Slashdot Mirror

I beg to differ. The Canadian government cannot override our bill of rights concerning free speech.

Our constitution overrides treaty obligations which might obligate U.S. citizens to follow an external judgement which violates the bill of rights.

If that was not the case, you'd have every banana republic forcing judgements on anyone in the U.S. they didn't like for any happenstance reason.

Furthermore, this is one of the primary reasons we have a military that is larger than any to make sure that it remains that way.

Just because it has not happen yet does not mean it never will. Because of Obamacare, a constitutional convention has been in the works for a balanced budget amendment http://www.sweetliberty.org/st...

WTO and similar arbitaration boards existed for many moons now. They deal with protectionist tariffs

No, they don't.

Think so, eh? Don't read this then - http://www.sweetliberty.org/is... . I know a guy that was working for Dupont when they came up with the ozone bit. He's still amazed people are still duped by it. PT Barnum was right, sucker born every moment.

This entire argument is already rendered moot by virtue of a few executive orders.

Executive Order #10995: ASSIGNING TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
(Seizure of all communications media in the United States.)

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1962.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-10995.htm

I am certain a "cyber attack" would constitute a State of Emergency.

Bill Clinton reaffirmed this Executive Order and a few others with Executive Order #12919: (Signed June 3, 1994,)
It encompasses the above Executive Order and more.

Executive Order #12919: NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1994.html
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/eo12919.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12919.htm

They are not a loophole. The supreme court has ruled that treaties do not supersede the constitution.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89100044
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=354&page=1

Nice post, other than the fact that this treaty still has to be ratified by the Congress before it becomes the law of the land. And then it can still be found unconstitutional.

Here is a little info on treaties for you:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

All that being said, call / write your congresscritters folks. We can kill this fucker in it's crib.

You are missing the point. Yes, energy currently is cheap only in a few places such as Saudi Arabia. But energy should and could be cheap, almost free even, everywhere. The reason that is not is because of artificially induced scarcity.

A bold claim, I know, so let me substantiate it. Oil is the most glaringly obvious example of how energy is being kept scarce. Here is some fun reading you can do: what oil really is, oodles of oil in Prudhoe Bay, ditto for the Bakken Formation, Cuba, and in several other places. Not very surprising given the true oil genesis mechanism.

Of course, there are some intrinsic costs associated with oil: you need to pump it and transport it. So how can energy be almost free? Well, there are at least a dozen implemented and reproduced means to produce energy that go beyond currently accepted physical science. It is too broad a topic to address here, and it is subject to much disinformation, bullshit, and suppression. If you care to dive into it, Google "Free Energy" and click away. Good luck separating the truth from the lies.

Hardly the first time American interests have abused NAFTA to the detriment of Canadians.

And what of Canadian interests in abusing NAFTA to the detriment of Americans? Canadian business Methanex, maker of MTBE a gasoline additive which is a known carcinogen, sued California when the state wanting to protect people banned the use of MTBE in the state.

Falcon

I was tired that day - National Security Directives (not edicts)...

FEMA can create a police state in any undefined emergency, and yes FEMA did come out of EOs. I don't expect them to do this, but they could create a '1984' given their power.

Here's some links:
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/fema_executive_orders.htm

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/femalist.htm

AFAIK, the only agency/people that gets to see a national security directive without a court order is the agency/people it is directed to. They do need to go on the federal register so we can get the idea of what they are about, but the details are hidden.

Yes, treaties can be an end-run around the constitution; that's their point.

I'm sorry, Mr. AC, but your interpretation of the constitution has no importance. All that matters is what the Supreme Court has to say

But, no, as far as I know, there is no martial law provisions that would allow the feds or a fed dept (FEMA) to overrule anything like that on the state level.

Well, consider some of the Executive Orders. (I make no claims as to the reality of the claims made on that page, e.g. regarding "black helicopter traffic" reportings.) Take 12148 as an example:

Section 1. Transfers or Reassignments

1-1. Transfer or Reassignment of Existing Functions.

