Wednesday, January 30, 2008

You're All Invited to a Communitarian Party!

The First OPENLY Communitarian President of the United States of America could be elected by the American people in 2008.

Why isn't this headline news? Isn't this history in the making? What's the big secret?

I can't believe I still have to ask this, but why isn't communitarianism an issue in the 2008 campaign? Why aren't American voters discussing what a communitarian political agenda is? Is it true most of them have still never heard the word spoken out loud, not even once?

Yes, it's true. Our voters don't know what it is and they certainly don't have the first clue what it means when the two leading Democrats are committed communitarians.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are BOTH communitarian candidates. This is a fact that is being reported in mainstream press now. (Not hugely covered, but enough to validate my research anyway.) We really should listen to Etzioni. He would know. If he says we're gonna have a communitarian president, we're gonna have one. Besides, it should be a no-brainer by now. It WILL be one of them chosen as the Democratic candidate. And if it's Hillary, she will win, won't she? How many women will vote for her simply because she's the first woman to run for high office? I wanted to vote for Mondale because he picked Ferraro, and I was a registered Libertarian. What if Hillary chose Barack as her V.P.? (Can she do that?) Or maybe they'll pick Oprah... she's a big fan of communitarian guru Marianne Williamson, and she's been teaching (very weird) communitarian classes at Northwestern University (home to ABCD) for years.

Can you imagine if our history books explained Hitler's rise to power like this: Hitler was elected as a "Democrat." Only the elites in Germany knew there was a politcal ideology called National Socialism. The German voters were told what it was AFTER the NAZI candidate was elected.

Who do you think will be attending Etzioni's bash in the Oval Office?

".. communitarians should not uncork the champagne quite yet, but they cansafely put a bottle or two into the fridge." Amitai Etzioni on Jan 17, 2008

The American people are going down in history as the first nation to elect a communitarian president, and 99% of the citizens don't know what it is. Amitai Etzioni hopes more of us will learn what it is after we unknowingly elect a communitarian. I wonder if he hopes Americans will also quit calling me a conspiracy theorist because I write about communitarianism... or maybe the only viewpoint the American people will ever get to "learn more about" is Etzioni's.

"At least many more people will learn a lot more about communitarian ideas—what more can we ask for…?" ~ Amitai Etzioni, Notes, Jan 17, 2008~

I can think of more to ask for. I can ask for our "free press" and our free public educators to start writing about the difference between communitarian principles and the communitarian legal and political system and the ORIGINAL American constitutional system. If we are to live under an entirely NEW system of government WHY CAN'T OUR CITIZENS BE TOLD THAT FACT????

Working on 2020 took me right back to all the frustration and hope I used to have. I really used to believe that once people knew what communitarianism was, the millions of good and decent people who live in our country would do everything in their power to stop it. That first mass email I sent out after I found Etzioni was totally flipped out. I sent it to everybody I could think of, including Bill Maher and Ophra. The subject was something like: "THEY HAVE A NAME!!!"

What a letdown it was when nobody answered. That was eight years ago. Today I can laugh at the style of those earliest writings, but I still can't laugh at the emotions behind them. It's painful witnessing our people endorse and support communitarians and repeat communitarian propaganda without knowing it. I just spent 10 days in Anchorage, and my life could be a living nighmare if I allowed myself to care what happens every time somebody asks me who I'm gonna vote for. After all I got back were insults and arrogant accusations that my "weird" conspiracy theory has nothing to do with "real" national politics, I've started saying, "oh I don't follow politics." Because I don't, not really. I don't read up on all the "issues." I don't watch their debates on TV. I did see Obama's victory speech in South Carolina though... and I heard Caroline Kennedy is endorsing him now.

For the most part I try to avoid dialectical issues and concentrate on their synthesis. This makes me too weird for most people I meet, and I suppose it's good that I live so far away from the city. If I defect in November I hope it's to a country with lots of wilderness areas open to immigrants; I'm looking for the same kind of deal the Russian immigrants get when they come to Alaska. I wonder if the former USSR will finance my move?

Here's a fairy typical American grasp of communitarianism, from

"I also think between Obama and all other candidates, there is one factor you won’t hear the American media discussing at all: HOW MUCH THE REST OF THE WORLD HATES US, AND HOW MUCH PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD HELP OUR WORLD IMAGE. Electing a cool and likeable leader who speaks in (vague but inspiring) communitarian language of unity, AND WHO LOOKS MORE LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD, immediately restores a lot of faith in the USA."

Tourist pictures

Looking west on the Glenn Hwy.

Loooking east on the Glenn Hwy.

Monday, January 28, 2008

A Communitarian in the White House?

Maybe ten visitors have looked up "Obama communitarian" since David Brooks' article in the NYT. Found several blogs who throw the term out like everyone already knows what it is, but nobody out there who's trying to explain it.

From Amitai Etzioni's Notes on January 17, 2008:

A Communitarian in the White House?

If the current lineup holds, the Democrats will be represented in the forthcoming national elections by a communitarian. Hillary’s communitarian leanings have been long known. They are especially well spelled out in her book It Takes A Village. She also delivered the keynote address at the 1996 meeting of the Communitarian Network, met frequently with communitarian thinkers, especially William Galston, and read Michael Sandel (and even yours truly).

Barack Obama showed great familiarity with communitarian ideas and thinkers during a meeting at the home of Susan Ness and Larry Schneider in Bethesda, MD. However, given that this was a private meeting, I consider it inapposite to quote what he said. But one is of course free to quote his book The Audacity of Hope, which lays out his communitarian leanings in clear and strong terms:

If we Americans are individualistic at heart, if we instinctively chafe against a past of tribal allegiances, traditions, customs, and cases, it would be a mistake to assume that this is all we are. Our individualism has always been bound by a set of communal values, the glue upon which every healthy society depends. We value the imperatives of family and the cross-generational obligations that family implies. We value community, the neighborliness that expresses itself through raising the bar or coaching the soccer team. We value patriotism and the obligations of citizenship, a sense of duty and sacrifice on behalf of our nation. We value a faith in something bigger than ourselves, whether that something expresses itself in formal religion or ethical precepts. And we value the constellation of behaviors that express our mutual regard for another: honesty, fairness, humility, kindness, courtesy, and compassion.

He added:

In every society (and in every individual), these twin strands- the individualistic and the communal, autonomy and solidarity- are in tension, and it has been one of the blessings of America that the circumstances of our nation’s birth allowed us to negotiate these tensions better than most.

