tyranny....Are we here yet?

---

---

America's move toward tyranny

---

Posted: October 01, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." The freedom of individuals from compulsion or coercion never was, and is not now, the normal state of human affairs. The normal state for the ordinary person is tyranny, arbitrary control and abuse mainly by their own government. While imperfect in its execution, the Founders of our nation sought to make an exception to this ugly part of mankind's history. Unfortunately, at the urging of the American people, we are unwittingly in the process of returning to mankind's normal state of affairs.

Americans demand that Congress spend trillions of dollars on farm subsidies, business bailouts, education subsidies, Social Security, Medicare and prescription drugs and other elements of a welfare state. The problem is that Congress produces nothing. Whatever Congress wishes to give, it first has to take other people's money. Thus, at the root of the welfare state is the immorality of intimidation, threats and coercion backed up with the threat of violence by the agents of the U.S. Congress. In order for Congress to do what some Americans deem as good, it must first do evil. It must do that which if done privately would mean a jail sentence; namely, take the property of one American to give to another.

According to a Washington Post article (June 22, 2005), there were nearly 35,000 highly paid registered lobbyists in Washington in 2004 who spent $2.1 billion lobbying the White House, Congress and various agencies on behalf of various interest groups. Political action committees, private donors and companies give billions of dollars to political campaigns. My question to you: Do you think that these people are spending billions of dollars to assist presidents and congressmen to better perform their sworn oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution? If you do, you're a fine candidate for a straitjacket. For the most part, the money is being spent to get politicians and government officials to use their coercive power to create a favor or special privilege for one American at the expense of some other American.

If we Americans didn't give Washington such enormous control over our lives, I doubt whether there would be 10 percent of the money currently spent on lobbying and campaign contributions

. This enormous control that Congress has over our lives also goes a long way toward explaining much of the government corruption that we see in Washington.

If the average American were asked whether he wishes to return to mankind's normal state of affairs featured by arbitrary abuse, control and government dictates, I am sure he would find such a suggestion repulsive. But if you were to ask, say, the average senior citizen whether Social Security, Medicare and prescription drug subsidies should be continued, he would probably answer yes. The same would be true if you asked a college professor whether higher education should continue to be subsidized, or a farmer or a dairyman whether their products should be subsidized, or a manufacturer whether there should be tariffs and quotas on foreign products that compete with his product. The problem with congressmen producing favors and privileges to all interest groups is that it creates what none of us wants: massive control, numerous dictates and micromanagement of our lives.

There is no question that if one were to ask whether we Americans are moving toward more liberty or more government control over our lives, the answer would unambiguously be the latter – more government control over our lives. We might have reached a point where the trend is irreversible, and that is a true tragedy for if liberty is lost in America, it will be lost for all times and all places.

____

See also: Tyranny That Will Lead Us To War ...CIVIL WAR !

This Is Your Last Election - America is Finished...almost (but the mortician is standing by)

" The Assembly will appoint...! "

(Assembly = The United Nations)

_______

Also in the works...

The previously announced time frame is the year 2010.

___

Other Factions

Operating in secret, SPP working groups are efficiently laying the groundwork for the destruction of the United States of America as an independent, sovereign nation. Once the North American Union is in place, we will then have to compromise our very unique nation of protected freedoms with the socialist nations of Mexico and Canada, where property rights, justice, economics and natural rights are not necessarily recognized. Government decides.

"The SPP is an invasion of our culture and our economy. It’s about the redistribution of American wealth and industry. It will represent the end of over 250 years of an historic experiment in freedom – unless Americans across the nation say no – now."

_______________________

There Is No UNITED States!

Posted By J.D. Longstreet On October 30, 2008 @ 11:05 am

There is a thread of fear running through the right side of the political spectrum in America. It is so real you can taste it. You can see it in the eyes of conservatives. You can hear it in their voices and you can even physically hear it when it is whispered into your ear. I will quickly add… it is fear mixed with resignation. Conservatives speak of it only in whispers. The left doesn’t speak of it at all because they are completely clueless about it.

