Freedom First Society

Senator William Jenner — One Who Spoke Out

One Who Spoke Out

We do not have the space here to build a solid case for our claims of Conspiracy. However, to give them some credibility, we point to remarks by the late Senator William Jenner from Indiana. What gave Jenner particular authority to warn of organized subversion was his position in the early fifties as chairman of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.

WilliamJenner The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (killed by the Left in 1977) had been investigating subversive influences (most notably Soviet-allied Communist) that had gained a foothold in our government and political system, particularly while we were allies of the Soviets during World War II.

On February 23, 1954, Senator William Jenner addressed the Senate with a warning:

“Today the path to total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people….

“Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite which believes our Constitution is outmoded and is sure that it is the winning side….

“All the strange developments in foreign policy agreements may be traced to this group who are going to make us over to suit their pleasure….

“This political action group has its own local political support organizations, its own pressure groups, its own vested interests, its foothold within our government, and its own propaganda apparatus.”

And there have been many others familiar with different parts of this Conspiracy.

Professor Carroll Quigley

In his monumental 1966 work, entitled Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, wrote:

“There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network…. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records.”

Dan Smoot

One of the earliest explanations to really hit the mark appeared in a groundbreaking 1962 book, The Invisible Government, authored by the late Dan Smoot. Dan Smoot was a courageous former FBI agent, who undoubtedly became the first outsider to raise widespread alarm over the influence of a then little known organization — the Council on Foreign Relations. In addition to writing The Invisible Government, Smoot carried his warnings to an American audience via the Dan Smoot Report — a syndicated 15-minute weekly television broadcast (also a newsletter).

But Smoot was ahead of his time, and times were good. Too few Americans took his warning of well entrenched subversion seriously. Yet with the passing of almost half a century, the damage to our system from the invisible government Smoot described has neared the breaking point.

In the intervening years, several researcher-authors tried to carry the story to the American public. Some of those sounding the alarm, such as Admiral Chester Ward and former U.S. Ambassador and Assistant Secretary of State Spruille Braden, could speak from first-hand inside experience. Yet again, too few Americans heard the evidence directly, and fewer still were willing to give the message serious attention and do what was necessary to stop the subversion.

Today, however, as our nation’s health visibly evaporates, a great number of concerned Americans are willing to seek answers outside of television news and network documentaries. Our plan with this campaign is to show concerned Americans what is really behind America’s “missteps” and how they can help to avert disaster.

UN Treaty Deception

For America to survive and prosper as a free and independent republic, she must have help to overcome massive deception. UN Treaties have always been the subject of such deception. In this report, we look at the deceptions visited on Americans by supporters as well as by soft “opponents” of the Law of the Sea Treaty.

A few months ago, the Obama administration launched a new push for Senate ratification of the long-stalled treaty. The Obama push has been aided by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and an obviously Insider-orchestrated campaign.

Early on, Senator Kerry announced he would defer consideration of the unpopular LOST by the full Senate until a lame duck session following the November elections — a devious tactic. Lame ducks have often been used to stampede unpopular internationalist schemes through Congress when retired, retiring, and returning congressmen are less sensitive to the voters.

However, since Kerry began a series of Senate hearings allowing a variety of seemingly uncoordinated voices to urge support for the treaty, 34 GOP senators have joined Senator Jim DeMint (R – S.C.) in announcing their opposition to the UN treaty (via an open letter to Senator Harry Reid). If these 34 hold firmthen the Senate could not muster the two-thirds vote required to approve the treaty.

When the GOP opposition reached the 34-vote threshold, Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth responded:

“No letter or whip count changes the fact that rock-ribbed Republican businesses and the military and every living Republican Secretary of State say that this needs to happen, and that’s why it’s a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’ for the Law of the Sea.”

Unfortunately, unless opposition to this internationalist scheme becomes more than defense, Seth is right. Following Napoleon’s maxim that the purely defensive is doomed to defeat, the opposition will ultimately succumb to determined Insider pressure and deception.

