Archive

Archive for the ‘Civil Liberties’ Category

No joke: South Carolina now requires ’subversives’ to register

February 8, 2010 Leave a comment

Daniel Tencer
Raw Story
Monday, February 8th, 2010
Five-dollar registration fee for persons planning to overthrow US government
Terrorists who want to overthrow the United States government must now register with South Carolina’s Secretary of State and declare their intentions — or face a $25,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison.
The state’s “Subversive Activities Registration Act,” passed last year and now officially on the books, states that “every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States … shall register with the Secretary of State.”
There’s even a $5 filing fee.
By “subversive organization,” the law means “every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States [or] of this State.”
A PDF of the registration form can be found here, courtesy of FitsNews.
The law also gives subversive organizations “subject to foreign control” 30 days to register with the state after setting up shop in South Carolina.
While the intention of the law is apparently aimed at Islamic terrorists, it’s unclear in the law’s wording whether it can be applied to right-wing militias, some of whom have reputedly called for the overthrow of the US government. The law states that “fraternal” and “patriotic” groups are exempt from the law, but only if they don’t “contemplate the overthrow of the government.”
While the law is clearly redundant — there are plenty of statutes at the state and federal level through which terrorists can be prosecuted — it reflects a not-uncommon pattern in some states of “doubling down” against particular crimes.
For instance, South Carolina is among those states which require drug dealers to declare their illegal income, or face additional criminal penalties on top of the already established penalties for buying, possessing and selling drugs.
The South Carolina blog FitsNews describes the new law as “bureaucracy for terrorists.”
“In the long and storied history of utterly retarded legislation in South Carolina, we may have finally found the legal statute that takes the cake for sheer stupidity, which we think you’ll agree is saying something,” the unsigned blog posting scathingly commented.

Getting Ready for Tax Day: IRS Puts Out Bid to Buy Sixty Police Shotguns

February 4, 2010 Leave a comment
Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
If we are to believe senator Harry Reid (see video below), the taxation system in the United States is voluntary. Reid admits that if you don’t pay your cut to the government you will be fined or arrested and imprisoned, but the system is voluntary in the sense that you are allowed to file tax forms. Other countries, says Reid, just take your money without this formality.

Prior to the Sixteenth Amendment (supposedly ratified on February 3, 1913) there was no justification for the government to steal your hard-warned money. The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” It says nothing about income taxes.
“The Internal Revenue Service is the enforcement arm of the Federal government’s present unjust tax system,” notes the Constitution Party. “Citizens, both in groups and as individuals, have repeatedly sought responses from the IRS bureaucracy as to the basis for the agency’s tax policies and procedures. No answers have been forthcoming although a responsible government must be answerable to the people and has a duty to those it is supposed to serve.”
Obama has rolled out his class warfare tax increase rhetoric. He says he will increase taxes on the “rich” (defined as anybody who makes over $200,000 per year) in order to pay down the debt owed to a gaggle of international bankers. He also plans to float increased taxes on corporations.
“While we extend middle-class tax cuts in this budget, we will not continue costly tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers and those making over $250,000 a year,” Obama said. “We just can’t afford it.”
Of course, the real rich — the Warren Buffetts and Rockefellers of the world — and large transnational corporations do not pay taxes. Taxes are for the little people (including those making around $200,000), as billionaire Leona Helmsley once said. Obama is merely attempting to sell the idea of tax increases by engaging in class warfare and pandering to public contempt for oil companies and “investment fund managers” on Wall Street.
New taxes will be taken out of the hide of the average American, as always. In order to enforce this looting, the IRS and its Criminal Investigation Division will need more muscle in the coming months. That’s why they are arming themselves to the teeth. The role of the Criminal Investigation Division is to “generate the maximum deterrent effect, enhance voluntary compliance, and promote public confidence in the tax system,” according to Treasury Department, a branch office of the Federal Reserve (currently run by the criminal Timothy Geithner, the man with Goldman Sachs on his speed dialer).
According to the FedBixOpps website, the IRS is in the market for sixty police shotguns:
Quotes are solicited under Request For Quotation (RFQ) number TIRWR-10-Q-00023. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; a written RFQ will not be issued. If your company can provide the product listed in the RFQ and comply with all of the RFQ instructions, please respond to this notice.
This requirement is a Small Business Set-Aside and only qualified sellers may submit quotes. NACIS code for this requirement is 332994. The RFQ opens on the date this announcement is posted and closes Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 2:00:00 PM Pacific Standard Time. Response should be emailed or mailed by the closing date to Marc.Feinberg@irs.gov or IRS, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. FOB Destination shall be Washington DC.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.
featured stories   Getting Ready for Tax Day: IRS Puts Out Bid to Buy Sixty Police Shotguns
In order to make sure you pay your ransom to the government, the IRS needs to add sixty of these to its arsenal.
Submit quotes including 11% Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET) and shipping to Washington DC.
The following provisions and clauses in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) apply to this acquisition and include any addenda to the provisions. This solicitation incorporates one or more provisions and clauses by reference with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text: Provisions FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Items (June 2008); 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items (August 2009); Clauses 52.212-4; Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Items (March 2009); and 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders—Commercial Items (December 2009). The full text of a FAR clause may be accessed electronically at http://www.acqnet.gov.
New equipment only; no remanufactured products. No partial shipments
Offer must be good for 30 calendar days after submission
Offerors must have current Central Contractor Registration (CCR) at the time offer is submitted. Information can be found at www.ccr.gov.
This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items. The government will award a commercial item purchase order to the offeror with the most advantageous offer to the government. All offerors must submit their best price and delivery capabilities.
Contracting Office Address:
Internal Revenue Service OS:A:P:B:W
Office of Business Operations
1301 Clay Street, Suite 810S
Oakland, CA 94612 -5217
Place of Delivery:
IRS-CI
SE:CI:OPS:STO, attn. S/A Staggs, Room 2003
1111 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington DC 20224
202/622-5114
Primary Point of Contact:
Marc A Feinberg
marc.feinberg@irs.gov
Phone: 510/637-2152
Fax: 519/637-2110
Secondary Point of Contact:
Kyong H Watson
kyong.h.watson@irs.gov
Phone: 510/637-2142
Fax: 510/637-2110

