Dirt Rhodes Scholar

Go to Oath Keepers Site to Read Recent Writings by Stewart Rhodes

2009-10-20T02:00:00.003-07:00

This is my old, private blog that is now sadly neglected since I have launched Oath Keepers, which has truly taken off like a rocket, leaving me no time for personal blogging - not that I'm complaining. the Oath Keepers mission is very important, and worth the time and effort.

Go here: www.oathkeepers.org

However, if you want to see what prompted me to finally launch Oath Keepers, there are several posts on this blog that show my thinking (in addition to my writings for SWAT Magazine).

Back in 2006 I wrote several scathing criticisms of the Bush Administration's absurd and dangerous claims of nearly unlimited executive "war" powers. Those articles built on my research at Yale Law School (where I won the Miller Prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights).

One of the most common refrains I get from Obama supporters is "where were you when Bush was violating the Constitution." Well, I was right here. Read this:

Government Supremacists: Neocons, the National Security New Dealers

And to see my thinking of how all that expansion of claimed war powers could be turned inward, and used on the American people, read this 2006 article:

The Clinton Era Proposal to Use Military Tribunals on McVeigh and the Militias

That article explains how, back in the Clinton years, there was a proposal to use the laws of war and military tribunals on McVeigh and also on the militia movement. That proposal went nowhere, but then Bush used the same precedents cited in that proposal, and then put into place modern doctrines and case law that built precisely the infrastructure of domestic application of he laws of war advocated in that Clinton era proposal. So, what Clinton did not have, Bush built, and now that vastly expanded executive power is laying around like a loaded gun, just waiting to be picked up and used by a future president who may be tempted to use it against political opponents and so-called "domestic terrorists."

Lastly, here is a post that describes my phone call with the Iowa National Guard Public Relations officer that finally prompted me to start Oath Keepers:

My Phone Call With Col. Hapgood of the Iowa National Guard About Training for House to House Search for a "Weapons Dealer"

Democratic Senator Byrd Warns of Obama Power Grab - Following In Bush's Footsteps

2009-02-26T15:14:00.001-07:00

Hat tip to Mike V.

From Politico:

Byrd: Obama in power grab

By JOHN BRESNAHAN

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

While it's rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House. Byrd no longer holds the powerful Appropriations chairmanship, so his criticism does not carry as much weight these days. Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he's not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations ....

Well, good for Byrd! Nice to see some resistance somewhere in the Senate.

So much for "change." Obama is merely continuing the nearly unbroken pattern of presidents gathering more power to the Executive branch under one guise or another that has been going on for many decades, regardless of which party controls the White House.

Obama faces a decision as early as next week on whether to support a claim of executive privilege made by former President Bush in refusing to allow Karl Rove, the former deputy White House chief of staff, to be deposed by the House Judiciary Committee on the White House’s role in the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

Bush claimed “absolute immunity” for top advisers in resisting such subpoenas, but Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, filed a lawsuit over the issue. The case is on appeal, and the Obama administration is scheduled to file a motion next week laying out its stance on the issue.

Read the whole thing here:

And watch this video:

How much do you want to bet that Obama criticizes Bush's particular use of that claimed executive immunity, but supports that power as being valid, necessary, and "constitutional" for a president to be able to carry out his duties?

Of course, we know Obama's application of all that power will be "special" and "for the children" and to "help people." And thus, most Democrats will be as cozy, warm, and fuzzy about it as Republicans were when it was their man wiping his ass with the Constitution. Just a bunch of nice sleeping frogs in the ever-heating pot. Byrd is a rare exception - a man who will challenge and criticize his own party's president.

Notice how Obama is not satisfied with the fact that his party now controls Congress - he doesn't want to even have to bother with Congress. He wants his internal White House staff to rule everything by decree, under his direct supervision. His exaulted Great Vision for Our Lives will flow straight from the mind of "the One," right into the hands of Rahm Emanuel (known as "the enforcer"), pure, undiluted, and unsullied by the foul hands of mere congress-critters, to be immediately implemented by absolutely obedient staff members who consider their only loyalty to be to Obama. "Stroke of a pen, law of the land, kinda cool!" has returned.

Sound familiar? It should, because the Bush Administration was the same, of course. Even when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, the Bush Administration consistently asserted that the President has an independent "unitary executive" power and does not need Congress for much of anything, except perhaps appropriations (and that is now no longer really even respected).

The claims of independent executive power by the Bush Administration were absurd - amounting to nothing less than the claim that the President, once elected, under his constitutional Article II powers, is absolutely unrestrained and unhindered by any other branch of government, any provision in the main body of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Basically, the argument was that the President is an elected dictator. Remember what James Madison warned:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." - James Madison, Federalist No. 47

Just for the record, I warned about this back in 2006. See my article Government Supremacists: Neocons, the National Security New Dealers. But of course, few Republicans listened because it was their guy doing it.

Well, now the totalitarian boot is on the other foot - the left foot.

The goal of executive supremacists in both parties is to make Congress an irrelevant debating society, such that it really doesn't matter which party holds a majority in Congress.

And that is yet another reason why the threat of a repeat of 1994 has no teeth as a check on what Obama does - even if Republicans retake Congress (and presuming the GOP quislings don't just go along) Obama will simply ignore them and do what he wants by executive order and decree through these special White House offices and through all of the other mechanisms of vastly expanded Executive Power he inherited from Bush.

We are now in the age of elected dictatorship, with the only election that really matters being for the presidency - and once elected, any President can do pretty much as he pleases.

He will be not just "The One" but also "The Law" since his every spoken word will have the force of law, and all the might of the Executive branch, behind it. He truly will be "the Decider."

The one great difference is that Obama will very likely turn the "war on terror" inward on gun owners and a resurgent militia movement. And that may be the spark that sets off the powder keg that is America.

Stewart Rhodes

National Guard scraps plans to invade rural town 'This operation could be pretty intrusive to the people'

2009-02-20T22:22:00.003-07:00

Well, looks like they called it off!

(hat tip to Mike V.)

Posted: February 20, 2009
4:24 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily DES MOINES, Iowa – Following publicized reports that the Army National Guard was planning a military training exercise on the streets of a rural Iowa town, the commanding officers have called off the mock "invasion."
The Guard had planned a four-day urban military operation in tiny Arcadia, Iowa, population 443, sending troops to take over the town and search door-to-door for a suspected weapons dealer
.
The exercise was designed as a mock scenario to give soldiers the skills needed for deployment in an urban environment, and military officials stressed that only households that consented to be part of the drill would be searched.
"It will be important for us to gain the trust and confidence of the residents of Arcadia," Sgt. Mike Kots, readiness NCO for Alpha Company, told Carroll's Daily Times Herald. "We will need to identify individuals that are willing to assist us in training by allowing us to search their homes and vehicles and to participate in role-playing.
"We really want to get as much information out there as possible," Kots continued, "because this operation could be pretty intrusive to the people of Arcadia."
Military spokesman Lt. Col. Greg Hapgood, however, told WND that the operation has now been "scaled back" and no longer involves an "invasion" of Arcadia.
And while Hapgood confirmed the Guard had been inundated with objections from citizens concerned about soldiers patrolling the streets of an American town, he said most came from people out of state and unfamiliar with the operation. Iowans, he explained, typically cooperate with the Guard. The change in plans was based on troop evaluation, he said, not public outcry.
....

"There are no active duty bases in Iowa, so there are no urban warfare training areas of any size," Hopgood said. "In order to get that larger neighborhood feel or city feel, we have to be creative and partner with our communities."
Hopgood further told WND that in past cooperative exercises with the community, the people of Iowa have welcomed learning how their sons and daughters operate in action.
Plans for the urban operation training, Hopgood explained, are still set to continue, but will be conducted in a smaller, platoon-by-platoon basis in the near vicinity of the Carroll armory.

Read the whole thing here.

Well now, that's interesting! So, "the change in plans was based on troop evaluation, he said, not public outcry." I have my doubts about that!

The public outcry was pretty loud, including people beginning to plan to stage demonstrations, marches, and even half in jest proposals for patriotic Americans to show up and serve as OPFOR (opposing forces for training). Only half in jest ... that means at least half serious.

Americans just do not cotton to the notion of any troops training to go house to house and search for guns, even if it is explained as being done with the best intentions. The current political environment is just too much on edge, as I noted here.

Stewart

My Phone Call With Col. Hapgood of the Iowa National Guard About Training for House to House Search for a "Weapons Dealer"

2009-02-20T16:19:00.009-07:00

I just had an interesting and rather emotional phone call with Col Hapgood, Public Affairs Officer, of the IA National Guard (Pete of WRSA sent me his phone number). I introduced myself as a veteran and a writer for S.W.A.T. Magazine, and said I needed confirmation and clarification on the planned house to house search exercise scheduled for Arcadia Iowa for April 2-5, 2009 because people were very, very concerned.

The Colonel told me it is only to prepare them for Afghanistan and Iraq.

He said that there are no full time military in Iowa, and therefore no place to train in the state to get them ready for MOUT and that is why they used local towns.

He said they were baffled by all this [uproar] because it is just routine training to prepare them for deployment to combat in urban environments overseas.

I asked him why that particular scenario was picked - of having NG troops searching for a "weapons dealer."

He said that in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have to do searches for weapons caches and need to train for it, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with domestic deployment or any plans for domestic use.

I asked him that question twice - "so, it is not for domestic use or training for future domestic use?" And he said no, not at all.

I told him, in no uncertain terms, that Americans, especially gun owners, were extremely concerned because of the current political climate and because of the potential for civil unrest in the future because of the economy - we hear all manner of rumors about preparations for such disturbances - and the use of a scenario of searching for a gun dealer seems aimed at gun owners - and in particular we are concerned because of who is now in power.

As an example of why we are concerned, I told him how Rahm Emanuel, who is called "the second most powerful man in America" gave a speech before the Brady Bunch in 2007 advocating that anyone on the no-fly list be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms, and anyone can be put on that list at any time.

I told him that we know they want to disarm us.

And that is why folks are so very alarmed by this exercise.

I also told him that there were people planning on going there to protest.

He responded by saying that while he did not want to get into politics, he could assure me that all of the people in the Iowa National Guard are the most dedicated supporters and defenders of the Constitution and also of the right to bear arms.

And I responded by saying yes, I took that oath too - most of us did - and we just want to be sure that oath is kept, and the very last thing we ever want to see in this country is it being veteran against veteran (and this is where my voice cracked and I got rather emotional), but, I told him. we are very concerned and our radar is up because the people in power in DC have no respect for the Constitution or our rights and that is why folks wanted confirmation and clarification of this story.

I was going to remind him of what happened during Katrina, to let him know how disturbing that was to many patriots, but because he was so frank, and sounded so sincere when he said that the people in the Iowa NG are dedicated defenders of the Constitution and of the right to bear arms, I did not do that to him.

MY THOUGHTS AFTER THE PHONE CALL:

That was a tough goddamn phone call for me. I truly hope that all men and women in uniform remember, and keep, their oath. I never, ever want to see in my lifetime veterans having to fight against our own troops in defense of our rights. God forbid it.

I still have some serious concerns about this kind of training going on - especially when it is not made clear to the public that it is for training in preparation for overseas, and the "civilians" are supposed to be Afghan villagers and Iraqis.

But even with those qualifications, I still don't like it, since the troops are still going door to door, in America, searching for weapons, and that is still conditioning them for that very act, regardless of the intent.

And I don't think the Colonel or the National Guard troops understand fully just how on edge people in this country are, and how suspicious we are (for very good reason) of anything the government does that even hints at martial law or going house to house in America looking for weapons.

And however sincere the Colonel or the rest of the troops in the NG, we still DO NOT trust the politicians in DC, who have already demonstrated that their oath to support and defend the Constitution was some damn joke, since they violate it all the time.

The forked tongued bastards in DC cynically roll their eyes and mouth the oath with a bored expression on their faces because it is a mere formality before they get power and perks. They don't mean it. They have nothing but contempt for the restraints in the Constitution.

But when us veterans took that oath to defend the Constitution and this Republic against all enemies, foreign and domestic we MEANT IT with all our heart and soul, ready to give our lives to keep it.

And we still mean it, because that oath was for life.

I sure hope to hell that what the Colonel said about the NG troops' commitment to defend the Constitution is true, and I hope that if/when The Day comes, they will side with the people, and not the politicians.

But I still feel like something else is needed to express to these troops our concerns, and our resolve, and to remind them of their oaths, and of our oath. It is just too important and vital an issue to leave to chance.

We need to be sure they will be oath keepers when the chips are down.

Stewart Rhodes

UPDATE:

During our phone conversation, earlier today (Feb 20), Col. Hapgood told me that the Guard unit from Carroll Iowa would be training in the nearby town of Arcadia because there was no full time military facility in Iowa for them to train at. But then Col. Hapgood later, at my request, emailed me a written explanation of the exercise. That written statement says, in explanation of the use of a real town to train:

"this enables our Soldiers to gain proficiency in the exact tasks they will be
conducting in combat but without having to travel several hours to Camp
Dodge, which is the only military training facility in Iowa."

So, which is it? Is there no place else for them in Iowa to do this training except a local town, or is there in fact a place in Iowa for them to do such training but it is just too far for them to drive?

Pete, from WRSA, confirmed that he was told the same thing on the phone - that there was no place in Iowa for them to do this training except in a town - and then the email to him also contained the same mention of Camp Dodge, several hours away in Iowa. (go here for Pete's full post with his comments).

Setting aside that discrepancy, does it really come down to just a difference of a few hours drive time saved? The written response suggests that it does. Frankly, I would think a few hours drive time and fuel expended is worth it to avoid the Pavlovian conditioning of soldiers to search American homes for guns, and of citizens to comply. And especially considering the suspicion and uproar this particular exercise has caused, it would seem worth it to just go train at Camp Dodge.

Now, certainly a real town, with real people in it is more realistic for training, but given the particular scenario presented, of house to house searches for a "weapons dealer" this was not a very swift move in the current political environment, with gun hating extremists in control of the Executive Branch, and with truly evil legislation such as HR 45 already proposed which make it very, very clear that they fully intend to treat gun owners like pedophiles.

HR 45 would require the registering, printing, and tracking of gun owners just as if they were convicted child molesters, with a requirement that you report a change of residence to Attorney General Holder (you know, that nice man from the Clinton Admin). And the Democrats want to require all sales, even between family, friends or neighbors, to go through a dealer with a full Brady check - so, if that legislation is passed, any of us could become illegal "weapons dealers" just for doing what Americans have done for hundreds of years - sell a rifle, shotgun, or pistol to another private citizen.

One last point: The absolute "Red Dawn" scenario that gun owners fear is a declaration of martial law, followed by roadblocks, "cordoning" off areas, and then house to house searches by troops for weapons, and the confiscation of any weapons found, with deadly military force applied to any resisters. That is the nuclear war, Armageddon scenario for gun owners, and yet that is precisely what the Iowa National Guard has planned to practice - without even attempting to explain that it is supposed to mimic searches for guns in Afghanistan, not an actual gun confiscation in the U.S.

And all this in the current political environment, with sworn, public enemies of our right to bear arms in control of the office of the Presidency, both houses of Congress, and all of the massive power of the Executive Branch at their finger tips.

And the good Colonel is puzzled by the uproar?

UPDATE II: The National Guard of Iowa has canceled the planned mock "invasion" and house to house searching of Arcadia, Iowa.

Not A Dime's Bit of Difference: Republicans Propose Bill To Require ISPs, Wi-Fi Keep Logs for Police

2009-02-20T11:04:00.006-07:00

Isn't bipartisanship wonderful!

From cnet news, by Declan McCullagh:

Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new federal law that would require all Internet providers and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, even hotels, local coffee shops, and home users, to keep records about users for two years to aid police investigations.
The legislation, which echoes a measure proposed by one of their Democratic colleagues three years ago, would impose unprecedented data retention requirements on a broad swath of Internet access providers and is certain to draw fire from businesses and privacy advocates.

"While the Internet has generated many positive changes in the way we communicate and do business, its limitless nature offers anonymity that has opened the door to criminals looking to harm innocent children," U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said at a press conference on Thursday. "Keeping our children safe requires cooperation on the local, state, federal, and family level."

Ah, yes, of course! It's all "for the children." Who could be against that?

Joining Cornyn was Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who said such a measure would let "law enforcement stay ahead of the criminals."

....
In the Bush administration, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had called for a very similar proposal, saying that subscriber information and network data should be logged for two years.

Until Gonzales' remarks in 2006, the Bush administration had generally opposed laws requiring data retention, saying it had "serious reservations" about them. But after the European Parliament approved such a requirement for Internet, telephone and VoIP providers, top administration officials began talking about the practice more favorably.

Gonzales never met a totalitarian idea he did not like, so no surprise there, but I thought Republicans were against doing stuff just because those pansy Europeans did it.

After Gonzales left the Justice Department, the political will for data retention legislation seemed to ebb for a time, but then FBI Director Robert Mueller resumed lobbying efforts last spring.

This tends to be a bipartisan sentiment: Attorney General Eric Holder, a Democrat, said in 1999 that "certain data must be retained by ISPs for reasonable periods of time so that it can be accessible to law enforcement." Rep. John Conyers, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said that FBI proposals for data retention legislation "would be most welcome."

Read the rest here.

Well, if both sides of the aisle are for it, by gosh it must be good! Remember HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which proposed keeping files on people considered to be thinking dangerous thoughts and expressing dangerous ideas? That was bipartisan too, passing the House by a vote of 404 to six. It was sponsored by Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman, 36^th District of California (Chair of the Intelligence Subcommittee) and co-sponsored by a Republican.

Harman introduced HR 1955 on April 19, 2007. And she made it clear it was no coincidence, stating “April 19th marks the 12th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, which claimed 168 lives and injured over 800. Only September 11, 2001, eclipses that dark day as the deadliest act of terrorism on US soil.” She introduced her bill on April 19 to make it very clear that her goal is to go after the future “Timothy McVeighs” out there right along with Muslim terrorists.

Well, the hand holding continues! Repbublicans and Democrats have put aside whatever petty differences they may have had and are now singing the same Big Brother tune -and these Republicans are not even worried about growing the powers of Big Brother in the hands of anti-gun Holder, Emanuel, and Obama!

They simply don't care anymore who has that power, so long as it is grown - I suppose they figure they will get to use it one day themselves, and besides, they really agree with Holder, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary and Obama on nearly everything, so why not?

I am DONE with the Republican Party. Done. A pox on both their houses.

Time to sharpen those pitchforks. We can be "bipartisan" too.

Stewart

THE BILL OF RIGHTS: THE CONSTITUTION’S BUILT-IN, MANDATORY MANUAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

2009-02-18T11:32:00.006-07:00

NOTE: This article was first published in S.W.A.T. Magazine, where I write a monthly column called Enemy at the Gate which is dedicated to the Bill of Rights - and that means all of it. The publisher and editor of S.W.A.T. are committed patriots (and no, S.W.A.T. Magazine is not just for police. Its readership also includes military and non-military average folks). They have given their consent to my republishing this article online. I think it presents some foundational principles we should always keep in mind. Feel free to pass it on to others if you like, but be sure to give proper credit to S.W.A.T. Magazine.

Stewart Rhodes

So great was the Founding generation’s distrust of powerful national governments that, when they rebelled against the Crown, they created a loose league of sovereign States under the Articles of Confederation. And even when some of the leading men of the time pushed for a national government with more power, the people would never have consented to such a leviathan as we now see, de-facto, in Washington D.C. They had just thrown off a government that claimed a power to legislate over them in all matters whatsoever and were not about to replace it with another.