1-101. All functions vested in the President that have been delegated or assigned to the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, Department of Defense, are transferred or reassigned to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

1-102. All functions vested in the President that have been delegated or assigned to the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, are transferred or reassigned to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including any of those functions redelegated or reassigned to the Department of Commerce with respect to assistance to communities in the development of readiness plans for severe weather-related emergencies.

1-103. All functions vested in the President that have been delegated or assigned to the Federal Preparedness Agency, General Services Administration, are transferred or reassigned to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

etc. etc. etc.

Another, arguably scarier example, EO 11000 (text can be found here and here):

ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

font face="Times New Roman">

SECTION 1. Scope. The Secretary of Labor (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) shall prepare national emergency plans and develop preparedness programs covering civilian manpower mobilization, more effective utilization of limited manpower resources including specialized personnel, wage and salary stabilization, worker incentives and protection, manpower resources and requirements, skill development and training, research, labor-management relations, and critical occupations. These plans and programs shall be designed to develop a state of readiness in these areas with respect to all conditions of national emergency, including attack upon the United States.

SEC. 2. Functions. The Secretary shall:

(a) Civilian manpower mobilization. Develop plans and issue guidance designed to utilize to the maximum extent civilian manpower resources, such plans and guidance to be developed with the active participation and assistance of the States and local political subdivisions thereof, and of other organizations and agencies concerned with the mobilization of the people of the United States. Such plans shall include, but not necessarily be limited to:

(1) Manpower management. Recruitment, selection and referral, training, employment stabilization (including appeals procedures), proper utilization, and determination of the skill categories critical to meeting the labor requirements of defense and essential civilian activities.

(2) Priorities. Procedures for translating survival and production urgencies into manpower priorities to be used as guides for allocating available workers.

(3) National guidance. Technical guidance to States for the utilization of the nationwide system of public employment offices and other appropriate agencies for screening, recruiting, and referring workers, and for other appropriate activities to meet mobilization and civil defense

The intarweb said so so it must be true!

If the crook has a good idea there's a gun inside the person's residence which house do you think they'll choose? The one that "could" have metal slugs hurled at them or the one that at best they think they have steak knives? And as much as I hate this countries government I'd rather have a go at knife vs gun or worst case gun vs gun than be in another country where I can't even have the chance and at best I would have a knife if I was lucky.

So what if a few kids shoot each other? I see it as natural selection forcing it's way back into the flow of things and the parents will have it be a lesson as to why they need to teach their children about guns(I have zero pity for the parents that have to go thru it and I would expect none myself if it happened to me). Hell I was broke in with guns when I was 6. My dad served in the Navy and he knew about guns and damn well made sure I knew about them to and I'll sure as hell carry on that tradition.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/guns/britishcri merates.htm/

[/RANT]

Incidentally, this bit:

...a judge...complained that a man with a criminal record who landed in his courtroom was sending malicious e-mail. The harasser was complaining to the judge about such minutia as the fringe on the American flag hanging in his courtroom.

was interesting to me. This sounds like the oft-repeated assertion that a US flag with a fringe in a courtroom means that you're under Admiralty law, not the law of the United States, and that anyone who appears before that court has lost most of their rights. Of course, They don't want you to know this...or that England still owns the US, or that there is a subtle yet vitally important difference between the United States and the United States of America that means you are 0wn3d by the government...

I tell you, there are worlds upon worlds of free entertainment out there on the Internet.

They clearly haven't already done their duty, so let's take away some of their basic rights. Next, let's strong arm them into not talking when they get home! Wait...

Not according to this. I don't know who's legally right, but as a practical matter I can't believe that Thomas Jefferson and friends would knowingly leave such a gaping loophole.

I got tired of all the noise my '486-66 PC was making, so I decided to move the machine further away from my desk. I went down to Fry's and picked up some VGA/keyboard/mouse extension cables, cut a hole in the wall, and ran the cables through the wall. With the machine in the other room, I could barely hear it.

But if put my ear to the wall, I could still discern a hum. And my CPU temp was still consistently above 20C. I considered freon cooling, but that's bad for the environment. I then tried water cooling, but zebra mussels clogged my water pump.

