The Orwellian World is Upon Us!

I am beginning to think George Orwell was closer to being right than anyone wants to acknowledge, even those trying to wake us up to the development of "Big Brother" government. George Orwell predicted three critical areas of development that, out of context, might seem like good ideas.

The first was digital media. Digital media has opened up a tremendous potential for sharing information rapidly and broadly in our society. It also allows the quick, responsive editing of content, permitting us to alter the information as new information and knowledge is obtained. This is also a major drawback. The digital media can be altered in response not to changing knowledge, but changing politics. Entire documents can vanish from the Internet over night, simply at the say of some political boss or corporate executive. With the changes, our viewpoint on various issues is altered, even if the changes make no sense what so ever.

The second was increasing polarization of our society. This was presented in the real-time changes of who the "enemy" of the society was, even to the point of changing in the middle of a political rally with people altering their signs and chants without missing a beat. Today, we see this in the form of our political party shifts. We see the Republicans in charge, advocating deregulation of big business and creating a single-payer health care program. Democrats scream about the economy crashing and socialist government developing from the nationalization of the health care system. Leadership changes, with Democrats taking the reigns, and we see advocacy of deregulating big business and creating a single-payer health care program. Now it is the Republicans screaming about the economy crashing and our society becoming socialist with the nationalization of the health care system. This keeps us off balance, not really knowing who to trust.

The third was increasing surveillance technology and its misuse. We have gone from a society where wiretapping and spying on citizens was considered Constitutional violations to a state where having cameras on every street corner, surveillance of our telephone and Internet usage, and even the monitoring of what books we buy or borrow from the public library are seen (at least by our leaders) to be fair game. This has put us in a state of mind where we are reluctant (if not fearful) of exercising our Constitutional rights.

Orwell predicted this state many decades ago, he just didn't get the date right.

The Threat of Government Backdoor Access

Someone yesterday asked me what is so wrong about the government having backdoor access to our computers. As I see it, such unfettered access actually has several dangers that we should bare in mind as citizens.

First, backdoor access into our computers circumvent any firewall or antivirus protections. If a hacker learns how to access via the government's backdoor access (and you can be assured they will sooner or later), every computer so equipped will be unsecured. Your personal information on your computer would be an open book to the world, as would your bank accounts, the controls over our power grid and potentially every computerized military system.

Second, such access wouldn't allow them to just view your files, they could manipulate them as well. Why should the government wait for you to commit a crime if they want you in prison? With such access, they could load your computer with whatever materials they want, from child porn to "The Anarchist Cookbook", complete with "emails" sent by you to the heads of terrorist organizations around the world. Don't believe that? Try looking at the arrest warrant they used against the "terrorists" that were arrested in Aurora, Colorado a couple years ago. All the evidence was digital (computerized) records.

Third, the backdoor access could be used to install software that would render your computer useless, permanently or temporarily. A particularly interesting ability if they wanted to destroy the computers of anyone who criticizes the government. They could also do the same to computers controlling power grid infrastructure components without actually destroying the infrastructure, the perfect weapon for false flag operations. The gem of it is, they could then claim that terrorists, foreign agents or even "anonymous" hackers were responsible for destroying vital computer systems.

As a well-known computer security expert said a few years ago, it is poor civic hygiene to allow the installation of technologies that may one day be used by a police state against us. Allowing a government whose trustworthiness and credibility is decaying rapidly to have what seems like a minor ability could end up being the ultimate Achilles Heel that ends the last vestiges of Constitutional America.

Think about it, my friends.

A Simple Indictment Against the City and County of Denver, Colorado.

Hmmmm ... Okay, soldiers, judges, police and government leaders all take an oath of office when they become a soldier, judge, etc. Those oaths include a statement that they will uphold the Constitution of the United States (even those that don't say they will uphold the laws of the United States or the State in which they serve and since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land [U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2], it is included by indirect reference). Any government official who violates the Constitutional Rights of a citizen are therefore not only violating the law (since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land), they are in violation of their oath of office.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the '' Supremacy Clause'' and has been recognized as the authority under which State and local laws must comply with the U.S. Constitution and Federal law (as well as any international treaties to which the U.S. is party). So, here is my indictment of the City and County of Denver, Colorado.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, it is stated that ...

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Yet the City and County of Denver has 1) repeatedly and violently interfered with otherwise peaceful protests against government policies and the corruption of our political system by acts of corporate bribery (in the form of ''political'' contributions), along with the devastation of corrupt economic practices by those same corporations and 2) in further oppression against those protests pasted bans on ''urban camping'' which forbid those protesters from even using a blanket to protect themselves from the elements while protesting.

