Fate of Nations

Canada.com

VANCOUVER - During an influenza pandemic, freighters will be docked, medications will be scarce and people will starve, a leading international expert told a conference Wednesday.

“More people will likely die from this than from the pandemic,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

North American pandemic planning hasn’t factored in its dependency on Asian markets, Osterholm told attendees to the “Are You Ready for a Pandemic?” conference.

The impending pandemic will most likely originate in Asia, the “roulette table” for serious H5N1 flu virus genetic mutations that cause pandemics, warned Osterholm. If that happens, trade supply lines will die along with the influenza’s victims, he added.

Osterholm’s apocalyptic warnings have lauded him the “Chicken Little” of influenza pandemics by some. Panicked and angry e-mail responses to his appearance on Oprah last year single-handily shut down his university’s computer server.

But international influenza researchers predict the next pandemic will be similar to the 1918-19 Spanish Flu, which killed more than 40 million people.

The next pandemic will be global in just weeks and will last 12 to 18 months, Osterholm said, although noting that the economic effects will be instantaneous.

The problem is that pandemic planning in North America has been based on all other factors such as trade and electricity being normal, but that won’t be the case, said Osterholm.

Continue reading ‘Economic chaos will kill more than pandemic, expert warns’

Time

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision overturning Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban is the biggest gun rights ruling since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. The Court had not waded into this divisive issue since 1939, when it declared, “We cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear” arms. But on Thursday the Court broke its silence to do just that, ruling for the first time that the Constitution confers an individual right to gun ownership beyond providing for “a well regulated Militia,” as the amendment states. The Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home,” Justice Antonin Scalia, the court’s arch-conservative, wrote in the majority opinion.

Proponents of gun rights may rejoice at winning this heavyweight tussle, but their victory comes by way of a nuanced decision.. The ruling, which affirms a federal appeals court decree, makes clear that individual ownership rights are limited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Scalia wrote.

Gun-control advocates say the ruling’s focus on gun bans safeguards reasonable gun restrictions from the flurry of litigation it will undoubtedly trigger. “The Court’s decision indicated regulation of guns, as opposed to the banning of handguns, is entirely permissible,” says Dennis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The ruling gives a constitutional green light to a wide range of gun restrictions.” Scalia said the Court’s decision “should not be taken to cast doubt” on many existing restrictions against gun possession, including handgun possession by felons and the mentally ill, possession in schools and government buildings and rules governing commercial arms sale. Says Henigan: “I don’t think that there is any federal gun control law that’s likely to be struck down.”

Even if federal gun laws remain intact, gun-rights activists will likely invoke the Court’s ruling at local and state levels. Mark Tushnet, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, says he anticipates a “period of uncertainty” as lower courts wrestle with whether the ruling can be applied to their jurisdictions. Ultimately, he says, “the answer is going to be yes, but it’s going to take one big case or a series of smaller ones to establish.” Randy Barnett, a professor of legal theory at Georgetown University Law Center, notes that while Scalia’s opinion “telegraphs” his belief that the ruling will apply to states, “that’s not what this case is about. It’s about gun bans, not [gun control] regulations.” Neither expects that to deter pro-gun forces from using the Court’s ruling as ammunition. Both Tushnet and Barnett agree that Chicago, which has banned gun ownership since 1982, is likely to be the setting for the next major gun rights battle. (Chicago mayor Richard Daley called the court’s ruling “a very frightening decision” and vowed to quash challenges to the city’s ordinance.)

Continue reading ‘What’s Next for Gun Control?’

Reuters 

Anti-war demonstrators marched in a dozen U.S. cities on Saturday to call for an immediate end to the war in Iraq and a cut-off of funding by Congress.

The “national day of action,” sponsored by the United for Peace and Justice coalition, attracted throngs of protesters in cities from Boston and New Orleans to Chicago and Los Angeles on the fifth anniversary of the U.S. Senate’s vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq.

Wet weather dampened the turnout in New York, but thousands braved the rain for the anti-war event in Manhattan, where protesters carried signs reading “End the war now,” demanding a cutoff of its funding; “Healthcare, not warfare;” and calling for the impeachment of President Bush for “war crimes.”

One contingent began its trek in New Jersey, marching across the George Washington Bridge en route to a rally in Manhattan’s Union Square, where speakers included anti-war veterans and families of servicemen in Iraq.

Leslie Kielsen, a local UPAJ organizer, said the “half a trillion” dollars spent on the war was money that could have been used for education, housing and to feed the hungry.

The demonstrators, who included labor unions activists, also spoke out on issues including nuclear weapons and what some see as the increasing likelihood of U.S. military intervention in Iran over its escalating nuclear program.

They then marched peacefully to Foley Square near some of New York’s largest courthouses and federal office buildings for another rally. En route, they observed a two minute period of silence to honor the war dead.

Continue reading ‘Protesters call for end to Iraq war’

Associated Press

For the first time in nearly four decades, a senior intelligence official — not a secretive federal court — will have a decisive voice in whether Americans’ communications can be monitored when they talk to foreigners overseas.

The shift came over the weekend as Congress hustled through changes to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA.

The bill provides new powers to the National Security Agency to monitor communications that enter the United States and involve foreigners who are the subjects of a national security investigation.

Apprehensive about what they were doing, Congress specified that the new provisions would expire after six months, unless renewed.

They would give National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales joint authority to approve the monitoring of such calls and e-mails, rather than the 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

That means an intelligence official is now empowered to sort through the legalistic, secretive world of FISA, rather than a judge or the nation’s highest law enforcement officer.

McConnell was added to the legal decision-making after lawmakers argued that the embattled attorney general shouldn’t hold the power alone. The spy chief’s experience is largely in military intelligence, not legal matters.

Civil liberties groups and some Democrats call the bill a vast expansion of government power. In the past several days, officials who work for McConnell, the Justice Department and the Republican congressional leadership have argued vehemently that that isn’t so.

On Monday, White House spokeswoman Tony Fratto dismissed as “highly misleading” any suggestion that the changes broadly expanded the government’s authority to eavesdrop on Americans’ communications without court approval.

However, the law’s wording — underscored by conversations with administration officials — shows the rules governing when and how Americans’ calls and e-mails will be monitored have changed significantly.

Communications that can get caught up in intelligence collection require a spectrum of approvals, depending on the circumstances. Generally, such calls, e-mails, text messages and other electronic exchanges fall into three categories:

Continue reading ‘Eavesdropping Reforms Empower Spy Chief’

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Column 1
Georgia:
   Button Gwinnett
   Lyman Hall
   George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
   William Hooper
   Joseph Hewes
   John Penn
South Carolina:
   Edward Rutledge
   Thomas Heyward, Jr.
   Thomas Lynch, Jr.
   Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
   Robert Morris
   Benjamin Rush
   Benjamin Franklin
   John Morton
   George Clymer
   James Smith
   George Taylor
   James Wilson
   George Ross
Delaware:
   Caesar Rodney
   George Read
   Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
   William Floyd
   Philip Livingston
   Francis Lewis
   Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
   Richard Stockton
   John Witherspoon
   Francis Hopkinson
   John Hart
   Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
   Josiah Bartlett
   William Whipple
Massachusetts:
   Samuel Adams
   John Adams
   Robert Treat Paine
   Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
   Stephen Hopkins
   William Ellery
Connecticut:
   Roger Sherman
   Samuel Huntington
   William Williams
   Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
   Matthew Thornton

Brett Folks - Fate of Nations

I know, its been awhile since the site has had any major attention from me, so I thought I would take some time and share what I have been up to over the past few months and share a few insights.

For the past three years or so I have been working (halfheartedly) on my second book.  Since the end of April of this year I have buckled down and have been working on it full-time, thus the relative lack of information on the site since then.  I had a few hundred pages of the book written, then while reading them over I decided I needed to start from scratch on a brand new draft.  So, I sat down at my desk with a pen and paper (that’s right, no computer) and have been going full steam in longhand, and let me tell you: this book is going to blow my first one clean out of the water. 

Without giving too much away, it’s set in 1967 in a world where the axis powers won WWII and Fascist President Jonathan Wilcox Stone has taken office and is well on his way to establishing a “New American Republic.”  However, his vision is neither new, nor American, and is not a true Republic in the fashion that America was set up to be.  America is in a state of “cold martial law” and a large segment of the population is made up of mind-numbed zombies nicknamed “Stone’s drones,” while public opposition to the Fascists is spearheaded by a merger of the Democrats and Republicans, known as the National Alliance.  

However, real opposition to the Fascists comes in the form of underground pseudo-militias who see the very real possibility of a violent conflict with the U.S. government on the horizon and are preparing for the worst.  While President Stone works deals with Nazi Germany, Fascist Britain, and a shadowy group of well-placed gentlemen known as the “Wise Men,” riots sweep America’s cities and the federal government responds in the worst way possible.

All I’ve got to do is finish writing the thing, (which is the fun part) then I have to find an agent, then a publisher.  Those steps require real work and effort.  The reality is, most in the publishing industry won’t want to take on such a novel, but I am confident that the right publisher will come my way.

Briefly, on to things that really matter:

I’ve been watching over the past few weeks as they keep trying to ram this horrible immigration bill down America’s throat.  This is literal America-killing legislation and should be stopped at all costs.  However, what most do not realize is that the illegal aliens have been legalized by fiat due to the fact that they made it across the border, period.  Our government wants them here and so does the Mexican government, so it seems here they will stay unless the American people demand that all incentives for illegals to stay be revoked.  Then most will self-deport back to their countries of origin, which is preferable. 