Instead, what they consented to by ratifying the Constitution of 1787 was a dual sovereignty system, granting the new national government only certain, enumerated, and limited powers, with no general police power (a general law-making power to pass laws for the health, safety, and welfare of the people). Only the States had such a general power, which they retained, as the debates over ratification make clear:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce …The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberty, and property of the people; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State. - James Madison, Federalist 45

Despite such reassurances, the Constitution would never have been ratified without the promise of a Bill of Rights, which the ratifying conventions of several States insisted on because they still feared misconstruction and usurpation of powers never granted.

The Federalists argued that no Bill of Rights was needed since the federal government lacked the power to infringe on any of the people’s rights and listing certain rights and protections could dangerously lead to the inference that the government otherwise had powers not granted, and to the inference that the people’s rights were somehow limited to those listed.

Fortunately, the people did not buy those arguments (imagine where we’d be now, without a Bill of Rights!) but they did address those “concerns” in their proposed amendments, to be doubly-damn sure the Constitution would not be misinterpreted as the Federalists warned. Thus the Bill of Rights itself tells us how we must interpret the Constitution.

First, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights clearly states that its purpose was to prevent misconstruction:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added …. (emphasis added).

As discussed last time, some of those “declaratory and restrictive clauses” are written protections for certain preexisting rights of the people (such as the right to bear arms) and guarantees of ancient procedural protections, such as jury trial. But two others give commands on interpretation “to prevent misconstruction”:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. – Ninth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. – Tenth Amendment. (emphasis added)

These are no mere suggestions. The Ninth Amendment uses the command language “shall not” and is as much a command as “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It also speaks of the enumeration (the listing) in the Constitution of certain rights, not the “creation by the Constitution of certain rights.”

This is no accident. As noted previously, the Bill of Rights does not create rights, but merely provides protection for rights that already exist.

And no, the Tenth Amendment is not merely a “truism.” It is a vital command on interpretation, just like the Ninth. The People meant it to have teeth.

There you go. The Constitution’s built-in manual for constitutional interpretation:

1. You shall not interpret the Constitution as creating rights, and you shall not interpret it as meaning that the people have only those rights listed. We the people have natural rights, and those rights go far beyond those explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights.

2. The national government does not have a general police power to legislate on anything it wants (despite the modern lies of the Supreme Court regarding the Commerce Clause to the contrary). It is a government of particular, enumerated powers, and you shall construe its powers narrowly, as the people intended. There are other powers, which we the people have not granted, and we reserve all of those other powers to our sovereign State governments, or to ourselves.

From all of this, St. George Tucker, in his 1803 commentaries on the Constitution, derived the principle that all of the Constitution’s rights protecting provisions should be read very broadly, while the power granting provisions should be read very narrowly. Tucker was correct, but you don’t need to be a legal scholar to figure it out.

The people who ratified the Constitution did not leave the vital question of its interpretation open to be manipulated by some smart-alecky modern law professor out for tenure and a book deal, or by some future federal judge playing God – they gave us their commands for how it shall and “shall not be construed.”

And it is their understanding and intent that matters, not the preferences of the Nine Nazgul on the Court. Any “interpretive methods” that are contrary to those commands are not only inaccurate, but are themselves violations of the Constitution. Think about that the next time you hear some smooth talking lawyer, judge, professor, or politician prattling on about his own pet “modality” of constitutional interpretation. Look past the smoke and mirrors, and ask yourself if what you are hearing squares with the commands of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

When you use the powerful interpretive lenses the Bill of Rights provides, you will see “Them” for what they are, and you will no longer be fooled.

If you enjoyed this article and would like to read other S.W.A.T. Magazine Enemy at the Gate columns by Stewart Rhodes, you can purchase back issues of S.W.A.T. online, here in electronic format (PDF downloads) or as printed back issues here. You can also subscribe here.

THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

2009-02-18T11:20:00.005-07:00

NOTE: This article was first published in S.W.A.T. Magazine, where I write a monthly column called Enemy at the Gate which is dedicted to the Bill of Rights - and that means all of it. The publisher and editor of S.W.A.T. are committed patriots (and no, S.W.A.T. Magazine is not just for police. Its readership also includes military and non-military average folks). They have given their consent to my republishing this article online. I think it presents some foundational principles we should always keep in mind. Feel free to pass it on to others if you like, but be sure to give proper credit to S.W.A.T. Magazine.

Stewart Rhodes

Ben Franklin reportedly remarked that the Constitution formed “a Republic … if you can keep it.” Well, you can’t keep it if you don’t know what it is.

So, what is it? As George Mason said, “no free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” What are the fundamental principles of our Republic? Should we look first to Supreme Court decisions for such guidance? Hardly. As Jefferson said:

They [the judges] are … in fact the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate.

And that was when the ideas of the Enlightenment still reigned supreme, long before the infestation of Marxism among legal elites. No, the Court has long ago gone astray. Let us begin with our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness ….

There, at the heart of our Republic, are not just the concepts of equality and consent of the people, but also natural rights. The Declaration of Independence is fundamentally a natural law document and the “long train of abuses” that made revolt necessary were not only deprivations of representation (as we were taught in school), but also of natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property, and the abuse of all of the ancient, hard won procedural protections of those rights, such as habeas corpus and jury trial in a civilian court, rather than a court of admiralty. They finally shot back when the government attempted to strip them of the means of resisting the already ongoing abuse of their other natural rights.

Rights come first, and then government is created to protect them, not the other way round. This is something modern political and legal elites want us to forget. They don’t believe in inalienable, natural rights that are ours by virtue of ‘nature and nature’s God.” Instead, they share the view of Karl Marx, that such “rights” are merely artificial political/legal constructs, that man is just an infinitely malleable animal (to be shaped by social engineers), with no inherit rights whatsoever, and your only “rights” are whatever society wants to “give” you. Black’s law dictionary defines this as “positive law” – man made law - as opposed to natural law. Thus, Janet Reno once told a group of federal law enforcement officers “You are part of a government that has given its people more freedom … than any other government in the history of the world”(emphasis added).

Under this view, which flips the Declaration on its head, on what grounds can you ever rebel? Since your rights are “gifts” from government, and merely whatever the government courts say, with no higher power or law, it is never legitimate for a people to rebel, no matter how ridiculous the government’s “interpretation” of its own powers or how arbitrary and murderous it becomes once its servants in black robes “make it legal” by interpreting your so-called rights out of existence. Without natural rights there is no right to revolt, which is precisely why these elites think it totally illegitimate for you to have effective means of resistance.

Remember that all of the Crown’s actions were upheld by the English courts as legal and “constitutional.” However, for the Founding generation, that was not the end of the argument because they knew their rights were not just whatever the government robed lawyers said.

In harmony with that timeless, self evident truth, the Bill of Rights does not grant any rights. It is really more a bill of protections of rights. The First Amendment does not say “the people are hereby granted a right to free speech, freedom of the press, free practice of religion, and assembly.” Instead, it says “Congress shall make no law respecting … [those rights].” It is a prohibition on Congress, to protect pre-existing natural rights.

The same is true of the Second Amendment. It does not say “the people are hereby granted the right to bear arms.” No. It says “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is a prohibition on government action, meant to protect a pre-existing right.

Likewise, the Fourth Amendment does not grant us a right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. It declares that our right to that security “shall not be violated” and then it sets forth procedural requirements to protect that preexisting right. Nor does the Fifth Amendment grant us a right to life, liberty, or property. It merely prohibits the government from depriving us of those pre-existing rights without due process of law, and spells out specific procedural protections for those natural rights. The same holds true for jury trial.

Thus, whenever you hear a judge, politician, lawyer, or talking head in the media speak of what rights you do or don’t have under the Constitution, you are hearing at best an ignorant statement, and at worst, a lie. And whenever you find yourself running to look in the Bill of Rights to see whether you have a right to do something, you are making a fundamental error. Your rights are inherently yours by nature and by nature’s God.

With that fundamental principle as our background, I will next delve more directly into constitutional interpretation, showing how the Bill of Rights mandates how we must interpret what the people consented to as the means “to secure these rights.”

Montana House Joint Resolution No. 26 Affirming States Rights

2009-02-18T02:22:00.003-07:00

Note: Because one of the earlier links to the full text to Montana House Joint Resolution No. 26 no longer works, I have posted the introduced resolution in its entirety below.

If you would like to go to the official Montana web version, you should be able to find it here:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/HouJoint/HJ0026_1.wpd

Or go to this page and look for HJ0026

But there is a chance those pages will be changed over time as well. Thus, I present it below just as I downloaded it from the above Montana site:

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 26
INTRODUCED BY M. MORE

A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA AFFIRMING STATES' RIGHTS AND CONDEMNING ENCROACHMENT OF THOSE RIGHTS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

WHEREAS, The Constitution of the State of Montana declares that the people of this state have the sole and exclusive right to govern themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state and that the people of this state shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining to that right; and
WHEREAS, that right may never be expressly delegated to the United States Congress; and
WHEREAS, The Constitution of the State of Montana declares that the people of Montana solemnly and mutually agree to form a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or state, by the name of "The State of Montana"; and
WHEREAS, the people of the State of Montana agree that all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights must be reserved and exercised by individual states; and
WHEREAS, when Montana entered into statehood in 1889, that entrance was accomplished by a contract between Montana and the several states, with Congress and the President concurring and acting as the agent for the several states, a contract known as the "Compact With the United States", archived as Article I of the Montana Constitution; and
WHEREAS, a contract, compact, or treaty must be implemented consistent with the terms and understandings in place at the time it is entered into; and
WHEREAS, the protection of these states' rights is enumerated in amendments to the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, which state that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
(1) That the several states of the United States are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to general government, but by ratifying the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, they constituted a general government for special purposes and delegated to that government certain definite powers, while reserving all other rights.
(2) That when the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are void and of no force.
(3) That the government created by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights was not granted the right to determine the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, the measure of its powers.
(4) That the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting of the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, felonies committed on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes.
(5) That all acts of Congress that assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those enumerated in the federal constitution and Bill of Rights, are void and of no force.
(6) That the power to create, define, and punish other crimes is reserved by the states.
(7) That power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press remains and is reserved by the states or the people, allowing states the right to judge how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom and how far those abuses, which cannot be separated from their use, should be tolerated, rather than allowing the use to be destroyed.
(8) That states are guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises and retain the right of protecting the same.
(9) That all acts of Congress that abridge freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press are not law and are void.
(10) That power over the freedom of the right to keep and bear arms was reserved to the states and to the people, allowing states the right to judge how far infringements on the right to bear arms should be tolerated, rather than allowing that exercise to be defined by Congress.
(11) That states and the people are guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the right to keep and bear arms and retain the right of protecting that right.
(12) That all acts of Congress that abridge the right to bear arms are not law and are void.
(13) That Congress's interpretation of those parts of the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights that delegate to Congress a power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States" and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof" has attempted to destroy the limits of its power.
(14) That those parts of the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, detailed in subsection (13), must not be construed to give unlimited powers to the federal government, and that Congress's inappropriate interpretation must be revised and corrected.
(15) That if Montana accepts these inappropriate interpretations and continues to allow Congress to exercise unbridled authority, it would be surrendering its own form of government.
(16) That the people of this state will not submit to undelegated and consequently unlimited powers.
(17) That every state has a right to nullify all assumptions of power by others within their limits, and that without this right, states would be under the dominion and power of anyone who might try to exercise that power.
(18) That it would be a dangerous delusion to silence people's fears for the safety of their rights.
(19) That this state calls on its costates for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the United States Constitution.
(20) That the rights and liberties of Montana and its costates must be protected from any dangers by declaring that Congress is limited by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights.
(21) That any act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States, or Judicial Order of the United States that assumes a power not delegated by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights diminishing the liberty of this state or its citizens constitutes a nullification of the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights by the government of the United States, which would also breach Montana's "Compact With the United States". Acts that would cause a nullification and a breach include but are not limited to:
(a) establishing martial law or a state of emergency within a state without the consent of the legislature of that state;
(b) requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war or pursuant to or as an alternative to incarceration after due process of law;
(c) requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to or as an alternative to incarceration after due process of law;
(d) surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government;
(e) any act regarding religion, further limitations on freedom of political speech, or further limitations on freedom of the press; or
(f) any act regarding the right to keep and bear arms or further limitations on the right to bear arms, including any restrictions on the type or number of firearms or the amount or type of ammunition any law-abiding citizen may purchase, own, or possess.
(22) That if any act of Congress becomes law or if an Executive Order or Judicial Order is put into force related to the reservations expressed in this resolution, Montana's "Compact With the United States" is breached and all powers previously delegated to the United States by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights revert to the states individually.
(23) That any future government of the United States shall require ratification of three-fourths of the states seeking to form a government and shall not be binding upon any state not seeking to form a government.
(24) That the Secretary of State send copies of this resolution to the President of the United States and to each member of the United States Congress.
- END -

Montana Introduces Resolution Asserting State Sovereignty - And Threatening Secession

2009-02-17T10:10:00.016-07:00

A Montana Resolution asserting state sovereignty has been introduced, today, February 17, 2009, by Montana State Rep. Mike More as HJ 26. Montana thus joins the recent wave of fiery state sovereignty resolutions. And as with the New Hampshire Resolution, the Montana resolution borrows heavily from Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, and then lists particular acts that would nullify the Constitution and void the compact by which Montana became a state - that is a threat to secede if the feds step too far. Here is an excerpt:

(21) That any act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States, or Judicial Order of the United States that assumes a power not delegated by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights diminishing the liberty of this state or its citizens constitutes a nullification of the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights by the government of the United States, which would also breach Montana's "Compact With the United States". Acts that would cause a nullification and a breach include but are not limited to:
(a) establishing martial law or a state of emergency within a state without the consent of the legislature of that state;

(b) requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war or pursuant to or as an alternative to incarceration after due process of law;

(c) requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to or as an alternative to incarceration after due process of law;
(d) surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government;

(e) any act regarding religion, further limitations on freedom of political speech, or further limitations on freedom of the press; or

(f) any act regarding the right to keep and bear arms or further limitations on the right to bear arms, including any restrictions on the type or number of firearms or the amount or type of ammunition any law-abiding citizen may purchase, own, or possess.

(22) That if any act of Congress becomes law or if an Executive Order or Judicial Order is put into force related to the reservations expressed in this resolution, Montana's "Compact With the United States" is breached and all powers previously delegated to the United States by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights revert to the states individually.

To avoid the possibility of dead links, I have posted the whole resolution here. If you would like to go to the official Montana web version, you should be able to find it here:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/HouJoint/HJ0026_1.wpd

Or go to this page and look for HJ0026

My thoughts: All I have to say is God bless Montana! Yet one more reason to love my adopted home state.

However, Montana was already considered to be among the states asserting sovereignty because of its "made in Montana" gun bill, as David Codrea notes here. And last year, before the Supreme Court's decision in Heller, Montana fired a shot across the Supreme Court's bow with a resolution threatening secession if the Court went with the so-called "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment (as I noted in an Enemy at the Gate column in S.W.A.T. Magazine). And in the past Montana has bucked the feds told them to shove their federal highway money over the issue of speed limits, and also said no to Real ID.

Thus, you should not make the mistake of thinking this is some recent idea - Montanans have consistently, over a span of many years, asserted their sovereignty. And more importantly, Montanans have done so from the very beginning, as their state constitution makes clear. As Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association so ably puts it:

Remember, the Montana Constitution says, at Article II, Section 2, "The people have the exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state."

Some will say that these are just words on paper and don't really mean anything. I disagree.

These words are a part of the contract by which Montana was engendered as a socio-political entity. The very existence of the construct called the "State of Montana" is dependent upon this contract among Montana people, a contract giving the state defined and limited powers.

One of these limitations is the terms of Article II. Section 2, which limits the authority of the State to contract with the other states. That is, by its very charter, the State is not authorized to lock itself politically into being a mere administrative region of that creature of the several states, the federal government, nor may the state surrender the rights and prerogatives of individuals to the federal government.

HJ 26 addresses these issues and relationships.

I could not have said it better myself. And no, this is not about money from the feds. This is about self-government, and about being free from onerous, oppressive, and unconstitutional federal laws and actions. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the claim by the British Parliament that it could legislate over the colonists in all cases whatsoever - down to the most minute detail of their lives. Our forefathers rejected that absurd claim. We are now rejecting the same assertion of totalitarian power by the Mordor on the Potomac.

Brace yourselves - it's going to be a wild ride.

Why do I say that? Isn't this just so much posturing which will amount to nothing in the long run?

Not so fast. Note that one of the causes of nullification would be any more legislation restricting the right to bear arms, including restriction of type of arms. That means no new "Assault Weapons Ban." And you can bet that HR 45, which aims to register, fingerprint, and track gun owners just as if they were convicted child molesters, would also be considered a breach.

If there is anything that has the potential to spark actual secession, and even actual civil war or revolution in this nation, it is those two onerous measures. Gun haters are playing with fire, and poking at a hornet's nest, with their plans for a renewed AWB and with the totalitarian HR 45.

I hope they have the good sense to back off - though I fear they are just too "autistic" when it comes to this, and simply do not get it. They think it is simply a matter of passing a law, and then gun owners will meekly submit. But they are only thinking in the conventional legal and political dimensions. As these resolutions remind us, there are other dimensions, and whatever law is passed, whatever executive order "The One" issues, whatever clever decision is handed down by the Nine Nazgul on the Court, that will not be the end of the argument - just as it was not the end of the argument back in 1775.

History does indeed repeat itself. I think there is an awakening, a quickening, happening that may just rival what happened prior to the American Revolution. And I see pockets of resolve like Montana as the place where it will start.

Montana, and other states like it, are the new version of what New England was back then - pockets of radicalism and fiery resolve. But can we be the modern versions of Thomas Paine, Sam Adams, James Otis, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson that are needed?

Time will tell.

If you have not yet read Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions, I highly recommend you do so. As should be no surprise coming from the author of the Declaration of Independence (this nation's birth certificate) the Kentucky Resolutions present the most concise, clear, and common sense expression of the principles of our Constitutional Republic in existence.

Now it is our turn to recall those fundamental principles and take a stand. As Jefferson said:

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

Will we take that stand? If not now, when? If not us, who? Will we leave it to our children and grandchildren to do it? Or will we clean house ourselves, cleaning up the mess we allowed to happen, and leave them in a free nation? I believe we have reached that critical point in this nation's history. Unfortunately, what I see coming reminds me of something George Washington told his troops before the battle of Long Island:

"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army-Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; that is all we can expect-We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die." - George Washington, addressing his troops before the Battle of Long Island.

Please do your part in supporting the resolutions of Montana, New Hampshire, and others like them, in the hopes that the DC crowd will get the message and back off. If they don't, they will leave us no choice but a brave resistance or the most abject submission. I believe enough Americans still retain the fire of liberty in their hearts to choose the former - and to win.

Stewart Rhodes

PS - Gary Marbut of Montana Shooting Sports Association played a critical role by assisting in drafting this resolution and in getting it proposed, and MSSA deserves your support not just for this, but for all else MSSA does on behalf of Montanans in general, and Montana gun owners in particular. Please join MSSA and support it with your contributions.

UPDATE: A point of clarification and a couple additional thoughts:

#1. This is not really about secession. You can't "secede" from something that no longer exists. Dan Itse, the drafter and sponsor of the New Hampshire states rights resolution makes a very good point when he says this is not about withdrawing from the Union. As he recently told Glenn Beck on his show, "the very best resolution of this resolution would be a renewed union within the confines of the Constitution." I agree, and as I told one commenter, I would prefer to just have a national government that lived within its means and within the bounds of the Constitution, but unfortunately, that is not what we now have.