In any corporation, employees violating corporate policy would be terminated on the spot. So explain to me why are we letting our officials (political and corporate) keep their jobs when they are so clearly in violation of our laws?

Activists Beware

It has become obvious to many of us that there has been a profound shift in the conduct of our government, particularly during the Bush administration. This shift has brought increased pressure and harassment against those of us who are trying to make a positive difference in the world.

This shift has brought violations of free speech, violations of free press, violations of free associations, violations of free trade, violations of free travel, violations of ... well, I think you get the picture ... all in the name of national security. Things that were considered acceptable and normal in a democratic society only a few months ago are now bringing seizures of property by Homeland Security, arrest and disappearances of independent reporters, and a spiraling environment of fear and surveillance by what is rapidly becoming the most oppressive government in the world.

This means the environment for activists like you and I is becoming increasingly dangerous, which is typical in a society on the verge of collapse. The sad thing is, it doesn't have to happen, but can only be prevented if the government backs off from this campaign of terrorism. Yes, I said it, the United States government has, itself, become a force of terrorism in the world, particularly against its own citizens. Those who don't believe me had best start paying attention to what is happening.

Another part of the threat is, it is not just at the national level that this is happening. Local governments are joining in. Just last September (2007), a student at UCLA was tasered for trying to get a straight answer out of John Kerry. And this was after John Kerry told them it was alright, that he was willing to answer the question. Considering that tasers have been proven to be potentially lethal, this act was irresponsible, dangerous, and oppressive to the student's right to participate in an open-to-the-public event.

The Bush administrations invocation of "free speech zones" that isolate officials from any signs of protest against their policies was expanded in March (2008) to force "Free Tibet" protesters away from the path of the Olympic torch. In Denver, in preparation for the Democratic National Convention, the police department already has an area chosen for a "free speech zone" that all but guarantees convention goers won't be "inconvenienced" by hearing anything from the protest groups. They are already spreading word that even passing out protest fliers may (read will) result in arrest for trespassing ... including the otherwise open-to-the-public sidewalks around the convention center.

Censorship has also raised its ugly head, particularly if the subject matter has to do with global warming or anything that might threaten the strangle hold the oil and coal industry have on our economy. James Hansen, a noted and respected scientist with NASA, was the subject of a recently published book, Censored Science by Mark Bowen, that reveals his reports and those of other NASA scientists regarding global warming issues have been officially censored for years. Just this past week (July 2008), we have learned that Vice-President Dick Cheney's office intentionally removed EPA testimony about the health impact of global warming from the congressional record, citing concern over the science involved, a decision made by NON-scientists who have done ZERO research.

Individually, the myriad of events may seem insignificant, but when viewed in the broad spectrum of events, a disturbing and dangerous pattern emerges, screaming, as the title of this post says ...

ACTIVISTS BEWARE

Common Sense on Sex Offenders

This was originally a comment post I wrote on another blog site. I thought the content important enough to revise and post here.

-----------------------------------------------------

It saddens me to see such strife on issues like sex offender residency restriction laws when it seems most involved in the conversation (if you can call it that) seem to have no idea of the reality regarding sex offenders.

According to the Department of Justice, convicted sex offenders are the second least likely to commit a like offense within ten years (less than 8 percent). The least likely are single-incident murderers (less than 5 percent). Under closer scrutiny, reoffense for child molestation is comparable to that of single-incident murderers.

Additionally, those who do reoffend are most frequently those who are under the stress of unemployment, harassment by neighbors, and instability in or lack of adequate housing.

Residency restriction laws also interfere with the application and enforcement of the "Megan's law" provisions each state has by denying the sex offender the ability to establish a reliable residence. Those that do often find malicious neighbors registering a "day care" within the restriction distance of the sex offender's new residency and in short order, a notice for the sex offender to move immediately with a time frame as little as 24 hours in some municipalities.

These facts alone refute the claims that there is no argument against the residency restriction laws. These laws have, in direct violation of constitutional law no less, denied sex offenders not only a place to live but participation in religious activities, educational opportunities, and even significant work opportunities. They essentially, after the sex offender has done his or her time, add the punishment of banishment from society altogether.

Yes, what they did in the past was heinious, but so too are the actions our society is doing to them after the fact. We cannot and must not use their past conduct to justify throwing out everything our nation represents, which is exactly what we are doing with these laws. In our desperate desire to protect our children, we are forgetting who we are.

And lastly, I ask each of you this ... if it was, one day, your own son or daughter who was caught up in a sexually-based offense, would you want them banished forever from society? Check out www.rickyslife.com before you answer that.

The Hidden War

America is dying. It is suffering the death of a thousand cuts.

And it is not alone.

Across the globe human rights are being undermined in the name of globalization and, most insulting, in the name of security.

