States rebel against Washington
tlanta - There's an old joke in South Carolina: Confederate President Jefferson Davis may have surrendered at the Burt-Stark mansion in Abbeville, S.C., in 1865, but the people of state Rep. Michael Pitts's district never did.
With revolutionary die-hards behind him, Mr. Pitts has fired a warning shot across the bow of the Washington establishment. As the writer of one of 28 state "sovereignty bills" – one even calls for outright dissolution of the Union if Washington doesn't rein itself in – Pitts is at the forefront of a states' rights revival, reasserting their say on everything from stem cell research to the Second Amendment.
"Washington can be a bully, but there's evidence right now that there are people willing to resist our bully," said Pitts, by phone from the state capitol of Columbia.
Just as California under President Bush asserted itself on issues ranging from gun control to medical marijuana, a motley cohort of states – from South Carolina to New Hampshire, from Washington State to Oklahoma – are presenting a foil for President Obama's national ambitions. And they're laying the groundwork for a political standoff over the 10th Amendment, which cedes all power not granted to Washington to the people.
The movement's success will largely depend on whether Washington sees these legislative insurgents as serious – or, as Pitts puts it, as just "a bunch of rednecks."
"There's a lot of frustration when someone quite distant from you forces you to do something you don't want to do," says Steve Smith, director of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in D.C. "That's the root cause, and it ends up being rationalized in constitutional terms."
Resurgent states
The reversal of the federal stem cell research ban, a stimulus package widely seen as a backdoor grasp for more federal power, and fears about gun control have accelerated a state sovereignty movement that began taking shape under the Bush administration. In the past, both liberals and conservatives have used states' rights arguments for political expedience. That may be the case now as ousted conservatives try to force issues out of Washington and into states, where they have a better chance of winning them.
"Where power resides and who gets to do what – there's been an ongoing interpretation of that through our history," says Idaho State Rep. George Sayler of Coeur d'Alene, who voted against a states' rights bill that passed recently in the Gem State. "Sometimes the federal government asserts a stronger role, and it looks now like we might be getting into a period where the states" push for more power.
Some examples:
•The Idaho House began considering Wednesday a law against introducing "vicious animals" into the state – a direct rebuttal of the federal wolf reintroduction program.
•Montana and Tennessee have introduced proposals to expand gun rights. Tennessee State Sen. Doug Jackson says his bill to ban proposed federal "microstamping" of ammunition could spark a movement. "The trampling on our rights to possess firearms is symbolic of a power grab by the federal government on a much larger scale," said Senator Jackson, by phone from Nashville.
•Oklahoma and Georgia are both considering limits on stem cell research in response to Mr. Obama's reversal of the federal stem cell ban. It's the flip side of the Bush era when several Northeastern states allowed such research despite the federal ban.
The status of "state sovereignty" resolutions are largely up in the air, with a few passed, some moving through committee, and some voted down. New Hampshire's resolution, the only one with a "nullification" of the Union clause, was voted down largely along partisan lines.
A response to federal expansion
Although the idea of states' rights took hold in the run-up to the Civil War in order for the South to preserve, among other things, the institution of slavery, today's debates are really about whether there's any power left for the states to carve out of the Constitution.
"If you set up the principle where the federal government can do everything, then, yes, eventually they will do everything. If not, where's the line they can't cross?" says Michael Boldin, president of the Tenth Amendment Center in Los Angeles. "That's the Constitution, I believe."
The courts mainly stood by as federal power expanded by great leaps in the 1930s and the 1960s. There's been another burst of federal expansion in the 2000s, including Mr. Bush's USA Patriot Act and Obama's proposed overhaul of banking regulations.
The fact is, "there's no longer any effective limitations on federal power," says Randy Barnett, a Georgetown law professor who argued for California's medical marijuana law in front of the Supreme Court.
