Falling Toward Socialism and Worse

[nChrist]

Shut up! U.S. sponsors plan to restrict free speech

Joins Egyptians in proposal to United Nations Human Rights Council

Only the very naive will fall for something like this. It is the opposite of what they say it is - the stifling of Free Speech and the end to Freedom of Religion. They didn't package this mess of baloney very well. Rightfully so - it is ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They want to go around the Rule of Law and The Constitution with International (United Nations) means so that they can finally trample the RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION! THIS IS ALL ABOUT TOTALITARIAN GLOBAL SOCIETIES WITH ENSLAVED POPULATIONS! THE COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST/FASCIST PARTY ELITES KNOW BEST, AND THE DUMB MASSES ARE SIMPLY PEASANTS TO EXPLOIT AND CONTROL! ANYONE WHO TRIES THIS IN A FREE COUNTRY NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, PROSECUTED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW, AND IMPRISONED!

[Soldier4Christ]

Obama signs 'hate-crimes' bill into law
'It's a very sad day for America and for religious liberties'

A "hate crimes" bill opponents claim will be used to crack down on Christian speech, even the reading of the Bible, was signed into law today by President Obama.

The Senate approved the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act by a vote of 68-29 on Oct. 22 after Democrats strategically attached it to a "must-pass" $680 billion defense appropriations plan.

Most Republicans, although normally strong supporters of the U.S. military, opposed the bill because it hands out federal money to states and local governments in pursuit of "preventing" hate crimes. The bill creates federal protections and privileges for homosexuals and other alternative lifestyles but denies those protections to other groups of citizens.

Obama signed the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act at a White House ceremony today. Prior to signing the act into law, Obama spoke briefly of the hate crimes bill.

"After more than a decade, we've passed inclusive hate-crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are," he said. "I promised Judy Shepard when she saw me in the Oval Office that this day would come, and I'm glad that she and her husband, Dennis, could join us for this event. I'm also honored to have the family of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy who fought so hard for this legislation. I just want you all to know how proud we are of the work that Ted did to help make this day possible."

American Family Association President Tim Wildmon warned that the new law "creates a kind of caste system in law enforcement, where the perverse thing is that people who engage in non-normative sexual behavior will have more legal protection than heterosexuals. This kind of inequality before the law is simply un-American."

Wildmon said the legislation creates possible situations where pastors may be arrested if their sermons on sexuality can be linked in even the remotest way to acts of violence.

"It threatens free speech and freedom of religion and is totally unacceptable," he said.

As WND reported, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister's sermon about homosexuality would be protected by the proposed federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn't be.

The Alliance Defense Fund blasted the "hate-crimes" bill, calling it "another nail in the coffin of the First Amendment."

"All violent crimes are hate crimes, and all crime victims deserve equal justice," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley said in a statement. "This law is a grave threat to the First Amendment because it provides special penalties based on what people think, feel, or believe. ADF will be on the front line to defend those whose free speech or free exercise of religion rights are violated by this unconstitutional law and to ultimately overturn this attack on freedom."

Opponents point to cases in Canada and Sweden, where Christians have faced criminal prosecution for preaching that homosexual behavior is a sin.

"ADF has clearly seen the evidence of where 'hate crimes' legislation leads when it has been tried around the world: It paves the way for the criminalization of speech that is not deemed 'politically correct,'" Stanley explained. "'Hate crimes' laws fly in the face of the underlying purpose of the First Amendment, which was designed specifically to protect unpopular speech."

Stanley said such crimes are already punishable under existing federal, state and local laws.

"Bills of this sort are designed to forward a political agenda and silence critics, not combat actual crime," he said. "The bottom line is that we do not need a law that creates second-class victims in America and that gives the government the opportunity to ignore the First Amendment."

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, testified before Congress against the hate crimes bill in 2007.

"It is fundamentally unjust for the government to treat some crime victims more favorably than others, just because they are homosexual or transsexual," Dacus said. "This bill is an unnecessary federal intrusion into state law enforcement authority, and it is an unwise step toward silencing religious and moral viewpoints."

He said the adoption of hate crimes legislation has led to widespread suppression of speech deemed politically incorrect. The Pacific Justice Institute noted that in California, hate crimes laws are commonly invoked as a basis for further laws pushing acceptance of homosexuality in public schools and the workplace. The group also warned that use of "hate speech" terminology is also now being employed by minority religious groups in America to encourage suppression of free speech, as a prominent Hindu group called on Congress and major Internet service providers to shut down websites critical of Hinduism, including websites of Christian mission organizations.