Our fellow Americans, (on the left side of the American political spectrum) have mistakenly read the Right’s current state of mind as “fear of losing the election.” They could not be more wrong. It is not fear of losing the election. It is, however, fear of losing our country and the growing resignation that It is already too late to stop the sprint toward an inevitable conflict between citizens of what used to be the greatest country on the planet.

Yes, this IS a horrible thing to contemplate. Our forefathers in 1776 didn’t want it. Our ancestors in 1861 didn’t want it and we don’t want it. Nevertheless, the threat is there, standing just out of the light… but… just barely inside the shadows of our consciousness. The threat is visible to those who WANT to see it. The old expression “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” certainly applies to any who will not see that America is headed toward an internal conflict unlike anything this nation has seen since the 19th century.

For decades now a wedge has been driven deeper and deeper through the heart of what was a United America. We are no longer united. The UNITED states do not exist… except in poetry, verse, song, creeds, pledges, and in the imagination of those people who inhabit a “dream world” far above the plain upon which you and I dwell.

In reality, Americans are split asunder… cleft in twain by the cleaver of socialism. The election of a socialist President will complete the great divide of America and render us truly TWO nations. No hope for unity will exist. We will be constantly at each other’s throats, constantly in over-heated debate scratching and clawing at each other until the inevitable happens.

I’m over reacting… right? You’d better hope so! Just to reassure yourselves that I am a nut, check your encyclopedia for the history of this nation from about 1820 through 1865… then tell me you do not see the parallels. You see, for those of us who have paid more than passing attention to the actual history of this country, what is happening today in America is akin to the replay of a very old movie. A story that does not have a happy ending, but instead, flashes, “to be continued” at the end of the last reel.

If you have been harboring thoughts that the American Left and the American Right will ever be able to reconcile and become one vast, single, goal-oriented electorate, allow me to disabuse you of that hallucinatory conception. No, the two are so totally different in their philosophies of life and politics… and even religion, that there is absolutely no hope of ever putting aside those differences and “coming together”. It just isn’t going to happen. The divide grows wider every day.

There was a time when I felt that I would not live to see the next civil war in America but I must say that at the speed comity is dissolving in American I may yet live to see the opening volleys.

The question is… how much longer will the Right restrain itself? The socialist government, we are likely to have after the election, may snap the leash.

The Right’s patience is nearly spent. This very election could well be the last election held under the false claim implied by the current name of the country, “The United States of America.” We are decidedly split into two camps. The socialists are on the left, and on the right, those who want to preserve democracy. The line has been drawn.

Let’s face it: The Left covets a socialist regime in America and they will stop at nothing, as we now know, to get it. The right wants to save the country and the constitution The Founders of this country gave us. To the left, the constitution is simply an impediment. It is in their way and they are forever looking for ways around it. Their henchmen on the Supreme Court find all sorts of things in the constitution that aren’t there. They claim it is a “living document” which it isn’t. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution, was intended to restrain the federal government’s power. Unrestrained government is, for all intents and purposes, the creed of the political Left. Many on the Right fear that in the event of a future national emergency a leftists/socialist government might find it “necessary” to suspend the constitution and, possibly, national elections. There goes democracy.

I voted earlier this week. I voted for a true conservative for President. If this is to be the last election I take part in I wanted to mark my ballot in support of the idea of a democratic representative republic, the kind of government our forefathers gave us. As I stood there, with the ballot in my hands, I had a choice between Karl Marx’s brand of government or that of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and the remainder of that cadre of men who put everything they had, including their very lives, on the line to create this government. I knew I could not sleep at night if I did not support the America for which so many Americans have laid down their lives since 1776.

Crunch time is coming. The Media is telling us that the sale of firearms is at an historical high in this country. I warned of this a few weeks ago. This election will decide if we stay free a few more years, or if we begin the descent into anarchy. I’m afraid it is too much to hope for “UNITED” any longer.
___________
More short notes from my archives. - Norman E. Hooben:

"The Trilateral Commission stated that "The effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups." "...secrecy and deception...are...inescapable attributes of...government." as it tried to "solve" the "crisis" caused by an "excess of democracy" in the 1960s."