And, as Itse points out, “if the government chooses to aggress in nullifying the Constitution, it is impossible to secede from something that doesn’t exist.”

And you will note that the Montana resolution says nothing about secession - what it says is that if the federal government further transgresses in violating the Constitution and Bill of rights, and violating the rights of Montanans, then Montana will rightfully consider the compact between the states - the Constitution - to have been nullified by the feds, not by Montana. At that point, the agreement among the states by which Montana entered into the Union will have been breached by the national government, "and all powers previously delegated to the United States by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights revert to the states individually."

#2. What Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence is still true:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Nobody is saying this would be a picnic, and we would prefer it not come to that, but:

We are seeing, today, a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evincuing a design to reduce us under absolute Despotism every bit as onerous and dangerous as anything the Founders faced.

Think I'm exagerating? Then please go read this article I wrote about the Clinton era proposal to use military tribunals on the domestic American milita movement - on US citizens - and how everything in that proposal was put into place by the Bush Administration, so that Obama has at his finger tips claimed powers Clinton could only dream of.

Obama now has the court approved defacto power to declare any of us citizens to be unlawful "enemy combatants" and thus strip us of all of the protections of the Bill of Rights, detaining us without indictment and trying us before military tribunals instead of by a jury of our peers. Of course, that claimed power is illegitimate and wildly unconstitutional, as Scalia pointed out in his Hamdi dissent, but the majority on the Court put its stamp of approval on it.

One of the causes of the American revolution listed in the Declaration of Independence was denial of the right to jury trial and the "extraordinary rendition" of their day - whisking men off to England to face trial in kangaroo courts (and of course, all the English courts approved). That was one of the many "long train of abuses" that fueled the Revolution.

And the spark of the American Revolution was the attempt to disarm the people. Today, there are gun hating extremists in the Obama Administration and in Congress who just will not be able to resist the temptation to try and disarm us - what else is HR 45 but a call to register and track all gun owners, to more easily facilitate disarmament?

History is repeating itself. And what Jefferson said about the purposes of government, and our right to throw it off when it violates those purposes, is still true. and that brings me to these last two points we should always keep in mind:

Fundamental Principles of Our Constitutional Republic

A. First fundamental principle of our Republic: your rights don't come from government. As our Declaration says, rights come first, and government is created to protect your rights. Not the other way round. You can read an article I wrote for SWAT Magazine on this topic here.

B. The Bill of Rights affirms that our rights do not come from government, and provides us with a guide to Constitutional interpretation we can use to judge the actions of government. Whatever the judges may say, we the people made it very clear in the Bill of Rights what the boundaries were. Look there first for guidance. I also wrote about this for SWAT, and you can read that article here.

Stewart Rhodes

Clearing Out Tumble Weeds

2009-02-06T09:19:00.005-07:00

I have not posted anything on this poor, neglected blog in a very long time.

First, I have been focusing on my family. My mother is fighting for her life against breast cancer - that was the reason my wife and I moved back to Las Vegas from our beloved Montana. Family has had to come first before many other things I care very much about.

Second, I was burnt out on politics after the Ron Paul campaign ended - I was active in that campaign in Nevada, and like others, when it ended I felt spent. Lately, I have confined my writing and activism to the articles I write for SWAT Magazine.

But now that I have had a much needed breather, I will be posting again regularly and will be once again politically active.

We live in very interesting times (as in the old Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times"). The pace of momentous events has increased exponentially - in other words, stuff is going down fast, history is being made, and what kind of a country we will leave for our children and grand-children hangs in the balance.

Truly, as Edmond Burke said, "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

So, I will do my small part in doing something about it.

To put it bluntly, if the light of liberty goes out in America, the world will enter a dark age. Here is where the line must be drawn, and where the stand must be made.

When I served as a paratrooper, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That oath will be kept.

Stewart

Vegas Fund Raiser and Potluck-Friday, July 11

2008-07-09T11:24:00.003-07:00

If you are in Vegas please c'mon by.

Swim party and potluck on Friday July 11 to raise funds for my mom's cancer treatments.

So bring a dish, a bottle of booze and your contribution!

You can send money to the addresses below and RSVP to the numbers listed below or just call Dusty Directly at 702 812-1209 and bring your contribution to the party!

Contribute here;
Antioch Church of Las Vegas
Put Dusty on bottom left of check and mail to:
3825 Melody Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89108

Or contribute directly:
Dusty Buckel Enterprises,
Bank of America of West Sahara
routing - 122400724 - account # 501001703274
(If you have a Bank of America account you can do it online in about two seconds)

July 11, 2008 (7-11) at 7P to 11P
YOU are invited for a swim party and pot luck, with live entertainment.
RSVP Darlene Mea tvdarlene@gmail.com
For more info contact Darlene Mea at 702-227-8393 or 702-477-5110 tvdarlene@gmail.com

Press Release below;

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Local Giver needs to Receive, to LIVE...

Las Vegas, NV. July 3rd – Dusty Buckel, a Las Vegas local resident for over 29 yrs is in Stage IV Cancer of the Lymph Nodes and does not have health insurance.

"I have been been graced with health most of my life, so I lived life fully as a giver, here to help, and now I am humbled to the position of having to ask for help, to live."

Dusty Buckel is many things to many people not only in Las Vegas but around the world.

Along with being an Ordained Minister, known to thousands as Rev Dusty.

Dusty has had her own radio show & television shows, An Opportunity to Make a Difference for years; is the originator of of Secret Santa which provides toys, food and necessities for hundreds of Las Vegas families every year, as well as helping stranded mothers off the streets and helping our Vets with clothing and counseling.

Dusty engages donors to give namelessly, selflessly. All who know Dusty have been graced by her extreme presence and drive to help those who need help on many levels, body, mind and spirit... Dusty lives to Give...

The stories are many, and those of you that know her or have been in connected with her, either through a real estate transaction, past president of Commercial Marketing Group in LV, Church, or on an outing in Sedona, AZ, knows the grace of this woman.

Now Dusty needs medical treatments for Stage IV Cancer of the Lymph Nodes. She has been receiving "Intelligent Medicine" out of the country and needs to continue the therapies or she will not survive. We are asking the community – please GIVE TO LIVE for DUSTY, NOW. The cost of treatment is $21,600.00 for 3 week stay to detoxify her blood, strengthen her body to help itself in destroying the cancer cells.

The hospital ~ "Bio Science Research Institute" is dedicated to the CURE, not just treatment. Centro Medico Excel, (a hospital in Mexico, owned by a San Diego cardiologist) has 4 of it's 15 story floors. Dr. Carlos Bautista is Dusty's doctor along with world renown cancer specialist, Dr. Donsbach. Contact: Gosela (Dr. Bautista's Assistant) 619-519-6374 for more information.

"This is a complete humbling experience, asking for help, but I choose to live.",

says Dusty who is always Responding to Miracles!
dustylasvegas@gmail.com

Make your tax deductible donations to:
Antioch Church of Las Vegas
Rev. Peter Gang is a client/friend of Dusty and is glad to help.
Put Dusty on bottom left of check and mail to:
3825 Melody Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89108.

or a contribution directly to:
Dusty Buckel Enterprises,
Bank of America of West Sahara
routing - 122400724 - account # 501001703274

July 11, 2008 (7-11) at 7P to 11P Dusty's family of friends and associates are invited for a swim party, pot luck, with live entertainment. RSVP Darlene Mea @ tvdarlene@gmail.com

For additional info please contact Darlene Mea – 702-227-8393 or 702-477-5110 – tvdarlene@gmail.com

Kent Snyder, RIP, You Will Be Missed

2008-07-02T22:03:00.004-07:00

On Monday, I heard the sad news that Kent Snyder had passed away. Kent was a friend of mine, and that news came as a real shock to me. The last time I saw him in person was when he attended my graduation from law school in 04. I never expected that to be the last time. Life really is short.

Kent was a good man. The word that comes first to my mind when I think of him is "integrity." He was a man of great integrity, and from that came deep, deep courage, wisdom, kindness, and commitment to what he believed in.

He is one of the few people I have ever known who I would trust my life or the lives of one of my children to without question. He passed the "fox-hole" test, as in could you count on this man to watch your back and never desert you if you shared a fox-hole in war. I would have shared a fox-hole with Kent without question, because, though he was a very calm, quiet man, I knew he had the heart of a warrior, and had already made peace with life and death, and I knew that his first thought would be to doing what was right, in any situation, and that he followed through, every time.

His was a life sincerely and passionately dedicated to the cause of liberty. For all the time I knew him, his every waking moment was spent in that cause. In fact, as Ron Paul noted in his comments about his passing, Kent pushed himself so hard during the campaign that it affected his health. He literally gave his all for the cause of liberty.

I have lost a friend, to whom I often turned to over the years for sage advice and wisdom when I was feeling down, and the world has lost a warrior for liberty. Me and my family will miss him, and we send out our condolences to his family. God bless you Kent, and see you on the other side.

- Stewart

Below is what Ron Paul had to say about Kent:

In loving memory of Kent Snyder

The Freedom Movement has suffered a great loss. Kent Snyder, chairman of my presidential campaign, lost his tragic battle with pneumonia last week. Kent was a true lover of liberty. He was an American patriot. He was my friend. And, he will be missed.

Kent was a gentle man who carried himself with quiet dignity. While soft spoken, great inner strength lay behind his kind blue eyes. He was filled with conviction, and principles of decency, loyalty and respect ran to his core. Those fortunate enough to work closely with Kent were touched by his integrity and old-fashioned American work ethic. Stories of his youth in Kansas and lessons taught to him by his two greatest influences, his mother and father, were often shared with friends and colleagues. During difficult times, Kent was always a calm at the center of the storm.

I first met Kent in 1987 when he, as a young man in his late 20's, served on my first presidential run. Over the next twenty years, we worked together on countless projects in the name of Freedom. It was Kent, more than anyone else, who urged me to run again for president last year. I was skeptical, but he was much more confident that the time was right. Without Kent, I don't think it would have happened. Though he was an optimist, in the end, even he didn't expect what we achieved.

Like so many in our movement, Kent sacrificed much for the cause of Liberty. He sidetracked a blossoming political career when he chose to work for a third party candidate. He walked away from a lucrative career as telecommunications executive to work for me in Washington when I returned to Congress in the late '90's. Ultimately, he sacrificed his health as he worked tirelessly around the clock on our presidential campaign, ignoring the pleas of his doctors to pull back.

Kent poured every ounce of his being into our fight for Freedom. He will always hold a place in my heart and in the hearts of my family. We deeply mourn his loss.

I hope we can celebrate Kent's life, the wonderful man he was, the tremendous success of his contribution to the cause of liberty, and the bright path he helped blaze to a future where freedom springs alive once again. Kent should be remembered with every victory we achieve as we move forward together. Without Kent Snyder, the fight for liberty would not be where it is today. We all owe him a great debt.

In liberty,

Ron Paul

the Nevada State GOP Platform Rocks! Repeal the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act; Repeal Real ID; Repeal the Federal Reserve Act ...

2008-04-29T21:55:00.016-07:00

Nevada State Republican Convention Passes A Truly Constitutionalist Platform!

Note from Stewart: You may have heard that the 2008 Nevada State Republican Party Convention ended in a controversial manner, with a surprise "recess" at 6pm, just when us state delegates were about to finish voting for our national delegates. I will have a few things to say on that soon, but first I'd like to point out one very positive outcome of the Convention - the Nevada State Republican Party Platform for 2008-2010. Before the controversial recess, the delegates at the State Convention voted to accept the platform as written and proposed by the platform committee. That vote was overwhelming. And that platform is beyond a doubt the most liberty friendly, constitutionalist state Republican Party platform in the entire nation. No doubt it is not perfect, but it is most certainly the very best that can be expected at a Republican Party convention during the Bush Administration, with John McCain as the presumed nominee of the party (this platform attacks sacred cows of Bush - the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, and sacred cows of McCain - McCain/Feingold).

But I want to make it clear that it was not "Ron Paul people" who wrote that platform. It was CONSERVATIVES. I was on the platform committee and I can tell you that us Ron Paul supporters were not anywhere near a majority (maybe 1/4, if that) on the committee. I know for a fact that there were people on the platform committee who were not Ron Paul people, who in particular disagreed with Ron Paul on the war, but who still believed in core conservative ideals like obeying the Constitution, smaller government, and US sovereignty. It was a great experience to see those kind of people do the right thing, and it gives me hope for our nation, and made me actually proud to be a Republican again after years of disappointment.

I hear through the grapevine that the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee are livid with outrage over this platform. Good! Serves them right for abandoning traditional conservative Republican principles, like obeying the Constitution. I'm proud to have played a small part in pissing them off. Now maybe they'll take a moment to reflect on just exactly what about this platform makes them so angry. Is it too conservative? Too constitutionalist? Too much in favor of limited government? And what does that make them? Well, as for the McCain people, maybe it was plank #11 - "We demand the repeal of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ..." That is McCain-Feingold! Ah well, that's what they get for trying to push a fake conservative on us.

-Stewart Rhodes

I'll give some more of my thoughts down below, after the text of the platform. But without further ado, here is the 2008-2010 Nevada State Republican Party Platform in its entirety:

Nevada State Republican Party Platform 2008 - 2010

Preamble:

We believe that government is instituted solely to secure the life, liberty and property of the citizens of the country, that the Declaration of Independence defines the philosophical foundation of the country, that the Constitution of the United States is the basic law governing the existence and operation of the U.S. Federal Government and the first ten amendments describe its limits, and , as Thomas Jefferson said, that the government that governs least governs best.

Federalism & Limited Government

1. We support less government, less taxes, less regulation and more self determination.

2. All legislation, Federal Agencies, and public servants must adhere to a literal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and as instructed by the Tenth Amendment, in conjunction with Article I, Section 8.

Patriotism

3. We recognize the importance of the national values expressed by our flag, anthem, pledge-of-allegiance and other patriotic symbols that define us as a nation and we believe that the words, “in GOD we trust,” should remain on our currency and the words “under God” should remain in our Pledge of Allegiance.

Taxes and Government Spending

4. We support reform of Social Security, including establishment of private retirement accounts and prohibiting use of its funds for any other purpose. All citizens shall have the right to opt out of the system, but the government must honor its commitments to those who have paid, are legally in the U.S., and remain in the system. We propose the abolishment of the Windfall Elimination Tax when computing Social Security Benefits. We oppose Nationalization of Healthcare.

5. We urge the Nevada Legislature to cut spending and avoid new taxes to encourage strong economic growth. We support the Nevada Constitutional Requirement of a 2/3 majority legislative vote to raise state taxes. We support balanced state, local and federal budgets. We oppose unfunded mandates, Riders, Ear-marks and Set-asides at both the state and national level. We support the permanent elimination of the Federal Death Tax.

The Economy

6. We support a strong private minerals industry. We support the Nevada Mining Association endorsed reform of the 1872 mining law and strongly oppose any laws, regulations, ordinances or any other legally binding actions that diminish the ability of the minerals industry to discover and or access minerals and mine them.

7. Fires are increasing because of the lack of livestock grazing. Therefore, livestock grazing shall be increased immediately on Federal Lands.

Education

8. We support a parent’s right to choice in education including vouchers, charter schools, and home schooling. We also support the elimination of the U.S. Dept. of Education. We further oppose requiring licensure for parents who choose to home school. We support the elimination of the No Child Left Behind law and require the State of Nevada to replace the No Child Left Behind concept.

Family Values

9. We affirm the sanctity of human life and the inherent dignity of each human being from conception to death and oppose cloning complete human beings. We support the private development of adult stem cell research and we support all efforts to stop human trafficking. We support the definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman.

The Environment

10. We support initiatives to maximize the development of America’s domestic oil, gas, coal, solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear resources, and the development of alternative sources of energy to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. We support granting local government more authority in decision-making regarding water rights within their jurisdiction.

Legislation

11. We demand the repeal of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and reaffirm the right of free political speech. We support legislation to require full disclosure of all donations made to political candidates.

12. We support the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and the return of the power of minting and coining money to the Congress of the United States as so stated in the Constitution. In addition we demand a return to a gold and/or silver backed currency as provided for in the U.S. Constitution.

13. We demand that electronic voting only be allowed when uniquely numbered receipts are provided to the voter and results are made publicly available showing simultaneously all votes comprising the total by receipt number.

The Litigation Crisis

14. We believe in informing juries that it is their power and duty to decide on both the law and the facts as they apply to each case so that justice is the main priority. We support election of judges.

Immigration

15. We welcome legal immigrants from all nations, cultures and races. We demand strict enforcement of all immigration laws by all levels of government. We demand that the federal government secure our borders. We do not support amnesty, government benefits or other special treatment for aliens who have or will enter the United States illegally. We support English as the official language of the United States and the printing of government materials in English only.

National Defense and Veteran's Affairs

16. We support all of our men and women in the military who are serving both in the United States and around the world and the missions of all U.S. troops around the world. Be they active duty, National Guard, or reservist, they have our highest admiration and respect. We support honoring veterans with education benefits and we support a strong Veterans Administration subject to strong oversight and audit, to assure veterans and families receive the care and support as promised.

Constitution, Bill of Rights and Protection of Rights

17. We believe that the First Amendment to the Constitution was intended to prevent a state-sponsored religion rather than a separation of God from public life. We affirm that the Second Amendment protects an individual right which should be enforced as strictly as the rights protected by the First Amendment.

18. We support repealing the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. We support repeal of the federal act requiring a national ID card or other required identity papers providing government with “big brother” intrusion into constitutional freedoms.

US Sovereignty & trade

19. We support the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations. We demand that Nevada join Montana, Idaho, Utah and other states in opposing the North American Union (NAU) in withdrawing from the Security & Prosperity Partnership (SPP), withdrawing from North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and that Congress resume their duty of regulating Commerce with Foreign Nations.

Public Lands

20. We oppose Federal legislation regarding public lands including wilderness in Nevada counties unless approved by the county.

END

More comments from Stewart:

Well, there ya go. That is the kind of platform you get with a room full of Nevada Goldwater Conservatives who were in about 95% agreement with us Ron Paul folks. The only real point of disagreement was the Iraq war.

Sure, there were a couple of "pragmatist" neocons who really had no respect for the Constitution, but they were vastly outnumbered by people who DID care about the Constitution and who could be convinced of the proper constitutional position, and once they agreed, they had no problem at all with voting for a staunch constitutionalist plank.

Jury power is just one example. Some of the folks there had just never heard of the full power of a jury to judge the law as well as the facts, but after I explained the history of the jury to them, which has always had the power to "nullify," they understood and supported it. And I got crucial back-up from another lawyer on the committee who, while he disagreed completely on Iraq, was 100% in agreement on jury nullification.

And the same went for repealing the Federal Reserve Act, for getting out of the U.N., NAFTA, the SPP, etc. Most folks on the committee were in complete agreement on all of those issues, and I believe they were a good representative sample of the convention as a whole.

So, those are not "Ron Paul planks." Those are "constitutionalist planks." It was a group of constitutionalists on the committee who first voted for them, and then a bunch more constitutionalists in the rank and file at the convention who overwhelmingly voted for the whole platform.

I have no doubt that Ron Paul's campaign has educated many people on crucial conservative positions, and that education aspect is starting to really have an affect (that the party elites cannot control) but it seemed to me that the rank and file conservatives in Nevada were already pretty well versed in core constitutionalist positions. Us Ron Paul people did not have to do much "convincing" at all.