The Pacific Justice Institute pledged to come to defend anyone who is prosecuted under the new hate crimes law because of their religious expression.

Liberty Counsel litigation counsel Matt Krause told WND, "It's a very sad day for America and for religious liberties in general."

He said the law will not deter crime or help the law-enforcement system.

"The only thing it will do is silence and scare Christians and religious organizations," Krause said. "It will penalize thoughts and actions, and it will not stop crime. It should be called the 'thought-crimes' bill."

He continued, "We encourage pastors and church leaders to keep doing what they're doing and preach the gospel. If they run into any barriers, they can contact us because we are ready and willing to defend them in any way we need to."

The White House announced it will host a reception this evening to commemorate the enactment of the hate crimes legislation. Obama's remarks will be aired live on the White House website.

[Soldier4Christ]

White House to Begin Push on Immigration Overhaul in 2010

The Obama administration will insist on measures to give legal status to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants as it pushes early next year for legislation to overhaul the immigration system, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday.

 In her first major speech on the overhaul, Ms. Napolitano dispelled any suggestion that the administration — with health care, energy and other major issues crowding its agenda — would postpone the most contentious piece of immigration legislation until after midterm elections next November.

Laying out the administration’s bottom line, Ms. Napolitano said officials will argue for a “three-legged stool” that includes tougher enforcement laws against illegal immigrants and employers who hire them and a streamlined system for legal immigration, as well as a “tough and fair pathway to earned legal status.”

With unemployment surging over 10 percent and Congress still wrangling over health care, advocates on all sides of the immigration debate had begun to doubt that President Obama would keep his pledge to tackle the divisive illegal immigration issue in the first months of 2010.

Speaking at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy group in Washington, Ms. Napolitano unveiled a double-barrel argument for a legalization program, saying it would enhance national security and, as the economy climbs out of recession, protect American workers from unfair competition from lower paid, easily exploited illegal immigrants.

“Let me emphasize this: we will never have fully effective law enforcement or national security as long as so many millions remain in the shadows,” she said, adding that the recovering economy would be strengthened “as these immigrants become full-paying taxpayers.”

Under the administration’s plan, illegal immigrants who hope to gain legal status would have to register, pay fines and all taxes they owe, pass a criminal background check and learn English.

Drawing a contrast with 2007, when a bill with legalization provisions offered by President George W. Bush failed in Congress, Ms. Napolitano said the Obama administration had achieved a “fundamental change” in border security and enforcement against employers hiring illegal immigrants. She said a sharp reduction in the flow of illegal immigrants into the country created an opportunity to move ahead with a legalization program.

Some Republicans were quick to challenge Ms. Napolitano’s claims that border security had significantly improved or that American workers would be helped by bringing illegal immigrants into the system.

“How can they claim that enforcement is done when there are more than 400 open miles of border with Mexico?” asked Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. He said the administration should “deport illegal immigrant workers so they don’t remain here to compete with citizen and legal immigrant job seekers.”

But Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the top Republican on the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, agreed that it was time to open the immigration debate. “My commitment to immigration reform has not changed,” he said in a statement Friday. “I am interested in seeing a proposal sooner rather than later from President Obama.”

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and the chairman of that subcommittee, has been writing an overhaul bill and consulting with Republicans, particularly Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Mr. Schumer said that the administration’s agenda was “ambitious,” but that he was “confident we can have a bipartisan immigration bill ready to go under whatever timeline the president thinks is best.”

Ms. Napolitano has been leading the administration’s efforts to gather ideas and support for the immigration overhaul, meeting in recent weeks with business leaders, religious groups, law enforcement officials and others to gauge their willingness to go forward with a debate in Congress.

Framing the administration’s proposals in stark law and order terms, she said immigration legislation should include tougher laws against migrant smugglers and more severe sanctions for employers who hire unauthorized workers.

Ms. Napolitano said that the Border Patrol had grown by 20,000 officers and that more than 600 miles of border fence had been finished, meeting security benchmarks set by Congress in 2007. She was echoing an argument adopted by Mr. Bush after the bill collapsed in 2007, and by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, in his race against Mr. Obama. They said Americans wanted to see effective enforcement before they would agree to legal status for millions of illegal immigrants.

