Friday, August 31, 2007

Do You Know How To Catch Wild Pigs?

There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young Man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question.

He asked, "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?"

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke.

"You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man told the professor that, that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc., while we continually lose our freedoms - just a little at a time.

Sound familiar? One should always remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then sit on the side and do nothing. But God help you when the gate slams shut!

Author unknown

Civilian prisons coming soon to U.S. Army base near you

Little-noticed regulation allows construction on military installations
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency

Bush's SPP power grab sets stage for military to manage flu threats
By Jerome R. Corsi

Monday, August 27, 2007

Poisoned Food, Tainted Toys & Job Loss

Like The Results Of NAFTA? You'll LOVE The North American Union!

Coalition Urges President To “Tear Down The Wall Of Secrecy” At Quebec Merger Summit While U.S. Congressman Urges President To Build UP The Border Wall.

Lancaster, PA/ August 27, 2007 The recent Quebec Security and Prosperity Partnership Summit held at Montebello, Quebec drew attention to a proposed merger of the U.S., Mexico and Canada. The event, attended by President George Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon drew hundreds opposed to the plan.

Former Director of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity and current Chairman of The Conservative Caucus and the Coalition to Block the North American Union, Howard Phillips addressed those gathered to oppose the SPP in Canada. Phillips said, “President Bush, tear down the wall of secrecy. Behind closed doors, step-by-step, the leaders (of the three nations) are setting the stage for…a North American Community and, ultimately a North American Union… (which means we would lose authority) over our economy, our judiciary and our lawmaking institutions”.

Phillips founded the Constitution Party in 1992. The third largest party based on voter registration (Ballot Access News), the Constitution Party is the only political party with a resolution to oppose the SPP/NAU scheme as a threat to America’s constitutional government.

President Bush asked by a Fox News reporter for explicit denial of a plan to integrate the three countries, demurred and ridiculed opponents instead. Dr. Jerome Corsi, author of the New York Times bestseller "The Late Great U.S.A: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada" commented: "That’s exactly the same type of response Europeans got from their leaders, even as the EU noose was tightening around the necks of the millions who wanted nothing to do with a European super-state".

During the SPP Summit in Quebec, where Bush was called on to “tear down the wall of secrecy” surrounding the covert merger, a United States Congressman was calling on the president to build a wall to secure our border with Mexico. While the president was in Canada denying a plan to integrate North America, California Congressman Duncan Hunter delivered a letter to Bush saying, "It is my understanding that approximately $800 million is currently available for (fence building). Despite this funding, only 17.9 of the 854 miles of fencing called for in the Secure Fence Act have been completed as of Aug. 10, 2007."

The Constitution Party joins Congressman Hunter in calling for immediate efforts to complete a wall at our southern border and joins with those opposed to the SPP/NAU calling for a tearing down of the wall of secrecy surrounding any plans to merge the United States, Mexico and Canada.

Friday, August 24, 2007

Why we have no “constitutional” rights

By John Silveira
Backwoods Home Magazine

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Taking Aim… At Your Rights

“Everybody should go out and buy a gun. I recommend an Uzi.” That is some good advice from a southern Michigan politician named L. Brooks Patterson. He made the statement in an article printed by a major Detroit newspaper; Mr. Patterson was stressing the need for citizens to defend themselves due to the fact that Michigan is considering releasing a large quantity of prisoners because of overcrowded prisons. At the surface it is nice to know that a mainstream media outlet actually published a conservative “don’t-mess-with-the-Second-Amendment” commentary. But, alas, the old cliché kicks in: don’t judge a book by its cover (or should we say, ‘don’t judge a newspaper by what it prints’?). There was a reason, a very sinister reason, as to why that article was printed. You see, the media is liberal (sadly, that may be a revelation to some people). The media has a reason for exposing conservative thoughts. Mr. Patterson had a perfectly legitimate and legal reason for telling people to go out and buy guns. Mr. Patterson wants American citizens to exercise their Constitutional (and natural) rights by defending themselves. Ironically, although the article was in the back of the editorial section, the very next day an article appeared on the first page of the very same newspaper bashing Mr. Patterson’s comments and framing him as some kind of “domestic terrorist” so-to-speak. He was labeled as “inaccurate, irresponsible and not productive” by an employee of the Michigan Department of Corrections. That article by Mr. Patterson was not printed so that citizens would be aware of an impending danger. No, it was twisted to become liberal propaganda to make firearms—your firearms—look evil (somehow humanists say there is no moral “right” and “wrong,” yet they can label our precious Second Amendment as “evil,” but that is another discussion in and of itself). There is nothing wrong with owning guns; in fact, the quote “Everybody should go out and buy a gun” is basically a paraphrase of what the Founding Fathers said. But the mainstream media has trained Americans to automatically register the word “guns” (no pun intended) as a synonym of the words terrorism, murder, lawlessness, and psychopaths.

