Bravenet Blog 
Blog Community
Get a Free Blog
Manage your Blog
V: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Welcome Back The Spotlight 'O Terror
Green - Low: This setting is here just as a reference point. DHS will never use it because it would mean we didn’t need them anymore.
Blue - Guarded: This rarely used setting on the Stoplight ‘O Terror could indicate things like an undocumented worker within 3 square miles of the president.
Yellow - Elevated: This is the standard level of fear. Don’t expect to see anything lower than this as long as the Regressives are in office. Be scared, but not too scared to vote Republican.
Orange - High: Chertoff heard that someone in the CIA’s brother’s boss’ nephew’s sister-in-law heard about a plan to blow up Amish Country Popcorn Factory in Berne Indiana. It’s ok to pee your pants at this level.
Red - Severe: A terror attack was recently narrowly averted. We can’t release any details but just be thankful we saved your asses. Used frequently before midterm elections. See October Surprise. (Oh My God, Take Away My Freedoms and Protect Me From Them There Terrorists, Like Osama Hussein!!!)
Welcome to my Blog, enjoy your stay!
Congressman Ron Paul, MD - We've Been NeoConned
1984 radio broadcast:
Diebold Vote Machines Fail In Iowa
Last Thursday, two days before the August 11th presidential Iowa Straw Poll, Bob Schulz and seven other Plaintiffs filed suit in federal court in Des Moines, Iowa seeking to permanently prohibit the state of Iowa from conducting any Straw Poll, Caucus, Primary, Special or General Election unless the voting and vote counting was open, verifiable, machine-free, and computer-free.
Upon filing the suit, the Plaintiffs formally asked the Court for emergency injunctive relief, i.e., to order state election officials to modify the voting procedures for the Iowa Straw Poll to insure the validity of the voting process.
Specifically, the desired order sought to eliminate the use of Diebold voting machines that had been officially decertified by the state of California on August 3rd, to assure that the ballots were never out of public view, to force state election officials to publicly hand-count the ballots at each voting station and to announce the results and to conduct the tabulation of the vote station subtotals under full public observation.
Besides the Complaint and the motion for emergency protection, a Declaration by James Condit, Jr. was also filed. Condit, familiar to many advocates of constitutional government, founded Citizens For A Fair Vote Count. He resides in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Besides WTP's Schulz and Condit, the Plaintiffs include five citizens of Iowa (Jenneifer Maki, Pam Wagner, Troy Reha, Roger Leahy and Ginger Corbett) and one from Connecticut (Walter Reddy).
Click here for a copy of the Complaint and the Motion to force a change in the voting procedures.
At 8:00 am on Friday, the District Court telephoned the parties to say Judge Gritzner had ordered a hearing at 1:30 pm that day on Plaintiffs emergency request for a change in the voting procedures.
Shortly after 10:00 am, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the case.
On Friday afternoon USDC Judge Gritzner heard arguments for two hours on the motion to change the voting procedures. He then issued his decision denying the motion. He did not dismiss the case. The case for a permanent injunction against elections in Iowa that are not open, verifiable, machine-free and computer-free will continue.
Click here for a copy of the transcript of the hearing and for a copy of the Judge’s decision.
Late Friday night, Schulz filed an emergency Appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis to issue the injunctive order. On Saturday, the Appeals court likewise denied the request.
The Voting Machines Failed
As Plaintiffs had predicted, there were indeed significant problems counting the votes cast at Saturday's Iowa Straw Poll.
After delaying the release of the voting results an hour and a forty minutes beyond the planned 7 PM announcement time, state election officials were forced to admit repeatedly to the press that there were vote machine malfunctions and that (at least) 10% of the ballots had to be counted by hand.
By using the flawed Diebold machines and by tabulating the totals behind closed doors, Iowa election officials have caused significant confusion, frustration and distrust of the results.
Unfortunately, because the Straw Poll has been well established as an early and influential political event in culling the field of presidential candidates, the inability of Iowa election officials to secure a constitutionally verifiable vote will leave an enduring legacy upon our entire nation.