Yet the state sovereignty movement is by no means frivolous and could have significant political firepower. The medical marijuana case in California, for instance, showed that Washington can be forced to scale back its ambitions in the face of populist sentiment.
And although Pitts hails from Abbeville, the place where the South's first secession votes were cast, he insists that today's efforts to check federal power aren't limited to regional pockets or even political affiliation. "The mainstream media would portray some of us as rednecks, whether we're from Pennsylvania, Oregon, or South Carolina," says Pitts. "But this is a wake-up call. And if Washington doesn't heed that wake-up call, revolution is on the horizon."
http://frc4u.org/phpbb/index.php?topic=647.0
Obama passing new law to allow searching of PC's, Laptops, and media devices
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHzKxtwuGzo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvotersthink%2Eorg%2F%3Fp%3D1295&feature=player_embedded
The personal computer may soon be not-so-private, with the U.S. and some European nations working on laws allowing them access to search the content held on a person's hard drive.
President Obama's administration is keeping unusually tight-lipped on the details, which is raising concerns among computer users and liberty activists.
Almost everyone today owns a music player and a laptop. But what if the Government decided to allow itself to access these personal devices for no specific reason whatsoever?
http://www.russiatoday.com/Sci_Tech/2...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2215807/posts
Missouri Scraps M.I.A.C. Report
Chuck Baldwin
MISSOURI SCRAPS M.I.A.C. REPORT
Well, there is still hope for liberty after all! After multiple thousands of phone calls, emails, faxes, and other communications from outraged citizens, the State of Missouri has rescinded its controversial "militia" report. This proves the point I made in this column recently that the most effective way to fight an ever-encroaching federal leviathan is to focus on our individual states.
Let me review the events of the last few weeks so as to help readers familiarize themselves with this historic--and I do mean historic--episode.
On February 20, 2009, the State of Missouri, via its Department of Public Safety, issued what was called "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement." In this report, people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and yours truly were referenced as being connected to potentially dangerous "militia members." But the inference did not stop there. People of conservative ideology were also identified in the State Police report as being potentially dangerous. People who held political opinions opposing abortion, illegal immigration, the New World Order, the North American Union, the Income Tax, the U.N., etc., were profiled in the MIAC report.
Interestingly enough, no left-leaning political ideologies were identified. No Islamic extremists. No environmental extremists. Only people holding "conservative" or "right-wing" philosophies were identified in the MIAC report.
The MIAC report was categorized as "Unclassified/Law Enforcement Sensitive," meaning the report was intended for law enforcement personnel only. Fortunately, an unidentified (for obvious reasons) Missouri law enforcement officer, who was extremely disturbed by this report, sent a copy to nationally syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones. Of course, Jones immediately "blew the whistle" on the story. This was on March 11.
On March 14, the Columbia (Missouri) Daily Tribune ran a story on the subject, and on March 17, I wrote my first column about it. From that point, the story went viral.
Internet sites, radio talk show hosts, and bloggers all over America picked up the story, and thousands of outraged citizens began bombarding the appropriate officials in Missouri with protests. Even Fox News Channel talk show host Glenn Beck ran a feature on the story on Friday, March 20, and again on Monday, March 23. The Constitution Party issued a "Travel Advisory" for the State of Missouri, warning tourists and residents about the possibility of being profiled by State Police for such things as having bumper stickers with political statements on their vehicles, etc. All of this commotion was not lost on several Missouri State legislators and executive officers, either.
Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder called on Governor Jay Nixon (who had previously stood by and defended the MIAC report) to place Department of Public Safety Director John Britt on administrative leave pending an investigation into the report. In addition, several Missouri State legislators said they would introduce an amendment to the Department of Public Safety's budget barring the agency from using "state or federal funds for political profiling."
On March 23, DPS Director John Britt sent an apology letter to Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and me stating, "I have ordered that the offending report be edited so as to excise all reference to Ron Paul, Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin and to any third-party political organizations."
