*Crosstalk Today* Mark Lerner on Biometric Technology and Personal Freedom

Mark Lerner is author of the new book, Your Body is Your I.D. He will share information on the latest uses of biometric technology and talk about the threats to personal freedom and privacy. Tune in live at 2pm C at the website or listen to the archived show later.

DeWeese: The Third American Revolution

Statement by Tom DeWeese
Freedom Action Conference
Valley Forge, PA

The revolution of 1776 was not just an exercise by armed men seeking to overthrow their current government – as had been done so many times throughout history.

It wasn’t a desperate attempt to replace a bad king with a new one – backed by the usual hope that this time, this one would finally turn a kind, benevolent ear toward the pleas of the people.

Such revolutions had been fought for centuries. Up to 1776 none of them had resulted in the desired goals.

Always the newly installed despot learned quickly how to plunder the people, gain power and riches for themselves, while holding out the carrot – the promise of a better day.

Not until 1776 did a few scholarly men in a rural, backward, isolated land figure it out. They studied every possible style of government. They noted the pitfalls, the dangers, the traps that lead to tyranny. And they noted this fact: Freedom doesn’t just happen. It must first be understood. And then it must be planned, implemented and protected.

Today, based on that first American Revolution, every one of us talks about how we support the

principles of freedom. But what are those principles of freedom? And were did they come from?

The Principles of Freedom

It is little understood that our founding fathers didn’t just come up with an idea and start to sell it as a principle—the way Obama and the in crowd do today.

First of all, we must understand that principles are not legislated or invented. A principle exists and you are subject to it, whether or not you know it. Eventually that principle is discovered.

For example, for centuries men were ignorant of the laws of physics but they were subject to them nonetheless. Man couldn’t fly or fill two objects in the same space, no matter how hard he tried because the laws (or principles) of physics are fact, whether known or unknown.

The same is true with the principles of freedom. The basic principles of freedom are consistent with man’s nature and that’s why they work. When the principles of freedom are recognized and adhered to, there is prosperity, justice and happiness. When the principles have been ignored or rejected, men have suffered poverty, stagnation and political tyranny.

So to obtain freedom, it’s vital that we know what the principles are. There are three, actually. Individualism, private property, and free enterprise. They are all necessary for freedom to exist. Leave just one out, and freedom is eroded.

Individualism – your personal choices — the ability to pursue your own rational self interest. Choices like the religion you choose; the size home you build; the car you drive; the kind of spouse you select. In short, individualism is fulfilling a life of one’s own.

Private property. Your own body is the most important property you will ever own. The idea that someone else can control that is absurd, but there are many who seek to do so. Forced Vaccinations, for example.

So private property is not just land. It is your thoughts. Your possessions and the fruits of your labor. Without the right to own and dispose of the products of ones own life, the individual is dependent upon the State (or someone) for his very existence.

So, it is obvious that one can’t be individualistic without the ability to own and control private property. It can be argued that one can have no other rights without property rights. George Washington said “private property and freedom are inseparable.” Property Rights activist and rancher Wayne Hage said, “Either you have the right to own property or you are property.”

And that brings us to the third principle of freedom – free enterprise. Free markets. Capitalism. The process whereby free men buy and sell and trade the products of their own lives free from interference.

These are the three principles of freedom and these are what made the actions of 1776 a revolution. The revolution was individuals, unleashed to follow their own paths, organized under one banner – the Constitution. As a result, these United States became, almost overnight, the most prosperous, healthiest, happiest place ever known in human history. It had never happened before and never since.

Quiet efforts to undo the spirit of 1776

And since its creation, there has been a relentless undercurrent to undo, destroy and remake the nation into the image of all of the failed systems of history.

From Alexander Hamilton to Franklin Roosevelt there was a slow, steady leak as individual liberty was carefully corralled for the common good. Property rights were deemed unworkable as “community needs” took precedence. And free enterprise was fouled as the root of evil greed.

Efforts were made to change America. But not too fast. A stronger central government steadily grew. A central bank was established. Foreign policy began to entangle Constitutional decisions.

But always these changes were put forward carefully, quietly, so as to not visibly rock the premise of a free America. And America continued to prosper as the envy of the world.

The cuts at the revolution of 1776 have been slow, steady and sure. But, like the frog in the boiling pot, hardly detectible for almost 200 years. Well into the last half of the 20th Century, many Americans still wholly believed we were the Republic of 1776.

Looking for answers

The changes were basically undetectable, that is, until the start of the Second American Revolution. From the start of that revolution America began to change – rapidly – openly – ruthlessly. From the free, prosperous nation we once were, America is today drowning in a sea of rules and regulations.

Every aspect of our lives have become controlled by government edicts and intervention. From a mere trickle those government controls became a flood – until finally, today, the Republic of our founders is literally unrecognizable.

When did such a drastic change take place? Who perpetrated it? How did they pull it off before our very eyes? Winston Churchill once said, “If you don’t look facts in the face, they have a way of stabbing you in the back.”

The fact is, before we can move forward, before we can restore the American Republic, we need to know who we are fighting. We need to understand the root of the enemy we face.

The Second American Revolution gathered behind a philosophy that is a complicated mixture of communism, fascism and corporatism. It marches under a banner of green. And it calls itself “Environmentalism.”

For more than three decades the forces of freedom have been systematically trampled under the boots of the green army that is driven by a religious zealotry to obliterate human society.

Under the slogan of “going green” our industry is being strangled. Our property rights are being obliterated and its innocent victims litter our courts. Almost anything goes in the name of environmentalism.

Many of you have been the victims of such harsh treatment or have been subjected to the propaganda that sells it to an uninformed public. Your life has been turned upside down. Some of you have lost your farms and ranches. Some have seen your industries devastated. Some represent other industries hoping yet to avoid disaster. Some are victims of unwarranted regulations. Some are victims of the violence of zealots. Some see an even greater danger rising on the international horizon through the United Nations.

Many of you have been forced to become activists in

the cause of freedom simply for your own survival. And you face a seemingly unending number of foes – threatening all aspects of our society.

You seek help. You seek answers. You seek truth. You seek a way home. So do I.

This year marks my 43rd year in the war against those who say there is no reason, no ability and no absolutes. 43 years in a war against those who say private property and profit are evil. 43 years in a war against those who have no problem ruling, regulating and taxing my efforts in order to fill their own pockets – all in the name of the “public good.”

What I have learned in that time is the true nature of the beast I oppose. I’ve learned his tactics and I’ve 1earned his purpose. And I know from where he came.

I’ve also learned that there are those who profess to hold my values, who proclaim friendship, but who, when the chips are down, can be easiest found breaking bread at the table of my enemies. And these are perhaps the most dangerous foes of freedom because many have our trust and have helped drive us all to the brink of disaster and defeat.

