January 13, 2002

We've been warning you about this.

State versions of the USA Patriot Act!  

    The reason the USA Patriot Act - or versions of it - are being introduced and passed in the States is that the federal government has no jurisdiction in the states except as outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. There is NO constitutional authority in Article 1, Section 8 for the U.S. Congress to legislate in matters pertaining to any crime, including terrorism (other than counterfeiting and piracy on the high seas).

     As a matter of fact, the U.S. Congress has no authority to regulate gun ownership, child support, education, water, air, etc., except in the federal zone (Washington D.C.), territories and possessions of the U.S., and those areas in the States purchased by the U.S. for forts, dock-yards, etc. It is clearly stated in clause 17 of Article 1, Section 8: as follows:  "The Congress shall have power

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

    The limit on federal authority is clear and concise.  To know concisely what authorities were granted to the U.S. Congress, get a copy of the U.S. Constitution and read it for yourself! Call your State Representative's office and request a copy of both the State and U.S. Constitution.

     In other words, where Constitutional authority is not provided, no federal law is binding on or effective within the States without the State Legislatures passing the implementing legislation.

    Likewise, State Legislatures do NOT have authority to pass any law which violates the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, regardless its origin. State legislators themselves are not aware of this fact because they do not know or understand their Constitutional power.

    If you will read a Fed's Eye View of the States, you will begin to understand how/why federal bills are mirrored, passed and implemented at a State level.  It's Revenue Sharing.  Taking money from the States, sending it back to the States, not merely with strings but with chains attached.

    Revenue sharing is the HOOK!  Uninformed, careless and Delphied State legislators will vote for almost any bill according to their 'instructions' by legislative leaders / party caucuses. Their excuse for not reading bills they sponsor, co-sponsor, and/or vote into law is that they "don't have time". That is by design.

    The fact is that laws which further the globalist agenda are camoflaged among the several thousands of mostly innocuous bills and resolutions introduced each session in every single state.  Our rights have been slowly, and quietly but surely stripped away by this method.  We were told by our State Rep, Matthew Baker, that "if we don't hear from our Constituents we figure it's okay to vote for it".

    Mr. Baker, and his legislative colleagues fail to realize they are paid well for their oath to represent those of us who elect them, always upholding, protecting the constitution. They shouldn't have to 'hear' from us to vote the Bill of Rights.  

    THE END RESULT IS. . . federal laws are mirrored at a state level, and legislators invite federal agents into the States through unconstitutional State legislation. We have mentioned recently on the Sweet Liberty broadcast that possibly the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act was a decoy, to draw our attention off other Orwellian legislation such as the recent spate of Terrorism bills - and Heaven knows what others - that are finding their way into the states.  

    QUESTION: When is the last time we know of or can remember, that either state of federal elected officials passed a law that actually served their constituents and upheld the Bill of Rights?

    SUGGESTION:  Do a search in your state government web site to see what might be happening there.  All states' sites are linked in the MSEHPA Section, recently re-titled The War on Americans Is In Our States. As we receive information from your state, it will be posted to inform other visitors to the site.

LIKE IT OR NOT. . . It is up to YOU to take the ball and run with it.

    The writer of the following article feints and jabs, then at the very last he explodes with a solid upper-cut to the solar plexus. Understandable, since the column appears in the controlled Washington Post. He thinks it's better that we:

"Let the feds handle terrorism. That way, we'll all be safer."

     Oh... "I'm from the government. I'm here to help you"?  Not the feds.  Not even the states. There are plenty of laws on the books now -- more than enough -- to punish those who commit crimes.  And don't get blind-sided by the term "hate crimes".  Any act that intentionally physically hurts or kills another individual - other than in self defense - or takes from another what is not given freely without coercion is a CRIME.  Any crime of that nature is 'hateful'. That is simple enough, isn't it?    

   The writer, Richard Cohen, serves up another decoy.  The USA Patriot Act is not just about phone taps, by a long shot.  Language in the bill redefines the word "terrorist", and those of us who do not support nor defend the neverendingwar on Terrorism will eventually be targeted as "enemies of the state" - terrorists.

     In some of the bills -- maybe all of them -- an individual or group that 'appears to be intending to intimidate or coerce a population'... or 'appears to be intending to intimidate or coerce' the policies of government is defined as terroristic. The penalty -- if a person admits to, or is found guilty of, terrorism by their definition - is confiscation of all assets and property.  

     How does this differ from the penalty of a drug offender - regardless how minor an offense - in the neverendingwar on Drugs?  It doesn't.  According to Congressman Henry Hyde from Illinois, many of the States' laws that allow property seizure are much more intrusive than the federal version of the laws.  Some states will seize property for any felony, including theft.

     Media mind control is now in the process of conditioning the mindless, that "torture" may be necessary to induce terrorists to confess. We just heard about a new program on Fox called "The Chamber," aired on Sunday nights.  They are desensitizing the already emotionless masses to accept torture as a solution to stubborn criminals/terrorists by showing hideous methods of torture.   

     SIDE NOTE: Some of the most dangerous language in today's Terrorism Bills exactly repeats the language in a bill that was tabled in Illinois in 1995 (thanks to State Senator Ed Petka), which we were informed - by people present at the hearings - had been promulgated by the Anti-Defamation League.  

       - Jackie  


    A Wiretap In Every Home

By Richard Cohen

Washington Post

Thursday, January 10, 2002; Page A19

     If it is true that all trends start in California, then the rest of the country had better pay attention. Gray Davis has proposed that his state's police agencies be given the same authority to fight terrorism that Congress recently gave the feds. If this keeps up, there won't be an untapped phone in the nation.

     It's not that what Davis proposes is so awful. What he has in mind is a state version of the insultingly named USA Patriot Act, which among other things expanded wiretap authority at the federal level. It also permits the government to monitor e-mail and Internet sites. Uncle Sam is going to know if you've been bad or good -- so be good for goodness' sake.

     But you better watch out. Because already other states are asking for the same authority. All this is being done in the name of anti-terrorism, but the expanded powers could be used for any purpose approved by a court -- a state court at that. You need only peer back in history to wonder if we are going to be any safer or, maybe, much worse off.

     Here I must state a prejudice. Having once been a statehouse correspondent (Maryland), I am underwhelmed by the competence and professionalism of state government. Most legislators are part-time, but the lobbyists are not. Often, they lead the representatives around by the nose -- offering expertise, advice and, in a pinch, a free vacation to somewhere very nice.

     Similarly, state judges do not match the caliber of their federal counterparts. Unlike federal judges, who are appointed for life, state judges usually are elected. Often they are political hacks who, as lawyers, have already plundered the savings of widows and orphans, retire to the bench and stay there by pandering to the electorate. I know there are great state judges and lousy federal ones, but I know, too, that in general that's not the case.

     What is true of the judiciary is also true of police departments. I have my problems with the FBI, but nothing it ever did compares to the crimes committed by certain L.A. cops in the Rampart district or, for that matter, the trigger-happy cops of Prince George's County. The combination of lazy or incompetent judges and brutal or corrupt cops ought to give anyone pause.

     There is a bit of the potentate in many governors. They consider themselves presidents of their respective states. They have their planes and their cars and security details for a nonexistent threat from no one in particular. A national governors' conference has more guns than a sit-down of Afghan warlords.

     So it is not surprising that in the past, various states have mimicked the federal government -- hunting reds, anarchists, syndicalists and, later, integrationists. States, even cities, had their own red squads, persecuting or, on rare occasion, prosecuting alleged subversives or mere dissidents. There was hardly a major city in the country that didn't have some palooka in a fedora following some bookworm in a beret.

     At about the same time, various southern states used their police powers to intimidate and harass civil rights activists. It was the police themselves who in 1964 helped lynch three civil rights workers in Neshoba County, Miss. That was an extreme example of the misuse of police powers, but it was not a rare one. For African Americans in the South, the difference between the KKK and the cops was sometimes only a matter of uniform.

     Yes, I know. That was then and this is now. But even now police power can be awesome if unchecked. The power to tap phones, to accumulate damaging personal information, to track your Internet habits is the stuff of Orwell and Kafka.

     It was also the stuff of the late Richard Daley of Chicago and the equally late Gov. Ross Barnett of Mississippi. Police power needs to be rationed, to be monitored. It was only yesterday, after all, that a posse of moralists, certain of their cause and blind to the consequences, managed to excavate the hidden sex life of a sitting president, supposedly the most powerful person in the land.

     Many of us who are wary of police powers, who cherish civil liberties, nonetheless concede that the law has to accommodate the new threat. But the new authority ought to be limited to the new threat and restricted to the federal government. The last thing we need is 50 FBIs, some of them effectively accountable to no one. Let the feds handle terrorism. That way, we'll all be safer.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

Related Info:


War in the States main | War on America main | Issues Index | CDR Home