The Commission actually states that "democracy is only one way of constituting authority....[and] in many situation the claims of expertise, seniority, experience, and special talents may override the claims of democracy as a way of constituting authority." The Commission concludes that the only way for democracy to work is to encourage apathy and withdrawal from politics by Americans. Only by limiting democratic participation and relying on politicians and experts, the Commission concludes, will democracy work. They even admit that "this marginality on the part of some groups is inherently undemocratic, but it has also been one of the factors which has enabled democracy to function effectively." This is precisely the kind of arrogance that has led the government to create a wall between itself and the American people. If government leaders don't trust the people to shape and control their government and society, we are not a democracy! And if the people don't believe that they can shape and control their government and society, then we're not a democracy!
___
Trends in American Society

1. Higher Divorce rates
2. Increased Pre-marital Sex
3. Fewer women having children
4. Increase in Couples living together
5. Increased Recognition of Homosexual lifestyle
___

North American Union Fact Sheet

Produced and Distributed by the American Policy Center

UPDATED

Summary

The effort is in its infancy, however the Bush Administration has been operating in secret for at least two years to establish what can only be described as a North American Union with Mexico and Canada, along the same lines as the European Union. If that happens it can only mean an eventual end to the U.S. Constitution as our ruling document, replaced instead with a new North American Government. That is what is happening in Europe today.

We believe it can and will eventually lead to the surrender of U.S. sovereignty, independence, and national borders. It will result in the establishment of a North American currency called the “Amero,” as the dollar is junked. The U.S. will provide the army for defense. Gone will be U.S. citizenship. Gone will be any kind of border control between the three nations of North America. Plans are well underway to establish a NAFTA Super Highway, to be the width of eight football fields. It will run from Mexico to Canada, running through the middle of the

United States. No direct inspections will be enforced as trucks from Mexico and Canada drive through this nation. Only electronic

scanning will be used on the trucks. Kansas City, MO has been tapped to serve as an “inland port” to handle imports and exports among the three nations.___

Operating quietly, Kansas City has already designated $2.5 million of its taxpayer’s money to establish the port. Now, the Mexican government is demanding that it have its own inspection site in Kansas City to inspect its own trucks. It also is demanding that the land its port will sit on will officially become Mexican sovereign territory.

The official effort began on March 23, 2005, after a summit, held in Waco, TX. It was attended by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and (then) Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. The three leaders announced the signing of an agreement to create common policies concerning various economic and security areas among the three nations.

For obvious cover of official deniability, the term “North American Union” is not being used. Instead, the

agreement officially authorized twenty tri-national “working groups” to establish the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (SPP). The concept is being sold as simply a new framework within which the member nations can create free trade and security within the North American continent.

However, based on working documents, the intent to create the North American Union is impossible to hide. The trilateral agreement, signed as a joint declaration, has not been submitted to Congress for review. There is no congressional oversight.

Security and Prosperity

Partnership (SPP)

The joint statement on the SPP, issued on March, 23, 2005 described it as an initiative to: “…establish a common

approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the security and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our shared borders.” The working groups are now laying the foundation for a European Union-style integration of the North American continent.

The White House has established the SPP office in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) office in the U.S. Department of Commerce, where it has worked in virtual secrecy for two years. As the process proceeds, the SPP groups have not released public reports on their activities.

Over the past two years, at least 20 SPP working groups have produced a number of memorandums of understanding and tre-lateral declarations of agreement. These agreements cover a wide variety of issues including, energy, transportation, financial services (including loan and foreign aid policy), communications, technology, environmental policy, rules under whic businesses will operate, food and agriculture policy, health policy, e-commerce, aviation policy, border and immigration policy, and the means for multiple governmental agencies to interact. They may be viewed on the Internat at http://www.spp.gov/ .

The Bush Administration has denied that the SPP is operating in secret. Yet it has not released the names of those in the working groups. Meanwhile, officials of the three nations quietly met in Alberta, Canada September

12 – 14, 2006. Former Secretary of State George Shultz was a joint chairman of the meeting with his counterparts from Mexico and Canada. Also in active attendance were Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield, Admiral Tim Keating, Commander of NORAD, and Robert Pastor, a key advocate of the creation of a North American Union. Discussions at the conference included “A Vision for North America,” “Toward a North American Energy Strategy, and “Demographic and Social Dimensions of

North American Integration.” It is also important to note that the Bush Administration has denied that the President ever signed an agreement with Canada and Mexico.

The Administration has established a “Myths and Facts” section to the Security and Prosperity Partnership web page in an attempt to counter arguments of those now exposing the SPP. The site blatantly says, “The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.” However,

according to a report on the SPP written by Former Canadian Prime Minster Paul Martin, one of the three heads of state involved in the March 23, 2005 meeting with Bush and Fox, writes “Thus, on March 23, President Bush, President Fox and I signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America…” The full report by Mr. Martin may be read on the Internet at http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/ips/ips-overview2-en.aspx .

Why is the Bush Administration lying about this fact? The obvious answer is because they are doing this without congressional approval and it is therefore illegal.

January 2007

Council on Foreign

Relations Blue Print

Many SPP working groups appear to be driving toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May, 2005 Council on Foreign Relations(CFR) task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American Union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.

The CFR report is entitled “Building a North American Community,” and is essentially a five year plan for implementing the North American Union. It may be viewed at the CFR Internet web sight at www.cfr.org.

A member of the CFR taskforce, Dr. Robert Pastor, wrote a book, published in 2001, titled “Toward a North American Commission.” The CFR taskforce report and the official SPP agreement carry almost identical language as the Pastor’s book. Though the Bush Administration denies a connection to Dr. Pastor’s book or to the CFR’s report, Dr. Pastor has represented the United States in SPP meetings, including (as mentioned above) the recent meeting in Alberta, Canada.

The book, the CFR task force and the SPP agreement call for the establishment of a North American Competitiveness Council

to pull in the private sector to the SPP process. In addition, all three call for the establishment of a “North American Advisory

Council,” which is to be an “independent body of advisors,” composed of “eminent persons from outside the government.”

In 2002, Dr. Pastor addressed the Trilateral Commission, calling for the establishment of a North American Investment Fund that would supplement World Bank funds expended in a trilateral effort to develop Mexico economically. The May, 2005 CFR report called for the same fund. Efforts are now underway in the SPP to officially establish the fund.

The CFR Task Force calls for the “creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March, 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders (of the three nations) that ‘our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.’ Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within the movement of people, products and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe.”

To those ends, the CFR report called for establishment of a common security border perimeter around North America by 2010, along with free movement of people, commerce and capital to be facilitated by the establishment of a North American Border Pass that would replace a U.S. passport for travel between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

____

United Nations Will Rule With Impunity

SUBSECTION G. LEGAL STATUS, PRIVILEGES AND

IMMUNITIES

Article 176

Legal status

The Authority shall have international legal personality and such legal

capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the

fulfilment of its purposes.

Article 177

Privileges and immunities

To enable the Authority to exercise its functions, it shall enjoy in the

territory of each State Party the privileges and immunities set forth in this

subsection. The privileges and immunities relating to the Enterprise shall be

those set forth in Annex IV, article 13.

Article 178

Immunity from legal process

The Authority, its property and assets, shall enjoy immunity from legal

process except to the extent that the Authority expressly waives this immunity

in a particular case.

Article 179

Immunity from search and any form of seizure

The property and assets of the Authority, wherever located and by

whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation,

expropriation or any other form of seizure by executive or legislative action.

Article 180

Exemption from restrictions, regulations, controls and moratoria

The property and assets of the Authority shall be exempt from

restrictions, regulations, controls and moratoria of any nature.

Article 181

Archives and official communications of the Authority

1. The archives of the Authority, wherever located, shall be inviolable.

2. Proprietary data, industrial secrets or similar information and

personnel records shall not be placed in archives which are open to public

inspection.

3. With regard to its official communications, the Authority shall be

accorded by each State Party treatment no less favourable than that accorded

by that State to other international organizations.

Article 182

Privileges and immunities of certain persons connected with the Authority

Representatives of States Parties attending meetings of the Assembly, the

Council or organs of the Assembly or the Council, and the Secretary-General

and staff of the Authority, shall enjoy in the territory of each State Party:

(a) immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them

in the exercise of their functions, except to the extent that the State

which they represent or the Authority, as appropriate, expressly

waives this immunity in a particular case;

(b) if they are not nationals of that State Party, the same exemptions

from immigration restrictions, alien registration requirements and

national service obligations, the same facilities as regards exchange

restrictions and the same treatment in respect of travelling facilities

as are accorded by that State to the representatives, officials and

employees of comparable rank of other States Parties.

Article 183

Exemption from taxes and customs duties

1. Within the scope of its official activities, the Authority, its assets and

property, its income, and its operations and transactions, authorized by this

97

Convention, shall be exempt from all direct taxation and goods imported or

exported for its official use shall be exempt from all customs duties. The

Authority shall not claim exemption from taxes which are no more than

charges for services rendered.

2. When purchases of goods or services of substantial value necessary

for the official activities of the Authority are made by or on behalf of the

Authority, and when the price of such goods or services includes taxes or

duties, appropriate measures shall, to the extent practicable, be taken by

States Parties to grant exemption from such taxes or duties or provide for

their reimbursement. Goods imported or purchased under an exemption

provided for in this article shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of in the

territory of the State Party which granted the exemption, except under

conditions agreed with that State Party.

3. No tax shall be levied by States Parties on or in respect of salaries

and emoluments paid or any other form of payment made by the Authority to

the Secretary-General and staff of the Authority, as well as experts

performing missions for the Authority, who are not their nationals.

Article144
Transfer of technology
1. The Authority shall take measures in accordance with this Convention:
(a) to acquire technology and scientific knowledge relating to activities in the Area; and
(b) to promote and encourage the transfer to developing States of such technology and scientific knowledge so that all States Parties benefit there from. (Note: This means if you or any other American invents or devolopes any new product or technical innovation that you must share it with the rest of the world...you don't own your own work!)

...and there's so much more your government is hiding from you!

Before you read the rest...

"China possess a minimum of 30 intercontinental ballistic missiles—most of them aimed at the U.S"

"I will cut investments in unproven missle defense systems." - Barrack Obama

"The Chinese are building and testing more than one ballistic missile per week."

"I will slow our development of future combat systems." - Barrack Obma

Before you read the rest...

Go Here

http://usawakeup.org/civilizationcalls.htm

Brian T. Kennedy
President, The Claremont Institute

Ballistic Missile Defense is Not Yet Reality
BRIAN T. KENNEDY is president of the Claremont Institute, publisher of the Claremont Review of Books, and director of the Institute’s Ballistic Missile Defense Project. He has written on national security affairs and California public policy issues in National Review and Investor’s Business Daily. He also sits on the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, whose most recent report can be found at www.missilethreat.com.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on May 20, 2008, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in New York City.

IN THE COURSE of fighting a global war against Islamic terrorism, a gross strategic failure has occurred: The United States has not fully prepared itself against a ballistic missile attack. To be sure, the U.S. today possesses—after seven-and-one-half years of the Bush administration—a very limited missile defense system consisting of a small number of ground-based interceptors; and soon it will have more capability, when a limited sea-based system comes online. But President Bush will leave office in January with the nation still essentially undefended against Russian, Chinese, or ship-launched terrorist missile attacks. Although Mr. Bush has accomplished more in this area than his predecessors, including Ronald Reagan, this failure is unacceptable.

Nowhere is it written that America is invincible. Yet the threat of nuclear attack has somehow seeped out of our consciousness. Because it didn’t happen during the Cold War, perhaps we presume it never will. But Islamic terrorists did fly planes into our buildings, and
if they obtain nuclear weapons, they will not shrink from using them on us. Nor do they pose the only threat to America of nuclear attack or nuclear blackmail.

Let us examine the three countries that present the greatest challenge to U.S. interests and security.

Russia, China, and Iran
Although we very much want Russia to become a peaceful member of the community of nations, recent events in Georgia suggest that this is unlikely anytime soon. Mr. Putin and Mr. Bush may seem to enjoy a warm relationship, but Russia will continue to seek what its rulers believe is in its interest. Sometimes this will coincide with the interests of the West, but sometimes it will not. In either case, we should make no mistake: Russia is proceeding to modernize its military and its ability to influence world events.

In 2005, President Putin announced that Russia was developing a new ballistic missile. The prototype of a new hypersonic vehicle, he said, had proved its ability to maneuver while in orbit, thereby enabling it to dodge an enemy’s missile shield. Russia clearly believed that the U.S. would build missile defense systems, and has taken steps to build weapons to negate them. With thousands of nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles, Russia remains a most serious threat to U.S. security.

Nor did our victory in the Cold War entail the disarming or reorganization of communist China—which, in fact, has over two million men under arms. And although China’s navy and air force are not as sophisticated as Russia’s, they still possess a minimum of 30 intercontinental ballistic missiles—most of them aimed at the U.S.—and hundreds of short and medium range nuclear missiles for use in an Asian theater of combat. Today, in an unprecedented build-up that has even liberal policy analysts concerned, the Chinese are building and testing more than one ballistic missile per week.

Furthermore, China’s military thinking is openly anti-American. Its military journals write candidly about unrestricted warfare using a combination of traditional military power, cyber warfare, economic warfare, nuclear warfare, and terrorism. China is also working to develop a space-based military capability and is investing in launch vehicles that include manned spaceflight, a space station, and extensive anti-satellite weaponry meant to negate U.S. global satellite coverage (the latter was successfully tested last year).

Both the Russians and the Chinese know that the only nation that can limit their influence is the U.S. Thus they seek to limit our influence on the world stage, and will undertake whatever policies serve that end.

Meanwhile, the goal of radical Islam is the conversion, subjugation, or destruction of the infidel peoples—first and foremost the citizens of the U.S., Western Europe, and Israel. Even after 9/11, we appear not to take that threat seriously. But Islam is not fragile. It has survived for over a thousand years, and has controlled at various times much of what we know as the civilized world. Even more worrisome, today its determination is matched with modern weaponry and it enjoys alliances with powerful non-Islamic powers.

Consider Iran. President Ahmadinejad and his Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have control of key strategic parts of the Iranian government, and the IRGC is capable of operating as a terrorist training unit both inside and outside of Iran (witness Iran’s support of Hezbollah in Lebanon and its backing of lethal attacks on Americans in Iraq). For the past decade, Iran—with the assistance of Russia, China, and North Korea—has been developing missile technology. It is believed that the Iranians have produced hundreds of Shahab-3 missiles. This is not the most sophisticated missile in the world, but it is capable of carrying a payload to Israel or—if launched from a ship—to an American city.

The current controversy over Iran’s nuclear production is really about whether it can produce an industrial infrastructure that would be capable of producing nuclear warheads. It has sought nuclear capability since the time of the Shah, as most nations do, since nuclear weapons bestow on a country great military and political power. Even a fully democratic and pro-western Iran would want such weapons.

Mr. Ahmadinejad said in 2005: “Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved.” What about this do we not get?

Consider this scenario: An ordinary-looking freighter ship heading toward New York City or Los Angeles launches a missile from its hull or from a canister lowered into the sea. The missile hits a densely populated area and a million people are incinerated. The ship is sunk and no one claims responsibility. There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counterstrike.

But as terrible as that scenario sounds, consider a second one: Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and it explodes 300 miles over Chicago, creating an electromagnetic pulse. Gamma rays scatter in what is called the Compton effect, and three separate pulses disable consumer electronics, some automobiles, and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication. This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back into the early nineteenth century. Perhaps hundreds of millions of us will die from lack of food and water and as a result of social breakdown.

Opponents of missile defense call such scenarios far fetched, on the basis that the U.S. would launch a nuclear attack against whatever nation attacks us. That is, they continue to rely on the doctrine of mutually-assured destruction that our leaders prior to Reagan relied on during the Cold War. But in my scenarios, we would not know who attacked us, so that doctrine is no help. And in any case, even if Iran could be identified as the attacker, who is to say that it wouldn’t gladly sacrifice itself to destroy the Great Satan? As the Ayatollah Khomeini said in 1979, during the American hostage crisis: “I say let [Iran] go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the world.”

I do not use the word “destroy” lightly: An EMP attack on the U.S. would mean the end of American civilization, and dropping nuclear weapons on or retaliating against whoever caused the attack will not bring our civilization back. Nor is this science fiction. Twice, in the Caspian Sea, the Iranians have tested their ability to launch ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP. And the congressionally-mandated EMP Commission, including some of America’s finest scientists, has released its findings and issued two separate reports, the most recent in July, describing the effects of such an attack on the U.S.

What to Do
The only solution to this problem is the building of a robust, multi-layered missile defense system. Our land-based system in Alaska and California will go far toward stopping a North Korean missile launched at the U.S. But it has very limited capabilities. It will not defend us against an EMP attack of the kind I have described.

The most effective form of missile defense is from space, using space-based interceptors that destroy an enemy warhead in its ascent phase when it is easily identifiable, slower, and has not yet deployed decoys. We know this can work from tests conducted in the early 1990s. We have the technology. What we lack is the political will to make it a reality.

Despite the growing Iranian, Chinese, and Russian arsenals, it is said we are postponing serious missile defense because we must win the war on terror first, as if we cannot do both simultaneously. It is also said that we need the help of Russia and China in the war on terrorism, and that such help will not be forthcoming if we build a missile defense. But the Iranian threat makes such concerns meaningless, and it should be our national policy to defend ourselves from the Russian and Chinese arsenals in any event. In the nuclear age, one does not have the luxury—if one could call it that—of a Pearl Harbor, after which we were able to regroup and rebuild and fight on to victory.

In the face of the threat of an EMP attack, the time for missile defense is now. Our enemies should understand that we will defend our freedom at any cost. In the words of Ronald Reagan, who put America on the road to missile defense: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”

Source http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=09Further reading (Understanding Iran) http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=10

Click Picture

click The Threat Is Real

Obama's Rise To Power - Where have we seen this before?

Go ahead and take the time to see all the similarities...

I dare ya!

Read the sub-titles...

Sound familiar?

Now that you have thoroughly studied the video answer the one and only question, "What followed Hitler's rise to power?"

You know the answer. Don't you!

Tyranny That Will Lead Us To War ...CIVIL WAR !

Guess who has taken your rights away? Guess who does not have to obey the law?
More questions below commentary...with the correct answer!

Court Rules Citizens Do NOT Have Standing to Sue to Enforce the Constitution

Note from Norm: Hey! Did you read that headline? "Ya better read it again!"

In a disturbing case with ominous implications for our democratic rights, U.S. Judge R. Barclay Surrick granted a motion by Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee to dismiss a challenge to Obama's constitutional qualifications to run for President on grounds that a mere citizen does not have legal standing to sue.

Philip Berg, a Democrat and former Assistant Attorney General for Pennsylvania, brought suit alleging that under the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Obama is ineligible to be President.

Judge Surrick states that citizens may not sue to enforce the Constitution without statutory authorization from Congress.

That concept would result in tyranny.

In American Thinker, Mark Fitzgibbons writes a legal critique of Judge Surrick's ruling at

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_enforces_the_constitutions.html

____

Who thought she would not get caught?

Who are all these people? The not so surprising answer is, "They are all Liberals." and they are all destroying your country.

Next question...

Would it not be better to destroy a PARTY than destroy a COUNTRY ?

It's your turn to answer!