Here is just a sampling of the news reports detailing the machine failures and vote recounts:
Des Moines Register, United Press International, Chicago Tribune, CNN
And for your further thought, consider this:
On Friday, April 13, 2007, Romney For President issued a press release announcing its Story County (Iowa) “Leadership Team.” The press release named Defendant Mary Moisman, the Story County Auditor, as part of its Leadership Team.
Mary Moisman and her staff were in charge of providing the Diebold voting equipment, as well as managing and auditing the operation and results of the Iowa Straw Poll, which was purportedly won by candidate Mitt Romney.
WTP Files Motion To Preserve The Record
To determine the truth about the Straw Poll's vote totals and the truth about the security, accuracy and reliability of computerized machine voting, and to address the confusion, frustration and mistrust (and possible fraud) directly linked to machine-based counting, it will be necessary to hand count the ballots cast in the Straw Poll and review the electronic files, documents and materials related to the machine processes. Therefore, WTP has filed a Motion to preserve those ballots, files and materials for further examination.
Today, Bob Schulz filed a notice of motion for a temporarily restraining order enjoining and prohibiting Defendants from altering, destroying or otherwise disposing of any of the ballots cast on August 11, 2007 in the Iowa Straw Poll or any of the electronic files, documents and materials related to voter checklists and voting machine inspections and operations including but not limited to printouts of vote totals.
In addition, Schulz asked the Court for limited discovery that is necessary to determine the truthfulness and accuracy of the vote totals and machine printouts. Limited discovery is necessary to obtain copies of all ballots and machine printouts, and to determine with specificity what actually took place during and after the voting period.
For instance, information needed includes but is not necessarily limited to: how many machines were used during the day; was each machine inspected before the voting period began and, if so, by whom; was any machine(s) tasked to print vote totals before the machines were moved from the voting stations; who moved the machines to the central room and how; when and where were the machines asked to print out their totals; which machines were opened for ballot removal at a voting station or in the central tabulation room and why; how many ballots were hand counted and why; who was in the centralized tabulation room from 6 pm to 8:30 pm; specifically, how did the County and State Auditors participate in the voting process.
Click here for a copy of the Memo of Law supporting preservation of the documents and ballots.
Educating Others About
Vote Fraud Is Insufficient
For twenty years or more, people have been publishing articles about the dangers of computer and machine voting. Notably, comprehensive studies by Cal Tech, MIT, Princeton and most recently the UC have all concluded that the computerized machines on the market should not be used to count votes in elections.
Click here to access some of the reports used by the state of California in decertifying the Diebold machines.
Not withstanding these comprehensive expert studies demonizing the machines, machine and computerized voting is widespread and becoming further entrenched as the machine manufacturers respond to each study by announcing upgrades, changes or fixes to the machines which they say has improved security, accuracy, reliability and accessibility.
Despite the repeated efforts of the machine manufacturers and election officials to address the well documented security, accuracy and reliability problems inherent with machine-based voting, one fact stands bare, and until now, unaddressed by a court of Law: The voting procedures and machines currently used by virtually every state and local government in America fail constitutional muster.
They fail to secure for the Citizens of this nation the Fundamental, constitutionally protected, Right to Vote and Right to have your vote counted legally and properly.
Make no mistake, our election officials have effectively delegated the Right to an accurate count of the Votes to a small number of private corporations, about who little is publicly known.
In short, the possibility of confusion, deceit, frustration and fraud will always be greater if votes are counted by a computerized machine rather than by hand in full view of the public. Only by hand-counting ballots in full public view at each voting station and wherever vote subtotals are further aggregated can election officials minimize the possibility of error and prevent fraud.
Talking about the problem is not enough. Citizen vigilance and Civic action is absolutely necessary if we are to preserve the integrity of the vote. This Right is the cornerstone of our democratic, constitutional Republic.
WTP finds no upside to computerized machine voting, absolutely none. Proponents of computerized voting say the votes can be counted faster.