On the committee, I certainly did not have to do much. Committee members had already expressed support for each of those planks - I just explained a few questions folks had on the Constitution, told them the history of jury nullification, said a bit on the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act (and how it applies its definition of "unlawful combatant" to citizens too), and helped a bit to remind them that being a conservative means being a constitutionalist. Not a very tough job, really, as they were already about 90% there. Truly Salt-of-the-Earth conservatives. A great bunch of people.

And for the record, Las Vegas lawyer Richard Scotti was fantastic as the fill-in chairman of the committee. A sincere constitutionalist and patriot, willing to listen and open to hearing new ideas, very fair, and very much interested only in doing what was right. His leadership was crucial. He deserves the praise of all Americans, as do the rest of the committee. Now if we can just get the rest of the GOP up to speed!

For Liberty,

Stewart Rhodes

Revitalizing the Militia of the Several States - the Spirit of 1775

2008-04-14T10:45:00.005-07:00

OK, now it is time to get back to some serious topics. Below is an excerpt from a most excellent and thought provoking article on the Militia by Dr. Edwin Vieira, who is a graduate of Harvard Law School, among other things. I urge you to read it in its entirety and to give it the serious contemplation it deserves. I then urge you to not just think, but to act, and to do your part, and take your place, in revitalizing the militia of the several states, which, as Dr. Vieira reminds us, is "necessary to the security of a free state." I have been thinking about this vital topic for years now, and am very pleased to see I am not alone. I will share some of my thoughts on this subject over the next couple of days, but for now, please read this:

19 APRIL 1775 vs. THE D.C. GUN CASE

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
April 14, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

From what I have heard, the oral argument in the Supreme Court on the District of Columbia gun case suggested that a majority of the Justices just might discover an “individual right” “to keep and bear Arms” in the Second Amendment, and on that basis might declare the District’s draconian “gun-control” laws to some degree unconstitutional. Such a decision might lead to further victories against “gun-control” statutes and ordinances in other jurisdictions. Yet it might prove instead to be a Trojan Horse, because it could come down larded with so much judicial mumbo jumbo about “reasonable regulation” and “compelling governmental interests” as grounds for “gun control” that the Second Amendment would be left guaranteeing less of a “right” than of an occasion for endless legislation and litigation. Well, one can only hope for the best—but at the same time one ought to prepare for something less.
My concern is what happens if the Justices somehow do rule favorably on the “individual-right theory.” I suspect that such a victory—after the champagne runs out—will have the perverse result of putting all the pro-Second Amendment people and organizations to sleep. With their personal “gun rights” apparently secure (at least for the time being), they will not be worried about how correctly to construe the Amendment, and how really to enforce it, even though this country needs that construction and enforcement now more than ever before.

The inescapable fact is that whatever “individual right” “to keep and bear Arms” emerges from the D.C. gun case will not provide “the security of a free State” at which the Second Amendment aims. True, tens and tens of millions of Americans possess firearms and ammunition; and perhaps large numbers of these firearms are suitable for Militia service. But the armed individual, simply as an individual, is not enough.

All too many individual gun owners are not even aware of each other. Although some are members of firearms ranges or gun clubs, hardly any if them are organized for anything akin to Militia purposes. They are not members of specific units. They have no designated leaders. They lack systems for communications within or among units, or among individuals for that matter. (Where, for example, is the gun-owners’ equivalent of a “Neighborhood Watch” against local usurpation and tyranny?) Even within their own neighborhoods, among families and friends, they make no attempts to insure uniformity or completeness of equipment. They lack sufficient, and often necessary, education and training. They have prepared no plans to deal with various contingencies, let alone have assigned tasks to be carried out in anticipated emergencies. More crucially, they do not understand their constitutional status, purpose, and especially authority. Many, if not most, of them have no idea what they would be defending with their “individual rights” “to keep and bear Arms”—other than, perhaps, simply maintaining possession of their own firearms for purposes of possible self-defense. So, absent direct attacks on their own persons, how many gun owners today, anywhere, no matter how serious the crisis confronting the rest of society around them, would exercise their “individual rights”? Or could effectively do so? And to what end?

Oh, common Americans may be individually insulted, even outraged, by “the insolence of office” that increasingly characterizes rogue public officials at every level of government today. They may rightly resent, even intensely, the contempt with which such obnoxious officialdom treats them. They may correctly see their and their families’ present financial positions and future economic security being destroyed by the debt-currency schemes, speculative bubbles, and bailouts engineered by the Federal Reserve System and its clients among the low life of high finance. They may be subject to endless harassment by the tax Gestapo or the mentally jack-booted thugs in other governmental agencies. They may even have been the bloodied victims of para-military police brutality. But so what? Now what? They do not know what to do, or how to do it—or perhaps why.

Even if some of these isolated and ignorant individuals could somehow come together here and there in the midst of a crisis that sufficiently rocks society’s foundations to wake and shake them up, they would constitute only armed mobs, not even “militia” in the generic sense, and certainly not “Militia” in the specifically constitutional sense. Moreover, the very few who are already organized, and who do train, as “private militia” lack constitutional authority—and often, if not usually, envision themselves as outside of and antagonistic to “the government” (rather than as the ultimate embodiment of “government”). If these few individuals stood up with their “individual rights” against the trained and ruthless enforcers deployed against them by a police state, they would be branded outlaws or “terrorists”, demonized by the big media, deserted by their fellow citizens, and quickly picked off and packed off to morgues or detention centers.

Such a scenario, of course, is the exact opposite of the true Militia model, and of actual Militia experience in American history. When thousands of Militiamen appeared outside of Boston, Massachusetts, on 19 April 1775, were they acting solely in pursuance of an “individual right”? Did “the embattled farmers” fight only as individuals? Were they just a lawless mob? Was their victory at the Battle of Lexington and Concord the lucky result of martial anarchy? Of course not.

Very few “civilians” (in the purest sense of that term) were involved on that fateful day. Most of the men who mustered were members of Militia companies that had been training assiduously for some time theretofore. (And the ones who were not, because they were too old to be required to serve, but who fought anyway, had been members of the Militia when young.) Had not that been the case, the Militia would never have been able to assemble so many men, on such short notice, from beyond Concord all along the road back to Boston.

Neither did “the embattled farmers” fight merely as individuals. They may have employed the tactics of irregulars—neither maneuvering in parade-ground formations nor presenting a concentrated target to their enemies—but they always operated in set units, typically Militia companies, which averaged about 50 men apiece when at full complement. The Militiamen’s success was based upon organization—being called out in a systematic fashion by riders, bells, or the firing of shots; equipment—being adequately armed and accoutred; training—knowing what to do, under their designated officers; morale—being psychologically ready and confident; and especially authority—knowing that they had the legal right, power, and duty to take action, because British General Thomas Gage, and the Ministerial Government behind him, were the usurpers and law-breakers.

Read the rest here

A Clean Sweep for Cobra Kai at Tuff-N-Uff Vegas!

2008-04-13T01:25:00.007-07:00

just as I predicted, Cobra Kai pulled a clean sweep at the Tuff-N-Nuff amateur Mixed Martial Arts event at The Tropicana Hotel in Vegas. That was not really much of a tough prediction, given their grappling talents.

One surprise, at least for me, was the stand up skills of Coates Cobb-Adams. I did not know much about him, but he is apparently a damn fine kick-boxer. He ended his fight early in the first round with a hard, hard spinning back kick that floored his opponent, who stayed down for a long time.

I predicted Chris Holdsworth would get either a RNC or an armbar from the top, and I was pretty much on target (too bad I did not have money on that bet!). Chris shot in, took it right to the ground (with a double-leg, I think), mounted, pounded on his opponent till he gave his back, and then worked for a rear naked choke, but then ended up transitioning from back control to a solid arm bar and got the tap very early in the first round. It was like a scene out of an old-school "Gracie Jiu Jitsu in Action" tape. His opponent did not have a chance. Not that he wasn't game - its just that he was up against the Faithful Young Apprentice of the Dark Lord of Jiu Jitsu (that would be Marc Laimon).

Jason Carpenter's win was also most impressive, showing not just great grappling, but also very good stand-up, great ground and pound, and very savvy ring-generalship. At one point when he slammed his opponent in the corner and began a beat down, the ref separated them and restarted them standing, apparently because he thought they were too close to the ropes (really did not make sense to me - what else is the corner for than pinning your man into it so you can tag him with no place to go?).

Well, when they restarted, Jason shot in again, picked his opponent up and slammed him down again in the corner, but then immediately picked him back up, turned, and slammed him down with authority right in the middle of the ring, as if to say to the ref "OK, how bout I put him here this time. Does that work for you?" He dished out some devastating ground control and ground and pound. Jason is more than ready for The Ultimate Fighter.

Jerry Shapiro was not able to fight because he missed some training due to an illness. Too bad. I was really looking forward to that fight as J -Shap is a heck of a scrapper and very, very fast.

Brian Kangas had the closest fight of the night for the Cobra Kai team, with a tough bout against a very game Don Stoner from RCJ Machado. Stoner was pretty darn good on the ground, and after a short bit of grappling and scrambling on the canvas they stayed on their feet for most of the rest of the fight, trying their hand at boxing,until the very end of the last round when Kangas took it back to the mat and was able to get Stone's back. He very nearly got the rear naked choke, but Stoner was able to survive the attempts to sink it in. Kangas pulled out the decision, especially with that final taking of the back, but it would have been cool to see him get the tap.

Bill Cooper fought last, against a skilled Xtreme Couture fighter, EdsilavMihoylov. It was clear that Edsilav was no slouch, but he just could not handle the overwhelming, nonstop attack and grappling skill of Bill Cooper, who slammed him hard, took the back, flattened him out on his belly, and sunk in a tight RNC for the win in what had to be maybe 25 seconds into the first round. A very convincing victory rivaled only by the speed of Chris Holdsworth's win.

Big props and congratulations to all the Cobra Kai guys and to their coach, Marc Laimon. I have heard some trash talk on Sherdog and elsewhere about Laimon supposedly not being a good MMA coach just because some of the fighters who have trained with him have lost fights (and some guys think because he doesn't fight MMA himself that Laimon cant' be a good MMA coach). Well, the performance of his team at Tuff - N- Nuff puts that nonsense to rest. He was a very effective coach with guys who stuck to their game plan. And just as he does at grappling tournaments, he puts 100% into his guys here too.

Some of the other fights were also outstanding, with very impressive skills for guys who are labeled "amateur." Some of them I would put on a par with guys who have appeared on TUF (and several way above the average). The Cobra Kai guys were most consistently of high level, but there were some good fighters from Xtreme Couture, West Coast MMA and LA Boxing (and some not so great, but hey, at least they had the stones to step into the ring, so who am I to judge - these guys were new to the game and still willing to step up, so props to em).

Matthew Contes of LA Boxing showed he knew more than just how to box by out-grappling Kimo Yadao of Xtreme Couture and winning by submission. Very impressive!

In the womens' bouts, Lacey Schuckman defeated a game Kaitie Tompkins, but not until after Tompkins very nearly secured a triangle choke (actually, several triangle chokes). If Kaitie had just a little better jiu jitsu, and knew how to keep that triangle and how to tighten it down, she would have won for sure. Lacey kept picking her up and slamming her down, loosening the triangle choke, and then got out, over and over. Someone needs to teach Kaitie how to hook an arm under a leg to stop the slam while she has a triangle locked in, and how to pull the head down to finish, and also how to use a triangle to sweep. Alas, if only Katie could train at a good jiu jitsu school for six months, then she'd have something.

She also missed a golden opportunity to sweep Lacey when Lacey stood straight up in her guard for long periods of time, with her feet right there, close to Katie, ready to be grabbed. All she would have had to do was grab those feet and push with her knees and over Lacey would have gone. Kaitie also landed in half guard at one point, but did not know how to base out and keep top position and was easily rolled off and reversed. She just needs basic grappling. If she had it, she could have won. Very frustrating to watch as my wife and I, and our kids, were rooting for the less experienced Kaitie (and because she is a Johnny Cash fan like us, judging from her Myspace page music).

The second female fight was very one-sided with a clearly more experienced, better conditioned, and better trained Jessica Halverson easily dominating Amber Molinari on the feet. Amber was game, came out swinging for the fences, and never gave up, but she lacked stand up technique and was out-boxed and overpowered and finally dropped from some hard punches. Amber has potential, but she needs some solid, no nonsense boxing training and also would of course benefit from some basic takedowns and basic grappling so she has an option of going for the ground. That one was a bit of a mis-match.

There were some other great fights, and some not so great, but for the price of admission, with twenty friggin fights on the card, this was a wonderful show. We'll be back for more!

Team Cobra Kai Fights Tonight In Tuff-N-Uff Mixed Martial Arts Vegas Debute!

2008-04-12T11:53:00.006-07:00

NOTE FROM STEWART: OK, so politics and law is such nonsense lately that I have not bothered posting anything since March 20, when I posted about our kids' jiu jitsu teacher, Ully Gomez, fighting in his first MMA bout. I will be posting on law and politics again soon, what with the Nevada State Republican Party Convention coming up.

I've also been invited to speak to a class at Stanford University on May 1 about enemy combatant status, extraordinary rendition, torture and other fun topics brought to you by the politicians in Washington DC. So, I will be posting some in preparation for that visit to Stanford and I will post my thoughts on it when I get back.

But for now, once again, the only thing worth posting about is MMA - at least the fighters are honest, courageous, and are willing to put their own butts in harms way for what they believe in, which is entirely opposite from the lying, cowardly politicians in DC who's motto is "I never fought, and ducked Vietnam, but I love to send other people's kids to fight while I talk shit." Compared to the honesty, truth and integrity of MMA, law and politics is more like pro-wrestling - just a choreographed show put on for us out here in the "unwashed masses" while the actual decisions are all made ahead of time in back room deals. So, here is something worth talking about!

COBRA KAI JIU JITSU FIGHTERS TO FIGHT IN AMATEUR MIXED MARTIAL ARTS TONIGHT, APRIL 12, 2008 IN LAS VEGAS!

Six fighters from Cobra Kai will be fighting in the Tuff-N-Uff Fighting Championships, at the Tropicana Hotel. Tuff-N-Uff is billing this as a California v. Nevada event.

Here is what Tuff-N-Uff has to say about the event tonight:

Top fighters in California and Nevada will square off in the first sanctioned amateur MMA event in Las Vegas on April 12^th at the Tropicana Hotel & Casino. Doors open at 6:00pm. and fights start at 7:00pm. Many fighters coming from California have trained at the legendary Pit academy with Chuck Liddell and other well known fight teams. Some of the best schools in Las Vegas will be entering fighters to fight in the Tuff-N-Uff Fighting Championships including the renowned Cobra Kai operated by TUF coach, Marc Laimon. The famous gym, Xtreme Couture will also have many competitors and they're more than ready to defend their home turf. Female fighters as well as Super Heavyweights will be slugging it out. Only in Las Vegas will you see History be made with the fastest growing sport in the world.

I don't know much about the fighters coming in from out of state, or even much about the guys fighting out of Randy Couture's Xtreme Couture gym, but I can tell you that all of the guys from Cobra Kai are serious, tough as nails, no-joke fighters, especially on the ground. Because my kids train jiu jitsu at Cobra Kai, I have seen the Cobra Kai fighters roll on several occasions and I can say without a doubt that they are tough as pit bulls. Actually, the best way to describe them is ground fighting Jedi - because they are wizards on the mat. If they can take their opponents down and keep the fight on the ground, I predict a clean sweep for Cobra Kai.

Just to put it in perspective, there was a grappling smoker a while back between students from Xtreme Couture and Cobra Kai and it was a Cobra Kai dominated massacre, kinda like an old school Gracie Jiu Jitsu invasion of a judo school or like a scene out of that Bruce Lee movie where he went in and cleaned house on the whole Karate school.

Of course MMA is not the same as submission grappling. Adding in strikes does change things up a lot. But unless the fighters from Cali are as good at keeping it standing as Chuck Liddell, they are going to find themselves on the floor for the duration, and that is a whole different world. Some liken it to being tossed into the ocean, with the jiu jitsu guy being a shark - even if you are a lion on your feet, on the beach, once you are dragged down into the "ocean" of ground-fighting, you are in the shark's element and are helpless. They don't call the rear naked choke the mateo leon (the "lion killer") for nothing.

But maybe a better way of describing it is to say that it is like being on another planet, in a different atmosphere. Unless you have spent some serious time there, and have adapted to function in that alien world, you will be like one of those guys in a sci-fi flick who has his space helmet suddenly ripped off who looks around frantically, not knowing what to do, clawing at his neck .... and then his head explodes (or implodes, depending on the sick mind of the film-maker). At least with a choke he just goes to sleep and twitches a bit.

This is an amateur event, so it is not very likely that the strikers entering it are of world class caliber, while it is a friggin fact that the jiu jitsu of the Cobra Kai team is world class. Hence my prediction of a jiu jitsu massacre and shut-out unless one of the Cobra Kai guys gets cocky and decides to stay on his feet for some reason.

One of the Cobra Kai team fighters is Chis Holdsworth, who used to train at the Gracie Academy in Torrence California but moved to Vegas last year to train and teach at Cobra Kai. Here is a video of some of his matches. The lead in music samples the soundtrack of Star Wars, which is appropriate because Chris is like the Anakin Skywalker of Jiu Jitsu, the kid has such potential:

Chris has some slick, sick jiu jitsu and has already made a name for himself on the grappling circuit (but my kids know him as the "itsy, bitsy spider" guy because while showing the kids a move he told them to walk their hand on the mat like an itsy, bitsy spider). Keep an eye on Chris. My wife predicts he will win by triangle (with those long spider legs) but I think it will be by Rear Naked Choke (RNC) or by armbar from the top position.

Another guy fighting for Cobra Kai is Jerry "J-Shap" Shapiro, who is an explosive, dynamic scrapper. He also has a mean guillotine choke, and if I had to bet money on it, I would call it as a win for J-Shap by some form of guillotine or Darce-choke. Here is a video of Jerry grappling and competing in pankration:

Next up is Bill "the Grill" Cooper, who is just amazing on the ground. Here is a video of him winning first place at the 2007 World Grappling Championships in Turkey:

Cobra Kai has three other fighters on the card, Coats-Cobb Adams, Brian Kangas, and Jason Carpenter. I could not find video of them rolling, but I have seen them on the mat and they are slick, fast, and skilled grapplers. Kangas is especially dynamic and very strong.

There are also two female bouts up tonight, which is great! I do wish the UFC would get over its old-fashioned aversion to womens MMA. Women fighters train just as hard, and many are just as tough and skilled, as the men, as has been shown by women fighters in other events, such as Bodog.
What counts is your heart, your brains, and whether you came to scrap, not what is between your legs. Heck, my nine year old daughter routinely beats all of the boys her own size in grappling, both in class and at tournaments. She is tough as nails - just ask the boys.

My daughter, Sedona, about to slap a RNC on yet another boy in class

Sedona Rhodes, first place winner, beginner gi-division, 50-59.9 lbs, NAGA 2008. In second place is her classmate, A.J (a very tough, skilled kid in his own right).

And its not just in grappling that women have shown their mettle. Female boxers, Thai-boxers, and wrestlers have been leaving their blood. sweat, and sometimes their teeth, in the ring and on the mats for decades, so I don't know what Dana White's problem is, other than being a male chauvinist.

