What is happening to the United States Constitution

New Bill Known As Enemy Expatriation Act Would Allow Government To Strip Citizenship Without Conviction

January 6, 2012

By Stephen D. Foster Jr.

First, Congress considered the National Defense Authorization Act, sections of which gave the President the authority to use the military to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans without trial or charge. The language was revised because of strong condemnation from the American people. But now a new bill has emerged that poses yet another threat to the American citizenry.

Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being “hostile” against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.” Legally, the term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism. Since the Occupy movement began, conservatives have been trying to paint the protesters as terrorists.

read more at www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/06/new-bill-known-as-enemy-expatriation-act-would-allow-government-to-strip-citizenship-without-conviction/

A look at the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

By Rome Newswire Staff Reports on Jan 12, 2012 with Comments 0

There has been a fair amount of controversy involving the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This bill is known as H.R. 1540 in the US House of Representatives and S. 1867 in the Senate. There has been discussion that this bill would allow U.S. Citizens to be held indefinitely without trial if passed. Regarding this matter the bill specifically states “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

 The bill does however make it legal to detain people without trial per Title X Subsection D Section 1031 C-1 which states “The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” The argument here is that since the war on terror has no easily defined “end of hostilities” that this section essentially allows indefinite detention without trial.

 The bill has been passed and signed into law. The US House of Representatives passed it with a vote of 322 yes and 96 no. The U.S. Senate passed it with a vote of 93 yes and 7 no. Phil Gingrey voted yes as did Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss.

 Here is the controversial section of the bill in its entirety:

 Title X: General Provisions – Subtitle D—Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
–(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

–(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

–(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

–(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111– 84)).

–(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

–(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.— The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—

–(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

–(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined—

—-(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

—-(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

–(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

–(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

–(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

–(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—

–(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

–(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

—-(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

—-(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

—-(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

—-(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

—-(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

Initially it was believed that President Obama would veto the bill but he did sign into law and added the following statement:

“Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counter terrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.”

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counter terrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.”

“Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counter terrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.”

“Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”

“Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.”

“I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.”

“My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.” http://romenewswire.com/2012/01/12/a-look-at-the-national-defense-authorization-act-for-fiscal-year-2012/

Here is the President's Statement ... CLICK HERE

Here is Public Law 107 - 40 - Authorization for Use of Military Force ... CLICK HERE

To find the following 

All Bill Titles

• Short: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as reported to senate.
• Short: Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as reported to senate.
• Short: Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as introduced.
• Short: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as introduced.
• Official: An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. as introduced.

click here http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/show

Say Good-bye To Freedom of Speech. Say Hello To Socialist/Marxist Values From Our U.S. Comintern, President Obama.

Do you want to know where the negative reporting on Obama is being gathered and reported?  There is actually a site set up to control this behavior.  It's ATTACK WATCH.COM.  Oh freedom of speech, where hast thou gone?  We have leaned on thee through the Constitution of the United States of America for so long and now thou art being pulled out from under our feet like a dirty rug that needs cleaning.

If you are interested in clear reporting on the OBAMA issues, here is a site I would recommend that is trying to report on issues that may be important to you during the remainder of his campaign...I mean presidency.  This is just a simple blog, but it has some great reporting...OBAMA REPORT You should definitely give it a read and ignore the other one I mentioned.  It has facts such as the latest report...

"Poll: 55% of Americans believe GOP will win 2012 Presidential election, 37% believe Obama will be re-elected

According to an ABC News/Washington Post survey, released on Monday, 55% of Americans believe the GOP will recapture the White House in the 2012 Presidential election. 37% believe President Obama will be re-elected."

Love it.  Love it.  Love it!

The last I heard, we were still living in a democratic society that viewed the U.S. Constitution as binding law of the land, providing citizens what people in other countries come here to have...freedom.  How has this changed?  We are moving in a dramatic way towards a Marxist society through the leadership of Obama.  Let me define that for you so you may fully get the drastic difference in the direction we are moving...

Marxism is an economic and socio-political worldview and method of socioeconomic inquiry that centers upon a materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical view of social change, and an analysis and critique of the development of capitalism. Marxism was pioneered in the early to mid 19th century by two German philosophers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxism encompasses Marxian economic theory, a sociological theory and a revolutionary view of social change that has influenced socialist political movements worldwide.

The Marxian analysis begins with an analysis of material conditions, taking at its starting point the necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs. The form of economic organization, or mode of production, is understood to be the basis from which the majority of other social phenomena — including social relations, political and legal systems, morality and ideology — arise (or at the least by which they are greatly influenced). These social relations form the superstructure, of which the economic system forms the base. As the forces of production, most notably technology, improve, existing forms of social organization become inefficient and stifle further progress.

These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in society in the form of class struggle. Under the capitalist mode of production, this struggle materializes between the minority who own the means of production; the bourgeoisie, and the vast majority of the population who produce goods and services; the proletariat. Taking the idea that social change occurs because of the struggle between different classes within society who are under contradiction against each other, the Marxist analysis leads to the conclusion that capitalism oppresses the proletariat, the inevitable result being a proletarian revolution.

Marxism views the socialist system as being prepared by the historical development of capitalism. According to Marxism, Socialism is a historical necessity (but not however, an inevitability ^[1]). In a socialist society private property in the means of production would be superseded by co-operative ownership. The socialist system would succeed capitalism as humanity's mode of production through worker's revolution. Capitalism according to Marxist theory can no longer sustain the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rates of profit by driving down wages, cutting social benefits and pursuing military aggression. A socialist economy would not base production on the accumulation of capital, but would instead base production and economic activity on the criteria of satisfying human needs - that is, production would be carried out directly for use.

Eventually, socialism would give way to a communist stage of history: a classless, stateless system based on common ownership and free-access, superabundance and maximum freedom for individuals to develop their own capacities and talents. As a political movement, Marxism advocates for the creation of such a society.

....


Marxists believe that the transition from capitalism to socialism is an inevitable part of the development of human society; as Lenin stated, "it is evident that Marx deduces the inevitability of the transformation of capitalist society [into a socialist society] wholly and exclusively from the economic law of motion of contemporary society."

Marxists believe that a socialist society will be far better for the majority of the populace than its capitalist counterpart, for instance, prior to the Russian revolution of 1917, Lenin wrote that "The socialization of production is bound to lead to the conversion of the means of production into the property of society... This conversion will directly result in an immense increase in productivity of labour, a reduction of working hours, and the replacement of the remnants, the ruins of small-scale, primitive, disunited production by collective and improved labour." Wikipedia

As a point of reference to the above information on Marxism...It is not gone.  After/during WWI, there was a metamorphosis of sorts into Third International, which later morphed into the group called Comintern.  Why is this important?  Because Obama is affiliated with this particular group, which for most of you will not be a surprise at all.

Here are a series of articles/links that connect Obama directly to the group called Comintern (otherwise communists)...


"Mubarak and Obama: How America’s Comintern Works in the Middle East" New Eastern Outlook

"Barack Obama and Gordon Brown: a two-man socialist Comintern" Telegraph

"Dupes – How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century By Paul Kengor"http://www.blogger.com/goog_1142902563

Here is a quote from the above author:
"

by Paul Kengor

October 5, 2010 6:30 P.M. Obama’s Communist Mentor
Frank Marshall Davis parroted the Communist line and attacked Democratic icon Harry Truman.

When you write a book, particularly one that requires several years of research, you tend to encounter a bunch of unexpected information. Sometimes you find things that, if reported, will undoubtedly prompt partisans to demand you explain yourself. For me, this begins that process of explaining, given that one of the major characters in my new book on American Communists, Dupes, is Frank Marshall Davis.

Allegations regarding Davis’s Communism are sure to infuriate the Left because of the influence Davis once had over our president. He was a drinking buddy of Barack Obama’s maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham, and spent time with young Obama. He turns up in the president’s memoir, Dreams from My Father, shrewdly identified only as “Frank”: “I was intrigued by old Frank, with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes.” Recently, a U.S. Communist-party official confirmed the relationship, bragging in a speech of the Communist Davis’s formative influence over Obama. And yet when the allegations surfaced during the 2008 campaign, they went virtually unreported in the mainstream media." http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/248877/obama%E2%80%99s-communist-mentor-paul-kengor

Don't give up on our U.S. Constitution.  The Founding Fathers are probably tossing and turning in their graves.  Our Constitution is not just a piece of old paper.  It's a document that was fought for.  It is a document that is part of why we have the freedoms and liberties we have, although they are all hanging on a thread.  Let's fight to keep our freedoms.  Let's get back to being proud to be Americans and get involved in protecting our Constitution.

God In America

With God being taken out of many arenas around America, it is important to realize that the Founding Fathers realized that the liberty and freedoms of the United States of America was made possible by our Supreme Creator, or "God".

So, where is God in Washington (as many people are asking that with the current circumstances)?

The Washington Monument.

"Laus Deo" is inscribed on the East face of the aluminum point which crowns the apex of the Washington Monument. "Laus Deo" means "praise (be) to God". "And from that vantage point one can also easily see the original plan of the designer, Pierre Charles l'Enfant ... a perfect cross imposed upon the landscape ... with the White House to the North, the Jefferson Memorial to the South, the Capitol to the East, and the Lincoln Memorial to the West." -- www.snopes.com

While there is no evidence of God or Jesus located in the United States Constitution, we do have the words "one Nation under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance.

According to www.ushistory.org, the following is the history of how those words were placed into the pledge.

"The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Section 4 of the Flag Code states:

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.", should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute."

According to www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com, "the vast majority of the framers of our Constitutional system were church-going, professing Christians. Dr. M.E. Bradford of the University of Dallas researched their church membership and found that 28 of those 55 delegates were Episcopalian, 8 were Presbyterians, 7 were Congregationalists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Dutch-reformed, 2 were Methodists, and 2 were Roman-Catholic." There are only three out of 55 that were called "deists" or skeptics.

This same source states that "Not only were those founding fathers actively affiliated with Christian churches, but they looked to the Bible as their primary source of authority."

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison that were published in local newspapers in New York to explain the Constitution and to urge people to support its ratification.

One of the statements recorded from John Jay..."On one occasion I was at a party with several atheists. They spoke freely and contemptuously of religion. During the course of it, one of them asked me if I believed in Christ. I answered that I did, and that I thanked God that I did. Nothing further passed between me and them or any of them on that subject."

Alexander Hamilton, prior to his duel with Aaron Burr, wrote in his last letter to his wife, "The scruples of a Christian have determined me to expose my own life to any extent rather than subject myself to the guilt of taking another. This much increases my hazards and redoubles my pangs for you. But you would rather I should die innocent than live guilty. Heaven can preserve me, and I humbly hope will. But on the contrary event, I charge you to remember that you are a Christian. God's will be done. The will of a merciful God must be good. Once more, adieu, my darling, darling wife. Alexander Hamilton".

If anyone attempts to state that God is not part of the origins of America, that is completely false. God IS the ONLY reason we have the liberties and the freedoms that are currently part of our daily lives in the United States of America.

Along with the knowledge that we have a Supreme Creator, which means that we are not the "all powerful" ones, Christianity insists on higher moral standards for the people governing the Nation. Without God as a component in this government system, the moral standards of our governing authorities are quickly disintegrating.

By concluding that we are "one Nation under God", moral standards will be elevated to a level that is expected of those who are supposed to be speaking on behalf of the citizens of this "indivisible" Nation for "liberty and justice for all".

America Needs Your Help!

I received the following email from a friend and found it extremely interesting and eye opening.

"Dear Friends and Family,

I have long been thinking about the direction our beloved country has taken. The Congress has a very low approval rating, yet most of these "Congressmen" have been re-elected to further the problems our country faces. Republicans and Democrats alike are to blame. However, I feel the that most of the blame lies with us, the citizens that elect our government representatives. I have also been thinking about what I can do to change the direction our country is taking, but there doesn't seem to be much just 1 person can do. This email is my effort, as small and insignificant it may be.

My purpose in writing this is NOT to push 1 political agenda or another, support 1 elected official or another, or to say 1 party is better than another. Quite frankly, I think BOTH parties suck. Most representatives should be replaced by someone who actually cares about our country, and all political agendas need to be scrutinized and reviewed by ALL the American people. I am saddened to think how apathetic people have become in regards to being informed about the country in which we live, myself included. We are quick to criticize, blame and complain about our current situations, yet very few of us are willing to act, myself included, until now. We keep electing the same old people into office, and the country is continuing the same old path of self-destruction. Perhaps we just don't know what we can do.

Well, here's my proposal and it just might work if enough people band together and get involved. It's time for the American people to hold our elected officials (local and national) accountable and let them know that they need to EARN our votes. How do we do that? We need to first be informed. We need to know what the issues are, study them, and come to educated and reasoned conclusions about what issues face our country. Secondly, we need to contact our Senators and Representatives and voice our opinions. I don't particularly think it matters who or what you support in these political games. It matters that your Congressmen realize that their voters are watching and care about what goes on in Congress. They MUST realize that their time in office is measured by how well they serve their constituents. Derek has written the Rep in our old district 2 times, and has gotten a response both times. I recently wrote to Senator Hatch and he responded to me as well. They should. If they don't, they don't deserve our vote. There are websites where you can find information on proposed bills, how your representatives voted, as well as their contact information. Here are 2 websites I found in a simple 1 minute

Google search:


thomas.loc.gov

congress.org (you can find and contact your specific elected officials, federal, state and local on this site).


I, like many Americans, was livid when I heard that Congress was planning to give themselves a 4-5% raise. In my opinion, they don't deserve it. My opinion seems to be shared by the majority of the people indicated by their incredibly low approval rating. Our economy is tanking, people are losing jobs and houses left and right, and they have the audacity to give themselves a raise!? Why not use that money to help reduce our national deficit? So, I think we need to make them earn that raise. We are, in essence, their bosses. They don't have a job in Congress without our vote. They seem to have this attitude that we ought to thank our lucky stars that we have them -the all-wise and all-knowing- to dictate our lives. We have been told that "only government can get us out of this economic crisis." Bull. Why should they get away with suggesting that only a few select people are capable of using their brains, while the rest of us "commoners" should just sit tight an let them figure things out? I should mention that one individual (who wishes to remain anonymous) presented Rep. Rob Bishop with a problem, expressed his feelings of what the solution ought to be, Rob Bishop initiated a congressional inquiry that solved the problem based on this person's well-reasoned and well-thought out argument. (Details withheld to protect the instigator from potential repercussions) Clearly the true power lies in us. We are every bit as capable as those people in Congress to use our brains. We each have our strengths and can contribute to our society by using those strengths. It's time for the American people to dictate to Congress how we want our lives to be run.

I know most of us are busy, but we can't afford to not to be involved. We have jobs, kids, houses to care for and volunteer obligations in our churches and schools, just to name a few things that take up our time. However, if we continue our apathetic attitude, we will continue to lose freedoms, and our economy will continue this downward spiral. A few months ago (my son) told me in his sweet little voice, "Mommy, I'm hungry." I thought then that I was so grateful to have food to feed my children, that there was something I could do to help my son alleviate his hunger. I thought about how sick I would feel to hear my child cry for food, and not be able to do anything about it. We are so blessed and we ought to remember our blessings. With those blessings come responsibility. It seems that most of our Congressmen and women have forgotten by whose Hand we have been so richly blessed. Most are seeking for power, and not for the welfare of the country, and certainly not for the will of God. It's time for those of us with faith to call upon our Father in faith and act according to the inspiration we each receive. It's time to involve our Father again in the affairs of our country. We are stuck in the "Pride Cycle" and are being stirred up to remembrance of our God. Let's act and not be destroyed.

Okay, I feel better now :-P Please take the opportunities we all have to be involved. Invite your friends and neighbors to be involved as well. I think we will all be pleasantly surprised at the results.


Love you all and God bless America!"

(I have not disclosed the creator of this email for privacy reasons)

This was one of the replies to the above email.



So, does this world just go around on its own, without our involvement? Does food just wind up on your plate? Does gas just magically fill your car tank? Do clothes magically fill your closet? And, do you magically have an opportunity to practice your religion, to speak your mind, to obtain a good education, to watch TV shows you like, to listen to the music you like? No. None of these things are magic. We are going to lose these freedoms if we don't get involved in the process. I want to keep my freedoms and I want to make it so that other people can enjoy the same freedoms, so I am getting involved. Will you do the same?

Conformity. The Enemy of Growth.

When you think of the word "conformity", what do you think of? I picture by mother saying to me, "If your friends chose to jump off a cliff, would you follow them?" Or, I think of a herd of cows, following each other through a field to pasture. My guess is that not often do we think of society and the decisions made by our governing authorities. Do we go along blindly, or do we get involved in the process?

"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." -- John F. Kennedy

Let’s take a look at the definition of conformity.

"Conformity is the process by which an individual's attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors are influenced by other people. It may occur as the result of subtle, even unconscious influences, or by direct and overt social pressure. Conformity may also occur by the "implied presence" of others, when other people are not actually present.

People often conform from a desire to achieve a sense of security within a group-- typically a group that is of a similar age, culture, religion, or educational status. Conformity is common among young people as an aspect of youth culture. It is present in society as a whole and among small groups of friends. Any unwillingness to conform carries with it the very real risk of social rejection." -- Wikipedia

"Conformity, adherence to the practices or beliefs of the majority.

For information on:

*processes bringing groups and individuals within society into conformity, see Acculturation; Assimilation; Integration; Social Psychology

*ideas supporting nonconformity, see Individualism; Liberty

*political ideology of forced conformity, see Totalitarianism" -- Encarta

Please notice the “ideas supporting nonconformity”, which include “Liberty”. Within the United States of America, we know liberty because of the Founding Fathers and the sacrifices they made as nonconformists.

“Liberty, the freedom to act or believe without being stopped by unnecessary force, is generally considered in modern time to be a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will.” -- Wikipedia

Of course, there are guidelines for liberty. Without guidelines, we would not know as peaceful of an existence as we are blessed to experience. The guidelines are in the Constitution, and in the laws of the land. You may notice that when there are those who do not live by the laws of the land that the peace is disrupted.

“Article VI (The United States Constitution)
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” -- Cornell University Law School

All elected officials are to uphold the laws as much (if not more stringently) than regular citizens. Unfortunately, we find that there are many who do not uphold these laws according to their oaths and therefore they are not very good examples to regular citizens. When elected officials break the laws of the land, break their oaths, they give permission to many regular citizens to do likewise. Therefore, our elected officials should uphold the oaths they have made to live according to the laws of the land, and when they break those oaths, they should have a stiffer penalty than the average citizen so that an example can be made.

Understand, conformity is important to a degree, however, conformity including redistribution of wealth and Totalitarianism is not liberty, but bondage.

“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have... a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers.” – John Adams

Martial Law. Troops deployed in the U.S.

Martial Law - Military authority imposed on a population.



U.S. Army continues their mission away from overseas. They continue to serve it here in the U.S.

A plan unfolding for decades?

What do you think? Truth or conspiracy?

We The People...

The Constitution of the United States of America, 1787

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Blessed Nation!

"My God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy! -- Thomas Jefferson

Ignorance and Freedom.

"If you expect people to be ignorant and free, you expect what never was and never will be."
--Thomas Jefferson

Sabbath Day, September 7, 2008

Regarding the U.S. Constitution...

"The Church unequivocally declares, nothing doubting, that God Himself set up the Constitution of the United States, and that He so declared, saying:

"I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose," and the Constitution shall "be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles."
--D&C 101:80, 77

The Church further declares that such laws must be framed

"and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."
--D&C 134:2

The Church has, for one hundred years, accepted as complying with the divine mandate, the form of government set up under the Constitution."

By J. Reuben Clark, Jr., To Citizens' Conference on Government Management, Estes Park, Colorado, 1939

Source:

"We Believe", by Rulon T. Burton