So now you are probably thinking I am reading too far into one article and finding liberal propaganda that really is not there. Well, allow me to offer some more examples of anti-gun bias that has occurred recently. I just now reached down and picked up the front section to a newspaper. Turning to the news briefs section I immediately found two short excerpts about people being murdered by guns—both in the United States and in foreign countries. Surely it is pure coincidence, but almost everyday, yes on a consistent daily basis, there are articles and news updates concerning gun violence. Not every article screams, “we hate guns, you should too,” but be honest—if something is shown as a negative concept day after day after day, would not most people accept it as bad? Just the other day a news brief made a two sentence statement in large font across the top of a page: “Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory will blow a whistle instead of firing a pistol at a 5K race today. ‘I think the symbolism is just bad,’ he said.” That was the entire news item. There was no elaboration as to why guns are “just bad”; there was no point/counter-point debate over the controversy. There was simply an underlying statement blaring, “GUNS ARE BAD.”

So the media has a chokehold on your right to defend yourself. As you sit in your house you have a right to keep that loaded Smith & Wesson next to your bed. But just remember, your neighbors are sitting next door scared to death that you are some kind of lunatic because of what is impressed in their mind everyday. Did I mention everyday? But do the media ever mention the many lives saved by guns? (Just check with the National Rifle Association or Gun Owners of America; they can provide you with numerous instances where guns have stopped crime dead in its tracks.) Do the media ever remind you of the millions of guns that have not been involved in a crime? No and no. Just walk over to your gun rack (provided you are a gun owner) and take a good hard look at those weapons. I challenge you to point out which ones you used in a crime. None, right? Wow, who would have guessed that! You are a law abiding citizen. Too bad you are still a terrorist by the media’s standards.

It could just be some media hype with which the liberals are trying to intimidate us. I hate to break it to you, but the government is in on it too: or so the media says. On August 16 there was an article titled, “Licenses drop for U.S. gun dealers.” The author, Michael Doyle from McClatchy Newspapers, mentions that “[i]n 1994, 245,628 U.S. residents held federal licenses allowing them to sell firearms. Now, there are 50,630 of the licenses nationwide.” If those numbers are right, we can safely assume that government taxes and irrational (read “illegal”) anti-gun legislation has led to a decline in firearm dealers. That topic alone could have a lengthy article. But I wish to focus on one statement made in Mr. Doyle’s article. [Warning: the following statement may send chills down your spine and may cause your blood to boil. It is recommended that citizens who love the Constitution and their freedoms are advised to read at their own risk.] A side note was made in which a BATF spokesman stated, “As the number of licensed dealers has dropped, it’s become more manageable for the [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives] to enforce.” Notice the key word manageable. That is what George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and the like call tyranny. What exactly is the government trying to manage? What right do they have to manage it? Let me answer those questions bluntly: the government is managing you and yet they have no right to do so. The issue is not about guns, it is purely about control. It is as if someone took you to a shooting range and said, “Hold this paper plate in front of you while I shoot at it. I won’t shoot you; I’ll just shoot the plate.” That is what is happening to you and me. The government and their hunting buddies (the media) are holding the paper plate of the Constitution in front of us saying, “We won’t hurt you, just let us shoot the Constitution.” There are so many things wrong with that picture. And yet there are so many people who let what is right fade away. This is not some conspiracy or “radical right-wing raving.” Fellow citizens, this is a full-frontal attack on you. Do not let anyone fool you by saying, “The attack on guns (and our other freedoms) have been put on the back burner.” Simply put, the attack is just sugar-coated; but marks my words, loss of freedom never tastes sweet.
We all know there is so much more that can be said about the gun/anti-gun debate. There is still the question as to what citizens do when the police cannot protect everybody. There are not enough police to defend every person, especially in rural areas. In some jurisdictions there are even cutbacks of police officers which leave entire neighborhoods in a dangerous situation. Also, one could consider the fact that the government’s site gives a list of what is needed to survive many dangerous situations. Nothing about self-defense is mentioned. (If you want a good laugh, go to the site and read the sixth item on the list.) Why? Let us be real: it is time to stop asking questions. We all know what is going on. We all know we are under attack. So be vigilant . . . and go buy a gun. Uzis are nice, but I prefer an AK-47.

