Monthly Archives: December 2011

I have Registered as a Candidate for United States Senator, running as a Constitutional Democratic-Republican against Dianne Feinstein, that pillar of the Establishment
I was playing this very inspiring video with JFK, MLK, Jr., and Ron Paul on my I-Pad to a small group in Room 2013 on the second floor of the the Los Angeles County Registrar’s Office for Candidate Registration today. Kennedy was at least nominally a Democrat, although it appears he may have been assassinated, at least in part, for opposing the Federal Reserve and in particular the plan to take silver out of circulation, and hence as a basis for the United States Dollar….which had been “silver” since at least the 1780s…. I was waiting while an even smaller group of unusually efficient bureaucrats processed the paperwork necessary to put my campaign “on-line.”

And so it was that on Friday, December 30, the last business day of 2011, I filed formal campaign papers to run for U.S. Senate against Dianne Feinstein. Many of California’s representatives in Congress are traitors, and should be removed, although I noted with some satisfaction that in the Los Angeles Basin proper, only the very oldest New World Order Advocate/Brave New Warrior Henry Arnold Waxman, voted for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011…(Fiscal 2012, aka “Indefinite Detention without charges, due process of law, or habeas corpus). Nancy Pelosi, of course, voted with Waxman and the establishment, as did Adam Schiff and Howard Berman, but in the spirit of fairness, I think we owe at least the following 18 Democratic and 4 Republican Representatives on the California delegagtion credit for their courageous “no” votes:
No CA-1 Thompson, C. [D]
No CA-4 McClintock, Tom [R]
No CA-5 Matsui, Doris [D]
No CA-6 Woolsey, Lynn [D]
No CA-7 Miller, George [D]
No CA-9 Lee, Barbara [D]
No CA-12 Speier, Jackie [D]
No CA-13 Stark, Fortney [D]
No CA-14 Eshoo, Anna [D]
No CA-15 Honda, Michael [D]
No CA-16 Lofgren, Zoe [D]
No CA-17 Farr, Sam [D]
No CA-31 Becerra, Xavier [D]
No CA-32 Chu, Judy [D]
No CA-33 Bass, Karen [D]
No CA-34 Roybal-Allard, Lucille [D]
No CA-35 Waters, Maxine [D]
No CA-36 Hahn, Janice [D]
No CA-38 Napolitano, Grace [D]
No CA-40 Royce, Edward [R]
No CA-46 Rohrabacher, Dana [R]
No CA-48 Campbell, John [R]

I am grateful that the primary is non-partisan, because partisan labels “Democrat” and “Republican” now mean nothing except that third-party candidates are doomed. The “top two” selection process without a primary and runoff is ALSO unfairly stacked against the outside, but we shall see whether the number of ordinary Californians (in the tens of millions) can recognize their common grounds and identify with me. I call out to everyone who has been defrauded of their vested contractual rights their homes, their jobs, and their property, defeated in every court and administrative proceeding, and dispossessed of all their rights, title, and interest in life, liberty, and property….and so consistently defeated and frustrated for a very long time in their pursuit of happiness…of the American Dream— I call out to everyone with a family member now or recently in jail, on probation, or under investigation…. I call out to everyone who used to be one of the “haves” and is now a “have not”, or who has never been invited to the table of prosperity at all, to join me in fighting for the end of deceit, lies, and prevarication as policies of governmental manipulation and control. We must divest the banks and the corporations of their controlling positions in society and thus destroy the military-industrial-financial complex which has made government subservient to the few rather than the many. In particular, we must take American land and jobs off the world market—to be bought and sold into slavery by massive foreign interests with no commitment to freedom or democracy, and to restore American productivity. Let them scream in Beijing and Shanghai, Mumbai, Islamabad, Calcutta, Bangkok, and Singapore, calling us “isolationists” and “protectionists” and we will know that we are on the road toward being a happy and prosperous nation again. Let us learn from the disaster in Europe and start dismantling our Central Banking system and abolish fiat currency and reckless credit regimes before they together flatten and wreck us. Let us restore private property to our people and so replace welfare slavery with independence as the primary way of life. Let us even accept that we will all have to work harder, be poorer, and use our minds with more discipline and vigor if we are ever really to be free and stand upright to each other as citizens and to the world again. And in relation to the world, let us indeed “leave them alone.” If Sharia law is the will of the people in Amman, Algiers, Baghdad, Benghazi, Cairo, Damascus, Khartoum, Tehran, Tripoli, and Tunisia, let those people have their way. We will leave them alone and they will leave us alone—I have no doubt of it! Good fences make good neighbors so long as the dogs of war don’t jump over them….and so long as we control ours, I believe they will control theirs. “Terrorism”, as it has been analyzed and applied in the past twenty years, really DOES begin at home you know….

Proposed Super-Commission on Defining Domestic Terrorism: Former Representative Jane Harman (not CEO of the Woodrow Wilson Institute—a hotbed of Globalist conformity and universalist homogenization) authored and Obama (both as a Senator and now as President) Completely Endorsed her Plan? This story had been circulating on the European Media but little discussed in the US News until SB 1867 became a major issue….!

Rep. Jane Harman of California to resign
Democrat Jane Harman, who represents a Los Angeles-area district, is expected to leave Congress to lead the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a congressional source says.
February 07, 2011|By Richard Simon
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), a leading congressional voice on anti-terrorism issues, plans to resign from Congress to head up the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a senior congressional source confirmed Monday, setting up a special election to choose her successor in a coastal district that stretches from Venice into the South Bay.

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone who ever called him or herself a “liberal Democrat” could participate in the 1984-inspired perpetual “War on Terrorism.”

New Law By Obama To Jail 500,000 American Citizens Or More For The Crime Of Opposing Their Government.
November 17, 2011 5:20

Foreign Ministry reports circulating in the Kremlin today are warning that an already explosive situation in the United States is about to get a whole lot worse as a new law put forth by President Obama is said capable of seeing up to 500,000 American citizens jailed for the crime of opposing their government.

Sparking the concern of Russian diplomats over the growing totalitarian bent of the Obama government is the planned reintroduction of what these reports call one of the most draconian laws ever introduced in a free society that is titled “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act”.

First introduced in the US Congress in 2007 by Democratic Representative Jane Harman, this new law passed the US House of Representatives by a secretive voice vote, but failed to pass the US Senate, after which it was believed dead until this past week when it was embraced by Obama who became the first American President to name his own citizens as a threat to his Nations security.

In what is called the National Security Strategy document, that is required of US Presidents by their Congress, that embraces the dictatorial ideals of the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act”, Obama has ordered his Federal police and intelligence forces to begin targeting Americans opposed to him and his radical socialist polices.

Obama’s top counter-terrorism advisor, John Brennan, in speaking to reporters about this new“strategy” says it makes the problem of home-grown terrorists a top priority because an increasing number of individuals in the US have become “captivated by extremist ideology or causes.”

The Times of London is further reporting that Obama’s new National Security Strategy “officially” ends America’s “War on Terror” in what they call “a sweeping repudiation of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes.”

And as Obama begins re-focusing his forces from fighting America’s foreign enemies, to those opposed to him in his own country, it is important to remember the warning about this new law given by the former CIA official, Philip Giraldi, who had previously warned of the Bush-Cheney plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, and who said:

“The mainstream media has made no effort to inform the public of the impending Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. The Act, which was sponsored by Congresswoman Jane Harman of California, was passed in the House by an overwhelming 405 to 6 vote on October 24th and is now awaiting approval by the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which is headed by Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

Harman’s bill contends that the United States will soon have to deal with home grown terrorists and that something must be done to anticipate and neutralize the problem. The act deals with the issue through the creation of a congressional commission that will be empowered to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and designate various groups as “homegrown terrorists.”

The commission will be tasked to propose new legislation that will enable the government to take punitive action against both the groups and the individuals who are affiliated with them. Like Joe McCarthy and HUAC in the past, the commission will travel around the United States and hold hearings to find the terrorists and root them out.

Unlike inquiries in the past where the activity was carried out collectively, the act establishing the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Commission will empower all the members on the commission to arrange hearings, obtain testimony, and even to administer oaths to witnesses, meaning that multiple hearings could be running simultaneously in various parts of the country.

The ten commission members will be selected for their “expertise,” though most will be appointed by Congress itself and will reflect the usual political interests. They will be paid for their duties at the senior executive pay scale level and will have staffs and consultants to assist them.

Harman’s bill does not spell out terrorist behavior and leaves it up to the Commission itself to identify what is terrorism and what isn’t.

Language inserted in the act does partially define “homegrown terrorism” as “planning” or “threatening” to use force to promote a political objective, meaning that just thinking about doing something could be enough to merit the terrorist label.

The act also describes “violent radicalization” as the promotion of an “extremist belief system” without attempting to define “extremist.”

As an example of those American’s Obama will be targeting, Giraldi further writes that The Simon Wiesenthal Center, in testifying before the US Congress in support of this new law, swore that an organization called “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth” was an example of a homegrown terrorist organization, leading one Russian diplomat in this report to state “If 1,200 of America’s top architectural and engineering professionals are deemed terrorists simply  because they question their governments propaganda than truly no one is safe in the United States anymore”.

As another example of how dictatorial the Obama regime has become, and as the Gulf of Mexico oil debacle has now become the worst ecological disaster our World has ever seen, the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, this past week slammed American reporters for “asking too many questions about BP”.  Leading one to ask that if Obama’s regime can’t be asked about this disaster, what can they be asked about?

The answer is apparently none, as Obama himself, just this past week, in announcing his signing of a new law called the Press Freedom Act refused to answer any reporters questions and abruptly left them standing in stupefaction over the irony an ordeal that shows how far America has fallen.

Another irony apparently lost upon the American people is that their President Obama, who has been dubbed “The Great Communicator”, now holds the dubious distinction of having held less press conferences than any American President in modern history.  And if yesterday’s press conference, his first in nearly a year, was any example one can see why as incredulous press corps was left astounded that Obama had no knowledge of the firing/resignation of one of his top officials.

In all of these events one fact, beyond all others, stands out….in what was once called “The Land of the Free, And the Home of the Brave”…..the United States today has become “The Land Of Slave, And the Home of the Coward”….and these Americans have only themselves to blame.


Oct 24, 2007 – Referred in Senate. This is the text of the bill after moving from the House to the Senate before being considered by Senate committees. This is the latest version of the bill currently available on GovTrack.

 HR 1955 RFS                 110th CONGRESS, 1st Session

H. R. 1955


October 24, 2007Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs


To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the `Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007′.


(a) In General- Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new subtitle:

Subtitle J–Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism


For purposes of this subtitle:

(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission’ means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.


The Congress finds the following:

(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.

(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.

(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.

(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.

(6) Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.

(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.

(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.


(a) Establishment- There is established within the legislative branch of the Government the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.

(b) Purpose- The purposes of the Commission are the following:  (1) Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or `lone wolf’ violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important. (2) Build upon and bring together the work of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of–(A) the Center of Excellence established or designated under section 899D, and other academic work, as appropriate;  (B) Federal, State, local, or tribal studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence; and  (C) foreign government studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence.

 (c) Composition of Commission- The Commission shall be composed of 10 members appointed for the life of the Commission, of whom–(1) one member shall be appointed by the President from among officers or employees of the executive branch and private citizens of the United States; (2) one member shall be appointed by the Secretary; (3) one member shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate; (4) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate; (5) one member shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (6) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives; (7) one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives; (8) one member shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives; (9) one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and (10) one member shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.

(d) Chair and Vice Chair- The Commission shall elect a Chair and a Vice Chair from among its members.

(e) Qualifications- Individuals shall be selected for appointment to the Commission solely on the basis of their professional qualifications, achievements, public stature, experience, and expertise in relevant fields, including, but not limited to, behavioral science, constitutional law, corrections, counterterrorism, cultural anthropology, education, information technology, intelligence, juvenile justice, local law enforcement, organized crime, Islam and other world religions, sociology, or terrorism.

(f) Deadline for Appointment- All members of the Commission shall be appointed no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this subtitle.

(g) Quorum and Meetings- The Commission shall meet and begin the operations of the Commission not later than 30 days after the date on which all members have been appointed or, if such meeting cannot be mutually agreed upon, on a date designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Each subsequent meeting shall occur upon the call of the Chair or a majority of its members. A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold meetings.

 (h) Authority of Individuals to Act for Commission- Any member of the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any action that the Commission is authorized to take under this Act.

(i) Powers of Commission- The powers of the Commission shall be as follows:  (1) IN GENERAL- (A) HEARINGS AND EVIDENCE- The Commission or, on the authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this section, hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable to carry out its duties.  (B) CONTRACTING- The Commission may, to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its duties under this section.

(2) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES- (A) IN GENERAL- The Commission may request directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the Government, information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purposes of this section. The head of each such department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the extent practicable and authorized by law, furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon request made by the Chair of the Commission, by the chair of any subcommittee created by a majority of the Commission, or by any member designated by a majority of the Commission.

(B) RECEIPT, HANDLING, STORAGE, AND DISSEMINATION- The Committee and its staff shall receive, handle, store, and disseminate information in a manner consistent with the operative statutes, regulations, and Executive orders that govern the handling, storage, and dissemination of such information at the department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality that responds to the request.

(j) Assistance From Federal Agencies- (1) GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION- The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis administrative support and other services for the performance of the Commission’s functions.   (2) OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES- In addition to the assistance required under paragraph (1), departments and agencies of the United States may provide to the Commission such services, funds, facilities, and staff as they may determine advisable and as may be authorized by law.

(k) Postal Services- The Commission may use the United States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as departments and agencies of the United States.

(l) Nonapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act- The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Commission.

(m) Public Meetings- (1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall hold public hearings and meetings to the extent appropriate. (2) PROTECTION OF INFORMATION- Any public hearings of the Commission shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the protection of information provided to or developed for or by the Commission as required by any applicable statute, regulation, or Executive order including subsection (i)(2)(B).

(n) Staff of Commission-(1) APPOINTMENT AND COMPENSATION- The Chair of the Commission, in consultation with the Vice Chair and in accordance with rules adopted by the Commission, may appoint and fix the compensation of a staff director and such other personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its functions, without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no rate of pay fixed under this subsection may exceed the maximum rate of pay for GS-15 under the General Schedule.

(2) STAFF EXPERTISE- Individuals shall be selected for appointment as staff of the Commission on the basis of their expertise in one or more of the fields referred to in subsection (e).

(3) PERSONNEL AS FEDERAL EMPLOYEES- (A) IN GENERAL- The executive director and any employees of the Commission shall be employees under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.  (B) MEMBERS OF COMMISSION- Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to apply to members of the Commission.

(4) DETAILEES- Any Federal Government employee may be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement from the Commission, and during such detail shall retain the rights, status, and privileges of his or her regular employment without interruption.

(5) CONSULTANT SERVICES- The Commission may procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.

(6) EMPHASIS ON SECURITY CLEARANCES- The Commission shall make it a priority to hire as employees and retain as contractors and detailees individuals otherwise authorized by this section who have active security clearances.

(o) Commission Personnel Matters- (1) COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS- Each member of the Commission who is not an employee of the government shall be compensated at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day during which that member is engaged in the actual performance of the duties of the Commission.

(2) TRAVEL EXPENSES- While away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission.

(3) TRAVEL ON ARMED FORCES CONVEYANCES- Members and personnel of the Commission may travel on aircraft, vehicles, or other conveyances of the Armed Forces of the United States when such travel is necessary in the performance of a duty of the Commission, unless the cost of commercial transportation is less expensive.

(4) TREATMENT OF SERVICE FOR PURPOSES OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS- A member of the Commission who is an annuitant otherwise covered by section 8344 or 8468 of title 5, United States Code, by reason of membership on the Commission shall not be subject to the provisions of such section with respect to membership on the Commission.

(5) VACANCIES- A vacancy on the Commission shall not affect its powers and shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made. The appointment of the replacement member shall be made not later than 60 days after the date on which the vacancy occurs.

(p) Security Clearances- The heads of appropriate departments and agencies of the executive branch shall cooperate with the Commission to expeditiously provide Commission members and staff with appropriate security clearances to the extent possible under applicable procedures and requirements.

(q) Reports- (1) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 18 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, the Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a final report of its findings and conclusions, legislative recommendations for immediate and long-term countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and measures that can be taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence from developing and spreading within the United States, and any final recommendations for any additional grant programs to support these purposes. The report may also be accompanied by a classified annex.

(2) INTERIM REPORTS- The Commission shall submit to the President and Congress– (A) by not later than 6 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, a first interim report on–

(i) its findings and conclusions and legislative recommendations for the purposes described in paragraph (1); and (ii) its recommendations on the feasibility of a grant program established and administered by the Secretary for the purpose of preventing, disrupting, and mitigating the effects of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and, if such a program is feasible, recommendations on how grant funds should be used and administered; and

(B) by not later than 6 months after the date on which the Commission submits the interim report under subparagraph (A), a second interim report on such matters.

(3) INDIVIDUAL OR DISSENTING VIEWS- Each member of the Commission may include in each report under this subsection the individual additional or dissenting views of the member.

(4) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY- The Commission shall release a public version of each report required under this subsection.

(r) Availability of Funding- Amounts made available to the Commission to carry out this section shall remain available until the earlier of the expenditure of the amounts or the termination of the Commission.

(s) Termination of Commission- The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the date on which the Commission submits its final report.


(a) Establishment- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States (hereinafter referred to as `Center’) following the merit-review processes and procedures and other limitations that have been previously established for selecting and supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence. The Center shall assist Federal, State, local and tribal homeland security officials through training, education, and research in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. In carrying out this section, the Secretary may choose to either create a new Center designed exclusively for the purpose stated herein or identify and expand an existing Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence so that a working group is exclusively designated within the existing Center of Excellence to achieve the purpose set forth in subsection (b).

(b) Purpose- It shall be the purpose of the Center to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States and methods that can be utilized by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

(c) Activities- In carrying out this section, the Center shall–

(1) contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;

(2) utilize theories, methods and data from the social and behavioral sciences to better understand the origins, dynamics, and social and psychological aspects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;

(3) conduct research on the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and

(4) coordinate with other academic institutions studying the effects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism where appropriate.


(a) International Effort- The Secretary shall, in cooperation with the Department of State, the Attorney General, and other Federal Government entities, as appropriate, conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in their respective nations.

(b) Implementation- To the extent that methodologies are permissible under the Constitution, the Secretary shall use the results of the survey as an aid in developing, in consultation with the Attorney General, a national policy in the United States on addressing radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

(c) Reports to Congress- The Secretary shall submit a report to Congress that provides–

(1) a brief description of the foreign partners participating in the survey; and

(2) a description of lessons learned from the results of the survey and recommendations implemented through this international outreach.


 (a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
 (b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security’s commitment to racial neutrality.

(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting at the end of the items relating to title VIII the following:

Subtitle J–Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism

Sec. 899A. Definitions.

Sec. 899B. Findings.

Sec. 899C. National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence.

Sec. 899D. Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States.

Sec. 899E. Preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism through international cooperative efforts.

Sec. 899F. Protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism.’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 23, 2007.

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, Clerk.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes to Senate Bill 1867 to cover up the grim reality—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.

Candidate Statement 2012: For Freedom and Real Social Diversity, “Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call “Freedom”.

It Is My Intention To Run For United States Senator In The Non-Partisan Primary Election Currently Scheduled For June 5, 2012—

I intend to run on the following statements:


I STAND FOR THE RESTORATION OF A JEFFERSONIAN FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC wherein governmental intrusion into private life is limited by the constitution, reserving all powers to the people!

My interim campaign managers in this venture are: in Orange County: Renada Nadine March (949) 276-1970 and Aurora Isadora Diaz (714) 767-3311; Ed Villanueva in San Diego County (858) 231-5033; as well as my Campaign Treasurer, National Coordinator, and longtime personal trustee Peyton Yates Freiman (512) 968-2666.

Anyone interested in promoting “diversity” in the Democratic Party and U.S. Senate by electing a Conservative, sound money, pro-Private Property, pro-Common Law, pro-10th-Amendment, Libertarian Candidate to replace the hopelessly establishmentarian and politically correct Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has played a leading role as member of the Senate Committees on the Judiciary and Intelligence in approving and ratifying the corruption which shackled America, should seriously consider backing me for Senate.

To elect anyone with my “outsider” credentials and background would “send them a message” inside the Washington Beltway that the people are uncomfortable and dissatisfied with the Status Quo and want real change.

My specific platform planks are:

(1) restoration of full First Amendment rights, and the abolition of all forms of governmental regulation of speech and expression, including the elimination of penalties for advocacy and repeated submission of petitions for redress in the Federal Court system.

One of my favorite passages in the Gospels is Luke 18:1-8, the Parable of the Unjust Judge—which tells of a Judge to whom a widow repeatedly brings her petition for redress, and which Judge finally grants her relief rather than hear her plea again.  Apparently, in Ancient Israel, it was unimaginable that any person would be penalized for repeatedly seeking justice—even it was by no means certain that this particular widow or any person would obtain anything by her efforts.  The Federal Courts, with Congressional support, have all but cut off the power of the people effectively petition through the Courts.  Federal Courts seem to exist only for the benefit of large corporations and law firms.  This particular corruption must end, even though, harking back to one of the passages in the Hebrew Bible, it is an ancient problem.

The following, from Isaiah 59, seems to me to embody my own frustration, and the frustration of many I know, with the Judicial System and its most numerous “officers of the court” who are the lawyers (one of my Great Grandfathers was a Judge & Justice in Louisiana—according to family legend he had a plaque on the walls of his chambers which read, “Dead Lawyers Lie Still”.   ISAIAH 59:

4 No one calls for justice;
no one pleads a case with integrity.
They rely on empty arguments, they utter lies;
they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.
5 They hatch the eggs of vipers
and spin a spider’s web.
Whoever eats their eggs will die,
and when one is broken, an adder is hatched.
6 Their cobwebs are useless for clothing;
they cannot cover themselves with what they make.
Their deeds are evil deeds,
and acts of violence are in their hands.
7 Their feet rush into sin;
they are swift to shed innocent blood.
They pursue evil schemes;
acts of violence mark their ways.
8 The way of peace they do not know;
there is no justice in their paths.
They have turned them into crooked roads;
no one who walks along them will know peace.
So justice is far from us, and righteousness does not reach us.
We look for light, but all is darkness;
for brightness, but we walk in deep shadows.
10 Like the blind we grope along the wall,
feeling our way like people without eyes.
At midday we stumble as if it were twilight;
among the strong, we are like the dead.
11 We all growl like bears;
we moan mournfully like doves.
We look for justice, but find none;
for deliverance, but it is far away.
14 So justice is driven back,
and righteousness stands at a distance;
truth has stumbled in the streets,
honesty cannot enter.
15 Truth is nowhere to be found,
and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey.

(2) restoration of full Second Amendment rights, on the grounds that the power of the people to defend themselves against government is the necessary backup to the freedoms secured by the First Amendment (an all-powerful army and police force with the monopoly of legitimate violence is simply incompatible, in both the long and the short term, with meaningful individual or social freedom). We must reinvigorate the concept of the civilian militia, composed of every adult man and woman in society.

Switzerland and Israel both follow this model of public participation, which just shows that there are no guarantees of anything in life or politics: Switzerland by its rigid neutrality has avoided direct involvement in all the wars of the past century, while Israel has been in a state of nearly constant war since even before its creation 63 years ago in 1948.

In the United States, we have somehow combined both worlds: up until 1992, we had enjoyed a century of nearly complete domestic peace.  Discounting several dozen essentially disorganized and nearly random urban riots relating to the Labor movement in the 1890s and the Civil Rights and Vietnam War Protest movements in the late 1950s-early 1970s, there was no serious conflict or “state of hostility” on United States soil following the withdrawal of occupying forces from the South in 1877 and the dawn of the “Decade of Domestic Terrorism” which ran from 1992-2001, and led to the transformation of American government and the near obliteration of civil rights.

(3) freedom of contract from governmental interference of every kind;

To fully implement this phrase would eliminate such a large portion of the United States Code and the work of lawyers generally that overtaxed pulp-tree farms (and recycling plants) everywhere would heave a sigh of relief.   Just as an example, the IRS code and many Federal Courts frown on contracts for barter or exchange—meaning that the most basic instinct of exchange of goods, labor, or services of any kind for negotiated substantive value without assigning any formal cash value has been very nearly made a Federal crime.

(4) reduction in governmental subsidies with a goal towards ultimate elimination, of  corporate welfare, individual welfare, and all programs which foster dependency on the state rather than freedom and social-interdependence of people on each other as equals—again of absolutely every kind;

(5) reduction in governmental power over all aspects of human life, but including especially but not limited to all regulations which tend to affect individuals as members of families, and to alienate the individual from his family as a considered governmental “benefit” or “service” in support of “domestic relations” laws; and also including all regulations which tend to impose uniform philosophies or beliefs, or enforce normative standards of human philosophy, religion, or ideology of any kind.

Returning to the point about the First Amendment above, a free society (such as existed in the United States during the Colonial, Early Republican, and up through mid-19th century period at least) must foster the development of new and divergent lifestyles based on emergent new philosophies rather than trying to straightjacket society and culture into a “one-size” fits all narrow menu of politically correct and socially acceptable choices.

(6) abolition of government programs such as massive environmental regulation (including the construction and maintenance of dams and nuclear power plants) which necessarily increase the dependence of the people on the government and government controlled monopolies for their very survival;

(7) the abolition of all kinds of official immunity, including but not limited to judicial and prosecutorial immunity, for violation of civil rights, and especially for those violations and abuses of office which design or promote private or unofficial political and “social engineering” goals;

(8) any and every attempt by the state or federal government to regulate or control family organization in the name of “public welfare”;  here again, multiple apparently opposing interests may be reconciled creatively.   The interests of so-calle “social conservatives” will be served because the Federal government would no longer subsidize the state-sponsored breakup of families, pitting husbands and wives against each other in an eternal redistributive battle which ultimately enriches only lawyers and empowers only Judges and social workers.   Moreover, the power of Churches, Religious, Philosophical, and/or even Private Social or cultural groups to institute, promulgate rules, and regulate marriage and the education of the young will be restored.

However, persons of a socially liberal bent will find that the abolition of all civil and criminal restrictions on “gay marriage” and any other (victimless, voluntary) “alternative lifestyles” will lead to complete individual choice and private decision-making, limited only by individual imagination and the criminal laws against physical injury and slavery of any kind.

In a truly free society, if the Unitarian Universalist and other churches wish to solemnize gay marriage, they shall do so according to their own rules and regulations without leave or license from any state officer. But at the same time, the Conservative Presbyterians and Southern Baptist Convention will be free to ban and forbid membership to any individuals choosing what appears to these groups an “ungodly” lifestyle.  The marketplace of ideas, in short, will be open to all competing models, and the triumph or failure of any ideology will be utterly without beneficial or detrimental consequences in the law.

(9) a restoration of strict construction of the constitution and civil rights as respecting life, liberty, and property ownership;

(10) a complete restructuring of the banking and government finance systems, including but not limited to abolition of the Federal Reserve and the Federal income tax;

(11) a restoration to the people of the power (and the duty) to structure their own lives and social relations by contractual agreement without governmental interference, the major legitimate function of the courts being to enforce and judge the fairness of private contracts, including but not limited to marriage contracts and other agreements relating to domestic relations, such that the marriage license and state-sponsored divorce should be forever abolished and erased from the American social scene, restoring true freedom of association and freedom of religion to the people so that MEANINGFUL cultural and social diversity can flourish in the absence of regulation.   In this connection, all victimless crimes should be abolished, and the definition of “crimes against society” or humanity should be strictly limited to those behaviors which actually place real individuals in physical danger.  “Moral” or “Mental” injuries such as the consequences, for example, of merely “hateful” expression (without associated conduct such as assaultive behavior) must no longer be allowed to be a cause for criminal punishment (although tortious actions for “emotional distress” and other forms of non-physical victimization would be greatly expanded and liberalized, although subjected to the funnel and fulcrum of trial-by-fully-informed juries).

(12) corporate and professional, like governmental immunity, should be abolished or at least severely curtailed so that corporate, like governmental, officers, cannot hide behind legal shields while they wield immensely destructive financial swords, (

13) electronic voting should be carefully and independently monitored and subject to citizen audits, as should all governmental actions, but electronic voting should be supplemented by duplicative paper ballot receipt systems where the voter casts his vote electronically, but then casts and keeps a confirming paper copy of his vote, so that recounts will have double and triple built in security systems,

(14) all ancient prerogative writs, including quo warranto should be restored and forever guaranteed to the people,

(15) Federal judicial rules should be reformed in favor of freely amended pleadings and limiting the discretion of judges to dismiss complaints based on subjective criteria such as “plausibility”, while the right to decide all matters of credibility and fact-finding should be strictly reserved to juries, which should also have the power to decide whether laws are fairly applicable in each individual case.

I submit that I am a candidate for all the people.  As an individual, I was born a “WASP” from the Upper Middle Class of White America, and for much of my life I thought of myself as a “Goldwater-Reagan” Republican, albeit with deep admiration for Conservative Democrats such as populated the South through at least the 1970s.   But as an Anthropologist and Historian, I should hope I have a deeper than average appreciation for the mechanics and implications and demands of REAL socio-cultural and political diversity.

And because of my unusual individual life-history, I should find a “common table” with traditional elements of the California “Blue State” Democratic coalition including California’s Hispanics (I am fluent in Spanish and support official bilingualism in Government and the Court System on what you might call “the Canadian Model”), as California’s African Americans (I have suffered more than my share of unjust judicial and financial oppression and I recognize that they have been uniquely victimized as a group), along with California’s labor unions, for whom I would always defend the rights of freedom to organize, freedom to associate, and freedom to negotiate and contract without governmental interference.

Finally, I think that my social-“diffusion of power” program regarding lifestyle choices and values should appeal not only to every ethnic group belonging to the California “plurality of diversity” but also to every Californian who shares in this state’s tradition of eccentricity and the embrace of real normative divergence. The socialist tyranny which has characterized California politics and social policy during most of my lifetime stands in marked contrast to the real diversity of the California population—at least by origins.   All who enjoy support California’s diverse makeup must admit that such diversity cannot meaningfully coexist with homogenization through coercive unitary educational, financial, and legal systems.   “Good fences make good neighbors” and the freedom the build good fences and maintain actual distinctions is one of the freedoms to whose protection I am most deeply committed.

Above all I think I will appeal to California’s homeowners and property owners of every ethnic and class background: like no one else in this or any other race, I will fight first and foremost to restore the integrity and reality of private property against all Federal Tax-based schemes and programs of securitization and transfers of real ownership as a result of corrupt banking and lending laws.   A

s an anthropologist and archaeologist, I think I have a better appreciation for the cultural history and diversity of all groups in California than anyone else, and understand the importance of maintaining identity and actual diversity by avoiding forced assimilation of any and every kind: “Vive la difference.”

As strongly indicated above, I also support absolute freedom of expression and religion, and would work to remove all Federal Support for or mandates involving state licensed or controlled marriage or relating marriage or support to the social security system, which has turned the State Family Courts into surrogate Federal Tax Collection facilities for the purpose of welfare and wealth redistribution.

As a United States Senator I would demand proof of the legitimacy and honest integrity of all our programs, institutions, and officers, including but not limited to the monetary system (the value of the dollar, the threat of renewed inflation), the Federal Reserve Banking System as a whole, every branch of the Federal Government, and yes, even of the Presidency and of the current occupant of the White House.

I would specifically fight in the U.S. Senate for amendments to the Civil Rights Statutes of Titles 18, 28, and 42 which would amendments would ensure the color blind application of the civil rights laws.   “Equal opportunity under the law” must flourish and promote itself as among the greatest of American Values, not so much as a divisive but unifying slogan and ideal in our courts—available to the members of the DAR and recent immigrants alike.

I would also fight for the repeal of the recent National Defense Authorization Act, the Patriot Act, and the Real ID act, FISA, and the secure restoration of meaningful Habeas Corpus, and the removal of every sort of unnecessary governmental program intruding upon or regulating any aspect of business or private life.

My approach to developing a policy for California’s ecological and environmental would be simple: nature is best, all modifications of nature which pervert demographics from their natural tendencies are bad.  In particular, no more dams should ever be built with Federal Funds and those dams which exist now should be subjected to retrospective environmental assessment to see which can be removed to restore rivers and lakes to their natural configurations.  I think that the restoration of natural hydrology will ultimately lessen the need for governmental regulation and intervention in economic and social life, as well as solve many of the most pressing environmental threats to all life on earth.   I will support every sort of incentive to develop non-fossil fuel energy bases EXCEPT hydroelectric based on damming our rivers.  Deserts should probably remain dry rather than the site for suburban sprawl.  Restoration of natural water flows will decrease the tendency for the United States Federal Government and State Governments to become modern day examples of “Oriental Despotism.”  Energy independence for the individual household and family or local communities through wind and solar power is the ideal to be preferred.

Please consider supporting me in my attempt to shake up the California Democratic Party and Washington establishments!  In sum, and conclusion, I would just offer as a Haiku-like motto

“Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call freedom.

Statement originally published on May 20, 2011 @ 1:54, & May 21, 2011 @ 2:08 AM

St. Stephen, the First Martyr, and my own personal favorite Carol….about the Martyred Saint Wenceslaus of Bohemia


St. Stephen was martyred in Jerusalem about the year 35. Tradition calls him both the first Christian martyr (or “protomartyr”) and the first “deacon” of the Christian Church.

All that we know of the life, trial, and death of St. Stephen, derives from the Book of Acts, Chapters 6 and 7.  In the long chronicle of Christian martyrs, the story of Stephen stands out as one of the most moving and memorable.

Although his name is Greek (from Stephanos, meaning crown), Stephen was a Jew, probably among those who had been born or who had lived beyond the borders of Palestine, and therefore had come under the influence of the prevailing Hellenistic culture. The New Testament does not give us the circumstances of his conversion. It would seem, however, that soon after the death of the Messiah he rose to a position of prominence among the Christians of Jerusalem and used his talents especially to win over the Greek-speaking residents of the city.

The earliest mention of Stephen is when he is listed among the seven men chosen to supervise the public tables. We recall that these first Christians held their property in common, the well-to-do sharing what they possessed with the poor; and at this time, as always in the wake of war, there were many “displaced persons” in need of charity. We read in Acts that the Hellenists, as the Greek-speaking Christians were called, thought that they, particularly the widows among them, were being discriminated against at the public tables. The Apostles were informed of these complaints, but they were too busy to deal with the problem. Therefore seven good and prudent men were selected to administer and supervise the tables. The seven, on being presented to the Apostles, were prayed over and ordained by the imposition of hands. Associated in these charitable tasks with Stephen, whose name heads the list as “a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit,” were Philip, known as “the Evangelist,” Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas-all Greek names. The title of deacon, which came to be linked with their function, derives from the Greek verb meaning “to minister.” These men served the Christian community in temporal and charitable affairs; later on they were to assume minor religious offices.

Stephen, already a leader, now began to speak in public with more vigor and, “full of grace and power, was working great wonders and signs among the people.”  By this time a number of Jewish priests had been converted to the new faith, but they still held to the old traditions and rules as laid down in Mosaic law.  Stephen was prepared to engage in controversy with them, eager to point out that, according to the Master, the old law had been superseded.  He was continually quoting Jesus and the prophets to the effect that external usages and all the ancient holy rites were of less importance than the spirit; that even the Temple might be destroyed, as it had been in the past, without damage to the true and eternal religion. It was talk of this sort, carried by hearsay and rumor about the city, and often misquoted, intentionally or not, that was to draw down upon Stephen the wrath of the Jewish priestly class.

It was in a certain synagogue of Jews “called that of the Freedmen, and of the Cyrenians and of the Alexandrians and of those from Cilicia and the province of Asia” that Stephen chiefly disputed.  Perhaps they did not understand him; at all events, they could not make effective answer, and so fell to abusing him. They bribed men to say that Stephen was speaking blasphemous words against Moses and against God. The elders and the scribes were stirred up and brought him before the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish tribunal, which had authority in both civil and religious matters. False witnesses made their accusations; Stephen defended himself ably, reviewing the long spiritual history of his people; finally his defense turned into a bitter accusation. He concluded thus:

“Yet not in houses made by hands does the Most High dwell, even as the prophet says…. Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ear, you always oppose the Holy Spirit; as your father did, so do you also. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you have now been the betrayers and murderers, you who received the Law as an ordinance of angels and did not keep it.”

Thus castigated, the account is that the crowd could contain their anger no longer. They rushed upon Stephen, drove him outside the city to the place appointed, and stoned him. At this time Jewish law permitted the death penalty by stoning for blasphemy. Stephen, full of “grace and fortitude” to the very end, met the great test without flinching, praying the Lord to receive his spirit and not to lay this sin against the people. So perished the first martyr, his dying breath spent in prayer for those who killed him. Among those present at the scene and approving of the penalty meted out to Stephen was a young Jew named Saul, the future Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: his own conversion to Christianity was to take place within a few short months.

The celebration of the Feast Day of St. Stephen is December 26, the day after Christmas, aka “Boxing Day” “Two Turtle Doves” in “The Twelve Days of Christmas.”  Despite the close association between Saint Stephen and Saint Wenceslaus of Bohemia in the Anglo-American mind, owing to a 19th century hymn, Saint Stephen the Protomartyr is NOT the Patron Saint of Hungary, who was in fact another King/Martyr who lived in the eleventh century after Saint Wenceslaus of Bohemia died in the tenth.

GOOD KING WENCESLAS (King/Duke “Herzog” of Bohemia, reigned 924-935)  To the tune of the well-known 19th Century Carol, it is possible to sing an older verse:

“Christian friends, your voices raise.

Wake the day with gladness.

God Himself to joy and praise

turns our human sadness:

Joy that martyrs won their crown,

opened heaven’s bright portal,

when they laid the mortal down

for the life immortal.”

[Words: Saint Joseph the Hymnographer, 9th Century, translated from the Greek. Music: “Tempus Adest Floridum” (“Spring has unwrapped her flowers”), a 13th Century spring carol; first published in the Swedish Piae Cantiones, 1582.]

Saint Wenceslaus’ Day:  September 28, Patron Saint of Bohemia, Czech Republic, Prague, lived approximately 907-935, canonized around 985.

Patron saint of Bohemia, parts of Czech Republic, and duke of Bohemia frorn 924-929. Also called Wenceslas, he was born near Prague and raised by his grandmother, St. Ludmilla, until her murder by his mother, the pagan Drahomira. Wenceslaus’s mother assumed the regency over Bohemia about 920 after her husband’s death, but her rule was so arbitrary and cruel in Wenceslaus’ name that he was compelled on behalf of his subjects to overthrow her and assume power for himself in 924 or 925. A devout Christian, he proved a gifted ruler and a genuine friend of the Church. German missionaries were encouraged, churches were built, and Wenceslaus perhaps took a personal vow of poverty  Unfortunately, domestic events proved fatal, for in 929 the German king Heinrich I the Fowler (Heinrich der Voegler, reigned 919-936, immortalized as Der Deutschen Konig, the just king who sets the trial-by-combat over accusations against Duchess Ilsa von Brabant in Richard Wagner’s opera “Lohengrin”, tomb recently archaeologically discovered) invaded Bohemia and forced Wenceslaus to make an act of submission.

This defeat, combined with his pro-Christian policies, led a group of non-Christian nobles to conspire against him. On September 28, 935, a group of knights under the leadership of Wenceslaus’ brother Boreslav assassinated the saint on the doorstep of a church. Virtually from the moment of his death, Wenceslaus was considered a martyr and venerated as a saint. Miracles were reported at his tomb, and his remains were translated to the church of St. Vitus in Prague which became a major pilgrimage site. The feast has been celebrated at least since 985 in Bohemia, and he is best known from the Christmas carol “Good King Wenceslas” (Anglicized spelling of Wenceslaus).

Though it was an Anglican priest, scholar, and hymnist John Mason Neale (24 January 1818 – 6 August 1866), chaplain of Downing College, Cambridge, and member of the Anglo-Catholic “Oxford Movement” and “Society of Saint Margaret” (to both of which both my parents were great adherents) wrote the words to the carol “Good King Wenceslas” which he published published in 1853, the music published in Sweden at least 300 years earlier (and possibly, as noted above, much more ancient still, dating back perhaps to the 13th century).

This unique “Christmas carol” makes no reference in the lyrics to the nativity or, really, to Christ or Christmas at all in its modern, popular form.  “Good King” (i.s. Saint) Wenceslas reigned as King of Bohemia in the 10th century, long before Prague became the second or third city of the Habsburg-Austrian Empire.  Good King Wenceslas was a Catholic and was martyred following his assassination by his brother Boleslaw and his supporters, his Saint’s Day is September 28th, and he is the Patron Saint of the Czech Republic. St. Stephen’s feast day was celebrated on 26th December which is why this song is sung as a Christmas carol.

The carol, and legacy of Saint Wenceslaus, owes its popularity to the concept of giving in meaningful ways at Christmastime, especially to the poor, especially by the rich.  Whether its mid-Nineteenth Century composition is in any way related to the movement sometimes called “Christian Socialism” is a different topic.

1. Good King Wenceslas look’d out,
On the Feast of Stephen;
When the snow lay round about,
Deep, and crisp, and even:
Brightly shone the moon that night,
Though the frost was cruel,
When a poor man came in sight,
Gath’ring winter fuel.

2. “Hither page and stand by me,
If thou know’st it, telling,
Yonder peasant, who is he?
Where and what his dwelling?”
“Sire, he lives a good league hence.
Underneath the mountain;
Right against the forest fence,
By Saint Agnes’ fountain.”

3. “Bring me flesh, and bring me wine,
Bring me pine-logs hither:
Thou and I will see him dine,
When we bear them thither.”
Page and monarch forth they went,
Forth they went together;
Through the rude winds wild lament,
And the bitter weather.

4. “Sire, the night is darker now,
And the wind blows stronger;
Fails my heart, I know now how,
I can go no longer.”
“Mark my footsteps, good my page;

    Tread thou in them boldly;
Thou shalt find the winter’s rage
    Freeze thy blood less coldly.”

5. In his master’s steps he trod,
Where the snow lay dinted;
Heat was in the very sod
Which the saint had printed.
Therefore, Christian men, be sure,
Wealth or rank possessing,
Ye who now will bless the poor,
Shall yourselves find blessing.

Alternative last four lines supposedly by author Neale. although I have never heard it sung this way .

Therefore, Christian men rejoice,
Who my lay are hearing,
He who cheers another’s woe
Shall himself find cheering.

The Death of the Constitution: Structure of Government (are Articles I, II, and III COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS)

Bank of America Consent Order 11-029-B-HC 04-13-2011

What has happened to the three part division of functions and separation of powers of the Federal Government in the Constitution?  Article I: Legislative, Article II: Executive, Article III: Judiciary.  The above linked and attached “Consent Order” is issued in the name of the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” like any Article III judicial court, but the Court that issued it is the “BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, WASHINGTON, D.C.”.   This was all news to me: the Federal Reserve Board of Governors Acts as a Court and has its own Docket of cases, decisions of which have the force and effect of law?

The Federal Reserve System’s structure consists, at the top, of the presidentially appointed Board of Governors (or Federal Reserve Board) and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). There are twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation (A = Boston, B = New York, C= Philadelphia, D = Cleveland, E = Richmond, F = Atlanta, G = Chicago, H = St. Louis, I = Minneapolis, J = Kansas City, K = Dallas, L = San Francisco—note the close coordination between these Federal Reserve Banks and the 9 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal 1 = Boston, 2 = New York, 3 = Philadelphia, 4 = Richmond, 5 = New Orleans (Dallas), 6 = Cincinnati (Cleveland), 7 = Chicago, 8 = Minneapolis, 9 = San Francisco).  At the bottom of the hierarchy there are numerous privately owned U.S. member banks and various advisory councils.

The Federal Open Market Committee takes nominal (but never “legal”) responsibility for setting monetary policy.  This “FOMC” consists of all seven members of the Board of Governors and the twelve regional bank presidents, though only five bank presidents vote at any given time (one wonders whether this is to diffuse any personal or legal liability for setting any particular policy?).  The Federal Reserve System has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers.

The result is a structure that is unique among central banks (indeed, among any kind of corporate or political hierarchy at all).  The Federal Reserve Banking System differs from all others (of England/UK, France, Germany, Italy for instance) in that an entity outside of the central bank, namely the United States Department of the Treasury, creates the currency used—again, this appears to be a stratagem to diffuse responsibility and liability.  HOW IS ANY OF THIS EVEN REMOTELY CONSISTENT WITH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve “acts independently  within the government” in that “its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government.” The authority of the Federal Reserve Banking System derives from statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress and the System is subject to congressional oversight. Like members of the President’s Cabinet, Article III Judges, and Ambassadors to Foreign Nations, the members of the Board of Governors, including its chairman and vice-chairman, come to office only when nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The government also exercises some nominal (or is it actual and total?) control over the Federal Reserve by appointing and setting the salaries of the system’s highest-level employees. Thus the Federal Reserve retains both private and public aspects. The U.S. Government receives all of the system’s annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks’ capital investment is paid, and an account surplus is maintained. In 2010, the Federal Reserve made a profit of $82 billion and transferred $79 billion to the U.S. Treasury.

What is amazing here is that, the way I see it, the REAL power triangle of the Federal Government is NOT Article I Legislative, Article II Executive, and Article III Judiciary, but Federal Reserve Board, Internal Revenue Service, and Social Security Administration.  

EACH of these “independent, quasi-governmental” entities set their own regulation by publication in the daily issued “Federal Register” (codified in the Code of Federal Regulations or “CFR”) and they make these regulations under “general” grants of authority by Congress and subject to the “general” supervision of Congress, the President, and the Courts.  (All three Constitutional Branches of government are at least NOMINALLY empowered to supervise the “extra-constitutional” branches of government).  

But each “extra-constitutional” branch of government also as enforcement (i.e. executive) powers and ITS OWN INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS (governed by Title 5 of the United States Code and the “Administrative Procedure Act”, among other provisions of the U.S. Code such as Title 12 for Banking, Title 15 for Commerce, and the vast Title 42 for “Public Health and Welfare”—which also, bizarrely enough, includes not only Social Security but Civil Rights, and the completely extra-constitutional and “liberty inconsistent” mandates for Environmental Regulation and Control over the Family and Probate Law systems of each state).

Where are the Senators and Congressmen and State Legislators trying to bring this behemoth within the Constitution again?  Why are high school students not taught that the three part system of REAL (DE FACTO) government in this Country consists of the Federal Reserve System, the Internal Revenue Commission, and the Social Security Administration under the Commissioner of Social Security and the Department of Health & Human Services? 

How do nullificationists and “Tenthers” (including my friends Michael Boldin and Bryce Shonka at the wonderful Tenth Amendment Center here in Los Angeles, actually expect to restore power to the states when the states are directly complicit in this constitutional breakdown and are constantly feeding at the unconstitutional troughs of general revenue and social security? (See my “white paper”: WHEN THE VALID PUBLIC DEBT IS QUESTIONED CONGRESS MUST ANSWER CEL 08-09-2011—arguing among other things that the States expressly consented to abrogate their own sovereignty with contractual finality when they accepted Social Security; and OUTLINE FOR COMPLAINT—Draft 08-17-2011 (Legislative Immunity was abolished by the Fourteenth Amendment where the Validity Public Debt is Questioned).  I had the privilege of speaking at the February 2010 Tenth Amendment Center Conference in Atlanta last year, and I asked this question to an audience of States Rights Advocates—and they had no answer…… it was discouraging….

The American People need to reclaim their control over the government, and by definition, a government entirely outside of the Constitution is entirely beyond the control of the people. The three-part division of government between the Federal Reserve System, the IRS and Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the Social Security Administration and its own phony “Board of Trustees” which is just as fake as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System as a pretense of responsible administration of powers) is as oppressive as it is fraudulent, and it is inimical to a Democratic-Republican form of government.  

Is this the culture we deserve?  I think not.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information. 

Why should we not celebrate both Advent and the Twelve Days of Christmas? Revisiting one of my favorite questions: what is a “law respecting an establishment of religion” under the First Amendment?

This month we have been celebrating the 400th Anniversary of the original Publication of the King James Bible, Sponsored by King James I of England and VI of Scotland, son of Mary Queen of Scots, “executed” (effectively murdered “under color of law”) by Queen Elizabeth I.  In spite of the sometimes unjust and bloody history of the Christian Church and religion, there are times when I really do think that we would be better off in the United States of America if we had a solemn four weeks of “Advent” preceding Christmas followed by a joyous 12 days of Christmas, a major holiday possibly beginning as early as December 21 and running through the Feast of the Epiphany on January 6.  Why not?  Is it because the State has usurped all the forms and functions of religion and sells them to us under the fraudulent guise of “Non-Religion” when in fact the State has merely imposed the “Secular Humanist” religion on us in place of Christianity?  I originally published this post on August 3, 2011, at 4:30 pm during one of the coolest summers in California history, but one week before Christmas seems like a good time to revisit these issues!

12-16-2011 What is a Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion under the First Amendment_

The 1559 Book of Common Prayer, adopted by Parliament under the leadership of Queen Elizabeth I, established Moderate “Middle Way” Protestant Anglo-Catholicism as the State Religion of England & Wales.  Everything contained in that Book of Common Prayer is an ASPECT of Religion and hence its adoption by Parliament, or Congress, or any State is a “law respecting an establishment of religion.”

[I have a modest proposal and it involves answering this question: how much behavioral content do the words “religion” and establishment “cover”?  Could we now accurately interpret and meaningfully paraphrase the establishment clause “Neither Congress nor the states shall make any law regarding any of the behavior covered in the Administration of the Sacraments or other Rites and Ceremonies of the Christian Church?”  or even “Neither Congress nor the states shall make any law regarding lifestyle choices or philosophy?”  Could it be that the entire Regulatory-Welfare State was and remains expressly forbidden and unconstitutional?”]

The First Amendment is without any doubt the most powerful of all the Amendments, indeed, quite possibly, all the clauses of any part, of the constitution.  The U.S. Supreme Court, it seems to me, has focused an inordinate amount of time focused on “School Prayer” and “Teaching Evolution vs. the Bible” and similar subjects in its “Establishment” and “Free Exercise” jurisprudence over the past 50-70 years.  It is almost as if “Religion” is only relevant as an academic exercise, and for that reason, only the “teaching” of religion—the transmission of certain “epiphenomenal” beliefs about the creation of the world or how to commemorate the mechanisms of creation, is in any sense relevant to the constitutional question.

I have been thinking a lot about it, and it seems to me that the word “establishment” should be taken in what—to the Framers of the U.S. Constitution in 1787-1792 at least, must have seemed the most relevant historical context of this word “establishment”—and I have never seen the U.S. Supreme Court discuss this issue at all.

At the Accession of Elizabeth I, in 1558-1559, the Queen of England and her Parliament agreed on a Book of Common Prayer and an Act of Uniformity which, without any doubt at all, “Established” the Church of England and made non-conformity a crime, albeit a very minor misdemeanor.  (Failure to attend the Bishop-Governed, i.e. “Episcopal” Church every SUnday was then and there made subject to a fine of 11 pence.)****

THOSE LAWS, my friends, the 1558-1559 adoption by Parliament of the Book of Common Prayer and the enactment of the requirement of Church Attendance punishable by a fine were LAWS RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.  See inter alia:

As with so many books, it is the subtitle that gives the critical information we need to know:  the full Title and subtitle of Queen Elizabeth I’s “Coronation” BCP together read “The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England.”

I want to make a radical proposal here: any subject, repeat ANY SUBJECT, which was treated under the “Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England” is a “Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion.”  The teaching of the Bible is covered by the Book of Common Prayer. Accordingly, one supposes, teaching of the Bible in Public School, if authorized by statute, might well be the result of a “Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion.”

But what of the actual “Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies” of the Church of England?  The subject of the sacraments is the orderly cradle-to-grave organization of life.  Each of the sacraments is what anthropologists call “Rites des Passages” marking certain boundaries or “limnal moments” in life: birth = baptism, coming of age as an adult= communion + confirmation, marriage, major decisions about how to live life (= assumption of Holy Orders), reconciliation with one’s self and society after “sin” (= confession/reconciliation), and extreme unction (= death, last rites).

Could it be that the Founding Fathers actually meant and intended, in 1792, to forbid the United States Federal Government from involving itself in ANY “cradle-to-grave” programs involving the orderly structuring of life from cradle-to-grave?  Was this the true meaning of “religion” and/or any “law respecting an establishment of religion”?  “Re-ligio” in Latin means something like “rebinding” or “binding-well”—“ligare” is a verb etymologically related to “lis” or “litis” as in “binding litigation” and “lis pendens“—a “lis” was a string or rope.   I.E., “Religion” is something obliging people to do certain things in certain ways.  Perhaps what “religion” really means is “life style” or in particular, an ordered, well bounded, life-style….”walking the straight and narrow path” or words to that effect.

If so, if “religion” meant (and still means) “life-style choices”, then the First Amendment in effect forbids the social welfare state—and I don’t believe anyone has ever raised this point before, either as an historical truth or even an hypothesis to be tested linguistically or by comparison with the writings of Samuel Johnson, David Hume, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, William Hazlitt, or any other English Philosophers and writers of the late 18th Century, much less any of the Founding Fathers of the USA—but I propose that this is a meritorious hypothesis which ought to be explored.

Equating the word “religion” with “lifestyle” and translating any “law respecting an establishment of religion” as “any law concerning the ordering or structured command of lifestyle” would be and in fact is a very radical, radical idea, by which I mean it cuts to the very root of things (going back to Latin again “radix = root”).   Defining “religion” as “life-style” might explain, for example, why I always (analytically but also somewhat instinctually) tell friends of mine in the “Landmark” program that “Landmark” is really their “Religion”—Landmark is one of those “secular” philosophies or “life-style choices” which orders its adherents’ lives completely.   Did the Founding Fathers wish to PREVENT the Federal Government from Ordering peoples’ lives completely?  I think, in the context of the First Amendment, this makes a GREAT deal of sense.

So, if the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” could be paraphrased “Congress shall make no law respecting an ordering or structuring of individual personal lifestyles or philosophies”, or even more narrowly “Congress shall make no law respecting any kind of behavior described by or relevant to the limnal moments in life or rites des passages described or constrained in the phrase “administration of the sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England”, then most of what government does is illegal under the First Amendment, because the “nanny state” has become horribly intrusive into every American’s everyday life.

After the Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment was passed to abolish slavery or involuntary servitude “except as punishment for crime” and the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, at least in part, to apply (or, as the Supreme Court and legal scholars like to say, “incorporate”) the Bill of Rights to the States.  NOTHING in 20th Century Jurisprudence at the Supreme Court of the United States has been more clear or consistent than the proposition that ALL clauses of the First Amendment were forcibly “incorporated” to apply to the States in or by the Fourteenth Amendment.   For inexplicable reasons, the Seventh Amendment has perhaps faired the worst of all the amendments, in that the Supreme Court has ruled more than once that the states need not “incorporate” trials-by-jury into every civil proceeding, but the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments have all been held as “incorporated” to the States by the Fourteenth, though sometimes with less vim and vigor than the First.  The Status of the Second Amendment remains ambiguous, as does the continuing vitality of the ninth and tenth amendments, which are showing slightly renewed “life” in recent years, albeit a little bit too little too late to save either state or individual sovereignty in any meaningful way from….of all things…..the vast encroachment of the Welfare State.

Earlier this year, there was a minor and very temporary explosion of discussion and major news coverage concerning whether School Prayer at a Public High School Graduation in south Texas near San Antonio constituted “State Action” or not.  An arrogant United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas (the first jurisdiction ever to disbar me….) threatened Jail for Contempt of Court to any student or school administrator who led the student body in prayer.  Very briefly, I had wished I were back in Texas.  If I had been there, I would have advocated and recommended absolutely informed defiance of this Judge.  This not so very honorable U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, should have been placed squarely in the position of deciding whether to jail something close to the entire student body/faculty/and audience of the graduation ceremonies.  Now THAT  would have been a true “Tea Party” moment in the spirit of the original Boston Tea Party, and of civil disobedience of the finest kind.   I strongly suspect that Rick Perry and all the other  wee sleekit cowerin’ tim’rous beasties of the Texas Republican “Tea Party” movement would never have had the nerve to do anything quite this “revolutionary”.

And oddly and ironically enough, the May 2011 Texas Graduation Day Prayer Showdown was averted precisely when Texas State Governor Rick Perry and Texas State Attorney General Greg Abbott championed the “prayers” of that particular South Texas High School.  Perry and Abbott came down on the side of praying, and they all together “prayed” to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Then and there a panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit, sitting in the John Minor Wisdom Courthouse on the river (south) side of Lafayette Square on Camp Street in New Orleans (just opposite a building where Lee Harvey Oswald used to live, back before 11-22-63) determined that the U.S. District Judge was wrong.   The Fifth Circuit decided, once Governor Perry and Attorney General Abbott had intervened, that no “State Action” was involved in the School Prayer at Graduation.  This outcome makes sense, in context, to anyone with advanced alzheimer’s or dementia, but only if you think about it, so everyone in Texas breathed a sigh of relief.

During even that brief time, who knows how many Texas Child Protective Service workers invaded homes and recommended families for highly intrusive “governmental service plans”.   The number might be countable, but who knows how many Temporary Orders by Texas District Judges or “Baby Judges” (as the Honorable Laura Livingston once described herself before she became a District Judge in Travis County) in Family Courts were issued in how many new divorce or dissolution cases, awarding temporary custody of children and splitting families irrevocably apart.

I propose that, in particular, the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits both the Federal Government and (through the Fourteenth Amendment) the States, from “establishing” any regulations relating to any of the subjects covered by the Book of Common Prayer in England in 1558-9 or 1662 ( and or even 1789 in the new United States (

I further propose that the true meaning of the First Amendment is absolutely to guarantee both freedom of conscience and freedom of personal individual lifestyle choices and behavior, to the extent that the Modern Regulatory-Welfare State is incompatible with the First Amendment to the Constitution, above all else which may be said about the Unconstitutionality of the various statutes and regulations which have brought this Regulatory-Welfare State into existence.

****(In Elizabeth’s time there were 12 pence [“pennies”] in every old English Shilling, 24 pence in a Florin, 30 pence in a Half-Crown, 60 pence in a Crown, and 240 pence [20 shillings, 10 florins, or 4 crowns] in the Pound Sterling until A.D. 1969.  Although I was by then only a summer visitor with my grandparents in England, rather than a resident with my parents, I remember that summer and the transition to the new currency vividly. For that reason [and inspite of the inspirational moon landing] 1969 is accordingly a year which shall live in infamy in my own mind and memory and the memory of many Patriotic and Sentimental Brits and people of British heritage and descent—the adoption of the decimal system was a much more cowardly precursor to the U.K.’s entry into the Common Market/European Community than anyone at the time ever realized).  

Above all, I challenge Governor Rick Perry and everyone else who pretends to care about Religion in the United States to address this question, and to admit that the prohibition against any “law respecting an establishment of religion” means that the debate must expand FAR, FAR beyond the boundaries of education, public prayer, private prayer, or the teaching of evolution, or even the school lunch consumption of ham or bacon sandwiches.  

It is time to publicly debate and answer the question: must government be banned forever from ALL activities regarding the regulation or control of the human life-cycle, from cradle-to-grave?  Is this the true meaning of freedom?  

Meanwhile, in Texas, the trivial pursuit games go on unabated…..

Judge tosses attempt to stop Texas prayer rally

APBy APRIL CASTRO – Associated Press | AP – Thu, Jul 28, 2011

  • FILE- In this June 23, 2011 file photo, Texas Gov. Rick Perry speaks during the 28th annual National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference in San Antonio. A federal judge on Thursday, July 28, 2011 dismissed a lawsuit that sought to stop Perry from sponsoring a national day of Christian prayer and fasting, ruling that the group of atheists and agnostics did not have legal standing to sue. (AP Photo/Darren Abate, File)FILE- In this June 23, 2011 file photo, Texas Gov. Rick Perry speaks during the 28th …

HOUSTON (AP) — A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that sought to stop Gov. Rick Perry from sponsoring a national day of Christian prayer and fasting, ruling Thursday that the group of atheists and agnostics did not have legal standin g to sue.

U.S. District Judge Gray H. Miller said the Freedom From Religion Foundation argued against Perry’s involvement based merely on feelings of exclusion, but did not show sufficient harm to merit the injunction they sought.

“The governor has done nothing more than invite others who are willing to do so to pray,” Miller said.

Rich Bolton, who argued for the group, said he was considering an appeal.

“I wonder if we had a Muslim governor what would happen if the whole state was called to a Muslim prayer,” said Kay Staley, one of five Texas residents named as plaintiffs in the suit. “I think the governor needs to keep his religion out of his official duties.”

Staley said she would be at the prayer rally to protest.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation argued in the lawsuit that Perry’s involvement in the day of prayer and fasting would violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause. The event, which is called The Response, is scheduled for Aug. 6 at Houston’s Reliant Stadium.

A day earlier, Perry defended the event, comparing it to President Barack Obama’s participation in theNational Day of Prayer.

“My prayer is that the courts will find that the first amendment is still applicable to the governor no matter what they might be doing and that what we’ve done in the state of Texas or what we’ve done in the governor’s office is appropriate,” he said. “It’s no different than what George Washington or Abraham Linlcoln or President Truman or President Obama have done.”

Perry, an evangelical Christian, said he didn’t yet know what his role in the rally would be.

“I’m going to be there — I may be ushering for all I know — I haven’t gotten my marching orders,” he said. “It’s not about me and it’s not about the people on the stage either, this is truly about coming together as a state lifting up this nation in prayer, having a day of prayer and fasting. That’s all it is.”

The group, which unsuccessfully sued to stop Obama’s National Day of Prayer earlier this year, filed the case on behalf of 700 members in Texas and called on the court to stop Perry from participating in the meeting or using his office to promote or recognize it.

Perry invited the Obama administration, the nation’s governors and Texas lawmakers to attend the event. The Republican governor is moving closer to jumping in the race for the White House.

The event is being sponsored by several evangelical Christian groups, including the American Family Association, which has been criticized by civil rights groups for promoting anti-homosexual and anti-Islamic positions on the roughly 200 radio stations it operates.

The foundation said it does not oppose politicians taking part in religious services, but that Perry crossed a line by initiating the event, using his position as governor to endorse and promote it and by using his official website to link to the organizer’s website. The plaintiffs also contend that Perry’s use of Texas’ official state seal to endorse the event and his plans to issue an official proclamation violate the Constitution.

An appellate court in April dismissed the group’s previous lawsuit against the Obama administration over the National Day of Prayer, on which people of all faiths were invited to take part. Like Miller, the three-judge panel in that case ruled that the group could not prove that they had suffered any harm when the president issued a proclamation observing the day.

Happy 220th Birthday to the Bill of Rights, RIP Bill of Rights: Upon Signing Indefinite Detention, the tragedy, the treason, the deceit and betrayal that defines the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama is now perfected.

Apparently, Barack Hussein Obama will sign the National Defense Authorization Act into law with Indefinite Detention for American citizens without trial.  (I feel my native land is dead—La Patria Mia e morta!–Mein Lieb Heimatland ist Tot!).   Rather than say any more than I have already said about pledging my life to fighting this monstrous new legislation, I will just refer you to two recent articles by one of my favorite writers over at, Glenn Greenwald, author of “How would a Patriot Act?”

12-15-2011 Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law (Glenn Greenwald’s Indictment of the President is searing—probably just not searing enough, but a good start!) Glenn Greenwald on Indefinite Detention authorized by SB 1867 (Congress Endorsing Military Detention, a New Authorization for the Use of Military Force INSIDE the United States and against United States Citizens—Carl Levin and John McCain should be allowed to share a scaffold at their hanging for Treason!)

Like clockwork this lying deceitful monster has insinuated his way into position to complete the work of destruction that no “White” President could have done.  I doubt that Congress would have ever allowed George W. Bush or even William Jefferson Clinton or George H.W. Bush the chance to sign such legislation—but who can possibly say “no” to America’s first “genuine African-American President” (so genuine he was probably born in Africa….)?  If the first black President wants indefinite detention IT MUST BE OK, RIGHT?  It surely isn’t racist or anti-Islamic coming from a President with the middle name “Hussein”!  It just cannot be.  Indefinite detention MUST be all right and good for the Country—and even for Civil Rights, right?  I mean, America’s First Black President couldn’t really be named “Uncle Tom” could he?  Could George W. Bush have picked the ONLY possible successor who could have PERFECTED George W. Bush’s complete sell-out of the American Dream?

George Bernard Shaw once commented that, under a genuine Fabian Socialist regime, any person who did not conform to the State ideals would be given several chances to conform, and “probably given a painless death”—or words very much to that effect.  

For my part, I promise, that if elected by some God-Sent Miracle to the United States Senate, I will constantly filibuster for the repeal of this statute, and for the restoration of the full force and effect of all of the Bill of Rights, even with improvements which might be drawn from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 or Article I of the Texas Constitution (one of the finest and most complete Bills of Rights in all the World, as originally enacted, anyhow, containing an express prohibition that the rights provided for in the bill of rights should maintain “forever” inviolate, untouchable by the Legislature—a provision obviously needed in the U.S. Constitution to prevent such a law as S.B. 1867 from EVER becoming law).  

See Texas Constitution, Article I, §§28-29: 

Sec. 28.  SUSPENSION OF LAWS. No power of suspending laws in this State shall be exercised except by the Legislature.

 Sec. 29.  PROVISIONS OF BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT; TO FOREVER REMAIN INVIOLATE. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this “Bill of Rights” is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.

Is it a coincidence that the infamous 26 March 2009 Domestic Extremism Lexicon has just now been updated and posted by the Department of Homeland Security, the most evil and insidious branch of government to be established since the Stalinist NKVD?

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.