Anyway, good to see other fight orgs are down with womens' MMA. these should all be great fights! I'll post afterwards with some thoughts.s Cobb-Adams

Here is the full fight card:

Randall Schuckman vs. David Good

Randall Schuckman
130lbs
Team Rugburn
Website

David Good
130lbs
Alvidrez Combat Grappling
WEBSITE

Coates Cobb-Adams vs Jesse Busk

Coates Cobb-Adams
185lbs
Cobra Kai

Jesse Busk
185lbs
Las Vegas Fight Club

Cuauhtemoc Gomez vs Jason Caldwell

Cuauhtenmoc Gomez
195
Team Lion Taekwondo
Website

Jason Caldwell
195
Las Vegas Fight Club
WEBSITE

Jesse James vs Jarvis Shelby

Jesse James
205lbs
Team Evolution

Jarvis Shelby
205lbs
S.B. Fight Team
WEBSITE

Bill Cooper vs Edsilav Mihoylov

Bill Cooper
160lbs
Cobra Kai

Edsilav Mihoylov
160lbs
Xtreme Couture

Mario Trejo vs Jason Quentero

Mario Trejo
220lbs
Team Lion Taekwondo

Jason Quentero 220lbs
West Coast MMA
WEBSITE

Brian Kangas vs Don Stoner

Brian Kangas
160lbs
Cobra Kai

Don Stoner
160lbs
RCJ Machado
Website

Kimo Yadao vs Matthew Contes

Kimo Yadao
170lbs
Xtreme Couture

Matthew Contes
170lbs
LA Boxing

John Cooper vs Jason Ordonez

John Cooper
160lbs
Las Vegas Fight Club
WEBSITE

Jason Ordonez
160lbs
West Coast MMA

Don Johnson vs Jesus Gonzalez

Don Johnson
250lbs
Las Vegas Fight Team

Jesus Gonzalez
285lbs
Ceaser Gracie
Website

Weston Duschen vs TBA

Weston Duschen
205lbs
Xtreme Couture
Website

TBA

Justin Linn vs Chris Ryan

Justin Linn
150lbs
Xtreme Couture
WEBSITE

Chris Ryan
145lbs
Legends

Brooklyn Huntsman vs Wayne Wrath

Brooklyn Huntsman 145lbs
Excel Defense Studios

Wayne Wrath
150lbs
Nation Kenpo
Website

Jerry Shapiro vs Steve Rios

Jerry Shapiro
135lbs
Cobra Kai

Steven Rios
135lbs
Team Evolution

Jason Carpenter vs Chris Chikami

Jason Carpenter
160lbs
Cobra Kai

Chris Chikami
160lbs
Team Caique

Chris Holdworth vs Daniel Garcia

Chris Holdworth
145lbs
Cobra Kai

Daniel Garcia
145lbs
S.B Fight Team

Tait Lund vs Critter Mooney

Tait Lund
170lbs
Las Vegas Boxing

Critter Mooney
170lbs
S.B. Fight Team

Chance Torres vs Shannon Good

Chance Torres
185lbs
Xtreme Couture

Shannon Good
185lbs
S.B. Fight Team

Mark Phan vs Troy Yania

Mark Phan
140lbs
Xtreme Couture

Troy Yania
140lbs
Team One Kick
WEBSITE

Lacey Schuckman vs Kaitie Tompkins

Lacey Schuckman
120lbs
Team Rugburn
WEBSITE

Kaitie Tompkins
120lbs
Five Dragons
WEBSITE

Byron Fields vs Justin Rote

Byron Fields
170lbs
Warrior Training Center
WEBSITE

Justin Rote
170lbs
LA Boxing
WEBSITE

Shawn Rodriguez vs Alex Memar

Shawn Rodriguez
155lbs
LA Boxing
WEBSITE

Alex Memar
155lbs
Team Skip Kelp

Amber Molinari vs Jessica Halverson

Amber Molinari
155lbs
Sapao MMA
WEBSITE

Jessica Halverson
155lbs
Team Illusion
WEBSITE

-fight card subject to change-

Uly Wins in 40 Seconds Into First Round, by RNC (Rear Naked Choke)!

2008-03-20T21:30:00.003-07:00

Aaaand theeee winnnnner, by way of rear naked choke submission at 40 seconds into round 1, Uuuuuly (not so Useless) Gooooooomez!

I called it right! He did not waste time taking it to the mat, and got a fast submission in round 1. I also actually predicted he would win by RNC, but did not put that in my earlier blog post - but I know that is a favorite of his.

Major congratulations to Uly, and props to everyone who helped him get ready, from Marc Laimon to Brian Clements, Uly's boxing coach.

Stewart and family

Our Kid's Jiu Jitsu Instructor, Ulysses Gomez (Uly), Fights Tonight!

2008-03-20T15:30:00.004-07:00

Speaking of Mixed Martial Arts (that the crazy nincompoop John McCain wanted to ban), our kid's jiu jitsu instructor Ulysses Gomez (Uly) is fighting his first MMA bout tonight, in just a couple of hours! Uly is fighting fellow new-comer Greg McDowell in the Palace Fighting Championships in Lemoore California.

Uly, on the left, weighed in at 125, and McDowell, on the right, weighed in at 119.

Our three kids train at Cobra Kai Jiu Jjitsu here in Vegas, and Uly is their instructor and coach. He has done very well in submission grappling tournaments, winning first place at Grappler's Quest:

Uly has also done very well in Pankration, which is like MMA except for no strikes from the neck up, so he has lots of practical experience to get him ready for MMA:

Apparently, Uly's opponent tonight, McDowell, is a boxer who has switched to MMA. Uly has an obvious edge on the ground (to say the least) but you can never count a puncher out. My old Jiu Jitsu instructor, Nova Uniao black belt john Lewis, found that out when he fought Jens Pulver and did not take Pulver's striking seriously enough. This lead to a knockout that is still used on highlight reels (and also broke John's jaw):

Now, I'm not saying that McDowell is on a par with Little Evil Jens Pulver, who went on to become the first UFC Lightweight champ, but that old saying about "a puncher's chance" has a ring of truth to it. If McDowell has knock-out power, Uly's best plan would be to keep his chin down (unlike John Lewis), and not trade, but instead take it to the mat as soon as possible. Uly has good stand-up, but hey, why take the chance? He will easily dominate on the ground.

Anyway, I predict a victory for Uly by submission in the first round if he does take it to the mat right off the bat.

The kids have a blast in class and competing in tournaments and have done well. We wish Uly Luck tonight!

Stewart Rhodes

OK, I'm Back!

2008-03-20T15:10:00.004-07:00

Just took a look at my poor, neglected blog and realized I had not posted since the damn Romney whisper incident, and now it is months later and Romney is out, the Ghouliani is out, etc. and the only two men still standing in the fight for the Republican nomination are McCain and Ron Paul.

Ah, John McCain, John McCain. Many self-described conservatives are putting up at least a show of displeasure and resistance at McCain (kinda like how a prostitute might feign shock, dismay, and mild resistance for a customer before giving him what is already bought and paid for). But they will take whatever the party mucky-mucks dictate, and will rally round the fake conservative so-called lesser of two evils again, out of their terror of a Dem in office. Same ol same ol.

How anyone who calls themselves an advocate of smaller government, limited government, and the Constitution could ever have supported that cracked old fart is beyond me. McCain hasn't got the first clue about limited government. Way back in the early 90s he wanted a federal law to friggin ban the UFC and all mixed martial arts (an entire friggin sport!) just because he did not like it or understand it."the UFC is Human Cockfighting" - damn, what an idiot.

So, McCain was on my shit list from day one for attempting to ban my favorite sport, and that was only the beginning of his stupid ideas on what he thinks is good for the rest of us, which he thinks he has the power to impose by force of law. McCain Feingold? Assault weapons ban? Trigger locks on your gun? Closing the so-called "gun show loophole"? Patriot Act? the list of stupidity and sell-outs of the Constitution is endless.

Ah well. People get the government they deserve - or to be more accurate, those who support McCain, Clinton, or Obama will get exactly what they deserve, but unfortunately those dumb asses will drag the rest of us over the cliff too.

So, I've been off working in grass-roots efforts for Ron Paul, teaching classes on the Constitution, working on some interesting constitutional law cases, and doing the whole Clark County Nevada Republican Party Convention thing (interesting experience, to say the least) and will be a delegate to the Nevada State Republican Party Convention. That should also be interesting.

I am hearing that many delegates from other states are going to Ron Paul, so who can say what will be the final result of the Nevada State Convention. What happens if conservatives across America "just say no" to McCain and actually do the right thing, for once, and go with Ron Paul? Man, that would be craaaazy! Totally off the hook! Not likely to happen in enough numbers to dump the geezer from Arizona, but who knows? I have been wrong before when it comes to the crazy world of politics. I hope I am wrong again.

Anyway, I will try to post more regularly again. Sometimes I just need a break from blogging, but then I feel a need to vent and am back at it.

More soon.

Stewart Rhodes

The Great Romney "Whisper in His Ear" Puppet Show

2008-01-24T23:24:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Friday, January 25, 2008. A POSSIBLE SECOND WHISPER is discovered! I have added the video of that alleged second whisper below! Y es, that's right, there are now two whisper clips! The first one says "raised taxes" and the second seems to whisper "support." Listen to them both.

UPDATE: Saturday, January 26, 2009. On that first, "raised taxes" whisper, if you turn your volume up really loud, you can hear what sounds like more of that whisper, continuing as Romney begins to speak. Sounds like the full whisper is "raised taxes, I'm not." The "I'm not" part of the whisper comes as Romney begins to speak, so it is not as easy to hear. If the whisper is in fact saying "raised taxes ... I'm not" then that cuts against the notion that it was someone whispering to Russert to help him finish his question - that would not make sense.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

In MSNBC Florida debates, when Romney is asked a question about Ronald Reagan - "will you do for social security what Ronald Reagan did in 1983"- you can hear a voice whisper "raised taxes" and then Romney says "I'm not going to raise taxes, what I'm going to do ..."

Watch this video, and listen for the clearly audible whispering voice, telling Romney what to say:

While the above clip replays the "raised taxes" whisper several times, below is a version that plays more of the exchange between Romney and Russert, and it is all the more clear that Romney's entire answer revolves around the catch term "raise taxes," as in "I'm not going to raise taxes, " while Russert uses different language:

Some have speculated that the whisper is a prompt for Russert to add on the rest of the question, "raised taxes," to what Russert said about Reagan, but listen to how incredibly fast the whisper comes after Russert finishes his sentence. Seems mighty fast to have been someone trying to get Russert to finish the question - how does the whisperer know that Russert is done? It sounds much more like a prompt for Mitt.

[Added Saturday January 26, 2008] Additionally, if you turn your volume up really loud, you can hear what sounds like more of that "raised taxes" whisper, continuing as Romney begins to speak. Sounds like the full whisper is actually "raised taxes, I'm not." The "I'm not" part of the whisper is not as loud as the "raised taxes" part, and comes as Romney begins to speak, so it is not as easy to hear. If the whisper is in fact saying "raised taxes ... I'm not" then that cuts against the notion that it was someone whispering to Russert to help him finish his question - that would not make sense. It makes far more sense that it was meant for Romney, and Romney alone.

THE SECOND WHISPER!

And now, an additional whisper has been discovered, this time when Romney is responding to Huckabee's question about why Romney supported and signed an "assault weapons" bill while Governor of Massachusetts and said he supported the federal assault weapons ban, and would have signed it's renewal, just as Bush would have (damn good question, by the way). Right in the middle of Romney's response, you can hear someone whisper what sounds like "support."

Here is the clip. Listen very carefully:

Did you hear that? The word "support" is whispered. Is that a prompt to Romney, picked up by his microphone, or is it another microphone picking up someone in the audience, or one of the moderators, as has been asserted by some people in response to the first whisper? Sounds to me like it is a yet another prompt to Romney. The whisper says support, and then Romney says support.

His defenders are decrying all of this as conspiracy theory, and dismiss it as nonsense, saying that it was someone else talking and not talking to Romney. I might have bought that for one whisper, but two? And both related directly to his answer? Come on! This is getting ridiculous.

And what is so outlandish about suspecting that one of the tools up on that stage is wired? Everyone up there (except for Ron Paul, who is his own man and thinks for himself during debates) has handlers telling them what to do and say at every turn. Why would it be such a shock if that was not just happening before the debate, but during the debate? Those men are nothing but mouthpieces anyway. But "they" don't want you to know that!

"They" don't want you to know that the men on the stage are puppets in a friggin puppet show. The puppet masters want you to think that the plastic, dancing Ken doll that is Romney is actually just answering the questions on his own.

New! From Romco! The Mitt Romney doll! You don't need to pull a string to hear him talk, just whisper what you want him to say in his ear, and he repeats it! Every time! Amazing! He'll even act like a real Mormon ... on command! Delight and fool all of your Mormon friends! They'll think Romney hears the voice of God, but they will never know it is really your voice the little puppet is obeying! (Blackwater national security advisor sold seperately).

That the Romney doll puppet is thinking and speaking on his own is all part of the grand illusion, and it just spoils all the fun whenever you see the strings, the bulge in some puppet's back, or hear the whispered answer.

What a shame! It was such a realistic, convincing puppet show! The McCain doll, the Giuliani doll (which comes with a prom dress), the Huckster preacher doll -they almost looked real! That was amazing!

And who can forget the Bush doll with that clever communications pack on its back, hidden under its cloths!

The JulieAnni puppet doll all dressed up in the deluxe queen of the ball ensemble (Jack boots and black leather "freedom is authority" undergarments sold separately).

Politicians have long been called puppets, but most folks took that as a metaphor, not a literal description. Oh, we many, we happy many, we band of suckers, to live in such an age, when puppets walk the earth, talking, blinking their eyes, smiling, and turning their empty plastic heads just like real boys!

Stewart Rhodes

ADDED COMMENT ON THE LDS CHURCH (MORMONS) AND HOW SO MANY SUPPORT ROMNEY

An anonymous poster has accused me of insulting LDS church members by supposedly assuming that they "follow the leaders of the church like sheep."

So, I want to make a couple of things clear. First, I do not think LDS are mere sheep, who will follow whatever the church says. As another commenter pointed out (correcting my error), the Mormon church has issued a statement declaring its neutrality, so there is no command from the church for members to follow, even if they were so inclined. Even before I was clear on that, I knew not all Mormons support Romney.

There are many members who do not support Romney. I am a member of the LDS church myself, though I no longer attend, and I do not support Romney. I support Ron Paul. Further, I know a considerable number of very devout LDS who do not support Romney. Instead, they also support Ron Paul. They consider Romney a wolf in sheep's clothing sent to fool the church.

Watch this video to hear the thoughts on one very strong member of the LDS church, Joel Skousen, speaking to other church members, on why he does not support Romney and supports Ron Paul, and why:

LDS who who do not support Romney are very disappointed in how many LDS do support Romney, despite the fact that he is a big government fake conservative who has supported gun control, socialized medicine, and a host of other very non-conservative positions, and will continue the destruction of our Republic.

Those LDS who support Romney can point to nothing about Romney that would convince me that Romney will be any different than the big government, pro gun control Bush. As Mitt admitted in the debate, he signed a state version of the "assault weapons ban" and would have signed a federal version, just like Bush would have! So, Romney is as at least as soft on gun rights as Bush, and likely even worse! In fact, I see nothing in Romney that tells me he will be any better a defender of the Republic than Harry Reid has been.

One of the things I like most about LDS members is they tend to be staunch constitutionalists, and to have a real reverence for our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As such, it is all the more sad to see so many LDS not support Ron Paul, a man who is beyond a doubt the staunchest, most strict construction constitutionalist since Jefferson. Why do they forsake such a man of principle and devotion to the Constitution?

Part of the answer may be that like other conservatives, they have adopted the Bush Administration, standard GOP establishment views on the war in Iraq and the "war on terrorism" and just cannot see past their disagreement with Ron Paul on those issues. While I think such LDS are making a grave mistake in doing so, at least that is a reason based on a difference in sincere opinion on what is best for the nation (though still not adhering to the Constitution, in my opinion).

But the tremendous number of LDS who turned out for Romney in Nevada last week, along with what I have heard first hand from LDS members, tells me that foreign policy is not the reason for the support of Romney rather than Paul. For most of those who support Romney, it is simply because he is a member of the church and, for such people, that is all they seem to want to consider. What other reason could there be for the overwhelming numbers for Romney?

Thus, if Romney were not LDS, I think it very likely that Ron Paul would have won Nevada, and likely also Utah. Sadly, in a time when our Constitution is truly hanging by a thread, most LDS are ignoring a man who could throw it a lifeline and instead support a smiling fake conservative with a pair of scissors hidden behind his back.

Stewart

Neocon Kool-Aid Drinker Gets Torn a New One

2008-01-22T19:59:00.001-07:00

I checked out some of the places people have been linking to my post on why so many veterans support Ron Paul, which includes a great video from a currently serving soldier, and came across this gem of an exchange:

BOW'd UP (Kool-Aid drinker who is so afraid of "terra" that he is willing to sacrifice liberty on the alter of security) says:

Wher'd All The Paullocks Go
seriously, whered they all go??????
is the revolution finally over.??

I GUESS THEY FINALLY HEARD HIM TALK ABOUT DEFENDING THE NATION!

And here is the priceless reply from RedFoxx:

All right BOW'd UP, you want to talk about defending the US. Let's talk about defending the US.

Who is the only Congressman to offer a resolution to officially declare war on Iraq? That would be Ron Paul.

Who is the only Congressman to introduce a bill to deny student visas to students from "terrorist" nations? That would be Ron Paul.

Who is the only Congressman to introduce legislation to allow airlines to arm their pilots, which, by the way, would have prevented 911? That would be Ron Paul.

Who is the only Congressman who has introduced legislation to end the practice of birth-right citizenship? That would be Ron Paul.

You Socialist, big government neo-cons that have hijacked the Republican party attempt to paint anyone who disagrees with your Bill Clinton-style, nation building and policing of the world foreign policy as un-American and unwilling to defend the country. It's not going to work with me.

I'm sorry that you're upset that there are at least a few of us left in the Republican party that believe in limited government and believe in a strict adherence to the United States Constitution.

How, sir, is the United States any safer by our meddling in Middle Eastern affairs? Is it that two billion dollars that we borrow each day from the Communist Chinese in order to build trillion dollar embassies (with 30 foot walls) in the middle of Baghdad that makes us safer? Is it the fact that our trillion dollar per year foreign policy causes us to be faced with massive debt and rampant inflation that makes us safer? Is it the fact that Al-Queda is now stronger than ever that makes us safer?

Is it the weakening of the US dollar due to our overextension overseas that makes us safer?

Or perhaps it's our surrendering of our sovereignty to the United Nations that makes us safer. Let's don't forget that enforcing UN resolutions was one of the main reasons for invading Iraq. I'm sorry that some of us in the Republican party still believe that the US should, and by right ought to be, A FREE AND INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION.

Is it the fact that our borders are wide open? How can you be so scared of a bearded, middle eastern man attacking you, yet you're ok with us securing the border of Iraq, while our very own borders remain wide open.

If you neocons really believed in what you argue (that the Muslims are coming!!), then why are our borders wide open? Why?

Here is the link to that particular post, and here is the link to the whole thread. Very well said, RedFox! So funny, but sad, that so many people think the only way to be in support of a strong national defense is to blindly support whatever war the current president thinks would be cool. There is so much more to national security and defense than blindly continuing on a disastrous course. But such flag waivers rarely have the capacity for rational thought, especially when it is their guy, from their political party, who is in power. Stewart

A Soldier's Revolution - An Iraqi Vet Explains Why He Suports Ron Paul

2008-01-21T22:24:00.000-07:00

Below is a compelling, and very well said statement of principle by a U.S. Army E-5, on why he has come to question the wisdom of current U.S. foreign policy and has come to support Ron Paul for President.