However examined or weighed, the potential gains in vote counting "efficiency" cannot be used to justify placing our fundamental Right to Vote at known risk by the use of provably defective and un-secure voting machines and by tolerating election procedures, such as non-public "back-room" vote totaling, that are so obviously constitutionally deficient that their use is unconscionable as part of a "free" nation.
Lawsuits in every State, and if necessary, civil disobedience must be the order of the day, beginning now.
Without our action, our choices in the upcoming caucuses, primaries and general election may well be adversely affected by machine error and human fraud.
Indeed, if one ponders the problem and engineering issues deeply enough, one cannot avoid a reasonable, natural and very disturbing conclusion: The implementation of computerized-based voting is designed to facilitate systemic, automated vote fraud.
Let the lawsuit by the "Iowa Eight" be the signal that an aggressive, nation-wide campaign by the American People to halt machine-counting of votes has commenced.
It's time for our servant governments to hand-count and total our votes in public.
Its' time to start asking WHY so many appear to oppose something so simple, so secure and so fair.
And it's time We the People take whatever actions are necessary to secure our Right to Vote.
Please consider committing your financial resources to this fight. Our organization cannot accomplish objectives such as the vote fraud project without the support of many people to help cover the costs involved in continuing the litigation our Foundation is now engaged in, as well as the significant and regular costs we incur daily to run our office, secure the technology support we need and keep the organization moving forward. PLEASE consider a recurring donation, no matter how small, so that those of us on the front lines of the battle can continue to organize and fight and the tyrants that seek to deprive us of our Liberty.
To make a tax-deductible donation to the WTP Foundation, please click here: Donation. You can make a one-time or recurring donation and can also establish the dates the secure transactions are run each month.
Update Related Links
Read the research reports critical of the Diebold machines and official decertification by the state of California.
Visit the Citizens For A Fair Vote Count website
Read the main voting machine Complaint and the Motion to force a change in the voting procedures.
Please consider a Donation.
 | L for Liberty ! Donate and receive the full record of the GML 2007 conference. 23 powerful speakers, 20 hours of compelling video including banquet speakers and video of the "V" White House protest and bonus supporting materials! On (2) DVD-ROM discs. Immediate shipping... Click here to obtain the GML 2007 record on DVD-ROM Watch the preview Cable connection Dial-Up connection |
Please remember:
The Landmark Right-To-Petition Lawsuit
and Operations of the WTP Foundation
are Funded Solely By Your Generous Support.
 | ||||
|
|
We have received a second round of emails relating to our hypothesis that U.S. aid to the State of Israel is repugnant to the General Welfare clause of the Constitution. As with the first round of responses, there is more agreement than disagreement.
Because we are interested in the truth and care about people whose feelings we may have hurt or whose treasured shibboleths we may have undermined, we endeavor herein to once again objectively, intelligently and rationally respond to our critics.
However, there is a danger. With each new article, round of emails and responses to those emails, our readers may lose sight of the fundamental Constitutional question before us. This is especially true as we respond more and more to critics whose criticisms are based on biblical doctrine and philosophy, esoteric or otherwise.
Please remember, as you read this article, our hypothesis is what is important here, and our hypothesis is not the result of any ill-will toward Israel, Jews, AIPAC or apostate Evangelical Christian groups. Our hypothesis is aimed squarely at the United States Government in defense of the Constitution and individual Rights, no more or less.
Our hypothesis is as follows:
1) U.S. tax money is being used to oppress and destroy the Palestinian society;
2) in response, the Palestinians and their sympathizers are attacking the United States;
3) in reply, the United States has instituted a domestic War on Terror;
4) the War on Terror has given rise to a growing Police State in the U.S.;
5), the Police State has resulted in an across the board erosion of individual Freedoms, Rights and Liberties; and 6), therefore, U.S. financial aid to Israel is violative of the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1).
If anyone can show that the hostilities being directed toward the United States and the War on Terror has nothing to do with our funding of Israel’s occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people, we beg them to do so.
