resistnwo-news8

www.resistnwo.com - News 8

by Connor Boyack

Yes, you read that right. The Constitution applies to terrorists. It also applies to stay-at-home moms, illegal immigrants, truck drivers, anti-government radicals, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Put differently, the Constitution does not apply only to citizens of the United States. It seems that protectionist collectivists treat this document like a two-year-old treats his favorite toy – unwilling to share, and incorrectly believing that it is his and his alone. This fallacy has become so propagated throughout the country's general political mindset that a barbaric jingoism has resulted, leading people to automatically support the denial of constitutional protections of freedom for anybody who is a "terrorist."

But who is a terrorist?

The picture that first comes to mind is the "insurgent" fighting against our military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other countries of the Middle East in which our military is increasingly becoming engaged. Some examples of such "terrorists" might be: the vengeful man whose innocent brother was killed by an unmanned drone over the border of Pakistan; the adrenaline-fueled teenager taking on the militarized Goliath occupying his hometown; the man in the wrong place at the wrong time, picked up by a bounty hunter and sold to the American government with a fictional story created about his involvement in terrorist activities; and the list could continue, portraying stories far different than the standard "radical jihadist" that dominates our media's narrative.

Things hit closer to home when the suspected terrorists have white skin. Take, for example, the Missouri Information Analysis Center report which labeled as terrorists supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, and anybody sporting paraphernalia associated with the Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty, or the Libertarian Party.

The absurdity continues – the government has also considered defenders of the Constitution, home-schoolers, peaceful protestors, and a host of patriotic organizations and individuals as terrorists. Do these "domestic rightwing terrorists" not merit constitutional safeguards of their liberty?

In other words, with a "terrorist" being any individual – U.S. citizen or not – upon whom the government arbitrarily imposes that label, why would anybody not consider the Constitution as applying to that individual? Some may take issue with this generality and instead specify the argument as only being relevant to non-citizens. But do these folks even understand what the Constitution is?

The Constitution is a document that created the federal government, and in so doing, specified powers granted to and denied that entity. It does not apply to a person or group of people, but rather to the government itself. In saying above that the Constitution applies to terrorists, truck drivers, etc., the idea is conveyed that the Constitution applies to all people who have any dealings with the federal government.

The cotton picker in Uzbekistan couldn't care less about the U.S. Constitution, and taken literally, it does not really apply to him. But say this person vacationed in Pittsburgh, or say he visited the local American embassy. Having any interaction with agents of the federal government makes the Constitution relevant to him, since that governing document applies to the federal government and those who comprise it. Whether the person be a cotton picker, an "insurgent," or anybody else, the federal government is bound by the constraints of the Constitution, and in attempting to administer legal punishment to another person, must give due process and protect other basic human rights – rights which the Declaration of Independence makes clear are given by the Creator to every individual.

Were this not the case, the government could extinguish the life of any non-citizen it wanted, at any time, for any reason – or for no reason at all. For if the guarantees enshrined in the Constitution apply only to U.S. citizens, what prevents the government from denying these rights to any non-citizen? The constitutional restraints are not specific to an individual who happens to be a citizen, thus (allegedly) preventing the federal government from denying them their rights, but rather are shackles of self-restraint placed around the appendages of the government itself, regardless of who the government deals with. Under the Constitution, all are recognized as enjoying basic rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the government must follow an established process if it wishes to deny these rights to any individual, whatever his or her nationality.

Americans must resist the tendency to be so selfish with our supposed freedoms. We either believe that our rights came from our Creator – and thus exist for all His children – or we don't. We either believe that the federal government has power to deal as it pleases with any non-citizen, or we don't. And we either view so-called "terrorists" as human beings entitled, insofar as is possible, to due process when dealing with our government, or we don't. The alternative is an alarming one, for tomorrow you and I might ourselves be branded with this dubious distinction, finding ourselves the subject of scorn and derision, reduced to a discardable humanoid whose very existence is at the mercy of another person.

This is not the America I grew up in, nor the one I want to pass on to my children. How about you?

May 24, 2010

Connor Boyack [send him mail] is a web developer, political economist, and budding philanthropist trying to change the world one byte at a time. He lives in Utah with his wife and son. Read his blog.

The Constitution Applies to Terrorists

Do You Know, You Are A Terrorist?

Copy Of Actual FBI and Homeland Security Handout Below

Racist Government Imposed Segregation Laws, Not 2-Year-Old Rand Paul

Rachel Maddow wants to give government who enforced brutal and racist segregation laws power to regulate First Amendment

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet.com

Monday, May 24, 2010

In an interview with Alan Colmes, Ron Paul points out that it was the government who enforced segregation laws, not his son Rand Paul, who is being branded a racist by the attack dog media for simply re-affirming the fact that even unpopular aspects of the First Amendment must be protected for it to stand for anything.

As we have exhaustively documented, the corporate media was intent on manufacturing a contrived race baiting scandal around Rand Paul even before the Civil Rights Act argument cropped up. In the immediate aftermath of his crushing defeat of establishment neo-con Trey Grayson, the media attempted to characterize the Kentucky primary winner as a racist elitist simply because he held his victory celebration at a country club.

When this attempt to smear Paul fell flat on its face, the Civil Rights sideshow was ramped up, with MSNBC airing eight different segments totaling 37 minutes with every single guest attacking Rand Paul as a closet racist who wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act, something which he never said. Every single news network, along with a plethora of establishment liberal and neo-con blogs, parroted the talking point to the point where Paul had been demonized as some kind of Klan member who wanted to bring back segregation and black slavery.

In reality, as his father Ron Paul pointed out in an interview with Alan Colmes, Rand Paul was 2-years-old when the Civil Rights Act was passed and it was the government itself – the body that if people like Rachael Maddow had their way, would be given the power the regulate the First Amendment – who enforced racist and brutal segregation laws to begin with.

Host Colmes was refreshingly fair in acknowledging that Rand Paul was advancing a philosophical position and was not a racist as he has been branded by the media.

Ron Paul pointed out that the Civil Rights Act was passed before Rand Paul even went to grade school and that the genuine issues that concern Americans now have nothing to do with what the media is obsessing about, adding that it was idiotic to think that any business would refuse to serve black people because it would be a financial and public relations disaster, making the whole “controversy” a moot point.

“He’s actually taking a position very close to Martin Luther King – Martin Luther King wanted to repeal laws, he believed in boycotts, he believed in peaceful disobedience, those are the things that Libertarians believe in,” said Paul.

Paul explained his son’s position simply and eloquently.

“If you want your personal privacy protected, if you want your religious protection, if you want your choices on sexual activities protected, that means your house has to be sacred,” said Paul.

The standpoint of Rachel Maddow and her ilk, that the government should regulate the First Amendment in private homes and businesses, is not only a complete violation of the right to free speech as well as private property, but it would also be enforced by the state – the same entity that created racist segregation laws in the first place.

“Where did the real segregation come – from government,” said Paul, adding, “Government endorsed slavery, government endorsed the segregation law, how long did the government have segregation in the armed forces – up until world war two.”

In addition, it was the judiciary branch of the U.S. government, the Supreme Court, who in 1857 declared that black people were slaves with no rights as free men.

Despite the fact that it was government who passed and presided over laws on racial segregation and slavery, which Rand Paul said he would have marched with Martin Luther King to oppose, the Rachel Maddows of this world think the same entity tainted with the historical stain of enforcing slavery and racism should somehow be trusted and empowered to fairly regulate free speech within private homes and businesses.

“Recognizing private property and the role of government in segregation is what we’re trying to make a point on,” concluded Paul, adding that real issues such as the economic crisis were being ignored while the media hypes a fake controversy about a non-issue.

