Thursday, January 28, 2016

Emperors Without Clothes (more deja vu)

James S. Barber - 12/28/95

Last week, President Clinton may have come to the realization that a crown, sceptre and ermine trimmed robes were not included in being elected President of the United States. It was indeed a dejected Clinton that during a hastily called press conference, announced that an extremist coalition of right wing freshmen republicans, had rejected a compromise put forth by the House speaker and the Senate leader Bob Dole, to reopen the government. Clinton complained that Speaker Gingrich could not "control his own members and that he did not even know who to deal with on restarting the government."

That seventy-three freshmen members of congress had the audacity, (and the Constitutional power I might add,) to stop the government dead in it's tracks, was devistating to an Arkansas governor accustomed to having his own legislative way. The myth of the imperial presidency exploded with the force of a twenty megaton detonation. This from the same president that is sending twenty thousand plus troops, to enforce a Bosnian peace agreement, despite the objections of the Congress of the United States and the American people.

When a shocked senior member of the Washington press core inquired, "Mr President, isn't there anything you can do to force the Congress" to more or less to bend to the will of the president, Clinton replied defensively, "I didn't say that, I will continue to consult with Bob Dole on the matter."

Now perhaps Mr. Clinton should consult with his pocket Constitution, Article I, Section 8, on the powers of the Congress. He may have the power of the veto, but the president in no way has the power to tell Congress how much and where, taxpayer's monies can be spent. He may recommend but cannot determine, that which is the exclusive pervue of the Congress, the power of the purse.

Liberals in both parties would be well served in reading those articles themselves. Over the last few decades, Congress has played a cruel hoaxe on Clinton and past presidents, by allowing them (presidents) to think that the power of the executive was unlimited, that their's was the final arbiter in all matters, foreign, domestic and economic. Did not Gingrich and Dole allow President Clinton to transfer untold billions of taxpayer's monies to Mexico for the repayment of Wall Street investor's boondoggles, without a vote of the Congress? Did not the Congress allow George Bush to make war on Iraq and Panama without a declaration as such? Did we not hear numerous senior members of the house and senate allow as to the Commander in Chief's unquestionable power to invade the Balkans? How then can seventy-three freshmen representatives stop the government of the United States from operating?

Over the last three decades, Americans have watched as a clubbie group democrat and republican elitest lawmakers, demurred to the executive branch while transferring more and more power to the president. Pontificating as to their unrelenting representation of the interests of the American people, they passed one piece of flawed legislation after another. Some members recently have referred to laws as "product," as if there is a production quota of legislation that must be met at all costs.

House and Senate debates would rage about the constitutionality of crime legislation, expansion of law enforcement's power over American's rights, weapons bans with the attendent rightious indignation claiming to serve the interests of the people. But in the end, legislation that further encroached upon our rights would barely pass and the president would, with much fanfare, sign away more of the people's freedoms. Lawmakers both democrat and republican would declare these new laws as triumphs for the safety and security of all. Globalist schemes like Nafta and GATT would gain bipartisan support and be hurriedly passed and signed into law at the expense of America's sovereignty, in spite of the overwhelming opposition of the American people.

The game that the globalists and the NEW WORLD ORDER members of Congress have run on the American people would have continued were it not for the election of a new breed of freshmen lawmakers elected in 1994. The collusion between the two parties is now quite evident. Many of these old line conspirators are now retiring while complaining that these new members will not embrace the spirit of compromise. That they (freshmen) lack the collegiality and civility of the members in the old days and it is now time for them to retire, (with the multi-million dollar pension deals they accumulated) and spend more time with their families. A record number of lawmakers of both parties have recently announced their retirement plans for these reasons.

This rationale is suspect if not a downright falsehood. These elitists know the game is up and that they have been exposed at playing the American people like a Giant Wurlitzer. For those too young to know what a Giant Wurlitzer is, it was the huge pipe organ that was played in movie theaters and skating rinks, many years before dolby sound came into existence.

Our esteemed lawmakers from both parties, would put on a really great show, attempting to convince us of their idealistic intent and then make backroom deals to satisfy a Globalist/Internationalist agenda that unfortunately past administrations, regardless of party, demanded. So much for the separation of powers, enumerated by our Constitution. Consider the legislative track record of the last three Congress'.

From Reagan, Bush to Clinton, the executive branch has embarked on a program of militarizing and nationalising the nation's law enforcement organizations. The 103rd Congress, which Clinton inherited almost in it's entirety from the Bush presidency, appropriated $500,000,000 as a part of the 1994 Pentagon budget, to equip and train local and state police departments, much the same as Hitler and the SS trained and equipped the Reich's "Reserve Police Batallions," in 1933. State and local police, including your own local small town police, were the recipients of much military hardware and military tactical training, courtesy of the United States Congress and of course, taxpayer's dollars. At the federal level, Congress assured that nifty little commando units were formed like the Hostage Rescue Team, trained by special forces instructors at their Quantico, Va. headquarters, with the full knowledge and complicity of our esteemed guardians of our liberties, the United States Congress.

One can only speculate as to what both republican and democratic lawmakers had in mind when they appropriated funds, and approved these expenditures for the militarization of law enforcement, but the reality was Ruby Ridge, Waco and a cast of thousands. The point being, claims of ignorance and denial by numerous members of Congress regarding these horrific events, and many other examples of abuses, is at best, dishonest.

In a further compounding of congressinal treachery, the numerous hearings convened to investigate these abuses of the American people, were feeble attempts to cover up and whitewash the foul deeds of the creature they themselves created. Is it any wonder that no one has been punished for the massive loss of life that occurred at Waco, Ruby Ridge et. al. In fact many of these same lawmakers advocate and encourage further abuses in the name of social order and the "war against crime." It was only last year that House Republicans rammed through HR 666, warrantless searches if the law enforcement agency involved, executed the search "in good Faith." The Senate pushed through S735, the Counterterrorism Bill, that further expanded the military's role in domestic law enforcement. Republican Lawmakers, during the Bush administration and at the the behest of Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defense, formed the Special Forces, Joint Task Force Six and Operation Alliance which trained and provided the military hardware to the BATF used at Waco, as well as other opportunities to "fight crime."

Throughout the history of the Republic, times of national crisis have always been concomitant with a weak and corrupt Congress, and an imperial presidency. One of the most notable and bloody examples of this, preciptated our own civil war. This is the dilemna the nation finds itself in once again.

Were it not for the elections of 1994, and the emergence of a new class of freshmen lawmaker, holding both the Republican and Democratic leadership's feet to the fires of liberty, an out of control presidency will again plunge our nation into irrevocable crisis and the destruction of America as we have known and loved her.

This must not be allowed to happen!

James S. Barber

Saturday, January 23, 2016

Bill and Newt's Excellent Adventure

Bill and Newt's Excellent Adventure
James S. Barber - 01/06/97

The Congressional Repertory Company and the Clinton, Not Ready for Prime Time Players have held over "Bill & Newt's Excellent Adventure for another two weeks.

Rave reviews regarding how much attention the Congressional actors have been able to divert from Clinton and his player's recent bombs and legal flops, have been heaped upon them by major media. Indeed the Republican leadership deserves the lion's share of the credit for successfully obscuring Clinton & Co's alleged complicity in criminal fund raising with ties to international gun runners and drug dealers.

Contrary to the continual reports that a wide rift exists between the Not for Prime Time Players and the Congressional Repertory Co., their combined performances in the last two weeks have not only made for great theatre but have proven that their backstage cooperation is superb, even though both Congressional players and talking head, media critics have said otherwise.

The theatrical farce portrayed both on stage and TV bears true witness as to how much these alleged antagonists can conspire together when their very futures are threatened by previous bad performances. Many of the worst players from the Congressional Repertory Co. were cashiered in 1994 because of poor performances while presenting theatrical farce. Performances that just could not measure up to Bill & Newt's low standards that we see in today's government productions.

1997 should be another banner year for both of these long time purveyors of fantasy and myth. The Congressional Repertory Co. starring the Republican NWO Leadership and the Clinton Players will be presenting many more unconvincing performances regarding their supposed adversarial relationship, while backstage they will be conspiring to bring us some really low grade theater. This in the hope of extracting that last nickel from our pockets for the price of admission, and what little freedoms we have left while marching us off across the bridge to the 21st Century.

(No matter how much things change, how amazing it is to the degree in which they stay the same from twenty years ago)

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Who Are The Militia?
James S. Barber - 4/09/96

As the the drama of the federal law enforcement action in Jordan, Montana moves into it's third week, some subtle but nonetheless noticeable changes have occurred. The manner with which media has changed it's tack in reporting the Freemen Standoff and the besieged occupants of the "compound," is curiously devoid of any references to the evil "militia."

Even the federal law enforcement agencies involved have been mostly silent, unlike Waco, where daily press conferences were called to bolster their actions with diatribes and descriptions of all manner of debauchery in describing the Branch Davidians and their right wing terrorist supporters.

It is curious to note that the first week of the attempt to arrest the Freemen holed up in the 960 acre ranch, all manner of self styled terrorist and militia experts were sounding the alarms of impending doom, while referring to the freemen as terrorists, Klansman, white supremists, nazis, fascists, ad nauseum. The media widely reported these groups were the MILITIA collectively, in spite of numerous law enforcement and expert sources clarifying the obvious differences between all of these diverse groups and movements.

Even the reknowned Morris Dees, of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Klan Watch, drew the distinction between the militia and the Freemen under seige in Montana, but nonetheless qualified his conclusion with statements like "the militias are anti-Semite terrorist, violent hate mongering racists," so as not to seem too concilliatory in his admission of truth. Mr Dees knew full well that he could not get away with lying about who the Freemen were/are and that the militias could not be blamed for this one.

The militia movement has in the past been a convenient target of opportunity for accusations of vilolence from everything from the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building, to hate crimes, armed robberies, terrorist acts and murder, even if it was one of their own members (militia) that been killed by law enforcement officers.

In one instance, an accidental, self inflicted gunshot wound resulting in the death of an alleged militia member, was classified as proof of militia violence by media and law enforcement.

One can only speculate as to the reasons both the media and law enforcement have conspicuously downplayed the collective "militia" designation used to describe the freemen at Jordan, Montana, and other alleged anti-government groups that Morris and company claim exist for the sole purpose of "overthrowing the Government."

Much credit for the demands of accuracy in reporting who and what the Militia is and is not, must go to to many militia spokesmen and even some in the media that have correctly drawn the distinction between the Freemen and the various "Unorganized Militia" groups of the several states.

Bob Fletcher in particular, past member of the Militia of Montana, is to be commended for nailing Mr. Morris Dees' slippery hide to the wall on a CNN segment, shortly after the Freemen began their standoff with federal agents. While appearing with Dees, Mr Fletcher humiliated him after Dees accused him of lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year.

During testimony to that Committee, Bob Fletcher displayed a photo to committee members, of a number of Sheriff's deputies, dressed in full camo battle dress uniforms and helmets, carrying automatic weapons and flanked by an M113, Armored Personnel Carrier. Dees riduculed Fletcher's assertion of the militarization of local and state law enforcement and accused him of lying regarding his conclusion that the photo was proof positive that a militarization of civil law enforcement was indeed taking place in America. Fletcher's response to Dees' accusation was swift and direct, "Maybe it is time we investigate Dees' Southern Poverty Law Center for the fraud and financial irregularities and other moral indiscretions by Mr. Dees, widely reported in numerous Mississippi newspapers," said Fletcher. The camera quickly panned to Dees. His expression was one of a man that had just been struck by a bolt of lightning. Screams of righteous indignation could be heard eminating from their off camera CNN host, but Bob Fletcher was unrepentent and continued with a diatribe against Dees that he soon won't forget.

Dees' response? Zero, zippo, nada. He just sat there, staring blankly into the camera with an astonished look. The arrogance of the Dees of this world is remarkable, and stupid. Do Dees and other corrupt propogandists and black bag men think that their own unsavory pasts will not be exposed?

Bob Fletcher and other militia supporters have undoubtably concluded it is time to take the gloves off and timing is everything. The militia movement is a duly constituted, Constitutionallly legal component of the several state's military establishments, well regulated and membered by patriotic, tax paying, voting Americans that believe in a strong defense of both home and country, just as the Founding Fathers intended. I dare say that more members of Congress have run afoul of the law than the entire membership of the militias of the several states, in the performance of militia duties.

What gives then? Why the outright attack on something as patriotic and Constitutionally legal as volunteer militia duty in the pursuit of safeguarding country, hearth and home? Why the demonization of men and women that see the militia obligation as an opportunity to serve one's country?

Some may view the militia as an opportunity to serve when they have passed the legal age for regular military duty (the Ohio Constitution states a 17 to 67 year age for unorganized militia service) or may never have had the opportunity to serve in the regular armed forces. Others long for the commraderie they experienced while serving their country in times past.

People of other nations, particularly Europe, consider Home Guard duty (Unorganized Militia service), a part one's responsibility and patriotic duty and is never questioned as in Switzerland, where they have no regular military establishment. Only here in the United States has this military tradition, which has been an integral part of every state's constitution for more than one hundred years, been villified and branded terrorist by the press and certain segments of an overzealous political class. Home Guard or Unorganized Militia duty as it is called in Ohio's Constitution, has been in existence even before the founding of this nation.

Could it be that the Founding Fathers knew all too well that Americans, could only guarentee the continuance of their liberties by active participation in it it's protection? Was it their knowledge of the many European monarchies and their penchant for tyranny, that prompted them to adopt the Second Amendment, as well as the other nine amendments to the Constitution of the United States?

What is it then that the Charles Schumers',the Morris Dees' and even many members of our own well estabished political leadership fear regarding the existence of a Constitutionally legal citizen's militia? Why do they fear and villify Americans that feel they are performing their patriotic duty? A duty that they themselves unselfishly obligate themselves to.

These questions can only be answered by those who attempt to disparage and criminalize the honorable intentions of individuals that believe in duty to one's country.

Constitutionally speaking, militia duty is a RIGHT and an American's responsibility. Let us not lose yet another right to political zealots with an agenda that just may prove to be an affirmation of the reasoning behind the adoption of our Bill of Rights. And in particular, the amendment that they would abolish with glee, The Second Amendment. These lawmakers owe the American people an explanation of their actions and their fear of citizens participating in and taking responsibility for their own safety and the security of their nation.

For The Good Of The Community 1/18/96

For The Good Of The Community
James S. Barber - 1/18/96

Author Martin Grossman wrote that the proponents of globalist, New World Order government, have embraced the most despicable aspects of both communism and fascism in their goal of redefining the future of America.

Over the last few decades, Americans have been subjected to government policies which purport to advance all manner of social/socialist agendas, secular humanist, multicultural, diverse society, with a level playing field (the rich contributing "their fair share of wealth and property" to the interests of the "community".) While at the same time demonstrating an increasing propensity toward police state brutality and corruption worthy of a third world banana republic.

Further evidence of Martin Grossman's assessment is confirmed in a book written by George C. Lodge, a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, and a trustee of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, as well as various United Nations sponsored groups. "Managing Globalization in the Age of Interdependence." describes and promotes the philosophy of "Communitarianism" as the only alternative to individualism that is the cause of the dilemma the world finds itself in today. Lodge writes, "Communitarianism- is characterized by equality of result or hierarchy, which may be coerced or arrived at voluntarily." You will notice the quaint, Orwellian double speak by Lodge, i.e. "voluntary coercion."

Consider the unprecedented explosion in government funded social, educational and medical programs that now comprise the largest segment of the federal budget. Not one single facet of American's lives are not somehow influenced or controlled by statist policies of our federal government. Draconian environmental controls on private land use, outcome based reeducation programs imposed upon our children, without the slightest concern of parent's objections. The destruction of religion under the guise of separation of church and state, subsidy programs that guarantee continued dependence on federal funding and even federally controlled state speed limits, coerced through blackmail of withholding federal highway funds.

The constant mantra of "change" elicited by Clinton, many in congress and the media, is suspect of the kind of change promoted by Marx and Engels, in their 1848 book, "The Communist Manifesto." For decades, these "changes" have been wrenching deviations from the role of government we had believed to be, traditionally American.

The current warfare between Clinton and freshmen republicans regarding the way in which taxpayer's money is to be spent, demonstrates the Communitarian's view on the imperial power of the presidency in a Communitarian, World Order.

Even as children, Americans were taught that the Congress has "the power of the purse" in order to check the power of the executive branch. This obviously flies in the face of the Communitarian Clinton philosophy, that demands powers the Founding Fathers never intended, and in fact warned of and prohibited Constitutionally. The president was never intended to possess or wield such power, as is now being demonstrated in the budget battle and foreign policy. His decision to deploy peacekeeping troops to Bosnia, despite the objection of Congress and the American people, must have Thomas Jefferson, spinning in their graves at six thousand revolutions per minute.

Lodge describes communitarianism as in contrast to "individualism" in which he correctly defines as a "Traditional American Philosophy." Writes Lodge, "individualism argues for voluntary consensus; the Communitarian believes that coercion--prisons and the like--may be necessary to secure it." (Communitarian American Society)

The accelerated pace in the expansion of federal law enforcement, the nationalization of state and local police, and the expanded prison construction programs that Congress, and the Clinton administration are so exuberant in implementing, would seem to mesh nicely with the advent of a communitarian America.

Lodge further explains the role of the Communitarian president and the "Lords of the New World Order," in disturbingly familiar detail regarding what has already transpired in the United States, and many other of the world's nations.

"A strong leader takes charge and defines the "Community" and it's needs. The new community harvests funds from wherever they are available, (Mena anyone ?) creates subsidized housing, secures police protection, screens members for admission, establishes standards for rights and duties for all community members, enforces these standards vigorously, expelling those who do not obey, and imposes discipline."

Is this the vision this bunch in Washington has planned for the American people? Do they presume that future generations of Americans will be sufficiently brain dead and totally dependent on government, that all individual thought can be eradicated through the reeducation of mankind?

There is good evidence that dozens, if not hundreds of federal prison/detention facilities remain vacant, while state prisons are filled to overcapacity, the majority of inmates being minor drug offenders and other petty criminals.

Lodge continues, ".....Stalin and Hitler were Communitarians as are Lee Kuan Hew, and the leaders of Japan and Israel; even, it seems to me, Bill Clinton."

In a speech given on Martin Luther King day in Atlanta, Bill Clinton compared the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia to America's crime ridden inner cities, subtly inferring that it's purpose in Bosnia (peacekeeping) was the solution to America's crime and violence problems.

One should listen to Clinton's ramblings very carefully during his many media dissertations, as he leaves subtle clues as to his future actions and mind set. He makes constant references to "The Community of Nations," and "the World Community" when referring to errant nations and the many globalist domestic programs foisted upon us, for example NAFTA and GATT, or the UN, International Rights of the Child Treaty which is presently on the docket of the US Senate for ratification.

During the last budget shutdown in December, a liberal member of congress and a spokesman for the administration both made references to "martial law" in regards to the chaos the government shutdown had caused. These remarks, although in passing, were none the less disturbing in the context of a remedy for restoring government operations. Coercion rather than consensus is apparently the mainstay of accomplishing communitarian goals. It would then seem reasonable to invoke martial law and domestic peacemaking to further the goals of an American communitarian society.

If the solution were to purge the executive of these despots in the next election, we Americans will have a difficult but attainable result. However I fear that a sizable number of the members of both houses of congress share these communitarian ambitions, as do many in the federal judiciary. Members of the judiciary are in fact partisan, political appointees. One of the most confusing aspects of the last few decades is that both republicans and democrats share common beliefs regarding many of the goals Lodge states in his book, that is Communitarian goals.

With the exception of the house freshmen, members of both parties have regularly converged on issues such as counter-terrorism legislation and expanding the hostage rescue team. Both parties took turns whitewashing the Waco investigations in the house of representatives. Liberal democrats pushed for numerous gun bans and with the help of house and senate republicans, saw them pass. Conservative republicans proposed, and with the help of democrats passed legislation expanding the federal law inforcement's ability to conduct warrantless searches, if done "in good faith." In this case, it was liberal democrats that vociferously objected to the warrantless search legislation, HR 666, aptly titled I might add, in a unique example of role switching. On too many occasions, republican and democratic leadership cut deals with the Bush and Clinton administrations, to further executive branch global agendas. The point being is that the various branches of government, legislative, executive and judicial are not divided between democrat and republican, liberal or conservative, but are divided along philosophical lines of communitarians and constitutional nationalists.

Communitarians appear to be comprised of either party and depending on the issue at hand, liberal or conservatives find common ground regarding globalist and world community issues. Conservatives for international trade and liberals for dispatching the military for humanitarian/peacekeeping missions. In the case of the Bosnian issue, there appeared to be an almost total role reversal, with republicans strongly objecting to troop deployment while the democrats were four square in favor of a dangerous intervention in the Balkans. This, heads you win tails I lose, aspect of communitarianism is the genius of the New World Order/Communitarian agenda. Voters subscribing to the conventional two party choices on election day will surely come out losers, as it is conceivable that even a party with minority status, will become part of a majority of communitarian proponents from the opposition, majority party, with the power to increase the influence of the world community over U.S.Sovereignty, regardless of party affiliation.

I will leave you with a final quote from George Lodge's book which describes quite accurately, the direction our government has taken for the last few decades.

"The role of the state in a Communitarian Society is to define community needs and to insure they are implemented, inevitably, the state takes on important tasks of coordination, priority setting, and planning."