A communitarian perspective recognizes that the preservation of individual liberty depends on the active maintenance of the institutions of civil society where citizens learn respect for others as well as self-respect; where we acquire a lively sense of our personal and civic responsibilities, along with an appreciation of our own rights and the rights of others; where we develop the skills of self-government as well as the habit of governing ourselves, and learn to serve others-- not just self.

David Brooks, the New York Times columnist, who is more conversant with communitarian ideas than any other columnist, recently declared Obama the communitarian candidate, in sharp contrast to Republican John McCain. Brooks’ notes are of special import, as his niche in the New York Times is as the defender of conservative causes and ideas. Brooks writes:

Obama emphasizes the connections between people, the networks and the webs of influence. These sorts of links are invisible to some of his rivals, but Obama is a communitarian. He believes you can only make profound political changes if you first change the spirit of the community. In his speeches, he says that if one person stands up, then another will stand up and another and another and you’ll get a nation standing up. The key word in any Obama speech is “you.” Other politicians talk about what they will do if elected. Obama talks about what you can do if you join together. Like a community organizer on a national scale, he is trying to move people beyond their cynicism, make them believe in themselves, mobilize their common energies.

Brooks contrasts Obama with McCain, noting that “while Obama seeks solidarity with groups, McCain resists conformity. He fights fiercely, though not always successfully, against political pressures in order to remain honest, brave and forthright.” In short, McCain is an individualist.

The elections are a year away. There are going to be many twists and turns, but in the end the American people will choose a communitarian—unless a third party candidate siphons off many Democratic votes, the Supreme Court denies voting rights to many who are poor, less educated, and from a minority background (and hence have no government issued photo ID), Americans are swayed by the thousands of troops coming hope from Iraq (as Bush draws down the surge), the economy picks up and global climate cools down. That is, communitarians should not uncork the champagne quite yet, but they can safely put a bottle or two into the fridge. At least many more people will learn a lot more about communitarian ideas—what more can we ask for…?

Friday, January 25, 2008

Books are finished!

We found a good printer and 2020: Our Common Destiny orders will go out on Monday. Thank you all for your patience. We really appreciate it. Nordica designed a great new cover and we're ready to market it like a "real" book now. Look for it on

Bear on bed. This one was terrorizing my friends up on the Steese Hwy back in 1982.

Willow Lake, Alaska, looking toward the Wrangell Mtns

Glenn Hwy going towards Anchorage.

Visiting birds.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Guerrero-12th Anniversary of the Communitarian Police

On November 16, 17 and 18 the Communitarian Police celebrated their 12th anniversary in Zitlaltepec, municipality of Metlatónoc (the mountain area in Guerrero). The System of Communitarian Security and Justice extends across an area which includes 53 communities in the Coastal and Mountain area and operates from three headquarters.

It is estimated that crimes such as assaults, burglaries, homicides and sexual violations against women have decreased by 90% in the region as a result of the system. According to the Tlachinollan Mountain Human Rights Centre, the failure to address these crimes before the creation of this system in 1995 had generated a climate of injustice and impunity for the indigenous peoples and farmers of the region.

By returning to their traditional forms of conflict resolution, these peoples found not only an efficient means of combating violence but also a way of recovering their own identity.

Nevertheless, since its foundation the System of Communitarian Security and Justice has been persecuted, undermined and criminalized by the Guerrero government. Almost 20 arrest warrants have been issued against the leaders of the Regional Coordinator of Communitarian Authorities (CRAC) and against the founders of the Communitarian Police, and investigations have been launched against several communitarian policemen.

More information in Spanish:

At the 12th anniversary of the Communitarian Police, they demand unconditional respect for the Communitarian Justice system: En 12 aniversario de la Policía Comunitaria, piden respecto irrestricto a sistema de Justicia Comunitaria (CDHM Tlachinollan, 19/11/2007)

So how about that? In Mexico they call the UN's 2020 vision of neighborhood cops "communitarian cops." The Mexicans call the system, created in 1995 (the exact same year Community Policing was created in the USA) the Communitarian Justice System.

But in the USA, land of the free, nobody calls it a Communitarian Justice System... except maybe a few lawyers and judges and supreme justices who are rewriting US history and declaring the Southern secession was based on a "communitarian vision."

Legal Studies Forum
Volume 24, Numbers 3 & 4 (2000)
reprinted by permission Legal Studies Forum



[excerpt] "Professor Boscawen, the Northern pundit whose Militia Law in the Colony of New Wales and Cornwall had taken the legal world by storm when it was published fifteen years before, went on to praise Chief Justice


Taney’s communitarian vision. Into a stunned, reverent silence he stated his view that this notion of government, for which Dixie had taken up arms in 1861, was just when weighed against the freedom which informed and upheld it, that of free association.
The lawyerly waffling came next as the New Englander went on to remind his audience that, unfortunately, this communitarian vision had been linked to slave-holding and inequality in 1861. This, he pointed out, need not be the case in the 1990s. He finished by suggesting the helpfulness of Chief Justice Taney’s vision of community to a quest for a constitutional interpretation seeking workable compromises with which Americans might actually be able to live. He concluded that this vision of the first Catholic to sit on the Supreme Court might be of more utility to the nation and its uniquely text based politics (fancy for “we got us a written Constitution”) than any intellectual posturing about a jurisprudence of original intent or windy rambling rhetoric about radically substantive paradigmatic hierarchies of normative constitu-tional meaning.
“Toward Constitutional Vision” was as big a hit in Biloxi last August as Jefferson Davis’s “Forward in Hope and Service” had been in its day. For the rest of the weekend Professor Boscawen had to listen to people repeating back their favorite parts of his speech: Taney misunderstood, communitarian vision valuable, the South’s cause just, and Scott correctly decided (“As the law stood before the War, I understand that, sir, but correct, sir, correct”). " [end excerpt]

Is the EU a communitarian "new legal order?" The Jean Monnet Center at the NYU School of Law published a Political Review of the European Court of Justice and its Jurisprudence by J.W.R. Reed in 1995 which explains how "Communitarian constitutional jurisprudence"merely amplifies and never contradicts the language of the Treaty."