It is most certainly worth your time to take a look.

What this soldier says in this video is in accord with my own convictions as a former combat arms soldier and what I have read from the many hundreds of veterans who have voiced their support for Congressman Ron Paul for president. Here are just two examples:

“I unreservedly support Ron Paul for president because he is the only candidate that has kept his oath of office and has promised to do so as president. The least that a soldier should expect from his commander-in-chief is that he is faithful to his oath of office and will not put our troops at risk by sending them to fight unconstitutional, undeclared wars.” Dan Gibson, Combat Veteran, U.S. Marine Corps (1962-1966)

“As a soldier sworn to the Constitution, I cannot, in good conscience, support any candidate for president but Ron Paul. He is indeed the champion of the Constitution.” Arthur Curtis, Army Staff Sergeant, Bosnia (’97/’98), Iraq (’03/’04), and Afghanistan (’05/’06); Awarded two Bronze Stars for actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Read others here at the official Ron Paul 2008 website.

Here is a page of additional testimonials on a site not associated with the campaign, and here is a page for testimonials from veterans that includes their photos.

The recurring theme in all of those testimonials is that, as soldiers, we all swore a sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We took that oath deadly serious then, and we still take that oath seriously now, as former soldiers.

Many people, especially politicians, just cannot understand what that oath means to a soldier or a veteran. Unlike politicians and most lawyers, who merely mouth their oaths of office as part of some mere formality they undergo before attaining their cherished positions of power, soldiers speak that oath knowing they may very well die in fulfilling it. Those men meant it, and they still do in a very primal, emotional, and soul stirring way.

This is something the treasonous, lying pack of wolves inside the beltway had better think long and hard about. For the vast majority of soldiers I have known, the entire reason they joined up was to be a defender of freedom. They knowingly, and willingly, took their place in the long line of men who have volunteered to place themselves in harms way to act as a physical barrier between their families, their countrymen, and whoever would dare to attack them. That line of service stretches back through time, right back to the men who stood their ground at Concord bridge on April 19, 1775 and fired the shot heard round the world.

My father in law, John Adams, was such a man. On December 10, 1941, just three days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, he lied about his age to join the Marines so he could fight the Japanese in the Pacific. He fought them at Iwo, among other places. Until his death in 2006, he was a dedicated patriot who still took his oath deadly serious.

Corporal John Adams. Note the date of enlistment - December 10, 1941. Now that is what you call stepping up.

Every soldier takes his oath with the memory of those men, and all who followed, in his mind. The whole point of serving is to be a defender of liberty and that is what they thought they would be doing as soldiers.

Those veterans get mighty upset when they find that they have been used for other purposes, even for opposite purposes, by men who have utter contempt for the very Constitution the soldier swore an oath to defend, and countless others died in defending. And when the veterans wake up to the internal enemies of liberty who are far more dangerous than any foreign foe, those vets tend to take it very, very personally. They tend to feel a rage toward those internal enemies that far exceeds whatever they may have felt toward an external foe.

for now, at least, those awakened veterans are channeling their anger and disgust into support for the one man in Washington that they know takes his oath of office as seriously as a soldier does. That man is Ron Paul. The vet knows, from Dr. Paul's record, and from his demonstrated courage, that Dr. Paul is as dedicated to the cause of liberty and the Constitution as he is. The vet knows that Dr. Paul would lay down his life in defense of liberty just as the vet would. The vet knows a fellow defender of the Constitution when he sees one.

Those who are working to destroy liberty in America had better beware. The true sleeping giant they need fear is that great body of American veterans who are now waking up, and who are righteously pissed off.

Stewart Rhodes

Former U.S. Army Airborne soldier

Bush Admin Lawyers Attack Second Amendment - Saluted By Brady Campaign!

2008-01-15T16:49:00.000-07:00

Public 'threatened' by private-firearms ownership.

Government argues gun restrictions 'permitted by the 2nd Amendment.'

A faithful apprentice strikes again. Yet another fake conservative legal tool gleefully guts the Constitution for his Master - this time coldly disemboweling the Second Amendment.

Here is an excerpt of the Worldnetdaily.com article:

Since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.

The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.

Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment," he wrote in the brief, the Times reported.

He noted especially the federal ban on machine guns and those many other "particularly dangerous types of firearms," and endorsed restrictions on gun ownership by felons, those subject to restraining orders, drug users and "mental defectives."

His arguments came in the closely watched Washington, D.C., ban that would prevent residents from keeping handguns in their homes for self-defense.

Paul Helmke, of the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, told the Times he salutes the administration for its position.

Read the rest here.

My Comments:

There you go! Bush lawyers have sided with the District of Columbia against gun owners, not only arguing that D.C.'s total ban on handguns is constitutional but that all current federal gun laws should be upheld, winning praise (a salute no less!) from the gun grabbing victim disarmament crowd over at the Brady Campaign. So nice to see yet another "bipartisan" assault on the American people.

So much for the old saw that Republican politicians, if only they could, would get rid of all of those unconstitutional federal gun laws, but we just need to be patient until they are in a position to do so. Now, when a case is before the Supreme Court, and they actually have a chance (however remote) of striking down those federal gun laws by convincing the Supreme Court to rule those laws unconstitutional, we have the US government, in the form of the Bush Administration controlled Justice Department, chock full of Republican lawyers, arguing to the Court that all of those federal gun laws are perfectly constitutional and nothing in the Second Amendment can be used to strike them down. To the contrary, doing so would be "dangerous"!

We now see the final nails being hammered in the coffin of the right to bear arms in America.

First, we had the Gonzales v.Raich decision, where the Republican lawyers of the Bush Administration argued that there is no limit whatsoever to Congress's law making power since Congress can even regulate what a person does in her own back yard, growing a plant, not for sale, but for personal consumption. That decision had a direct and almost immediate impact on gun rights.

In United States v. Stewart, before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Stewart argued that his manufacture of homemade machine-guns was not for interstate commerce and was therefore beyond the power of Congress to regulate. He won! The Ninth Circuit agreed! That's right, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Congress lacked the power, under the Article I, Section 8 commerce clause, to regulate homemade machine-guns. An amazing decision, which truly surprised many a constitutionalist who thought the federal courts were beyond hope.

But then came the Supreme Court's Raich decision. In the aftermath of Raich, the U.S. government, once again with Republican Bush appointed lawyers leading the charge against the Constitution, appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court. the Supreme Court ordered the Ninth Circuit to follow Raich, and to reverse its decision in Stewart, because lo and behold, Congress could regulate even home-made machine guns (and any other home-made firearms). So now Mr. Stewart, an American gun owning patriot, is still in federal prison thanks to the Bush lawyers and thanks to the Raich decision the Bush Administration pushed for.

So now Congress can make any law it likes. There is no longer a commerce clause challenge to the power of Congress to pass any law, much less a gun law. Forget about pointing out that the federal government is only supposed to have certain, limited, enumerated powers. Your only remaining way to challenge such laws is to argue it violates your rights.

And now here comes the Bush Admin arguing that not only can Congress pass any law it pleases, but you cannot challenge the constitutionality of those laws by evoking the Second Amendment. Sure, they throw us a bone by saying that the Second Amendment somehow protects an individual right, but then they argue that your right to bear arms can be regulated by Congress, and that none of Congress's regulations violate that right. That's right. Not one of the current multitude of federal gun laws and regulations violates your rights - not even outright bans on whole classes of firearms. I'm not clear on what restriction these so-called conservative lawyers would find to ever violate the Second Amendment. Perhaps a total ban on any and all private possession of firearms? Would that do it? So, short of that, any restriction is constitutional so long as you are at least theoretically "permitted" to own some kind of firearm?

This is like saying in grand language that "the powers of Congress are few and defined, and limited to those enumerated," but then saying that among the powers enumerated is the power to regulate commerce and everything is commerce, so Congress can go ahead and regulate whatever it wants. What a farce of the concept of limited and enumerated powers. What an empty limit on the power of the federal government.

Same here: The Second Amendment protects an "individual right" but that right may be regulated in any way Congress pleases, including banning entire categories of firearms and ammunition, and may track you and your arms at will. What an empty right and a non-existent limit on power.

So now we have a "conservative" administration that argues that the federal government may pass any damn law it pleases, and any damn gun law it pleases.

Forget the illusion that the men in the Bush Administration care about the Constitution. Forget the illusion that your rights are somehow safer with Republicans in office. You have been fooled. Many of us knew that long, long ago. But now perhaps other Americans, especially those who consider themselves conservatives, will finally, after all these years, wake up to this fact.

We are seeing before us a constitutional republic in its final death throes, killed by a thousand treacherous cuts, and we are now seeing the final slashes being inflicted by cold reptilian lawyers who fancy themselves "conservatives" working for a man who truly does treat the Constitution like it is "just a goddamn piece of paper."

Stewart Rhodes

Ron Paul Speaks Out on Racism and the Old Newsletters

2008-01-12T13:44:00.000-07:00

Here is Ron Paul's full press release:

Ron Paul Statement on the New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters.
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

And here is Ron Paul's his statement on racism:

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

And here are more of Ron Paul's writings on this issue:

What does freedom mean?

None of Your Business!

More writings (with a list of subjects)

OK, I think I'm done with this issue. Now let's get back to saving our country. - Stewart

I am a Mexican-American, I worked for Ron Paul in the 1990’s, and I Know that Ron Paul is No Racist!

2008-01-11T01:10:00.000-07:00

By Stewart Rhodes

January 11, 2008
Digg It!

There is now underway a full-blown smear campaign to paint Ron Paul as a racist. First, there was the lame attempt at guilt by association, with a mere campaign contribution by some red neck racist being touted as “proof” that Ron Paul is racist. And then there were equally stupid Kevin Baconesque degrees of separation attempts to connect Ron with various so-called “hate groups.”

Now the muckrakers are dredging up ancient, obscure newsletters written by some equally obscure ghost writing employee(s) of Dr. Paul’s way back in the early 1990’s. This only tells me that Ron Paul is a real threat to the political establishment, and they are pulling out all the stops in an attempt to stop the Ron Paul Revolution.

I worked for Ron Paul, in his Washington D.C. office, in 1998-99, seeing him almost every day, and saw absolutely no indication of him being racist, and in fact, I saw many reasons to know he is not racist. I am of Hispanic decent, and quite proud of it. My family on my mother’s side were migrant farm workers and my Great-Grandfather even rode with Pancho Villa.I am also part American-Indian.

My great-grandfather, Jacinto Sandoval (a rather fierce man) who rode with Pancho Villa, poses for a photo with two of my great-uncles.

My great-grandmother, Ruth Gasca Parra, with her indian braids.

That heritage not only makes it rather difficult for anyone to smear me as somehow being a white racist (which is good for me if I am ever foolish enough to run for office), but also cuts against Ron Paul's supposed "ties" with white supremacists and this latest smear campaign based on what some employee of his wrote fifteen years ago.

Not only am I outspoken about my heritage, I don’t work for racists and I would never have worked on Ron Paul’s staff if I had any suspicion whatsoever that he was "racist." And I wasn't the only staff member of "mixed race." There were several others and he never gave it a second thought. One of them was a young woman who is half Panamanian, with an obvious dark complexion. If Ron Paul were some kind of racist, who thinks non-whites are inferior, why would he hire her, or me? Was it some kind of elaborate, clever cover? No. The reason he did not care about our race is because he is a libertarian who sees people as individuals, not members of groups, racial or otherwise.

There are many different segments of society who are drawn to a man like Ron Paul. People of a wide variety of backgrounds support him because people of a wide variety of backgrounds support liberty and have a fundamental distrust of excessive government power.

During my time in his office, as now in the grassroots movement, there were fundamentalist Christians (and I mean really fundamentalist), working right next to proud and opinionated atheists. There were budhists, anarcho-capitalists, Big L Libertarians, objectivists, old school "Reagan" conservatives, and people of all manner of ethnic background, all working side-by-side. I have even seen gay people in those circles. They did not agree on many things, or even like each other, to be blunt, but whatever their personal background or orientation, they all saw value in working for a strict constitutionalist and a man of deep principle and courage.

They were and are all part of the broader Freedom Movement – which contains a very eclectic mix of people who all share a desire for liberty. But as eclectic and diverse as his staff was in other ways, I never knew anyone on his staff to be racist, and I think it is because racists are so directly at odds with Ron Paul's philosophy of individual rights - such people just would not have fit in. Racists are collectivists, who see people as members of groups only, rather than as individuals. Such a viewpoint is fundamentally incompatible with libertarianism. As Ron Paul himself notes:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.

You can read the rest of his statement about racism at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/

White Power Nazis are no exception to the rule that racists are collectivists, being, after-all, national SOCIALISTS. Such people are not only my permanent enemies because I am not pure white, as they have sworn me their enemy, they are also my ideological enemies - as much as any Marxist - because their beliefs are entirely incompatible with the concepts of individual liberty, personal self determination, and reason that is the heart of libertarianism. That makes them Ron Paul's ideological enemies as well because Ron Paul is a libertarian’s libertarian.

But some of these collectivist racists now at least claim to support Ron Paul. Why? I suspect for the same reason the far left collectivist anti war protester does. There is something they fear or detest so much in the current Federal government that they are willing to support a man who clearly does not agree with them on fundamental philosophical principles. I'll bet the far lefty anti war protester and the White Power skin head consider each other mortal enemies, but they both support the same man for very similar reasons. Fear of excessive government power, and a desire to return to more limited government under the Constitution makes for strange political combinations sometimes.

If Ron Paul is somehow racist because some racists support him, does that make him a socialist lefty hippy because some far left anti war hippy supports him? Does it make the lefty hippy a racist too, because he supports Ron right along with the skin-head? There are also gay people who support Ron Paul. Does that make Ron gay? Does that make the Nazi guy gay too, or a "gay lover" because he also supports Ron? No, of course not.

People from all of those backgrounds support Ron Paul because they all have a desire to return to Constitutional government. Though they don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, they fear what comes from unconstitutional government.

It would be absurd to say that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are racist, gay, atheist, socialist, or whatever because people of those persuasions value and support those documents. The same is true for Dr. Paul because he is the Champion of the Constitution. What all those people really support is not a man, as much as it is the Constitution itself.

It seems that even racist dumb asses prefer the Constitution, at least for now (that is how dangerous the federal government has become!). I have my suspicions about their professed devotion to the Constitution, since their world view really is so collectivist, but I'm not going to reject the Constitution or Ron Paul just because the racist idiots don't realize that a restor

ation of the Constitution will not get them to their mythical "White America" like they may hope. What it will do is get us all to a place of liberty and justice for all, and the racists can then whither away like the outdated fools they are.

The latest smear against Ron Paul stemming from the old newsletters written by some employee.

Ron Paul, in his official press release on this issue, says:

The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
....
When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Go to his site and read the whole statement.

I believe him. Despite the fact that racism is incompatible with libertarianism, I have in fact known some people (thankfully few) who like to call themselves libertarians who are racist - there are stupid bigots in any movement –and just as we have seen that there are even some self-professed racists who express support for Ron Paul, it does not surprise me that at some point in Ron Paul’s long career in the Freedom Movement such a closet, collectivist racist was able to worm his way into working for Ron.

Ron Paul does not interrogate all of his new hires on their view on race, no doubt because he presumes that those who call themselves libertarians are not racists. In hindsight we can say that he should have been more careful in monitoring what his employees wrote long ago, and no doubt he has since become far more careful about watching what goes out with his name on it. But Ron Paul, being a sincere libertarian, is a very hands-off kind of guy, as Tucker Carlson noted in his recent article, and perhaps a bit too trusting by assuming that the people who work for him will be consistent, principled libertarians just as he is.

As I noted above, that is usually a fair and accurate assumption, and I never heard one racist comment from any staff. But it is certainly possible that one or two racist jerks slipped through the cracks. As I said, every movement has its idiots. As a case in point, look at Eric Dondero who used to work for Ron but after 9-11 transformed into a raving Kool-Aid drinking, Bush cheerleading, torture loving, warmongering neocon when it comes to the war on terror. Who would have known he was such a raving maniac? No doubt about it, that idiot had to have said, written, or done something that was embarrassing to Ron while working for him.

I have seen nothing, in all my interactions with Ron Paul, to ever suggest to me that he himself is racist. To the contrary, I have every reason to know he is not. And the same goes for his supposed hatred of gays. That is also total hogwash. Ron Paul does not care what someone is. He sees us all as individuals with God given rights. If you value liberty and the Constitution, then you are Ron Paul’s brother or sister in liberty, whatever your color, creed, or sexual preference.

This smear campaign reminds me of how the whole militia movement of the 1990’s was smeared as racist, even when some of the leadership in that movement was non-white. It also reminds me of how the Branch Davidian victims of government abuse were portrayed by the vast majority of media reports as being a bunch of religious extremist white people with guns, with the not-so-subtle implication that they were white racists. Most Americans thus never knew that the majority of the Branch Davidians were in fact non-white.

Four Branch Davidian women survivors attend the July, 1995 House Waco Hearings. I'll bet you didn't know they were so multicultural, did you? That is how effective a media smear campaign can be.

There were an estimated 40 blacks in that homestead church of 120 members, and among the Blacks killed in the fire were Wayne Martin, a 42-year-old Harvard trained lawyer, and four of his seven children. There were also entire families of Hispanics and Asians among them, and many mixed-race marriages and children. But the facts never stop the media or the wanna-be media in the blogosphere. Racism in general, and especially antisemitism, has always been the smear of choice against the Freedom Movement.

This is just a desperate attempt by a desperate establishment to silence this resurgent freedom movement by smearing Ron Paul with that same old smear of choice, racism.

Stewart Rhodes

Yale Law graduate, veteran, Mexican-American, and proud former Ron Paul staffer

Digg It!

UPDATE:

David Codrea, over at The War On Guns, makes some very good points:

Paul's public record spans decades. Have his bloviating accusers list all the quotes by him--along with a credible source--where Dr. Paul has written or spoken an unequivocally racist statement--and by that I mean a statement advocating that whites are superior and other races are inferior. Find a statement by him where he advocates either an enhancement or reduction of liberty for individuals belonging to any group of people based on their ethnicity.

If they can't, just remember your Shakespeare: "[I]t is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

Here's my bet: Anything they come up with will be so indirect, or out of context, or possibly even true, just politically incorrect to admit in today's environment of conditioned Nazi-like sensitivities, that the reaction by anyone of fair an open mind will be: Is that all you've got? That's it?

Read the whole thing here, and check out the comments section, as David has challenged the accusers to post what they've got - to put up or shut up.

I agree with David that all that should really matter is whether Ron Paul himself has written or spoken an unequivocally racist statement, not whether he was an overly trusting, hands off supervisor of an employee who wrote stuff in his name (even his accusers admit that Ron did not actually write the statements they are digging up from the old newsletters). You can find over 1,000 of Ron Paul's articles and speeches here. Go look.

Stewart

Vote Fraud in New Hampshire Against Ron Paul?

2008-01-09T13:14:00.000-07:00

There are disturbing rumblings coming out of New Hampshire that people voted for Ron Paul but their vote was not counted at all. These are becoming more than just unsubstantiated rumors, with one New Hampshire district admitting that votes for Ron Paul were not counted. The below article delves deeper into that particular case, speculating on whether a recount will be needed.