While Ron, Bob, and I appreciated the apology and retraction from Mr. Britt, the overriding offense of the report still lingered: namely, the report, with a very broad brush, linked people holding conservative political opinions to dangerous and violence-prone "militias," which Missouri law enforcement personnel were instructed to be on guard against. Therefore, public outcry against the MIAC report continued, Mr. Britt's apology notwithstanding.
Then, on Wednesday, March 25, the head of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, Col. James F. Keathley, ordered the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) to "permanently cease distribution" of this abysmal report. Keathley said that neither he nor Britt had read the report before it was distributed.
Keathley also noted that the report was filled with numerous spelling and grammatical errors and did not cite any sources for its broad statements about "right-wing" militias. He further said that his department would now review how the MIAC distributes intelligence reports to police officers. He said the process "needs improvement."
This sordid story is truly an embarrassment to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the State of Missouri. Governor Nixon, especially, is left with egg on his face for foolishly and stupidly standing behind the report, when he had either never read it, or, if he had, was just as guilty of political profiling as the ones who wrote the report.
Why DHS, you ask? Because the MIAC report is similar to several other reports currently circulating around various State police agencies courtesy of DHS-sponsored "Fusion Centers." There is another side of this story that is even more sinister, however.
If we can continue to probe the details of the MIAC report, I am absolutely convinced we will find that this report actually originates with Morris Dees and his ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center. And if my hunch (a very educated hunch, I might add) is correct, it means that the DHS and various State police agencies around the country are allowing a left-wing special interest group to use them to harass, intimidate, and profile people with conservative political opinions.
I would further proffer that those of us who are outraged by this event should not stop with the MIAC report being removed. While this is very good news, the fear and intimidation associated with those referenced in this report has already taken place. Are people opposed to abortion, illegal immigration, the Income Tax, the U.N., etc., now afraid to express their opinions publicly (especially in Missouri)? If so, this seems to me to be the basis for legal action, based on the abridgment of the First Amendment freedom of speech by a State (and perhaps federal) law enforcement agency.
There is yet another chilling question that must be answered: by saying Missouri State Police will "review" how MIAC distributes intelligence reports to police officers, does Col. Keathley mean that the State of Missouri's law enforcement agencies will continue to promote similar reports, but simply make them "Classified"? In other words, will they (and other State police agencies around the country) simply employ greater secrecy when issuing such reports, but do nothing to change the content of future reports? Hopefully not, but we shall see.
With that said, here are the lessons all of us need to take to heart:
*Every police officer, deputy sheriff, and law enforcement officer in America who believes in constitutional government, individual liberty, and the Bill of Rights needs to be alert for any report that smacks of the MIAC report, and be willing to quickly "blow the whistle" on any such report they see.
*Lovers of freedom should be much encouraged to see what can happen when they are willing to stand up to their State governing officials as they see abridgements to their liberties taking place. I say again, the best way to fight these mushrooming despotic tendencies of government we seem to see everywhere is to focus on our State governments. Do you now see why I say that? Even if DHS was behind the MIAC report, it was the State of Missouri that had to implement it; and it was the State of Missouri that (under pressure) killed it.
See my column on this important subject here.
*Notice, too, that we did not need the major media to achieve this victory. We cut off this one branch of the tyranny tree without the help of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX NEWS (with the exception of Glenn Beck), or even the Drudge Report. Victory was achieved with the weapons of talk radio, syndicated Internet columns, Internet blogging, and word of mouth.
You see, folks, we can achieve victory without the major media. But we must stay focused and actively involved in our respective State governments. "We the people" are still the power of this country. And don't let anyone deceive you into believing anything else. Therefore, take heart in knowing that your diligence convinced the State of Missouri to rescind its atrocious MIAC report. Now, don't let it stop there. Let's faithfully cut off the tentacles of tyranny wherever we find them. Amen?