Obama’s Oil Spill Response: The Story Behind the Story

Robert Singer

Infowars.com

May 28, 2010

I have received a number of emails about the environmental impacts of the BP oil spill. The size of the spill and the impacts on wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico ecosystems have prompted a number of readers to write:

“Bob, it looks like you are right, the environmental damage and pollution are the goal and not the unintended consequences.”

Others have noted the irony that the leak is believed to have started on Earth Day, April 22, when the Deepwater Horizon sank. [1]

Dana Milbank, at the Washington Post, appears to realize there is story behind the story of Obama’s bizarre behavior at his lengthy news conference yesterday at the White House.

“For eight years we had a president who refused to accept blame. Now we have one who seems to enjoy it.

He decorated the East Room with wuddas, cuddas and shuddas: “We should have busted through those constraints. . . . pre-deploying boom would have been the right thing to do . . . I do think our efforts fell short. . . . They should have pushed them sooner. . . . I think that it took too long. . . . Where I was wrong was in my belief that the oil companies had their act together.”

As I sat in the fourth row on Thursday, I was struck by the weirdly passive figure before me.

He delivered lawyerly phrases and spoke of his anger about the oil spill but showed none in his voice or on his face.

He was, presumably, there to show how aggressively he has handled the disaster, but he seemed cool, almost bloodless.

CBS’s Chip Reid asked about the resignation hours earlier of Elizabeth Birnbaum, head of the MMS, or Minerals Management Service. “I found out about her resignation today,” Obama replied. Interior Secretary “Ken Salazar has been in testimony throughout the day, so I don’t know the circumstances in which this occurred.”

That’s very clear, sir. But why not share some with the guys at BP who actually are responsible for the spill?”

The leak, instead of being 210,000 gallons of the Earth’s vital fluids being extracted, the Los Angeles Times is now reporting that BP admits “that the leak rate is around 2.5 million gallons a day.

[Excerpt from An Ominous Drilling Sign for the Truth]

Crusextraction of the Earth, Response: Earthquakes And Tsunamis

In 2005, world oil-production alone (not including natural-gas) was an incomprehensible 80 — 100 million barrels of oil per day.

USGS coastal geologists understand these factors cannot be ignored as far as influencing earth crust stresses andconfirm the earth’s response to extracting by force 3,360,000,000 — 4,200,000,000 gallons of the planets vital fluids every single day: Earthquakes and tsunamis.

While disagreement abounds on this topic, scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) say that oil production at plate boundaries where hard, rocky slabs slide against each other to releases tremendous amounts of energy and could be the cause for the 2004 quake that triggered a deadly tsunami in Sumatra.

“Here’s how it works: With high-tech equipment, oil companies pinpoint oil-rich areas and use large drills to puncture the surface below the sea, sometimes as deep as 10,000 feet. As this pricey fluid gets sucked from the sediment pores, the surrounding rocks shift positions to fill in the newly vacated spaces. At a large scale, for example the volume displaced when millions of barrels of oil are produced, the land movement can actually cause a mini-seismic earthquake, said Robert Morton, a USGS coastal geologist.

During these various stages the globe of the earth is gradually being depressurized and cooled internally, causing contraction for both of these reasons. When objects cool down, they automatically shrink/contract in size. If you let high-pressure air or gas out of a cylinder, it forms ice around the outlet, and cools the entire cylinder. If you let some of the air out of a football, or basketball, the ball shrinks and goes badly out of shape.”

“Apply that to the Earth and you have earthquakes — simple common-sense — not rocket-science. A fact so simple that anyone who understands the oil-extraction process would understand, but, because they are insanely-blinded by their insatiable greed and avarice, they often overlook the obvious.” (Paul Noel, JAH, Sterling D. Allan and Mary-Sue Halliburton) [3]l impacts of the BP oil spill. The size of the spill and the impacts on wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico ecosystems have prompted a number of readers to write: