WE ARE NOT LIVING IN A FREE COUNTRY...

WE ARE NOT LIVING IN A FREE COUNTRY...
(I acknowledge that some of you reading this may simply say "yeah what's new?" Read on...)

No jobs for US citizens without Homeland Security approval
Source: http://pressesc.com/01180202266_eevs

US citizens who apply for a job will need prior approval from Department of Homeland Security under the terms immigration bill passed by the Senate this week.

American Civil Liberties Union pointed out that the DHS's Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS) is error plagued and if the department makes a mistake in determining work eligibility, there will be virtually no way to challenge the error or recover lost wages due to the bill’s prohibitions on judicial review.

Even current employees will need to obtain eligibility approval from the DHS Within 60 days of the Immigration Reform Act of 2006 becoming law.

"EEVS would be a financial and bureaucratic nightmare for both businesses and workers," said Timothy Sparapani, ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Under this already flawed program no one would be able to work in the U.S. without DHS approval - creating a ‘No Work List’ similar to the government’s ‘No Fly List.’ We need immigration reform, but not at this cost."

The act allocates US$400 million for the implementation of the EEVS, but the Congressional Budgeting Office estimates the system to cost in excess of a billion dollars.


"No work list" - Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the "no work list"?

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S.1348) require every employer in the United States to verify the employment eligibility of their workforce of both US citizens and immigrants through a new Electronic Employment Verification System (EEVS) operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

This is colloquially referred to as the "no work list", as you would not be allowed to work if the EEVS deems you ineligible to work in the US.

2. What is the actual text of the bill mandating the "no work list"?

TITLE III
SEC. 301. UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS

(d) ELECTRONIC EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION SYSTEM

‘‘(1) REQUIREMENT FOR 1 SYSTEM.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the Commissioner of Social Security, shall implement an Electronic Employment Verification System (referred to in this subsection as the ‘System’) to determine whether—

‘‘(A) the identifying information submitted by an individual is consistent with the information maintained by the Secretary or the Commissioner of Social Security; and
‘‘(B) such individual is eligible for employment in the United States.

(page 228)

3. Does it apply to every body?

Yes.

‘‘(2) REQUIREMENT FOR PARTICIPATION.—The Secretary shall require all employers in the United States to participate in the System, with respect to all employees hired by the employer on or after the date that is 18 months after the date that not less than $400,000,000 have been appropriated and made available to implement this subsection.

(page 229)

4. When would the system be ready?

Currently a test run of the system, called "Basic Pilot", is in place. The full EEVS system should be ready by mid-2009.

5. What information about an employee must the employer submit to get an EEVS response?

1. The individual’s name and date of birth and, if the individual was born in the United States, the State in which such individual was born;
2. The individual’s social security account number;
3. The employment identification number of the individual’s employer during any one of the most recently completed calendar years;
4. in the case of an individual who does not attest that the individual is a national of the United States, such alien identification or authorization number that the Secretary shall require.

6. What happens once an information request to the system is made?

Within10 days the employer will get one of the two following responses:
YES: if the System is able to confirm the individual’s identity and eligibility for employment in the United States, a confirmation notice, including the appropriate codes on such confirmation notice;
NO: if the System is unable to confirm the individual’s identity or eligibility for employment in the United States, and after a secondary manual verification has been conducted, a tentative nonconfirmation notice, including the appropriate codes on such tentative nonconfirmation notice.

7. What happens if the system says I am ineligible?

If the individual does not contest the tentative nonconfirmation notice within 10 days of receiving notice from the individual’s employer, the notice shall become final and the employer shall record on the form described in subsection (1)(A)(i), the appropriate code provided through the System to indicate the individual did not contest the tentative nonconfirmation.

8. Can I contest the decision?

Yes, but you must do so within 10 days of receiving a nonconfirmation notice.

9. How do I contest the decision?

We don't know yet. All that the bill says is:

The Secretary in consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security, shall establish procedures to permit an individual who contests a tentative or final nonconfirmation notice, or seeks to verify the individual’s own employment eligibility prior to obtaining or changing employment, to contact the appropriate agency and, in a timely manner, correct or update the information used by the System.

(page 244)

10. Can I appeal the decision?

Yes. But it is up to the Homeland Secretary and the Commissioner of Social Security to decide what to do about the appeal. They are judge, the jury and prosecutor all in one.

The Secretary and Commissioner of Social Security shall develop procedures to review appeals filed under subparagraph (A) and to make final determinations on such appeals.

(page 245)

11. Am I eligible to compensation if DHS admits an error?

Maybe. Once again, it is up to the Secretary to decide whether to compensate you or not.

If the Secretary makes a determination under subparagraph (C) that the final nonconfirmation notice issued for an individual was not
caused by an act or omission of the individual, the Secretary shall compensate the individual for lost wages.

(page 246)

12. I am not worried. If they don't let me work in the US, I can always go to Canada and get a job, right?

Not necessarily. Starting January this year, under the terms of Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, you can't leave US without clearance from DHS.

13. So is it entirely possible that a US citizen could be ineligible to work in the US, and also be unable to seek employment abroad?

Yes.


CONTINUE READING:


Either they go into political retirement or this country goes into political oblivion. And when this country goes, you and your family go with it. Be forewarned.


http://www.newswith views.com/ Vieira/edwin55. htm


THE KAKISTOCRACY EXPOSES ITS HAND
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.







Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
May 28, 2007
NewsWithViews. com

The publication of National Security Presidential Directive 51 (Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20) on 9 May 2007, now available on the White House’s web site, represents another major stage in the devolution of the United States from a constitutional republic to a Caesaristic police state. Inadvertently, though, it exposes the primary danger to the continuation of its own power that the Establishment now fears. As well, it emphasizes the impossibility of any succor for the American people from the present “two” major political parties. And thus it should actually energize We the People into doing what is necessary to salvage freedom and prosperity in this country, before things get entirely out of hand.

(1) The unconstitutionality of NSPD-51 is blatant.

NSPD-51 “establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations * * * provides continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency” (paragraph (1)).

To be sure, “executive departments and agencies” are parts of the Executive Branch of the General Government, in principle subject to the President. But other than the Treasury, which the Constitution itself requires (see Article I, Section 9, Clause 7), all “executive departments and agencies” are originally creatures of Congress, not the President. Therefore, their very existences, purposes, powers, personnel, and “continuity requirements” must be the products of statutes (“Laws,” as the Constitution generally terms them), not Presidential “directives” (for which the Constitution makes no provision whatsoever). Indeed, other than “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, [and] Judges of the supreme Court,” the President may not constitutionally even “nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate * * * appoint” any “Officers of the United States” except those “which shall be established by Law,” or appoint any “inferior Officers” except those whose “Appointment” “Congress may by Law vest * * * in the President alone” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). That is, other than the President himself, the composition, structure, and operations of the Executive Branch are completely subject to the legislative supremacy of Congress.

As for maintaining appropriate “continuity” with respect to these matters, Congress enjoys ample—and exclusive—constituti onal power to do whatever is needed. In general, “[a]ll legislative Powers” the Constitution “grant[s] shall be vested in * * * Congress”, not to any degree or for any purpose in the President (Article I, Section 1). And in particular, Congress alone is entitled “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” not only its own powers, but also “all other Powers vested by th[e] Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”, including the powers of the President (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18). In this process, the President’s only forms of participation are: (i) to “recommend to [Congress’s] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient” (Article I, Section 3); and (ii) either to “approve” “Bill[s] which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” or to “return [such] Bill[s], with his Objections” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). The President cannot himself enact “Laws.” Instead, he must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section 3).

Even if Congress has been remiss in not providing for the necessary and proper “continuity requirements” for “executive departments and agencies,” the President cannot on that account take unilateral action on his own initiative. America is not subject to “government by default.” In the absence of appropriate action by the constitutionally authorized Branch of government, the country does not find itself at the mercy of the self-appointed “leadership” of some other, unauthorized Branch of government. Any such “leadership” is not an act of “government” at all, but instead is usurpation at best, and a crime at worst (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 241 and 242). If the President honestly believes that this country needs “a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations,” he should present to Congress what he considers to be the “necessary and expedient” legislation for Congress to enact, and await Congress’s agreement with his assessment (Article II, Section 3).

Moreover, while the United States remains a federal republic and a free country, who is the President to provide “guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations,” as NSPD-51 claims to do? Precisely where does the Constitution mandate to the President the role of universal teacher? Nowhere—because such an idea is positively un-American. For the most recent and ominous parallel, one must look to Mao Tse-tung, “The Great Helmsman” of Red China, whose “Mao Tse-tung Thought” appeared in the little red book countless millions of politically zombified Chinese Communists waved during mass demonstrations. Admittedly, the trip from America, even as corrupted as she is today, to something like Red China in the heyday of Mao Tse-tung is, no doubt, still a long one. But, as the Chinese aphorism has it, “a journey of a thousand li begins with a single step.” So, in humility and prudence, any President would do well to learn before he claims to teach, and therefore first to seek guidance from, rather than purport to impart it to, his fellow countrymen.

Not surprisingly, as the supposed source of its authority NSPD-51 employs an open-ended invocation of “emergency” conditions: “[c]atastrophic emergency means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, environment, economy, or government functions” (paragraph 2(a)). (One should notice how, as the break-up crisis approaches, the appeal to “emergency” alone no longer suffices, and politicians come to employ increasingly hysterical adjectives—today, “[c]atastrophic emergency;” tomorrow, perhaps, “apocalyptic emergency”—as if the degree of power to be seized depended only upon the draftsman’s facility with the dictionary, rather than upon his knowledge of the Constitution. )

As I have explained in previous commentaries, “emergency powers” are bunkum. The new twist in NSPD-51 is that some “[c]atastrophic emergency” supposedly could occur outside the United States, in some other country entirely. Or it could involve the failure of foreign banks, which “severely affect[ed] the U.S. * * * economy.” Or it could be a claimed consequence of supposed “global warming” or some other natural condition that might “severely affect[ ] the U.S. * * * environment.”

In virtue of these cataclysmic threats, NSPD-51 then asserts a breathtakingly unprecedented Presidential power: “[e]nduring constitutional government * * * means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency” (paragraph 2(e)).

Needless to emphasize, NSPD-51 does not identify where and how the Constitution licenses the President to “coordinate[ ]” “cooperative effort[s] among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But the very claim to do so exposes the substance—or, perhaps more descriptively, the absence—of his “proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.” For, if the President will himself “coordinate[ ]” these “cooperative effort[s],” presumably Congress and the Judiciary must accept, accede to, or acquiesce in his “coordinat[ion] .” Certainly all three Branches cannot “coordinate[ ],” each in its own idiosyncratic manner. Neither can each of the three Branches go it own way and still “coordinate[ ]” with the others. One must lead, and the others follow.

NSPD-51 states that “[i]t is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions” (paragraph 3). Yet it also provides that “[c]ontinuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies” only (paragraph 4). Of course, the verbal limitation to “executive departments and agencies” is necessitated by its being a Presidential “directive” which, even if constitutional, cannot apply to any other Branch of the General Government. But how, then, is “the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs” to be achieved for Congress and the Judiciary? And how is “the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions” to be achieved without them? Or, in the minds of those who drafted NSPD-51, does only the Executive Branch count any more? What purpose will be served by preserving the “continuity” of the Executive Branch alone, while discontinuity or chaos grips the Legislative and Judicial Branches—except, perhaps, the purpose of creating the condition precedent for an overarching executive Decidership operating under some species of “martial law?”

Indeed, one need not be suffering from terminal paranoia to deduce exactly this intent from the assertion in NSPD-51 that “[t]he President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government” (paragraph 6). Not just “the activities of the Executive Branch,” but “the activities of the Federal Government” as a whole! Thus, “the separation of powers,” Congress’s power “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper”, and the President’s own duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” are submerged in das Fuhrer Prinzip (the Leader Principle). And every historically literate person knows where that has led in the past.

Most of the rest of NSPD-51 consists of a table of bureaucratic organization and duties that might form the kernel of a reasonable plan for maintaining the “continuity” of the Executive Branch—if submitted to Congress for incorporation into a “necessary and proper” law. Mandated directly by the President, however, it is usurpation. And if allowed to stand by Congress, it will mark a giant step in the systematic destruction of constitutional government in this country and its replacement by a brownshirted Caesarism.

(2) Caesarism of any color, though, is certainly not the primary fear of the people who drafted NSPD-51. The document lists a number of concerns:

The following [National Essential Functions] are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities * * * and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:

(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;
(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;
(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;
(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;
(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation’s economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and
(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States. (paragraph 5)

But surely no one can believe that the present Administration is interested, in the slightest degree,

*
in “[e]nsuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution” —or it would not be promoting the North American Union;
*
in “[d]efending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”—or it would not be harboring Neo-Conzis and other dangerous subversives in public office;
*
in “bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people”—or it would not be demonizing patriots who justifiably find the official explanation of 9/11 as unsatisfactory as the official fable that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, assassinated President Kennedy; or
*
in “maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people”—or it would not be persisting in policies that have caused George W. Bush to be widely condemned as the worst President in American history (so far).

Similarly, no one can believe that the present Administration is interested, in the slightest degree, in “[m]aintaining and fostering effective relations with foreign nations”, when almost its every initiative in foreign policy is directed at denouncing, threatening, subverting, attacking, or occupying any nation that refuses to toe the globalistic line emanating from the Disgrace of Columbia.

So, too, can anyone expect a “rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident” from the bureaucratic apparatus that orchestrated the fiasco in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

And exactly how does the present Administration expect the General Government to “[p]rovid[e] for critical * * * services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States” when, for instance, the Ponzi pyramid of Social Security finally collapses? For part 2 click below.

here for part two:

http://www.newswith views.com/ Vieira/edwin56. htm

So, if all of these purported “National Essential Functions” amount to nothing more than hypocritical boilerplate, the process of elimination identifies the Establishment’ s essential concern as “[p]rotecting and stabilizing the Nation’s economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems.” Worthy of repetition is the key phrase: “ensuring public confidence in [the Nation’s] financial systems.” Which means, primarily, the Federal Reserve System—central banking operating on the fractional-reserve principle, with legal-tender currency irredeemable in silver or gold, and the whole process top-heavy in “monetization” of public and private debt.

But why should “ensuring public confidence in [the Nation’s] financial systems” be at all problematic? If America were on the constitutional system of silver and gold coinage, tied through “commodity money” to the free market, with private banking strictly regulated so as to preclude and punish (as much as humanly possible) every fraudulent financial practice, and with bank and state otherwise strictly separated, no question of “public confidence” would ever arise. The present monetary and banking systems, however, lack every one of those legal, political, and economic safeguards.

The Establishment knows full well that America’s monetary and banking arrangements are utterly unsound, even absurd—and that, indeed, the potential “[c]atastrophic emergency” it fears lies within “[the Nation’s] financial systems” themselves. Those “financial systems” are an “emergency” waiting to happen. The Establishment knows that hard times are coming—sooner, rather than later. The Establishment knows that, whether events take the form of hyperinflation, depression, or both, a veritable miracle would be necessary for “public confidence in [the Nation’s] financial systems” not to dissolve. And the Establishment knows that God has no miracles to spare for the godless.

Of course, the “[c]atastrophic emergency” lurking within “[the Nation’s] financial systems” could be obviated or mitigated by reforming those systems. The first step would not even require radical transformation— simply the official recognition of some silver and gold currencies that could fairly compete with Federal Reserve Notes as common media of exchange, so as to harness the full power of free-market forces in the corrective process. See for one example of how this might be begun on a State-by-State basis.

For the Establishment, however, any such reformation is unthinkable, no matter how much the Constitution’ s purpose to “promote the general Welfare” demands it (Preamble). For systematic monetary and banking reform would entail a sweeping redistribution of wealth and political power from the Establishment and its minions to common Americans—transformi ng this country from a corporative state, driven by greed, to what the Second Amendment calls “a free State,” where self-government truly prevails because We the People themselves actually control the Power of the Purse (among other basic sovereign powers).

So the Establishment intends that when the monetary and banking crunch arrives, the American people will be forced to foot the bill, no matter how exorbitant, for maintaining “[the Nation’s] financial systems” in operation. And be compelled as well to have “confidence” that salvaging “[the Nation’s] financial systems” is worth the price.

But how can the Establishment “ensur[e] public confidence” in inherently unstable “financial systems” once they slip into crisis? By imposing a financial crack-down and lock-down that prevents “the masses” from using any other systems, of course. If “the masses” lack any other choice, they will be forced by circumstances to have “confidence” in what the Establishment allows them. Besides, any lack of “confidence” “the masses” manifest by attempting to operate outside “[the Nation’s] financial systems” will be punished. And as long as “the masses” are fully confident of that, their economic participation in “[the Nation’s] financial systems” will continue, notwithstanding any emotional alienation from them. Thus, “the continuity of government” will be preserved, even if it means impoverishing common Americans and prostrating their country.

This is the inevitable practical consequence of the common political fallacy that treats “the government” as some institution or force separate from and superior to the people, with interests different from theirs, and to which their interests must be sacrificed for its preservation. For, under that misconception, all “government” is essentially “tyranny:” the monopolization of ostensibly legal force for the purpose of social control and looting on behalf of narrow special-interest groups. As the Founding Fathers learned from John Locke,

This is a mistake to think this Fault is proper only to Monarchies; other Forms of Government are liable to it, as well as that. For where-ever the Power that is put in any hands for the Government of the People, and the Preservation of their Properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the Arbitrary and Irregular Commands of those that have it: There it presently becomes Tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many (Second Treatise of Government § 201).

Ineluctably, too, any “government” that functions on the principles and for the purposes of tyranny inevitably degenerates into a kakistocracy—rule by the very worst people. Self-evidently, such a “government” deserves something other than “continuity.”

(3) The Establishment’ s concern for “ensuring public confidence in [the Nation’s] financial systems” explains in part why NSPD-51 has been promulgated at this time. Something ominous is blowing in the wind (besides the depleted uranium spreading throughout the world from Iraq). Every fiat-money scheme is a confidence game, in both senses of that term. And because confidence is always fragile and evanescent, any fiat-money scheme can conceivably collapse at any moment. The Federal Reserve System is no exception to this rule. Indeed, its own history—in the banking collapse of 1932—proves the rule’s truth and applicability to American conditions.

After a monetary and banking crisis breaks out, though, will hardly be the time for the Establishment to attempt to put into place a complex scheme for salvaging the “continuity” of the “government” that, more than anything else, will be responsible for the crisis, and therefore politically vulnerable in the extreme. Long before then, the purported “legal authority” needs to be adopted; the bureaucratic infrastructure needs to be cobbled together; and suitable personnel need to be selected, indoctrinated, and trained. Therefore, NSPD-51.

Even so, whether NSPD-51 is a pre-emptive response to dire events that someone foresees as occurring during the remaining months of the Bush Administration is doubtful. To be sure, further rabid military adventurism in the Middle East is certainly possible, with predictably catastrophic results. But, absent that, monetary and banking collapse may be temporarily avoidable. Whether a serious crisis can be put off for (say) 10 more years, however, seems highly dubious. So NSPD-51 probably aims to facilitate a power-grab primarily for the benefit of the next two Administrations, which likely will be Democratic.

That being so, the other part of the explanation for why NSPD-51 has been promulgated now must be linked to who promulgated it. The time is ripe, not simply because of the imminence of future events, but also because of which of the “two” major political parties happens to be in power at this moment.

Whether they know it or not, the American people are the targets of constant, if crude, political psychological warfare. If a President Hillary Clinton put forward NSPD-51, the uproar from “the right wing” would be deafening. But when a self-styled “conservative” President George W. Bush does it, it will pass without incident. Indeed, if they mention it at all, the blowhard “conservative” radio talk-show hosts will even praise NSPD-51 as “the right thing for a commander in chief to do in time of war.” Thus, by having the Republicans author this dangerous usurpation, the only possibly effective sources of criticism and opposition—true conservatives— are muted. For whatever a few fuzzy-minded, idealistic “left wingers” may say, most of the hard and knowledgeable “left” will silently welcome NSPD-51, because it further concentrates arbitrary power in a central government, and even in one “leader”—which and whom they expect, at the propitious moment, to be of their own political persuasion.

(This cheap trick, of course, works both ways. President William Jefferson Clinton was conveniently in office when the time came to put through NAFTA—so that, although American workers were slated to be crucified, the leaders of the big unions were coopted and muzzled because the dirty deed was being done by a Democrat.)

But why are the Republicans, now dominated by politicians as ruthlessly partisan and egotistical as any in American history, putting into the hands of their supposed political rivals such power? For the same reason they have launched the Middle Eastern misadventure of endless aggression and occupation that will surely spill over into, and continue to be waged by, the next Administration. For the same reason they have poured the foundations and erected much of the framework for a thoroughgoing National police state that the next Administration will finish and employ. For the same reason they are constructing the North American Union, which cannot possibly come into existence before January of 2009, and therefore which they must expect the next Administration to complete. That reason being that the “two” major political parties are not really rivals at all—they are merely one party, with two faces, and forked tongues in both of them. The “two” parties are a pair of matched marionettes being manipulated by the selfsame set of string-pullers in a permanent “shadow government”. Whatever the “two” parties do is for the benefit of their one set of masters.

(4) So what are common Americans to do? First, they must wake up and learn something very simple, but politically vital. True “continuity of government” means continuity of constitutional government, which means continuity of self-government. Then, as the Second Amendment teaches, continuity of government requires “the security of a free State.” And what does the Amendment say is necessary for “the security of a free State”? “A well regulated Militia”, built upon “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” Perhaps you did not read this in Dick and Jane. But it is no more difficult to understand than “See Spot run!”

Then, the American people must get up and do something. As I have said before, I shall say again: revitalize “the Militia of the several States,” State by State, as the Constitution requires. Not as private “militia,” but as part and parcel of the government of each State, with full legal authority. Once re-established, the Militia will become the primary, indispensable institutions of self-government— and We the People’s first line of self-defense when a monetary and banking crisis brings down on their heads the whole house of financial cards.

This may not be the only way, or the best way, but it is certainly one very effective way to meet the real “national emergency” now gripping this country by the throat: which is having in official positions the kind of people who draft, adopt, and expect to implement documents such as NSPD-51. To repeat: They constitute a kakistocracy—government by the worst people. Perhaps the worst in American history. Perhaps the worst in world history. But, in any event, bad enough.

Either they go into political retirement or this country goes into political oblivion. And when this country goes, you and your family go with it. Be forewarned.





Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight. us