Communitarians and Search Engines
Susan Gemmell, Victoria Stoddard, Evelyne Viegas
March 6, 2007, IMT 550B – Policy, Law, and Ethics in Information Management, Winter Quarter, 2007
Dr. Karine Barzilai-Nahon, Instructor,
Information School, University of Washington

Comparison between communitarians and individual rights:

Communitarians (COM) Individual rights (IR)
Criticize that IR put too much emphasis on the rights of citizens Criticize that COM perform ”social engineering” (character education, faith-based initiatives)
Focus on individuals and the social dimension of human existence Focus on the individual
Government intervention is needed Government involvement forces loss of individual liberty
Society shapes the individual The individual shapes society
Responsibilities are anchored in the community Responsibilities are a personal matter
Positive rights and negative rights - Without positive rights (i.e. public education), there wouldn’t be any negative rights (i.e. the ability to write your ideas, voice your opinion intellectually, etc.) Positive rights and negative rights – COM push too hard on positive rights to the detriment of negative rights – forcing taxes to pay for public education deprives me of property
Government surveillance is needed on search engines to protect society (terrorists, pedophiles, etc.) Freedom from surveillance – the ability to search without government knowing
Privacy not needed on searches – what are people doing that needs privacy? Privacy critical on searches – my business
A balance is needed between individual autonomy and social cohesion Identification on the Internet would discourage people from doing societal harm. Anonymity critical during searches to protect free speech and privacy
Apply filters, zones, etc. to protect kids on the Internet, but community should manage this authority freedom to read, write, think, speak, and associate freely on the web – parents should watch what their kids are doing on the Web
Allow freedom of expression on the Internet to protect free speech (neo-Nazi, racial, etc.) Allow full freedom of speech on the Internet

Comparisons between communitarians and American authorities:
Communitarians American authorities
Government is needed somehow, for instance to fight terrorism, protect children online Government involvement in the Internet reduces interchange of ideas on the information highway
Responsibilities are anchored in the community, including parents. The government needs to provide flexible time to their parents to take care and educate their children No mention of responsibility
Positive rights and negative rights are both needed and in particular the ability to write one’s ideas, voice your opinion intellectually, etc.) Freedom of speech is in the constitution, and Internet benefits from the same protection as books and the media, as opposed to other broadband media
Government surveillance is needed on search engines to protect society (terrorists, pedophiles, etc.) Government has enacted laws to protect children online; with the Patriot Act, Internet searches are being enabled by the FBI via programs that can identify “bad” users
Privacy not needed on searches – what are people doing that needs privacy?

Privacy on Internet falls under the privacy law of mass media; with the exception the 1998 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to regulate Internet sites that collect personal information from children (under 13).

The Patriot Act is revisiting the privacy of users online

A balance is needed between individual autonomy and social cohesion (gwu). Identification on the Internet would discourage people from doing societal harm and in case of acts such as terrorism Government expect to be able to identify people on the Internet (Patriot Act) Note that the 1998 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act is also being revisited by the Supreme Court
Apply filters, zones, etc. to protect kids on the Internet, but community should manage this authority Filters applied to prevent pornography to reach children. See in 2001 the Children’s Internet Protection Act, and e-rate federal funding in libraries
Allow freedom of expression on the Internet to protect free speech Allow full freedom of speech on the Internet; market regulates freedom of expression. Protection of children is the exception with laws trying to enforce children protection

Positioning of communitarians with respect to Chinese authorities

The Chinese authorities limit individual rights, including access to information via the Internet. The Internet is monitored via laws and administrative regulations, and the web is routinely censored. Examples of information that is blocked include outlawed groups, such as Falun Gong; news sources that cover taboo topics; such as the Taiwan government, media, or other organizations; religious content; obscenity, pornography and criminal activity; sites linked with the Dalai Lama and his teachings (Wiki-China, 2007).

The Golden Shield Project is a censorship and surveillance project owned by Ministry of Public Security (MPS) of the People's Republic of China. It was formally known as the Great Firewall of China. According to MPS, the objective of the shield is to improve the capability and efficiency of the police. The Chinese government views the Golden Shield as “one of the most important projects for ensuring its political power” (Wiki-GS, 2007).

The communitarian manifesto suggests there might be some sympathy toward the Chinese Authorities’ approach: “The basic communitarian quest for balances between individuals and groups, rights and responsibilities, and among the institutions of state, market, and civil society is a constant, ongoing enterprise. Because this quest takes place within history and within varying social contexts, however, the evaluation of what is a proper moral stance will vary according to circumstances of time and place” (Com, 2007). However, the communitarians state clearly that “If we were in China today, we would argue vigorously for more individual rights” (Com, 2007).

Comparisons between communitarians and Chinese authorities:

Communitarians Chinese authorities
Individual rights to access information are respected Individual rights to access information are suppressed
National security and community safety are more important than individual rights National security and community safety are more important than individual rights

So, did you read the part above that says: "The communitarian manifesto suggests there might be some sympathy toward the Chinese Authorities’ approach." We made almost the same observation in our Anti-Communitarian Manifesto: "Communitarians teach that all free American neighborhoods should be governed like Chinese-Soviet community collectives (Etzioni 1992)." How many Americans have read the communitarian manifesto? I still wonder....

In other news, we've been getting great feedback internationally. Yesterday I got 2 emails from London and New South Wales regarding Common Purpose, communitarian regulations and related land grabs. Why is it that people from EVERY other country in the world know about communitarianism, but most Americans have still never even heard of it? Has ONE U.S. news reporter asked Hillary of Obama to explain it? Are Mexican peasants really that much more educated and capable of understanding the new legal order than dumbed down Americans?

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Common Purpose in the UK

Jeff Rense just sent me a link to an online video:

My dialup makes Youtube and other videos almost impossible for me. Would someone watch it and give me a summary? Does he mention any names I might be familiar with?

The speaker in the video is Brian Garrish, he's speaking about a group called Common Purpose. Bobby Garner has sent me information about them in the past, trying to find his references in my mail. Anyway, for others who can't download viseos, here's a small 2 page pdf file of an article posted by David Noakes at, a site I recently found, cited in a post about Britain losing its freedom; I then added it to my blog under Local to Global International.

I wonder if any American researchers have identified the U.S. participants involved in changing the U.S. government in preparation for a "post democratic era." This is exactly the kind of information we are including for other countries in 2020. Paul Barnes' Canadian 2020 Perspective will be of great assistance to Canadian readers. Only locals can be this familiar with all the names and organizations operating in their home states. Maybe only locals are interested in knowing all the names... but what Noakes does with this piece is show how obvious the connections are between the people involved in furthering the ultimate goal. Identifying the players is KEY.

Michael Tsarion
posted mp3 links to the interview I did with Rense back in March 2007; I added the links under Radio Interviews.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Why does the U.S. Forest Service need TASERS?