Vermont Campaigns To Succeed From U.S.

February 1, 2010 Leave a comment
The Secessionist Campaign for the Republic of Vermont



The President on Wednesday may have reassured Americans that the state of the Union is “strong,” but, just the week before, a group of Vermont secessionists declared their intention to seek political power in a quest to get their state to quit the Union altogether. On Jan. 15, in the state capital of Montpelier, nine candidates for statewide office gathered in a tiny room at the Capitol Plaza Hotel, to announce they wanted a divorce from the United States of America. “For the first time in over 150 years, secession and political independence from the U.S. will be front and center in a statewide New England political campaign,” said Thomas Naylor, 73, one of the leaders of the campaign.

A former Duke University economics professor, Naylor heads up the Second Vermont Republic, which he describes as “left-libertarian, anti-big government, anti-empire, antiwar, with small is beautiful as our guiding philosophy.” The group not only advocates the peaceful secession of Vermont but has minted its own silver “token” — valued at $25 — and, as part of a publishing venture with another secessionist group, runs a monthly newspaper called Vermont Commons, with a circulation of 10,000. According to a 2007 poll, they have support from at least 13% of state voters. The campaign slogan, Naylor told me, is “Imagine Free Vermont.” In his fondest imaginings, Naylor said, Vermonters would not be “forced to participate in killing women and children in the Middle East.”
Second Vermont Republic’s gubernatorial candidate is Dennis Steele, 42, a hulking Carhartt-clad fifth generation Vermonter and entrepreneur. He owns Radio Free Vermont, an Internet radio station, and honchos an online venture called ChessManiac.com. Steele says that, if elected, his first act in office would be to bring home Vermont’s National Guard from overseas deployments. “I see my kids going off to fight in wars for empire 10, 15, 20 years from now,” said Steele, who served three years in the U.S. Army. “People in Vermont in general are very antiwar, and all their faith was in Obama to end the wars. I ask people, ‘Did you get the change you wanted?’ They can’t even look you in the eyes. We live in a nation that is asleep at the wheel and where the hearts are growing cold like ice.”
Steele and the secessionists have nothing but contempt for Vermont Senators Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy, who are otherwise considered among the most liberal members of Congress. “They’ve done nothing to stop the wars,” says Steele flatly. Thomas Naylor was more pointed: “Every time a Vermonter serving in the National Guard gets deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, likely to be hurt or killed, Bernie and Patrick are there to commemorate the departure and have pictures taken.”

With 20 or so mostly middle-aged attendees looking on, the candidates each stood at the podium to deliver a remarkably unified message: The U.S. government, they said, was an immoral enterprise — engaged in imperial wars, propping up corrupt bankers and supersized corporations, crushing small businessmen, plundering the tax-base for corporate welfare, snooping on the private lives of citizens — and they wanted no more part of it. “The gods of the empire,” Steele told the room, “are not the gods of Vermont.”

“It’s an abusive relationship we have with the central government,” says Peter Garritano, a square-jawed 54-year-old Subaru sales manager who is running for lieutenant governor. “We know it’s scary to leave the abusive nest. It’s a comfort zone in its own way. But we think we’ll do better leaving.”

An independent Vermont, the group believes, would expolit its already highly developed local small-scale agriculture, its “locavore” farm exchanges, with a tax structure reformed to incentivize small business and industry (and to make life difficult for large out-of-state corporations). By 2020, they foresee Vermont producing at least 75% of its own electricity and heat, using wind-, solar-, biomass- and hydro-power. They want to establish a Bank of Vermont owned by the people of Vermont — freed from the arbitrary controls of central bankers — as well as a local alternative currency, with Vermont pension and operating funds invested not in Wall Street but in locally owned financial institutions. “We favor devolution of political power from the state back to local communities, making the governing structure for towns, schools, hospitals and social services much like that of small, decentralized states like Switzerland,” declares the group’s “21st Century Statement of Principles.”

