A Mountain of Words

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

The Declaration of Independence offers a starting point, a glimpse of liberty and all its transient meanings. Our basic structure of government is based on the acceptance; change that, demands the acceptance of a separation between natural rights of individuals and powers granted to their government.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed…”

If we are to accept the premise that rights exist outside of and prior to the formation of government, whether they be “natural” or of God, then the origin of an individual’s rights are of no consequence for the purpose of this exercise. It is not my purpose to proselytize anyone into a belief in God, a Supreme Being or religion in general; however, such is not required to accept the premise that individual rights exist and have existed without government.

Governments are, in fact, created to protect individual rights; not the other way around. You don’t have to take my word for it. Others have stated this premise as captured in Ezra Taft Benson’s talk, The Proper Role of Government.

“It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. But, what are those right(s)? And what is their source? Until these questions are answered there is little likelihood that we can correctly determine how government can best secure them.”

Thomas Paine, back in the days of the American Revolution, explained that:

“Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another… It is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man.” (P.P.N.S., p. 134)

The great Thomas Jefferson asked:

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?” (Works 8:404; P.P.N.S., p.141)

You might wonder where this is going; I’m about to tell you. The mailman left this month’s copy of Locked-In, a publication of the Greater Houston Locksmith Association (GHLA), of which I’m a member. There was an article, Report from January 5, 2011 TDPS-PSB Board Meeting, by Bonnie Brown Morse. (You might recall Bonnie Brown Morse as the instructor of a State mandated Ethics class I attended and then wrote about in June of 2006). Items listed went on to mention several changes in the bureaucracy which governs the security industry, and in turn, locksmiths.

Stop right there! It is important to understand the purpose of the “security industry, and in turn locksmiths.” This industry works in harmony with our founding document, The Declaration of Independence.

“…That to secure these rights…”

What does that mean; after all it’s important enough to have been included from the get go among a people desiring to protect their God-given right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (property with all its many variations). I find it appealing in a most satisfactory way to be involved in securing the rights of other individuals by virtue of my acquired abilities.

The reason folks put locks on things is to protect against those who would deprive them of those properties. You’ll find locks on most anything you can imagine; houses, cars, refrigerators or foot lockers. In this age of information there are electronic “locks” to prevent unauthorized access to computers and digital files. In antiquity, locks were used to secure chastity; perhaps more than their hearts were broken.

In any case, an industry was established to “secure” rightful owners/users their property. Tradesmen or professionals installed gadgets or were called to restore their use in the event the previously installed gadget no longer functioned properly or needed to be reset for the rightful owner of his/her property. (This is covered in my yet to be written book, This is a Lock – This is a Key).

Getting back to the GHLA report and the proceedings of the Texas Department of Public Safety – Private Security Bureau (TDPS-PSB), which used to be simply the DPS-PSB; another name change was instituted. If I got this down properly, the PSB is now to be called the RSD, Regulatory Services Division and includes staff for Licensing & Registration along with Compliance & Enforcement sections. (If this were the television show Dragnet, “…only the names were changed to protect the innocent”).

But that isn’t what started this mountain of words; there’s a paragraph dedicated to Amendment 35.311 “Exemptions,” which passed.

“(This change allows employees of repossession agents to provide a number of locksmith services without TDPS-security oversight.) ref 1702.324 (b)(3).”

In plain English, some folks can do exactly what I do without being forced to apply for a locksmith license, take mandatory continuing education courses or any of the Lilliputian bureaucratic impositions. It means locksmiths are not equal citizens; but have been demoted to subjects of the state by virtue of their named trade or profession. What was it Thomas Paine said?

“…it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man.”

Some are more equal than others in a corrupted government; isn’t that how it works? The rightful owner of property is not limited to which tradesman restores his/her property, either a licensed locksmith or an unlicensed repossession agency. Why is that if they both perform the same level of skill?

I’m not arguing in favor of having TDPS license repossession agents; not at all and in fact, just the opposite. I’m pointing out the singularly repugnant situation of having an arm of government impose unrighteous dominion over an entire industry.

Again, let’s get back to our founding principles:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

If we accept the premise that individuals have the right to the pursuit of Happiness, which includes the concept of private property, then it must also be established that individuals have the right to adequately protect or secure that property.

This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:

“Each of us has a natural right – from God – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but and extension of our faculties?” (The Law, p.6)

To argue against this premise is foolish unless we are to toss our entire system of self rule down the toilet. The Texas Department of Public Safety has defined that recovery and restoration of property for a rightful owner by the use of locksmith skills is not a threat to the safety or well being of our citizens or it would not have been part of the “Exemption” listed in Amendment 35.311. By so defining this particular legal act as applied by one citizen, the TDPS, by their own admission, is guilty of denying free movement in our society to locksmiths who perform the same or similar tasks.

Now take that a step further, restoration of property includes all aspects of usage. Helping to secure items, restoration of lost or damaged keys and making an item useful for its rightful owner is by extension not a threat to the safety or well being of our citizenry. To believe so, violates yet another code in our Republican form of self governance; that each individual is innocent until such time he/she is proven guilty. Going about the functions of legal business should not require a State issued license except in extremely rare circumstances.

If you want to see how licensing of citizens has been taken to the extreme, just take a look at Communist Cuba where funeral flower arrangers, shoe shiners or even doll and toy repairs require a State issued license. There are a couple of things which stand out rather quickly; licenses generate income for the State while at the same time reducing citizens into subjects.

There are criminal and civil laws enough in place to accommodate society at such times when tradesmen or professionals fail to properly apply their skills. There is no rational justification for a secondary bureaucracy with license expenses, rules and regulations or added enforcement on top of these existing laws.

We have seen changes in our society which mock the very foundations of a free nation. Industries which at one time were open to anyone with the audacity to apply their skills have been turned into closed shops; licensed with regularly occurring fees that stagger the pocket book. Are we to believe licenses and fees actually protect an unsuspecting public or is there a more sinister undercurrent?

There are several versions of the well-known statement attributed to the German anti-Nazi activist, Pastor Martin Niemöller; most of us are familiar to some extent with this one:

In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me — and by that time no one was left to speak up.

I’ve been shouting into the four winds about the injustice of licensing the locksmith industry for quite some time. The usurpation of power by government never intended by our founders applies equally to other trades and professions. I’ve written a mountain of words to stir you into action; more government isn’t the answer, it’s part of the problem. Stand with me at a time when individual liberties and our Constitution are hanging by a thread.

This article has been cross-posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government & The American Constitution.”



By Sara Akrami
Founder and President of the Human Rights Activists Association at York University-Canada

In February 2011, the news media reported that the screening of the documentary, “Iranium”, had been canceled in Ottawa due to several threats and backdoor pressure from the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Embassy.

The documentary was shown in two venues, in Archives Canada in Ottawa and York University in Toronto. Hundreds of ordinary citizens lined up to see the movie to draw their own conclusions.

The fact that this documentary made the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Embassy concerned is a disclosure of the true face of this brutal government including its desire to procure nuclear weapons, its support of terrorism, and its violations of the basic human rights of the Iranian people during 31 years of its existence.

But the most shocking aspect was; how is it possible that an embassy of a foreign government (that being Iran) that is isolated in the international arena and has the highest number of opponents among its citizens (within Iran and abroad) can exert its control over the Canadian government?

The documentary shows the brutal treatment of public dissenters at the hands of the regime’s security services while interviewing the analysts, members of academia, commentators, and careful observers of Iran in the United States and elsewhere.

Also it shows the montage of Islamic Republic officials’ speeches, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Holocaust denier president, that “we will not give up a single iota of our nuclear rights.” But it is obvious that this regime refers to nuclear weapons as so-called “nuclear rights”.

When the Islamic Republic of Iran was established in 1979, its leader Khomeini mentioned that the United States of America must be destroyed and referred to Israel as a cancer tumor which must also be destroyed. These threatening statements by the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran have been continued until today under the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad has openly declared that “Israel must be wiped off the world map.” These statements completely make clear that the Islamic Republic of Iran is seeking nuclear weapons rather than a peaceful nuclear program and without permission, they force their sinister desire upon the Iranian people and they say that this is the wish of Iranians.