Some immigrant advocates were dismayed by Ms. Napolitano’s approach. Benjamin E. Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Council, praised her package of proposals, but said some enforcement policies she outlined “have proven to do more harm than good.”

[Soldier4Christ]

Black pastor: Reid's 'slavery' reference 'deplorable'
'Remarks are a diversion tactic by a despot leader of a desperate Democrat party'

The black pastor who leads Bond Action Inc. in support of "family, traditional moral values and positive, honest race relations" says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., should be ashamed of comparing opposition to President Obama's plans to socialize medicine in the U.S. to support for slavery.

"Reid's comparison of legitimate Republican opposition towards the Democrats $2.5 trillion health care plan to segregationists is deplorable," Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson said today. "This was an attempt to smear Republicans as racists in order to take the focus off the details of this awful socialist health care bill. Reid's remarks are a diversion tactic by a despot leader of a desperate Democrat party. "

Reid had said, "Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right."

Reid continued, "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

Reid has stood by his remarks, sparking outrage from Peterson.

"Harry Reid should be ashamed of himself. He knows that throughout history, the Democrats have been the party of segregationists and Ku Klux Klan members. It's common knowledge that Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act in greater numbers than the Democrats – and without GOP support the bill wouldn't have passed. Maybe Reid should consult with his colleague Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., who was a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan about the racist legacy of his own party," Peterson said.

Bond Action is a group that exists "to educate, motivate and rally Americans to greater involvement in the moral, cultural and political issues that threaten our great country."

Peterson noted Reid's history is checkered.

"In 2004, this same Harry Reid called President George W. Bush a 'liar' on NBC’s Meet The Press. In 2007, Reid prematurely and falsely declared that the U.S. had 'lost' the war in Iraq. And in 2008, he showed his disdain for the American people by saying that tourists were stinking up the Capitol with their body odor," Peterson said.

"This bill is not progress. It will limit our choices and destroy the best health care system in the world. Harry Reid is a wicked man and he's only interested in staying in power. Neither he nor Barack Obama can be trusted."

Officials for Project 21, the national leadership network of black conservatives, were equally outraged.

"Harry Reid has resorted to the most shopworn trick in the liberal playbook. He deployed the race card in the ugliest way while debating health care reform," said Deroy Murdock, a Project 21 member and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

"It is astonishing and outrageous to equate those who seek the defeat of Reid's 2,074-page, $2.5 trillion legislative monstrosity with those who were happy to keep blacks in chains, unpaid for their back-breaking labor and traded back and forth like cattle. The fact that Reid would use such deplorable, insulting and insensitive rhetoric indicates that he is out of credible arguments to defend his own proposal," Murdock said.

"The Senate's top Democrat owes an immediate apology to Republicans on Capitol Hill, the 39 House Democrats who voted against Obamacare on November 7 and the 51 percent of Americans from coast to coast who a Rasmussen survey recently found are against Obamacare," Murdock said.

"If Reid believes these Americans who object to his high-cost, low-quality legislation also hold warm feelings for slavery, he is further removed from reality than anyone so far has feared. If he does not believe this, he should stop cynically firing rhetorical mortar shells at decent Americans who merely disagree with his spendthrift, Big Government approach to health care."

Michal Massie, the chairman of Project 21, also cited Reid's apparent misunderstanding of history.

"Why is history so confusing to Harry Reid? Six of the nine original planks of the Republican Party at its inception in 1856 were based on opposition to slavery and promoting civil rights," said Massie. "Did Reid also forget what party Lyndon Johnson worked with to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only passed but to even get it through committee and onto the floor for a vote?

"One of the Democratic opponents – Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., a former Klansman – is still serving today and is third in the presidential line of succession as the president pro tem. Reid's daring to brand opponents as racist is indicative of how far liberals are willing to go in order to control Americans from the cradle to the grave," he said.

Dr. Allen Unruh, a Midwest activist for tea party events in opposition to the Democrats' health-care plan, said it is Reid – and Obama – who actually want slavery for the American people.

"What does the 13th amendment to the Constitution say about slavery?" he asked WND. "It says, 'Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.'

"When a doctor is told by government bureaucrats what services he can and cannot provide against his better judgment – that's involuntary servitude. When a doctor takes an oath to 'first do no harm' but is told to harm a patient with denied necessary care – that's involuntary servitude," he said.