In the meantime, we are not to close our eyes to violations of the General Welfare clause of the Constitution because we have a personal/political relationship with a particular association, and see only other violations, say, violations of the tax clauses.
Last week we received yet another batch of e-mails in response to our recent articles regarding the question of US foreign policy and the Constitutional violations that result from that policy. One email consisted of no message but a simple terse subject line that read simply, “We Are Israel.”
At the time, we had no idea what was meant by those three words. Now we do.
It has come to pass that the meaning of two of the most important words in America’s vocabulary -- “Income” and “Israel” -- appear to have been hijacked for nefarious ends.
Our readers have long known that the Constitutional meaning of the word “Income” was hijacked during the early part of the last century by the U.S. Government for the purpose of duping the People into believing that U.S. law requires them to pay a direct, un-apportioned tax on their labor.
Specifically, the Government maliciously adopted a practical working definition of the word “income” which was fraudulently and diametrically opposed to that conveyed and consistently reiterated by our nation’s Highest Court. The public was eventually overcome by the malevolent definition. The end result has been the establishment of a system of legally sanctioned slavery of our nation’s workers and the stealthy transformation of our government into a fascist, socialist entity.
Our readers know how WTP arrived at this conclusion and what WTP has been doing to Redress the Grievance and educate our countrymen about this important definitional abuse.
Our readers also know that for the past few months we have been working to determine whether U.S. Middle East Policy, particularly our financial aid to the State of Israel, is repugnant to the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
As is true with the term “income,” it is now apparent that a concise, historically correct definition of the word “Israel” may be the key to a better understanding of the true nature of the conflicts that appear to exist between our Constitution and popularly embraced frameworks of religious belief.
Looking Back
Our interest in this subject was initially piqued upon our reading of two recent publications: 1) “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” a paper published by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt; and 2) “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid,” a book by Jimmy Carter.
According to the Professors and Carter, our financial and military aid to the State of Israel has been detrimental to our national interest and general welfare, and the Israel Lobby has been extraordinarily effective in not only influencing our foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction, but also in stifling all public criticism in the United States of the adverse consequences of our support of the State of Israel.
On March 18, 2007 we posted our first article on this subject saying, “Unless the facts presented by Jimmy Carter and the two Professors can be effectively denied, we, the People have a duty to do everything in our power to hold the Government accountable to the following clause of the Constitution, and thereby arrest and roll back America’s advance toward a Police State and its headlong rush into debt, dependency, and decay – i.e., a rush to the bottom.
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States ….”
Art. I, Section 8, Clause 1
We had invited the Israel Lobby and the Governments of Palestine, Israel, and the United States to identify representatives that could attend GML 2007 to comment on the accuracy of the publications by the Professors and Carter. Only Palestine responded positively, resulting in the participation in GML 2007 by Dr. Muhammad Hallaj and Dr. Norman Birnbaum, both of whom attested to the accuracy of the two publications.
On March 22, 2007, we posted our second article on the subject, in which we included additional evidence on the power and activities of the Israel Lobby, including links to publications by former U.S. Representative Paul Findley and former U.S. Senator James Abourezk.
On April 7, 2007 we posted our third article on the subject saying, we had received a number of sharp and caustic emails following our initial announcement that we would openly and objectively discuss the constitutionality of America’s unconditional financial and military support of Israel. We then asked our critics to carefully consider and to answer for themselves a number of questions about their own possible personal biases and mis-perceptions regarding their understanding of the larger historical and spiritual contexts framing the Israel question, with particular focus on the higher-order Founding Principles embodied by the Constitution.
On April 10, 2007 we posted our fourth article on the subject, reporting that dozens of people had taken the time to respond to our previous articles on the subject. We included a number of the responses, dividing them into two groups: those from people that agreed with WTP’s inquiry into the constitutionality of U.S. Middle East Policy and those from people that did not agree.