But the fact is that Iranians have been suffering under poverty with violations of their basic rights and the last thing that they care about is nuclear weapons because the money that belongs to Iranian families has been spent in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and other countries to support terrorist groups and Islamic extremists such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

The Canadian government has to understand that the Islamic Republic of Iran and its supporters in Canada are a threat to the safety of Canadian society and the embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran plays an important role in this matter. This regime and its supporters are trying to take over Canadian laws and regulations for their own sinister desires.

As well, since the Canadian Federal government has condemned human rights abuses of the Islamic Republic of Iran at various times, therefore, there will be a desire by this regime to take revenge against Canada due to the isolation that Canada has provided.

Also it was by the trained terrorists of the Islamic Republic of Iran embassies that many Iranian opponents of this regime including political activists and artists were murdered throughout the world. Dr. Shapour Bakhtiar the prime minister of the previous regime was one of those victims. Thus, this threat now exists in Canada for Iranian dissidents of this regime.

As Iranian-Canadian citizens and opponents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, we are worried about the growing increase in the number of pro-Iranian regime sympathizers in Canadian society.

As concerned citizens, we do appreciate what former Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov once said, “A country that does not respect the rights of its own people, will not respect the rights of its neighbors.”


Imperial Islam – Prepping for a Worldwide Caliphate

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

I strongly support freedom of religion in America. Even if I don’t agree with that religion, as long as it does not impinge on or harm others, a person has the right to worship when, where and how they see fit. Thus sayeth the 1st Amendment of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Having said that, it is no secret that I have long held the belief that there is a bloodless coup taking place in the US through Islamic extremists and their enablers/partners who are progressives/communists/Marxists. I also believe there are good Muslims. But most kept silent after 9-11. Muslims share in the shame of 3,000 deaths on that dark and mournful day by not condemning Jihadic terrorism.

And now, our President is readying himself for an Islamic Middle East – not a democratic one:

“The Obama administration is preparing for the prospect that Islamist governments will take hold in North Africa and the Middle East, acknowledging that the popular revolutions there will bring a more religious cast to the region’s politics.”

Before we go further, we need to define a couple of terms:

Caliphate / UmmahAnglicized/Latinized version of the Arabic word خليفة or Khalifah. Caliph is the term or title for the Islamic leader of the Ummah, or community of Islam. It means “successor,” that is, successor to the prophet Muhammad.

Should a new Caliphate arise, and I for one believe it eventually will, it’s head will rule all of Islam around the world. All sects, all flavors… He would possess clear political, military and legal standing as the global leader of Muslims. And I now believe, Obama is prepping for this event:

“The administration is already taking steps to distinguish between various movements in the region that promote Islamic law in government. An internal assessment, ordered by the White House last month, identified large ideological differences between such movements as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and al-Qaeda that will guide the U.S. approach to the region.”

The distinction in the preceding paragraph between al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood speaks volumes. Al Qaeda bad, Muslim Brotherhood good – fire bad, tree pretty, get it? Al Qaeda is bad because they attacked us. The Muslim Brotherhood is good because, wait for it, they only want to seize state power, transform Egypt into an Islamist state, rule almost 90 million people with an iron fist, back Hamas in trying to crush Israel, overthrow the Palestinian Authority, help Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood overthrow the monarchy and sponsor terrorism against Americans in the Middle East. But wait, there’s more… You shouldn’t fear the spread of Islam according to the White House:

“`We shouldn’t be afraid of Islam in the politics of these countries,'” said a senior administration official….`It’s the behavior of political parties and governments that we will judge them on, not their relationship with Islam.'”

You are right sir to an extent – it is the rapid spread of Islamofascism in these governments we should fear and that is what is happening. Radical Islamism is racing like wildfire to engulf these governments and will result in a brutal and violent theocracy the likes of which we haven’t witnessed since the dark ages. And our American government is helping them.

It is my belief that our government and progressives helped plan and foment the unrest, riots and ensuing revolts in the Middle East. They wanted a catalyst for chaos so they can bring about a one-world government based on Marxist principles. The progressives believe their style of rule will win in the end – you know, the old ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ credo. But they have seriously underestimated the Islamofascists.