The following reprints came in from Peter Meyer's elist today:

(4) United States Forest Service Purchases 700 TASER X26 Electronic Control Devices, From: Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:18:27 EDT

{Note: the above link to CNN shows a 404 error, and a search of their site for "US Forest Service Tasers" shows ZERO results. Was this a real report?}

September 19, 2007: 07:30 AM EST

[begin quote] SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Sept. 19, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- TASER International, Inc. (Nasdaq:TASR), a market leader in advanced electronic control devices, today announced that it received an order from the United States Forest Service for 700 TASER(r) X26 electronic control devices and related accessories. What the hell for? Hmmmm

{The end of that sentence above made me curious.. it appears to be added by someone other than the original author.}

"We are excited about this new additional federal agency purchasing TASER technology to protect life," said Tom Smith, Chairman and Founder of TASER international. "Traditionally, we have focused law enforcement sales at the local and state level, but we are now seeing acceptance of TASER technology at various federal law enforcement agencies."

"We have seen a continual marked increase in TASER technology purchases at the federal level following our initial U.S. military approval of a five-year indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract. We are proud that law enforcement within the Departments of Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, Interior, and Agriculture are now relying on TASER devices to protect life."

The order was placed with Aardvark Tactical, Inc. of Azusa, CA, TASER International's GSA distributor to the federal government. This order is anticipated to ship between the third and fourth quarter, 2007. [end quote]

I've seen reports that more than 300 Americans have been killed by cops wielding TASERS. Haven't had time to verify that number, but after witnessing police aggression and outright attacks and rubber bullets used against INNOCENT PASSERBYS during the Seattle WTO Ministerial in 1999, I'm not suprised at their growing arsenal of nicer "non-lethal weapons." This news definitely belongs in an update on the ACL: Community Policing page.

The U.S. Forest Service is NOT an American constitutional agency. It's a communitarian department merged under the USDA. We cite them twice in our tiny book, "2020," because of their committment to achieving UN Local Agenda 21 Sustainable Development goals in the USA. Plus, in Anchorage 2020, the "local" plan to build a sustainable Amerika reorganizes the city's entire legal framework under the "new" authority of the Parks Dept, another new branch of the new Office of Homeland Security.

If the U.S. National Forests are controlled lands and therefore off - limits to unauthorized, nobody Americans, then what happens to all the nobody Americans who move into the people's forests to escape violent sustainable development maneuvers by local authorities?

This came too:

(1) Chief Rabbi thanks Bush for waging war against Iraq

From: Sami Joseph <> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 22:51:37 -0800 (PST) Jan 9, 2008 15:06 | Updated Jan 9, 2008 15:26

Chief Rabbi Metzger thanks Bush for intervening in Iraq


[begin quote] During a short verbal exchange Wednesday at the Ben Gurion Airport Terminal Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger thanked President George Bush for the US 's military intervention in Iraq .

"I want to thank you for your support of Israel and in particular for waging a war against Iraq ," Metzger told Bush, according to the chief rabbi's spokesman.

Bush reportedly answered that the chief rabbi's words "warmed his heart".

Metzger's stand on the Iraqi war, while reflecting the Israeli majority and Orthodox Jewry, is not shared with most US Jews. The American Jewish Committee's annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion, published last year, found that 70 percent of US Jews disapprove of the Iraq war, with 28 percent backing it. [end quote]

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Vote fraud in NH primary - is it a diversion?

GerTeeville, January 9, 2008

We know the game plan well enough now to wonder at their more "obvious" mistakes. I just don't think anything like this happens because they don't want anyone to find out about it. Election fraud has dominated the process for years, and one of the early promoters of election reform was Terry Hayfield, a fusionist-John Bircher whom I had the extreme displeasure of running into at lru before his whole borg was toaded from Wood's site. I have to wonder what purpose all this "exposure" of corruption serves in furthering the ultimate synthesis.

I am re-considering the position taken by the Alaskan Independence Party. In light of what's going on with the Lakota Nation and other tribal people (who I have spent many happy moments with), I can see indigenous people are obviously moving into another level of the globalists' game. I was so dissapointed in the Lakotas for citing U.N. law. It looked like they were being set-up to grant further authority to the International Court of Justice. I was even more dissapointed when I read Joe Vogler's legal brief that also cited U.N. law and granted expanded authority OVER the U.S. government to the International Court. It broke my heart to see people I loved and admired since I was a teenager take actions that I felt would assist the communitarians to steal our land and take control over the lives of ALL our people. But last night I had a conversation that gave me a different view of the Alaskan IP. And maybe the Lakota Nation will consider an alliance or a new trade union with Alaska and maybe parts of Canada want to form a new trading authority that doesn't fit into the UN regional maps ALREADY designated for us. Maybe the only thing left to do is get out of the union..legally of course... and what a fun time I will have looking for documents that prove "any people who delcare independence from an empire, whose borders do not touch the motherland can ask for UN troop protection when they withdraw their membership from the empire." Supposedly this is what happened when Pakistan became a sovereign state... I will surely check out my friends' allegation that it was the US government who used this law to send military assistance. He wondered what it would be like if the U.S. had to provide the UN with troops to protect Alaskan borders from U.S. troops. We had a good laugh over that visual.

If we are forced to concede that U.N. law, as practiced by the U.S. government, is supreme law, then why not use it to take back our lands? The AK IP has a very clear mission statement that warrants a closer inspection. What if Alaskans have legal redress before the U.N. court to have a statewide re-vote over statehood? If the vote in 1958 really was turned because the U.S. military was granted the "right" to vote and were given the day off to do so, then would that be considered election fraud? A very nice suprise is the Fbks chair is a woman I knew back in the 70s.

John D. forwarded a copy of Presidential Candidate Congressman Ron Paul speaking on HR 1955, the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (now in the Senate S 1959), I particularly like this:

"In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society."

I still find myself wishing Ron Paul were an open anti-communitarian.

William Shirer wrote about mandatory state curriculums in his bestselling book, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." Apparently the NAZIs rewrote everything to fit propaganda, even mathematical principles. Teachers who did not teach the "new" math and sciences were assigned elsewhere. Guess how many German academics agreed to teach German sciences, in spite of their knowing it was ALL a lie? Here's a hint: 95% of German voters registered as NAZIS by the end of the war... seems you couldn't get a job without it.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

From Common Market to People's Europe

Somehow I lost ALL the chapter references I added over the weekend to 2020. Now I'm re-doing the research all over again, and well, let's just say it's hard to get inspired to repeat drudge work. But, there are always rewards when we do things we don't want to do, and here's one of them. Americans and Canadians who study the evolving North American Union and the NAFTA-CAFTA trade agreements would do well to read the first paragraph below VERY carefully. THIS is how trade agreements become projects that develop "far reaching" rights.