Then ZAM! I thought of Arctic Cooling. So I called up Belkin and ordered 3000 miles of VGA/keyboard/mouse extension cables and ran them along the Alaskan pipeline. I wanted to place the '486 as near to the north pole as possible, but financial constraints forced me to put it outside a raindeer herder's shed in Nome.

When I first hooked everything up, there were some minor glitches to work through. Timber wolves had chewed through the VGA cable in the northern Yukon. This was easily fixed with my trusty portable butane solder gun and Kevlar heat-shrink tubing.

Back in my home office. I couldn't hear the PC at all. And CPU temps hover at just about -18C most of the year.

Now about that faint buzzing produced by my monitor...

In the West Virginia case [where an election supervisor, a candidate, a prosecutor, a county commissioner, election workers and the voting machine vendor were all sued by a group of candidates who believed that they had been cheated in the election], although the criminal charges were dropped, the judge had not allowed the jury to see a demonstration by the plaintiff's attorneys' computer expert, Wayne Nunn, PhD, a project scientist for Union Carbide who had designed multimillion-dollar computer networks.

After a nine-hour examination of the CES (now Business Records Corporation) computer system in question and in the presence of the CES president, the system's programmer, and others,

"Nunn, with one punch card, added ten thousand votes to the total of one of the candidates in a mock race for president". [ The New Yorker , November 7 th 1988, p. 68]

Nunn subsequently gave a deposition under cross-examination and revealed seven ways in which the system could be deliberately caused to miscount votes, including by manipulation of the toggle switch on the front of the machine to alter vote totals and by inserting a set of secret Trojan Horse commands into the source-code software as described earlier. So it can be done. But can it be detected and prosecuted?

A methodical expert analysis of the company's source-code could have been the key to determining the existence of fraud, but CES officials asked presiding Judge Charles H. Haden II, of the United States District Court, to block Nunn from inspecting their code on the basis that it was a "trade secret". Ultimately, the judge ordered that Nunn alone be allowed to view it, but without the computer he needed for a proper system analysis.

Nevertheless, he discovered "trap doors", "wait loops", and Christmas trees" which could all serve the same end of undetectable vote fraud. According to the New Yorker's Ronnie Dugger, after viewing the code for several hours,

"Nunn was prepared to testify that a ?debugger' in the BT-76 program, while enabling a programmer to make repairs in the program, was also a Trojan Horse; Haden excluded such testimony".

Nunn was allowed to testify that "he had concluded that the program had been altered during the counting".

The jury was also barred from seeing Nunn demonstrate how he could alter the vote count.

The case of Wayne Nunn being allowed to examine the proprietary source-code of the CES system is an extraordinary exception. The fact is that very few individuals outside of the computer vendors have ever been allowed to inspect the source-code of that or any other election equipment company. This was confirmed by Eva Waskell, the director of the Elections Project at Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility in a 1993 report entitled "Overview of Computers and Electors".

Many court cases involving allegations of fraud were brought against vendors of electronic systems. There were no convictions. Was there ever any proof of tampering presented? No. Part of the reason for this may be that during the litigation the plaintiffs were never given access to the vote tabulating program, and hence there was no opportunity for anyone to establish evidence to either prove or disprove the allegations. [Emphasis added]

We should point out that even if the court allowed the plaintiff's experts to inspect the source-code, there would be no proof that the code provided to the court was, in fact, the selfsame code used in the particular election in question. Federal election officials say that a few states are mandating that the source-code be placed in escrow so that it could be examined in the event of a particularly "fishy" election result.

Actually, many people think that freon was banned because DuPont's patent was about to expire.

134a, the very-widely-used replacement chemical, is also a DuPont chemical -- and the pantent is much newer!

Oh please...innocent until proven guilty indeed. Your being as "just" about things in general as the one you are accusing. At least have the decency to try to back up your claim, or get some medication for your conspiracy theory delusions.

If you want to drag the name through the mud, then you better bring something more substancial than your opinion...because your opinion isn't impressing me any more than Michael's.

And yes...he is the president...which is slightly different from being a candidate.