You see, in the end, Russia and China will let the Islamists do their dirty work for them. Slaughtering millions and generating bloody mayhem across the globe. And when pesky entities such as the US and Israel are gone, why Russia and China will stomp on the Middle East and assimilate them. They have plenty of weapons and are more than willing to use them. They have no qualms over killing. Ruling is everything.

Back to the Middle East. Obama would love to see Turkey invade Libya to quell revolt. Turkey is a member of NATO so that should work out great right? Not so much. Turkey would love to lead a movement to install a worldwide caliphate. They only give the appearance of being moderate – they aren’t. Turkey’s government is a dictatorial regime and a hardline Islmist one at that.

Unlike other writers, I believe that the US government knows exactly what they are doing. They are deliberately cuddling up to Islamic leaders. It’s just that this particular enemy of their enemy (the Western way of life) is not their friend and will in the end kill them if they are not careful. Evidently progressives have learned nothing from history. They have always thought that Mao, Stalin, Castro and other murderous despots were wonders and should be emulated.

One more paragraph to learn from:

“`If our policy can’t distinguish between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, we won’t be able to adapt to this change,'” the senior administration official said. “`We’re also not going to allow ourselves to be driven by fear.”‘

While it is true that we need to distinguish between al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, neither is good – both are evil and ruthless. I actually believe our leaders mean it when they say they will not allow themselves to be driven by fear. They don’t believe the Jihadists will ever come after them. That is a very foolish presumption. If you are an infidel, and they get the chance, they will kill you. That is the way of radical Islam. Jihadists don’t care that they may die – they have euphoric visions of a virgin-lined paradise fueling their fanaticism. You cannot reason with deep religious beliefs. We love Pepsi, they love death. That’s what it comes down to. When it comes to battle and death, Islam has lots of experience and they are itching for a fight. Imperial Islam will have its day and they want a ‘bring it on baby’ moment where if they win, they rule the world. If they die, they win paradise.

Our government is prepping for a worldwide Caliphate. At every turn it is obvious they are supporting Islam inside and outside of the US. It is tough to defend yourself and best your enemies when your own leaders are fighting against you. Gird yourselves for a Middle East that will brandish the sword of radicalism – one that we must defeat with or without our government.


My bug out bag


A look at my bug out bag that could take care of me in the city or the country. Having at least 3 days of supplies to get me thru any type of emergency.


Was The Economic Crisis Manufactured?

By: Nancy Morgan
Right Bias

In the summer of 2008, as McCain and Obama were in the midst of their campaigns to capture the presidency, a series of events dramatically changed the focus of the campaign from Iraq to the economy. From that point on, Obama took the lead and eventually won the presidency.

Now, a full two years later, the Pentagon has issued a report on the series of events that led to the 2008 economic crash. Bill Gertz writes in the Washington Times:

Evidence outlined in a Pentagon contractor report suggests that financial subversion carried out by unknown parties, such as terrorists or hostile nations, contributed to the 2008 economic crash by covertly using vulnerabilities in the U.S. financial system.

“There is sufficient justification to question whether outside forces triggered, capitalized upon or magnified the economic difficulties of 2008,” the report says.

Notable for its’ absence is any suggestion that the economic events that arguably catapulted Obama into the White House may have originated in our own political system.

Consider: The economic house of cards started tumbling on June 26, 2008, when Senator Chuck Schumer leaked a memo questioning the solvency of IndyMac bank. This memo precipitated a run on IndyMac which led to its failure. Federal regulators pointedly cited U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in explaining the bank’s failure. “The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York.”

As I wrote in February of 2009, this event, coupled with the Lehman Brothers collapse in September, marked the beginning of the current economic meltdown and provided the environment that enabled Barack Obama to focus on the economy instead of his position on Iraq – and, not incidentally, resulted in his election as President.

For the last two years, the media has neglected to connect the dots regarding the strange gyrations in our financial markets that started in the summer of 2008. After Schumer caused the run on IndyMac in June, the government moved in:

July 12, 2008: The federal government takes control of the $32 billion IndyMac Bank. *

* Six months later, Jan 2, 2009, a seven-member group of investors agreed to buy the remnants of failed lender IndyMac for $13.9 billion. Other investors included a fund controlled by billionaire George Soros’ Fund Management.

