, when it has
not been misrepresented, is Shays' Rebellion. The usual
story that is told is that farmers got themselves into debt,
declared war on the bankers, and were put down by state
troops with merely a dispassionate interest in "law and
order". Well, the usual story omits a very important
detail: the "debt" that the farmers accrued was in the form
of unpaid taxes to the state of Massachusetts to cover debts
the state itself had run up. The mercantile interests
behind the state government, who would have profited from
the taxes, raised the army that put down the rebellion, and
thereby kept the poor in servitude to the state-connected
rich.

These stories hint at the reasons why Thomas Jefferson said
a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. He didn't
mean post angry messages on Internet message boards. He
didn't mean go door to door and try to convince people of
the correctness of your political views. Nor did he mean to
provoke violent confrontation, as anger and frustration
tends to lead to. He meant intelligent, calculated
resistance to political power, together with your families,
neighbors, and friends.

Do you really want independence on this Independence Day?
Resolve to do like the Quakers did. Buy some fertile land
somewhere you wish to live, and as time goes by, buy even
more land from the surrounding areas. Sell plots within
your land to family and friends who share your beliefs.
When someone comes in from some faraway government
pretending to have the authority to order you around,
politely tell them to leave and not to return.

They are likely to return anyway -- given that government
will have no other gods before it -- but by owning a large
area of land settled with people who refuse their demands,
their attempts at controlling you will be like trying to
ride a bicycle through a bog. Your little enclave will be
successful at practical resistance where the single family
hiding out in a remote Idaho homestead would not be. A
thousand such enclaves would send Washington D.C. into
bankruptcy proceedings.

If you can't afford land, then find economic independence as
soon as you can. During the bailout votes, there was a lot
of talk about "Going Galt", which is to essentially stop
working in order to stop paying taxes. But, if you are
broke, the power elite will have their way with you, because
he who has the money makes the rules. You will not be able
to buy the land, tools, and other capital you need in order
to live an independent life.

My suggestion instead is to work hard AND pay no taxes.
There is a bustling community on Craigslist of people
buying, selling, and trading everything under the sun, with
no government regulations or taxes involved. Spend your
time when you are away from your corporate job in the
official economy learning to do something that is valuable
in the underground, unofficial economy. And if you have not
yet redeemed your Federal Reserve notes for gold and silver
coin, for heaven's sake, do so while you still can.

Maybe one day, we the people will have the power not only to
vote for a new crop of legislators, but to do as the kings
did when they would dissolve Parliament and send the whole
lot of scoundrels home for a year. Maybe we will one day
have the power to live our lives in our own style, following
our own moral code even when it is in opposition to the
moral code of government.

But until that day comes, declare independence in your head,
and get busy living the way you want to live. Nobody is
going to do it for you. Declare your independence!

--
Ryan C. Underwood
runderwo(at)mail.win.org

[Editor's note: We don't have video from this event yet, but will post when/if available]

D. R. I. P. USA

noreply@blogger.com (reland1) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:09:00 +0000

This is my take on our current situation:

The Tea Parties began as a grassroots effort on Twitter February 2, 2009. We have complete documentation of that fact on this blog. What has happened to the movement is usually what happens when politicians and their hacks get involved. Unfortunately, some of the people fell for the "power trip" and were seduced into collecting email lists, etc. PayPal buttons (etc) appeared overnight on blogs that were originally purely grassroots.

Tea Party pages popped up everywhere. When they start collecting money, to whom does it go? I am betting on the usual suspects. Some of us are very upset about this for obvious reasons. Once the Gingrich, Armey, and Rove (etc) people get involved we are back at square one! Our only hope as free people is to throw the incompetent thieves out of the House and Senate! At least let them know we are watching every flipping thing they do.

@DRIPusa (on Twitter) is the "mother ship". DRIP= Dont Re-elect Incumbent Politicians. The @--grassroots states will report on each of their Senators and as many of their Congressmen as possible. The Good. The Bad. The Ugly. We will leave no stone unturned and whatever crawls out, so be it.

We need people that are with us. People who realize the importance of this manuever. People who love our country and want to save our Constitutional Republic. Each state needs a manager for it's page, to post activities, and report how their representatives vote; tell who and what they are!!

Teaparty Grassroots is the main URL for each state. People are hungry for some form of uniformity. We must have uniformity to be united as a people.

We started @DRIPusa, 1 week ago. All 50 states now have a grassroots Twitter page. Our first mission is to STOP CapNtade in the Senate. We all work late at night to help organize with anyone that needs help. We are not paid for our efforts, nor do we back down from those that are. We do it for God, Family and Country.

If you would like to join us, and you agree with our philosophy, please let us know.We need real Patriots without significant encumbering political ties. Contact @DRIPusa if you would like to join us.

Open Letter to the Grassroots -- of, for, and by us all!

noreply@blogger.com (SandieC) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:26:00 +0000

Factoid #1: You are organizing local events and working very hard, but want a consolidated site for listing events and ways to be connected to others doing the similar things. Some groups are trying to take credit for what you are doing, have their own, agendas, are attempting to raise money from these efforts, and building databases of contact information.

Solution #1: A site that is run by the grassroots for the grassroots that doesn't try to solicit for or capture the general publics' contact information, doesn't appeal for fund donations for no clearly stated purpose, and whose agenda is transparent.

We decided, with all of that in mind, to create Tea Party Grassroots. Because we started from scratch, we decided to strive for a listing venue that would be useful to activists for many kinds of events and activities. So in addition to a section for All Events, we have added the following categories:

•    Tea Party
•    Other Rallies & Protests
•    Conferences & Conventions
•    Media Events
•    Volunteer Activities
•    Liberty Rider Itinerary

Next we will be exploring creating listings by states. As time allows, we are featuring individual events as a top post on the site. Featured events are automatically propagated through a number of channels including automatic feeds on Twitter and Facebook.

We have employed a number of tools on the site that offer extendable functionality; Google Calendar and Maps. Full calendars (by category or All Events) can be copied over to people's personal calendars using the iCal (.ics) technology and map links are embedded. When events are listed, we copy the information over to the map and use a specific pin for each category. The map is located here. Like the Calendar, the map can be copied over to a visitors' own Google map.

In addition to the features noted above, we have a growing group on Facebook, which will be updated regularly and "bigger" events listed. For example, for July 4, a "national" Independence Tea Party Event has been created.   We will list links to individual location events for that date from the primary listing site (to prevent exclusion of multiple events on same date from occurring).

