358

Take heed fellow Americans,
we are being attacked from within
by those intending to be the supreme commanders of the 21st century version of national socialsim.
In many cases it is being dressed up in the sheeps clothing
of evangelical Christianity and supported from many "conservative" pulpits, ---

Fellow Americans,

To paraphrase President Bush, "you are either with my government or against my government" (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/ret.bush.coalition/index.html). Methinks this statement can be dangerously enforced on American citizens via legislation the president is pursuing. So be alerted as to what many Republicans and Democrats are [and have long been] systematically putting into place -- the very tyranny they now claim we may attack any sovereign nation to rid the world of.

Take heed fellow Americans, we are being attacked from within by those intending to be the supreme commanders of the 21st century version of national socialsim. In many cases it is being dressed up in the sheeps clothing of evangelical Christianity and supported from many "conservative" pulpits, but its designs are to silence free speech (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ155.107.pdf), to silence true free worship of the one true God of the Bible and the public acknowledgement of God (Roy Moore case, for example), and to destroy the liberty of the Republic (http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/h3199.pdf and http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf). (One of my personal favorites from the "Patriot" Act is one definition of terrorism: "SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED.—Section 2331 of title 18, ... (5) the term domestic terrorism means activities that— ... (B) appear to be intended— ... (ii) to influence the policy of a government by ... coercion ... (C) [and occuring] primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." That sounds like a sentence specifically intended to be used against all opposition that some day the storm troopers may need to "get rid of".) (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/03/politics/main1176167.shtml, http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10653710/from/RL.3/, http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10562008/)

Friends, let us not wait until we have our own Holocaust. Just because you have your head in the sand doesn't mean you won't lose it. Of course, if you have your head in the sand that probably means you are so very terribly concerned with keeping it. So, if you want to keep your head you may want to run and hide, oh dear complacent and compliant ones. Then again, perhaps you will be able to keep your head; the national socialists are going to need help to get their work done (a very ambitious plan they have).

In Liberty,

Jeff Rhine

If ye love wealth [or benefits from programs in areas not properly within the
purview of civil government and paid for by money extracted, with the threat of
punishment for not paying, from innocent families] 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; May your chains set
lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
—Samuel Adams

###################################################################################################################################################################
1)
The Reactionary Utopian
November 24, 2005

NATIONAL SOCIALISM COMES TO AMERICA
by Joe Sobran

In 1956, at the height of the Cold War, the
historian John Lukacs smiled skeptically at the notion
that it was a contest between the opposing principles of
capitalism and communism. Actually, he said, it was a
rivalry between two broadly similar states, Russian and
American, both of which might be more accurately
described as "national socialist."

Unfortunately, that term had already been taken, and
nobody wanted it after 1945. But Lukacs was far from the
only one who saw that it fit most of the regimes that had
survived World War II. In his influential 1941 book, THE
MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION, the former Communist James Burnham
argued that the American, German, and Russian systems,
despite superficial differences, were all variants of a
new type of bureaucratic state, in which the actual
control exercised by the burgeoning new "managerial"
class was separate from nominal ownership.

John T. Flynn saw Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal as
an American transposition of Fascism. Garet Garrett,
another critic of Roosevelt, understood that the United
States was undergoing a revolution -- of the kind
Aristotle had called "revolution within the form."
America was not so different from its enemies as most
Americans liked to believe. By now it's a little late for
conservatism; most of the things worth conserving were
destroyed a long time ago.

Still, "superficial" differences can be important.
If all modern states are versions of national socialism,
I'd rather live under one with habeas corpus and freedom
of the press than under one without them. I'd rather be
permitted to speak my mind than forbidden to.

But let's be clear about this. Americans are still
permitted to do a great many things, though not as many
things as their ancestors could take for granted. Fine.
But permission isn't freedom. The privilege of a subject
isn't the right of a free man. If you can own only what
the government permits you to own, then in essence the
government owns =you.= We no longer tell the state what
our rights are; it tells us.

Such is the servitude Americans are now accustomed
to under an increasingly bureaucratic state. Permission,
often in the form of legal licensing, is the residue of
the old freedom; but we're supposed to think that this is
still "the land of the free," and that we owe our freedom
to the state, its laws, and especially its wars. The more
the state grows -- that is, the more it fulfills the
character of national socialism -- the freer we're told
we are.