Short History of the Treaty

“Negotiations” for the United Nation’s Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) were completed in 1982. By 1993, a sufficient number of nations had accepted the treaty for it to go into effect a year later. As one result, the International Seabed Authority was established in 1994. (Also in 1994, prompted by U.S. objections, some changes to the treaty were approved by some of the signatories.) To date, 162 countries plus the European Community have bought into the Convention.

Despite the Convention’s acceptance by so many countries, U.S. proponents have never mustered sufficient support in the Senate.

Stepped-up Orchestration of Support

A new wave of Insider orchestration has been evident in the latest drive to convince senators to ratify the treaty. Favorable testimony by administration officials as well as politicized military chiefs was to be expected.

However, the Democratic push was aided by a May 31st op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. All five living GOP former secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker III, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice, declared that it was “Time to Join the Law of the Sea Treaty.”

More significant than their common GOP affiliation is the fact that each in turn had headed up the pre-eminent CFR-controlled department of the federal government, and all except CFR veteran Henry Kissinger are current members of the CFR. Their endorsement of this internationalist power grab is reminiscent of the prominent public advocacy of NAFTA by CFR-heavyweight Kissinger and former CFR chairman David Rockefeller during the months leading up to congressional approval.

But a new twist to the renewed LOST drive was added — a push to convince the public and Congress that “business interests” were anxious to see the U.S. ratify the treaty and that substantial American jobs were at stake.

An age-old tactic of revolutionaries is to create the illusion of mass support to pressure legislators, making it difficult for them to oppose these “popular” demands. And that is what we are likely dealing with here — “illusion.” The Insiders have long worked to organize top echelons of the corporate world to represent the “business community.”

In a preface to the 1987 Patterns of Corporate Philanthropy: Public Affairs Giving and the Forbes 100, future Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld refuted the myth that big-business is conservative: “Seven out of ten public affairs dollars from the top 25 corporate contributors support establishment liberal — and some support even outright radical — causes.”

Two of the more vocal supporters of the treaty at the hearings were Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam and U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas J. Donohue. Note, however, that both Verizon and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are corporate members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Moreover, the Establishment media united in suggesting that the American “business community” was desperately calling for the treaty as a means to protect American investment in tapping ocean resources.

However, in a 2006 paper exposing the flaws in the treaty, law professor Jeremy Rabkin opined: “It remains a fair question whether a complex U.N. regulatory bureaucracy—especially one that counts international wealth redistribution as one of its functions—is a reassuring presence for investors.”

Any UN treaty is bad!

Perhaps the greatest deception of all with respect to LOST is the United Nations itself. The UN is not a democracy of free nations, but a steppingstone to a world government power grab by internationalists who effectively control the UN. Rejecting this internationalist milestone is an essential step toward preserving our Republic.

Accordingly, no treaty that enhances the authority of the UN is acceptable. And politicians who merely claim to be “uneasy” about a UN treaty, see reasons for “caution,” or are continuing to “study” it cannot lead us to safety.

The internationalist power grab with this particular treaty, and several specific reasons why it should be opposed have been amply identified in the past, which is why the treaty has never made it through the senate. For example, in 2004, J. William Middendorf, former secretary of the Navy during the Nixon-Ford administrations, testified that ratification of the treaty would constitute “a potential turning point for the U.S. in the history of international relations.”

Middendorf further warned that the treaty would be “a step in the direction of international taxing authority” and posed “unnecessary risks to national security.” The step toward “international taxing authority” should alarm Americans. One of the huge steps internationalists envision for expanding the authority of the UN is to provide it with its own independent revenue stream, so it will not be dependent on the good will of member nations.

Beware of False Friends

In June, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in opposition to the treaty. He also penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal entitled “Why the UN Shouldn’t Own the Seas” (WSJ 6-12-12). Although Rumsfeld identified several good reasons why the treaty should be rejected, conservatives should be wary of embracing Rumsfeld as their champion.