The Second American Revolution

I was there on the front lines at the origins of the Second American Revolution – the revolution under which America is still ruled. In the 1960’s I stood on college campuses, opposing those who sought to close down classrooms in the name of a “revolution.”

Those who marched professed themselves to be Marxists, Leninist, Trotskyites, and Maoists. Their revolution, they proclaimed, was to give power to the people over evil industry, to replace money and materialism with charity and benevolence for a “common good.”

In the name of brotherhood they used violence and deceit, threw bricks into windows, burned down campus buildings, incited riots and spit on soldiers returning from Vietnam.

At the time, most Americans considered these self- proclaimed revolutionaries to be little more than spoiled kids exercising youthful energy and natural rebellion. Their advocacy of communism in the most free of all nations, fell on deaf ears.

By the early seventies, while a few had gone

underground to form terrorist units like the Weathermen, most of the activist were forgotten as they and the rest of America went on with their lives.

What does all of this have to do with environmental policy in the 2010? What do a bunch of forgotten campus rebels have to do with the livelihoods of ranchers in Nevada or loggers in Oregon, or fishermen in California, or international treaties coming out of the UN?

My friends, the answers to your pain and suffering can be found from the moment these revolutionaries left their college campuses.

I have in my possession a book published in the 1970’s. It is a compilation, a scrapbook, if you will, of the writings of the leaders that appeared in the radical underground newspapers produced during the “revolution” of the 60s.

Its title is “The Movement Toward a New America, The Beginnings of a Long Revolution.” You see, those who drove the revolution of the 60s, the true believers, were dedicated to a life- long struggle.

And what are some of the ravings we find in this document of revolution? You will find the beginnings of modem feminism. You will find attacks on the family structure and marriage.

You will find the roots of education restructuring that led to transforming our schools into little more than propaganda mills for the revolution. The book lays the ground work for the use of psychological behavior- modification teaching methods, now standard in public education.

And you will find the roots of modem environmentalism. From the beginning it was obvious that this most popular of causes had very little to do with protecting the environment and everything to do with destroying free society.

In 1969, TV host Dick Cavett aired his regular network talk show, featuring a number of rock stars, including Crosby, Stills and Nash and Jefferson Airplane. These stars of their day had just returned from performing at the historic Woodstock rock festival.

That concert was to go down in history as the defining moment of the “revolution.” Here the anti-war movement finally took hold. Here the anti-poverty movement became social revolution. Here the drug culture took on an identity.

But what was on the minds of these rockers, just after such a monumental event?

Toward the end of the program, Cavett asked his guests if any of them would like to say something that they never had the opportunity to say before on TV.

Immediately, David Crosby leaped at the chance, and said, “we all know the air around us is filthy. But the only way to change that is to convince Ford, GM, Chrysler and Shell to go out of business.”

You see? And perhaps you thought environmentalism was something that cropped up only in the last decade or so?

The first to see the opportunities of using environmentalism to promote otherwise discredited Marxist/Leninist philosophy, were some anti-nuke activists who changed their name to Greenpeace. The “Green” represented the new propaganda of environmentalism, and the “Peace” kept the faith with the 60’s street revolution.

As for the rest of the committed revolutionaries, they went to work. But while you and I found jobs in the private sector, or followed in our parents footsteps or started our own businesses, the revolutionaries went into “public service.”

They joined the offices of public defenders, staffed government social service offices, and worked in congressional and local political offices, using their position to create subtle changes in legislation and policy. Changes that led to more government control.

Of course they went into the news media and entertainment fields, and some ran for public office. Their tactic was political correctness, designed to force mass behavior changes and thought control.

And so all of these job choices were carefully picked to fill a specific purpose, – to influence public policy and attitudes. There were also those who went to work for multinational corporations, facing accusations by their unenlightened fellow activists of “selling out.”

Now, it’s been over 40 years. The young Turk revolutionaries have turned gray, balding and plump. But they did their job well. Because by now, most of our government agencies, social services, news media, entertainment centers, institutions, charitable agencies, colleges, and multinational corporations are influenced , if not run by those who once marched in the street and pledged to lead a “long revolution toward a new America.”

So, are you now surprised that our nation is going through a massive restructuring? Are you surprised that our schools no longer teach the ideals of what was once a society run on free enterprise? Are you surprised that American history is being changed and patriotism is considered a relic of the past?

When revolutions are won the victors gain the power to honor their heroes. Schools, public buildings and parks are no longer named after Washington, Jefferson and Franklin. Those were the heroes of the first revolution. They have been overthrown.

The new heroes on the names of schools and public boulevards are Caesar Chavez and Rachel Carson. We have Black Panthers like Bobby Rush in Congress. We have college professors named Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayres. We have a first lady who lists as a mentor, Stokely Carmichael, who coined the phrase “Burn, Baby, Burn.”

The truth you must now face is that the rules and regulations that so unreasonably have forced Americans out of their homes and jobs – have absolutely nothing to do with saving the environment – and everything to do with those slogans that were chanted in the nation’s streets in the 1960’s.

You have become the victims of a revolution to turn American society upside down, or as Al Gore calls it, “a wrenching transformation.”

First and foremost is the drive to destroy the concept of private property. You see, those who seek to rule and regulate your every action know that, without the right to own and control property, there can be no peace or security – no rule of law.

Without property rights, no other rights are possible. How do you break down a society? You eliminate property rights.

Why is crime rampant? Because, first, government sanctioned the right to take property from individuals, through rules and regulations, and through lawsuits and public opinion. Once the concept was established, it was easy for the third rate thugs on every street comer to follow suit.

The sanction of the victim

But one doesn’t take the freest society on earth and turn it into a collectivist gulag overnight. For peaceful revolution

to succeed, the perpetrators first need the “sanction of the victim.”They need you to voluntarily give up your property, your wealth, and your liberty.Open adherence to the ideals of Marxism-Leninism didn’t do it. They needed something else. The threat of danger is a good tool. The greater the threat, the less the objection to giving up liberties. World- wide environmental Armageddon became the plan of choice.

And so it began. Faced with the threat of Global Warming that would melt the polar ice caps and flood the world, we victims voluntarily gave up vital technological development that would have saved us labor and increased the quality of life.

Industry accepted regulations that forced it to spend millions to create “unnecessary” technology.

Faced with the unfounded charge that unnamed species were supposedly vanishing by the crate load, the alarmed public supported regulations that shut down timber and mining.

Ozone holes, acid rain, dolphin-safe fishing became the mantra, driven by a hysteria plotted at the level of twelve- year-old girls in a pet shop pleading with the shop owner to “let the poor little animals out!”

As the propaganda mill poured out one unsubstantiated horror story after another, science was bastardized to fit the political agenda. Reason and truth weren’t necessary.

So successful has the campaign been to replace reason and knowledge with blind emotion and Pavlovian adherence to environmental propaganda that we victims voluntarily accept the premise that:

It’s OK for a beaver to build a dam – but not for man. It’s OK for a bear to hunt, but not for man. It’s OK for a lion to eat meat, but not for man.

The revolution succeeded in building hysteria over unsubstantiated environmental disaster. That hysteria led to demands that something massive must be done. Said the revolution, only the combined international forces of the UN could be strong enough to take effective action. Sovereign nations, they say, can’t be trusted to take care of these problems on their own.

And so it went. The hysteria created by bogus science, was sold to a once proud nation – using all of the outlets manned by those old revolutionaries of the 60’s.

The media pounded out the message that man is a cancer on the earth. The schools failed to tell children that trees can actually be replanted like a corn crop. The Smithsonian Institute carried an exhibit on the ravages of global warming.

The Cancer Society leads the fight to ban the right of smoking. The smoking ban is the trial balloon to see how quickly Americans will follow similar efforts for the banning of the eating of meat, the banning of cars and the banning of private property.

The Chamber of Commerce tells us that government-sanctioned monopolies called Public/ Private Partnerships are the new free enterprise. That allows global corporation partners to have special privileges and tax breaks over their competition, while local developer partners gain access to property not open to their competitors. Then they tell us this is using the power of free enterprise to keep down the cost and size of government.

All of it is the propaganda necessary to gain the sanction of the victims. All is designed to get you to question your own selfishness and arrogance for thinking you could grow crops, or harvest trees for profit or that you had a right to put fences around property that you bought and paid for.

Thirteen years ago, 39 people took their lives because they believed that their souls would travel on a spaceship that was following behind a comet. We called them nuts. So what do you call an entire nation that voluntarily surrenders its property, liberty and national identity based on propaganda and lies?

The green agenda has invaded every aspect of our society. In 1992, the mother of all tools to impose the revolution was rammed down every nation on earth. It was called Agenda 21 and it’s policy of Sustainable Development became the blue print for the final victory over freedom.

It involves every agency of the Federal Government, and is roaring through state and local governments. It affects how and where we can build our homes. How crops can be grown. What crops to grow. It seeks to dictate the kind of foods we are allowed to eat. Or, whether we are to be allowed to take natural supplements or if they will be under the control of public/private partnerships in the pharmaceutical industry.

It’s in our schools, in the workplace and at our social gatherings. Sustainable Development covers much more than environmentalism. In fact, that’s just the excuse.

The social equity plank of Sustainable Development is based on a demand for “social justice” – a term coined by Karl Marx. It means that individuals must give up “selfish” wants for the needs of the common good or the “community.”

Through Sustainable Development the final drive for the revolting dreams of the 60s is coming into place. Forced utopia. Promises of healthcare for all. Jobs for all. Housing for all. Equality for all. It is the ultimate melting pot, designed to cleanse the nation of individuality, private property and free enterprise.

Did you know that, according to Sustainable Development documents, it is considered a social injustice to own private property because some build wealth through property ownership but others don’t? Did you know it’s a social injustice for nations to have borders and sovereignty because that keeps people from naturally migrating?

Again, Sustainable Development has nothing to do with protecting the environment and everything to do with transforming our society into the agenda first demanded by revolting street thugs.

Remember what they demanded in those protest rallies? One world. One people. Redistribution of wealth for equality for all. We wouldn’t do it for the sake of Marx, and Mao and Lenin. But for the fear of environmental Armageddon, the people follow like sheep.

Why was it so easy for these totalitarian forces to simply march across the nation and trample on what was once unquestioned Constitutionally-guaranteed rights? Because no one stood in their way.

Sustainable Development became the official policy of both major political parties. Corporations embraced it for the profits gained from their partnerships with governments.

Today, barely a single politician at any level ever questions the policy of Sustainable Development. And neither does the mainstream conservative media or the established conservative/libertarian organizations and think tanks.

For some reason they will attack global warming and cap and trade and smart growth. But they will not even acknowledge the root of these policies. They will never use the words Agenda 21 or Sustainable Development. And many deride us for bringing out the UN connection as they embrace the Public/Private Partnerships and tell us its free enterprise and limited government.

When the Republicans were in control of the White House, the Senate, and the House, they did more to entrench Sustainable Development than any Democrat could have hoped for.

When those of us in the property right movement tried to fight these policies we were told to be careful. Don’t attack the green movement. To do so would deny us a place at the table where policy was being made! Seek common ground, they said. Be reasonable.

The Trent Lotts and John McCains and George Bushs told us that rather than stand for the principles of freedom, we instead need a “new Republican environmental vision” with which we could lock arms with our enemies in hopes of finding “peace in our time.”

That’s exactly how we lost the Second American Revolution – because our own leadership refused to fight, but instead embraced the revolution of our enemies.

They did it because they accepted the premise that freedom was over, done, defeated. They believed it was now time to accept that defeat and just find a way to survive.

You know, there was another time in our history when the forces of freedom doubted its ability to survive. In 1939, Adolf Hitler and his Nazis were taking the world by storm.

A great deal of Europe had already fallen under its power. There were pro-Nazi rallies taking place in Madison Square Garden in New York City. There were pro-Nazi movements on the march in South America and South Africa. To many of the leaders in the free nations of the world it seemed that Hitler’s nightmare was a done deal. That there was no way to stop it.

These men were diplomats who made deals based on the fad of the day and on the meandering whims of the public. They knew nothing of the meaning of liberty or of the principle of property. These men thought they could deal with the devil, even though the devil knew that they stood for nothing but the “deal” – that there was no line that couldn’t be crossed.

And so, Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of the once-powerful British Empire, derby and black umbrella in hand, flew onto Adolf Hitler’s turf to negotiate for mercy. He only hoped to get some sort of deal that would allow the free nations to survive in a world controlled by cold- blooded brutes.

Hitler smiled, invited him to sit at his table, and signed such an agreement. As Chamberlain told the cheering crowds that he had “achieved peace in our time” – Hitler was attacking Poland. And Chamberlain let him do it. Because to do otherwise would have cost him his “place at the table”.

So today, you and I face a similar crossroads. We see our enemies on all sides. We have experienced few victories. And we also have some leaders among us, in the Congress, in our state houses, in county and local offices, and even in our own movement, who say we have no choice but to compromise, find mutual ground, don’t rock the boat, above all, appear “reasonable,” to “get a place at the table” with the big boys. To continue to fight, they say, will only be divisive against reasonable negotiations.

My friends, had Winston Churchill accepted Neville Chamberlain’s view of the world, you and I would not be here today, discussing property rights. That would be a long-lost concept. Instead of wringing his hands and crying for mercy, Churchill told his countrymen there will be no more compromise. He said “we shall fight them on land, on the sea, and in the air.” He said the enemy would only take his tiny island of England “when all of us lay on the shore, choking on our own blood.” He vowed to fight to the finish.

His enemy threatened to change his world forever. And so does ours. We are not engaged in a political debate. This is a war. We face a dedicated revolutionary foe who cares not one whit about your wants, needs or rights.

Crime is rampant. The core of our cities, once vibrant and alive with men who understood that man’s progress was his greatest achievement, are now slipping into silent decay. Vital services are beginning to break down. Vast amounts of American land and resources are being locked away.

Is this the result of men entrusted with too much freedom? Or is it the result of the looter mentality of those who loath industry and technology?

Our great factories of the Northeast lie in rusting ruins. Is this the result of capitalism run amuck? Or is it the result

of rules and regulations designed by modern-day Robin Hoods who seek to drain the wealth out of the producer and give it to the sniveling whiners who believe our duty on earth is to give them an unearned living?

Our economy is on the verge of collapse because banks and lending institutions were told they had to break all the rules of sound finance and give loans to people with no money – in the name of the revolution’s contrived equality.

And more and more government means more and more raids on an already bankrupt treasury. More taxes, more regulations, more programs – mean only one thing – total control of every aspect of our lives – just as the revolution intends.

Only man’s forward motion with the constant emergence of technology, along with the guaranteed protection of property rights, will create the sound, safe, peaceful society we all seek.

Turning our society backwards to the way it was before Christopher Columbus, as radical environmentalists advocate, is an insanity that should be laughed out of the hall whenever it’s uttered. Yet that is the root of the philosophy that some of our most trusted leaders and elected officials seek to compromise with.

True science proves that their “chicken little” horror stories are unfounded. True science proves that man is the hero – not the cancer — of the earth. True science proves that man’s technology and man’s stewardship of privately owned land is the only real environmental protection.

It’s time to face facts. It’s time to understand your enemy. It’s time to take a firm stand. It’s time to go on the offensive – to speak the truth and expose the lies.

The truth is the revolution under the name of the environmental movement has declared war on you property, war on your livelihood, war on your families and war on truth and logic.

How will you fight back? By seeking some “common ground”? By using the non-confrontational tactics employed by the RINO cowards in Congress who say it’s not politically feasible to take on the environmental issues? Voters might not understand, they say.

Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson trying to hide the fact that his real purpose was liberty? “I know,” he could have said, “let’s just tell them we don’t like tea!” We can

only win the hearts and minds of the American people by telling them the truth.

We must understand that this war is not something new. It began in the streets of America during a time when some very dedicated radicals, carrying the slogans of Mao and Lenin, sought to change our nation to all that those slogans represented. A new dark ages determined to bring about the destruction of human society is their ultimate and stated goal.

If we fail to understand that, then soon we will have taken the full journey to the “revolution.” And when the lights go out in the greatest nation on earth, when the wilderness creeps back in – will you feel enlightened – or just cold, hungry and betrayed?

The Third American Revolution

The time is now – the decision of whether there will be betrayal or truth is yours. This is still the greatest nation on earth. You and I can still restore the Republic of our founders.

But it is now time, my friends for a Third American Revolution. One based on the same principles of our founding fathers and the principles of Freedom.

The good news is that such a revolution has already begun. The results of the 60s revolution on our daily lives are finally being seen by the American people. And that is why they are now beginning to question programs and policies. They are beginning to figure out that the representatives they elect are paying no attention to them. Finally something is beginning to stir.

It started with the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision which said there are no longer property rights in America. Any community can use eminent domain to tear down you house if it has a better use for the property.

While that decision shocked everyone, the fact is the Supreme Court had to make that decision in order to enforce Sustainable Development. The Kelo decision sanctions the ultimate Public/Private partnership between city councils and private developers. Americans finally saw the raw power of Sustainable Development.

Then came the war over illegal immigration. 80% of the American people said no – but Congress and the White House tried to ignore them and impose amnesty anyway. The people started to take to the streets.

Then came the bailouts. Again, 80% said no. But Congress did it anyway. The anger grew.

And Finally Health care. The people said no! And again, they did it anyway.

Americans are now ready to mobilize. They are ready to listen and take action. But they have missed a great deal as they ignored the Second American Revolution. So they are confused. And they are stumbling in the dark trying to find the right path. They see the enemy as Barack Obama, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They think the problem is too much government spending, healthcare, gun control, Cap and Trade, abortion, and the Federal Reserve.

They must learn that the root of nearly every one of these issues is directly tied to Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, driven by those who seek to transform our society into little soviets of non elected boards and councils and regional governments, answerable to no one. If your local community has been transformed into a little soviet you cannot restore the republic. All the rest of the issues are simply the visible symptoms of the policies, not the root.

As Henry David Thoreau once said, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” Now we know who the enemy is. It’s time we strike at the root and destroy his revolution.

Freedom Action at the local level

And there is a very effective plan to do that. You see, I organized this conference to show you the way. Now you know who the true enemy is, how we got here and how to fight back.

The Second American Revolution sought to centralize control in the federal government.That will be their down fall. Fighting back on the local level can literally neutralize the power and influence of the central government.

First of all, we cannot win this fight by simply getting involved in campaigns a few months before an election. Or by attending a rally or waving some signs or making some phone calls. The time to prepare to win in 2012 is now.

Local organization of precincts and wards is a huge job, but it is the only way to control the process. Ignore it and you have no structure for victory. Run for the smallest offices, even dog catcher. They have power and influence. Take it. And then move up the ladder. And then begin to employ what you’ve learned here this weekend and turn it lose on activists across the nation.

Have Dan Byfield come to your community and teach your people the power of Coordination. Take the power back to the local level.

Have Bev Eakman come to your community and teach your people how to break up a controlled consensus meeting. You can drive the power mongers nuts!

Once you have organized on the precinct level you’ll be much more able to run cheap campaigns to elect your people, just as you’ve learned here from Barry Sheets. .

Use the alternative media and the tactics that Gary Franchi and George Shepherd and Sam Bushman told you about. Break through the media black out.

And bring Sheriff Richard Mack to your county to teach your local sheriff how he can foil the intimidation of federal agents. It gives the power back to the county.

And Michael Shaw’s and my efforts to expose the activities of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is a powerful new tool to educate local citizens as to how the United Nations schemes to entrench global governance through our city councils. More and more communities are beginning to follow our advice and fight ICLEI. It is beginning to have an effect.

And make no mistake, the Tenth Amendment Movement is the single most exciting development in the Third American Revolution. State legislatures across the nation are taking aim at federal dictates. These can’t be dismissed as kooky fringe radicals.These are representatives of the people. It gives power back to the states.

The Second American Revolution didn’t destroy America in one election cycle. It has taken decades. And we won’t over turn it this coming November. But we can start.

On this hallowed ground were we stand today, George Washington brought his starving, defeated troops to escape, regroup, and prepare for the battles ahead. From the day he marched out of here it took him over five years to achieve that victory.

That is what lays ahead for us now. We must learn, organize and rededicate ourselves to one goal — victory of the Third American Revolution and the restoration of our Republic.

Link to article online.

Court Reverses “Same-Sex Divorce”

ALLAS, August 31 – Today, the Fifth Court of Appeals in Texas reversed District Judge Tena Callahan’s ruling granting a “same-sex divorce” in Dallas, requiring Judge Callahan to dismiss the case. Liberty Institute, which filed an amicus brief and shared argument time in the case with the Texas Attorney General’s office, released the following statement:

“The court’s ruling today strikes down an activist judge’s attempt to take the law into her own hands,” said Kelly Shackelford, president/CEO of Liberty Institute. “We applaud the Dallas Court of Appeals for upholding the rule of law and the will of 76 percent of Texans who voted for Texas’ constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

In the brief, Liberty Institute represented Rep. Warren Chisum and former Sen. Todd Staples, who cosponsored the Marriage Amendment, known as Proposition 2, which defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. It passed in 2005 by 76 percent.

During oral arguments, Liberty Institute challenged Judge Callahan’s ruling as contradictory to the Texas Constitution and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because by granting a “same-sex divorce,” it recognizes a “same-sex marriage” performed in another state. The Austin Court of Appeals will likely rule soon on a similar case, where District Judge Scott Jenkins granted a “same-sex divorce” to a lesbian couple in February and denied the Attorney General’s motion for intervention in late March.

Liberty Institute is a public policy and non-profit legal firm dedicated to protecting freedoms and strengthening families.

View the opinion online at http://tinyurl.com/In-Re-JB-HB.

For more information, visit www.libertyinstitute.org

– 30 –

Over 100 Groups Urge Congress to Preserve Religious Hiring Rights

The Christian Post reports:

More than 100 religious organizations are urging members of Congress to reject pending legislation that would prohibit them from considering religion when hiring.

“The law has long protected the religious freedom of both the people who receive government-funded services, and the groups that provide the services – long before President Obama, and long before President Bush,” said Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel of USCCB, in a statement. “Stripping away the religious hiring rights of religious service providers violates the principle of religious freedom, and represents bad practice in the delivery of social services.”

The groups are protesting a provision in HR 5466 – a bill introduce in the House in May that would reauthorize federal substance abuse treatment funding that is administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Sponsored by Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), the bill includes language banning faith-based groups from receiving federal funds if they consider religion in their hiring process. Read the story here.

The Looming Constitutional Crisis

Kevin Snider of the Pacific Justice Institute writes the following:

California is teetering on the precipice of a constitutional crisis. Former bodybuilder, turned Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with former Governor, turned Attorney General, Jerry Brown, are putting their shoulders down to push California’s voters over the cliff. With them, the state’s republican form of government will fall.

As elected officials under Article V of the state constitution, they are members of the executive branch of government. One of the burdens of holding these offices is that they are routinely named as defendants in lawsuits filed in state and federal courts against the state of California. Not surprisingly, they are both named as defendants in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, (Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW). The court in Perry struck down Article I, section 7.5 of the California Constitution which simply defines marriage as follows: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

As has been widely reported, there is a possibility that the defenders of Proposition 8 may not have legal standing to defend the constitutional amendment defining marriage. In a recent order, the trial court indicated that the only defendants that have standing to appeal are the Governor and Attorney General. That will be the first issue that the Ninth Circuit will take up in December. Read the article here.

Unfortunately, Arizona Does NOT Have it Right

by Tom DeWeese and Mark Lerner

There is no question that the citizens of Arizona, like the citizens of all of the southern border states, face grave and outrageous dangers from the invasion of illegals rushing across the borders. Private property is being destroyed; crime is skyrocketing; costs for schools and hospitals is forcing bankruptcy on local communities; and violence is becoming a way of life. No American, living in a nation where rights are supposed to be protected and guaranteed, should be forced to live under such conditions.

The problem, of course, is that the federal government refuses to take the actions necessary to stop illegal immigration. It refuses to secure the border either by placing more border patrol agents in place or allowing local police forces to take action when they have a known illegal in their custody. In addition, the federal government refuses to allow local and state agencies to withdraw taxpayer services like schools, healthcare and welfare to illegals.

As a result, the lure of easy money and free housing, health care and schools looming just across an unprotected border draws those now living in the failed socialist Mexican system. The risk is low and the rewards are high. And so they come in ever growing numbers, swamping the systems that were set up to serve American taxpayers.

Desperate Arizonians have had enough and have taken steps to do something about it. As a result, the state has passed and is ready to enforce legislation (SB1070) that has become a national debate on how to best secure our nation against this ever growing invasion. The problem is, in spite of its courageous stand as an example to the rest of the nation, Arizona may not have it right and will do more harm than good to the all-important fight to stop illegal immigration. Worse, it may stand as a direct threat to the liberties of all Americans, which the law was actually intended to protect.

To understand the potential threat to Americans liberties posed by SB1070, it must be put in the proper context of what the federal government is driving towards – a total surveillance society, seeking any and all information about each and every American citizen.

In that vein, it is important to note that information is power and currently, only the federal government is collecting such information. SB1070 could change that, not only in Arizona, but in states that are now considering enacting similar laws. Moreover, the information the federal government is collecting is your information and it is being shared with international law enforcement agencies and foreign governments at the discretion of the federal government.

Unintended Consequences

There is no question that our country must deal with the problem of illegal immigration. The purpose of SB1070 is to identify people in our country illegally, specifically Arizona, and insure those people are sent back to their country of origin. But how is that to be accomplished, according the SB1070?

1) The following is the wording contained in the legislation:

E. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:

1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.

2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.

2) SB1070 is and will be used as a“tool”allowing the federal government to have at its disposal more information about U.S. citizens. This is an example of unintended consequences.

The wording of the bill (see above) calls for the personal information of all Arizona citizens to be sent to DHS/federal government whether the person is seeking any public benefit or applying for any type of license (can be a fishing license, driver’s license, business license, hunting license or even a permit for a weapon). Although there is a minimum amount of information that will be provided to the federal government the legislation does not set any limit on just how much information can or should be provided the federal government.

3) The domicile issue must and should be handled by those responsible for the issuance of driver’s licenses and not every other state agency and/or department. Many women do not want their physical address shared with potentially many people because of domestic violence issues. Many Americans were concerned about the census this year. It is one thing for the government to have a count of the population but another to have the exact location (GPS) of every person’s residence.

4) The federal government has a number of pieces of proposed legislation that will result in what some refer to as a “national ID”. These various ID’s all incorporate biometrics (measurements of the body). The standards for the biometrics (facial recognition) are the adopted standards of the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) an agency of the United Nations. U.S. citizens are not just being enrolled into a national identification system but an international system of identification that applies to all people of the world. This “system” directly links your body to a system of financial control.

5) Currently the Real ID Act 2005 is federal law. Congress is considering repealing Title II of the Real ID Act and passing the PASS ID Act. This would NOT change U.S. citizens being enrolled into a single global system of identification that directly links that identification to a person’s ability to buy, sell or travel. Also, Congress is considering a new biometric social security card and as part of the Immigration Reform legislation, a biometric “National Worker’s Identification” card. The recently passed Obama Healthcare Reform bill will result in some type of national medical identification card. The details on that card will become more apparent as the rulemaking process plays out for the legislation.

6) At what point will the states stop relying on the federal government to accomplish what the states can do for the most part without the reliance on the federal government? The federal government has made no secret of its intention to compile as much information about each citizen as possible. This includes your biometric samples and data.

6A) The federal government wants the personal information of Americans either through direct electronic access or indirect access. Currently the “federal government”

has much of our personal information already. The fact is “that information” is spread out over many departments and agencies of the federal government. DHS wants a more centralized system and thus we have witnessed the Real ID Act 2005 and now the PASS ID Act.

Because the standards for both Real ID and PASS ID are the adopted standards of two international organizations, AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators-An international organization by their own admission that currently includes the provinces of Canada and the states and territories of the United States and the ICAO, the driver’s license would become not simply a national ID but more accurately an international ID. International standards are only used to facilitate global information sharing.

U.S. citizens should know that their federal tax dollars were used to provide states with grant money in order to assure that the districts of Mexico are added to AAMVA’s jurisdiction. AAMVA wants a single jurisdiction of the United States, Canada and Mexico. It was no accident this single jurisdiction concept began in 1994 when the NAFTA treaty was signed.

The Fed’s “free pass” – Exemption

The following comes from a February 2006 GCN (Government Computer News) article: (Mocny/DHS) said, ‘We have a responsibility to make a Global Security Envelope that would coordinate information policies and technical standards.’

Robert Mocny, of the Department of Homeland Security, conceded that each of the 10 privacy laws currently in effect in the United States has an exemption clause for national- security purposes. He added that the department only resorts to its essentially unlimited authority under those clauses when officials decide that there are compelling reasons to do so.

In a 2007 article in the same publication Mocny stated “We’re starting the process of biometrifying [sic] a good proportion of the world population.” Robert Mocny also stated that “information sharing is appropriate around the world, and DHS plans to create a “Global Security Envelope of internationally shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with biometric ID, personal information held by governments and corporations.”

Mocny’s Department of Homeland Security is the same government agency that has stated nearly all

Americans are potentially domestic terrorists. Under Real ID, the Secretary of DHS is given the authority in the “Official Purposes” section to add restrictions at his or hers own discretion. Real ID currently restricts entrance to a federal facility, flying on a commercial airliner or entering a nuclear facility. Tomorrow we could see restrictions on purchasing weapons, ammunition or even prescription drugs. This kind of unfettered authority is unacceptable.

In Mocny’s statement we see that DHS can decide when to ignore our privacy laws. He never mentions consulting with Congress or even the President for that matter.

SB1070 does not create a national ID card but it does embolden the federal government. States should not and must not depend or rely on the federal government when the states themselves can go a long way towards resolving the issue of citizenship.

There would be times when the federal government might be needed but first every state has a responsibility to only involve the federal government when all other means have been exhausted. We cannot comprehend why a state would offer up/volunteer their own citizen’s personal information to a department of the federal government that has made their intentions clear. Let us not forget DHS had made it clear that it believes domestic terrorism is a much threat as terrorism initiated outside our borders. If they felt you were a potential terrorist would they share your personal information with other governments and/or corporations?

Do you belong to a third party or support a third party candidate? Are you an anti-war activist or environmentalist? Are you an Evangelical Christian? Do you believe the militias are constitutional? If you answered yes to any of the proceeding questions you are under the eye of DHS.

A real solution – the Hub System

The Real ID Act and the PASS ID Act breeder documents (documents needed to obtain a driver’s license) must be authenticated. Nearly all citizens of the United States have birth certificates or an acceptable alternative. We suggest a “hub” system be put in place that is solely controlled by the states. The hub itself would not retain any information, only act as a conduit. All DMV’s would have the capability to communicate with the state issuing agencies or departments of birth certificates. Not everyone has what is called a birth certificate. Certificates of Birth and other similar documents can be authenticated just as birth certificates can.

The federal government wants birth certificates

digitized and we agree. We go one step further and believe all birth certificates must be numbered starting with the two letter abbreviation for each state. Once a birth certificate is presented to acquire a driver’s license or other form of identification the birth certificate number would go into databases as active. If anyone else attempted to use that same numbered birth certificate the “system” would show that birth certificate had been used previously to obtain an ID document or driver’s license. At that point it would be very simple to determine if someone was attempting to use another person’s birth certificate or if a person was using a birth certificate that was not in the “system”.

SB1070 is enabling DHS to gather much more personal information of citizens. Domicile information is not the business of DHS. We would ask that Arizona legislators work with the legislators of the other states and agree to create the hub system described above. Telecommunications companies tell us that the network could be in place in a short period of time. A focused and coordinated effort must take place to digitize and number birth certificates.

It’s easy to beat the biometric net

We, as a country do not have the biometric data of most Islamic extremists or for that matter many of the people entering our country illegally through Mexico or Canada. If a person comes into our country and we do not have their biometric data there is nothing right now to stop that person from “beating” the “system”. That person can obtain counterfeit breeder documents including a birth certificate and social security card for a couple of hundred dollars.

Yet, our government is insisting all Americans be enrolled into a single global biometric identification system (facial recognition). There is a reason facial recognition is not used to see if a person has a driver’s license in other states. The technology does not work when hundreds of millions of images are compared. (Source: 2003 AAMVA sponsored report conducted by the IBG (International Biometric Group).

Recently the talk of all forms of a “national/international ID has sparked debate over the cost of such an ambitious effort. Estimates run in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The cost of putting in place a hub system that would allow for the issuing agency at the state level of state driver’s licenses to authenticate a birth certificate with the issuing state agency that is responsible for birth certificates would be far, far less and the states would control the hub – not

the federal government. The hub would simply be a secure telecommunication system that would require multiple “super computers” to crack. The hub would be far more secure than DMV offices are currently.

The only reason the Real ID Act and PASS ID do not violate the 1974 Privacy Act is that the states that are collecting the personal information of citizens that DHS wants. The states are being used as surrogates. SB1070 is tantamount to giving a child a free pass in a candy store. In this case Arizona is feeding DHS citizen’s information.