In addition to the event listings, we are providing some helpful information and resources to site visitors such as signs and slogan ideas, suggestions for getting involved, and founding documents.

Factoid #2: People are looking for ways to connect with others of like mind and work on projects together.

Solution #2: Those of us who have been putting these events on and bringing people together in our local areas to have an impact on swiftly moving events have many good ideas which we can share with one another. We all need input from others, and we all need support from those who have "been there" in dealing with the many issues that arise. We need to be able to communicate with one another, so we have also created a site for organizers and activists: Tea Party Grassroots Organizers

This is the place where the listing form for submitting events is located, along with a form to offer to volunteer to help us with this project, and a form to submit a blog post. We are adding resources on a daily basis to assist organizers and activists in their efforts.

We created a blog site, Tea Blogs: Tea Party Tales, specifically for organizers to share their stories and thoughts about the movement. A blog post submission form is available on the Organizers site.

In addition to the site and blog, we created a Twitter ID and Hashtag for Tea Party Organizers, TPOrg #tporg. This is one id that has posts from the Tea Party Grassroots and Organizers sites automatically fed. We encourage organizers to use the hashtag in communications with one another, and many have already begun to do so.

If used widely, this tag could enable very fast communications among a large number of people. Not only could we all retweet events and other important information for one another, but, we could also provide quick support when help is needed.

Finally, there is further work to be done in providing the kind of communicative ability for organizers and activists we are striving for. We do have a forum, which is currently turned to private. We are currently looking at options, however, to be installed on the Organizers site, to keep communications all in one place. If you would like to help with this part of the project, let us know.

========================================

Now you might ask who is the 'we' in this piece. Most of the site development was done by Shelli Dawdy, Joan Fabiano, and Sandra Crosnoe. In a broader sense, many of the Constitutional Liberty Coalition had input and provided testing and insight all along the way. Thanks to each and everyone who helped and continues to provide guidance and share with grassroots folks everywhere.

An Alternative for Tea Party and Why One is Necessary

noreply@blogger.com (S.D. in Fly Over Country) — Sat, 30 May 2009 00:44:00 +0000

This piece was originally posted on Facts Are Stubborn Things by Shelli Dawdy
on April 20. It is being posted here to add to the narrative that is being built.

Proposal:
Consider a real grassroots alternative for the Tea Party "movement"
We the people of the grassroots need to provide an alternative to the top-down entities who appointed themselves sponsors and whose agendas and motives are at best, unclear.
For any who may be angered about why I should say such a blasphemous thing, please, bear with me. It is no easy thing to risk voicing criticism at this stage, not only considering the number of Americans waking up to the problems we are facing, which is no small thing, but also to risk the potential backlash from my fellow Tea Partiers, and providing fodder for the viscious Left, who don' t need anymore ammunition.
The consequences of mismanagement, fragmentation, and lack of effectiveness at this point are dire enough that it is time to speak out.

I find no small irony in events that have taken place, particularly starting with the March 2 conference call for organizers of the "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" (Feb. 27). The March 2 call was headlined as "After Action and What's Next". It was not an "after action" evaluation; it was a pronouncement from on-high as to what the next move, message, and goals would be.
Not only was the call conducted in a way that violated the core principles of the group which had come together to organize the events the prior week, the whole thing was handled in diametric opposition to the very kind of governance that we seem to be saying we'd like to restore.
The whole reason for the rising up of so many Americans seems to be a rejection of the swelling size of government. It has grown too-powerful and out of control. As part of such a rejection, it would seem we would want to return to the Constitutional government established by our Founders. That means we want decentralized, limited power. If we want to re-tether ourselves to Constitutional principles as a nation, then that means we want the power to come from the bottom up, not the top down.
If we cannot abide by or implement those principles in the way we conduct ourselves in an effort to rally our fellow countrymen against an ever more powerful government, do we have any real business leading the charge?
We say government is too-large, and it doesn't employ common sense or basic principles. We say that whatever basic principles we can apply to our households, to our own personal finances, we should be able to implement as sound policy in our governance and in our fiscal policy. Again, if we cannot employ basic principles in our own operations, do we have any business expecting anyone to follow or for successful outcomes?
Present on the March 2 call were the majority of the coordinators of the Feb. 27th events, most of whom had been calling in daily the prior week. Some on the line had independently organized their own Feb. 27th event and subsequently learned of the online group. All of the people on that call had worked themselves very hard to obtain what can only be described as a near-miracle. In less than six days, a handful of people on the national level (fewer than ten) and forty - sixty people on the ground were able to organize and manage events that resulted in 15,000 - 25,000 people across the country coming together to let their voices be heard. In Lansing, Michigan, co-organizer Joan Fabiano decided on Monday, Feb. 23 to organize an event at her State Capitol for that Friday. In less than four days, she and two other women from the area managed to gather together 300 - 400 of their fellow Michigan citizens. In St. Louis, Bill Hennessey, with the help of radio show host Dana Loesch, found themselves on that Friday standing under the Arch with 1,500 other Missourians.