In 1969, President Nixon selected Donald Rumsfeld to head up the scandal-ridden Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) — the federal “poverty” agency. During his campaign, Nixon had typically promised to abolish the OEO. But, according to the Washington Post (6-13-69): “Donald Rumsfeld, far from presiding over the liquidation of the Office of Economic Opportunity, has moved in his first 18 days on the job to revive it as the dominant innovative force on most aspects of domestic policy.”

Three decades later, when President George W. Bush selected Donald Rumsfeld as his secretary of defense, former Reagan-aide Jude Wanniski expressed his delight over the choice in a World Net Daily article (1-3-2001):

“The young Rumsfeld became one of the Young Turks of 1965, determined to reform the party. The group included Jerry Ford, Melvin Laird and other ‘moderates.’… They only would be a little more conservative than the liberal Democrats of the LBJ era, who were committed to Big Government to solve all economic and social ills…. They would give the people what the people seemed to want, i.e., a well-managed Big Government.”

Although Rumsfeld’s tenure as an explicit CFR member would be limited (1974-1980), during his second stint as secretary of defense (under President George W. Bush) he would have as his deputy secretary CFR-veteran Paul Wolfowitz. In 2005, Wolfowitz left his defense post to head up the UN-affiliated World Bank.

Perhaps Dick Cheney provides an even better warning regarding the Rumsfeld influence. Cheney tied his early career to Rumsfeld during the Nixon administration. Cheney subsequently posed as a “conservative” congressman from Wyoming, while accepting CFR membership and, in 1988, would serve on the CFR’s Board of Directors.

Conservatives need to become more sophisticated at recognizing Establishment-boosted conservative leaders (like a William F. Buckley, Jr.). They also need to understand the deceptive Insider tactic of controlling the opposition, when opposition to revolutionary plans is to be expected.

The Establishment did not let the Rumsfeld opposition to LOST go unanswered. In a subsequent Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Conservatives and the Law of the Sea Time Warp,”op-ed, John Norton Moore took polite exception:

“The former defense secretary seemed to be in a time warp, harking back to his mission of 30 years ago during the Reagan presidency, completely dismissing the treaty’s 1994 renegotiation….

“All of the Reagan conditions for Part XI were met in a 1994 renegotiation. President Clinton submitted the treaty to the Senate, acknowledging that it met all U.S. objectives….

“The treaty, favorably reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2004 and 2007, was on President Bush’s priority list but has never been put to a vote. It is now once again before the Senate, with overwhelming support from military and business leaders, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Financial Services Roundtable….

“Mr. Rumsfeld’s mission for President Reagan was a service to the nation. His time-warp testimony, however, does a disservice to a remarkable treaty that expands U.S. sovereign rights, powerfully serves U.S. needs for the Navy and the Coast Guard, and provides American industry with the security necessary to generate jobs and growth.

“Mr. Moore … served in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, including serving as U.S. ambassador for the Law of the Sea.”

What readers of the Journal’s op-ed were not told, however, was that John Norton Moore was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Recommended action:

• Read and share Masters of Deception: The Rise of the Council on Foreign Relations by G. Vance Smith and Tom Gow.

• Write your two U.S. senators in opposition to the UN’s “Law of the Sea” power grab. See our website News posting for a list of senators who have announced their opposition to LOST.

Don’t Let Down Your Guard

“UPDATED: 34 Senators Oppose Law of the Sea Treaty,” — Jim’s (Senator Jim DeMint) Blog, July 11, 2012

FFS: With the total number of senators who have publicly announced their opposition to the Law of the Sea Treaty hitting the threshold necessary to block ratification, news stories are widely announcing that LOST is dead for this session. But don’t be too sure.

Proponents have massive political clout at their disposal, including major corporate pressures, and the possibility of senators changing their position in December exists.

(Moreover, the internationalist architects and supporters of this UN power grab will certainly bring it up again, so more work is necessary to build informed public opposition.)

Recommended Action: Keep the pressure on your two U.S. Senators to oppose the treaty. Use the above link to discern which senators have announced opposition to the treaty. Also, read and share Masters of Deception to build informed opposition to the internationalist agenda.

Beware of Lame Duck!

“Despite Push, Sea Treaty Likely for Lame Duck” — CQ Today Online News, 5-22-12

FFS: A priority of the Obama administration (and internationalists in both parties) is to have the United States agree to the extremely dangerous “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” (UNCLOS). Opposition in the Senate has for decades prevented the subversive1982 treaty from coming up for a vote (a two-thirds vote is needed for ratification).

However, the latest strategy of the treaty’s supporters, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), is to wait until after the November elections and bring the matter up in a lame duck session, when lame duck and surviving senators are more susceptible to internationalist pressure.

As one indication of the renewed Insider push to entangle the U.S. in this further step toward UN-administered world government, we point to a recent op-ed (“Time to Join the Law of the Sea Treaty”) in the Wall Street Journal by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker III, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice. All of these CFR authors served in the CFR-dominated post of secretary of state during Republican administrations.)

The opposition has cranked up as well. 27 GOP Senators have signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promising to oppose the treaty if it comes to the senate floor for ratification. A May 25th article “Opposition to Law of the Sea Treaty heats up” by the Hill contains the full text of the letter and the 27 signers. 34 votes (7 more senators) are needed to block ratification.

Internationalist supporters of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which went into effect in 1994, are advancing clever arguments for ratification, replete with deceptions. The treaty would give the United Nations unprecedented control over more that 70 percent of the earth’s surface. Seldom mentioned is the fact that the treaty is one internationalist strategy for providing the United Nations with its own independent source of revenue — royalties from mining the ocean’s seabeds.

While converting the U.S. to a “green economy” is not the answer to “sustained growth,” as the CFR’s Joseph Stiglitz and Fareed Zakaria would have us believe, there is great opportunity for U.S. technology, ingenuity, and capital to tap the enormous wealth of the seas.

Recommended action: Building sufficient pressure to overcome Insider support for this dangerous treaty requires time, so please get started now. Check the above article to see which senators have already come out in opposition to the treaty. Write your two senators, urging those who have announced their opposition to hang tough and urging the others to oppose the treaty publicly. Likewise inform and mobilize other Americans to register their opposition.

Learning Lessons from California

This past week California Governor Jerry Brown announced that his state is facing a “ballooning” budget deficit of more than $16 billion. In an interview on CBS News, Brown said, “We’re not some tired country of Europe. We’re a buoyant, dynamic society that will both discipline itself on a daily basis but it will on the long-term plant the seeds of future growth.”

What is inscrutably lost on the governor is that the policies that have brought California to the edge of a fiscal cliff are mostly the same ones of those “tired countries of Europe,” which have manifest the same degree of financial discipline that California has practiced.

Many trends, fads, and even governmental policies have originated in the Golden State that has even given rise to a widely accepted aphorism, “As California goes, so goes the nation.” It’s the verity of that truism that makes the state’s financial problems a portent of things to come for the rest of the nation if we fail to learn from their experience.

Joel Kotkin, one of the nation’s premier demographers, has identified the most significant contributing factors to California’s problems. He points out that four million more people have left California in the last two decades than have moved there from other states. This is in sharp contrast with the 1980s when 100,000 more Americans were settling in California each year than were leaving. Most of those leaving are young families.

They’re leaving because they can’t afford to live there. Everything from food, energy and taxes to real estate and housing, are beyond the financial reach of young families. Kotkin points to restrictions and massive regulations on development and housing that have artificially limited housing supply. As he explains, California’s so-called “smart growth” plans literally force middle-class families into less expensive, high-density housing, or out of state.

From his analysis, housing is merely one front of what he refers to as the “progressive war on the middle class.” The high cost of energy has had a dramatic impact on everyone, but especially on the middle class. Policies restricting traditional sources of energy, and state financed advantages granted to green energy producers have resulted in skyrocketing energy costs. The price per kilowatt hour of electricity is nearly twice what it is in Idaho, and more than 50% above the national average, according to Electricchoice.com.

Yet state policy makers are doubling down on green energy and on the restriction to traditional producers, which are expected to make the rates rise even more. For California has enthusiastically embraced cap-and-trade, with AB32, “…which will raise the cost of energy and drive out manufacturing jobs without making even a dent in global carbon emissions. Then there are the renewable portfolio standards, which mandate that a third of the state’s energy come from renewable sources like wind and the sun by 2020,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

Most of these costs are borne by the middle class since those below the poverty level get state assistance and the wealthy can afford it. But the high energy costs drive manufacturing and other blue-collar energy users either out of business or out of the state.

And not only are energy costs much higher, but with two decades worth of policy and tax-advantaged investment in green energy, the promised windfall of jobs has not occurred. Only 2% of the job force in California is in green energy, roughly the same as Texas, which maintains a vastly different green energy policy. Rather, in part due to the higher operating costs in California created by onerous regulation, companies, and their jobs, have been exiting the state. California currently has the third highest unemployment rate in the nation at 10.9%.

The Golden State has significant gas and oil resources, yet policy and regulation preclude utilizing them. An estimated 25 billion barrels of oil are sitting untapped in the vast Monterey and Bakersfield shale deposits. Over the past decade, Texas has created 200,000 oil and gas jobs, while California has hardly added any. The Wall Street Journal pointed out recently, that, “The state’s remaining energy producers have been slowing down as the regulatory environment becomes ever more hostile even as producers elsewhere, including in rustbelt states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, ramp up. The oil and gas jobs the Golden State political class shuns pay around $100,000 a year on average.”

“You see the great tragedy of California is that we have all this oil and gas, we won’t use it,” Mr. Kotkin says. “We have the richest farm land in the world, and we’re trying to strangle it.” The latter point references how water restrictions aimed at protecting the delta smelt fish are endangering Central Valley farmers. Kotkin asserts that is the kind of “anti-human” public policy that is driving agriculture out and is impacting so many of the state’s economic sectors.

Kotkin explains the demographic changes are occurring because of state policy. “Californians are voting much more based on social issues and less on fiscal ones…” Consequently, it’s a much less favorable climate for employers than ever before. “As progressive policies drive out moderate and conservative members of the middle class, California’s politics become even more left-wing. It’s a classic case of natural selection, and increasingly the only ones fit to survive in California are the very rich and those who rely on government spending. In a nutshell, ‘the state is run for the very rich, the very poor, and the public employees,’” Kotkin explained recently to the Wall Street Journal.

Middle-class families are fleeing California in droves. As a result, California is turning into a two-and-a-half-class society. On top are the “entrenched incumbents” who inherited their wealth or came to California early and made their money, and the self-made technology millionaires. Then there’s a shrunken middle class of public employees and, miles below, a permanent welfare class. As it stands today, about 40% of Californians don’t pay any income tax and a quarter are on Medicaid. It’s “a very scary political dynamic,” Kotkin laments.

Meanwhile, taxes are decimating the private sector economy. According to the Tax Foundation, California has the 48th-worst business tax climate. “The wealthy pay a top rate of 10.3%, the third-highest in the country, while middle-class workers—those who earn more than $48,000—pay a top rate of 9.3%, which is higher than what millionaires pay in 47 states. And state leaders want to raise tax rates even more,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

The reason taxes have been increasing to now unsustainable levels, is that Sacramento has been unable to curtail spending. State spending has more than doubled in the past ten years. Costs for state pensions have increased by over 150% in the same time period, as demands from state employee unions have required a greater percentage of the budget. Unable to muster the discipline to reduce spending to match economic realities, the only tool the state seems to know how to use is tax increases.

The lessons from California are many, and this analysis only scratches the surface. The question is, will we as a nation learn them before or after we’re in the same malaise?

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is a regular contributor to the Idaho State Journal. He is also President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at [email protected].

Export-Import Bank Renewed

“The House voted Wednesday [May 9, 2012] to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank [H.R. 2072] for another three years, permitting the agency to continue providing hundreds of millions of dollars in trade assistance to U.S. firms….

“All 183 Democrats voted for the bill, along with 147 Republicans, but 93 GOP lawmakers voted against it.”
— “Export-Import Bank reauthorized by House; Senate expected to act soon,” Washington Post (online) 5-9-2012

FFS: Similarly, on May 15th the Senate voted overwhelmingly (78 to 20) to send the House bill as passed to the president. No Democrats opposed the reauthorization. Republicans were split: 27 to 19 in favor.

The charter for the internationalists’ creation, the Export-Import Bank, was set to expire on May 31st. The Bank was also pushing against its authorized lending limit of $100 billion. In the past, the periodic renewal of the Bank has encountered little opposition, but this time considerable principled opposition arose. Nevertheless, given the Insider influence on Congress, the outcome should not have been in doubt.

Congressional Quarterly Today’s description of the battle should have raised questions (such as why any Republicans would support a top priority of the Obama administration at this time):

“A top priority of the Obama administration, renewing the [Export-Import] bank’s charter divided Republicans who have been caught between their allies in the business community — who desire passage — and free market advocacy groups that oppose government-backed export financing as a form of corporate welfare.” — “Deal Sets Up Passage of Ex-Im Bill,” CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS, 5-14-2012

FFS: The above report and others referred to the pressure from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, which were supporting this federal intervention in the free market. But no mention was made of the fact that the Bank supports the internationalist agenda of boosting socialism abroad and has operated in the past to aid America’s enemies.

A prime example were the loans in the 1970s to the Soviet Union to finance the building of the world’s largest truck factory on the Kama River. At that time the Export-Import Bank joined with Chase Manhattan in an even split to finance 90 percent of the project, which subsequently produced trucks supporting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Neither was any mention made in much of the media coverage of the fact that the powers of the Ex-Im Bank are not authorized by the Constitution.

Although the dollar amount (the lending limit is scheduled to increase from $100 billion to $140 billion in stages), the votes are nevertheless revealing of the internationalist grip on Washington, which transcends party.

Good News in the “Culture War”

“Same-sex civil unions bill fails in Colorado” — Reuters, 5-9-2012

“North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban” — New York Times, 5-8-2012

“Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood” — CNN, 5-5-2012

“Georgia bans most late-terms abortions, assisted suicide” — Reuters, 5-1-2012

FFS: Despite the recent good news in the culture war, the long-term outlook is bleak unless more Americans recognize the deceptions and true objectives of the Establishment organizations driving the revolution. Please see our May Action Report and Masters of Deception.

Note also: In an ABC interview on May 9th, President Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage. See below:

“Obama declares support for gay marriage” — ABC OTUS News, 5-9-2012

Latest Assault on our Civil Liberties, The NDAA

Fundamental individual liberty and rights are central to our Constitution, and protection of the same from governmental infringement. Yet we see on a nearly daily basis, attempts by sometimes well-intentioned politicians, locally and nationally, to trample those fundamental rights in the name of a “greater good.”

The latest case in point, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed Congress with broad bi-partisan support, (proving once again that there is little difference between the two major political parties), and will reportedly be signed into law this week by President Obama.

The Act states, “Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war.” And just who are those “covered persons” that can be so detained? Section 1031 seems innocuous enough by identifying anyone who had a part in the 9/11/01 attacks or “A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities,” against the U.S. But then this Trojan Horse language follows, “including any person who has committed a belligerent act.”

A broad interpretation of “belligerent” includes “hostile and aggressive,” and is not limited to the more specific acts of war, which the drafters of the legislation may have intended. This language swings the door of interpretation wide open to include any threatening, antagonistic, contentious, or confrontational conduct perceived to be a threat to the nation. It is not beyond the realm of possibility to see this president or any future president use this provision as justification for military detention without due process of Tea Party protestors or Occupy Wall Street activists.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution has served to enforce due process and habeas corpus by preventing unlawful arrest and detention, yet this one Act (NDAA) grants virtually unlimited power to the president to detain potential “terrorists” indefinitely, with all the ignominy of a military Guantanimo-like detention. And one of the most striking components of the legislation is that the “battlefield” of the “War on Terrorism” is expanded to include the homeland of the United States of America.