President Bush, who is not exactly your
philosopher-king type, would probably react with
surprise, indignation, and bafflement if you called him a
national socialist, since, after all, he thinks a fair
amount of capitalism should be permitted, even
encouraged; and he's really not all that different from
most of our rulers. But that's the point. Few of these
men really know what they think; they came in late in the
game, and they play by the rules they see others playing
by. What's philosophy got to do with it? (That was an
elective course, wasn't it?)

Let's put it this way. If our rulers were all
shipwrecked on a desert island with no means of escape,
they might eventually build monuments and skyscrapers;
but can anyone imagine them creating free institutions?
What sort of Republic would this be if it had been
founded by the Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Bidens, and
McCains? Its rallying cry would have been something along
the lines of "Give me Medicare benefits or give me
death!"

This is not to insult them, merely to point out
their shared premise: they all think from the perspective
of power, of the rulers and not the ruled. They may be
benevolent, in their way; but when they want to do
something for their subjects, it goes without saying that
they also reserve the right to do something =to= those
same subjects. Controlling the nation's wealth, even
under the guise of "capitalism," is always the main
thing. It's "our" wealth, isn't it? Monarchy is so
=over,= but rulers still love the first-person plural. As
in "We owe it to ourselves."

And even when the subjects criticize the rulers --
which is permitted -- the criticism itself assumes the
same premise and perspective. After all, we're told that
in a democracy the subjects themselves are the ultimate
rulers. Hence the taxpayers themselves may wish for
higher taxes to pay for their privileges, calculating
that these will be chiefly exacted from others.

And freedom? Well, under national socialism, freedom
is where you find it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/051124.shtml".

Copyright (c) 2005 by the Griffin Internet Syndicate,
www.griffnews.com. This column may not be published in
print or Internet publications without express permission
of Griffin Internet Syndicate. You may forward it to
interested individuals if you use this entire page,
including the following disclaimer:

"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available
by subscription. For details and samples, see
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."

###################################################################################################################################################################
2)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Baldwin" <chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com>
To: "00chuck-wagon" <chuck-wagon@chuckbaldwinlive.com>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 11:47 AM
Subject: Chuck Baldwin's Dec. 16 Food for Thought: GOP Terrorizing Constitution

GOP Terrorizing Constitution
By Chuck Baldwin
December 16, 2005

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has just
passed a bill which renews the USA Patriot Act. According to a
News With Views press release, "Despite massive opposition from
individuals and groups on all sides of the political spectrum, the
GOP-controlled House of Representatives on Wednesday gave in
to pressure from the Administration and approved the conference
report H.R. 3199 (introduced by Judiciary chairman James
Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.) which would make permanent 14 of the 16
provisions of the controversial Patriot Act-but failed to put much-
needed checks and balances against abuse into the law.

"The House vote was 251-174, with 44 Democrats joining 207
Republicans. Only 17 Republicans took a stand against the bill.
These included Ron Paul, Texas; Dana Rohrbacker, Calif.; and
Bruce Otter, Idaho. There were nine 'not voting'-six Republicans
and three Democrats."

Under the rubric of "fighting terrorism," President Bush and his
fellow Republicans are actually terrorizing the U.S. Constitution!
Instead of making America more secure, the Patriot Act puts
America at greater risk of being terrorized-by our own
government!

Furthermore, those people who still labor under the delusion that
free men and women have nothing to fear from our federal
government need to familiarize themselves with history-including
U.S. history-and with the actual details of the Act. What they
would discover should certainly frighten them.

For example, Section 213 of the Act authorizes "sneak and peek"
searches for virtually any reason, even if those reasons are
completely unrelated to terrorism. Already, the vast majority of
cases where "sneak and peek" searches have been used have had
nothing to do with suspected terrorist activity, claims to the
contrary notwithstanding.

Beyond that, "sneak and peek" searches are conducted in absolute
secrecy. Victims of "sneak and peek" may not be informed of their
home or business being searched and items seized for weeks,
months, or even longer. Such people come home to ransacked
rooms and think it was done by burglars, when, in fact, it was
federal agents!