Sept. 6, 2008: Fannie Mae begins its downward spiral, which will end with a crash in November. This crash was avoidable, as the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were identified in June of 2006, when 15 Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee introduced legislation to address the problem. Democrats, led by Barney Frank, killed the reform efforts.

Sept. 15, 2008: Obama and McCain are virtually tied in their race for the presidency. Out of nowhere, in the space of less than 2 hours, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the U.S. to the tune of $550 billion. Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania said that if authorities had not closed the banks, $5.5 trillion would have been withdrawn from US banks, which would have caused the collapse of the US within 24 hours.

This seminal event marked the ascendancy of Obama’s candidacy, and arguably resulted in his election as president.

Fast forward to February of 2009:

The markets reacted to Obama’s proposal to bail-out mortgages and Senator Christopher Dodd’s talk of nationalizing banks by reaching 11-year lows.

Obama continues to stoke the fears of imminent crisis, actually using the word ‘crisis’ a total of 26 times in one speech.

Enter George Soros. The infamous one-worlder, billionaire George Soros adds his voice to the media doomsayers by opining that the world financial system has effectively disintegrated, adding that there is yet no prospect of near-term resolution to the crisis.*

The series of ‘inadvertent errors,’ deliberate obstruction, political shenanigans, behind the scenes manipulation of the money markets and non-stop calls for immediate infusions of taxpayer cash, brought the U.S. to its knees by February 2009. And continues to this day.

The newly issued Pentagon report, along with the media and our elected officials, seem intent on not connecting the dots, considering only foreign enemies as the possible cause of the financial meltdown:

Suspects include financial enemies in Middle Eastern states, Islamic terrorists, hostile members of the Chinese military, or government and organized crime groups in Russia, Venezuela or Iran. Chinese military officials.

This author believes there is enough information to at least consider that this crisis was manufactured for political gain. Right here at home.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com. She lives in South Carolina.

This article was first published in American Thinker on March 4, 2011.


Tea Party Activist? You Need Training

By: Arlen Williams
Gulag Bound

Everybody does.

What do you do for a living? Did you have training in that?

Pardon my speaking of myself, I happen to know me a lot better than I know anyone else. I have participated within and have run grass roots efforts in numerous phases of politics. I have also run electoral campaigns. I made sure I was trained, before, or as I did. I needed it. And if I did electoral organizing again, I would need a refresher. I would want to have some catch-up sessions with those who are doing it now and to take in a seminar or two, at the very least. Having a highly principled and qualified mentor or three is important, too.

Training is a continuous process. In the research we must continue to do, to understand the lengths and depths of the globalist/collectivist onslaught against our Sovereign and and free America, we must never stop learning.

The same is true with political activism and organizing.

My hunch is that our opposition views us as a little like this.

Video, “Monty Python’s Twit Race Sketch

And if so, they have a point.

For basic help at the starting line, Gulag Bound has published James Simpson’s “Patriot’s Handbook.” And we need to develop far, far beyond that beginning.

We should post more about political training, soon. For now, we suggest browsing the site of the tried and true Leadership Institute. A more recent comer worth looking into is American Majority. Also, network with groups that have been around the block a few times and find out who may hold a seminar and/or provide some guidance in your locality. Don’t be afraid to borrow from the experiences of those seasoned in social issues causes, such as pro-life and pro-marriage.

Five things Tea Party organizers and key activists need:

1. training – overall activism
2. training – electoral activism (the most important)
3. training – organization management
4. to maintain volunteer decision making and independence of centralized, top-down management (hint: that’s what we’re opposing)
5. planning & execution

A decision to consider heavily is to become your own Precinct Coordinator and to encourage compatriots to do the same. Leadership Institute teaches this. Also, two bootstrap entities created to provide more information, training, and mentoring about this are National Precinct Alliance and U.S. Patriots Union.

There is more to be said. There is much too much at stake, to ignore this. Maybe that should be Point Number 0, above. We need to ask ourselves: Do I understand America is being warred against? Am I dedicated enough to constitutionally fighting back, by making sure that I not only spend the time and make the effort, but know how to do that most effectively?