The Act, itself a violation of law since it was drawn up, debated, and passed in closed committee sessions without a single hearing, is clearly a violation of posse comitatus, established in 1878 which proscribes the use of the military on domestic soil to enforce the laws of the land.

While I rarely find myself in agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), on this issue we’re of one accord. In their write-up of the NDAA they averred the Act “will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians.” They continue, “The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.”

Section 1031 of the Act concludes with an attempt at assuaging civil libertarian concerns by stating, “Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” It may not be “intended,” but the act does precisely that.

Section 1032 further attempts to mitigate the far-reaching affects of the legislation by stating that the, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” While not “required,” it clearly leaves the door wide open for the possibility of military detention of citizens.

For students of history, this legislation eerily has a parallel in the Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany, where rights enumerated in the Weimar constitution were repressed or precluded by expanded central government control. The subsequent staged attack on the Reichstag or parliament building, led to the Reichstag Fire Decree, finalizing the transition of Adolph Hitler from Chancellor of the Republic, to Führer. Is that all it would take to make that final transition here?

At what point do we as citizens reject and stand up against such trampling of civil liberties? There was so much disapprobation over the Patriot Act, and this goes so much further. It’s impossible to not see another parallel from 20th century Germany in the words of Martin Niemoller, “First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is a regular contributor to the Idaho State Journal. He is also President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at [email protected].

Subordination of Parental Rights

Parents in Nashville, Tennessee were concerned about their minor son’s health condition, including the possibility that the doctor was over-medicating him. The doctor recommended administration of drug tests to see if there were other factors contributing to his discomfort. The doctor made it clear, however, that he would not be able to release the drug test results to the parents, but only to the child. After all, as the doctor erroneously explained, the child had a right to privacy based on federal law that trumped the parental rights to care for, nurture, and protect their child.

Parents of a kindergarten age child in Massachusetts were shocked to find some of the books and materials being sent home with their 5-year-old were sex education materials and books that normalize and promote homosexual activity. After visiting with the teacher and getting nowhere on an “opt out” agreement for their child, the parents met with the principal, who in turn sent the parents to a “diversity” workshop to increase their acceptance of the indoctrination of their child.

After their disturbing experience at the workshop, the parents met again with the principal, begging for prior notification of sexual content instruction and for an opt out for their child. The principal responded to their request by having a police officer handcuff and forcibly remove the concerned parents for trespassing. Parental rights to protect, teach, nurture, and inculcate fundamental values were trampled by the education establishment intently motivated by an ideological agenda.

A child in Washington state complained to a school counselor about his parents making him go to church too much. Without notifying the parents, the counselor contacted a state social worker who took the 13-year-old boy directly from school and placed him in a foster home until a judicial hearing could be set for the parents to argue their case before a judge.

These are not isolated cases. Through legislative and judicial overreach, an increasing amount of power is given to the state over our children. As with the examples provided, all parents who fail to comply with a certain ideology are assumed to be bad parents, and the state’s intentions pristine. These efforts are methodically replacing parental discretion in all areas of child rearing and development with governmental and bureaucratic dominion over our minor children.

Karl Marx, in chapter 2 of The Communist Manifesto, said that in order to establish a perfect social state you have to destroy the family. You have to substitute the government for parental authority in the rearing of children. Whether intentional or not, the current trend of erosion of parental rights and refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act are perfectly facilitating the socialist agenda.

In 1989 the United Nations adopted the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a human rights treaty that delineates the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children. Nearly all UN member nations have adopted the protocol, and are subject to review, sanction, and enforcement by the UN. The U.S. is one of two that have not.

While ostensibly appealing in its protection of children, the document codifies the supremacy of government over parental rights in the rearing of children. This grants government bureaucrats the ability to prosecute parents or remove children from homes where parents are suspected of being out of compliance with the UN’s objectives. In short, rather than being a proactive protection for the rights of children, it is an instrument to strip the rights of parents in child rearing.