Furthermore, Section 215 of the Act greatly loosens the standard
under which the federal government can obtain secret court orders
to gather evidence from third parties on any citizen. This includes
library records, firearms records, medical records, or any other
type of "tangible evidence" without showing the court any
suspicion that the person has violated the law or is an agent of a
foreign power. Basically, the law requires the secret court to
authorize the seizures because the federal agent asks for it! No
evidence is required. Absolutely none! Section 505 of the Act is
even more problematic!

Under the provisions of the USA Patriot Act in Section 505,
federal agents are able to draft what are called National Security
Letters (NSLs), which never even go before a federal judge, in
order to gain access to a wide category of personal information in
the hands of banks and other entities. These NSLs require no link
between the person or persons on whom the private information is
being sought and any criminal conduct nor any suspicion they have
done anything wrong. And there is absolutely no checks or
oversight over the government's power to access a citizen's
personal information.

Then there is Section 802 which defines "domestic terrorism" to
include any act that "appears intended to influence" government
policy. But does not virtually every action taken by, say, pro-lifers,
Second Amendment proponents, or any other lobbying
organization or individual activist attempt to "influence"
government? Of course they do. Well, under Section 802 of the
Patriot Act, those people can be identified as "domestic terrorists"
and may be subjected to all the investigative probes of the federal
government.

Yet, there is more. Under the USA Patriot Act, the government can
obtain "roving wiretaps" without specifying either the identity of
the target or the phone to be tapped. Is this freedom as you
understand it?

The sad reality is, the Draconian features of the USA Patriot Act
do not make America one bit more secure! What they do is strip
law-abiding American citizens of their constitutionally protected
liberties! The implementation of the Patriot Act as passed will only
serve to help create the kind of terrorist state that the government
claims it is attempting to protect us from! Is this the kind of
America we want to bequeath to our posterity?

Our only hope for passing a rational bill that does not inflict
serious injury to the rights and liberties of the American people is
to support those Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate
that appear ready to filibuster the bill as it now exists. Every lover
of liberty should contact their senators and encourage them to
reject the Patriot Act until it includes appropriate safeguards that
would protect us from over-reaching, over-zealous federal police
agencies!

Why do you think the Founding Fathers put the Bill of Rights in
the Constitution to begin with? It was because they knew it was the
tendency of the federal government to trample the freedoms and
rights of individuals. If the U.S. Senate approves the Patriot Act as
it is currently written, the concerns of the founders will be proven
justified, as our federal government will have put in place the
statutes with which the rights and liberties of the American people
will be expunged!

NOTE TO THE READER:

This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the
sender includes contact information and a method of removal. To
be removed, see instructions below.

To subscribe to these columns, send a message to
majordomo@chuckbaldwinlive.com with the words      subscribe
chuck-wagon      in the body of the message. To unsubscribe put
the words     unsubscribe chuck-wagon   in the body of the
message.

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be
republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or
organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or
advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit
is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck
Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts
interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact
chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com.

When responding, please include your name, city and state. And,
unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the
Chuck Wagon address list.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com.

Fwd mail footer test.

###################################################################################################################################################################
3)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Baldwin" <chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com>
To: "00chuck-wagon" <chuck-wagon@chuckbaldwinlive.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 1:37 PM
Subject: Chuck Baldwin's Dec. 20 Food for Thought: President Not Above The Law

President Not Above The Law
By Chuck Baldwin
December 20, 2005

Democrats and Republicans in Congress are fuming over the
revelation that President George W. Bush secretly authorized
domestic eavesdropping without court approval. Senators Russell
Feingold (D-Wis.) and Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) said they intend to
hold hearings on the matter.

For the record, we owe Senator Feingold a debt of appreciation for
how he single-handedly (at first) stood up against a broadside
assault against our Bill of Rights in the form of the USA Patriot
Act which was passed by the Republican-controlled House of
Representatives and was (and still is) intensely lobbied for by the
White House. Feingold's stubborn resistance to the Patriot Act was
rewarded last week when senators from both parties rallied in
sufficient numbers to support his filibuster, thus stopping the
Patriot Act (for the moment) dead in its tracks. Thank you, Senator
Feingold!