"When the value of a doctor's services are pre-determined by government bureaucrats, and not based on free markets, or the value of his knowledge and experience – that's involuntary servitude," he said. "The government is in essence stealing the intellectual property of health care professionals, under threat of six figure fines and imprisonment if they don't comply with [the] government's cookbook guidelines which are mainly adopted for cost containment and to match global budgets."

Unruh said, "If doctors are slaves of the state that means their patients are wards of the state. Your health care will be determined by global budgets. There will be zero incentive for doctors to improve their service or do research or utilize new technology to help patients with chronic pain."

He said, "Our first black president wants to institutionalize slavery for America on a much larger scale than we had 100 years ago. Let the debate over who is a slave to who begin. The dictionary defines a slave as someone entirely under the domination of some influence or person."

WND reported the original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

"Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective," Barton said in his book. "Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."

Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.

"Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party," Barton writes in his book. "In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

"Contributing to the evidences was the 1871 appearance before Congress of leading South Carolina Democrat E.W. Seibels who testified that 'they [the Ku Klux Klan] belong to the reform part – [that is, to] our party, the Democratic Party,'" Barton writes.

"The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death," he said. "Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included."

[Soldier4Christ]

School uniform argument may lead to lawsuit
Principal contacted dad's Army commanders when faced with criticism

A decorated member of the U.S. military says he may bring a lawsuit against school officials in Huntsville, Ala., after they complained to his military commanders when he objected to plans to require students, including his children, to spend $400 on uniforms.

"This case is not about me versus the school district," wrote Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham, a 15-year Army veteran and military blogger who was invited by President George W. Bush to the White House for a historic sit-down meeting with a select gathering of "mil-bloggers."

"It's about parental rights and the limits of our educators in dealing with parental concerns, especially when those parents are in the military."

But, he confirmed, "I am pursuing a lawsuit to clear my name and force the school system to admit they overstepped their bounds by denying my right to participate in my children's education and attempt to ruin my career."

Grisham now is the the cover story for "Off Duty," an insert included in the Military Times, the magazine for the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

Grisham's photo is overlaid with the headline: "The Rise and Fall of a Military Blogger – Army Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham didn't mince words. His readers loved it. His command hated it."

Grisham is in a new kind of fight after taking down a squad of Iraqis when his counterintelligence detachment was pinned down in an ambush. He earned a Bronze Star with "V" after rushing through the gunfire by himself with just a 9mm pistol and a hand grenade.

Before signing off permanently from his blogsite "A Soldiers Perspective," Grisham told his 1,500-plus readers:

    "In September, my kids brought home a note from their school stating that the school would transition to uniforms beginning in January – midway through the school year. Naturally, this concerned me as the cost for each kid (I have two who would be affected) would be at least $400. A note home to parents assured us that the principal would entertain concerns during the upcoming 'uniform fashion show.' However, the principal ended that meeting without answering a question, even though numerous hands were up. After that meeting, I organized parents with concerns and began a letter-writing and phone-calling campaign to members of the school board and media. We succeeded in getting the uniform issue tabled until next year. But parents still weren't given a voice about whether we even wanted uniforms."

Instead of dealing with Grisham and other parents who disagreed with her new policy, the school's principal contacted the Army, saying Grisham had threatened her, the blog reports.

"She pointed to posts on my personal blog about her behavior at the meeting as proof. However, after being referred to military investigators, they concluded that I had never issued any threats through e-mail, blog or otherwise. I collected letters from other parents attesting to my behavior at the meeting," Grisham wrote.

However, the Army took a dim view of the conflict.

"Suddenly, I was a troublemaker after 15 years of honorable service," he wrote.

And that wasn't the end of it.

"At a PTA meeting a few weeks later, I again tried to present a motion to discuss the school uniform issue with the members of the association. It was shot down by the principal and the PTA president. I was harassed the entire evening by school security officials. Thankfully, I decided it would be prudent to record that meeting. When school officials again began contacting the Army about my supposedly threatening and disrespectful behavior at the meeting, I published the video on my blog to clear my name. This didn't sit well with school officials and only emboldened them to step up their claims and use the military to force me to take down the videos – the only piece of evidence I had to prove my innocence," he explained.

Attempts to obtain comment from the school were unsuccessful.

Grisham had at one time acknowledged on his blogsite and radio program that he believed he was dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which the principal used to bolster claims Grisham was a dangerous menace to her and her goals.

Grisham and his wife Emily removed their two children from the school, he says, because they were harassed.

"Because of this situation, my wife and I felt the need to relocate our kids after being singled out on more than one occasion by teachers and school staff. We took our kids to live with their grandparents until my orders allowed me to relocate in December. That trip cost us over $1,400, plus another $1,500 in maintenance on our elderly van, which completely wiped out our savings."

As a result, Grisham is asking for help with his lawsuit.

"I am reaching out through various avenues to help raise the money. I've enlisted the help of local media, talk shows and blogs to help me raise the money. Fellow milbloggers are reaching into their pockets and tapping their readers as well. My neighbors and local Huntsville citizens are donating to a local fund at a bank where I'm stationed."

He says, "While I have no problem asking for money to support these efforts, I've always been very bashful about asking for anything for myself. However, I feel like I must humble myself and ask for help on my own behalf in this instance."

Grisham also is in the process of relocating from Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Ala., to Fort Hood, Texas, for the next stage of his military service.

[nChrist]

Latest news includes over 30 states in the process of declaring or already declaring State Sovereignty. This is the answer to Washington's thoughts that the RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION no longer applies and they can force whatever they want to. NO THEY CAN'T - THE PEOPLE WON'T LET THEM!

When and if PUSH comes to SHOVE, the so-called representatives in Washington are going to be held accountable and put in their place as servants of the people. The lesson might be HARSH that this isn't a dictatorship, and we won't tolerate the loss of liberty and freedom. We also won't tolerate a communist/socialist/fascist system of government. This is still a free country, and the vast majority are determined to keep it that way. Holding our representatives accountable is eventually going to result in many legal actions against them, and many of them are going to PRISON. Many others will be voted out of office. REGARDLESS, THE ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!

[Soldier4Christ]

Here come the Brown Shirts. I'm sure that a revolution will follow.

Fears awakened: Army study suggests new 'police force'

Army-sponsored report suggests new 'police force'
Domestic agents could be used in 'shaping an environment before a conflict'

A newly released Rand Corporation report proposes the federal government create a rapid deployment "Stabilization Police Force" that would be tasked with "shaping an environment before a conflict" and restoring order in times of war, natural disaster or national emergency.

But civil libertarians are worried just exactly what the force would do, domestically or overseas.

Page 16 of the 213-page report says the new elite unit's purpose depends on where it is and who would be in command.

"The answer to this question (about its purpose) depends on the situation into which an SPF might be inserted. The SPF could be used for missions such as: shaping an environment before a conflict; law enforcement duties in an active conflict environment; or security, stability, transition and reconstruction (SSTR) operations after a conflict. It could operate as an independent entity under a U.S. ambassador or a U.N. Senior Representative to the Secretary General (SRSG), or as a force element reporting to a Joint Task Force (JTF) commander," the report states.

The purpose statement doesn't say where the new unit would be deployed. However, Rand Corporation report co-author Terry Kelly said the Army-commissioned study primarily focuses on a force that would be sent overseas.

"The unit is supposed to deploy to places like Iraq or Afghanistan or maybe even places like Haiti where there's a tremendous disaster," Kelly said.

Learn what some organizations want in your future, read "Hope of the Wicked: Master Plan to Rule the World"

"Really, the purpose would be to help our military forces or whoever is in charge of maintaining stability to catch terrorists or prevent major criminals from operating," he added.

Mark Taylor, a private investigator and intelligence analyst with experience in Iraq, says he can't see the purpose for such a force.

"With regard to overseas missions, there is the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. If they need assistance, you have private military contractors such as XE and DynaCorp," Taylor said.

"In my case, the company I worked for moved in, did the mission and left. Period. In the case of a federal bureaucracy, you will fund it and it will do nothing but grow into a bureaucratic nightmare," Taylor said.

Taylor believes the additional force would just add to the confusion in any overseas situation.

"In addition the military and private contractor options, there are always the United Nations blue helmets, for whatever good they do. A federal police force would amount to nothing more than another colored helmet," Taylor said.

Taylor's comments about the U.N. point to the command structure of the overseas force. One of the statements in the report says the unit could serve under a U. S. foreign service officer or under U.N. authority.

Kelly admits the U.N. connection.

"It might be a U.S. ambassador who is in charge. It could work for the U.N. because there are plenty of U.N. missions that are working in different countries," Kelly said.

"That would be the decision that our government would make that this unit would work under U.N. authority. Usually when we have our forces under U.N. authority they're operating for a U.S. commander who is working with the U.N.," she said.

Although the report by the federally funded think tank spends most of its pages on overseas deployment, civil libertarians wonder if the proposed unit will only focus on foreign operations.

Kelly confirmed the force could be deployed in the United States.

"If there were a major disaster like Katrina it could be deployed in the U. S. but that's not the purpose of the research," he said.

"It's important to point out that the goal was to create a force that's deployable overseas. If it's to be used in the United States it would be a secondary thing and then only in an emergency," Kelly said.

But Taylor believes there is no need for a federal police force to function in the U.S.

"I cannot see any positives in setting up a national police force. Cities, counties and states have control over their own law enforcement and it should remain that way. Granting the federal government the power to police each individual locality is a Gestapo waiting to happen," Taylor said.

"If it became necessary to supplement local law enforcement in the case of another New Orleans, where a disaster situation is made more dangerous by lawless thugs looting, it would be more practical to hire a private contractor such as XE or DynaCorp to send their highly trained professionals in to stabilize the area. Once the job is done, they go on to the next (assignment)," Taylor said.

Darrell Castle is a retired Marine Corps officer with service in Vietnam, a practicing attorney and the Constitution Party's 2008 vice presidential nominee. Castle is skeptical of the report and believes the unit could be used in the U.S. against Americans.

"First, you have to approach anything done by or for the federal government in light of what I believe the ultimate goal of the federal government to be," Castle said.

"As I see it, the goal is to do the bidding of the international cartel of central bankers and financiers in order to assist them in building a world government police state which would entail total surveillance, total control, and the absence of what we think of as constitutional rights," he said.

Castle added that even though the report focuses mostly on foreign deployments, some of the language leaves open the possibility for domestic use.

"To that end, the question becomes, how does a stability police force for the United States move the federal government closer to its goal of totalitarian control? When the question is asked in that manner, the answer becomes fairly obvious," Castle warned.

Castle believes the goal is power, and a major springboard for such a power grab comes from the economy.

"Conditions have been intentionally created within the United States which make some kind of chaotic catastrophe very likely. This event could be anything the mind of man can dream up due to the overwhelming public debt and huge deficit which is budgeted to grow by trillions over the next few years," Castle said.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

"Hyperinflation and the resulting loss of the dollar's reserve status seems unavoidable. The United States is now at deficit spending which is 40 percent of the budget and climbing," Castle said.

To illustrate his point, Castle turned to history.

"The Weimar government in pre-Hitler Germany accelerated deficit spending to 70 percent of budget and when it did, hyperinflation occurred with its ruination of the German nation that started a cataclysmic chain of events in motion," he said.

"The Stability Police Force then is necessary to control the population much as the U.S. military is attempting to control the remaining population of Haiti right now. It is part of a long existing effort to mingle and combine all law enforcement, federal, state, and local with the military into one force," Castle said.

Castle is not the only one who thinks the Stabilization Police Force is the next step in establishing a totalitarian state. The Rand Corporation's Kelly said that since the report's release, he's received a number of letters and phone messages making the same claim.

However, Kelly insists the study is not a master plan for authoritarian rule.

"There are all kinds of aspects of government that can be manipulated in a bad way. But it would require a whole bunch of things to go wrong. Any means of coercion that exist in the government can be manipulated if the right things go wrong," Kelly said.

"Is it is conceivable that it could be used for a malevolent purpose? Yes, but it's not designed to do that and its purpose would not be for power. Frankly there would be much easier tools for someone with bad intentions," Kelly said.

"The two options we thought were viable were as a reserve option where call a whole bunch of police officers from a whole bunch of precincts. That's a really hard thing to do," Kelly said.

"If someone wanted to use the unit for a bad purpose it would require the cooperation of a whole bunch of people and a whole bunch of organizations," he said.

"The other option we picked was a military unit, to create a military police unit to do the specific tasks. Military police units do military police work, not civilian police work which is what you need in these countries like Iraq and Afghanistan," Kelly said.

"I don't think this unit will create any more danger than already exists. If somebody wanted to do something unfortunate, there are easier ways to do it than manipulating this force," Kelly said.

Command of the Stabilization Police Force is still a concern. Page 123 of the Rand Corporation report says the force would work best under a civilian federal agency or the military police.

"They (the data) suggest that the U.S. Marshals Service and the MP options are the only credible ones. The Marshals Service has sufficient baseline capabilities and a policing culture to build a competent SPF, and its location in the Department of Justice makes it well suited to achieve broader rule-of-law objectives. This finding is consistent with a significant body of academic and policy research, which strongly concludes that civilian agencies are optimal for the execution of policing functions."

Taylor's concerns about the creation of such a response force and placing the unit under a federal department come from seeing how federal operations have functioned in the past.

"Once you establish a government agency or program, it does nothing but grow into a huge bureaucratic monstrosity that feeds on the taxpayer. And, as with the case of health care, bank bailouts and the like, should the federal government even consider such an undertaking, it would amount to just another intrusion into the states' rights to govern and intrude into the liberties of the American people," Taylor said.

[nChrist]

The Federal Government had BEST get back into it's Constitutional box, or it will be put back in it's box. They are in current extreme need of education in civics 101 - The People are in CHARGE - The States are servants of the People - The Federal Government is a SERVANT TO THE STATES. In other words, the Federal Government is at the BOTTOM END of the CHAIN OF COMMAND.

[Calloway]

In varying degrees, this is the opposite of FREEDOM, and that's where we are headed.

Things started out gradually with the "NEW DEAL". It was argued that it was okay for many reasons, but mainly because there was an emergency. INCOME TAX started out in the same way - as a temporary emergency. UM? - things like this rarely end up being temporary - DO THEY?

There was a time when hungry people and people with other life-sustaining needs were taken care of by churches and the generosity of big-hearted people who wanted to help. This is called FREEDOM. The government didn't STEAL your money by force and give it to someone you don't know - for a reason you don't know.

There was a time when the individual person chose what charities they wanted to support financially, and that's part of FREEDOM. You got to look at all of the circumstances and decide YES or NO on helping - based on your own opinions, not those of government. This pertained to every NECESSITY OF LIFE, and nobody dreamed of trying to make you buy someone a house, a car, a television, and other NON-NECESSITIES OF LIFE. It was just a MATTER OF COMMON SENSE. A BASIS RULE OF THUMB involved EATING:  you worked if you wanted to EAT. You didn't STEAL someone else's food or ask the government to do the STEALING FOR YOU because that wouldn't be FREEDOM. Things did start out gradually and most didn't object too harshly because people were starving to death. We've made a lot of SO-CALLED PROGRESS since then, and now they want to force us to pay for ABORTIONS in our country and others. Under the theory of COMMON SENSE AND FREEDOM, one would have to think that things like this COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE FORCED! WATCH and see what they're about to do.

Average Christians, regardless of wealth, still help more people than anyone else - AND that's over and beyond the money that the government STEALS from them. Being big-hearted and wanting to help someone is also a MATTER OF FREEDOM. Please keep in mind this is the opposite of being FORCED - COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY - FREEDOM! In a free country, you get what you earn, and you keep what you earn to spend however you wish, and that certainly includes helping others you want to help. There IS NO RIGHT to a house, a car, television set, or many other things that we are CURRENTLY FORCED to buy for others. This is SLAVERY - NOT FREEDOM! There is NO RIGHT to lay around getting drunk or high and thinking that it's only right for the government to force someone else to pay your bills. There shouldn't be ANY FREE LUNCH unless someone WANTS to VOLUNTARILY GIVE you one. Otherwise, you WORK if you want to EAT. It was WRONG to give generations of people what they need or want FROM THE LABOR OF OTHERS. This sent the WRONG MESSAGE to everyone and ended up victimizing the ENTIRE SOCIETY: the receivers - the government FORCIBLY STEALING - and the people being STOLEN FROM. This was a disaster of EPIC proportions where NOBODY WON - MORALS WERE DESTROYED - AND FREEDOM STARTED DISAPPEARING at an ever-increasingly rapid rate. NOW we are being FORCED to rescue banks and other businesses because their OWN CORRUPTION SUNK THEIR SHIP. The same people responsible for the CORRUPTION, including our GOVERNMENT, are the ones applying the funds we were forced to give in THE BAILOUT! Our GOVERNMENT doesn't know where 350 BILLION DOLLARS WENT - so they WANT 800 BILLION DOLLARS MORE! What happened to FREEDOM, morals, values, and ethics in the meantime? NEWSFLASH - Those things are either gone, or they are disappearing rapidly. The BIG QUESTION is not "Are we becoming a SOCIALIST COUNTRY," rather "HOW FAR ARE WE FROM BECOMING A HARDCORE COMMUNIST COUNTRY? Those of us who are old enough can reflect back on what FREEDOM AND A FREE COUNTRY used to mean!

How sad to have such fears of a nation that wants to help the least of these.  You were not afraid under republican rule when there were decisions to cut back on health care for poor children, cut off food stamps for poor families, take jobs out of this nation, give taxes to the rich?  To use tax dollars to fight wars where more civilians were killed than soldiers?

It sounds as though you fear compassion for the least of these and have nothing but a great fear of those who want to help others.

Tell me.  How much money do you think it takes to take care of over 45 million people without health care?

[nChrist]

How sad to have such fears of a nation that wants to help the least of these.  You were not afraid under republican rule when there were decisions to cut back on health care for poor children, cut off food stamps for poor families, take jobs out of this nation, give taxes to the rich?  To use tax dollars to fight wars where more civilians were killed than soldiers?

It sounds as though you fear compassion for the least of these and have nothing but a great fear of those who want to help others.

Tell me.  How much money do you think it takes to take care of over 45 million people without health care?

This has nothing to do with Republican versus Democrat.

This has everything to do with FREEDOM

versus

Communism, Socialism, and Fascism.

I'll take FREEDOM, and I'm determined to keep it - just like many millions more just like me - the vast majority of this country.

Bluntly, voters were deceived, and this administration isn't doing anything that the people will TOLERATE. Far LEFT liberal talking points don't get far at all with those who are informed. The so-called health reform has nothing to do with healthcare OR compassion - rather government takeover and government tyranny over a FREE people. This is something that the States and the People will NOT permit.

[Calloway]

This has nothing to do with Republican versus Democrat.

This has everything to do with FREEDOM

versus

Communism, Socialism, and Fascism.

I'll take FREEDOM, and I'm determined to keep it - just like many millions more just like me - the vast majority of this country.

Bluntly, voters were deceived, and this administration isn't doing anything that the people will TOLERATE. Far LEFT liberal talking points don't get far at all with those who are informed. The so-called health reform has nothing to do with healthcare OR compassion - rather government takeover and government tyranny over a FREE people. This is something that the States and the People will NOT permit.

Your comment has EVERYTHING to do with republicans versus democrats. NONE Of this language was around when Bush was socializing corporations and providing them with HUGE welfare checks....giving them unlimited funds.

Now that we are using tax dollars to help the poor, republicans are screaming.

Christ TOLD us to help the poor, not the rich.  Your prosperity teachings come from republican men who made up a religion.  Socialism is an economic institution, like capitalism and communism.  England, Canada and most of Europe are nations which have a democracy for the form of government and their economic system is socialism.  You have been made to be fearful of socialism, yet Bush created more socialism programs than Clinton.

Tell me.  How has capitalism been such a great economic system for most Ameicans?

[Soldier4Christ]

Socialism is more than just an economic institution. It is also political and is the Marxist step toward communism both of which provides a government that is oppressive towards it's people. To think otherwise shows a lack of understanding the history of socialism and communism. Capitalism has provided a nation that has been rich in many ways not just economically. Being a slight bit afraid of socialism is only being smart not foolish. Socialism does not work. History has proved that over and over again.

[nChrist]

Your comment has EVERYTHING to do with republicans versus democrats. NONE Of this language was around when Bush was socializing corporations and providing them with HUGE welfare checks....giving them unlimited funds.

Now that we are using tax dollars to help the poor, republicans are screaming.

Christ TOLD us to help the poor, not the rich.  Your prosperity teachings come from republican men who made up a religion.  Socialism is an economic institution, like capitalism and communism.  England, Canada and most of Europe are nations which have a democracy for the form of government and their economic system is socialism.  You have been made to be fearful of socialism, yet Bush created more socialism programs than Clinton.

Tell me.  How has capitalism been such a great economic system for most Ameicans?

Red China and North Korea would be a utopia for you. Maybe you should consider moving to one of those countries. As for me, I will not allow the communists and fascists to enslave this country. The same is true for the vast majority. The states and the people have already said NO! - and they mean NO! We'll take up a collection for those wanting to go to Red China and North Korea.