I think a recount is absolutely called for, if for no other reason than to put all future primaries and caucuses on notice that Ron Paul supporters will be watching very carefully and that the campaign is ready and willing to go to bat for a recount if need be. There is also suspicion that Hillary Clinton's supposed last minute win over Obama in New Hampshire was the result of vote fraud.

If we cannot count on fair, clean elections, then our political system is truly broken. What then? More to come - Stewart Rhodes

New Hampshire District Admits Ron Paul Votes Not Counted

Sutton township reported Congressman had zero votes, actual number was 31
Paul Joseph WatsonPrison PlanetWednesday, January 9, 2008

'The head clerk of the New Hampshire township of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count.';
The head clerk of the New Hampshire town of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count.
As we reported earlier today, an entire family voted for Ron Paul in Sutton, yet when the voting map on the Politico website was posted, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero.
Vote fraud expert Bev Harris contacted the head clerk in Sutton, Jennifer Call, who was forced to admit that the 31 votes Ron Paul received were completely omitted from the final report sheet, claiming "human error" was responsible for the mistake.
Two or three votes not counted could be a plausible mistake - but 31 votes for one candidate?

Read the rest here

The Christmas Truce of 1914

2007-12-25T01:24:00.000-07:00

One of the most remarkable and moving stories in the long, sad history of warfare is that of the Christmas Truce of 1914, which was a spontaneous expression of peace and good will between British and German soldiers in the trenches. Laying down their arms, they came together in no man's land to exchange gifts, sing Christmas carols, and even to play soccer.

British and German troops standing together on Christmas Day, 1914.

After looking into each others eyes, and seeing that they had far more in common with each other than with the bloodthirsty politicians and generals who had sent them to war, they had to be threatened with court martial by the powers that be to make them go back to the grim, insane business of killing each other - for what?

Here is the snopes urban legends page on this incredible story (which Snopes properly lists as "true" because it did indeed happen). And here is another account:

The meeting of enemies as friends in no-man's land was experienced by hundreds, if not thousands, of men on the Western Front during Christmas 1914. Today, 90 years after it occurred, the event is seen as a shining episode of sanity from among the bloody chapters of World War One – a spontaneous effort by the lower ranks to create a peace that could have blossomed were it not for the interference of generals and politicians.

And here is an especially moving video and song dedicated to the men of the Christmas Truce, where the artist who wrote the song recounts how very, very old German veterans of the Christmas Truce came to hear him play and sing the song in Belgium. It is a real tear jerker.

A Carol from Flanders

by Frederick Niven (1878-1944)

In Flanders on the Christmas morn
The trenched foemen lay,
the German and the Briton born,
And it was Christmas Day.

The red sun rose on fields accurst,
The gray fog fled away;
But neither cared to fire the first,
For it was Christmas Day!

They called from each to each across
The hideous disarray,
For terrible has been their loss:
"Oh, this is Christmas Day!"

Their rifles all they set aside,
One impulse to obey;
'Twas just the men on either side,
Just men — and Christmas Day.

They dug the graves for all their dead
And over them did pray:
And Englishmen and Germans said:
"How strange a Christmas Day!"

Between the trenches then they met,
Shook hands, and e'en did play
At games on which their hearts were set
On happy Christmas Day.

Not all the emperors and kings,
Financiers and they
Who rule us could prevent these things —
For it was Christmas Day.

Oh ye who read this truthful rime
From Flanders, kneel and say:
God speed the time when every day
Shall be as Christmas Day.

No truer statement has been made than that of World War I Marine Major General Smedley Butler , one of the most highly decorated Marines in history (he won two Medals of Honor!) when he declared that "war is a racket."

War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

He was speaking from his experience in World War I, but his warning stands the test of time. As Major General Butler asked, who makes the profits? Who pays the bills? You know the answer. - Stewart

Merry Christmas!

2007-12-24T23:56:00.000-07:00

Christmas is my favorite time of year for many reasons: time with close family, a time of excitement and joy for my children, a time to reflect upon the year coming to a close and to think of the year yet to come.

But chief among the reasons I enjoy Christmas so much is that it is a time of relative peace, when even people who are otherwise bloodthirsty bastards at least make a showing of remembering "the Prince of Peace" and what He actually stood for - Peace on earth, and goodwill to men.

The Prince of Peace.

Don't get me wrong, I consider myself a warrior who is always ready to defend family, hearth, home, country, and liberty against the predations of evil men, be they foreign or domestic, but that does not mean I have to enjoy the prospect of having to take up arms against my fellow man, who I wish would simply leave me and mine alone, in peace. But alas, "some men you just can't reach" with reason. Some men only respect and fear force. But that does not mean we need to become unreasoning brutes ourselves. And our willingness to stand and fight does not mean we cannot pray for peace and have good will toward all men, hoping they will see the light so we do not have to fight. Let us pray for peace, even if we must prepare for war.

One of my all-time favorite Christmas carols is It Came Upon A Midnight Clear, which was written way back in 1849 by Edmund Sears, a pastor in the Unitarian Church in Weston, Massachusetts. This is truly a beautiful song that captures well the message of peace and hope for mankind, as well as the long, weary road of fear, strife, struggle and war that mankind has walked for so long, and still walks to this day. Sears wrote it in 1849, before the advent of modern weaponry that has made mankind's self-slaughter so much more "efficient." Below are the lyrics, and here is an especially beautiful rendition by Hall and Oats. If the embedded links won't play, then go here:

It came upon the midnight clear,
That glorious song of old,
From angels bending near the earth,
To touch their harps of gold:
"Peace on the earth, goodwill to men,
From heaven's all-gracious King."
The world in solemn stillness lay,
To hear the angels sing.

Still through the cloven skies they come,
With peaceful wings unfurled,
And still their heavenly music floats
O'er all the weary world;
Above its sad and lowly plains,
They bend on hovering wing,
And ever o'er its Babel sounds
The blessèd angels sing.

Yet with the woes of sin and strife
The world has suffered long;
Beneath the angel-strain have rolled
Two thousand years of wrong;
And man, at war with man, hears not
The love-song which they bring;
O hush the noise, ye men of strife,
And hear the angels sing.

And ye, beneath life's crushing load,
Whose forms are bending low,
Who toil along the climbing way
With painful steps and slow,
Look now! for glad and golden hours
come swiftly on the wing.
O rest beside the weary road,
And hear the angels sing!

For lo!, the days are hastening on,
By prophet seen of old,
When with the ever-encircling years
Shall come the time foretold
When peace shall over all the earth
Its ancient splendors fling,
And the whole world send back the song
Which now the angels sing.

When you listen to all of the lovely Christmas music, the theme is peace, love, forgiveness, compassion, and charity. To me, that is the heart and soul of Christ's message, and something that far too many people, who should know better, seem to forget the rest of the year.

So, here's to finding some way to keep the spirit of Christmas in our hearts even after the Christmas tree comes down - here's to Christmas 365 days of the year.

Stewart Rhodes and family.

Great article-How Real Is Ron Paul's Revolution?

2007-12-06T01:32:00.000-07:00

Great article in a Philly paper

Joe Murray: The Right Time

How Real Is Ron Paul's Revolution?

By: Joe Murray, The Bulletin

11/30/2007

How Real Is Ron Paul's Revolution?

A little under two decades have passed since the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan, left the White House and wrote the final chapter on one of America's most successful presidencies. And in the aftermath of those two decades, the party defined by Mr. Reagan has, updating the words of Theodore Roosevelt, become a tangle of squabbling ideologies.

The Republican Party is in a state of disrepair. Burdened by two terms of George W. Bush and still feeling the sting of being evicted from majority status in 2006, the Republican Party is a party without a compass. It is a party that has lost touch with its soul.

This author does not have any wide-eyed revisionist memories of an Ozzie and Harriet Republican Party where divisions were scarce and political harmony was uninterrupted. Since the early 1970s there has been a constant struggle between the Rockefeller Republicans - those who embrace Wall Street over Main Street - and the Reagan Republicans: God, country and apple pie Republicans.

But while those vying for power in the party may have disagreed on the political means utilized to advance GOP interests, it was safe to believe that everyone was in agreement on the ultimate end: an America that is independent, self-sufficient, secure, culturally united and free from foreign entanglements. This, however, is no longer the case.

Just take a glance at the Republican candidates seeking to fill the shoes of President Bush. Rudy Giuliani wants to spread the war in Iraq to Iran, while Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home. Mitt Romney touts the success of free trade agreements and Duncan Hunter calls for a trade policy that puts America first.

Read the full story here

Wayne Fincher Militia Case Appellan't Principle Brief

2007-11-21T13:15:00.000-07:00

I have not posted in forever, even though I really intended to get back at it. I have been mucho busy, especially on grass-roots efforts in support of Ron Paul's nomination for GOP presidential candidate.

I have also been assisting in the appellant brief for Hollis Wayne Fincher, the Arkansas County Militia officer convicted of federal firearms violations. You can find more on the case here.

I am proud to have had the chance to help on Mr. Fincher's appeal, even if only in a small way.

Quentin Rhoades, of Missoula Montana, is the attorney of record on the appeal, and did the lions share of the work, but he was kind enough to let me write the section of the brief that discusses how the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, not a collective right. That portion of the brief begins at page 26 and ends at page 42.

You can read the entire brief here.

I did the best I could, in the time and space constraints we were given, to make as strong an argument as possible in the section I wrote. I also strove to make an argument that is as true and accurate a statement as possible of the constitutional principles and history that Wayne holds dear, and that he relied upon when taking the actions he felt compelled to take as an American patriot.

For Liberty,

Stewart Rhodes

Ron Paul interview;NH primary

2007-11-09T15:47:00.000-07:00

Back From Layoff

2007-10-17T11:33:00.000-07:00

OK, I'm back, so expect some more postings very soon on this poor, neglected blog. I just needed to take a break from the news, and commenting on it, for a while. It is all just so negative and absurd and sometimes you just need to step away for a bit and regain some perspective.

I didn't expect to take over a month off (where the hell did the time go?) but now I'm ready to dive back in. So expect some fire-breathing commentary soon.

Stewart

And Now For Some Good News: U.S. Grappling World Team Wins Nine Gold Medals at Grappling World Championships!

2007-09-13T14:48:00.000-07:00

The winning U.S. team, with their proud winning coaches, Bob Anderson, on the left, and a smiling Jason Townsend, on the right, showing off some serious bling-bling!

I have not posted anything on this blog in over a week in part because I am just sick of all the negativity in the news and in the world in general, which has gotten me pretty damn depressed lately. But now here is a piece of damned good news! NINE gold medals for the U.S. and NINE world grappling champions! Totally friggin awesome!

Jason Townsend coached our kids in wrestling at the Extreme Couture gym here in Vegas (and also coaches as Cobra Kai Jiu Jitsu in Vegas), and is an excellent coach, so it is no surprise at all to us that the U.S. team so thuroughly kicked ass. Our kids were thrilled to see this picture of Jason and his team, with all those medals.

When we first met Jason, we had no idea he was playing such an instrumental part in advancing the sport of grappling (also known as submission wrestling, what with its combination of wrestling and Brazilian jiu jitsu submission holds).

We did not know Jason was on the FILA World Grappling Committee and was helping to write the new rules for the sport. We did not know that he was going to be named by U.S.A. Wrestling as one of the the coaches of the U.S. World Grappling Team. We just knew Jason was a very good wrestling coach as well as a great guy.

But we soon learned that Jason is working hard, traveling all over the world, to attain the dream of grappling becoming an Olympic sport. We know he will attain that goal, which will be an amazing acheivement.

This win at the Grappling World Championships is a prelude of things to come.

We look forward to the day when we will see U.S. Olympic gold medals for grappling hanging around the necks of a U.S. Olympic team, with Jason standing there with an even bigger grin on his face. It will happen - you watch! - Stewart Rhodes

U.S. sweeps nine gold medals at Grappling World Championships in Turkey

Gary Abbott
USA Wrestling 09/09/2007

ANTALYA, TURKEY - The United States had a dominant performance at the historic first World Grappling Championships, sweeping all nine gold medals in the final event of the World Wrestling Games in Antalya, Turkey, September 9.

Capturing gold medals in the women’s division were Lisa Ward (Lacey, Wash./United Fight Team) at 48 kg/105.5 lbs., Felicia Oh (Tarzana, Calif./JJ Machado/BJMUTA) at 55 kg/121 lbs., Tara LaRosa (Woodstown, N.J./unattached) at 63 kg/138.75 lbs. and Valerie Worthington (Whittier, Calif./New Breed/Hollywood Brazilian Jiu Jitsu) at 72 kg/158.5 lbs.

Capturing gold medals in the men’s division were Darren Uyenoyama (South San Francisco, Calif./Fogtown Jiu Jitsu) at 62 kg/136.5 lbs., Ricky Lundell (Orem, Utah/Pedro Sauer Team) at 70 kg/154 lbs., Don Ortega (Albuquerque, N.M./No Limits) at 80 kg/176 lbs., Malcolm Havens (Parker, Colo./Grapplers Edge) at 92 kg/202.5 lbs. and Jeff Monson (Coconut Creek, Fla./Victory Athletics) at 125 kg/275 lbs.

All nine World champions captured gold medals at the USA Wrestling Grappling World Team Trials in Las Vegas, Nev. in June. The USA won 21 medals out of a possible 35 medals in the event. Included was a sweep of all four medals at the men’s 92 kg/202.5 lbs. division.

In convincing terms, the USA has set the bar for the rest of the world in international Grappling competition.

“I really think have a training camp and bringing many of our people together helped. People perish without a vision. Our coaches developed a vision with this team. We didn’t want to just win the championship. We wanted everybody to be the most outstanding we could be, no matter the outcome,” said U.S. World Team Coach Bob Anderson.

It was a great day for the U.S. team, which entered 27 athletes in the field. In the men’s division, four of the five gold-medal finals featured all-USA matchups.

“The team performed at the highest level against great competition,” said U.S. World Team Coach Jason Townsend. “All the athletes had tough matches and pulled through with flying colors. This is the beginning of a new era for Grappling. It was a pioneering effort for USA Wrestling. We were excited to be a part of this historic event, and we will work hard to remain a dominant force for years to come.”

Amen. Read the rest here.

R.I.P. Aaron Russo - American Freedom Fighter

2007-08-25T17:35:00.000-07:00

Aaron Russo, renegade film-maker, passed away yesterday. Aaron ran for governor here in Nevada, and then as the Libertarian presidential candidate. He could at times be gruff, and a bit rough around the edges, but I don't think anyone ever doubted the man's courage, conviction, passion for liberty, and his love for his country. Aaron was a staunch supporter of another man of courage, Congressman Ron Paul.

Aaron's last film was America: Freedom to Fascism, which he put up on googlevideo for free, because he wanted the American people to see it. You can still watch it there by clicking below. - Stewart

Is it "Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death!" Or is it "Give me Security From Birth To Death!"? What Say You? What Course Will YOU Take?

2007-08-24T18:00:00.001-07:00

Understanding Neocons: The Power of Nightmares

2007-08-23T09:22:00.000-07:00

Understanding the Neocon Government Supremacist Necromancer Spell: The Key is FEAR

One of the very best films produced on the neocons, and the islamacists, is this British documentary, The Power of Nightmares.

This film explains how the radical islamacists and the neocons are two sides of the same radical, totalitarian coin, with both groups convinced that the society they live in has grown weak, immoral, and corrupt. But neither the militaristic neocons, nor the radical islamacists could gain enough power to fulfill their respective visions - not without each other. The neocons need the islamacists, and the islamacists, such as Bin Laden, need the neocons. Each needs to point to the other as a grave threat to their respective civilizations in order to gain political power and support from the people.

The threat of terrorism from islamacists helps the neocons to gain and retain support for their agenda. Likewise, the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and other actions during the "war on terror" have gained the radical islamacists support in the modern Muslim world they would otherwise not have.

It is a symbiotic relationship, with two different, but oh so similar, parasites living off of the blood of the rest of us.

Yes, there are entirely insane radicals in Islam that desire to spread a fundamentalist vision of Islam by the sword. But those islamacist nuts cannot gain real power within the Muslim world unless they convince Muslims that the West intends to destroy them. I do find Islam a troubling religion, but we need to make a distinction between the radicals, such as al Qaeda, and the Muslims that support al Qaeda. You can't do much with a wacko like Bin Laden other than kill him, but you can do much regarding his support structure.

Our foreign policy has a direct affect on how much support and perceived legitimacy bin Laden and others like him have with the rest of the Muslim world.

Likewise, the actions of bin Laden and other islamacists greatly affect the degree of support the neocons have here at home.

This film, being made by a leftist, contains some leftist bias against conservatives in general, and especially American Christians. This film also makes no mention of the close similarity between neocons and radical communists, who have a similar contempt for our society, and a similar radical, extremist view of how they want to "transform" us, and is thus blind to the totalitarian impulse on the far left. But it is still a good expose on both the neocons and the islamacists.

Below is the trailer, and then the full length one hour segments. It is well worth your time if you are interested in better understanding what is happening ih the "war on terror" and what the ideology and goals of the neocons are all about. - Stewart Rhodes.

THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES

The Power of Nightmares - Trailer

The Power of Nightmares, Part I: Baby Its Cold Outside (A fantastic expose on how the neocons and the radical Islamic fundamentalists share a contempt for modern society).

The Power of Nightmares, Part II: The Phantom Victory

The Power of Nightmares, Part III: The Shadows in the Cave

Don't be Neoconned. Ron Paul on Understanding the Grave Threat to Our Constitutional Republic

2007-08-22T22:40:00.001-07:00

NOTE from Stewart: If you consider yourself a conservative, and a defender of the Constitutional Republic the men of April 19, 1775 founded when they stood their ground and fired the shot heard round the world, but you have also taken to calling yourself a "neoconservative," I urge you to reconsider placing that label on yourself.

I also urge you to take a hard look at the intellectuals who make up the leadership in the Neoconservative movement. Neoconservatives are neither anything new, nor are they conservative. They are but the latest manifestation of the totalitarian, statist mindset that has plagued mankind for thousands of years. Their worldview is incompatible with that of the Founding Fathers.

Neoconservatives do not believe in limited government. They have no respect for the principles of unalienable, natural rights our Declaration of Independence proclaimed "to a candid world." And Neoconservatives, like their close cousins, the socialist far-left revolutionaries, despise the Constitution of the Founders, with its limited, divided, dual sovereignty structure. They worship not just executive supremacy, but government supremacy.

Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.

They express no opposition to the welfare state.

They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.

They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Neoconservatives are as much mortal enemies of our constitutional republic as the communists were during the cold war. In fact, as Congressman Ron Paul explains, you can trace the modern origins of noecoservatives to communist revolutionary leader Trotsky.

Congressman Paul's speech on the House floor, entitled Neo-CONNED, is one of the very best explanations of the actual beliefs of neoconservative scholars and political leaders. I urge you to read or watch this speech and learn the full extent of the threat to our Republic by the noecon siths who have cloaked themselves as real conservatives when they are anything but. I have posted video of the speech and then an excerpt and a link to the written transcript. - Stewart

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 10, 2003

Neo – CONNED !

The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?

Someone is responsible, and it’s important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they’re wrong—and I believe they are—we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it’s the government’s responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.

One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.

Read the rest here.

Philip Atkinson on America's Choice and Why FSM stands for Fascist Sado Masochists, Not Family Security Matters

2007-08-22T06:14:00.000-07:00

Ah yes, even after Philip Atkinson wrote back in May of this year that the U.S. should enslave or exterminate all illegal Mexican immigrants and then invade and conquer Mexico, to impose our culture on them, Family Security Matters (FSM) did not bat an eye and continued to publish Atkinson's articles on their website.

