With Respect to the Terrorists Attack ....

The government exists to serve us, not to rule us.
With Respect to the Terrorists Attack ....

Some people have suggested that I take this site down in light of the attackS on our country by terrorists. Like every other citizen - I too grieve for the loss of life and I too am angry and want to do something about it. But giving up my civil liberties is not one of those things. When we surrender our freedom, the terrorists win. Freedom isn't free. And we are not vulnerable because of our freedoms. Our freedoms are our strength and it's what makes us who we are. Taking away our freedoms isn't going to make us safer.

If we want to fight terrorism and prevent terrorists from blowing up airplanes, let me make the following suggestions. First - our unelected president has paid $132 million dollars this year to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan. We have been funding our terrorist enemies. Maybe if we had taken the money we give to terrorists and spent it on putting a sky marshall on every plane we wouldn't have people flying planes into buildings.

Bush & Obama vowed to go after the terrorists and to go after countries who harbor terrorists.They both stopped short of going after countries who fund terrorists because that would be us. It is our tax dollars that have helped fund this attack against Americans. Clearly the terrorists are our enemy. But does that make our government our friend? Do we solve terrorism by rallying around our president moron who funded these terrorists? A president who took office as a result of a supreme act of treason. I don't think so.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. We need to stop funding dictators and terrorists.

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. It's time America stopped funding terrorists. We have been attacked by an enemy that we created, we trained, and we funded and we are know fighting all over the world . We've been in bed with these people ever since the Reagan Administration. And what is the government solution? Take away our civil liberties? That's not what our forefathers fought and died for!

In 1996 the Clinton Administration proposed a number of recommendations to make our airports safer. The congress decided it was too expensive and said no. Rather than give away our freedoms, which is actually more expensive, we're going to have to spend some money and put armed sky marshals on planes. We could pay for it by reversing the massive tax cut for the rich and by using the money we are now paying to the terrorists themselves.

Anyhow ... this site stays up as a symbol of our freedom and liberties and in spite of the terrorists and our government who funds the terrorists who would now take away our freedoms. Our freedom that comes from the people, not granted to us by the government. And I too grieve for those who are lost. And this loss will never be forgotten.

As to the terrorists, if we ever find them - I support slaughtering them where ever they can be found. But this site is about defending our rights and liberties from those in our own government who would turn us into a close and oppressed nation.

Unfortunately - Mr. Bush was not elected President of the United States. He was appointed to the position in an act of treason to the Constitution by the Supreme Court - who had no authority to appoint him president. There is those who argue that he would have won anyway. Even if that is so, there's a difference between would have won and legitimately winning. and when a person has to cheat to win - it's an admission by conduct that he couldn't win on the merits.

I join with the people in going after these terrorists. But the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Bush was not my president nor Is Mr Obama. Having a common enemy does not erase the fact that America is living a lie. And rallying around traitoruse morons isn't going to make our country safe from terrorists.


Flag Burning is our Patriotic Duty



There comes a point when the citizens, Acting as the Fourth Branch of Government, have a duty to their country to rise up and slap the government down when it gets out of line. We must never forget that the government exists for only one purpose, and that is to serve the people. That the government and the courts derive their powers by the consent of the people, and that the government has a duty to put the Will of the People above it's own self interests. When the government fails, it is the duty and the responsibility of the people to put the government in it's place and let the government know that it is, in fact subservient to the people.

The Fourth Branch of Government
is the People

What they didn't tell you in school

In school you were taught that the Government has three branches, the Legislative branch, the Executive branch, and the Judicial branch. The Legislative branch is the Congress and they make the laws. The Executive branch is the President, who runs the daily business of government. The Judicial branch is the Courts who interpret the law and determine of laws are constitutional. These are the three branches of government you were taught in the government-controlled schools. But there is a fourth branch of government, and that's the People.

 People before Lawyers Some would argue that the People are not a branch of the Government. They would argue that we have a government that is of the People, by the People, and for the People. They would argue that through voting that the Government represents the People and that the Government is the People. In theory, and in an ideal world, this would be true. And for the most part it is true. But there are time when the Government does not represent the People and that the interests of the Government are not the interests of the People. There are times when the People have to assert their will directly and overrule the Government and assert the supremacy of the will of the People over the will of the Government.

The Government Exists for the Sole Purpose of Serving the People, not Ruling the People

The supremacy of the People is preserved throughout all the documents and papers used in the formation of the Government by the People. The preamble to the United States Constitution states, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Clearly the Constitution was created to form a government who's sole purpose was to serve the People and for no other purpose. The founding fathers went to great pains to ensure, through the separation of powers and the balance of power that no branch of government would ever become dominate and become a force that rules the People rather than serves the People.

Our forefathers did not fight and die to preserve the flag, but rather they fought and died to protect our right to burn it, just as our founding fathers did to the British flag. The burning of the flag is an act that asserts the right of the people over the government. The denial of the right to burn the flag is the assertion of the government to rule the people. America is ruled by the people, not the government, and it is in fact our patriotic duty, at this juncture to assert that duty.

Flag Burning is a patriotic act done by people who care deeply enough about our freedoms to challenge the government when it becomes a threat to the people. Patriots who love America burn flags.

In the 1960s the government got itself trapped in the Vietnam War (police action) and was unable to get itself out. The systems of government failed to make itself do what was right. But the people, in order to preserve the nation, rose up against the government, forcing it to act in a lawful and responsible manner. In this case the electoral college has failed to produce a result that anyone can rely on. This is a failure of the methods of the Constitution itself. Now we have opportunists who would usurp the power of the people, who have clearly spoke their intent through the popular vote, and substitute a process that has failed. That is not acceptable.

It might be different if the electoral system produced a clear winner, even if it disagreed with the popular vote. That would have been a different situation. But the electoral system didn't produce a clear winner. It failed! And we must admit that it failed. If Gore, by some chance were to have won under the electoral system, and he could have if he had a spine (as electors are people and free to vote as they choose) then the Bush supporters should have burned the flag. The process, as applied to these circumstances is unfair, and the courts have a duty to declare the process void. If they fail to do their duty, it is our duty to enforce the Will of the People on the courts.

When the electoral system fails to produce a result that the people can rely on, we must go with the popular vote.

George Bush lost his election. He lost the popular vote, and he lost the Florida vote. But because his brother is governor and the secretary of State is going to get to be an ambassador, the vote was manipulated to produce a false result. I never accepted Bush as president nor do I accept Obama as my president today (Al Gore does not speak for me on this issue) and if he is installed in that office then this country will not be my country and I will treat the government as an occupying foreign power and that a coup has occurred.

I therefore urge all loyal citizens to make it clear to the Republican controlled press that we will not accept this and that we are prepared to burn the flag to make our voices heard. When the government becomes the lawbreaker then there is no law.

The United States Supreme Court will now be known as the Republican and today the Obama Supreme Court.

I have to agree with this statement; "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law", Justice Stevens of the United States supreme court, in his dissenting opinion. You got that right sucker! And if you think we're just going to sit here and let it happen, you're dead wrong.

Joseph F Barber