The DHS drive for total surveillance is a threat to liberty

Keep in mind it is each citizen’s foremost responsibility to pass on to future generations, the rights, liberty and freedom they inherited at such great sacrifice from previous generations. SB1070 does not meet that test.

Ben Franklin is attributed with the quote“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Unfortunately, in its frustration, Arizona and other supporters around the nation are willing to help build a surveillance society in the name of “doing something.”

Another proposed “solution” to the illegal immigration problem has been the E-Verify system. It is not only included in Arizona’s SB1070, but in other tough imigration laws touted in states like Oklahoma. It must be understood that the SSN database is riddled with errors with estimates running as high as 13 million errors. Admittedly most are not serious errors but that being said there is a problem causing E-Verify to correctly identify those in our country illegally less than 50% of the time.

The following comes from an AP story:

The online tool E-Verify, now used voluntarily by employers, wrongly clears illegal workers about 54 percent of the time, according to Westat, a research company that evaluated the system for the Homeland Security Department. E-Verify missed so many illegal workers mainly because it can’t detect identity fraud, Westat said.

A recent report verified that DHS has conducted three programs, each of which involved spying on American citizens. The programs — Pantheon, Pathfinder and Organizational Shared Space — used a variety of software tools to gather and analyze information about Americans, according to documents obtained by the Center for

Investigative Reporting. DHS turned over the papers in response to a December 2008 Freedom of Information Act request.

Another part of the equation is a company named L-1 Identity Solutions. L-1 and the World Bank have reached an agreement to insure all people in the world, including third world countries, are enrolled into a single global system of identification that translates into a single system of control.

Why is L-1 significant? L-1 is the largest biometric company in the United States and arguably the world. L-1 provides nearly 95% all state driver’s licenses. It is involved in the production of all passports and passport cards. It is a global company that has had or does have the former Directors of the CIA, FBI, TSA and others on its Board of Directors. L-1 also has an intelligence division that has contracts with nearly every intelligence agency of the federal government. In addition to losing a contract for misleading the client and being accused by the SEC for insiders selling stock in advance of adverse financial news (settled suit) L-1, under its previous name Viisage Technology overstated the capability of its biometric technology many documented times.

Why should a citizen care that L-1 is a global company and what does it mean to individuals? L-1 also provided their facial recognition technology knowing that technology was going to be tested by the Red Chinese government. Naturally the Chinese wanted to use the technology to identify dissidents. That proves the power of the system and the danger to individuals when in the hands of dangerous dictatorships.

Today thousands of surveillance cameras on nearly every street corner are pointed at you. It does not matter if you are in your hometown or Paris, France. You can be identified through the use of facial recognition technology, biometric and CCTV technology.

This is nothing new and has been going on for some time. Viisage Technology, now called L-1 Identity Solutions used facial recognition technology to capture the digital facial images of people who entered the Super Bowl in 2001, before the attacks on 9/11.

The company claimed huge success in assisting law enforcement to capture people who were wanted by law enforcement. The technology has been used many times since. We should all face the fact we live in a surveillance

society. Government does spy on our emails, phone calls and monitor our financial transactions. A free society and a surveillance society cannot coexist.

Under the provisions of the Patriot Act, the FBI has been given legal authority beyond what they previously had. The result has been abuses of NSL’s (National Security Letters) The FBI can issue an NSL to L-1 Identity Solutions requesting information such as, but not limited to, citizens biometric samples/data/templates and you would know nothing about it. States have archived databases for their DMV’s that L-1 controls. State DMV’s would not know the information was provided to the FBI. NSL’s require that the company not discuss the NSL with anyone. There are no search warrants or other legal instruments needed before the FBI issues NSL’s.

This is a violation of the Constitution in so many ways. Congress must address the issue of L-1 and insure if L-1 is to remain the primary vendor for identification documents that there are strict laws put in place to protect citizens from L-1 sharing any information unless a court order exist.

CONCLUSION

State lawmakers and yes, some citizens are willing to sacrifice liberty towards what they falsely will address issues such as illegal immigration and terrorism.

It is incredible to know that almost 9 years after 9/11 our borders are still wide open. More incredible still to know that DHS has a goal of only stopping 29% of the illegal people and goods entering our country through authorized Custom Border Patrol checkpoints.

One should realize just how much of our borders do not have authorized Custom Border Patrol checkpoints. What percentage of illegal goods and people are entering in those areas? Understand that if the goal is to only prevent 29% that means 71% will get through.

The problem continues to be the failure of the Federal government to secure our nation’s borders. Arizona has tried to address the problem with SB1070 and now other states are looking at the law as a possible model. People are desperate to save their country.

In reality, SB1070 has been packed with models for

federal law, such as E-Verify and the SAVE Act (the “Secure America Though Verification And Enforcement” Act). These very bad laws have not been able to pass Congress and so supporters are now seeking success on a state by state basis. The bottom line is SB1070 has become the Trojan Horse in the drive to create an International ID system that will track our every move. It is not freedom and it is not security.

It is refreshing that there are elected officials like Arizona’s governor who are willing to stand against massive pressure, even federal lawsuits, to try to do what is right. And it is exciting to see that leasers in other states are willing to do the same. It is part of the new and growing revolution against federal tyranny. But these leaders must also be careful to watch for the pitfalls that may result in their actions.

There is most certainly a need for strong legislation to stop the largest invasion our nation has ever experienced. But such legislation must focus on prohibiting illegals from coming here, rather than forcing the rest of us in a surveillance straight jacket. Toward that end, unfortunately, Arizona’s SB1070 accomplishes very little except sacrificing the liberty of U.S. citizens.

Senate Confirms Elena Kagan as 112th Justice of the United States Supreme Court

WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 /Christian Newswire/ — Moments ago, the United States Senate confirmed Elena Kagan to be the 112th Justice of the Supreme Court by a vote of 63-37. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said:

“We expect that Elena Kagan will continue her life-long practice of using her position to place her opinion as the final authority over the law, treat the Constitution as optional, and re-write the facts to fit her agenda, all to the detriment of our country. Miss Kagan’s presence at the Supreme Court will be a constant reminder to conservatives of the clear and present danger we face if we are not engaged in the political process to ensure only qualified people of character are in key positions.

“As a White House official, Miss Kagan re-wrote the statement of a medical organization regarding partial-birth abortion in order to manipulate legislators and the courts. As the dean of Harvard Law School, she made International/Comparative Law a required first-year course, but ignored Constitutional Law as a requirement altogether. She violated federal law in order to maliciously harm military recruiters on an issue she characterized as being of the “highest moral order” — embracing homosexuality — yet welcomed the money of a Saudi donor to establish a Center for Islamic Studies that promotes Sharia law. Sharia endorses the stoning of homosexuals.