In commenting on President Bush's decision to unilaterally issue
domestic eavesdropping orders, Feingold said, "The president has,
I think, made up a law that we never passed." Senator Specter said,
"They talk about constitutional authority. There are limits as to
what the president can do."

Other senators weighed in on the subject, as well. Senator John
McCain (R-Arizona) said, "President Bush needs to explain why
he chose to ignore the law that requires approval of a special court
for domestic wiretaps."

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has also called for an
investigation. He said, "The president can't pass the buck on this
one. He's commander in chief. But commander in chief does not
trump the Bill of Rights."

Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) was even more direct. He said,
"Where does he [President Bush] find in the Constitution the
authority to tap the wires and the phones of American citizens
without any court oversight?"

Feingold added, "He [Bush] is the president, not a king."

While it is true that many of the senators quoted in this column
have heretofore often been negligent in their adherence to the
Constitution (the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill
being a prime example), in this case, they are right on target!
President Bush has no authority to order domestic spying without
court oversight. None.

It appears painfully true that, in the name of "fighting terrorism,"
the Bush administration is intent on dismantling America's Bill of
Rights. What is worse is there appears to be a sizeable segment of
our country that seems fine with it.

Several readers have recently written me saying (paraphrase), "I
would gladly surrender my constitutional liberties contained in the
Bill of Rights in order for my government to keep me safe." The
folly and naïveté of such thinking is staggering!

Virtually every dictator and despot of history assumed control over
their respective peoples by promising peace and security. No tyrant
tells his people, "I'm going to enslave you and subject you to acts
of terror." They all ascended to power with assurances of
prosperity and protection.

The American people, especially Christian conservatives, need to
face reality: it appears that the Bush administration has assumed
king-like powers, has trampled the Constitution and Bill of Rights,
and has broken the law! And unless the American people want to
trash the Constitution and turn our country over to some kind of
monarchal or oligarchic form of government, no leader, not even
the President of the United States is above the law!

Please remember that President Bush took an oath to support,
protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. The deliberate violation
of that oath, even if done with good intentions, must never be
tolerated by the American people.

Therefore, every American should insist that both the U.S. Senate
and House of Representatives conduct bipartisan investigations
into the conduct of President Bush. Only Congress has the
authority to hold the Executive Branch of government accountable
to the American people and to the Constitution. After all, without
the checks and balances of the Constitution, without allegiance to
the enumerated powers of the Constitution, without fidelity to the
Bill of Rights, America would become no better than the terrorist
nations our president says he is trying to protect us from!

NOTE TO THE READER:

This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the
sender includes contact information and a method of removal. To
be removed, see instructions below.

When responding, please include your name, city and state. And,
unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the
Chuck Wagon address list.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com.

2)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Baldwin" <chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com>
To: "00chuck-wagon" <chuck-wagon@chuckbaldwinlive.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:05 PM
Subject: Chuck Baldwin's Jan. 10 Food for Thought: As Usual, Conservative Christians Don't Get It

As Usual, Conservative Christians Don't Get It
By Chuck Baldwin
January 10, 2006

With confirmation hearings underway for Judge Samuel Alito,
many conservative Christians are focusing on the abortion issue. In
fact, many pro-life activists are hailing Alito as the man who
would overturn legalized abortion in America.

However, as is usually the case, most conservative Christians
cannot see beyond the abortion debate to look at the bigger picture.
Then again, myopia seems to be a permanent disorder affecting a
majority of conservative Christians today, so why should things
suddenly change now?

For the record, Judge Alito probably finds abortion personally
repugnant. It is certainly safe to say that Alito's opinions on
abortion seem to reflect greater respect for life than anything we
saw from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. However, that reality
alone will not make much difference. There is a greater reality at
work here that most conservative Christians deliberately choose to
ignore: the Republican Party has no intentions of ending legalized
abortion! Absolutely none!

To the vast majority of Republicans in Washington, D.C., the
abortion issue is merely a ready-made sugar-stick to hand out to
conservative Christians every election cycle in order to keep them
corralled in the GOP vote column.

As long as a Republican candidate can claim to be "pro-life," he or
she can count on receiving sizeable support from conservative
Christians. That simple statement, whether genuine or not, whether
followed with any substantive action or not, guarantees that most
Christian televangelists will spend countless hours pleading with
their supporters to vote "pro-life" by supporting the GOP ticket.