My prayers go out to Ed and Elaine Brown in New Hampshire.  The Browns are true American patriots.  Also, Raymond Schwab from Beit Shalom Ministries had his son stolen from him by the state of Kansas, right here in my own town!  Please remember them in your prayers as well.    

KRISTEN SENZ
Union Leader
Friday June 8, 2007

PLAINFIELD – “What are they trying to do, start a war?” Ed Brown said of the police presence near his Plainfield home yesterday. “What do they think we have in here, tanks?”

Brown, who maintains there is no law that requires average American citizens to pay a direct tax on their wages, spoke to a group of reporters from a second-floor window in his house after a veritable army of heavily armed police officers and federal agents left the area around his rural home without ever making contact with him.

The government detained and questioned a man who discovered surveillance teams positioned around the house yesterday morning.

As Brown spoke, half a dozen helicopters made wide circles overhead.

“How does a foreign national army act in a country they are occupying?” Brown said. “These people are no different than our troops in Iraq. I feel bad for our troops over there.”

Brown, who asserts that the federal government has no jurisdiction in New Hampshire and no authority to charge him under a non-existent law, said the activity surrounding his properties in Plainfield and West Lebanon yesterday was a “Zionist, Illuminati, Free Mason movement.”

“I hope I don’t see anybody up there with guns in the woods, because what am I supposed to do?” he said, citing a New Hampshire law that allows citizens to defend their property with deadly force.

Brown, who called his residence “a house of peace,” said a friend took his dog for a walk at 8 a.m. yesterday and never came back.

“The dog came running back in a panic about 45 minutes later,” he said.

His friend was taken into custody by federal agents after the man discovered surveillance activity on the property, according to U.S. Marshal Steve Monier.

Brown said the agents “kidnapped” his friend and “stole” his West Lebanon property.

Brown said he had an inkling Wednesday night that federal agents were planning something when he saw a low-flying police aircraft pass eastward over his house around 9:30 p.m. By yesterday afternoon, he said, his house telephone line and Internet service had been shut off and his cell phone rendered useless. All this because, as Brown sees it, he’s standing up for his rights.

“I’m you,” he said. “I’m just saying I’m not going to take it anymore … I’m fighting for your freedoms.”

Brown said it’s only a matter of time before everyone who stands up to the U.S. government ends up in his shoes.

“Your time is coming up pretty soon,” he said. “If you don’t go along with the Free Masons, they’ll attack you too.” Brown, who says he now adheres only to the laws of the creator, sharply criticized state and local police officers, calling them “candy a—-” who don’t think for themselves.

Continue reading ‘Ed Brown says feds have no jurisdiction in New Hampshire’

You Tube
Friday June 8, 2007

An interview with Ed Brown, a Plainsfield resident convicted of tax evasion who refuses to surrender to authorities.

Comment: This is an example of the effect grassroots activism can have on large organizations like governments, or in this case, a corporation.  By the way, Jericho is a pretty decent show. 

After being deluged with calls from fans, CBS is reconsidering

Associated Press

LOS ANGELES - Fans trumpeting the cause of CBS’ canceled drama “Jericho” have caught the network’s ear.

CBS, deluged with calls, messages and shipments of nuts signifying viewer displeasure, is reconsidering its decision, a source close to the production said Tuesday.

The source spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly. A decision on whether to bring the show back, probably for a midseason run, is imminent, the source said.

“We are tired of the networks (not just CBS) tossing aside quality programming,” was the message carried by jericholives.com, one of several Web sites protesting the cancellation. “Enough! We’re going to fight for this one.”

Clarke Ingram, a “Jericho” fan from Pittsburgh, Pa., and a spokesman for jericholives, said he was optimistic that CBS would find a way to revive the drama about a Kansas town isolated by a nuclear terrorist attack.

“People would paint this as teenagers in tinfoil hats” rallying behind the show, said Ingram, 50, an operations manager for two radio stations. “That’s not what this is. These are educated professionals.”

The show’s daring premise, its writing and acting make the case for its survival, he said.

CBS may also be considering the dent a long hiatus put in the show’s viewership, the same scheduling misstep that hurt ABC’s “Lost” and NBC’s “Heroes.”

The network apparently has been impressed by the display of viewer passion, which included the delivery of 50,000 pounds of peanuts to its New York offices. In the season finale, a character replies “Nuts!” to a demand that the beleaguered town of Jericho surrender.

That’s the same response that a U.S. general in World War II made to a German demand for surrender at the Battle of the Bulge.

There’s already been one positive outcome: CBS is donating the protest peanuts to charities, including one that sends care packages to troops overseas.