The organizers on the ground, the handful of people managing the details nationally, all of them, clearly showed leadership capability. Sandra Crosnoe of Oklahoma and Steve Spinks of California worked quickly to set up fifty separate NING sites for each state to provide a launching pad for organizing the events and an outlet to establish a truly grassroots network in every state. A number of organizers used these sites to do both. Some states had 50 - 100 members by the end of that week.
Despite the fact that there was now a group of approximately sixty - seventy people across the country with leadership abilities, momentum, and newly forming networks in their states, they were not consulted about the next action that should be taken. When they dialed in for the March 2 call, it is impossible to know exactly what they expected, but simple to summarize what they heard.
Coordinators were informed at the top of the call that the review / planning session they were participating in was being broadcast live on two Blog Talk Radio shows (you can listen to the Grizzly Groundswell version by clicking here). The explanation given was to conduct activities with full transparency. This announcement was followed by another; the next event was to be a Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party with the following sponsors: TCOT, Don't Go, and Smart Girl Politics. Conservative author and commentator Michelle Malkin was providing an additional endorsement.
"Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party" was to occur on Wednesday, April 15. TCOT's Michael P. Leahy, who was conducting the call, urged organizers to protest outside of post offices noting, "People will be angry because they have to pay their taxes."
The only person singled out for recognition was Don't Go's Eric Odom, who was lifted up as an example of the kind of "sacrifice" necessary to make these kinds of events successful. In one version told about the how the Feb. 27th decisions came together, Odom was reported to have agreed to change the date of his event so all would occur simultaneously. Mr. Odom had not participated in any of the conference calls the prior week. The visible support he provided to the event overall was the temporary use of some internet space for a national site until TCOT could put up it's own.
TCOT's Leahy moved on to define success for April 15th's "Tax Day Tea Party" as:
"more people, more email addresses"
Further, city organizers were instructed to forward the contact data they had collected from Feb. 27th attendees to TCOT. The data would be shared with Don't Go and Smart Girl Politics. No clear purpose for doing so was stated.
When Sandra Crosnoe, a long-time grassroots organizer questioned Leahy about what policy would be established regarding all the data collected, he promised her that he would discuss that policy "offline". To date, that conversation has yet to take place.
There were a couple of contentious exchanges regarding the selection of the date; the most frequently received complaint leading up to Friday the 27th had been that the Tea Parties had been held on a weekday. Leahy noted that only events conducted on April 15 were to be listed on the national site, taxdayteaparty.com, and if any of those organizers present on the call determined to have their next event on a different day, all good wishes to them, but another person in their city may be found to conduct one on the 15th.The most frequently written statement in emails: "I work for a living." Leahy's position and the date selected was puzzling to those of us who'd had conversation regarding next moves the prior week; almost everyone had agreed the next event should occur on a Saturday.
Leahy became what can only be described as irritated when challenged regarding this decision by a couple of late-comers to the call. He noted, "we've put a lot of thought into this." In addition to omitting who the "we" included, Leahy failed to note that the date had been chosen for everyone by Don't Go's Eric Odom, who had decided to control the next move by building a website for April 15 sometime prior to the 27th. By 2:30PM CST on February 28, he had the website up and running.
Whatever was worked out over the weekend regarding Odom's action, the three entities had chosen to work together going forward. Near the conclusion of the call, a plan was stated for establishing State Coordinators through the NING sites that had been set up. Sandra Crosnoe was to be the contact person for anyone wishing to be a State or Co-State Coordinator anywhere needed. As some of the folks on the call had organized their events independently of TCOT, a few of whom had indicated a "tech deficit", an alternate point of contact was given (my email address). Despite these stated plans, the State Coordinator positions were not filled or organized as stated. Apparently Eric Odom again had other plans, wishing for all activity to be controlled by Don't Go through the taxdayteaparty.com website.
A few of us who'd worked on the 27th events nationally received no small number of phone calls in the couple of days following the conference call. It was 27th planners who expressed concerns generally about the top-down nature and primarily the instruction to forward contact data into the three groups. They questioned: what was to be done with that contact information?
All those I talked to had made the independent decision not to send in the information. Some determined not to participate further in conference calls. Others expressed concerns about the vagueness and perhaps, ineffectiveness of the stated theme for April 15, "Repeal the Pork, Cut Taxes."
How would the procurement of email addresses help "Repeal the Pork"....or cut taxes?
Obviously, it won't. What it could do, however, is provide a ready-made database for any variety of purposes including building new organizations, sending fundraising appeals, or for a major political campaign.
If the email addresses were kept local and used to build local organizations that could be very effective. If they were to be passed on to national organizations whose goals and purposes are not clear, what would that accomplish?
And really, isn't the overarching question here:
What is the purpose of "the Tea Party movement"?
What will be accomplished?
Stupid question, you say? It isn't really. You get as many answers for that, at this point, as people you ask, but it might be fair to say that the following sums up some of the major goals:

Let people feel their voices have been heard

Show people they are not alone in their opposition

Send messages to politicians

Hope their representatives are more accountable in the future
Will these goals be accomplished?
To be sure, people attending the February 27, April 15, and any other Tea Party events in between, will feel that their voices have been heard and that they are not alone. All of these messages will go to politicians, whether they act as if they've heard them or not. It may result in a more active civic life for many, which again, is not to be overlooked.
At the end of the day, though, will it result in different action by our elected representatives? Hopefully. Is that likely to produce the results needed to roll back all that has brought us to this point? Unfortunately, no.
A fantasy:
Following a couple more Tea Parties, wherein hundreds of thousands (maybe even over a million) Americans gather, the message will penetrate through to Washington, D.C.:
President Obama, Treasury Secretary Geithner, Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid will all smack themselves in the head and say, "Geez, what was I thinking?" and immediately set themeselves on a new course to "Repeal the Pork, Cut Taxes."
Republicans will finally find their spines and take the mush out of their mouths.
With this sudden awakening, the U.S. Congress will spend the next six months furiously repealing legislation. New bills will be no more than forty pages in length and immediately posted on the internet for no shorter a period than 14 days prior to the initial vote.
The corporate tax rate and the capital gains tax will be temporarily abolished and permanently cut and personal income taxes for all taxpayers will be slashed in half.
There will be deep cuts in all Federal spending programs that aren't didn't repeal. Cap & trade will be assigned to the ash heap of history.
The value of the dollar will stabilize, the stock market will climb back up to 10,000, the real estate market will have found its bottom, and people's 401K accounts resume growth.
State legislatures, City Councils, and School Boards will follow suit. They will cut spending, lower taxes, reduce fees, repeal business-killing regulations, and roll back ordinances that impinge on our daily lives.
Both the Democratic and Republican parties will stop running their organizations from the top-down. They will scrap their leadership and convene new elections for leadership at the County, State, and National level, in that order.
The primary system will be reformed, adopting a system of rotation for the first three states and a National Primary Day will be agreed upon by both parties for those remaining. McCain - Feingold will be repealed. We will all have an opportunity to participate in the decision about the next Presidential candidate.
Then we will all hold hands and sing, "Kumbayah".
Really? Ok. Maybe we should start over with "Repeal the Pork".
When was the last time that happened under any Congress, or any President?
The Reality:
At this stage, because of a culture of corruption in our society and political systems, the best case scenario is that people will build networks locally. The coming together of people for an event like this connects them to one another. And that is indeed, valuable. In part, though, for that connecting to have any lasting, real impact, one must assume organizers of these events are laying the ground work for further activities. If handled properly, an energized statewide network could have some real impact on bills in State legislatures, matters up for vote by City Councils and school boards.
But, this is not a message I've heard coming from the national "leadership". So are Tea Party organizers thinking of this on their own or are they just ready to move on to planning the next Tea Party? Besides establishing local networks, the best hope, likely is that elected officials will be put on notice that their constituents are carefully watching what they are doing.
Maybe it will change the way some of them vote.
More likely, though, business as usual will take place. In some Capitol backroom, deals will be cut to provide cover for members of Congress whose constituents are the loudest. The maneuvering will take place to enable the legislation to pass while allowing the most endangered to vote "no".
The most notable theme, again is "Repeal the Pork". In reality, in the present environment, that is unattainable. So why has an unattainable goal been set?
Perhaps the actual goals were overlooked.
The top-down handling of the March 2 call was not the only disquieting action by "leadership". Some of the Feb. 27th organizers who chose to continue their participation in conference calls ultimately decided to stop once they learned of a pledge drive circulated via email by Don't Go. The monthly pledge requests didn't clearly define for what purpose the funds would be used. Some of us learned, additionally, that funds raised by what came to be called "The Tea Party Coalition" were being used to fund Smart Girl Politic's growth and for start-up costs as a 501 c3 organization. In an email response to one Tea Party organizer's rigorous questioning regarding the use of the funds, SGP co-founder Stacey Mott openly, and apparently unwittingly admitted that some of the money was being used to pay for the building of their new website, to pay for the hiring of an attorney, and for costs to file their 501 c3 status. All of these plans had existed before the Tea Party phenomenon surfaced.
To the best of my knowledge, no Tea Party organizers anywhere received any of the monies raised from either pledge drives or "Tea Party Gear" sales. I was personally informed that within about a week and a half of opening, the store had over $13,000 in sales.
Participation in the weekly calls by "original organizers" dropped off. Anyone I've spoken with since March 2 who decided to call in at any point described the calls as "full of yes men" and the whole thing "sounded rehearsed". In other words, voices of dissent determined to go their own way. In any of my own conversations with other organizers, there has been a general frustration expressed. They don't want to lose the momentum of people beginning to wake up and wishing to join together in a show of force. But they felt they had little alternative to dealing with the "Tea Party Coalition". They rightly felt the need to have their event listed on a national site.
There have been a number of other frustrations felt by local coordinators, including some further "mandates" by the "Coalition" and the blatant co-opting of local lists by Don't Go, who added an "RSVP Here" button to the national site.
Frankly, in discussing the problems that were clearly coming out of the "Coalition", the same fervor of "do something" that gripped Congress last fall and in February seemed to be the theme of the day. We must keep Tea Party together, at all costs, regardless of who we have to deal with to get it accomplished. Isn't that a reflection of what is going on at all levels of our government? Isn't that "hurry, hurry, do something!" mentality exactly like the one that gave us the TARP aka "Bailout" bill and the Stimulus Bill?
March 2 was a very sadly missed opportunity. Whatever minimal collaboration among local organizers had taken place during the week leading up to the Feb. 27th parties was lost. The people on the ground, the folks doing the tough work, were not talking to each other. There are a lot of people around the country with excellent ideas on everything from the practical, logistical steps of obtaining proper permits to potential actions all events could take to send one unified, national message.
All these folks were left with was incoming emails from taxdayteaparty.com and the richocheting replies that resulted, which are rather like forum threads. These interactions coming through email messages were mingled among all of the inquiries about the upcoming event from the general public, the spam, and the myriad opportunists ranging from musicians wanting their music to be played to local usurpers who attempted to insert themselves into events. It's difficult to imagine that much real or effective interchange of ideas did or could occur. Having ideas heard through the din of all that noise seems difficult at best.
Many organizers were frustrated on the first round about the inability to come up with one central act that would send a unifying message with impact. On the calls the week leading up to the 27th, a number of very good proposals were made and for no fathomable reason, Michael Leahy continuously batted down and side-stepped them.
Throughout the fractured conversation in the bouncing emails between Feb. 27th and April 15th, there have been continued pleas. Again, it is very difficult to be heard.
Hi-jackers, Co-opters, and Interferers
In addition to the steady stream of opportunists and heated exchanges, organizers have witnessed and been affected by a few very large and well-known entities and the way they've conducted themselves. One of them copied all of the events listed on the taxdayteaparty.com site, started a new site, copied over the information and then began sending out emails with a "PayPal Donate" button in them, claiming to be the organizers of the entire movement. But their co-opting didn't stop there. They added functionality to their site for people to start their own events, causing a good deal of confusion for people on the ground. Any errors on the taxdayteaparty.com site were copied over to the other. I noted an error in the listing of my event and made repeated attempts to contact the "echoer" to correct it on their site. I never received a reply nor was the information ever corrected. Further, a link to a "tool" they provided to edit one's own event also failed to work. It appeared, like all else they were doing, to be so much window dressing. Of course, I had to deal with a lot of email and phone calls from the confusion the error caused. And I am just one organizer. It was not a little frustrating that rather than attempt to put a stop to this blatant co-opt, the "Coalition" appeared to endorse it when Newt Gingrich publicly appeared to engage in a partnership with the entity.
It seemed to me it took no small amount of nerve to request my cooperation in this co-opt. On April 16, I received a request from this organization to send my pictures and final head count. Based on their prior conduct, this is clearly to give them an opportunity to gloat at how successfully they "organized" and "managed" all of these events.
But that one entity was not the only one to claim the credit. On April 17, a fellow-organizer forwarded a message she'd received from someone in her state regarding yet another entity that is now claiming credit for all of the parties - her message cited how they'd managed to put together "all 1,000 of them".
It's very difficult, having seen all of this going on, not to be somewhat disgusted. We wonder why we are in trouble as a nation? We have a much greater deficit of ethics and an admiration of them than we have troubles with money.
So there are people, entities, organizations who either do not understand the trouble we we are in or they simply don't care. We have people whether for their own personal aims (money, ego, power, status) or for wider goals (fundraising, list-building, campaign preparation) who are misguiding, latching onto, attempting to control, or attempting to hi-jack a phenomenon that could actually have real impact on the problems we are facing.
It is disgusting to realize that there is some truth to some stories that have circulated in the New York Times as well as other accusations made by some really left-winger journalists. But when Paul Krugman wrote on April 13 about Freedom Works, that part was unfortunately, accurate. Freedom Works people, and others related to former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich have sprung up repeatedly in the strangest of places.
I first heard of interference by Freedom Works in Philadelphia during the week leading up to Feb. 27th. The group was causing a great deal of difficulty to the organizer there.
I was mildly surprised when both the Freedom Works and Dick Armey Twitter IDs started to follow me that week. But that was not the end of my personal experience with that organization. The week of March 9, I set up a Facebook event page and an email account for an April Tea Party event in Lincoln although I was still debating the wisdom of April 15, especially in a large rural state like Nebraska. At that point, I'd been contacted by a couple of Nebraskans in regards to a rally they wanted to put on in front of Sen. Ben Nelson's office in downtown Lincoln in protest of his involvement in the Stimulus Bill that Sunday afternoon. I was not brought "on board" until mid to late week, so it was rather a scramble to get out a press release in time for it to be of any help. On that Friday, I received an email directly from the Washington, D.C. Communications Director for Freedom Works, asking if "my event" was scheduled for 7PM.
Already having noted the interference factor of Freedom Works, and fairly mystified about why a D.C. Comm. Director would bother contacting me in Lincoln, NE, I very politely explained that the information noted for April 15 online was very, very tentative, in regards to both the specifed date and for certain, the time. I told him that as I was helping with an event coming up that Sunday afternoon, the Tax Day event was not my focus at that point. I further noted that at as I had helped organize nationally the 2/27 events, I should be in good shape organizing for April.
I found out the following day that someone from Freedom Works had gone on the region's largest radio station (1110 KFAB in Omaha) and given out information that the rally at Ben Nelson's office in Lincoln was at 7PM. There's simply no good explanation for why or how this occurred.
In addition, the gentleman whom I'd helped with the rally on March 15 was later contacted directly by Dick Armey. Shortly after March 15, the fellow forwarded me a list of email addresses whom he said had contacted him regarding an April Tea Party. Remarking that both Dick Armey's and the Comm. Director's names were on the list, I asked my co-organizer if all of the names on the list were people who had actually contacted him, or did the list also include people he'd added to his contacts list? He confirmed that all of the names and addresses were people who'd contacted him.
What good reason is there for Dick Armey to personally contact a man in the middle of Nebraska about a Tea Party?
Besides Mr. Armey and his Comm. Director, a man named Peter Roff was also contacting a number of Tea Party organizers prior to the 27th. One of them reported having received an email, out of the blue, commenting on how to improve her press release. She'd had no prior contact. She replied very briefly, "Who are you?" Mr. Roff noted that he had prior experience with PR and he was supportive of the Tea Parties, so he just wanted to help. Interestingly, among a number of other positions in the past, Peter Roff worked for Newt Gingrich at GOPAC.
Clearly, there is some level of national interference and cooperation in all of this. It is disquieting. Considering not only the conduct of the "Coalition" and their questionable definition of success, their unstated purposes for use of collected contact data, is it a stretch to question what is going on here? Is the grassroots being used to help drive towards some particular end?
Further, is it a coincidence that at one point, Newt Gingrich was named "Tea Party Spokesman"?
The usurpation and interference didn't end with some of the national groups. Organizers on the ground had to deal with a myriad of other interferences including in very many places, the "Fair Taxers", and in many others, the Republican Party. To be sure, in some parts of the country, the GOP has stuck by its limited government principles. But for the most part, that party has led us down the same path as the other. In Federal government, they spent money at insane levels for the last eight years. The RNC is far too much a top-down organization and many state GOP's have been running their operations with clear incompetence. If they had stuck by their principles, how could the country, many states, and a lot of cities be in such shape? They are not only top-down and incompetent in many places, they are also even more loathe to unclench their grip on power. So the GOP has been guiding some events in some places. Regardless of the extent across the country, this interference or hi-jack only plays further into the hands of the Left.
Regardless, we have a problem. I know this is the largest grassroots effort of which I'm aware that has ever taken place. And despite all that I've mentioned, it is still that. Despite the "Coalition's" decisions, many groups' efforts to control, and too many questionable agendas, the majority of organizers, at least the ones I've come to know personally, are solid people with pure motives. They've either attempted mightily or managed to keep to a minimum, the influence and interference of all of these groups.
Of course, these are the folks who have expressed, a number of times, a desire to be free from the necessity of dealing in anyway with the "Coalition".
But there are a lot of other organizers out there, most of whom weren't involved leading up to the 27th, and have either bought into the notion that the "Coalition" is some gathering of long-standing groups, or it simply hasn't occurred to them to ask any penetrating questions. An aura of enhanced credibility had begun even before the conclusion of the March 2 conference call. One participant requested that the "IT Staff" review the Facebook listings of some western state organizers to be sure they were in order. The "IT Staff" leading up to the 27th events was primarily one woman who I helped a few times when she got snowed under.
But this kind of "buy-in" is telling and just one of the many syndromes that ail us. Apparently as a society, we have become conditioned to unquestionably trust "authority". I wish the man requesting a review by the "IT Staff" had realized that the events that had just occurred where managed entirely by a handful of volunteers and pulled off with the use of a free conference calling service, email, and two social media tools. It wasn't the long-experienced, professional, or the special who had carried out the tasks.
In addition to putting largely undeserved trust in unknown entities, many people conducting these events didn't stop to consider some of their own actions. Politicians were asked to speak, some who'd voted for the Bailout Bill; notable personalities and celebrities of all kinds were given the microphone.
It's important at this stage to ask the question: Why are people rising up to organize and attend Tea Parties?
Although some people know in their "gut" something is wrong, they may not be able to articulate all of the reasons. These are the major issues:

In general, our country has come untethered from its Constitutional basis.

Government is out of control, at all levels.

Unsustainable, reckless spending, borrowing, and printing of money seriously threatens to collapse the value of our currency.

A plethora of proposed legislation threatens individual liberty.

A serious world-wide drive towards a one-world currency permanently threatens the sovereignty of the United States.

The majority of the media doesn't investigate or report fully on events or people. As a result we are under-informed about who represents us, who is running for office, and the actions taken by government.
We did not arrive at this moment overnight. The reasons are many and complex. We can look at some in the very recent past:

Both political parties operate in a top-down manner, and are more interested in maintaining their power bases than the result of their policies.

Our educational system has indoctrinated people to accept top-down power and encouraged an abdication of personal and civic responsibilities.

We have a culture obsessed with celebrity and cult of personality.

The lion's share of media makes it clear that only the special, chosen few from the right schools, the right family, or the right circle of society have any business opening their mouths to comment on public policy or trying to lead.
The problem with involving politicians:

The very segment of the public which is interested in raising their voices in opposition to our present state are fed-up with politicians.

Republicans feel as if their party has left them, and they've seen no acknowledgement of fault, no "Come to Jesus" moment, so any recent changes in words or votes appear politically motivated.

Any Democrats who are newly recognizing they were mistaken about their vote feel betrayed by their own party but feel awkward about joining in with they have to know is an event dominated by Conservatives / Republicans.
From a purely PR point of view, it should seem an obvious mistake to invite politicians to speak or allow an event to be controlled by the Republican party. On a more substantive level, though, there is a fairly clear consensus that the reason Barack Obama won the Presidency this past November is due to a reversal in voter turnout numbers. The Republicans stayed home. That means despite all that was at stake, they were so disgusted by their own party, so turned off by their candidate, they couldn't bring themselves to vote.
This obviously resulted in the loss of not only the Presidency but in so many seats in Congress that it will be difficult to stop the tsunami of damaging legislation that is guaranteed to be coming through Congress. And has the Republican party as a whole really shown it has learned any lessons from the clear slap in the face message they received? Absolutely not. They kept in tact almost all of the leadership in the U.S. Congress that had existed in the previous session. All of them were involved in engineering the TARP bill. There was no recognition of the mess by RNC members; there were six or seven rounds of votes to elect the Chairman. Michael Steele ultimately won the post with a difference of about twenty votes. Mr. Steele has repeatedly exhibited poor judgement. One of his first errors was in sticking his foot directly in his mouth follow Rush Limbaugh's CPAC speech.
So it is unwise, at best, for anyone to intimiately involve politicians in their Tea Party events, to endorse the incompetence of the Republican party by including them in their efforts. But the "Tea Party Coalition" provides no good example or guidance on this issue. TCOT's Leahy, in discussing potential slogans and themes during the week of the 27th proposed the slogan: "I'll sleep when Republicans run Congress." Further the taxdeayteaparty.com site has periodically contained enough party leaning rhetoric that indicates they just don't "get it". I personally received a few complaints from Nebraskans regarding some site content of this nature.
But beyond PR concerns, and the specific issues surrounding the Republican Party, it begs the question, once again, if we have even a small amount of understanding in regards to how serious are problems are, why are we not re-examining the way we do everything?
Involving the GOP and taking such a partisan tact betrays an ignorance that is truly unacceptable at this stage. Putting all together, including some plans not even mentioned to this point, the "Coalition", or at least some part of it, seems highly focused on the mid-term elections of 2010. Of course elections have consequences. Of course reversing a near filibuster proof majority in the Senate and improving the strength of resistance in the House are important goals.
But, it is critical to ask the question: Following the actions and logic of "leadership" to date, is all of this likely to result in truly changed or improved governance? Would even a significant improvement in the Republicans or conservative Democrats really begin to reverse the tidal wave of problems we're facing
The answer is a resounding no.
American's entire financial system, the value of its currency is hanging on the edge of a cliff. Individual liberty and the Constitution are hanging by a thread and time is running out.
If we have any hopes of turning any of this around, we cannot play games, we cannot enter in relationships or be led by "witch-doctors". It's time to reject anyone who has led in the past in a way that has driven us to the moment in which we find ourselves. That means rejecting:

Politicians who voted for any bailout legislation

Politicians who have been in past positions of leadership in Congress

Groups and organizations who seem to exist only to fund their own existence, who have in general failed to produce any real results

Groups and organizations who have attempted to co-opt the present movement

People or groups who have attempted to make money off of the present movement

Groups who attempt to appear as if they are grassroots but really just use the grassroots to make money for their own purposes
That means we need to throw off the "leadership" of the "Coalition". Event organizers up to this point, if they wish to have their event listed nationally with all of the others, have been forced to conform their events, at least by date, to the mandates handed down by three very new "organizations".
Because of the way the whole endeavor was handled starting with a top-down, contentious conference call on March 2, the potential real effectiveness has been blunted, neutered. The message received by some in the public, and very much amplified by the left is: "Why are they protesting income taxes?" Because of the falling away of so many local event organizers, there was no clear message coming from all of the Tea Parties. Most of us know that income taxes in particular were not the focus. It is all of the problems noted above.
Why was some more effective message or action not attempted?
With the hundreds of thousands of people coming out to these events, imagine the possibilities of effective action that could have been taken. There could have been ballot initiatives for particular actions that answer to any one of our underlying problems, such as:

Declining to accept any Stimulus money with strings attached

Ensuring the passage of Tenth Amendment legislation in all remaining states whose bills are locked up in Committee or have as of yet begun to initiate one

A particular initiative or vehicle derived to bring about an audit of the Federal Reserve
What should have happened on March 2:
With the nucleus of leadership available, had effective action actually been the goal, a framework could have been created and consensus arrived at for movement forward. All of the elements were in in place to formulate, perhaps for the first time, a truly grassroots effort that had the potential for producing effective results.
Going back to my earlier statements, shouldn't we be conducting ourselves based on a model of our core principles? That being said, the leadership should have been coming out of the States. Those state NING sites should have been used as the point of organization. One or two leaders from each State could have and should have been agreed upon.
The only reason for national coordination was to pool resources, share information, and hopefully, agree upon coherent, consistent messages and perhaps, ideally, one particular goal for each set of events that promised to bring about real results.
State leaders who emphasised action at the State, County, and local levels would have been ideal candidates. If any of us believe that we are going to reverse all of our problems by myopically focusing only on what is happening nationally, are seriously fooling ourselves. We all need to become much better informed about what is happening with our school boards, city councils, county commissions, and state legislatures. Local Tea Parties should have their own focus. State leaders who encouraged the building and establishing of local networks that would outlast any Tea Party events would have been, again, the ideal candidates.
Modeling after a core principle of decentralized power, no one individual or handful of individuals should have been allowed to control the decision making or messages.
Whether it would have been one leader from every state participating in regular national conference calls, or a smaller group, a central committee elected by all of the organizers, a representative body, based on republican principles (note the small "r" here) seems like the only common sense approach.
Clearly we have all been indoctrinated too much to the notion that we must look to one or two "special people" on the national stage to lead us all. Just because people have oppressive or manipulative personalities, have the ability to quickly deploy technology, or means of stifling dissent, doesn't mean they are to be followed. In fact, all of those characteristics are reasons for rejection.
Rather than a website thrown up by someone who always seems to be first to the punch, and thereby ever after controlled by him, a website should be controlled by a large number of administrators, the group taken directly from those leaders who are part of the Tea Party effort themselves.
In the end, isn't it really a moral question for us to stop contributing our efforts, lending our name, and spending our time under the umbrella of groups who have not conducted themselves in a way that exhibits the principles
We need a central, national repository website administered directly by State grassroots leadership, not controlled by one man, or small handful of individuals who have clearly exhibited murky motivations, attempted to capture people's contact information, and raised funds for their own purposes.
I propose:

A central national website be created for listing Tea Party events and contact information for each state

The site should be administered by a sizable number of people, perhaps tied to regions representing states, and agreed upon by state leadership.