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin501.htm
Vitamin D Pills May Prevent Fractures in Older Adults
Vitamin D supplements may help prevent fractures in people over 65, provided they take enough of the right kind. A new review of clinical trials appears to show a strong dose-dependent effect for vitamin D in lowering the risk for nonvertebral fractures in the elderly.
Prevention of Nonvertebral Fractures With Oral Vitamin D and Dose Dependency (The Archives of Internal Medicine) The lead author of the analysis, Heike A. Bischoff-Ferrari, a professor of medicine at the University of Zurich, said that “vitamin D in a high enough dose is not only beneficial in the frail older population, but it also works in those still living at home and able to take care of themselves.”
The researchers, writing in the March 23 issue of The Archives of Internal Medicine, reviewed 12 randomized trials that together included more than 65,000 subjects. Doses under 400 international units a day had no discernible effect, but for doses larger than that, the pooled data showed a 20 percent reduction in the risk for all nonvertebral fractures, and an 18 percent reduction for broken hips.
The type of vitamin D made a difference. The effect of vitamin D3 was significant, with a 23 percent risk reduction, but there was no significant reduction with vitamin D2. The authors suggest that D3 is more effective in maintaining blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the active form that the supplement takes in the body.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/health/research/31aging.html?_r=1&hpw
Gates: U.S. Not Prepared to Respond to North Korea Missile Launch
The defense secretary told "FOX News Sunday" that the United States can do nothing to stop North Korea from thumbing its nose at the international community by test-firing a long-range missile.
The United States can do nothing to stop North Korea from breaking international law in the next 10 days by firing a missile that is unlikely to be shot down by the U.S. or its allies, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday.
Appearing on "FOX News Sunday," Gates said North Korea "probably will" fire the missile, prompting host Chris Wallace to ask: "And there's nothing we can do about it?"
"No," Gates answered, adding, "I would say we're not prepared to do anything about it."
Last week, Admiral Timothy Keating, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, said the U.S. is "fully prepared" to shoot down the missile. But Gates said such a response is unlikely.
"I think if we had an aberrant missile, one that was headed for Hawaii, that looked like it was headed for Hawaii or something like that, we might consider it," Gates said. "But I don't think we have any plans to do anything like that at this point."
North Korea has moved a missile onto a launch pad and says it will be fired by April 8. Pyonyang insists the missile is designed for carrying a communications satellite, not a nuclear warhead that the secretive nation appears bent on developing.
Gates said while he doesn't think North Korea has the capability yet to shoot off a long-range nuclear-tipped missile, "I don't know anyone at a senior level in the American government who does not believe this technology is intended as a mask for the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile."
Gates conceded that North Korea will likely get away with thumbing its nose at the international community by test-firing the missile. He also said that six-party talks aimed at curbing Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions have been largely fruitless.
"It's very troubling," Gates said. "The reality is that the six-party talks really have not made any headway anytime recently."
Gates also lamented that the missile launch planned by dictator Kim Jong-Il comes just two months after President Obama took office.
"If this is Kim Jong-Il's welcoming present to a new president, launching a missile like this and threatening to have a nuclear test, I think it says a lot about the imperviousness of this regime in North Korea to any kind of diplomatic overtures," he said.
Gates also said Japan is unlikely to shoot down a North Korean missile unless it drops debris on the island nation.
The Obama administration has signaled it wants to scale back the deployment of a missile defense system that was initiated by former President George W. Bush. The White House is also talking about dropping plans for missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Gates lamented the futility of diplomatic efforts toward North Korea and Iran, another nation with nuclear ambitions. Despite the Obama administration's talk of ramping up diplomatic overtures toward Tehran, Gates was pessimistic about that strategy.
"Frankly, from my perspective, the opportunity for success is probably more in economic sanctions in both places than it is in diplomacy," Gates said. "What gets them to the table is economic sanctions."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/29/gates-prepared-respond-north-korea-missile-launch/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment