Friday, February 19, 2010

Why the Patriot act is unpatriotic and unnecessary

Dr. A. H. Krieg

Those who seek big government to provide everything will soon learn that government can also take everything.

Our forefathers upon conclusion of their deliberations on the Constitution and Bill of Rights noted that they had constructed the groundwork for a constitutional republic, which guaranteed individual rights and liberty to states as well as all individual citizens. The American patriot Act obliterates our individual rights, based on the misconception that by denying citizens freedom the government can increase citizen’s security. Citizens who seek security from government will get neither security nor freedom; they will through actions like the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act lose any freedoms that they previously enjoyed.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees all citizen Americans “the right to be secure in their, PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, and EFFECTS, against unreasonable search and secure”. Additionally it requires any government agent “to produce a WARRANT showing PROBABLE CAUSE” and supported by “an OATH of AFFIRMATION particularly describing the place to be searched and the person and objects to be seized”. Let me explain that; an officer of the law must have a warrant that exactly states what he may do, and that warrant must be signed by a judge, and must show who provided the cause for the action to be taken by the officer of the court that the judge approved and signed. Any action by any officer of the court that contradicts this stands in violation of the law.

The Patriot Act allows federal agents, which in many cases, lack jurisdictional authority within the states, to author secret warrants against anyone without a judges authority and without probable cause, for any sort of legal fishing expedition relating to any citizen. Furthermore according to their interpretation of the Act they call them secret warrants, the release of information relating thereto is deemed a crime. In explanation if you are served such a warrant and tell your wife or lawyer about it you can be arrested and held indefinitely, without cause and without even telling you why you are being held against your will. Sort of makes me think of Soviet Russia under Stalin. Such authority does not just undermine our freedoms it negates them. In plain English this act expunges the fourth amendment and is therefore unconstitutional. Contrary to what you have been told it does not in any way enhance your security nor does it provide any law enforcement any advantage against terrorists.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “no citizen may be held for a CAPITAL or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a GRAND JURY, except in cases arising from naval or land forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of WAR or public danger; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be derived of liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”. To again explain; this amendment prohibits the government from arresting and holding any citizen without the indictment by a grand jury upon presentation of evidence by a state’s attorney and the grand juries approval of the governments requests. It furthermore prohibits the government from attempting to force the citizen to witness against himself, and prevents the government of the seizure of private property without just compensation. Section 802 of the Patriot Act eviscerates Habeas Corpus as exercised in the constitution Article 1, Section 9 Paragraph 2.Habeas Corpus is the right of the citizen to present evidence on behalf of his case before a court of law that he has been wrongfully imprisoned by authority. This right can be traced back to the Maga Carta of the 12th century in England. Again the Act clearly violates these provisions and is therefore unconstitutional. Under the Patriot Act a citizen could be charged for a misdemeanor traffic infraction and be held indefinitely as an “ENEMY COMBATANT” without any official charges and be denied legal representation. This is Stalin, Mao and Hitler all rolled into one.

When Geroge Bush enacted the Patriot Act only days after 9-11 by voice vote of the legislature (it had been written long before in the Carter administration) we were informed that it would be an important tool to prevent and stop terrorism. Another lie! The American Patriot Act has been most commonly used in thousands of crimes not in any way related to terrorism. In sequence of importance these have been, 1) drug related. 2) white-collar crimes, 3) blackmail, 4) child pornography, 5) money laundering and 6) spying, terrorism arrests are not even in the top ten. The State of South Carolina lists over 10,000 non-terror related crimes prosecuted under the Act.

As an old man who lived through the European tragedy known as WWII let me enlighten you about what took place in Germany from the ’30’s to “45. The Nazis used the Reichstag feur (fire) as a medium to pass the “Enabling Act” sort of a forerunner of the Patriot Act. In both cases the governments used the occasion to announce that this would protect the people from terrorism. What it of course did was to empower the government. In Germany that took the direction of the “Office of Fatherland Security” (Reichssicherheitshauptamt) and then the Schuezstaffel that more famously was called the SS. In our case we established agency first the Patriot Act and then The Homeland Security Act agency that dwarfs the SS having over 225,000 employees, and the scores of police agencies with powers equal to or more extensive then what the SS had enabled by the Patriot Act.

As we sit idly by our hard earned and expensively protected freedoms, through blood sweat and tears, are rapidly being eliminated. No administrations have worked so hard as W. Bush and B. Obama to destroy the Constituion, and enslave Americans. The political and social parallels with the Weimar Republic abound, as does our deleterious economic situation. It is this economic depression in which we find ourselves that these leaders are manipulating to destroy our country. Socialism is on the march, it would behoove all of us to remember the names of the nations we have fought to retain our freedoms. Die Nazional Sozialistische Arbeiter Partei Deutschland, The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, We could point further to the scores of failed socialist states, Spain under Franco, Argentina under Peron’, Portugal under Salazar, Italy under Mussolini, China under Mao, and so on and so forth.

Vote them all out!

Read Dr. Krieg’s books form all booksellers and

Monday, February 08, 2010


By Chuck Baldwin

Sunday, February 07, 2010

What is States’ Rights?

by Mike Crane

“Our Rights are like a cookie. No matter how big the cookie and how small the bites, eventually you run out of cookie.”

A very wise man, one for whom I have great respect, recently issued what seemed to be a challenge, “Was all y'all's talk about states' rights just whiskey talk, or do y'all really believe it?” Then he followed with, “If you do really believe it, then get liquored up and write an article!”

So this POOR (Plain Ole Ordinary Redneck) mountain moron got to thinking about that. In my younger years it has been rumored by some that I got liquored up once or twice, but I can’t remember a thing about it. Some sa id that was the effect of the liquor. Now that I am kind of the opposite of a youngun, I can’t remember getting liquored up at all. Some say that isn’t the effect of liquor. Life is like that at times -- what was isn’t, and what is wasn’t.

Of course, English majors will just go berserk over that last sentence; but it does apply to a discussion of States’ Rights in the year A.D. 2010, even if it is some of the poorest English grammar of the year. What was State’s Rights isn’t what it is today. What is States’ Rights today isn’t what it was.

To begin, I will put on my virtually unused and in brand new condition English grammar hat and point out that the apostrophe is in the wrong place. It should be State’s, not States.’ And the word Rights should be Powers.

Why States’ vs. State’s? In the founding concept of American liberty, the primary purpose of government is to guarantee the rights of the people, which are derived from God. To accomplish this primary function of government, the power to govern was divided between a person’s State and The (several) States as a group (or the central government). States’ is the plural possessive. It references The States as a group and is thus the same as saying Federal Rights. So you could argue that people today who speak of States’ Rights have lost part of the basic concept before they even get started.

Why Rights vs. Powers? The second word of the phrase is also misused. Rights are given to the people by God, not to their State, a group of States, or to a central government. States do not have rights; they have powers to govern that have been granted by the sovereign people. That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the concept of American liberty. Government at every level is supposed to execute only those powers for which the people have granted the authority. Any debate that begins with the “Rights” of any government at any level has most likely been lost from the outset. Even if the effort seems to have initial success, in the end it only winds up chipping away at our God-given Rights.

But for the sake of this article let’s just leave the above for consideration, thought, and prayer by the reader. Of those three, prayer should be the most important, giving thanks for the Rights that have been bestowed upon us by our Maker and asking forgiveness for being so complacent in giving His gifts away.

From my perspective it is easy to identify what States’ Rights (or more accurately, State’s Powers) are not. States’ Rights are (is) not a slogan to be used to stop ObamaCare or Obama Cap and Tax or any other of the Obama socialist programs coming out of Washington City like a swarm of katydids. States’ Rights are (is) not a slogan to stop the Bush Patriot Acts or Bush CAFTA and other expensive trade agreements. By the same token, States’ Rights are (is) not a slogan to stop DFACS (Department of Children and Family Services) from illegal search and seizures, or some idiot in Atlanta telling me I do not have the proper permit to raise a duck unless the duck’s great grandmother’s owner had a proper permit!

Now think about that last example. When someone says that States’ Rights will solve all of our problems, are they suggesting that it is proper to require a documented duck’s ancestry of suitable quality for a citizen to feed the duck and give it a home? Is such nonsense acceptable simply because it's being perpetrated by an idiot in Atlanta, Montgomery, Nashville or Columbia instead of an idiot in Washington City? A silly example, maybe. But once you concede Rights to any government entity you have lost that Right – most likely forever. Even worse is that your children and grandchildren will not even know that it is something that you lost and that they were denied!

Today the debate should be about how State Powers will be used as a check on Federal Powers to guarantee our God-given Rights. It should be about how delegated Powers given to the Federal government will be used to guarantee our God-given Rights in areas that extend beyond the State in which we live. Otherwise, all of the rhetoric, all of the campaigning, and all the elected officials' use of today’s (improper) definition of States’ Rights will only determine how fast we go over the cliff.

American liberty is rapidly approaching the cliff. It's up to you the citizen to change that direction if it 's going to be changed. You have only this recourse at your disposal. Demand that all levels of government keep their hands off your God-given Rights unless the people grant them a Power to do so. Elect only those officials who are willing to abide by this restriction. Retire any elected official who abuses or usurps that which God has given you.

Arguing about which level of government will do a better job abusing your God-given Rights makes for interesting partisan battles, but it's a formula for failure year after year, election after election, and decade after decade -- as we have seen. After all, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In summary: what was State’s Rights isn’t what it is today. What is States’ Rights isn’t what it was. What your Rights will be is up to you. But this subject is too long for one article, so...

To be continued.

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban

National Association for Gun Rights

Climate Comedies

Dr. A. H. Krieg

In life as well as science a certain amount of “reading between the lines” becomes imperative for if we saw every issue by just its face value we should shortly find ourselves in intricacy.

The continuing and ever expanding revelations from the “Green Movement” and the IPCC of the UN and numerous centers of academia seem sufficient to keep all the world entertained. And if that doesn’t suffice R. K Pachauri Chairman of IPCC is always good for a few laughs. I have written and commented on the world climate situation for over four decades, I disagreed with the assertion that we were headed for a new ice age twenty years ago, and since have opposed the greens on global warming, now altered to climate change. These fools are relentless, like a troop of chameleons they adjust their position on a constant and regular basis. What many do not understand is that the entire green movement was co-opted by the socialist movement [the progressives] in the late 60’s. Socialism due to its inherent failure as an economic model converted their efforts to environmentalism in the mid 60’s and they have operated from that position on the scientific front ever since. On the political face they changed their name and beginning during the Wilson administration commenced calling themselves “Progressives” Like Obama, also a progressive, these people are ideologues that refuse to accept the reality of socialisms failure, as is demonstrated in the twenty or so nations that tried it and failed. Sir Winston Churchill said it best; “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Peloci, Reid and Obama intend to drive this failed system down your throats whether you like it or not. The very fact that academic and political failures like Al Gore and a failed politician Michael Gorbachev are the main drummers on this issue should make us all queasy.

The latest shoe to drop was the realization that the 2007 IPCC report on climate change that was touted as the consensus position of over 2,500 scientists was not peer reviewed, was faulty, contained misinformation, was not properly vetted and contained one Swiss graduate students term paper and a mountain climbing magazine article as proof of global warming. From released E-mail traffic of CRU (Climate Research Unit) at East Anglia University in the UK we have been apprised that researchers have been diddling information and research numbers for over ten years the latest in November 2009. The University is very upset that hackers broke into their computer systems and spilled the proverbial beans on an international scam. The University wants immediate police action taken against the Hackers, seems to us they should be ferreting out the scientist criminals responsible for the worldwide distribution of bogus information that will in the long term cost all of us millions.

This begs the question of how is all this possible? Research scientists all vie for limited grants from government, business and foundations. Much of these funds are provided based on outcome goals. In other words, lets per example take a large corporation that just happens to be a manufacturer of wind turbines, you know bird swatters. Naturally as the manufacturer of such a product in which he will have invested millions is eager to peruse sources that will enhance their ablity to sell these bird swatters. As such he progresses with two policies. Firstly financing global warming/CO2 issues by funding research that supports that position. This is called outcome-based research and it is totally useless. It is not research at all it is the process of trying to support false information through pre-introduction of information to achieve a desired outcome beforehand. And secondly, to influence government policies through campaign contributions to legislate on the issue.

Cap and Trade as pushed by Obama would be such an issue. By the way the largest bird swatter manufacturer in North America also happens to be a huge contributor to Obama. And lastly he will do the best to influence the mainstream media, which being a bunch of whores more interested in supporting their falling balance sheets than reporting the facts, is not very difficult, especially when the bird swatter manufacturer also owns one of the largest media conglomerates. Cap & Trade or as I prefer cap & tax is back on the front burner according to Obama’s State of the Union speech. If enacted it would drive the cost of an average home’s electric bill up by about $3.200 per year. I don’t know about you, but I can’t afford that. Cap and Trade is based on bogus science in that it positions man as the primary source of CO2and man at the center of global climatic change. This is pure bull. If humanity turned off every CO2 producing device in the world it would change global temperature by one seven-hundrets of one degree Centigrade. In fact the world’s largest producer of CO2 are termites, not men.

All these issues lead to the very same end, worldwide control of society by a socialist plutocracy. It’s not about the environment; it’s about societal control. It’s not about saving the planet it’s about a dictatorship of the elites. The fact that scientists have succumbed to greed is not a new issue they are no different than you or I. Let me explain how research grants are obtained. I was very intimate with this process when I lived in New Haven CT where Yale along with scores of other academic institutions is located. A professor hires an assistant secretary whose sole function is to fill out grant applications. When a grant comes in the amount is divided up about 40% for the professor’s salary 20% payroll, i.e. the secretary to fill out more applications, 10% for a graduate student to do the work and 30% for the actual research. The very first issue is to find out exactly what the desired outcome of the research is to be and then to formulate and tailor the outcome and plan all work toward those ends. If you think that research is an actual effort to find or develop new technology, you had better think again.

So let’s see who some of the players are. The WWF (World Wildlife Federation) is one of the major pushers of false science and is the author of many inventive papers relating to global warming and other fiction. Polar Bears come to mind. With a present stable population of about 20,000 which is not in decline, the WWF claims that there is a concern about a possible decline in the future due to their imagined global warming theory. If the population of Polar bears were to grow any more, then demonstrably they would kill off all the arctic seals. Green-peace is another group of inventive players. Andy Rowell is an anti-smoking and food safety campaigner who has co-authored some totally bogus, non-peer reviewed, information for both of the forenamed organizations relating to Himalayan glacier meltdowns and Amazon deforestation. Andy’s report was based on falsification of information that he claims came from Nature magazine, the article in question was not about global warming but about the effects of logging. I have done research for years and I never use published articles as sources, only original documentation that has been verified by more then one resource.

In reviewing WWF and Greenpeace produced an IPCC distributed report Canadian annalists located 20 similarities in reports indicating that the authors simply copied from each other. This is in fact journalistic or scientific laziness, copying from others is much easier than doing actual research.

The sad fact is that the mainstream media, just as they did with ACORN, refuses to cover the IPCC scandals, is afraid of the WWF and Greenpeace and has very few journalists sufficiently educated in the sciences to bring corroborated scientific facts to be reported to the public. Considering the over two trillion dollar cost of Cap and Trade and the enormous loss of employment, along with the horrendous cost to the public that is a real shame.

A. H. Krieg’s books are available from all booksellers, or