Since I know best what is happening in the United States, I shall focus my attention there, but as I said, we are not the only ones suffering.

We have for the last few generations verbally rejected the idea of internal passports, we do not (as yet) have gestapo-like forces roaming the streets asking us "Papers, please" but we are not far from it.

Thanks to secret legislation (defined as legislation whose existence and purpose are intentionally hidden or cloaked from public knowledge) the Federal government has in place requirements of computer readable identification for banking, government services, and employment verification, though they have not (as yet) begun to enforce these requirements. A small handful of Congressmen are responsible for this.

What is wrong with it you might ask? It puts us just a few paces from being required to carry internal passports that can be used to monitor everything we do everyday. It isn't hard for them to start requiring RFID chips embedded that can be read from yards away, most likely without us ever knowing.

So far most states have interpreted the legislation in such a way that they have incorporated magnetic strips and barcodes that must be read at close range, making it obvious when they are being examined - or does it?

Without thinking about it we allow employers to link our Social Security Number (SSN) to our identity, using it as our employee ID number. Without thinking about it we allow hospitals to use our SSN as our patient ID number. Without thinking about it we allow banks to link our SSN to our bank account. Without thinking about it we allow schools and colleges to link our SSN to our educational records. Without thinking about it we allow our state governments to link our driver's licenses to our SSN, frequently printing it right on the front of our ID cards.

Lets see, that means with our SSN the government (and hackers by the way) can access our driving records, our educational credentials, our financial records, our health records, and our employment history. Do you want the government having that kind of access to your life???

The Federal government passed the USA Patriot Act. This fact alone seems innocent enough - until you actually examine the powers it grants the Federal government. It too qualifies as secret legislation even though everyone has heard of it. It qualifies because the law that was signed by the President is not what Congress agreed upon. During the debates and negotiations Congress had inserted safeguards seeking to protect the rights of American citizens. The night before the formal vote of Congress the altered legislation was replaced by the original legislation the President wanted. The majority of Congress was never told and to this day have no clue about this. Unwittingly, Congress voted to pass the law before them and it was promptly signed into law by the President.

Among the more insidious measures of the USA Patriot Act is the Federal government having the power to seize bookstore purchase records and library patronage records. Are you sure you have never read anything the government might find questionable?

It also allows the government to perform covert searches of our businesses and homes, seizing anything within them, without warrant or notification. Imagine going to work or school one day and returning to find your house ransacked and your beloved computer missing. The first thought in your mind? One, this violates our constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. There is a reason we have required law enforcement to get search warrants from the courts. They are a safeguard against governmental corruption. This type of search will also cause local law enforcement resources to be wasted when the victim calls police to report a burglary because they do not know it was the government who did it.

Probably the most well known violation is the governments secret domestic surveillance program which, in fact, was either in place well before the USA Patriot Act or was planned for in advance. The government already had the equipment ready to go when the law was passed. Conspiracy theorists have accused the government for years of covert domestic surveillance of telephone and computer communications. The facts about the government's current surveillance program and the speed it was instituted makes me wonder, though I am not ready to throw my hat in with the theorists quite yet.

And telephone and computer communications are not the only thing under surveillance. It is well known that the government has and continues to use covert operatives to monitor any organization (including third political parties) who dare to question or campaign against governmental and corporate misconduct. The SS did not die during World War II, they just changed sides - or so it seems.

Historically, I have never been one to be very political. I was indoctrinated, like most of America, to believe the government was benevolent - protecting our country and our rights as citizens. But I was also raised to keep my eyes open and to think for myself. Unfortunately, the more I see of issues like these, the more it undermines my confidence and belief in the U.S. government.

I have been told by many that my viewpoints about our government and big business will probably end up with me on the no-fly list and subject myself to governmental surveillance and harrassment. They are probably right. I have just one thing to say about that.

"Frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a damn."

Learning From History

We worry about what a child will be tomorrow, yet we forget that he or she is someone today.
Stacia Tausher

Undoubtedly, you have noticed I use historic quotes frequently.

Through such quotes we can learn from our ancestors and founding fathers the wisdom of the ages. Through such quotes we can learn the original intent of those who wrote our Constitution and laws and they should be applied to the operation of our government and our society.

This understanding has led me to be an advocate for reducing the control and influence of our Federal government and for strengthening the sovereignty and self-sufficiency of our states and individual communities.

Our founding fathers feared a Federal government that held too much power, such as ours does now. The more centralized the power, they believed, the more easily it would be to corrupt and usurp governing authority from the will of the people.