Deo Vindice,
Maj. D. Droullard
CSA Partisan Rangers
Commander, MI Div., Confederate Alliance

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Land of the Not-So-Free

More and more, the US seems to be falling victim to the tyranny of the majority.
by Mark Honigsbaum
The Guardian

The Nanny State's Road to Serfdom

by Jeffrey A. Singer
Future of Freedom Foundation

Thursday, August 09, 2007

SEC Decision Risks Dangerous Stock Market Instability, Savings of Millions

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Boulder, CO - Despite the recent high stock market volatility, a 1938 rule restricting short selling of stocks was ended last month by the Securities and Exchange Commission, putting at increased risk the savings and investments of millions of Americans. The Uptick Rule, as it is known by brokers, was put in place in response to political pressure following the Wall Street Crash of 1929. During that historic crash, the market dropped 40% in slightly over 2 months, and would lose about 90% of its value about 4 years later. Many blamed this event on short sellers.

Selling short is a market play by someone who bets a stock price will decrease. The short-seller borrows a stock from a broker. The stock is then sold. After the value drops, the short seller repurchases the stock at the discounted price, thereby making a profit. When institutional investors, or large numbers of investors, attempt to hedge against the risk of market declines by short selling, the result is downward pressure on stock prices.

The Uptick Rule required that the trade's execution was only permitted if the price had increased one increment. This prevented short selling in continuously falling markets. Without this rule, market falls are accelerated. Since short sellers benefit the more prices fall, one can easily recognize the increased potential for accelerated short selling and accelerated market declines in a panic selling environment without the Uptick Rule.

The SEC initiated this change after a pilot study, and after receiving only 27 formal comments. According to the SEC, in one of those comments, the New York Stock Exchange "noted its concern about unrestricted short selling during periods of unusually rapid and large market declines....[and mentioned] that the effects of an unusually rapid and large market decline could not be measured or analyzed during the Pilot [program]."

Gregory Drahuschak, first vice president of Janney Montgomery Scott Inc, a 175 year-old investment company, stated, "if you had asked any desk trader at a brokerage firm what the potential outcome of the rule change could be, the answer uniformly was that it would increase volatility. And so it has." Referring to last week's selloffs he said, "The market drop was not caused by the rule change, but there is little doubt that it made the slide occur faster than it might have otherwise."

America First Party
1630 A 30th Street #111
Boulder, Colorado 80301

Our Orphaned Constitution

by Bruce Fein
Washington Times

Monday, August 06, 2007


JEFFERSON CITY, MO: At their first official State Committee meeting, the Missouri Constitution Party elected new officers to its Executive and State Boards. Among other national and state appointments, 11 newly appointed members to the State Committee were introduced.

Special guest speakers included the Party’s National Chairman and stand-in nominee for President of the United States, Jim Clymer, who gave a heartfelt speech on “When Free Men Shall Stand – Restoring the Blessings of Liberty”. Gary Odom, the National Committee’s Field Director, offered an up-to-date report of the Party’s rapid growth throughout the country.

Odom made a surprise announcement that the Constitution Party National Presidential/Vice-Presidential Nominating Convention will be held in Kansas City, MO in the spring of 2008. This is the second national convention held in Missouri; the first one being in 1999 in St. Louis.

Travis Maddox, the newly elected Vice-Chairman and Ballot Access Coordinator, reported the current signature count for ballot access. MO Election Law requires 10,000 signatures from registered voters in order to be recognized as a political party. Maddox believes the goal will be attained by Constitution Day, September 17, 2007, and that potential candidates need to begin submitting applications as soon as possible.

The Constitution Party is the third largest political party in America that offers a real change. More information about the Constitution Party can be found on the Internet at or by calling their headquarters in St. Louis at (314) 956-6181 or in Springfield at (417) 759-6066

Friday, August 03, 2007

An Open Letter to all Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reformists, Populists, Independents and the Disillusioned

The current political system in the United States, along with the political agenda of the mainstream media, ensures that the only person who has a chance of becoming president is a Republican or Democratic candidate. There are millions of American voters who share many of your sentiments, but who will always vote for a Republican or Democrat as the “lesser of two evils.” The “don’t throw away your vote” reasoning triumphs, and they end up choosing the one they believe will at least do less damage. A third party candidate or independent doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance of winning the presidency, and we all know it. We all also know that the candidates we are virtually always presented with who have the establishment stamp of approval offer really no choice at all.

In the race for 2008 in the Democratic arena, there is no stopping Clinton, Obama, Edwards or some combination of them. You know what direction that will take this country. Everyone will wave the flag when the troops come home, and the welfare state will grow. And of course, after Iraq is behind us, trouble will brew elsewhere and more of our soldiers will die down the road.

In the Republican arena, all of the candidates but one would deliver more of the same if elected president. Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson, take your pick. However, it’s doubtful that any of them would be able to beat the Democratic candidate. President Bush’s extremely low approval rating and public lack of support for the war pretty much guarantee that. People are also starting to realize how much personal liberty has been snatched from them since Bush took office.