From common market to people’s Europe, 02/01/08

Entering into force on 1 January 1958, the Treaty of Rome laid the foundations of the modern EU. Primarily an economic organisation at its inception, the EU has evolved into a project to guarantee high levels of social protection for its citizens.

In the much harsher climate of post-war Europe, the overriding priority was to secure Europe’s economic prosperity through a common market. As living standards improved, EU efforts to improve social rights quickly gained momentum, and greater importance was attached to promoting democracy, human rights and civil society, and combating discrimination.

Important achievements in this context include:

  • gender equality laws on access to work, training, career advancement and working conditions, as well as equal pay, security benefits and the right to parental leave
  • rules making EU bodies more transparent, such as free access to documents and more openness over EU spending
  • a European ombudsman - an independent body set up to investigate complaints about maladministration by EU bodies
  • the Charter of Fundamental Rights, bringing together the EU’s founding principles of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
  • European communication initiatives, designed to involve Europeans in EU law-making through debate, discussion and public consultation.

The EU is moving with the times, developing more far‑reaching rights – the right to a sustainable environment, consumer protection and data protection are now among its top priorities.


"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it." Giuliano Amato - speech at London School of Economics, 21 February 2007

I was sending 2020 to the printer tonight... now I face just one more delay in this series of delays that are beginning to look like a phenomena my friend Maynard Ekan used to describe. He said when we start to do something for "good" reasons, sometimes all the forces of the universe rise up to stop us from doing it. Maynard said it may mean that what we are doing is so important we cannot be allowed to accomplish it unless we overcome great obstacles first.

This book has been nothing but grief for months, and now I'm planning on using our last cash to pay the new printer. It's still 25 below outside, we're exhausted from camping all winter, and suddenly I wish I were living in a place with running water, an inside toilet, and heat I can simply turn on with a button. Last night I was sick as a dog after eating some bad sausages, and this is not a good place to let that happen. So, in order to have ALL those creature comforts I'd have to move to a city, get a manual labor job and give up the TIME and energy I need to do ACL work. By choosing this rugged lifestyle I've been able to subsist on practically nothing, but it's a choice that has begun to cause me and my daughter much heartache and grief. While we have quite a few projects in the works that may bring rewards in about six months, right now we're barely living on what's left of the donations we got last month. Now that there's a baby to take care of, maybe it's time to re-assess our committment to exposing the communitarian government system. Once the book is back out there, do I really need to keep working to save a nation that doesn't care to know which of their presidential candidates are communitarians? I must be nuts to think it matters whether the ACL website is up-to-date or stays online.

I'm also currently editing a book written by a man who found our ACL work. It's beautifully written, and he's touched me in a way I rarely consider anymore. When I started this research in 1999, I did it because I believed it was what God wanted me to do. I spent months praying to Jesus for guidance, asking for the courage and stamina to keep going, even though I hadn't stepped foot in a Christian church in over a decade. I left the organized church a long time ago and today I won't even call myself a Christian. I don't know what I believe, as I have become suspicious of all religious writings and am now wary of anything based in Judaic-Christianity.

At the same time, it's obvious the goal of communitarianism is to destroy the modern Christian Church and replace Jesus with some hybrid Earth-Sun God religion that is absolutely repulsive to me. The New Age connection to the communitarian synthesis is well-documented by Bobby Garner. So, when I pray, who am I really praying to? Is there really a just God who directs my thoughts and actions, or is what I feel just a need I share with other good hearted humans for a belief in something greater than myself? I used to believe in our nation and our laws, which I thought was all based in Christian values. Then I read the truth about our founding fathers' affiliations with freemasonry and was left with the distinct possibility that the USA was created by them only to usher in their illuminated vision of a new world order. Then I was forced to look at the fundamentalist Christian ethics as practiced by Dave Hoddges of the Arizona Constitution Party (whose reaction to my accusation of plagiarism was to add me to the party's mailing list!) The Christian Right seems to be just as interested in keeping the dialectic going as the left.

Trying to figure out what was going on in 1787 between Hamilton and Jefferson is also wearing me out. All the praise for Jefferson and the accusations against Hamilton and the National Bank and the American system of economy always seem to leave out the American founder's written connections to the Jacobin Reign of Terror in 1789 France.

Even though I hate watching TV I still watch movies, and last night I watched Amazing Grace, the story of the man who wrote the bill in the English Parliment that outlawed the slave trade. What a fabulous propaganda film it is! The "heros" have shady connections to revolutionary Jacobin activities in France but, oh well, the movie didn't need to go into that too much, because we should only look at the wonderful thing the British accomplished and how we can ALL become "agents of change." After I saw how the whole film was designed to promote the communitarian ideology and teach it to us "sinners," it left me wondering what the REAL story is about the anti-slavery movement... because as we all know they were also VERY ACTIVE in promoting the American's civil war seventy years later. Didn't the Southern states sell their slave cotton to English manufacturers LONG after the British Empire declared the slave trade illegal? Didn't the British Empire continue to colonize the Middle East and Africa long after they became anti-slavery global naval policemen? And was the little English bill the abolutionists introduced during Napolean's wars the very thing that allowed Imperial ships to confiscate ships flying the American flag as a prelude to the U.S. - UK War of 1812?

What IS a People's government, really? Am I just another useful idiot defending an elaborate freemason plan to rule the world? Considering all the answers I still have, anything is possible.
So, back to book edits... guess I just needed to come here and dump all my angst so it wouldn't end up in the book..heh.

Obama, Clinton and other Communitarians

Latest New Hampshire Primary news:

With 62% reporting at 6:30 pm AK time, Clinton leads Obama by 3% points, 39 to 36.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both described as communitarians. I've already shown how Hillary fits their bill, so let's take a quick look at Obama.

Amitai Etzioni in the Huffington Post on August 8, 2007:

"... I met Senator Obama in a private home in Bethesda, MD, and was very taken with his emphasis on community-building as a key theme. (I admit that I was unduly flattered when he mentioned my books on the subject.) I stand with Senator Obama in favoring in principle the extension of this key idea beyond our borders, both in working with our allies and in trying to bring our adversaries into at least some kind of dialogue (although, under what conditions and how one proceeds requires some deliberation). Since he launched his presidential campaign earlier this year, and even before that in both of his books, Senator Obama has stuck consistently to this communitarian message. It is hence quite disconcerting when he suddenly flashes some claws, especially since they are such a sudden and unbecoming acquisition. Such out of character toughness makes him seem like an opportunistic hack."

New York Times Op-Ed columnist David Brooks on January 8, 2008:

"Out of that perceptiveness comes a distinct way of seeing the world. Obama emphasizes the connections between people, the networks and the webs of influence. These sorts of links are invisible to some of his rivals, but Obama is a communitarian. He believes you can only make profound political changes if you first change the spirit of the community. In his speeches, he says that if one person stands up, then another will stand up and another and another and you’ll get a nation standing up."

Edward Lazarus at Findlaw inAaugust 2004:

"But generally speaking, the conception of equality that Kerry and Obama advanced seemed subtly but importantly different from past iterations. In their speeches, Kerry and Obama advanced what might best be described as a "communitarian" (instead of "rights-based") view of equality."

My neighbors moved to Alaska to get away from New Hampshire. They explained to me that owners of property cannot live on their land for more than six months without an inspection signoff and government permission to stay. Part of the building requirements is a 4 foot deep concrete foundation. He also told me that he fixed a porch roof for a lady last year, and her neighbor called and reported it to the local building inspectors, because the owner did not apply for the proper permit to fix her porch. So what's "individualistic" about NH? I know they were the "live free or die" state, but it looks to me like they all died or moved away.

London Times online, January 4, 2008

"The difference between communitarian Iowa and individualistic New Hampshire is also reflected in how they vote."

So, hmm, maybe individualistic NH will choose Clinton over Obama, because they want a president who promotes a middle ground called radical individualistic communitarianism.

From the Radical Middle Newsletter in 2006:

But oh, I'm so sorry, I forgot... in the USA, communitarianism is a conspiracy theory, so none of these articles can possibly exist anywhere but in my vivid imaginiation, and, you obviously dreamt this blog post.

Monday, January 7, 2008

End of the Trails?

It's been staying right around 12 below zero f. so we're getting a lot accomplished inside lately. We sleep in shifts so gertee stays toasty warm. The RadiantGuard is coming in so handy for keeping the heat contained and away from the bed and kitchen that I'm going to send pics and a testimonial to the company. This stuff is so amazing...all we do is hang a sheet between us and the fire and it cools you down immediately. I wrapped myself in it when cooking over a hot fire the other day, kind of in a joking manner, but now I'm sewing a heat-resistant apron out of it. Best of all it blocks the heat from my new loft sleeping area, and without it I couldn't sleep up there, it's suffocatingly hot near the roof. Now my bed looks like a tin-foil sci-fi bed.. hehe.

"2020" is about ready for printing and the additions are even better than we'd hoped. Because the new Canadian perspective from Paul Barnes is so compelling and detailed, we're discussing soliciting "2020" stories from people all over the U.S. and abroad. Nord's seeing it as a growing people's testimonial to the many ways comunitarianism can be applied locally, and a way for everyone to have a "voice." I think that might be a new book altogether, but maybe she's right. We once wished we had time to share everyone's stories... and now maybe we can.

For example, Granted Right sent me this article in the Southern Oregon Mail Tribune:

"Commissioner recommends ban of off-road vehicles from five Southern Oregon areas"

GrantedRght's comment to the above article is thus:
Date: 2008-01-04T23:25:10

"Oh dear fellow free Americans, have you not taken a close listen on the video link provided earlier by ViralNewsGroup, comment 117? In case you missed it, here is the link, the video called BLM TERROR.

Believing all the intentional misinformation and deception coming from its literature and BLM employees, the change agents using the Hegelian dialectic process of Problem, Reaction, Solution to facilitated illegal compromise, you all are looking at losing everything. And if you believe the BLM, there’s nothing you can do about that.

By these methods, which keep us ignorant, they are getting away with stealing our land.

We are not talking about BLM or Forest Service Lands. Such lands do not exist. This is the land of the people, not of the agencies. The agencies such as the BLM and Forest Service, mere grounds keepers/gardeners of the peoples land, are pitting the many people against each other. And while you all are busy fuss’n an fight’n they’ll be stealing everyone’s Congressional Granted Right of access; the Congressional Granted Right of access to YOUR lands.

Let me explain what has been done by the ruthless BLM terrorists in Josephine County with just one area, amoung many, called Stratton Creek, starting at where Stratton Creek enters the Rogue River. For years people not only lived in homes on this far bank of the river but also established and enjoyed, through the Granted Right of access, the interconnecting roads and path ways between structures and to and from the river. This right of way is measured by many miles. But with the Wild & Scenic River Act designation placed on the river and the misapplied intent of this act, which was to prohibit the creation of obstruction or “dams” upon the river, and to keep the river free and open, the BLM used the ignorance it promoted of the actual law stated in the Act to run people off that section of land and their structures were demolished, leaving little trace of their existence. But for the most part the interconnecting roads and pathways, what the courts have defined as “highways”, were left alone to be accessed by miners, loggers, hunters, fishers, horse riders, hikers, explorers, etc. After a while, for so called concerns of environmental degradation, those that were enjoying access by automobiles were no longer permitted. With this was also taken handicap accessibility. Then the next victim of agency Closure Agenda was quads and motorcycles. Then horse access suffered the Closure Agenda axe closely followed in the prohibition of bicycles. Now, as ViralNewsGroup describes “Ginormous,” piles of debris obliterate the long established right of ways, placed there by the BLM, to obstruct and foreclose any remaining safe access. Pictures taken last week of the same area where the BLM Terror video shows signs stating Open For Horse and Foot Travel Permitted are now posted CLOSED and are purposely heavily and dangerously obstructed with entanglements and sharp, hard, and slippery, pointed objects and tending to be mechanically constructed ladder fuel conduits to fire enhancement and at the same time obstructions to fire suppression; Violating the health, safety, and welfare of not only the people but of the forest.

There is no authority for such a closure but while the Horse people were arguing against the motorcycles and the hikers were complaining about the bicyclist, the cowardly BLM stealthily took the access from everyone. And additionally, the BLM attacked someone trying to remove its illegally placed hazards to drive the point home. Watch the video, listen carefully. Seems to Me the BLM message is, “It ain’t your land no more, we control it, now get off OUR land.” And not unlike an episode of the television show Unsolved Mysteries, where the unscrupulous gardener manipulates the owner to relinquish control over the property, convincing the owner to move into the basement and allowing his movement about the house and grounds, now, only by the gardener’s permission, government agency offers the same “service”. The Indians know this fact all too well, as evidenced in the movie Wounded Knee and elsewhere. And this is what Gilmore is proposing. This is what the article, End of The Trails? by Damian Mann exposes.

So here is how it’s done. Get some government agent, such as Gilmore, to exaggerate a problem, (real or CONtrived), get people to react in protection of their interest, then implement a ‘predetermined’ solution promoted as compromise. The attitude appears, if people cannot enjoy the area in harmony we, the BLM, will just have to close the area to all, we don’t care about your stinking rights. Problem, Reaction, Solution. And history shows, the thing is, those that once enjoyed the areas for its diversity are compromised (Dialectic Process) right out of ever being able to access it again with out being criminal. That includes even the nature watchers in all of us. This is their modus operandi. And it is being done ALL across the nation. People, you need to look up Agenda 21, U.N. Earth Charter, Mikhail Gorbachev’s Presidio Trust properties, his new Green religion therefrom, and the U.N. (Communist organization) agenda, the public-private partnership, for corralling the populace into the cities, with a goal of removing all rural area structures, roads and entries; All the time using the excuse of letting mother earth heal from the evil human’s destructive hands. The process is in place and being implemented right now. Agency land takings thefts are happening already. Like professional pick-pockets, they have this technique mastered.

Like the proverbial camel, once these agencies get a nose in the tent, so to speak, they will not stop until they have completely entered, eating your food, breaking your furniture and sleeping in your bed.

Now, you can start talking on-point, identifying the law you are denied and fixing that problem first or you can quibble about irrelevant things keeping pointless, gabbing conversation with those who are either ignorant, absolutely, or are the change agents, such as Gilmore, and Abbie Jossie keeping your attention on unimportant things as their comrades steal your land.

It is that simple.

The law states the public domain is free and open. This grant of access is not negotiable. How ‘bout we start there? And if you don’t like that grant of right as a matter of law you need to move away from the places where accessing public domain is lawful.

For those of you people thinking you enjoy any right of access unfettered by government theft you better start organizing to stop its agents from presuming the land is theirs and incrementally stealing what is actually yours.

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Saturday, January 5, 2008

What are you going to do about Premises ID?

I've been getting a lot of good information from several people lately, including this forward from Gisela at

Emergency Hay Program

On Dec. 4, the Council of State voted unanimously to authorize the state to use up to $3.5 million to purchase and transport hay to North Carolina. The state will sell the hay to livestock owners for the same price the state pays for the forage and transportation.

Loads have begun to arrive in the state. Livestock owners should contact the location closest to them about hay availability. For general questions, contact the department's toll-free Hay Alert hotline at 1-866-506-6222.

Large and small bales will be available at each of the following locations:

  • Mountain Research Station, 265 Test Farm Road, Waynesville, (828) 456-3943;
  • Upper Mountain Research Station, 8004 N.C. Highway 88 East, Laurel Springs, (336) 982-2501;
  • Piedmont Research Station, 8350 Sherrills Ford Road, Salisbury, (704) 278-2624;
  • Piedmont Triad Farmers Market, 2914 Sandy Ridge Road, Colfax, (336) 605-9157;
  • Caswell Research Farm, 2415 W. Vernon Ave., Kinston, (252) 208-3360;
  • Oxford Tobacco Research Station, 300 Providence Road, Oxford, (919) 693-2483.

The six distribution sites were chosen because of their proximity to areas with large livestock populations where the need for hay is great. They also have the facilities for storing hay.

To serve as many people's emergency needs as possible, the program currenlty limits livestock owners to purchasing up to four large bales and 20 small bales per day. Limits may be adjusted based on supply and demand.

Hay buyers must have an N.C. Farm ID Premises Identification Number. If you do not have one, download the registration form (PDF file), fill it out and bring it with you to a distribution site. This will start the Farm ID registration process and qualify you to purchase hay.

NOTE: If you need a full truckload of hay, you are encouraged to use the Hay Alert Web site or hotline to find and order hay. By doing this, you could be eligible for transportation cost-share assistance of up to $500 per load through Ag Partners or Equine Partners. This should be more economical than buying hay from the Emergency Hay Program.

Updated January 4, 2008

Sometimes people I don't know send me things that are so good I just have to share it if I can. I got permission to reprint this email from Antonio Vacci (who, as it turns out, I cited an article of his at the ACL several years ago):

In Response To The Radio Host's Challenge: "What Rights Don't You Have?"

Early in the morning, on December 22, 2007, a caller to a well-known radio program said, "America is going down hill and we're losing our rights". Defiantly, as if in disbelief of the fact, the often amiable host, otherwise very intelligent dismissingly challenged, "What Can't You Do?"; "What Rights Don't You Have?"; "If rights had not been taken, What would you do tomorrow that you can't do?" The host took the opportunist's advantage of the inadequately prepared caller to promote absurdity. There is no doubt why America slips into mediocrity. If not by Design, then ignorance, or worse, the Clueless have seized the commercial microphone.
The caller, admittedly inarticulate, phoned to express his heartfelt sense of oppression, presumably, caused by government. He has a right to be free of the oppression his intangible Spirit identifies. He has a right to be free from the sense of coercion, threat, or intimidation at the instance of government action. But the host, irreverent to truth, capitalized on the caller's inability to verbalize his perception. To respond to the attack, instead of merely and simply repeating, "America is going down hill and we're losing all our rights", it seems the caller's answer to the host's antagonism would have been, that, of what he does not have today, tomorrow he would be free of the oppression government imposes, the host's unsupportable opinion of what the caller's limited expectation of rights are, notwithstanding.
In light of the caller's irresolute response, the host took the opportunity to venture some contrived harangue dismissing the idea that America is going downhill by appearing to invoke some patriotic sounding diversion purporting to defend America's honour defiled by the caller's sentiment. He then added that he didn't believe rights were being lost, and if America is going down hill then it is actually the people that are the cause. Showing he is more cynic than skeptic, by his own stated definition, the show's host did not allow for the consideration that America has gone downhill and that he is unaware of it, or worse that he suffers the same ocular degeneration experienced by the sand-headed Ostrich and chooses not to know. Otherwise, reluctant to pull his head out, his statement merely observes the obvious, that it is true in fact as "America" goes down the people 'allowed' it. But for all his distance the host would be an implicated contributor in such a failure, would he not? Saying, as the caller did that "America is going down hill and we're losing our rights" does not make him an anti-patriot or a pessimist as the host suggested; Just as Paul Revere's ride was not antithetical of independence. Such a notion, that the host must identify who caused the fall before he accepts the caller's premise is just as ridiculous as when the host said that since the Constitution does not say people have a right to travel it becomes mere privilege. In extrapolating such an absurd philosophy we would conclude, then, that in the absence of constitutional expression neither do people have the right to breath.
In fact, under the host's challenge, despite the caller's inability to articulate the rights he has lost, in using the confrontation as a point of focus, it took mere minutes to fill a page with the rights that are lost today, the host's ignorance thereof notwithstanding. Though he could have done so, what the host did was not instructive, learned, studied, or entertainment. The most insulting thing the host did in dismissing the caller's perception and sentiment that America is going down hill and that we are losing rights was to use the hateful, predictably robotic regurgitation pontificating that if the caller didn't like it here, [presumably "America"], he ought to go check out, [move to], Haiti, and additionally that "Every day, I [the host] thank God I live in America". Shameful host! Stooping to such an head-in-the-sand reaction normally exposes one's bottom-side to being kicked. But the host controls the "cherry-red" broadcast button and his words linger as a stench seeping out of a bilge. How low of a place do we go to make the comparison to prove the host's 'point'? It is easy to say, "If you don't like it here move" to a place where people didn't aspire to greatness for comparison, like Haiti; it is a much more difficult proposition to admit we have fallen short of our own aspirations right here. This difficulty determines the host's apparent need using Haiti, wave-the-flag, thank-the-troops, GAWd-bless-Ammrrica pseudo-patriotism evading the issue, our failure, causing the caller's and others consternation. Some of us expect more out of Greatness than being compared to Haiti; sounding suspiciously like Hades. How does "America" compare to heaven, Mr. Talk[-ing-head-in-the-sand] Show host?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people ," answers directly the host's admonition for the so-called 'reason' he propounded denying the caller. This passage is the 9th Amendment purportedly modifying the Constitution of the United States. . . . Some would say, of America. It proves the host and the caller are beyond ignorant, because the reservation is openly expressed.
Following the host's challenge to the caller: What Can't You Do?, What rights don't you have?, If rights had not been taken, What would you do tomorrow that you can't do today?, compiled in no particular order, this list, the product of experience not mere sheltered armchair opinion, is incomplete. Unlike the host, knowledgeable readers will see these clearly answer the query:
I am not free to exercise my "religious" beliefs.
I do not enjoy the right to be free of scrutiny in my lawful conduct.
I do not enjoy the right to be free from unilateral suspicion for criminal activity.
I do not have the right to enter the front door of a federal court house; I do the back door in cuffs.
I do not enjoy the right to be free from association or the force to impose it.
I do not have the right of remedy not conditioned by government.
I do not enjoy the right not to be used as a revenue source of government.
I do not have the right to be free from Government Extortion. {See: Civil Rights, 42USC1981}
I do not enjoy the right to be free from fear, intimidation, or dread at the instance of those purporting government authority or intrusion. {See: "Terrorism", The Consolidated Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary. The Library of Essential Knowledge, Webster, 1954}
I do not enjoy the right to be informed.
I do not have the right to specie.
I do not have the right to deal with a bank account without government intervention.
I do not enjoy the right not to be considered a potential money launderer.
I do not possess the right of private contract.
I do not enjoy the right not to be treated or presumed a terrorist or an enemy of the United States.
I no longer enjoy the right to fly on "public transportation" without producing papers.
I cannot travel on the right of way as a matter of right in a private conveyance without commercial permission. {See: "License" means any permission to pursue a commercial activity}
I do not have the right to be free from the burden to challenge that the government has no right to require of Me production of any papers or permissions to travel. {See: No presumed freedom}
I cannot freely exist without permission exhibited by such papers.
I do not enjoy the right to exist free without Government Identification once confronted.
I do not enjoy the right to be identified true and accurately either in name or substance.
I do not have the right that substantive authority exists requiring the government can produce the papers it demands, even despite the Constitution.
I do not enjoy a life free of the demands of the provisions of the Lieber Code, 1863, or under an occupation. {Do you have your papers? And see: Title 50 USC}
I do not enjoy the right to freely move without the occupier's permission, the reason for the "I.D.," known as a parol. {Every "License" requires agreement with the rule of the occupier.}
I do not enjoy the right not to be adversely affected by government or its agents, or a remedy for wrongful occurrence.
I do not enjoy the right to be free from the expectation of being T.A.S.E.R.ed to death, {See: Enjoying Civil Rights}, despite the absence of an execution warrant, once confronted by a government agent enjoying immunity for knowing the magic words, "I felt threatened".
I do not enjoy the right to be free from presumptions. {Presumption implies servitude to some other}
I do not enjoy the right of freedom from the implication of a servitude to another.
I do not enjoy the right of innocence, but merely the presumption of its existence.
I do not enjoy the right to avoid the application of a foreign authority.
I do not enjoy the presumption against the existence an Application.
I no longer enjoy the right to challenge the subject matter authority of those purporting power.
I do not enjoy the right of habeas corpus.
I do not have the right of private property, to be free from government confiscation.
I do not have the right to be treated as a free man, only a person subject.
I do not enjoy the right to be free from the imposition of ignorance as evidenced in the statement, "I'm just doing my job, tell it to the judge, he'll determine what the law is."
I do not enjoy the right of freedom from government-imposed ignorance. {Under the doubtful duty unilaterally imposed to not be ignorant, i.e., everyone has absolutely every right to be ignorant of that which does not apply}
I do not enjoy the right of sufficient notice and meaningful hearing, despite their mandate.
I do not enjoy objective law objectively applied.
I do not enjoy freedom from association with the professional business association called the BAR ASS.
I do not enjoy the right to be free from arbitrary and capricious imposition forcing challenge of what fails expression in authoritative Documents.
I do not enjoy the right to carry "arms", concealed or otherwise. {ID to purchase or Registration is no right}
I do not enjoy the right to bear arms sufficient to fulfill the purpose and ends of the Second Amendment.
I do not enjoy the right to conceal carry despite the fact no law can provide a permission to Me.
I do not enjoy the right to rightfully applied law.
I do not enjoy the right to trial by a jury of my peers not contaminated by government.
I do not enjoy the right to avoid BAR ASS private adversarial system, to maintain peace and of Spirit.
I do not enjoy the right to expect government will do right, a presumption that it always does.
I do not enjoy the right to expect government will respect lawful limits regarding its regulatory authority.
I do not enjoy a freedom from a presumption of professional conduct requiring regulatory inspection.
I do not enjoy the right to be free from forced accommodation.
I do not enjoy the right not to speak or understand a foreign language.
I do not enjoy the right to my own labor.
I do not enjoy the right to be acknowledged a man and not a legal entity.
I do not enjoy the right to my own name.
I do not enjoy the right to be free of government interference or oppression.
I do not enjoy the right to provide for my needs without government intrusion.
America is disappearing. Rights are being lost. It is happening to you. What are you going to do about it?
In Truth,
Antonio Vacci.
All Rights Reserved, 2007.
For dialogue, explanation, your comment or observations respond by email to: theoogling([AT])