Central messages and themes listed at the site are to be agreed upon by the leaders from each state

Clear policies regarding "sponsorship" should be formulated and posted

Clear policies regarding the raising of funds should be formulated and clearly stated

Support for Tea Party organizers throughout the country should be given in as many ways as possible, and communication among all organizers should be encouraged as much as possible, to discuss ideas, solve problems, and provide back-up

No attempts to capture the contact information of visitors to the site should be undertaken

Expenses for the site should be shared among all fifty states

Will Grassroots Leaders Arise?

noreply@blogger.com (SandieC) — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:49:00 +0000

Occasionally something is so clear to me that I assume others understand. Then I find out that is not true. So to that end this seems very necessary to go over and may be old information to some. Did you know that there are those among us who are actually empowering those who would destroy us with time, talent, and treasure? Yes folks, we are complaining about the enemy and the enemy is in our midst. If we refuse to recognize the problem, how will we deal with the problem?

Is it easy? NO!

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1:8

It means we must insist on a standard that other groups do not have. It means that we must challenge those among us not doing things properly. It means that we must examine our own hearts and repent daily and ask forgiveness of God and our brothers and sisters when we err. It means that we stand ready to rescue the one sheep who is being abused by the tyrant even when it means that others will look down on us for doing so. It means answering to the Lord God Almighty above men and the desires of men (and women too - this writer uses masculine for mankind with no qualms to PC!)

The purpose of this piece is to announce a new site that is born out of a need to protect the Grassroots. It will succeed only if grassroots people choose to engage and support and promote. It was worth doing whether that occurs or not because you will have been given a choice. You will know which choice you made and why.

TeapartyGrassroots.com is now online. At this incredible site you can find an event or list an event. The event will be published to a composite page and a master teaparty google calendar. We have also opened a page and a calendar for LibertyRider - Michael Maresco and his cross country ride with day one now complete and Michael safely in Trenton NJ. This website and calendar process has huge implications for our movement and the protection thereof if you will make it yours. If you continue to empower the national groups sapping your strength - that will be your choice because at least now you have an option. [Editor's note: more sections to this project are opening daily including now: all events, teaparties, other rallies and protests, liberty rider days, conventions and conferences, media events, and volunteer opportunities.]

Please try it out and take your name off of the national sites who are taking credit for your efforts and trying to collect money from your grassroots constituents to do things that you may or may not agree with at all! I was recently at a meeting where a field director from a national group took personal credit for all the teaparties in Oklahoma. I personally knew that wasn't true so do you think I believed the other things he claimed credit for? I am not saying these national groups are all bad - just must be reined in and monitored closely by real people who actually want bailouts stopped, the constitution followed, etc. etc.

I pray you will ponder these matters and understand the importance of proper action. Please properly empower the real servant leaders among you and rein in those who are plundering your efforts and sapping your energy to other ends. Please let us know how you plan to help by commenting on this piece here and sharing it with your networks if you are in agreement.

For Life and Liberty,
Sandra Crosnoe for
Constitutional Liberty Coalition

February 2, 2009 OperationTea Party

noreply@blogger.com (reland1) — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:09:00 +0000
Tea Party was posted on :

PabloMac's Other Blog 02/02/09

ChicagoBungalow's blog 02/03/09

Great Regurgitated runt Rants 02/05/09

Facebook group 02/02/09

Tcot Action Project 02/03/09

Original Twitter Tea Party Blog Post-February 2, 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Pablo Mac) — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:02:00 +0000
Here is a link to my original Twitter Tea Party blog post from February 2, 2009. It seems so long ago, as in back when we had more of our Constitution still in place…

Do you like the fake check?

HERE IS WHAT IS ON @PabloMac's blog

Operation Twitter Tea Party

Direct link to full-size faux check.

On April 15, 2009, a bunch of Twitterers (follow me!) are planning to make a statement against:

1) the tax issues of 0bama's pick for Treasury Secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, and Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Daschle, both of whom made moves to rectify unpaid taxes only when they were chosen for their new jobs.

- and -

2) taxation without representation (remember last time?)

Additionally, some of us will be participating to make a loud and clear statement to End The Fed, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act (H.R. 2755) and restore America to a sound monetary system.

Under Operation Twitter Tea Party, Conservatives, Liberals and anyone else (this is NOT a partisan issue!) concerned about transparency and accountability in our government officials will be printing the above graphic of a fake check, and sending it to the Internal Revenue Service.

Please note that our previous suggestion to include a soggy tea bag is withdrawn, as we don't want or need any issues with potential security concerns. DO NOT SEND A TEABAG IN YOUR "TWITTER TEA PARTY" IRS SUBMISSION!

We will send a loud and clear message to Washington that US Citizens expect integrity and transparency in our government officials!

Post a comment below to tell us you will be participating!

Twitter Tea Party Facebook Group

Twitter Tea Party Facebook Event

Add the Twitter Tea Party to your Google Calendar

10 Republicans who voted for the tax cheat/wonder boy Tim Giethner because he was so uniquely qualified — with iron-clad credibility — to do the job:

Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Voinovich (R-OH)

Posted by Pablo Mac at 4:08 PM

Labels: Operation Twitter Tea Party Geithner Daschle Pablo Mac

9 comments:

Zan said...

wow - that was fast - great job- will send to all on my lists! Thanks

4:32 PM
reland1 said...

I'm in. When do we start? We need a start date!

4:34 PM
reland1 said...

Just invited all of Michelle's ppl over to join us in the Tea Party!

4:35 PM
Jessica James said...

Count me in. I'll dig out the war paint.

4:42 PM
reland1 said...

opened a FaceBook group too Operation Twitter Tea Party
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=59324756387

5:38 PM
Leo Pusateri said...

Okay--I'm in.

6:28 PM
A.P. Yooper said...

On board...

5:20 AM
Southside^Slugger said...

It's a little late, but this is going around as well.