The lone candidate who has a chance, if he can rise up and grab the Republican nomination, is Ron Paul. It will take a freedom fighter like Dr. Paul with a radically different approach to defeat the Democratic candidate. The only vehicle for this that can work in the political climate of our day is the Republican Party itself. I don’t like the philosophy of the current Republican leadership any more than you do. Many, many people in the Republican Party feel the same way, but they also believe they don’t have much of a choice except to vote for a Republican who only pays lip service to their ideals. The vast majority of them will never vote for a third party candidate or independent for president because they know it would be futile. Ron Paul is poised to take most, if not all, of your positions on the issues to a much larger stage at a much higher level. If he can reach the pinnacle of this country, just think how much he would be able to advance most of your ideals. If it happens to be under the Republican Party that so many have grown to mistrust, so be it.

The groundswell of grassroots support for this man is simply amazing. There is no one else who even comes close. It is growing by leaps and bounds every day. The mainstream media no longer has a monopoly over the flow of information. They are certainly doing their best to ignore or ridicule him. However, the internet is the wave of the future. The surf’s up, and Ron Paul is dropping in and hanging ten. It’s still a long shot, but he at least has a chance to ride the wave into the streets and take the Republican nomination. He’s the only one with freedom-preserving beliefs who has a shot at the White House. He may be the last one before the North American Union entraps us in a loss of sovereignty that we may never be able to recover from. This really could be a final stand for a free and independent America.

It’s time for all lovers of freedom and personal liberty to set aside their minor differences and unite behind the one man who actually has a shot at shaking things up in DC and waking the sleeping giant that is Free America. I keep reading columns and blogs from people who agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says, but who are nitpicking about a few issues. If you love freedom and personal liberty as much as you say you do, now is the time to relax on an issue or two and pick up the sword. Give this man everything you can in the way of support. He's the only one who stands a chance at reaching the White House and making major changes in the direction of this country. Deep down I think you know that to be true.

Engage in this battle alongside us to preserve our freedom and our sovereignty. We must take this campaign into the streets right now and reach the masses. In addition to the millions of voters who won’t vote for anyone other than a Republican or Democrat for fear of throwing away their vote, there are millions more who no longer vote at all because they are so frustrated by “politics as usual” regardless of which Democrat or Republican wins. I was one of those Disillusioned, and I stopped paying attention to politics for many years. Now I am passionately committed to my first political campaign ever. There are tens of millions more out there just like me. It is enough to turn the tide and swing the Republican nomination and then the election. Please help us reach them. If we remain fragmented, the cause of freedom will be lost. It’s time to deliver a long overdue smack-down to the behemoth our federal government has become and we need your help. Join the Ron Paul Revolution!

Dirk Davidek
San Antonio, Texas

Thursday, August 02, 2007

Recent Executive Order Violates 5th Amendment "Due Process" Rights

Thursday, August 2, 2007

Boulder, CO - The America First Party expresses alarm at the President's recent executive order "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq," which decrees sweeping power to deprive persons of property, without notice, and without the constitutionally required "due process of law."

Under this order, an American who unknowingly gives a contribution to a group fronting for combatants in Iraq, but with the sincere intention of providing only humanitarian relief, can have his entire worldly assets seized without recourse to a hearing or appeal. If a lawyer then provides him with pro-bono legal services, then he can also have his assets frozen. If the original victim then continues to work for a living, according to the order, anyone who receives his services is equally exposed to the risk of losing control over all their assets.

The order allows the Treasury Secretary broad discretion to freeze assets of individuals who have not been charged with crimes, by making subjective judgments about them. It allows him to judge an individual or entity "to pose a significant risk of committing" an "act or acts of violence" that "threaten the peace or stability of Iraq." In other cases, the Secretary may also judge persons to have "materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for ... acts of violence." Property of all such persons is then "blocked, and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in." Not mentioned in the order is any provision for return of properties, or for due process by which affected parties can appeal the administration's action.

AFP National Chairman Jonathan Hill stated: "The Executive Order, and the Carter era law which President Bush uses to justify his actions, also impacts people who would go to the assistance of affected parties by providing funds, goods, or services to them, or even persons who might unwittingly receive payments, goods, or services from the targeted person. Here again, the order makes no due process provision."

A people are not free when they live in fear of an abusive government. Therefore, the America First Party takes a strong stand against the rise of government powers and laws that allow for the people to be penalized in fines and property seizures without due process of law -- a 5th Amendment right of all people under U.S. jurisdiction.

America First Party
1630 A 30th Street #111
Boulder, Colorado 80301