His next article, entitled America's Choice, was published in FSM on May 30, 2007. As with all of his articles, this one too has been pulled from the FSM website after the uproar over his August 2, 2007 article calling for Bush to nuke Iraq and declare himself dictator of America. As with his other murderous, psychopathic rantings, I have pasted the America's Choice article below, toward the bottom of this post, in order to preserve it. A special hat tip to P. W. Frey for sending me a copy of the cashed page when I could not locate it.

In America's Choice, Atkinson tells us we must become an eternally violent, militarized empire, that imposes its will through the terror of nuclear annihilation, subjugating and enslaving all others. And he argues that if we "fail" to be strong enough to nuke entire peoples off the face of the earth in order to terrorize the rest into being our helots - if we are too "weak" to do what is necessary, we will surely suffer extermination or slavery at the hands of "competing" civilizations. To Atkinson, it is kill or be killed, enslave or be enslaved, just like ancient Sparta.

I say: "This is madness!"

To which Atkinson would likely retort:

"Madness? THIS ... IS .... AMERICAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!"

Now it is abundantly clear that this man's insane ideas, consistently expressed in all of his writings over time, were accepted by Family Security Matters. Pay close attention to Atkinson's definition of civilization in his article, posted below. I suspect that he is incorrect in his belief that he alone came up with the notion that a civilization is "a community that manages to impose its beliefs upon its neighboring communities by violence." I think he is in the company of a long line of totalitarian, would be world empires and dictators, and this same view is a strong undercurrent in neoconservative thought, which has been forming since long before Mr. Atkinson gave up working on computers and began his amateurish dabbling in "philosophy." In other words, Atkinson did not think up anything new. The neocon persuasion is emphatically a government supremacist, totalitarian world-view.

I'll have more to say on this later. Meanwhile ...

What does FSM stand for?

I believe that after reading Atkinson's America's Choice Article I may be onto the real meaning of FSM (Family Security Matters). Some in the bloggosphere have mused that FSM means Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But I don't think that's it. Just doesn't fit with the whole vibe. Atkinson's writings have a reoccurring theme running through them - a sort of insane internal logic and consistency, and that is a sado-masochist world view writ large. For example, here is Atkinson's definition of a civilization:

A civilization is a community that manages to impose its beliefs upon its neighboring communities by violence. Violence is necessary because this is the only way someone can be made to act against their own beliefs; and as a community is a shared set of beliefs, the only way one community can impose its understanding on another community is by violence.
....
a civilization can exist only as long as it dominates by violence all other communities, and the moment a dominant community recoils from violence, its rule is challenged. That is, it becomes attacked by all the other communities, in one way or another, as they attempt to assert their beliefs upon the faltering civilization.
....
Americans can now easily crush their enemies, but every hour the USA does not use its present superiority in nuclear weapons to dominate other communities, is another hour given to its enemies to develop and use their nuclear weapons to eradicate the American community. Americans have a choice: use nuclear weapons on their enemies or have their enemies use them on Americans; ruthlessly uphold 'Pax America' or blindly follow 'Pax Romana' into oblivion.

Yes, Atkinson thinks we are either an absolutely dominant country, or a totally submissive country. Tor Atkinson, there is no in-between possible. We are either the dominant, or the submissive. The slave masters or the slaves, just as in sado-masochist sex play.

Thus, I conclude that FSM stands for Fascist Sado Masochists.

Yes, it is true that in sadomasochism the participants are actually consenting adults, and they often use a "safety" word when they really, truly do mean "no," while in Atkinson's political version of S&M there is no such thing as consent, and there are no safety words. But it still fits. Just as Atkinson has, for the first time, discovered the true definition of civilization (he says so himself, so it must be true) he has also reinvented sadomasochism in his own image, with no limits! This is hardcore stuff here! But apparently, the nice "security moms" over at FSM were "up" for it!

FSM - Fascist Sado Masochists

In Atkinson's world-view, our only "choice" - if we wish to survive - is to be an uber-dominant, ultra-militaristic, violent dictatorship and empire, that imposes its power and authority world-wide and forces all other countries to submit absolutely, becoming our slaves or vassals, or be incinerated. We "punish" mercilessly, by means of nuclear missiles, anyone who will not be submissive and obey all our commands, and we reward those who do submit with life under our stylish leather combat boot.

Yes, yes, that's it! Given FSM's rather kinky love affair with the obviously sado-masochist writings of Mr. Uber-Disciplinarian himself, Philip Atkinson, FSM stands for Fascist Sado Masochists. The only other possibility is Fascist Security Moms, but I find Fascist Sado Masochists far more daring, sexy, and "out there" - don't you? I'm sure the nice ladies over at FSM would agree.

Makes me wonder if the "security moms" over at FSM are giving Atkinson a good, ol fashioned flogging or paddling right now, for having embarrassed them so in the blogosphere. I can just picture it. "Philip, you've been a bad boy. Bad philip, Bad!" Maybe that was what Atkinson was angling for all along. Perhaps Atkinson's crazy articles were all just a perverse version of a cry for help, being instead a cry for a good ol whoopin.'

In fact, Atkinson might even be enjoying the public flogging he is receiving right now on the blogosphere. I can just see him saying, with glee, "thank you Sir! May I have another?!"

What a strange, odd world we live in. - Stewart Rhodes

Exclusive: America’s Choice
Philip Atkinson

Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: May 30, 2007
FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson explains how the imposition of one civilization’s belief systems upon others has marked global conflict throughout the millennia. How is America’s current dilemma similar to that which caused the fall of Rome? Read his powerful analysis.

America’s Choice

By Philip Atkinson

In 1952 Professor Arnold Toynbee predicted that Western civilization would be attacked by barbarian war bands. His claim was based upon his observations, published in "A Study Of History," that all declining civilizations became subject to attacks by barbarian war bands, and as Western civilization was declining, it too would be attacked.

On the 11th September 2001 Toynbee was proved right as 2,752 people were killed in a deliberate suicidal attack by a barbarian war band that destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York.

What Toynbee did not explain was why a declining civilization is attacked by barbarian war bands. Toynbee did not know because he did not know what a civilization was, for this has only been revealed by the recent work "A Study Of Our Decline"[written by none other than Mr. Atkinson himself], which explains both what a civilization is, and why it is attacked when it declines.

A civilization is a community that manages to impose its beliefs upon its neighboring communities by violence. Violence is necessary because this is the only way someone can be made to act against their own beliefs; and as a community is a shared set of beliefs, the only way one community can impose its understanding on another community is by violence.

For example, some communities believe that women should hide their faces in public, whereas other communities believe women should not hide their faces in public.

Regardless of what proponents of either belief claim, there is no rational way of deciding which belief is correct; so to resolve the issue one side must give way to the other.

Forcing people to act against what they believe requires the use of violence, which of course includes not just the use, but the threat of violence. Anyone who has handed over money at gunpoint will know that threat is an act of violence; so one community can dominate others merely by threat.

This simple principle means that different communities, which harbor different sets of beliefs, are irreconcilable enemies who will attempt to dominate each other through violence. This is why the history of humanity is the history of violent struggles: war.

Ancient Rome was a graphic example of a community that managed to dominate other communities through violence and compel the widespread adoption of its beliefs. 'Pax Romana' was obtained only by the violence inflicted by the Roman Legions upon all those who resisted ancient Roman domination.

The collapse of ‘Pax Romana’ and the Roman Empire started when the ancient Romans recoiled from violence and refused to countenance the mass slaughter of their enemies. Trapped between the advance of the Huns and the river Danube, a natural boundary of the Roman Empire, the Gothic nation faced extinction. Their attempts to force entry into the empire had already been repulsed with heavy losses, so they begged for, and received, from the Emperor Valens, permission to enter the Roman world. This act of mercy, the admission of a huge number of unconquered tribes of barbarians into the precincts of the Roman empire, lead inevitably to the destruction of the empire and the fall of Rome. After the Goths crossed the river they changed from refugees to invaders, killed the Emperor and sacked the Empire.

Hence a civilization can exist only as long as it dominates by violence all other communities, and the moment a dominant community recoils from violence, its rule is challenged. That is, it becomes attacked by all the other communities, in one way or another, as they attempt to assert their beliefs upon the faltering civilization.

Technology has now sped up the nature of war. Once it required massive human effort to conquer a nation by use of arms, now it does not: it requires just resolve and an advantage in technology.

The power of modern weapons means that an unknown attacker can destroy a city in a flash, which means that an undeclared enemy can destroy a group of cities, which is a community, in a flash. Technology has not only dramatically sped up the clash of communities, but it has introduced uncertainty as to the identity of the aggressor.

Now to wage war successfully a community must be ruthless, merciless, resolute and unhesitating: the moment it believes it can smite its enemies is the moment it must act. Otherwise, it will only discover that its enemies have acted when its own cities are incinerated.

Israel, an American ally, has been warned that it will be wiped off the face of the earth by its Iranian neighbor. This means that unless Israel razes Iran, Iran will make good its threat. The choice now facing Israel is the choice now facing all nuclear armed communities: inflict genocide or commit suicide.

American military efforts are now undermined by the timidity of the American nation for Americans fear to employ modern weapons. When General Douglas MacArthur made it clear that victory in Korea could be obtained only by using nuclear weapons, he was hastily removed from command: but he was right. The Korean War was not won, but concluded by a truce that has allowed the enemies of America to improve their weapons and become a much more dangerous threat to the USA than they were in 1953.

There was no need for the Americans to repel with tanks and troops the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; the Iraqis could have been compelled to withdraw merely by the use, or threat, of a few nuclear missiles.

There is no need for the current (2007) presence of American troops in Iraq. By judicious use of nuclear weapons, either the Iraqis would all be dead, or the survivors would be obedient to American demands.

The once all-powerful Americans, who ruthlessly incinerated Nagasaki and Hiroshima, have declined into a people who believe nuclear war is 'unthinkable'. This is the opposite view of their enemies who publicly demonstrated their glee at the announcement of 911; imagine their joy at the news that New York had been vaporized: these people dream of wiping out America.

Americans can now easily crush their enemies, but every hour the USA does not use its present superiority in nuclear weapons to dominate other communities, is another hour given to its enemies to develop and use their nuclear weapons to eradicate the American community.

Americans have a choice: use nuclear weapons on their enemies or have their enemies use them on Americans; ruthlessly uphold 'Pax America' or blindly follow 'Pax Romana' into oblivion.

# #

# #

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson is the British born founder of ourcivilisation.com and author of A Study of Our Decline. He is a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western civilization. Mr. Atkinson receives mail at rpa@ourcivilisation.com.

read full author bio here

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to mailto:pr@familysecuritymatters.org

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

On Iraq: Trust Airborne Troops or Brookings Institution Think Tank Weenies? I'll Go With the Airborne Troops, Thank You Very Much.

2007-08-21T22:18:00.001-07:00

Who do you trust to tell the truth about Iraq, the combat veterans who have been there and done it, and speak up when they see the situation in Iraq being FUBAR'd (fucked up beyond all repair), or a couple of penny loafer wearing think tank weenies from the Brookings Institute who played tourist in Iraq?

This past Sunday, the New York Times published a scathing op-ed entitled The War As We Saw It, written by combat veterans of the 82nd Airborne, serving in Iraq right now. Their picture on the situation in Iraq was the polar opposite of a piece written last month, entitled A War We Just Might Win, by a couple of Brookings Institution "scholars," Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, who took a short, safe, guided tour of Iraq and then pronounced their optimism.

Who should we trust? For my money, I agree with Paul Rieckhoff over at Military.com. I'll trust the Airborne troops, thank you very much. As Riechhoff puts it, "right now, we need their experience and opinions. These guys spent a year in Iraq, not eight days, which is why they can read between the lines on Pentagon statistics."Tucker Carlson discussed this "unusual" situation (of enlisted combat troops speaking up) with Ret. Col Jack Jacobs. Tucker doesn't like it at all, not one little bit. What a surprise. Tucker starts his broadcast by noting that "these are not retired generals, not the ones you see on television. These are active duty enlisted men."

Oh, the horrors! These aren't our black turtleneck wearing paid ex-military neocon "analysts." These are just dirty, grimy grunts who may not have even gone to college (gasp!) and certainly have not even been through the makeup department! Goodness, I need another latte! Watch Tucker get his gentrified panties all in a wad:

Tucker Carlson is "uncomfortable with it" because he thinks that enlisted combat troops speaking up, on their own initiative, somehow violates the separation between active duty troops and politics. Tucker, who never spent a second in the military, nonetheless tells us with authority that "service members kind of act out the policies of the U.S. government, right or wrong, but they don't comment upon them, because you want civilian control of the military."

Tucker Carlson is an idiot. As if a few enlisted men speaking out, rather than just being good, silent cannon fodder while the brass smiles and tells us all is well, is somehow an attempt by the military to subvert civilian control. Funny how Tucker has no problem with paid, sell-out retired generals and colonels, like his guest, chiming in. And I'll bet he wouldn't even bat a well manicured eyelash at currently serving generals going on TV, so long as they loyally parroted the Commander-in-Chief's talking points (which they always do) . But Tucker thinks the sky is falling when mere enlisted men speak up.

Tucker also tells us that like most Americans he respects the military but he thinks the troops daring to speak out "squanders the awesome moral authority that these guys [combat vets] already have." But what is the point in those combat vets having that awesome moral authority if they are expected to keep their mouths shut? Moral authority to do what? Look good in pictures? Look good standing around the President during some photo op? Moral authority to support the President in whatever hair-brained military adventure He Decides to embark on -such as war with Iran?

No, the troops have an obligation to use their moral authority and their boots-on-the ground knowledge by speaking up when they see the situation in Iraq being royally FUBAR'd. The courageous action of these troops in speaking out is an act of patriotism and a credit to the spirit and resolve of the Airborne. It is precisely because they are combat vets, who have earned our trust and respect, that they should speak up and we should listen.Perhaps I am biased, since I also served as an Airborne grunt, but I am not at all surprised that it was a group of enlisted Airborne troops who had the gumption to buck the sell-out, ass kissing brass and go against the grain of the official propoganda party line scripted in the White House and parroted by all the medal and star seeking toadies down the chain of command.

Airborne troopers are renowned for thinking outside the box and acting on their own initiative. It is what we are trained to do in combat, where we can expect to often times have no contact with the chain of command, in the midst of chaos, often behind enemy lines, surrounded by foes, in a fast moving, ever fluid combat environment. You can't train men for that without them being in the habit of thinking for themselves. And so, the military brass, and the "commander in chief" are now embarrassed because these troops display the initiative that is the hallmark of the infantryman, who's motto is "follow me!" (to which the 82nd adds "All the Way").

We NEED to hear from the troops with their boots on the ground, where all the theories and grand strategies of the martini sipping think tank chickenhawk wonks go to hell in short fucking order when RPG's start wooshing in. For far too long the information from the battlefield has been constrained and controlled by those who think themselves our betters, but wouldn't last ten seconds in a firefight.Here is some of what these Airborne troopers had to say about Iraq:

VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day .... The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

As if speaking directly to all the weenie think tank guys who go on controlled, sanitized little tours of Iraq, the troopers tell us:

The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

The troopers concluded by saying:

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

Of course, Tucker Carlson's paid talking head of an ex-military officer, Col Jack Jacobs, thinks the troopers are unqualified to make the assessment that we are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. But I'll take the word of the troopers who have been there, among the Iraqi people, and have looked into their eyes. Who do you trust? -Stewart Rhodes

Clergy Response Teams: "Resistance is Not Just Futile, It Goes Against God's Word! Resistance to Tyranny, BAD! Martial Law GOOD! ... Obey My Dog!"

2007-08-21T11:42:00.000-07:00

Apparently the influence of the insidious neocon government supremacist siths and wormtongue necromancers has not just corrupted the GOP by twisting and perverting the meaning of the Constitution, they are now, through FEMA, also corrupting the clergy in this nation, and their flocks, by twisting and perverting the text of the Bible to make it God's will that we unquestioningly obey government. If you have not yet watched this video, it is a must see:

You can read the text of the story here. This mainstream news report describes how FEMA is recruiting pastors all across the nation to join "Clergy Response Teams" to assist in quelling any resistance to the government during an emergency, such as a declaration of martial law, and to preach obedience when the government seeks to confiscate firearms from the people, as was done during Katrina.

FEMA has tasked these pastors with convincing their flocks that they must obey the government, because the government comes from God himself. As the pastor interviewed in the video. Dr. Tuberville, puts it we MUST obey the government "because the government's established by the Lord, you know. And that's what we believe in the Christian faith, that's what's stated in the scripture." He is referring to Romans 13, which is the principle tool of persuasion the federal government is urging these pastors to use.

Gee wiz, and I thought it was we the people who establish government. Doesn't our Declaration of Independence declare that:

".... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'

While our rights come from nature and nature's God, we establish government amongst ourselves.

Now, I am no theologian, and I'll leave it to others to refute this draconian reading of Romans 13 as commanding that we must submit to and obey the government, but I seem to recall the Bible teaching that Satan, out in the desert, tempted Christ in part by offering him command of all the governments of the earth - so it would seem that if any supernatural force is establishing governments, it is the Devil, not God (and that would make a whole lot more sense, given the horrid history of governments, which behave rather devilishly).

But really, what clues me in that this is a perversion of scripture is that under this view it was "wrong" for the Founding Fathers to resist the King of England. Under this perversion, the entire American Revolution was somehow an affront to God, since we flat out kicked ass on a government "established by the Lord," not just dumping its tea into Boston harbor, but also shooting the holy crap out of the King's troops and his Hessian mercenaries in a bloody revolution, replacing that usurping and corrupt government with one of our own choosing.I wonder what fiery American Revolutionary Patrick Henry, a devout Christian, would have to say to this "pastor" preaching unqualified obedience to whatever government happens to be over us? I'll bet Henry would have some choice words for Pastor Tuberville, starting with "forbid it almighty God!" and getting far more colorful from there.

Under this sick, servile reading of scripture, not only should we still be part of the British Empire, but it was also wrong for anyone to resist Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or any other tyrant and murderous dictator in human history. Or did the Lord only establish the government of the United States? I'd be curious to see if this pastor would still preach absolute obedience to government if Hillary Clinton were president.

This just goes to show that any text, whether it is the Constitution or the Bible, can be twisted and perverted into a tool of tyranny and oppression, and "useful idiots" are easy to find in a population ignorant of its own history. When the sacred fire of liberty goes out in the hearts of men, no text is immune to such bastardization. As Justice Learned Hand once said:

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."

Have we as a people finally come to this? Have we become so ignorant of our place in the eternal struggle for liberty that fools like these pastors are considered "leaders" in their communities? That such men actually command an audience on Sundays, who look to them for guidance?

All I have to say to men like Pastor Tuberville is what Sam Adams said to the quislings and toadies of tyrannical government of his day:

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

Thomas Jefferson once famously remarked that:
“The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
I would only add to that list the blood of useful idiots, and I fully expect that if these Clergy Response Teams actually go out after a declaration of martial law, whether by a president Bush or a future President Clinton, and attempt to assist in the disarmament of the American people, their bullshit will be added to the pile of manure refreshing the Tree of Liberty. - Stewart Rhodes

PS- If you don't "get" the Zoolander references, please see the comments, below, where I patiently explain them. It's all about brainwashing us, OK? Just like Mugatu was ordered by the secret cabal in the movie to do to Zoolander. Doesn't anybody see that? God, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! If you have not seen Zoolander, you're missing out.

Now, OBEY MY DOG!
(Her name is Yeti, by the way, because she is a white big foot of a dog).