If You Have Not Heard...
NO REAL TEA BAGS!!! YOU MAY GET IN TROUBLE IF THEY ARE SENT!! USE PIC OF TEA ONLY!!

Feb 1st is the 2009 Tea Party.!!! Everyone send a photo or a drawing of a tea bag...or cut the end off a tea box (DO NOT SEND A REAL TEA BAG) and send it to your state representatives. Everyone is sending one to Pelosi and Reid also!! You can google their address info.

Write inside....Welcome To The Revolution! We're Mad And We Are NOT Going To Take It Anymore!

Mail Them On Feb 1st

Tell Everyone!!!
Thank You

DO NOT SEND OUT REAL TEA BAGS!! TOO EXPENSIVE AND COULD GET YOU IN TROUBLE!!

REMEMBER: A guy sent some white powder to people as a joke and went to jail!!
So do not send out the real tea bags!! As smart as our Reps are , they would probably think it is pot or something!
So they need the PICTURE!!! to understand!!

7:33 PM
Southside^Slugger said...

http://www.resistnet.com/

7:35 PM

HOW THE TEA PARTIES BEGAN

noreply@blogger.com (reland1) — Wed, 27 May 2009 00:41:00 +0000
As you will soon see here, the original Tea Party idea began on Twitter one evening in February, 2009. A few Twitter friends, disgusted by their rights being trampled while their hard earned dollars were being literally stolen by the unconstitutional Federal Reserve, the United States Treasury Department, and an out of control Congress and Senate, declared enough!!

The original Tea Party Partners were @Ddoutel, @ZanP, @PabloMac, @apackof2 and @reland1. The restored tweets will be entered here by each Partner for you to see. We rebutt the claim that the TeaParty's were anything other than a grassroots movement. The proof exposing that MSM lie will be posted here.

@reland1

What a few posts on twitter can bring about!!

noreply@blogger.com (Zan) — Wed, 27 May 2009 00:18:00 +0000
Birmingham Shelby County Alabama July 4th Tea Party is one of the results of the "Original Operation Twitter Tea Party" we have grown from 1 to 25 t0 over 7000!
Check us out at
www.rainydaypatriots.org
or on face book search:
Birmingham Shelby County Alabama July 4th Tea Party~Celebrating Freedom
copy and paste in search link

twitter @alabamateaparty

Fighting to Restore Our Constitutional Republic
Rainy Day Patriots

noreply@blogger.com (reland1) — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:30:00 +0000

IRS...HERE'S YOUR CHECK!!!

THE TEA PARTY CONTINUES...... PLEASE LEAVE COMMENT "I'M IN" OR JUST ADD YOURSELF AS FOLLOWER!!!

Under Operation Twitter Tea Party, conservatives, liberals and anyone else concerned about transparency and accountability in our government officials will be sending a Faux check to the Internal Revenue Service, with a picture of soggy tea bag.

How do you make your soggy tea bag letter? Place faux check and picture of soggy tea bag in envelope. Place your name on the envelope and be sure YOUR taxes are paid.

We will send a loud and clear message to Washington that US citizens expect integrity and transparency in our government officials!

Oh, and just a reminder about the 10 Republicans who voted for the tax cheat/wonder boy Tim Giethner, because he was so uniquely qualified — with iron-clad credibility — to do the job:

Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Voinovich (R-OH)

And those three Rino's that voted for the Porkulus Bill:

Specter (R-PA)
Snowe (R-ME
Collins (R-ME)

Join us on Twitter @TCOTmembers

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 at 9:00am
End Time:Thursday, April 16, 2009 at 9:00am

Location:
Internal Revenue Service
10th St & Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC

APRIL 15th IS TEA PARTY DAY!

If you want to make double impact, make up 2 TEA PARTY envelopes mail one to IRS and also:

MAIL ONE TO YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE!!!--------->

Related articles by Zemanta
President says 'I screwed up' on Daschle (msnbc.msn.com)
The Caymans: isles of plenty (guardian.co.uk)

NO REAL TEA BAGS!!!

noreply@blogger.com (reland1) — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:56:00 +0000

If You Have Not Heard...

NO REAL TEA BAGS!!! YOU MAY GET IN TROUBLE IF THEY ARE SENT!! USE PIC OF TEA ONLY!!

Write inside....Welcome To The Revolution! We're Mad And We Are NOT Going To Take It Anymore!

REMEMBER: A guy sent some white powder to people as a joke and went to jail!!
So do not send out the real tea bags!! As smart as our Reps are, they would probably think it is pot or something!

So they need the PICTURE!!! to understand!!

The ORIGINAL Operation Twitter Tea Party

The TRUTH Will Set You Free.

History of The Militia

The Second Amendment and the States

Oh Say Can You See?

CLC Gets Grizzly Tonight Exploring Grassroots Politics and Current Events!

STOP Sotomayor Now -- Vote this week!

STOP Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to US Supreme Court

(for more details/links on these bills)

"Health Care Reform" / Socialized Medicine

The PASS Act H.R. 1291

HR 2454 (2998) American Clean Energy and Security Act - Cap & Trade

S. 909 Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Bill

Ordinary Patriots, Extraordinary Sacrifices

Looking Forward to Liberty - Ryan Underwood at Broken Arrow TeaParty July 4th

D. R. I. P. USA

Open Letter to the Grassroots -- of, for, and by us all!

An Alternative for Tea Party and Why One is Necessary

Consider a real grassroots alternative for the Tea Party "movement"

What is the purpose of "the Tea Party movement"?

What will be accomplished?

A fantasy:

The Reality:

Hi-jackers, Co-opters, and Interferers

It's important at this stage to ask the question: Why are people rising up to organize and attend Tea Parties?

But beyond PR concerns, and the specific issues surrounding the Republican Party, it begs the question, once again, if we have even a small amount of understanding in regards to how serious are problems are, why are we not re-examining the way we do everything?

American's entire financial system, the value of its currency is hanging on the edge of a cliff. Individual liberty and the Constitution are hanging by a thread and time is running out.

We need a central, national repository website administered directly by State grassroots leadership, not controlled by one man, or small handful of individuals who have clearly exhibited murky motivations, attempted to capture people's contact information, and raised funds for their own purposes.

Will Grassroots Leaders Arise?

February 2, 2009 OperationTea Party

Original Twitter Tea Party Blog Post-February 2, 2009

9 comments:

HOW THE TEA PARTIES BEGAN

What a few posts on twitter can bring about!!

NO REAL TEA BAGS!!!