Evidence Is Compelling: List Is Growing
Our April 10th article included additional compelling evidence in support of the findings of Mearsheimer, Walt and Carter, including the video, "Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land: Media & the Israel-Palestine Conflict" --- Google Video. This documentary by the Media Education Foundation, dated July 26, 2006, is a striking expose comparing U.S. and international media coverage of the crisis in the Middle East, focusing on how structural distortions in U.S. coverage have reinforced false perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This pivotal documentary details how the foreign policy interests of American political elites, (including oil and a need to have a secure military presence in the region) work in combination with Israeli public relations strategies to control and exercise a powerful influence over how news from the region is reported.
We also provided a link to a Dutch documentary released on April 3, 2007, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3497308896275775092&hl=en , created as a result of the controversy created by Mearsheimer and Walt's article on the Israel Lobby.
We also provided a link to the article, "About That Word Apartheid,” a timeline published in April by Americans For Middle East Understanding showing the troubling relationship between Israel and apartheid South Africa.
See http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=271&aid=584&pg=1
New Responses, More Criticism
Notwithstanding the growing list of evidence in support of our hypothesis that U.S. aid to the State of Israel is repugnant to the General Welfare clause of the Constitution (Israel is co-mingling United States tax money with Israeli tax revenues to fund oppression and apartheid in Palestine, U.S. complicity in the destruction of the Palestine society has made the United States a target of acts of terrorism resulting in a rising Police State in the United States and the erosion of unalienable, individual Rights), we have received a second round of emails sharply critical of our position.
Once again, we have divided the responses into two groups -- those from people who agree with our position and those from people who disagree.
You will notice that some People disagree with us on the ground that we are “diluting our efforts and putting our cause at risk by adding new issues to those already on our plate.”
We must respectfully disagree. We believe, first, that each and every responsible citizen of this Republic is duty bound to do everything he or she can possibly do to defend each and every provision of the Constitution against those in Government who would dilute the power of the Constitution to govern the Government. As the Freedom Keepers of our generation we must be ready to confront each and every usurpation. As Government gains ground Liberty loses ground. An act of tyranny anywhere is a threat to Freedom everywhere.
In addition, we believe the cause of Freedom is strengthened as more People become better informed about the meaning, effect and significance of every provision of the Constitution, and as more People learn to look, first to the Constitution, rather than to politicians, for solutions to our problems.
The truths of the Founding documents and their essential, underlying principles need to be taught, embraced and reinforced, over and over again, at every opportunity. Government is the enemy of Freedom. It is through the Constitution that we control the reins of government and insure that it remains the protector of individual, unalienable Rights – i.e., the servant of the People.
Therefore, it behooves the People to show the Government that the People know what their Rights are and what Government’s obligations are, that the People are watching Government as it exercises its delegated powers and that the People are prepared to act if the Government steps outside the boundaries drawn around its power by the Constitution.
"Israel"
You will also notice that in the second round of emails are some that fault us for “speaking against Israel,” saying, in effect, that the State of Israel is Biblical prophesy fulfilled; “God has raised up America to support the State of Israel; the Bible says the modern day State of Israel is the Promise of the Kingdom fulfilled; the people in today’s State of Israel are God’s chosen people; nations that bless the State of Israel are always to be blessed, and nations that curse the State of Israel are cursed; the Holy Bible trumps the Constitution.”
Whew! What could we say over and above what we had said in our April 7th article, where we had asked our critics to carefully consider and to answer for themselves a number of questions about their own possible personal biases and mis-perceptions regarding their understanding of the larger historical and spiritual contexts framing the Israel question, with particular focus on the higher-order Founding Principles embodied by the Constitution.
In effect, we had respectfully suggested that these critics take personal responsibility for what they profess to believe. We were suggesting that they examine the source of their beliefs. Did they merely adopt what they were told by someone, or by some association, without ever accepting personal responsibility for the totality and potential contradictions posed by those beliefs -- that is, without taking the initiative to verify the truth of what they were told? In other words, we were asking our critics if their beliefs regarding “Israel” were based on a sound and well-considered personal study of the Holy Bible.
Admittedly, we had no personal, comprehensive knowledge of such matters beyond what we learned from our Sunday school teachers, from pulpits and televangelists, from Charlton Heston as Moses in “The Ten Commandments,” from Todd Hunter as Jesus in “King of Kings,” and so forth.
Until recently, we had not studied the Holy Bible to discover for ourselves the Biblical meaning of the word “Israel.”
In essence, we had no compelling reason to search beyond the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the compelling spiritual framework embodied within the founding documents. This framework, which joyously proclaims and celebrates the Sovereign nature of the Children of the Creator, the purpose of limited government and the gift of the Light of Liberty functions as the spiritual compass directing our lives, our hearts and our work.
To us, it was no coincidence that the framework for secular government expressed in our founding documents trumpets within its manifestations the highest order spiritual ideas shared by the world’s leading religious orders, including the Christian principle that Government is to be God’s minister of Justice on Earth – “God’s minister to [us] for good” (Romans 13:4).
Unfortunately for many, we could not reconcile U.S. support of Israel with the Constitution of the United States of America. We instinctively knew it was not “good,” and not in the national interest and not serving the general welfare to tax the American people to fund apartheid and the oppression of the Palestinian people. Indeed, our nation’s policy of supporting the State of Israel has been a direct cause of the Middle-East conflagration and our own government’s attack on the Freedoms of our People.
Notwithstanding these hard observations and obvious constitutional conflicts, our strongest critics have been telling us their framework of spiritual belief has enabled them to reconcile U.S. support of Israel with God’s word.
Could our critics be correct?
Could the same God that divinely inspired the authors of the Declaration of Independence, the original thirteen State Constitutions and the Constitution of the United States of America also sanction wholesale violations of those spiritual gifts while also encouraging general world disorder and attacks on the world’s Peoples in the name of protecting a foreign religious theocracy, which as a form of government, is itself banned by those same documents?
Fortunately, and as divine influence may have delivered, included in the second round of emails was an email with the subject, “Biblical Support of Israel.” The text of the email read, “I would like you to consider the following presentation about Israel. Please go to this website http://www.hopevideo.com/audio_with_david_asscherick.htm and RIGHT-click to download #26, "All Eyes on Israel."
We did as the sender suggested. We listened to the 1 hour and 19 minute audio tape of a presentation given at the Arise Institute in Troy, MI, by David Asscherick, a 33 year old ordained minister.
At the outset of the lecture, Pastor Asscherick stated he would be answering two questions:1) Who and what is Israel today?
and 2) Is modern day Israel the Israel of God?
He says the answers to these questions are important because U.S. support of the modern State of Israel has become the priority issue for apostate Evangelical Christian groups, “of greater importance to them than the issue of abortion.” Asscherick asserts the issue of U.S. support for the State of Israel is “the epicenter around which Evangelical Christian groups now orbit.”
Importantly, Pastor Asscherick states that knowing who and what Israel is is important because apostate Evangelical Protestant groups are asserting, “God has raised up America to support the State of Israel, the Bible says these are God’s people, nations that bless the State of Israel are always blessed, and nations that curse the State of Israel are always cursed.”
We listened to this audiotape, all 1 hour and 19 minutes. We then listened to it again, with the Holy Bible in hand, pausing and restarting the tape as we followed Pastor Asscherick on a journey through the old and new Testaments, checking every scriptural reference.
What we learned directly from the Holy Bible is that He gives one meaning to the word “Israel” in the Old Testament, and an entirely different meaning to the word “Israel” in the New Testament.
In the Old Testament Israel is a man named Jacob (a man who gained a spiritual victory after wrestling with God), and Jacob’s ancestors Isaac and Abraham, and all of Abraham’s seed. The word “Israel” first appears in Genesis where God says to Jacob, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel.” The word “Israel” then appears many times throughout the rest of the Old Testament, where it means corporate Israel, that is, the collective assembly of all those to whom He promised the Kingdom – i.e., Abraham’s seed.
According to the New Testament, Jesus fulfilled the promise by becoming Israel. According to the New Testament, Israel is now Jesus (another man who gained a spiritual victory - in the wilderness), together with His spiritual descendants. According to the New Testament, all who have accepted Jesus are included in Israel, having been “grafted in” by their faith. According to the New Testament, if you are in Christ, you are Abraham’s seed. According to the New Testament, Peter and Paul spoke to the Gentiles and the Romans the promises Moses spoke to the Israelites; there is now “neither Jew nor Greek.”
Nowhere in the Holy Scriptures did we find the Kingdom of God being promised to those occupying any piece of geography, or to the members of any nationality, race, creed or religion. Nowhere did we find it written in the Holy Scriptures that God’s ultimate plan would be implemented by a specific nation of people (Americans or Israelis) acting pursuant to the direction of their secular government leaders.
Pastor Asscherick concludes his lecture by sharing some personal knowledge and insight into current events. He argues that based on their misunderstanding of Bible prophesy, apostate Protestantism and apostate Evangelical Christian groups are pressuring politicians to support Israel, unconditionally, “if you want to stay in office.”
It seems to us the Biblical meaning of the word “Israel” has been hijacked by the “Israel” Lobby and apostate Evangelical Christian groups for the purpose of duping the People of the United States into believing: 1) that the promises of God will be frustrated unless the State of Israel gains total control of Palestine and Jerusalem; and 2), the United States will be cursed if the United States does not unconditionally support the State of Israel.
Indeed, it would seem that this further understanding of the true etymology of the word “Israel’ is of the utmost importance in considering and critically evaluating both our individual and national collective justifications for the support of Israel.
The mission of the We The People organization is to expose and confront any and all un-constitutional behavior by the Government. We are not against taxes or the State of Israel. We are certainly not anti-Semitic. We are pro-constitution and oppose those forces that seek to diminish the efficacy of our founding documents or undermine the fundamental principles of Spirit and Liberty they embody.
Being guided by an understanding of the larger design and purposes of the Constitution, particularly its guarantee of individual Rights “endowed by the Creator,” WTP believes that the defense of the Constitution is not only everyone’s duty and personal responsibility, but that such defense is, in essence, service to the Creator.
As was the case with the hijacking of the definition of the word “Income,” the hijacking of the word “Israel” has led to behavior by the U.S. Government that is violative of the U.S. Constitution and injurious to the People.
The constitutional tort is the Government’s violation of the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). The national interest and general welfare of the citizens of the United States of America have suffered as a result of the U.S. Government’s use of its tax revenues to finance Israel’s morally, and perhaps Biblically, unjustifiable oppression and destruction of the Palestine society.
As a free People, we must once again claim and exercise our First Amendment Right to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution by Petitioning the Government for Redress of this Grievance Regarding the unconstitutional funding of the oppression and destruction of the Palestinian society.
WTP will soon post the Petition for Redress on this website.
WTP: Petition For Redress
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-05-07.htm
Please sit and take a deep breath, or even two, before you begin reading this article.
Sometimes the truth can hurt -- a lot. This may be one of those times. It was for us.
Before continuing, please remember: we are only the messengers; we deal with facts, not opinions; the Country and the Government are two separate things; we will forever love our Country and be willing to give our lives in defense of its system of governance – as designed and set forth in our founding document – but, we should always distrust the Government; we avoid all political questions; we seek only to hold those in Government accountable to Truth, Justice and the Constitution, regardless of their political stripes; we have confronted Democrat and Republican administrations with equal fervor.
The last few months have been difficult ones for us. We have gone through an uncomfortable paradigm shift in our understanding of how our government has become unaccountable to the People and in coming to grips with the incredible risks our beloved Republic now faces.
We knew, of course, that the Government was bad, occasionally breaking the rules by violating the Constitution and refusing to be held accountable for its behavior, an insufferable arrogance for sure, but what we did not fully comprehend was the fact that our Government had actually turned evil.
We now realize that the Government has apparently jettisoned altogether its primary function as a protector and enhancer of individual, unalienable Rights and Freedoms, Life and Liberty, Truth and Justice. What remains of our former Republic is merely a shadow, a cardboard movie set for our children to marvel and for our despotic leaders hold press conferences.
The time for radical truth telling and acts of conscious resistance is now upon us.
We have just finished studying the report, “Messages To the World; The Statements of Osama Bin Laden”, authored by Osama Bin Laden, edited by Bruce Lawrence, and published by London-based Verso Books. (available on Amazon.com)
This is bin Laden, in his own words, dating back to 1994, explaining WHY he attacked our nation’s economic and military icons.
To our knowledge, no U.S newspaper has published any of these statements, no U.S. television network has broadcast any of these videos, and no U.S. radio station has broadcast any of these audiotapes explaining his motive.
Why not? Considering the price our nation is now paying due to the “War on Terror,” would it not have been prudent to take heed to the openly broadcast messages of our attackers?
What would the world be like today if the United States Government had listened and properly responded to bin Laden’s proper Petitions to America and the rest of the world for redress of his grievances – decades worth of unjustified attacks and illegal military occupations by America and Israel targeting Muslims -- and on Muslim territory? In all likelihood, there would have been no attack on the World Trade Center, no War on Terror, no Police State, and no erosion of individual Liberties in America.
What would the world be like today if the United States Government had listened and properly responded to bin Laden who had been constructing and articulating a consistent, convincing case that an attack on Islam was under way and was being orchestrated and directed by the government of America? In all likelihood, there would have been no attack on the World Trade Center, no War on Terror, no Police State, and no erosion of individual Liberties in America.
What would the world be like today if, following 9-11, the United States Government had not had conducted a telephone conference call directing the heads of the five dominant American television networks to agree to censor free speech, public discourse and debate by suppressing from broadcast any statements by bin Laden, and suppressing the horrific video images that the rest of the “civilized” world was watching – i.e., the pictures of the United States military killing tens of thousands of innocent people while intentionally bombing civilian facilities and homes in Afghanistan. Prime Minster Blair did the same in England, wrestling a similar agreement from the three T.V. networks of the United Kingdom. In all likelihood, there would have been more knowledge about the truth, more public condemnation of the “coalition” governments, no invasion of Iraq, no Police State and no erosion of individual Liberties in America.
What would the world be like today if Secretary of State Madeline Albright had not responded with, “Its worth it,” when questioned on CBS’s 60 Minutes, about the deaths of over 600,000 [Muslim] children in Iraq as a direct result of malnutrition and disease directly caused by the United States’ ten-year boycott and blockade of badly needed medicine and food? What if there was no such boycott and blockade? In all likelihood, there would have been no attack on the World Trade Center, no War on Terror, no Police State, and no erosion of individual Liberties in America.
Indeed, what is now apparent is the fact that for decades preceding 9-11, the Government of the United States of America, under the leadership of both Democrats and Republicans, has been responsible in whole or in part, for the deaths of over one million innocent men, women and children of the Middle East, and the reduction to rubble of tens of thousands of individual homes, businesses and vital community services in the Middle East -- and most of these were exclusively Muslim targets.
In addition to these evil, un-Godly, un-American and inhuman acts of terror sponsored and sanctioned by the United States Government and the State of Israel, it is now apparent that during this time, both Democrat and Republican administrations have been responsible in whole or in part for deliberately censoring from the American public the true nature of the results of this intervention in the internal affairs of, and on the human beings that reside in these Middle East countries.
Given the extent of bin Laden’s public statements over many years which explain, in stark language that Islam itself was under attack from the combined forces of Israel and America, and given our nation’s vast experience involving decades of morally reprehensible meddling and interv
he Anti-Defamation League was established in 1913 by a lawyer and fearless visionary by the name of Sigmund Livingston…’to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience, and if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. . . to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike. . . put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” See http://www.adl.org/ADLHistory/1913_1920.asp