This is further corrupted by activist judges who create new laws by judicial edict from the bench. Laws that were never approved of by Congress or the People of the United States and that have frequently proved disastrous to our society. Judges are supposed to enforce the laws as we, the people, have had instituted and to potentially punish those who violate these laws. Our laws provide not only what constitutes an offense, but what punishments are appropriate and even exceptional defenses to such violations that might mitigate the offense.

Now, granted the judges have to take action on occasion when a new or existing law is recognized as violating our Constitutional rights, but such decisions are always supposed to be in favor of protecting the rights of each and every citizen.

Too frequently these days our judges are bending to the pressures of political correctness and handing down decisions not based in law, but based in personal opinion and bias. Instead of true justice and equality under the law, they are showing favoritism and allowing Constitutional injustices to stand as law. They strike down the death-penalty as cruel and unusual punishment, for example, yet see nothing wrong with sentencing a man to serve two or more life sentences behind bars.

Is it any less cruel to keep a man imprisoned for the rest of his natural life, never to see his children grow up or even have a chance at emerging into a world he no longer knows? Is it any less cruel than silencing by intimidation an imprisoned man who continues to profess his innocence and dares to use media contacts or the Internet to plead his case before the public or to beg the courts to rehear his case because of new found evidence that may prove his innocence? Is the death penalty any more cruel than the cruelty of death the victims of the crimes experienced?

In giving unjust decisions that bend to radical factions of our society, judges violate their oath of office which has always included a statement of them swearing to uphold the United States Constitution and to protect the rights of all citizens under it.

Legislative corruption has led to laws in many jurisdictions protecting prosecutors and law enforcement agents from legal actions for the crimes of malicious prosecution, wrongful arrest, and false imprisonment. Judicial corruption has led to court decisions upholding these protections. These two trends, in particular, have undermined the basic rights of every citizen by making them more susceptible to wrongful arrest, detainment, and court involvement and leaving them no rights to seek remedy for the damage caused to their reputations, the loss of their jobs, and the economy devastation upon their lives.

What scares the hell out of me is these are some of the same conditions that Soviet citizens found themselves in during the Communist regime and that German citizens found themselves in under Adolf Hitler. Couple this with the liberal agenda of disarming American citizens and we have the recipe for the future enslavement of the United States.

Let's learn from history before we become a lesson for future generations.

Constitution Day

Today is Constitution Day, the day in history when our U.S. Constitution was officially signed.

To signify this day, I offer the following quotes about government, and in the spirit of the original intent of the United States and House Wyldstar's association mission, I shall leave you to consider their meaning for yourself.

The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government.
Franklin Roosevelt

It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.
Hubert Humpfrey

The citizen can bring our political and governmental institutions back to life, make them responsive and accountable, and keep them honest. No one else can.
John Gardner

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

Conservative or Liberal - Defining Who We Are

While in a chatroom earlier today, the participants started asking each other where they stood politically ... conservative or liberal. They all agreed that they could not categorize me in either of those.

This is simple to understand. I am neither fully. The closest political parties to whom I can be compared are the Natural Law Party and the Libertarians. I am very conservative when it comes to the role of government in our lives, feeling that the government should return to a state of original intent defined in the U.S. Constitution. At the same time, I am very liberal when it comes to the rights of individuals living their lives in peace (ie without interference from the government or majority of our society) and have equal opportunity when it comes to participation in our society, be that political, economic, or socially.

Unlike ''liberals'' who think this can only come under the authority and control of government (which contributes to our growing, unconstitutional government agencies), I feel these goals can be created by the citizens of the United States and other countries independently of government. For true change to come about within a society, one must first educate the people about why the proposed change is better than maintaining the status quo. And as Benjamin Franklin said, "this is not the work of a single day."

Our problems arise when liberal organizations and foundations fund litigation (lawsuits) to force social change down the throats of mainstream society, or when activist politicians pass ill-conceived laws to curry the favor of the social majority regardless of the negative impacts of such change or legislation.

The over-all impact of the liberal agenda in the United States has, to date, been a dissertation in how to destroy a country. The liberal activism of our politicians and foundations have lead to the near-disaster of the welfare programs, so-called education reforms, and out of control political correctness in our country.

Most liberals have been secretive about their agenda, but on occassion one of them slips up and says something that gives them away. Consider the following quotes and their sources. See if you can pick out which are liberals.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms
Thomas Jefferson

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster

One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
Adolf Hitler

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.
Joseph Stalin

Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Mao Tse-tung

I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.
Michael Dukakis

When only cops have guns, its called a 'police state'
Claire Wolfe

For the record, I am not a gun-toting, card-carrying member of the NRA or any other such organization. Personally, I do not even own a gun and have never liked firing them, even when I was in the military twenty years ago. However, if provoked by invaders or our own government becoming oppressive to the rights of myself or my community, that could easily change.