“Miss Kagan has demonstrated utter disrespect for the Constitution, federal law, and facts. And she has abandoned her principles when large sums of money are involved.

“Yet, the 500,000 members of CWA believe that with God anything is possible. We will pray that God will inspire Justice Kagan to be an impartial and just justice.”

Mario Diaz, Esq., CWA’s Policy Director for Legal Issues said:

“CWA will make sure Americans remember those senators who, while calling themselves conservatives, voted for Miss Kagan, despite her troubling record. They will not be able to play this down.

“Those who love and respect the law can only cringe at the idea of Justice Kagan injecting her activism into the highest court of the land. We have already seen the extent to which she will go to promote her liberal ideology, even to the point of manipulating scientific findings!

“But we pray that Justice Kagan will take the opportunity she has been given to leave the old political games behind and approach the law with humility. We pray she no longer sees the Constitution as a tool to be manipulated to advance a particular agenda, but as an instrument to guard liberty and freedom.

“CWA will remain in constant prayer and will be diligent in holding Justice Kagan accountable for her actions in every way possible.”

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

Christian Newswire

AFA, Family Groups Condemn Prop. 8 Marriage Ruling

The following are statements released today regarding a California Federal District Court judge who overruled the will of California residents.

Statement from Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, in response to Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling overturning California’s marriage amendment, also known as Prop 8:

“This is a tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance. Judge Walker has turned ‘We the People’ into ‘I the Judge.’

“It’s inexcusable for him to deprive the citizens of California of their right to govern themselves, and cavalierly trash the will of over seven million voters. This case never should even have entered his courtroom. The federal constitution nowhere establishes marriage policy, which means under the 10th Amendment that issue is reserved for the states.

“It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society. That’s why the people and elected officials accountable to the people should be setting marriage policy, not a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial.

“His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He’d have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that.

“The Constitution says judges hold office ‘during good Behavior.’ Well, this ruling is bad behavior – in fact, it’s very, very bad behavior – and we call on all members of the House of Representatives who respect the Constitution to launch impeachment proceedings against this judge.”

###

Aug. 4 /Christian Newswire/ — Proposition 8, the 2008 California Constitutional amendment defining and recognizing marriage between a man and a woman, suffered a severe blow. Judge Walker ruled against the voters who approved Proposition 8 by 52 percent of the vote.

After California’s Supreme Court overturned proposition 22, the statute approved by voters defining marriage, the voters took to the polls in reaction to the court’s judicial activism.

“Today’s ruling is indicative of an out-of-control judiciary willing to circumvent California’s direct democracy by imposing their point of view,” said Karen England Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI). “Family values are under constant assault now more then ever. CRI was instrumental in passing proposition 22 in 2000 and we fought to get proposition 8 on the ballot and subsequently in California’s Constitution. We will continue to battle interest groups who wish to redefine one of our oldest institutions; the institution of marriage. We will continue to represent the 7 million Californians who took to the polls in favor of marriage.”

The case will head to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a court popularly known for its left-of-center rulings.

Christian Newswire

###

Washington, DC and San Diego, CA – Today, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker handed down his much expected decision on Prop. 8 (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) declaring unconstitutional California’s constitutional provision defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said:

“Judge Walker’s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy. Judge Walker has declared, in effect, that his opinion is supreme and ‘We the People’ are no longer free to govern ourselves. The ruling should be appealed and overturned immediately.
“Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance. Marriage between one man and one woman undergirds a stable society and cannot be replaced by any other living arrangement.

“Citizens of California voted to uphold marriage because they understood the sacred nature of marriage and that homosexual activists use same-sex ‘marriage’ as a political juggernaut to indoctrinate young children in schools to reject their parent’s values and to harass, sue and punish people who disagree.

“CWA stands in prayer for our nation as we continue to defend marriage as the holy union God created between one man and one woman.”
CWA of California State Director Phyllis Nemeth said:

“Today Judge Vaughn Walker has chosen to side with political activism over the will of the people. His ruling is slap in the face to the more than seven million Californians who voted to uphold the definition of marriage as it has been understood for millennia.
“While Judge Walker’s decision is disappointing it is not the end of this battle. Far from it. The broad coalition of support for Proposition 8 remains strong, and we will support the appeal by ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponent of Proposition 8.

“We are confident that Judge Walker’s decision will ultimately be reversed. No combination of judicial gymnastics can negate the basic truth that marriage unites the complementary physical and emotional characteristics of a man and a woman to create a oneness that forms the basis for the family unit allowing a child to be raised by his or her father and mother. Any other combination is a counterfeit that fails to provide the best environment for healthy child rearing and a secure foundation for the family. It is this foundation upon which society is – and must be – built for a healthy and sustained existence.”

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

–30–

Robert Knight on the Kagan Trainwreck

When history is written for this age (presuming that anyone can read it), Republicans will clearly be fingered as equally culpable in the destruction of the American nation as the Democrats. Robert Knight writes in his latest Townhall.com column:

As we watch in disbelief, the United States Senate is about to take the Fifth on a Supreme Court nominee who has no business being near a courtroom except as a defendant.

The word from Capitol Hill is that the GOP won’t even bother with a filibuster despite evidence from Elena Kagan’s Judiciary Committee hearing that she falsified evidence used in a Supreme Court case and committed what might be perjury before that committee.

One wonders what it would take for the Senate to deny this nomination? A daytime bank robbery, guns drawn? No, that could be chalked up to youthful exuberance or perhaps research in pursuit of insight into the criminal mind. When the Gang of 14 Democrats and Republicans agreed to clear the path for some Bush Administration nominees, that arrogant group’s presumption was that a president is entitled to his pick unless there are “exceptional circumstances.”

If Elena Kagan’s malfeasance does not fit “exceptional circumstances,” the term has no meaning. Read Knight’s column at Townhall.com

WND: Kagan’s Notes Blasted Homeschoolers

Worldnetdaily reports on Elena Kagan’s hostility to home educators as written in her own notes:

Elena Kagan, whose nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court likely will be before the full U.S. Senate for a vote soon, has suggested state regulations are “little” burden for homeschoolers, according to notes she made on a case while she was clerking for Justice Thurgood Marshall.

According to documentation uncovered by the Home School Legal Defense Association, Kagan advised Powell during the 1980s when a court case developed in Ohio in which a Christian family decided to homeschool their child.

The parents were convicted of not getting the superintendent’s permission, and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, whose justices refused to intervene.

As part of that work, Kagan reviewed the arguments for Marshall and suggested an outcome.

“[Petitioners] are self-described born-again Christians who adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible and have little sympathy with the secular world,” she wrote. Read the full story here at Worldnetdaily.com.