Seven secessionist candidates declared for seats in the state senate. Among them is Robert Wagner, 46, an economist who is also a computing consultant with Oracle Inc. Wagner, who homesteads with his wife and six-year-old son in the Green Mountains, says that current U.S. law enables multinational corporations to abuse Vermont as a “resource colony.” Citing a 2008 study by the University of Vermont, Wagner says the state stands to gain over $1 billion a year in revenue by taxing equitably the corporate behemoths that exploit Vermont’s “commons,” which includes everything from the state’s groundwater, surface water, wildlife and forests, to the public spectrum of the airwaves. According to the UVM study, for example, Coca-Cola, Nestle and Perrier and other refreshment manufacturers avoid $671 million in taxes for the environmental damage incurred by their siphoning of state groundwater.

But what about that comfort zone of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps, plus the infrastructure currently funded by the federal government, including bridges, roads and particularly the interstate highways? One analysis by a researcher at the University of Vermont found that the state only gets 75 cents back for every dollar it hands over to the federal center. The secessionists say they’d prefer to save their money and keep it at home. “Not only would an independent Vermont survive,” says Naylor, “It would thrive, because it would free up entrepreneurial forces heretofore held in abeyance. We’re not preaching economic isolationism. We want to confront the empire, and that doesn’t mean just owning a Prius and keeping a root garden.”




Categories: Civil Liberties

Obama Information Czar Calls For Banning Free Speech

January 15, 2010 Leave a comment

Sunstein: Taxation and censorship of dissenting opinions “will have a place” under thought police program advocated in 2008 white paper. 

Obama Information Czar Calls For Banning Free Speech 140110top2
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The controversy surrounding White House information czar and Harvard Professor Cass Sunstein’s blueprint for the government to infiltrate political activist groups has deepened, with the revelation that in the same 2008 dossier he also called for the government to tax or even ban outright political opinions of which it disapproved.
Sunstein was appointed by President Obama to head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an agency within the Executive Office of the President.
On page 14 of Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” the man who is now Obama’s head of information technology in the White House proposed that each of the following measures “will have a place under imaginable conditions” according to the strategy detailed in the essay.
1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
That’s right, Obama’s information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, political opinions that the government doesn’t approve of. To where would this be extended? A tax or a shut down order on newspapers that print stories critical of our illustrious leaders?
And what does Sunstein define as “conspiracy theories” that should potentially be taxed or outlawed by the government? Opinions held by the majority of Americans, no less.
The notion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in killing JFK, a view shared by the vast majority of Americans in every major poll over the last ten years, is an example of a “conspiracy theory” that the federal government should consider censoring, according to Sunstein.
A 1998 CBS poll found that just 10 per cent of Americans believed that Oswald acted alone, so apparently the other 90 per cent of Americans could be committing some form of thought crime by thinking otherwise under Sunstein’s definition.
Sunstein also cites the belief that “global warming is a deliberate fraud” as another marginal conspiracy theory to be countered by government action. In reality, the majority of Americans now believe that the man-made explanation of global warming is not true, and that global warming is natural, according to the latest polls.
But Sunstein saves his most ludicrous example until last. On page 5 he characterizes as “false and dangerous” the idea that exposure to sunlight is healthy, despite the fact that top medical experts agree prolonged exposure to sunlight reduces the risk of developing certain cancers.
To claim that encouraging people to get out in the sun is to peddle a dangerous conspiracy theory is like saying that promoting the breathing of fresh air is also a thought crime. One can only presume that Sunstein is deliberately framing the debate by going to such absurd extremes so as to make any belief whatsoever into a conspiracy theory unless it’s specifically approved by the kind of government thought police system he is pushing for.
Despite highlighting the fact that repressive societies go hand in hand with an increase in “conspiracy theories,” Sunstein’s ’solution’ to stamp out such thought crimes is to ban free speech, fulfilling the precise characteristic of the “repressive society” he warns against elsewhere in the paper.
“We could imagine circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that censorship would be thinkable,” he writes on page 20. Remember that Sunstein is not just talking about censoring Holocaust denial or anything that’s even debatable in the context of free speech, he’s talking about widely accepted beliefs shared by the majority of Americans but ones viewed as distasteful by the government, which would seek to either marginalize by means of taxation or outright censor such views.
No surprise therefore that Sunstein has called for re-writing the First Amendment as well asadvocating Internet censorship and even proposing that Americans should celebrate tax day and be thankful that the state takes a huge chunk of their income.
The government has made it clear that growing suspicion towards authority is a direct threat to their political agenda and indeed Sunstein admits this on page 3 of his paper.
That is why they are now engaging in full on information warfare in an effort to undermine, disrupt and eventually outlaw organized peaceful resistance to their growing tyranny.
Categories: Civil Liberties

The Drug War vs. the Bill of Rights

January 14, 2010 Leave a comment
Categories: Civil Liberties
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.