A website dedicated to this issue, ParentalRights.org says of the UNCRC, “Despite the claims of its supporters, the Convention on the Rights of the Child is more than an international ‘wish list’ – it is an instrument of societal action. The evidence is clear in the nations that have ratified it, like France, Canada, Brazil and the United Kingdom. Member-states are expected to incorporate its provisions into their own laws, and failure to do so is met with intense international censure and pressure to conform. The United Nations, and its Committee on the Rights of the Child, tolerate nothing less.”

Even without adopting the UNCRC, the threat is real for American parents. Federal judges, who take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution and our laws, increasingly rule on cases relying on customary international law. International precedence and code often align more closely with those judges ideology, and drawing from international rather than U.S. law grants them the justification necessary for “legislating from the bench.” This is facilitating a judicial creep of the tenets of the UNCRC and laws from other nations that have adopted it en toto.

All parents need to be aware of this insidious process that is slowly yet methodically subverting the rights of parents, and granting increasing authority to government to control and govern the rearing of our children. All parents should be prepared and knowledgeable about this stealthy trend, and ParentalRights.org is a superb starting point.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is a regular contributor to the Idaho State Journal. He is also President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at [email protected].

Tangents & Traps: Con-Con Movements

Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers of the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second….
— Letter of James Madison to George Lee Turberville, November 2, 1788

In recent decades, groups calling for a constitutional convention (con con) have brought the nation to the brink of disaster. A con con is an assembly of state-appointed delegates meeting for the purpose of proposing amendments to the federal Constitution, as provided in Article V. But the powers of a con con extend far beyond merely proposing amendments. A federal convention concentrates in one place all sovereign powers inherent in the people of a free country. For this reason, its powers have no limits. A con con can change or repeal every word of the U.S. Constitution, including the rules for ratification of any new or revised Constitution.

For these obvious reasons no second federal convention has ever been held. We do not believe, in today’s climate of Insider media control, influence, and political deal-making, that our Constitution could survive a modern convention.

A con con is triggered when two thirds of the states formally pass a resolution asking Congress to call one. The purpose for which a state might apply to Congress for a convention has no real significance, for once a con con meets and is called to order it can do anything it wants. A con con is a sovereign body and has power to create a Congress or to disband a Congress or, more generally, to change any federal entity or abolish any government office or limitation established by the first convention. If you are not yet fearful of a modern con con, please re-read and re-think the above.

The Conspiracy’s hand in trying to assemble a modern con con has been patently obvious, for certain members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) advocate an overhaul of the Constitution, yet support con con efforts promoted under the most conservative-sounding pretexts. When you see leading figures in the CFR lobby for a balanced federal budget, for traditional marriage, and against flag burning, you know something’s fishy in Denmark. They are using popular conservative issues as a pretext to get their hands on the Constitution. Moreover, con-con advocates falsely assert that a con con can be limited to the single issue for which it is called.

In 1983, the country was just two states away from a convention. Thirty-two of the necessary thirty-four states had filed applications with Congress under the balanced-budget pretext. The work of slowing down this drive and turning it around was a monumental, organized effort undertaken by the author and led by the future founding officers of Freedom First Society.

Please be aware that it is much easier to ward off a con con movement at the outset than to rescind state resolutions in state-by-state battles. At this writing, 13 states have withdrawn their applications. Adding those to the two-state deficit of 1983, we now have a 15-state safety margin protecting the Constitution. These figures are important, because alarmists and rip-off artists are still raising funds by claiming the nation is just now only two states away from a con con. We call these characters con con con-artists, and we trust you will send them no money.

Every patriotic American should work to preserve the Constitution by opposing any state resolutions asking Congress to call a convention — no matter how appealing the reason. Any state request for a con con, even one supported ostensibly as a mere tactic for convincing Congress to act to propose an amendment, is a foolish gamble and a dangerous tangent.

Default title

Receive Alerts