It doesn't matter that so-called "pro-life" Republican candidates
have had over 30 years to overturn Roe and are no closer now to
doing so than they were when Roe was first decided. It doesn't
matter that not a single "pro-life" Republican congressman has
introduced legislation under Article III, Section 2, of the U.S.
Constitution to remove Roe from the jurisdiction of the Court,
which is the prerogative of Congress to do. It doesn't matter that
after spending multiplied millions of dollars and electing hundreds
of "pro-life" Republicans, nothing has been done to overturn Roe.
It doesn't matter that the Republican Party has controlled the
White House for over 17 of the last 25 years and, accordingly, has
controlled appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court for all of those
years (not to mention the fact that it was a majority Republican-
appointed Court that passed the Roe decision), and nothing has
been done to overturn Roe. All that matters is that Republicans talk
"pro-life" during the election cycle.

How can any sensible person believe that the Republican Party
truly intends to overturn the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision
that legalized abortion on demand? It's beyond laughable: it's
hysterical!

Even if Judge Alito would vote to overturn Roe should the
opportunity present itself, it is almost certain that Chief Justice
John Roberts would not vote to overturn it. Therefore, the vote to
overturn Roe is 6-3 against-at best! In other words, we are no
closer to reversing Roe v Wade than we were before President
Bush was elected!

However, none of this matters to most conservative Christians.
After all, they can beat their chests, hobnob with Republican big-
shots, raise millions of dollars from gullible Christians, and
pretend to be "pro-life" every two years from now until the cows
come home without worrying about anything of substance actually
being done. What a racket! Yet, the situation is actually worse than
that.

Worse than most Christians' gullibility regarding the abortion issue
is the manner in which they give Republicans a pass on other
issues of immense importance. It seems that all a Republican has to
do to gain the confidence and support of the vast majority of
conservative Christians is say he is "pro-life" and opposed to
homosexual marriage. His or her position on virtually everything
else doesn't seem to matter.

It doesn't seem to matter to most conservative Christians that
President Bush has increased deficit spending beyond that of all
previous administrations put together. Yes, you read it right:
President Bush (with the aid of his fellow Republicans in
Congress) is a bigger debtor than all 42 of his predecessors
combined!

According to the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, Dec. 2005,
"According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first
224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined
$1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions,
but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed
$1.05 trillion." But that doesn't matter to a hill of beans to most
conservative Christians. Bush is "pro-life."

It doesn't matter to the vast majority of conservative Christians
that President Bush is attempting to accrue power to the executive
branch at the expense of constitutional government, that he is
championing extremely questionable, if not downright dangerous,
legislation that could result in the dismantlement of civil and
individual liberties. It doesn't matter that Bush is involved in the
most intense nation-building scheme in post World War II history.
It doesn't matter that he has done more to open the door of illegal
immigration than any president in modern memory. It doesn't
matter that he spearheaded (and continues to laud) the most
expensive and most intrusive expansion of the federal
government's role in public education in U.S. history. It doesn't
matter that Bush continues to promote ill-conceived trade deals
such as CAFTA and FTAA which weaken American independence
and sacrifice thousands of American jobs. Because President Bush
claims to be "pro-life," conservative Christians give him a pass on
virtually any and all other conduct.

Therefore, even if (a big if) Judge Alito would join Justices
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as being willing to overturn
Roe, the votes are still not there to actually do so.

Furthermore, President Bush could get at least one, and maybe
two, additional Supreme Court appointments. Two of the Court's
current justices are aged and in ill health. In other words, by the
time Bush leaves office, he could get as many as four appointments
to the High Court.

However, instead of overturning Roe v Wade, it is much more
likely that the Supreme Court will further advance the imperialistic
philosophy of the Bush administration resulting in an ongoing and
rapid demise of individual liberties for American citizens. In other
words, legalized abortion will still be intact but constitutional
liberties won't be, Bush's appointments to the High Court
notwithstanding. And, unfortunately, when it happens,
conservative Christians still won't get it.

NOTE TO THE READER:

This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the
sender includes contact information and a method of removal. To
be removed, see instructions below.

When responding, please include your name, city and state. And,
unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the
Chuck Wagon address list.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com.